12.29.2012 01:01 PM

iPolitics report: Jim Flaherty expenses his make-up

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh my Lord, this is better than Bev Oda’s $16 orange juice! The guy wears make-up all the time – and he’s charging taxpayers for what it costs!

It doesn’t matter what he does in his career from this day onwards. This is all the spiteful little gnome will be remembered for now!

They won’t make time to meet with Chief Spence. But they’ll take time to expense make-up.


Jim’s face paint. Paid for by you, the taxpayer.


  1. John Matheson says:

    Notice how he is a lot more portly these days?

  2. Monica says:

    You’re having waaay too much fun, now.

  3. Ed says:

    I guess he wasn’t born with it.

    In all seriousness though, he should be hammered in qp with this. I’d love to see how a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool Conservative turns charging for his make-up back on the effete, latte-sipping Liberals of the world. What a bonehead.

    • kitt says:

      I love MacDonalds McCafe latte. You should try it sometime….. multi flavours….. even CONS might enjoy a McCafe except that they are not expensive, so maybe you and CONS would prefer Second Cup or Starbucks something like that. Nothing cheap for CONS

  4. DJ says:

    I’ll bet it will never come close to the Add Scam Bill taxpayers had to pay. Thanks again Liberals.

    • kitt says:

      Ya that ad-scam….. and the CON Guitte, Mulroney’s right hand who orchestrated the whole thing for his CON and ex-CON buddies.

      The best part was Chretien showing Gomery his balls…. golf balls that was.

      • DJ says:

        There is a reason Liberals are in the toilet with voters, it’s comments about Chretien’s balls that show voters what a joke Liberals have become.

      • Bill says:

        Best part for me was after showing his balls…..the libs got the shaft, voters/taxpayers used every inch available. A decade later and still not looking like libs will govern any time soon. NDP looks like it will be the new libs.

        • kitt says:

          Keep on dreaming. A week in politics is a long time and we know who has the balls. It is noted no response to the ad-scam perps id as CONS. 🙂

  5. Madison McGill says:

    Warren, got to tread very gingerly with this one – the sexual landscape of the Conservative Inner Circle is decidedly less than straight, less than vanilla-hetero (despite the gloss of “family values” propaganda) – what if you inadvertently lapse over into trans/homophobia and offend? There are actually quite a few non-hetero Tories with quite a lot of influence on Lib non-heteros (who after the RIS debacle are questioning just how committed to sexual/gender/erotic liberties the Great Leader is). Just lay out the facts, without commentary, and let the People decide. I hope you haven’t been indulging in BC Bud and dulled your intellect. As for me, I couldn’t help thinking of old Goring who adored rouge.

    • Warren says:

      Yours is the idiotic comment of the day. The story is about his expensing of make-up, not his use of it, dummy.

      • Jon Adams says:

        “Yours is the idiotic comment of the day.”

        After DJ Mencken’s comment above, *that* is saying something.

      • Vidal Sassoon says:

        I will wear the dunce cap de jour with pride!

        “The guy wears make-up all the time – and …” ?? – thus we have two notions in play; the use of make up and the expensing of make up. The subtext is always more interesting than “the story.” Indeed, if one believes Edward Bernays, psychosocial drives are the root of any good public relations campaign – in this case, leveraging a “news” story on the expensing of make-up to paint the target as a vain, effeminate, “gnome – generally negative traits in traditional Canadian social mores. ” If for example, $130 had been charged for paper clips and toner would this story have legs? No. Of course, the Great Leader is tall, strong, muscular, and doesn’t use make-up. Personally, I think nobody does it better than Putin – those bare chested hunting and fishing photo shoots.

        I do find interesting that you will place our analysis out there for target practice, rather than simply censor dissent. One of our main questions is how much reality can be tolerated on this blog before the simulacra is overly threatened and self-censorship does kick in?

  6. Bruce A says:

    That’s a days wages for a lot of Canadians or more for minimum wage earners. Where’s his personal responsibility he’s so fond of preaching? I’d be checking the hotels he’s used for missing towels. The money management skills he’s got are his own. What a cheapskate. Next time ask the wife.

  7. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    AHAHAHAHAHA….was just talking about the lil weasel this am with a friend in TO…….this had made my day……

  8. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    With your kind permission…..a song for Jim…….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RAfxiyMKAk

  9. sj says:

    Clearly politicians appearing in front of TV studio lights do need make-up. And all the parties have expensed the services of professional make-up artists for those occasions. But female politicians spend a fair amount on make-up and hair upkeep and just consider it part of the job.

    The real question is who on his staff will be thrown under the bus for this.

  10. Ed says:

    1) a minister does not need cosmetics to perform the duty of delivering the budget. Your statement is ridiculous. Maybelline isn’t shrinking the deficit or stabilizing our banks.

    2)Male politicians go on shows all the time without make-up. Why? Because most are old men who aren’t done any good by wearing it.

    3) While I don’t know if Warren wears make-up or not, or whether it is paid for by the network or himself, I’m pretty sure it’s not expensed and paid for by other Canadians out of their taxes. That is the issue.

    4)It isn’t a tsunami that wipes out a government. it’s a slow drip that erodes their credibility with voters.

    P.s. the image of Flaherty in his office, mere minutes before delivering his first majority budget, nose in the air, with a staffer applying blush to those rosy cheeks is an image I’ll revisit every time he comes on tv.

    • smelter rat says:

      Says the con troll.

    • Elizabeth says:

      No Prime Minister wears as much foundation as Harper does. You don’t want to touch that face, you’ll leave fingerprints. Definitely those under lights need some makeup, but you don’t need that much. Chretien always looked natural, nothing like the waxiness of Harper, with the spray-glued hairdo. I somehow doubt that Trudeau ever sat for makeup before he faced cameras; lots of pictures, videos of him looking definitely without makeup. I don’t think even Pretty Boy Mulroney ever looked as made up as Harper does.
      I suspect that’s one of the reasons he’s unwilling to go impromptu in front of cameras. Hasn’t got his makeup on.

      You don’t look “ghoulish” without makeup, but your skin will look rougher, as foundation smooths out pits, zits, scars.

  11. Samson Corbitt says:

    New York governor Andrew Cuomo paid $1,383.86 to one Alx Galasinao for similar services. So, at one tenth the cost, this diy approach is real value for money – well done Jimbo! Of course, as any competent politico knows, looking fabulous is crucial – Nixon supposedly lost his 1960 TV debate with Kennedy because of his sweaty sheen. Until the masses awaken (unlikely) from their slumber and realize that “representative” democracy has about as much verisimilitude as “professional” wrestling, hair, make-up, costume, set design and lighting, etc will remain paramount. On this continent, public relations began as publicists that promoted circuses, theatrical performances, and other public spectacles. Send in the clowns!

  12. Elizabeth says:

    Harper wears more makeup – but probably goes with a better brand like Lancome or Clinique. Maybelline is crap. I wonder what kind of mascara he uses?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.