Image 01 Image 03

472 Ann Romney Blouses = 1 Michelle Obama Spanish Vacation

472 Ann Romney Blouses = 1 Michelle Obama Spanish Vacation

How many designer blouses could the taxpayers buy Michelle Obama in exchange for the cost of her Spanish vacation?

 Anne Sorock

That’s right, the taxpayers could have taken the $467,585 they spent for Michelle’s summer vacay to Spain and purchased 492 of Ann Romney’s much discussed Reed Krakoff blouse, worn on Tuesday’s “CBS This Morning.”

The American people could have given every female member of the 112th Congress four of the designer blouses. Better still, Congress could have returned the money and given Americans the opportunity to save for the rising tax burden her husband’s been working to #forward onto current and future Americans.

Michelle Obama, who employs her own stylist and personal assistant Meredith Koop, takes pride in a carefully stylized image — part J. Crew, part everywoman Target shopper, and all parts international First Lady jetsetter.

Ann Romney, who did not rely upon the taxpayers to foot the bill for her $990 designer blouse, does not employ a stylist.

While Ann Romney’s selection may have needlessly played into the hands of the Obama campaign–intent on making the 2012 election about class warfare–her blouse doesn’t compare to the first lady’s penchant for much more expensive luxuries.

And, we didn’t have to pay for Ann’s blouse.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Very good.

Plus, I bet nobody in Romney’s family languishes in a hut…

or even in Philadelphia.

The Obama’s suffer from class envy.

    Ragspierre in reply to myiq2xu. | May 12, 2012 at 9:47 am

    …from classLESS envy.

    Merely a suggestion.

    In Barackah’s case, I can see LOTS of sources for his covetousness.

    I wonder where Shellie picked it up?

      myiq2xu in reply to Ragspierre. | May 12, 2012 at 10:12 am

      I wonder where Shellie picked it up?


      I grew up lower-middle class. We weren’t poor but you could see it from there. I never felt like I needed lots of material wealth.

      My ex-wife came from a similar background. But she grew up resenting that she didn’t have much and wanted all the things she never had.

        Ragspierre in reply to myiq2xu. | May 12, 2012 at 10:17 am

        Dunno. I’ve wondered if it was a “family value” from one of her parents.

        OTOH, I’ve known people who just organically were mean, spiteful, crummy people, in spite of all they were taught by their families.

        Listening to The Wrong Rev. Wright for years sure didn’t help.

And, we didn’t have to pay for Ann’s blouse.

That’s the whole point. To the Left, the fact that Michelle does not pay for her opulent lifestyle enhances her so-called glamor.

Whereas Ann’s blouse is bought with spit profits stolen from the downtrodden poor.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to gs. | May 12, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Romney’s extremely profitable business dealings cost the taxpayer and the workers whose pensions were drained and whose places of employment were jettisoned for Bain’s obscene hauls.

    Romney is a ruthless profiteer and politician, socialist, liberal and a liar.

    Just. Like. Obama.

    The price of Ann Romney’s and Michelle Obama’s clothes has nothing to do with their husband’s crookedness.

      1. Romney is a ruthless profiteer and politician, socialist, liberal and a liar.

      Just. Like. Obama.

      And he is a…cue ominous music…Mormon.

      2. Yes, Romney looks just like Obama—to an observer who is really really really far out there.

      3. In normal times I would, ah, flip-flop between derision and pity at your crazy-uncle rants. Right now, however, I point out that you are helping to reelect Obama.

      Milhouse in reply to Uncle Samuel. | May 13, 2012 at 2:02 am

      Romney’s extremely profitable business dealings cost the taxpayer and the workers whose pensions were drained and whose places of employment were jettisoned for Bain’s obscene hauls.

      No, they did not. If you think they did, cite specific examples. (And when those specific examples are refuted concede that you were wrong. Do not come back and say “oh, you’re just nitpicking, there are many more examples”. Check your examples before you cite them, or stand by them and fall with them. Because I’ve fallen for that trick too many times before.)

The Obama campaign had better be careful with this line of attack. Michelle Obama has been photographed wearing ugly designer sweaters that cost thousands of dollars each, and of course there was the time when she wore $500 designer sneakers to a soup kitchen in D.C., and the time she haughtily sniffed that a $600 tax rebate wouldn’t even be enough to pay for one pair of earrings. I also recall reading a fawning profile of Michelle Obama during the last campaign that reported that she has a large collection of Jimmy Choo shoes (they start at $600 per pair) and diamond jewelry at home.

Michelle Obama spends a lot of money on clothes and jewelry — probably more than Ann Romney does. The fact that Michelle Obama often ends up looking like she bought her stuff at Target is more a function of her lack of taste than the amount of money she spends.

    ohiochili in reply to Observer. | May 12, 2012 at 10:58 am

    I haven’t seen anything at Target that looks as crappy as the tablecloths and boob belt stuff that Michelle wears.

      Observer in reply to ohiochili. | May 12, 2012 at 5:39 pm

      LOL. Yes, I agree. I didn’t mean to disparage Target shoppers (I’m one myself) with my comment. Michelle Obama tends to wear clothes that are not flattering to her body type, and she also had a fondness for age-inappropriate clothing, and loud prints. The problem is not where she shops or how much she spends, but what she ends up buying.

      Brendon Carr in reply to ohiochili. | May 13, 2012 at 2:12 am

      I read an anecdote where Warren Buffett, of all people, was complimented on his supposed thriftiness since as a billionaire, he still bought cheap suits. Buffett joked, These suits are very expensive. They just look cheap on me.

      That’s Michelle’s story in a nutshell. She has an unfortunate physicality which makes whatever she wears look like utter crap.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Observer. | May 12, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Despot’s wives love luxuries and lots of them.

    Like Imelda Marcos’ shoes…maybe the shopping and status feelings offset and numb the shame and guilt somehow.

Speaking of cheap merchandising…

I thought this was a joke. It isn’t.

How are the grifters going to manage on a measley $400,000 a year when they get the boot in Nov.

    Ragspierre in reply to spike. | May 12, 2012 at 10:22 am

    I expect Barackah to move to NY, and set up at the UN.

    I’d LOVE to be wrong.

      creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | May 13, 2012 at 10:27 am

      You’re not wrong, Rags. Sec/Gen is the only step up, arguably, from where he is now. King of the World is what he wants and he’ll move heaven and earth to get it.

        Milhouse in reply to creeper. | May 13, 2012 at 5:14 pm

        That’s precisely the problem; he sees SecGen as a step up from POTUS, rather than as a major step down. That is to say, he sees SecGen as a sort of “president of the world”, rather than as a functionary.

        John Bolton has it right:

        One should not invest excessive hope in any secretary-general. The U.N. Charter describes the secretary-general as the U.N.’s ‘chief administrative officer.’ He is not the president of the world. He is not a diplomat for all seasons. He is not Mr. Friend of the Earth. And most definitely of all, he is not commander in chief of the World Federalist Army. He is the chief administrative officer. Nothing less than that, to be sure, but, with even greater certainty, nothing more.

    persecutor in reply to spike. | May 12, 2012 at 11:19 am

    I fully expect San Fran Nan to sponsor a bill that would pay a royalty to Dear Leader for each postage stamp the USPS puts out with his mug on it, and for any building named after him!

    Hey–it worked for Hitler!

Yeah, I don’t see this working out to well for Obama.

His endorsement of gay marriage caused some evangelicals to run towards Romney. Should Obama play the class-warfare card, that will only anger most people.

But, keep it up.

I think they’re just thumbing their respective noses at us with every $900 blouse and $500,000 vacation. Or it could be that they forgot there’s a recession.

    Ragspierre in reply to Rosalie. | May 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Buying stuff is GOOD for our economy.

    Avoid joining in the class warfare.

    IF somebody has the money, and they want to build a house a month, I’m down with that.

    Rush related buying a new EXPENSIVE car in the last few weeks. I hope you aren’t unhappy about that…

      Rosalie in reply to Ragspierre. | May 12, 2012 at 1:16 pm

      I’m talking about O and Michelle. We’re footing the bill, not them. As far as the Romney’s go, I couldn’t care less. When there’s a recession and you have Michelle going on $500,000 vacations, yes, I have a problem with that.

        Ragspierre in reply to Rosalie. | May 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm

        I have a problem with her taking that kind of vacay on the tax dime ANY TIME, under ANY CONDITION.

        There simply is no excuse. They DO have their own money.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 13, 2012 at 2:17 am

          90% of the cost of their vacations is because of who they are, and it’s right and proper for the public to pay it. If they weren’t the president’s family they could just go off to Spain or Hawaii on commercial flights, with no Secret Service, and stay in a normal hotel or B&B and go down to the beach like normal people, and they could easily afford it. But they are the president’s family, so they can’t do that. They have to fly on Air Force planes, which cost money, and be followed around by Secret Service agents whose time costs money, and who have to be put up somewhere reasonably close to them which costs more money. It’s not right to expect them to pay for that. But in this economy it would be nice if they were considerate and took the cost into account before they went anywhere; it would show that they actually care about the budget, and they wouldn’t look such obvious hypocrites when they say the rest of us have to make sacrifices.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 13, 2012 at 2:18 am

          I meant to say, if the economy were in good shape then you’d have no grounds for begrudging the expense.

          creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | May 13, 2012 at 10:29 am

          Milhouse, they may have to travel that way because of who they are but they don’t have to do it every damn week!

IIRC, most of Mooch’s outerwear cost more than Ann’s just as a starter. Then you got to add them thar’ other vacations to Mexico, Colorado and Hawaii.

Mooch wins hands down!

Meanwhile, I’ve learned the art of shopping in thrift stores…

Remember when Palin’s clothes on the campaign trail were paid for? …. oh the outrage.

What a disgusting bunch of venomous little creatures live in the media.

We should all feel sympathy for poor Hussein. That pathetic bastard has to wake up next to Michelle every morning. Gag me with a spoon.

    creeper in reply to Towson Lawyer. | May 13, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Nice comment but sadly not true. They maintain separate bedrooms, remember, because Barry-O is “stinky and snorey” according to the First Lardy.

Damn, I like Ann Romney just fine but that blouse is ugly. Why anyone would pay $990 for it is beyond me. I would recommend every woman, especially those in the public eye, stay away from massive prints.

(And yes, I know that’s not the point and Ann Romney can wear whatever she wants and she usually looks lovely but…damn, that blouse is ugly.)

    Scorpio51 in reply to angela. | May 12, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Yeah, I wouldn’t be caught “dead or alive” in a blouse like that. I could do wonders with the $900.00 she spent for that and the clothing would be very tasteful.

    Perhaps Mrs. Romney should hire a stylist.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to angela. | May 12, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    I see it as not a fashion piece but a work of art. Silk is still the world’s most gorgeous of fabrics even after after 2000 years. Silk printing , silk embroidery silk dyes have always been at the forefront of fabric design & technology. Sublimated Printing is a computer method to create deep & lustrous colours within the fabric . I don’t know if it has been used here on silk but the effect is stunning.

    Audubon drawings & paintings are in the top one percent of all American Art. I believe they are still copyrighted so the Audubon society would have gained $$$$.

    In a styling sense I think it would look fab with a black pencil skirt – just stuck over a desk is not much of a shot.

    Again just like The Sarah Palin 2008 wardrobe media tantrum , Americans are killing their own industry & heritage.

    I think every American should wear Audubon prints every day from tip to toe. They are that fantastic.

      That was an admirable defense of this blouse, Banned. I can’t decide if you’re being serious or just have an extremely dry sense of humor.

      This print should be hanging over the fireplace in a fishing cabin (I keep thinking the print is fish rather than birds) not gracing a blouse.

LukeHandCool | May 12, 2012 at 2:08 pm

With that $990 you could only buy 1.8 pairs of Michelle Obama’s favorite $550 sneakers (just perfect for slumming and photo ops at food banks).

Nancy Reagan, Sarah Palin, Ann Romney … they should all be dressed in rags we are led to believe. And it doesn’t seem to matter when absolutely no tax-payer money is used.

Remember the quaint “kids are off limits”? Not when they are the kids of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. His kids’ clothes give off all kinds of disturbing subliminal messages according to the Washington Post’s Robin Givham.

Here’s Robin, on the left, in her Wal-Mart finest, necklace by Target. Very, very cool. No evil-kid subliminal fashion vibes being given off by Robin.

What is an ostentatious display of wealth on an Ann Romney is a refreshing, playful, sassy statement on a Michelle Obama.

What is a slutty stewardess outfit on a Sarah Palin becomes a suddenly stylishly cool, jaunty ensemble on a Michelle Obama.

Don’t even try, conservatives. This fashion game is rigged. There are shell games in back alleys that are more fair than this optical delusion of a game run by the media and its facist fashionistas.

LukeHandCool (who, as a mod 17-year-old trendsetter, used to take his Melrose Avenue thrift-shop suit jackets down the street to Irv Levin’s shop to have him transform them into early Beatles cylinder-style, collarless works of art).

    angela in reply to LukeHandCool. | May 12, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    What a bizarre article about John Roberts’ family. They look like “three little Necco wafers”? I think they look very nice. Classic. Traditional. Timeless.

    I can’t believe that passes as journalism, even in the “Style” section.

    creeper in reply to LukeHandCool. | May 13, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Another day, another hatchet job on Reps by the WaPo.

    I don’t think any outside the Beltway reads the Post any more. Why do we keep quoting it?

VetHusbandFather | May 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm

It’s funny, just the other day I was thinking about how the Media also tried to say that McCain was out of touch due to his multiple houses, and contrasting that to a president that schmoozes with Hollywood stars at a fundraiser at George Clooney’s house. They can feign disdain for success and wealth, but they can’t control themselves when it comes to living the life of glitz and glam.

He picked his own beard. I hope she makes every minute a living hell for ovomit.

BannedbytheGuardian | May 12, 2012 at 7:43 pm

I am just glad that neither of the Obamas have taken to Hawaiian shirts or muumuus or started hula dancing in public.

Count your blessings America.

On the downside I am guessing all the Macaw designs are off limits now . Plus cockatoos galahs eagles falcons humingbirds robins peacocks etc .

No bird designs for ever more. The Left Fashion Police have bespoke.

BannedbytheGuardian | May 12, 2012 at 10:18 pm

What has not been commented on anywhere is the hostile reaction of the garment’s maker & designer.

Rather than appreciate the publicity they snarled words to the effect -we did not give it to that damn b eehatch . She must have bought it herself -the beehatch.

the “We do not get involved in politics ” = we don’t like her side wearing it.

They should put a sign on the rack – Republicans Do not Buy!

And BTW Audubon was sponsored by a rich patron t produce his art.

Are they one of Tina Brown’a Designers for Obama where you can buy a puerile scarf for $150?

Ms. Koop should be fired.