More Evidence Ann Romney Not Wearing Mormon Garments (Photo)
I noticed something askew after looking at a photo gallery from Thursday’s 1st Presidential Debate (see photo 13). Only a Mormon would notice something like this. As most Mormons would inevitably feel, I almost felt bad for noticing, and a bit awkward for sharing this. But like Doc from Back to the Future… “I figured what the hell.”
I’m not the first one to bring this up. After appearing on Jay Leno, many Mormon bloggers began to speculate that Ann isn’t wearing her temple garments. For those of you who don’t know, I hesitate to explain further, other than I’m sure you’ve heard or seen some reference to the “magic underwear” Mormon’s wear. It’s pretty sacred stuff, and to even bring it up is sure to offend plenty of Mormons… and to those folks I say “forgiveness is divine.” Mormons are quite sensitive about this stuff. What can I say, I’m a political commentator. Sorry for noticing the truth.
I can tell you I couldn’t care less whether or not any Mormons wear their “Gs.” I’m not the judgmental type. I haven’t walked on water. This isn’t judgement, or gossip (well maybe a little gossipy in nature). This is a commentary on that oh so important image so many Mormon families strive with such effort to preserve and protect… that front they put on in the public eye for church political reasons. Most Christians can relate… we all know what I’m talking about.
This phenomenon causes these families to look upon others with disdain while treating themselves with impunity. They’ll often avoid associating with non-Mormons and even Mormons who don’t meet their class and image standards. I should point out now that there are ample numbers of Mormon families who are the opposite of this… who don’t deserve to be grouped here.
Ann and Mitt have said some very classist things this election cycle, and personally I feel that their ideology is very classist. There’s an arrogance that says ‘I worked hard for what I have and you don’t deserve to tax me or others who have worked hard just because you have a sense of dependency.” We all heard the 47% comments, and I’ll just leave it at that.
The point is this… people are curious about this because Mormons are supposed to wear temple garments, and the Romneys are supposedly the “face of Mormonism.” That’s the bottom line. Obviously this isn’t some revelation that should affect your vote. It’s just an observation.
Maybe Ann Romney ain’t so perfect after all. Maybe she should quiet herself about what choices others make and try to have a heart about the plight of those less fortunate than her little one percent self. Just sayin.
UPDATE (Tuesday October 9):
Ann Romney appeared on Fox News tonight in practically a sleeveless dress, clearly not wearing any garments once again.
|
Justin is the publisher The Nevada View, which has earned the recognition in the Washington Post’s “Best State-Based Political Blogs,” as well as being awarded the “Most Valuable Blogger Award” by the local CBS affiliate in 2011. Justin is also an associate at the Ramirez Group in Las Vegas. Follow him on Twitter @McAffee |
30 Responses to More Evidence Ann Romney Not Wearing Mormon Garments (Photo)
Leave a Reply
We’re Also Here!
There is a weird line/dent on her leg, like a bad photo-shop or she is wearing VERY flesh colored shorts.
regardless of his wive’s magic underwear; Mitt Romney is a shameless liar .
Come on people, Don’t get your garments in a bunch.
This could be a phony photo.
To Paul Tunstall
That is a very good post. There are all kinds of possibilities, and nobody should be judgmental. There is no doubt that Ann Romney is a wonderful member of the Church.
The garment is a cap sleeve. The jacket has plenty of sleeve to cover the cap sleeve of the garment. Why talk about things that really don’t matter.
I guess it really IS over for Obama if Justin is reduced to looking up Ms. Romney’s skirt! OR, maybe liberals are just more perverted.
Anyway, after all the stories / blog slop which garner NO responses to speak of, Justin ‘hit on’ one??
Only a low life desperate to slander would be interested in what type of under wear someone is wearing. There is no need to discuss Mormon theology or policy regarding the wearing of Garments. It is solely a personal decision and irrelevant to who gets elected.
You should have just stopped at the point where you “almost felt bad noticing it”. Perhaps you could better develop that inner warning when you are about to do something stupid or inappropriate.
Perhaps Dennis, but why are you so hypersensitive about it then? Clearly it hits a nerve. Oh ye hypocrites.
Has your liberalism sunk this low as to claim ‘troll status’ on your own blog?
Or, it must really be over for the Obamunists in ’12?
Ann is not the first Mormon woman to wear skin-colored short tights over her stretchy bottom garment. And a close look will show you the line of those tights.
How about getting your mind out of people’s underwear and into the problems our country faces?
There’s no tights… it’s too shiny to be skin color nylons. See her knees? Give it up, she ain’t wearing them. I’m not judging her, but she should stop judging others in the process. Fat chance this fat cat learns any humility though.
The line of the tights is ABOVE her knee,as is the slight change of color shade. I am aware of several other LDS women who have such tights. I still think it pathetic that you spend time and thought on this woman’s underwear.
You can see the line on her leg where her garments usually are. Not that any of this is relevant.
Your telling the Chicago Tribune doesn’t photo shop? You are a fool!!!!
I think it’s a great question. Why isn’t Ann Romney wearing her garments? I thought she and Mitt were Mormon royalty. Or does Mormon royalty receive special exceptions? I was a Mormon for many years, and I can’t imagine one of the rank and file getting away that. And it’s not just this time. I’ve seen Ann Romney lots of times wearing outfits that could never cover her garments. Has she been excommunicated?
When you pay four million dollars a year in tithing then you can wear your garments as often or as little as you like too.
Justin–It seems like you (and a few others) have pounced on this topic as your personal crusade. It’s none of your business. But why don’t you survey Mormon men and find out how far THEIR garments may ride up???
Justin; Is there nothing else out there to report of any interest to the masses? (and by the way in paragraph 3 you probably meant that “you couldn’t care less” rather than (“(I)you could care less”)
Any good journalist would know that… and by the way, my wife is tall and yes her garments actually do hike up far more than you would think. And also by the way, you wouldn’t actually know that there are some women that cannot wear garments all of the time because of a rare skin reaction to most of the fabric. Her husband is a physician so I had no reason to doubt her.
Give it a break already… and the rest of the panel of idiots LDS or not need to worry about themselves…
Have a nice day…
Also; I see another typo… “quiet” is not spelled “quite”…:)
Thanks Scott… the copy editor was off last night. I agree, there are few legitimate reasons not to wear garments… but in this case I definitely don’t think they are riding. If they are, that is the biggest wedgie in history.
This is so seriously stupid. When you sit down they can ride up. Big deal.
Ha ha! You think they are riding up that far? Man, you are naive.
Justin,
I take it you are not married. According to my wife yes they can ride up tht far.
Maybe the silk ones…
But if they are, they are all the way up her…
Looks a little “photo-shopped” to me…
See image 13, Chicago Tribute: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-presidential-debate-2012-photos-20121003,0,7476808.photogallery
What was the point if this article, stupidest thing I ever took the time to read. You are judgemental if you werent, you never would have written all that crap
Whether Ann is wearing her garments or not has no bearing on her husbands suitability to be president of the United States. This is personal and has no place on a public blog site. There are professions that require their removal (athletes, artists, performers). Are politicians that different than these listed professionals? She may have to take her garments off, because her official fashion designer is non-LDS.
So, you’re saying that’s it’s ok to abrogate part of your religious obligations because a dressmaker objects to it?
Wow, that’s some high class devotion right there.