December 23, 2011

LAT article on Mitt's marriage illustrated with a photo of Ann Romney seemingly biting some other man's nose.

Let's close in on the photo:



It's generally a lovely picture of the couple, and it's nicely new, taken this week. Is there some journalistic rule against photoshopping a ludicrous stray face part out of a picture? It almost looks photoshopped in. It's completely absurd to have that nose — it looks like Bob Hope's nose — right between her teeth. And the intimacy of her connection to her husband is mocked by wedging a mystery man into the tiny space between them.

The title of the article — "Spotlight on Romney's marriage casts shadow on Gingrich's past" — seems designed to distract us from the distinct charm of Ann Romney's story...
... how her husband comforted her in her "hardest hour," when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (telling her he didn't care if they ate cold cereal every night for the rest of their lives); and how he used to call home during his business trips when she was a young mother of five sons to say, "Remember, Ann, what you are doing is more important than what I am doing."

He teases her publicly about her "fiscal discipline." She corrects him aloud when he misspeaks at his events. They hold hands. They exchange tender glances. The chemistry between them is unmistakable.
Unmistakable even with a strange man's nose and grimace stuck in and the accusation — read the whole article — that Mitt Romney is calling attention to his marriage in order to make voters think ill of Newt Gingrich, the admitted adulterer on his third wife, a woman young enough to be his daughter.

36 comments:

Andy R. said...

I would think that presenting his marriage in such a public way is a way for him to seem normal in advance of the anti-Mormon bigotry that will be coming from the evangelicals once he gets the nomination.

sydney said...

I think that is Newt Gingrich's nose.

edutcher said...

That shot makes the guy look like Bob Hope, especially in his later years.

And I think Milton may be calling attention to his marriage in anticipation of the Demos' inevitable smear that, somewhere in the mesas of southern UT, he has what Mark Twain once termed an "outhouse harem".

Andy R. said...

I would think that presenting his marriage in such a public way is a way for him to seem normal in advance of the anti-Mormon bigotry that will be coming from the evangelicals once he gets the nomination.

Projecting again?

Andy R. said...

Projecting again?

I don't like Mormonism, but I don't think the campaign is worried about the criticism coming from me.

You don't think the evangelicals will flip out when the Republicans nominate someone that they don't consider Christian?

Pogo said...

It's a toomah!

vet66 said...

The democrats are predictable. We saw this coming a long time ago. Can anyone be surprised that secularists and atheists at the DNC would attack anyone with a religious background in the opposing party? Mormonism is a cult, Catholicism will put the Vatican in charge of the American government (Kennedy), all other religions are opiates for Bible thumpers and gun clingers except for the muslims who must be appeased at any cost.

Remember, these are the same people who turned a blind eye to the antics of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Weiner, Frank, Wright, Phleger, et al. These representatives of the ultimate cult/religion/dishonesty of secularism could use a good dose of mainstream religion to help them get their personal houses in order.

wv: apoism - the religion of apostasy and character assassination.

Lyssa said...

You don't think the evangelicals will flip out when the Republicans nominate someone that they don't consider Christian?

No, I don't. The only people who have shown any interest in this suppposed bias are liberals. I'm guessing that you don't actually have much contact with actual evangelicals.

Pogo said...

1. It's an awful photograph because of Ann Romney's tumor.

2. The leftist media does nothing by accident.

3. Gee, I wonder why they used this picture, of all they had access to? Just bad luck, I guess!

Bob_R said...

You thought Hope's nose. I thought Nixon's. Same nose.

Chip Ahoy said...

Retrousse, as it were.

Dane County Taxpayer said...

Will there be any articles on the sister wives?

Chip S. said...

Jeez, relax.

It's easy to photograph, say, the Huntsmans without other people's faces in the background cuz they're not commonly found in crowds of people. The Romneys, not so much.

I see this pic as quite intimate, precisely because it's taken in a crowd. Rather than focusing on gladhanding, they're focused intently on each other.

And where you see a pending bite, I see a mouth poised for something much more fun.

MadisonMan said...

What tumor?

I think it's a picture of two people in an intimate moment and it's charming.

Pogo said...

"What tumor?"

A joke, in that the entire photo shows no other people at all, just a jigsaw puzzle piece in between the couple. So it must be a toomah.

Crappy work; it would have been nice but for that disembodied face, so you either Photoshop it out or discard the photo. Use a better one; that's what digital cameras are for.

That they chose this one over all others is telling.

The Crack Emcee said...

Dane County Taxpayer,

Will there be any articles on the sister wives?

There are no sister wives, and such a statement reveals a lack of knowledge regarding Mormonism:

Mormons abandoned polygamy decades ago.

FLDS - Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints are polygamists and an extreme embarrassment to the rest.

You've been watching too much "Big Love" and taking that as fact. Mormons would laugh at you for such ignorance.

Marriage is a strength of Mormonism. It, too, can get creepy, in it's own way, but is mostly something I find quite admirable about them.

It's a pity they don't think it's possible without the Joseph Smith nonsense, but that makes them no different than most, in my book:

You're all nuts.

ricpic said...

That's the ghost of Bob Hope behind them.

By the way, she's a dead ringer for Joanne Woodward.

Methadras said...

Lol. Nose biting photo-bomb.

MayBee said...

Let's stop the madness and stop reading about or caring about the marriage of the candidates.

PatCA said...

I think it's an interesting contrast between the two men and the way they encounter their appetites. Newt goes outward and conquers new and younger women as he ages; Mitt goes inward and deepens the connection to one woman.

I'm not saying which one is better. Newt seems to have found peace by, again, going big (a Roman Catholic!) and a new woman, but Mitt seems like a guy who was inspired by his faith's beliefs about the sanctity and joy of marriage at a very early age.

Or maybe it's all PR, who knows, but it's interesting.

DexX9 said...

Willard the wizard, and his spouse Ann Starseed, the good witch.

Bush I and II, Coulter, Christie, McDonnell, etc all approve of Romney--that translates as he'll do his part to further the BushCo agenda.

rcommal said...

Is there some journalistic rule against photoshopping

Yes. Yes there is, and rightly so.

The way to handle this sort of photo is not to use it. Pick another one. Alternatively, take a formal portrait ("formal" in the sense of have them sit for one) and identify it as such.

In no way, shape or form is it appropriate to photoshop a news photo.

marylynn said...

The left cannot stand a happy couple, a religious family, a family in general. Look at what they did to Sarah. Blind hatred because she had the audacity to love her husband and big, flawed family. They will be going after the Romneys the same way.
In their twisted minds, the behavior of Bill Clinton, Weiner, etc. is normal, and they have to attack anyone that shows the opposite.
To borrow a phrase ... shame, shame, shame

rcommal said...

You don't think the evangelicals will flip out when the Republicans nominate someone that they don't consider Christian?

No, I don't. The only people who have shown any interest in this suppposed bias are liberals. I'm guessing that you don't actually have much contact with actual evangelicals.

I think it's more accurate to say that some will and some won't (though "flip out" is a bit of an overstatement, in most cases). And I do have actual contact with actual evangelicals (fundamentalists, even--the two terms are emphatically not synonymous), including extended family members.

rcommal said...

The only people who have shown any interest in this suppposed bias are liberals.

Heh. I know a couple of people--again, even in my extended family--who would be very offended at your implication that they are liberals.

; )

DADvocate said...

Is the purpose of this post to make voters think ill of Romney and Gingrich?

To think ill of Romney because he's supposedly using his marriage for political gain, although that's probably just fine with his wife. And, by repeating the Gingrich adulterer thing, make voters to think ill of Gingrich.

DADvocate said...

I know a couple of people--again, even in my extended family--who would be very offended at your implication that they are liberals.

Same here. They prefer to be called progressives (who are repressive).

Lyssa said...

Heh. I know a couple of people--again, even in my extended family--who would be very offended at your implication that they are liberals.

rcommal, I'm curious - are any of those people actively stating that Mormons are unsuited for political office? I know tons of both evangelicals and fundies (buckle of the bible belt here) and, while Mormons are looked at as kind of weird, and Romney's less than super popular, I've never heard a single person say that the problem with Romney had anything to do with his religion, nor have I read that anywhere.

There may be a tiny fraction of people who would otherwise vote R but won't because of Romney's Mormonism, but it definitely won't be significant. (It will be much, much smaller than the amount who would refuse to vote for him because of the healthcare thing, the "flip-flopper" thing, or the "Rino" thing.)

(I like Romney, BTW - just saying what I think others are saying and thinking.)

rcocean said...

Good grief, can we get real. JFK boinked a chick a day in the White House and he was still a better President than happily married Jimmy Carter.

The problem with Newt isn't that he's on his 3rd Marriage - or an adulterer. Its that he's a political flake who can't be trusted.

Conversely, Nixon and Pat were a great couple as were George and Barb, and they were both lousy Presidents.

Freeman Hunt said...

I think it's an interesting contrast between the two men and the way they encounter their appetites. Newt goes outward and conquers new and younger women as he ages; Mitt goes inward and deepens the connection to one woman.

I'm not saying which one is better.


Okay, I will. Mitt's approach is better.

Freeman Hunt said...

Some evangelicals hate the Mormon thing. I've heard a few says so. Others, I might venture most, could not care less about the Mormon thing or might even see it as a plus.

Nearly all Republican-voting evangelicals, however, will be happy to vote for a Mormon over Obama, and that's what counts.

Meade said...

rcocean,

I completely agree with your second paragraph, partly agree with your first paragraph, and disagree mostly with your last paragraph.

Carter was a lousy president.
JFK was slightly better than a lousy president.
Newt would make a lousy president.

But Nixon and Bush, while not great presidents, were actually pretty good and made some pretty great accomplishments. Not perfect accomplishments, but great - China, ending the draft and Vietnamization, and the Gulf War. After both Nixon and Bush, power shifted to the Democrats, who proceeded to snatch defeats from the teeth of victory.

DADvocate said...

Okay, I will. Mitt's approach is better.

Amen.

My experience with Mormons is that they run the gamut, just like everyone else. The LDS is private about some ceremonies, like weddings. (Catholics will let you watch but not participate in some ceremonies.) I don't want to attend their church any way. I want a competent president.

The Crack Emcee said...

Meade,

Newt would make a lousy president.

Here we go again. Based on what? Your psychic abilities? I still hear this shit about McCain when, in truth, nobody knows. All we can sure of is he would've been better than the GodZero because almost anybody could've.

What? Does the prospect of a president willing to take it to liberals bother you? You certainly won't get that with Mitt. Hell, he's afraid to debate Newt. What does that say about future battles with either the Left or other world leaders?

And what was it about a balanced budget, welfare reform, and the Republican takeover of the House that bothered you? What's Mitt got to, substantively, compare with all that?

Nothing.

You guys talk out of your ass, acting like your wrong-headed speculation is somehow factual in nature, when - really - it's just that "fear" you're so fond of throwing at others who show more balls than you can/do. I don't want to see this country led by yet another cool, calm, and collected cipher - I want to see a true American Man. And, while Newt may not be perfect in that regard, this is about the country.

It's been said that Romney is the guy you can imagine firing your dad after acting like they were friends. Sorry, but we've got waaaay too many of those assholes already, and it's time we started firing THEM.

What we definitely don't need to do is reward another one by putting him at the top for simply being such a lamer.

wv - "punch": what Romney needs more than a vote.

EDH said...

sydney said...
I think that is Newt Gingrich's nose.

Or Bill Wyman's.

rcommal said...

I want to see a true American Man.

Define "true American Man." Describe him. Do so directly--forget references to examples. Be specific--surgical, even, in precision--as you do so.

Set forth and describe "true American Man" as succinctly and plainly as possible.

Who and what do you want to see when you say "true American Man"?

The Crack Emcee said...

Hey - If You Can Be Ranting Hypocrites Then So Can I,...