Skip to comments.US MAG HEADLINES COST OF ANN ROMNEY'S DRESS, BURIES HIGHER COST OF MICHELLE'S
Posted on 10/19/2012 12:09:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Us gives the world the following headline: "Ann Romney Wears $1,690 Oscar de la Renta Dress to Presidential Debate."
In the body of the piece Us reports this description of Ann Romney's couture.
Romney, 63, selected a short-sleeved crimped cotton silk dress by Oscar de la Renta. The Spring 2013 design is not yet available in stores, but retails for $1,690.
I expect we are supposed to find it shocking, downright shocking, that a millionaire could afford to fork out nearly $1,700 for a frock.
And yet, "public servant" Michelle Obama's outfit was almost twice as costly as Romney's.
Obama, 48, styled a shift dress and cropped jacket from Michael Kors' 2013 resort collection. The dress retails for $1,795 and the jacket is $1,495.
Notice that Mrs. Obamas getup rings in at a hefty $3,290 while Ann Romneys is just over half that. So, why wasn't the headline about Michelle? Her cost was more shocking than Ann's.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
My main concern is this — WHO PAID FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE DRESSES?
It’s not my business if they paid for the wardrobe with THEIR OWN money. It becomes my business if they use Tax payer money to pay for their clothes.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but MO actually looked pretty good (ducks and runs from incoming hot rounds...)
They’re just mad because Ann looked better. Pink is her color.
The womens’ magazines practice the worst form of political advocacy. I can’t even handle seeing their covers in the checkout line.
I was all set to break out the ‘lipstick on a pig” line. But I won’t.
They proved the essence Romney’s joke to be true, the one about Obama embraced by Catholics and Romney dining with the rich.
Actually, I quite prefer her normal B&B red and white striped look. Who knows, Romney may be able to reuse the material for a Gazebo Pavillion Tent or something for his Inauguration. (B&B? Think about circus tents).
If the taxpayers aren’t paying for it, who cares?
I thought so as well........(ducking for cover too!)
The difference is, Ann Romney PAID for her dress. Michelle Obama had hers on loan or as a donation.
+1 for Ann Romney!
If the taxpayers arent paying for it, who cares?
Sort of jives with the joke Romney told last night in NYC.
Media will report tonight’s event this way:
“Obama embraced by Catholics; Romney dines with rich people”
Romney paid for her own, I am certain. Mitt would not have it any other way. WE paid for Michelle’s, I am equally certain.
Point well taken, however...
I personally would be interested in the cost of Ms. Romney's attire as validation of the type of businesspeople the Ronmeys are. The more they can afford, the better their business acumen I presume.
I like a leader who knows how to ‘maka da money’, for that bodes well for us both individually and as a nation.
To each his own, but I didn't pay that for my wedding gown (or for the entire wedding) so there's no way I'd pay that for a simple A-line dress.
Ann could have worn a burlap sack and looked better than that ugly wookie.
I'd be willing to bet either the Romney campaign or the Romneys themselves paid for Ann's dress, while we the
taxpayers suckers paid for the one Mooch is wearing.
Not this Catholic, and not any Catholic who takes their faith seriously.
She does look nice. I have noticed that she has lost quite a bit of weight which I attribute to WH chefs and dietitians, I also have noticed that her clothing looks far more conservative, especially during the debates.