PDA

View Full Version : Ann Romney slammed for $990 Shirt, Michelle Obama praised for $6,800 jacket



Teh One Who Knocks
08-01-2012, 04:41 PM
By Hollie McKay - Pop Tarts (Fox News Entertainment)


http://i.imgur.com/8n2xr.jpg

Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.

In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”

Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.

The price-tag? $6,800.

This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”

“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.”

Glenn Selig of The Publicity Agency concurred.

“The media will not stay quiet on the issue because wealth remains a big issue with the Romneys. It is not his fault that he's wealthy, but the media is portraying it as a liability,” Selig said.

Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture for Media Research Center in Washington DC, said it’s “just the latest example of a consistent media theme that somehow Romney is too wealthy and out of touch because he's a millionaire. Except of course that Obama is also a millionaire. “

Some also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy on Twitter. “And you thought the Romneys were out of touch?” tweeted one, while another wondered who had to pay for the almost $7,000 dress, and another balked that the “jacket would put a lot of food on the table of one of the 25M unemployed people in USA.”

Not everyone’s nose was out of joint, however. Media commentator Jenn Hoffman told FoxNews.com that “Americans need to face the fact that with our current system, politicians need to have money. That is how they get into the office in the first place. If you are near the White House, you have access to serious cash and much of that cash is spent on honing your image.”

Mark Joseph, producer of “Wild Card: The Promise & Peril of Sarah Palin,” added that “Mrs. Romney's wardrobe expenses are certainly fair game, but so are Mrs. Obama's, and political reporters have got to do a better job of being even-handed."

Muddy
08-01-2012, 04:42 PM
Michelles was made in America though.. :lol:

Southern Belle
08-01-2012, 04:46 PM
Michelles was made in America though.. :lol:
And WE paid for it :meh:

Hal-9000
08-01-2012, 05:59 PM
NO shirt should 1000 bucks and definitely no other piece of clothing should be 6800 bucks...that's insane

Muddy
08-01-2012, 06:27 PM
And WE paid for it :meh:

Honestly, I doubt it.. She cant just write checks out the US treasury. She does have income from speaking arrangements / Baracks salary etc..

perrhaps
08-01-2012, 07:27 PM
Michelles was made in America though.. :lol:

Besides, which, it's RACIST to criticize Mrs. Bittersworth.

Arkady Renko
08-01-2012, 08:21 PM
Honestly, I doubt it.. She cant just write checks out the US treasury. She does have income from speaking arrangements / Baracks salary etc..

I imagine the president and first lady will have some generous wardrobe allowance at their discretion, and let's not forget that fashion companies often like to lend or rent out entire outfits to celebrities for big occasions to showcase their collections.

Arkady Renko
08-01-2012, 08:22 PM
this said, I really think it's frivolous to waste that much money on clothes regardless who pays for them. Same goes for those absurdly expensive suits some executives or lawyers like to wear.

Muddy
08-01-2012, 09:16 PM
this said, I really think it's frivolous to waste that much money on clothes regardless who pays for them. Same goes for those absurdly expensive suits some executives or lawyers like to wear.

I agree.. Those in the public spotlight should lead by example.

Arkady Renko
08-01-2012, 09:23 PM
exactly. While I think a certain luxury is good and healthy because it tends to keep people motivated and satisfied, I resent it when people buy ridiculously overpriced things only to make the point that they can afford them. If they want to show off their wealth they might as well go for philantropy.

Teh One Who Knocks
08-01-2012, 09:25 PM
exactly. While I think a certain luxury is good and healthy because it tends to keep people motivated and satisfied, I resent it when people buy ridiculously overpriced things only to make the point that they can afford them. If they want to show off their wealth they might as well go for philantropy.

Like Bill Gates :thumbsup:

Hal-9000
08-01-2012, 09:28 PM
Besides, which, it's RACIST to criticize Mrs. Bittersworth.

you're killing me over here :lol:

Arkady Renko
08-01-2012, 09:38 PM
Like Bill Gates :thumbsup:

yeah, I had him and his wife in mind. What they do is really helpful and seems to make a big difference for a lot of people's lives.

FBD
08-01-2012, 09:40 PM
exactly. While I think a certain luxury is good and healthy because it tends to keep people motivated and satisfied, I resent it when people buy ridiculously overpriced things only to make the point that they can afford them. If they want to show off their wealth they might as well go for philantropy.

:lol: yeah, if there werent such ridiculous tax breaks for "philanthropy", do you honestly think bill gates, warren buffet, george soros...

would be in any way shape or form be considered "philanthropists"?

they're fkn opportunists, plain and simple. at least people that dont hide obscene and veritably illegal amounts who buy whatever the hell they want arent total frickin hypocrites!

Arkady Renko
08-01-2012, 09:48 PM
:lol: yeah, if there werent such ridiculous tax breaks for "philanthropy", do you honestly think bill gates, warren buffet, george soros...

would be in any way shape or form be considered "philanthropists"?

they're fkn opportunists, plain and simple. at least people that dont hide obscene and veritably illegal amounts who buy whatever the hell they want arent total frickin hypocrites!

meh, you just hate these folks because they don't share your views. You can't argue away the fact that the Gateses in particular donate far more than other billionaires, and the fact that they reduced their kids' inheritance to a few million each certainly isn't a tax saving scheme.

Hal-9000
08-01-2012, 10:10 PM
Gates helped create (and paid for development) an algorithm that catches pedos in chatrooms by analyzing text...


not really a philanthropic donation but he didn't have to....

Hugh_Janus
08-01-2012, 10:12 PM
well, that's me quitting chatrooms then :shock:

Hal-9000
08-01-2012, 10:18 PM
I don't think they've released it in the Brony rooms yet

Hugh_Janus
08-01-2012, 10:21 PM
no kids in there :hand:

Hugh_Janus
08-01-2012, 10:22 PM
not that I've ever been in one 8-[

Teh One Who Knocks
08-01-2012, 10:25 PM
:liar:

Hugh_Janus
08-01-2012, 10:26 PM
prove it :hand:

FBD
08-01-2012, 11:04 PM
meh, you just hate these folks because they don't share your views. You can't argue away the fact that the Gateses in particular donate far more than other billionaires, and the fact that they reduced their kids' inheritance to a few million each certainly isn't a tax saving scheme.

I dont hate gates. buffet is an asshat, but certainly not the demon that soros is. but that's kinda besides the point - gates did it after he had a hundred times more money than he'd ever know what to do with, and the rest of them only do it for tax breaks. if they removed that, you'd see those funds shrivel up faster than your nads in ice water.

Muddy
08-01-2012, 11:13 PM
I dont hate gates. buffet is an asshat, but certainly not the demon that soros is. but that's kinda besides the point - gates did it after he had a hundred times more money than he'd ever know what to do with, and the rest of them only do it for tax breaks. if they removed that, you'd see those funds shrivel up faster than your nads in ice water.

I think that kid that owns PayPal is one of the baddest ass guys of our generation...

deebakes
08-02-2012, 03:18 AM
insane :shock:

Arkady Renko
08-02-2012, 10:00 AM
I dont hate gates. buffet is an asshat, but certainly not the demon that soros is. but that's kinda besides the point - gates did it after he had a hundred times more money than he'd ever know what to do with, and the rest of them only do it for tax breaks. if they removed that, you'd see those funds shrivel up faster than your nads in ice water.

I agree with you on Soros, he's a giant leech.