The Official Mitt Romney Thread II

[The Batkilt]

Ha yeah. Princess Diana is the only comparison to Jackie. Kate Middleton's hardly got the style of her mother in law.

I'm glad - given that her mother-in-law has been dead for over fifteen years...

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

If the presidency is a job, the CEO of the US, then the current CEO has sucked and needs to be fired. Instead, we critique the other guy's wife's wardrobe? Oof.

That reminds me how vapid and hollow the voting public is. We elect presidents based on style instead of substance. Remember the ET report on that cruise ship that sunk? Their story title was 'Real Life Titanic'. That is the US political scene in a nut shell. I don't have any faith in the American people any more. Everyone is voting on style, lack of knowledge, or brand loyalty. We are screwed. Every nation in history rises and falls. It's because of the complacency and dependency of that nation's people.

Chase,

You're posting as if we've only been talking about shallow topics. We have discussed the candidates policies ad nauseum, and with great substance. There are more layers to electing these officials--and their families who represent them--to office. While I don't disagree that the media obsesses over the lighthearted aesthetics (Obama's "Mom Jeans" fiasco for example), sometimes the criticism is warranted.

What I'm annoyed with is your insinuation that somehow my new stance on Obama is solely informed (or validated, as you put it) by something as simplistic as Ann Romney's choice of dress for a late night television appearance. My comments in this forum have demonstrated that my decision-making process is far more inclusive than that. What's more, I've been voting for longer than a lot of the kids on this board have been alive. And guess what? The First Lady's fashion choice has always been a part of the election narrative--from JFK and 60s until now. Believe me when I say--it's nothing new.

If anything was a "low blow" it was your comment which was an insult to my intelligence. I don't appreciate it.

 

[Excel]

If the presidency is a job, the CEO of the US, then the current CEO has sucked and needs to be fired. Instead, we critique the other guy's wife's wardrobe? Oof.

This isn't the question being asked. It's a choice. It's "Is Romney better than O?". That is the question.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Jackie didnt follow trends, she set them. Michelle Obama hasn't really dont that.

I can't think of the last First Lady of the United States that proudly announced that she got her threads from J. Crew and La Target and mixed them with more expensive decorative finds. Can you?

In this troubled economy, I'd say that's making a trendy statement for women everywhere: you can be beautiful and chic--and still be on a budget.

Ann Romney does not appeal to that segment of the female voter. Single moms in the hood (or trailer park) can't see themselves in her, her horses and multiple homes around the world. Don't get me wrong: This is not to begrudge Ann's wealth. But Michelle is wealthy too and yet she's clearly taken deliberate steps to play that down a bit more. I think it has to do with perception and this economy--which translates to voters support. She doesn't flaunt it quite the same way. Call it what you will, but women carry these elections and it's important that they connect to an extent with these people.

 

[Excel]

I can't think of the last First Lady of the United States that proudly announced that she got her threads from J. Crew and La Target and mixed them with more expensive decorative finds. Can you?

In this troubled economy, I'd say that's making a trendy statement for women everywhere: you can be beautiful and chic--and still be on a budget.

I dont disagree, Im a fan of both.

 

[Hotwire]

Cough, cough. Back to Mitt?

Great article by Rolling Stone!

I would quote it but, it's really long so, here's the link, instead.

 

[moviedoors]

Rolling Stone link isn't working for me.

 

[SV Fan]

Rolling Stone link isn't working for me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-real-agenda-20120928?stop_mobi=yes

 

[Schlosser85]

What's more, I've been voting for longer than a lot of the kids on this board have been alive.

That has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

That has nothing to do with anything.

If that's all you got out of my post, then you've missed the point of it entirely.

We're done.

 

[Compi716]

I can't think of the last First Lady of the United States that proudly announced that she got her threads from J. Crew and La Target and mixed them with more expensive decorative finds. Can you?

In this troubled economy, I'd say that's making a trendy statement for women everywhere: you can be beautiful and chic--and still be on a budget.

Ann Romney does not appeal to that segment of the female voter. Single moms in the hood (or trailer park) can't see themselves in her, her horses and multiple homes around the world. Don't get me wrong: This is not to begrudge Ann's wealth. But Michelle is wealthy too and yet she's clearly taken deliberate steps to play that down a bit more. I think it has to do with perception and this economy--which translates to voters support. She doesn't flaunt it quite the same way. Call it what you will, but women carry these elections and it's important that they connect to an extent with these people.

With all due respect, Michelle is hardly a "working class sorta gal," nor does she portray herself as one. At least I don't see it that way. Single moms from the hood can't afford those J. Crew dresses...and if they can, then they're most likely not spending that money on things like food.

I suppose this is something of an unpopular opinion, but I appreciate people who dress well without giving a damn what other people thought. Good clothes are good clothes, period, and they're not cheap. I shop at J. Crew and, yeah, their clothes are fine, but they won't last particularly long. Meanwhile a $2,000 suit will, if well kept, last years. So where you see Michelle Obama as "dressing down" for the people, I see her putting on a mask.

And lest we forget, First Lady Hilary Clinton made pantsuits among working women all the rage.

 

[Marvolo]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-real-agenda-20120928?stop_mobi=yes

Read that earlier. There is a lot of concerning things in there but for me and I imagine Kelly will agree with me here, to cut spending on education, highways, NASA etc to 3.8 percent of the GDP by 2050 is scary. Education is underfunded now and Ryan wants to slash it to less than 3%. Holy ****! In this country, education funding has never dropped below 8% of the GDP. To do so would gut the system. I question what kind of education Ryan is promoting and what future generations he is aiming for, because world leaders and intelligent thinkers will not be among them if these cuts go through.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

With all due respect, Michelle is hardly a "working class sorta gal," nor does she portray herself as one. At least I don't see it that way. Single moms from the hood can't afford those J. Crew dresses...and if they can, then they're most likely not spending that money on things like food.

I guess it's all about perspective Compi. The fact that Michelle is still wearing J. Crew and other moderately priced fashion lines after taking her role as First Lady demonstrates to many that she is not fazed by the stardom. Some would expect her to just upgrade to Versace 24/7, etc. But it seems she didn't let her change of address change her shopping habits too much. I think it's very interestng.

And I agree with you: Michelle isn't a "working class sorta gal" as in being in the plant on the line working. But she did have to work everyday at her law office. Ann can't claim having to work at all. There is nothing wrong with that. But I think it's fair to say that working class mothers will identify a bit easier with one over the other, don't you?

I suppose this is something of an unpopular opinion, but I appreciate people who dress well without giving a damn what other people thought. Good clothes are good clothes, period, and they're not cheap. I shop at J. Crew and, yeah, their clothes are fine, but they won't last particularly long. Meanwhile a $2,000 suit will, if well kept, last years. So where you see Michelle Obama as "dressing down" for the people, I see her putting on a mask.

Well, Michelle does wear $2,000 outfits also, come on now. My whole point is she mixes and matches the two extremes together. And even if it is a mask as you say, she was wise not to come out the box in 2009 with high glam and Jimmy Choos at a time when both poor and wealthy women were taking a hit in their pockets financially. And when I say that, I mean, shoving it in their faces in "let them eat cake" sorta way.

Ann Romney ruffled feathers when she said she didn't consider herself wealthy. Statements like that resonate with people in a tough economy--and it's faulty articulation during an election cycle.

Again, it's about perception.

And lest we forget, First Lady Hilary Clinton made pantsuits among working women all the rage.

Yes, that's true. Hated them, but that's true. LOL

 

[Schlosser85]

If that's all you got out of my post, then you've missed the point of it entirely.

We're done.

I got your point perfectly fine, that there are many aspects of an election, including the perception of the candidates' wives as--or not as--"one of the people", and how the way they dress can influence that.

Feel better now?

In a lot of ways, elections are about who projects the best image. When JFK debated Nixon, those listening generally felt Nixon did better, but those visually watching thought JFK was the superior candidate. Couldn't have anything to do with JFK being generally considered one of the most photogenic Presidents ever and Nixon....well....less so...

 

[Marvolo]

I got your point perfectly fine, that there are many aspects of an election, including the perception of the candidates' wives as--or not as--"one of the people", and how the way they dress can influence that.

Feel better now?

In a lot of ways, elections are about who projects the best image. When JFK debated Nixon, those listening generally felt Nixon did better, but those visually watching thought JFK was the superior candidate. Couldn't have anything to do with JFK being generally considered one of the most photogenic Presidents ever and Nixon....well....less so...

Presentation, presentation, presentation: It is key.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I got your point perfectly fine, that there are many aspects of an election, including the perception of the candidates' wives as--or not as--"one of the people", and how the way they dress can influence that.


Feel better now?

I feel fine. For some reason I sensed a touch of assery in your previous post.

Perhaps my assessment was off, and if so I apologize.

In a lot of ways, elections are about who projects the best image. When JFK debated Nixon, those listening generally felt Nixon did better, but those visually watching thought JFK was the superior candidate. Couldn't have anything to do with JFK being generally considered one of the most photogenic Presidents ever and Nixon....well....less so...

I agree with you that America is visually driven. It's the main reason why we've been obsessed with Camelot and Princess Diana, etc., for decades. It has less to with their policies of government and more with the aesthetic. I believe it played a HUGE role in the election of President Obama--and I doubt that many would challenge that notion.

But as shallow and vapid as it may be to some, I believe it does have a role in the process. Look at Mitt: he's actually a very photogenic man. Now imagine if he was 300 lbs overweight, rotting teeth and coupled with all his wealth, off-shore accounts and 47% comments? He'd be faltering even more I think.

He carries himself as a corporate business man and that appeals to people who want to see the economy turned around. Yet, it does not hurt that he's easy on the eyes.

 

[Kelly]

Really? Seriously? We are arguing over fashion?????? REALLY?


Amazing....

 

[Marvolo]

Really? Seriously? We are arguing over fashion?????? REALLY?


Amazing....

Hey, kelly, not relevant to your post, but have you read that Rolling Stone article posted above? I was curious about your views on the proposed cuts to education over the next 40 years and how you see it effecting education.

 

[Thundercrack85]

At this point, I really have to wonder how much worse it can get.

Short of being illiterate, I don't see how much more uneducated the average person can be.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Really? Seriously? We are arguing over fashion?????? REALLY?


Amazing....

LOL

Not fashion per se, as much as how candidates and their wives' dress and grooming choices impact voters--especially the female vote. At least that's what I'm talking about. Not so sure my thoughts are actually being taken seriously, but...whatever.

 

[Schlosser85]

Really? Seriously? We are arguing over fashion?????? REALLY?


Amazing....

Believe it, girlfriend!!!

*sassy finger snap*

 

[Marvolo]

LOL

Not fashion per se, as much as how candidates and their wives' dress and grooming choices impact voters--especially the female vote. At least that's what I'm talking about. Not so sure my thoughts are actually being taken seriously, but...whatever.

Lol i had this image pop in my head of Doc Brown as president giving a speech in front of congress with his hair all over the place and in his usual attire. I would vote for Doc Brown. Great scotts!

 

[Thundercrack85]

America's greatest presidents could not be elected today.

There, I said it.

 

[Marvolo]

America's greatest presidents could not be elected today.

There, I said it.

The founding fathers would be viewed as unchristian/godless heathens. Teddy might could get elected. He had lots of character. I do often wonder how he would handle the middle east. His 'big stick' policy would be interesting.

 

[Schlosser85]

They were all too ugly.