Photos of Mitt Romney with his Apple iPhone and iPad at his Lake Winnipesaukee home

The Republican U.S. presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, took a day off from campaigning at his home in New Hampshire Saturday on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee.

BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski has published twelve photos taken by Evan Vucci for The Associated Press with show Romney boating, walking, in mountain biking germ and also on the beach of his lake house.

Romney’s Apple iPad and iPhone are seen quite clearly in several of the photos:

U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Apple iPad, iPhone (Image by Evan Vucci / AP)
U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Apple iPad, iPhone (Image by Evan Vucci / AP)


U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Apple iPad, iPhone (Image by Evan Vucci / AP)
U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Apple iPad, iPhone (Image by Evan Vucci / AP)


U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Apple iPad, iPhone (Image by Evan Vucci / AP)
U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Apple iPad, iPhone (Image by Evan Vucci / AP)

See all twelve photos via Buzzfeed here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Apple: U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney becomes first politician to use iAd service – June 10, 2012
How Apple CEO Steve Jobs jobbed the Left or something – June 5, 2012
Republican candidate Mitt Romney confirmed Apple iPad user (with video) – March 19, 2012
Obama uses his Apple iPad to watch NBA basketball games (with video) – March 5, 2012
Steve Jobs told Obama: ‘You’re headed for a one-term presidency’ – October 20, 2011
Obama got presidential iPad 2 from Steve Jobs ahead of public launch – October 3, 2011
U.S. President Obama confirmed Apple iPad owner (with photo) – April 25, 2011
U.S. President Obama confirmed Apple iPad owner – March 28, 2011
Confirmed: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is an Apple iPod and iPad user – December 14, 2010
Former U.S. President George W. Bush’s favorite iPad app – October 28, 2010
Obama: With iPods and iPads, information becomes a distraction; imposes new pressures on democracy – May 9, 2010
U.S. President Obama conducts demo on Apple MacBook Pro (with video) – July 29, 2010
Steve, buy that man an iPhone: Obama vows to keep his Blackberry despite security, legal concerns – January 8, 2009
Barack Obama photographed with his Apple iPod (with image) – December 29, 2008
Confirmed: Barack Obama is an Apple iPod user – December 05, 2008
John McCain: Confirmed Mac user, Barack Obama: Confirmed Mac user (and BlackBerry sufferer) – July 21, 2008
Karl Rove loves his Apple iPhone and MacBook Air – March 22, 2008
President Bush’s Senior Advisor Karl Rove confirmed Apple iPhone user (with image) – August 06, 2007
President Bush tours Walter Reed, says he appreciates that soldiers have Apple Macs – March 30, 2007
President Bush shows off his Apple iPod (link to video) – December 16, 2005
Die Welt: U.S President George Bush is ‘the Steve Jobs of World Politics’ – February 25, 2005
U.S. President George Bush a confirmed Apple iPod user (images included) – December 22, 2004


  1. It’s good to see an American U.S. presidential candidate using an American company’s products instead of bitterly clinging to a foreign-made and foreign-controlled antique from DCW.

        1. What about his father?

          If Obama’s father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth, then Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen.

          That would make him ineligible to be Present.

          And that would mean every piece of legislation he has passed as ” President” is invalid.

          1. Not true TheWatchfulOne. If we read the constitution it would indicate different. “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” So his father or mother’s status is irrelevant. By the constitution in the 14th Amendment if you are born in the U.S. you are a citizen of the U.S. and the State you are born in. So he is a citizen, making each law legal. Even if he wasn’t a citizen and committed action under the pretense of being president all laws and orders would still carry the weight of the law. The president would just be replaced with a legitimate one. Natural born refers to being born in America or on American soil. I have a degree in History and Political Science and I teach a course in the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean that what I said is automatically true, but if you research it you will find out it is true.

          2. Hawaii confirm both short & long form birth certificates as authentic. State of Illinois, CIA, FBI, PENTAGON, Cogressional Board & Secret Service have investigated Obama before he was POTUS when he was US SENATOR & Presidential nominee of Democratic Party.

            1. The birth certificate posted on the White House web siteis fake.

              Anyone with a little knowledge of Adobe Illustrator can verify this for themselves.

              But monkey boy is too popular with retarded section of the population to be in any kind of trouble for that.

        2. Not when he gives up his citizenship to be indonesian and he was born in Kenya like his Grandmother said and witnessed.

          What about his college records and phony social security #??????????????

          1. Excuse the ignorance… but does being “born American” even really matter in the grand schemes of things?

            If we wanna get crazy, then anyone born in Alaska or Hawaii pre-1946 is less “American”.

            If we wanna get really crazy, anyone born in a state was wasn’t part of the original Union is less “American”

            Who CARES where you were born.
            Who CARES what color skin you have.
            Who CARES how you part your hair.

            In the end, we’re all part of one human family. The Nazis made the mistake of thinking there was some kind of superiority in certain races of people. Considering the USA is an inclusive community, there are a lot of people who care about a field on a birth certificate.

        3. Don’t confuse a ranting, paranoid and fear-mongering conservatard with factual information or make the presumption that they will apply logic to any given situation.

          Willard RawMoney – yes, Willard is his real name- has skeletons in his flag wrapped closet. His grandfather left the US for Mexico over his mormonism when the church abandoned plural marriage as part of the deal to get Utah admitted as a state. Grandpa RawMoney ran away to Mexico where Willard’s dad was born. If this were true of a Democratic candidate you would never stop hearing it.


        “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

        1. So, by virtue of that dubious link, if an American woman is vacationing overseas and delivers a baby, that child is not a U.S. citizen??? Patently false. A child born to an American woman anywhere in this world is an American citizen. That is settled law.

          1. A natural-born citizen is someone whose parents were both American citizens at the time of his or her birth.

            The geographical location of the birth does not factor into it.

            1. Wrong. One parent who’s a citizen suffices.

              I know you want to find some kind of magic way to bounce Obama out of the white house, but that dog won’t hunt.


            2. Hey watchful one, do you have a copy of the constitution in your home? Probably not. Both my parents are from India. When my brother and I were born, they were not American Citizens but they were green card holders. If your logic is true, then how am I able to vote for the last two elections? How am I ablt to get a US Passport with no hassle and even get a legal license. Because I AM a citizen because I was born here. That’s why pregnant illegals flock over here from Mexico. Then they complain that their families are being broken apart. Bobby Jindal’s parents are both from India too why aren’t you questioning his citizenship? Maybe because when his name appears on television, there’s a capital (R)

            3. Look at Vivek’s link. Only one parent has to be a U.S. citizen even if born abroad. No one has ever claimed Obama’s mom wasn’t a U.S. citizen, therefore, site of birth doesn’t matter.

      1. Regardless of where they’re made, those are some fugly, militaristic-looking outfits – like a combo between Nazi SS and the Green Berets. A total lose-lose.

      1. Some people have trouble understanding how one guy can claim to be more liberal than Ted Kennedy and more conservative than Newt Gngrich. It makes them feel the candidate is a bit, you know, kinda fake.

        Personally I don’t like or dislike him–I have no idea what he actually believes about anything or what he would do in any given situation, so what could I like or dislike about him?

        My sense of the guy is that he’s a nice guy who in his mind lives in the shadow of his father, and who, if left to his own devices and without having to work within a political party would be 10% to the right of Obama on a couple issues and as far to left or more far to the left than Obama on significantly more issues.

        I don’t know why conservatives would be interested in a guy that has shown no interest in conservative ideology at all during his lifetime, and is only interested in conservative voters enough to get him to 51%, by his own admission.

        1. I suggest you start here:

          If you’re worried about him keeping promises, if he keeps half as many as Obama broke, the country will be roaring back in no time.

          Hopenchange was bullshit for naive college kids. It isn’t going to work this time — and neither is going hyper-negative.

          1. So how do they compare with his issue statements when he was going to be a pro-choice, pro gay senator that would be a more reliable liberal than Ted Kennedy? Or his issue statements when he was going to be a moderate east coast republican governor? What makes you think his present issue statements mean any more than his past ones did?

            Seriously, I’m kinda interested….it is obvious that one or more mitt romneys have been fakes–how do you know which is the real one? How can you be sure he won’t get elected and then be the liberal he was before angling for the presidential race? In fact, what makes you think that issues statement you link to won’t change significantly after the convention?

            This is all facinating—this is the most left wing candidate the GOP has had since wendell wilkie and some of you actually seem to think he’s even aware of what the conservative position is on an issue without a cheat sheet from his aides.

            1. So where’s any sign he ever evolved? What occasioned he switches in every imaginable position multiple times? There isn’t anything.

              Reagan evolved. He changed his opinions over time and you can watch the evolution–he wrote about how he changed and why he changed, and many time he changed his opinion ahead of the electorate and spent four presidential campaigs over twelve years moving people his way.

              Mitt never did any of that. He just appears anew for each election with whatever set of policies fit at the time. Kennedy appearing weak and inert, hey there’s liberal mitt, an energetic teetotaler who is even more liberal that Ted. Next time around, hey northern states are electing a spate of moderate republicans, and here’s the new mitt, super moderate next in line. To be followed by new conservative mitt, attuned to the republican presidential primary voter. Now we has to wait until he’s nominated to get newly recalibrated general election mitt.

              I’m just finding it amusing, as I’m not a right winger. What I can’t figure out is why actual right wingers wouldn’t be enraged by this crap.

            2. Yes, indeed. Some people change their views from college days to retirement.

              Precise wording and attribution vary. But the point and essence is:

              If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart, but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain.

              New to me:

              An online comment mentioned mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.

              True or untrue, certainly, food for thought …

        2. The choice is simple – collectivism vs individualism. You subversive Democrat (or Republicans whose primary candidate failed) can try to muddle the waters all you want. I trust business man who has the sense to manage investments, businesses, and State government more than a community organizer raised by devout communists, terrorist Pentagon bombers and racist preachers.

          Choice is clear – ABO!!!

      2. I don’t like him because of his depraved indifference to human suffering. (Which happens to be the same reason I despise the current teleprompter-in-chief. ) What else do we need?


        1. Where on earth did you come up with the idea that Romney is depraved and indifferent to human suffering. Perhaps from an attack ad that deliberately distorted a phrase in one of his speeches?

          If so, you bought into a deception created by the Teleprompter-in-chief.

          Or did you believe the “vulture capitalist” attack ads, alleging the rape of firms and firing of their employees, while exporting jobs overseas? Once more, deliberate distortion (I.e., lies) of the facts. The actual record shows that of failing businesses taken over by Bain, more survived and prospered than failed — because of Bain’s management expertise — saving jobs and so to the benefit of workers.

  2. Greetings from TAX FREE New Hampshire!

    I live near Mr. Romney’s Winnipesaukee home and have seen him boating and elsewhere throughout the years. He’s a wonderful, decent, very capable man and would make an excellent U.S. president.

    1. I just hope when elected he doesn’t get all big-governmenty-squishy. W put us on this path, O jumped in the Chevy and floored it. We don’t need Romney to enact Medicare parts E, F, & G.

      1. Well, considering that obama’s health plan was just romney’s with a sticker over the name (the same guy, Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist, wrote both plans) I don’t think anyone would mistake Romney for a small government guy.

        1. One not so minor difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney has been crystal clear about what will happen when he is elected:

          On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.

          In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.

          More here:

            1. Romney had a solution, he signed as governor. Obama signed the same solution as President.

              So Romney has to leave it to someone else; Congress has passed Romney’s plan has already, Obama signed it, and the Supreme Court has okayed it.

          1. Get over yourself. If you knew the first thing about the healthcare business you’d know that it stands alone in that competition actually increases its costs.

            I won’t bother to explain it as it would take up too much space. Suffice it to say that you should read a little more, pay attention to your surroundings and listen a little less to the talking heads from either extreme. As the saying goes… I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.

            1. Actually, it wasn’t so unclear as patronizing, arrogant and downright rude.

              I’ve been in the healthcare industry since the 70’s and I didn’t find your statement either clear or particularly accurate.

              Name calling is never a convincing way to debate; it usually means that you’re completely out of intellectual ammunition.

              If you’re so smart, try debating First 2010 on the substance of the issues.

          2. Urm, ahem, . Mitt Romney has proclaimed he’d so just about everything under the sun on his first day on office, so many to-dos that he will need 35 hours in order to do all that. Plus half of them (at least) he can’t do, despite his willingness to issue XO after XO in order to bring National Socialism to the US, and to complete the transformation of our democracy into a plutocracy.

            Release the tax returns, Mitt, then I’ll be objective about your. What are you hiding?

          3. “Romney has been crystal clear about what will happen when he is elected:”

            The only thing RawMoney has been clear about:
            1- He’s wants to be President and will spend and do whatever it takes.
            2- He has no problem lying directly into a TV camera or radio mike.
            3- His positions are/will be whatever he thinks will serve him at any given moment.

        2. I’m probably much older than you. I’m a conservative, and believe that Romney is a conservative who will bring an understanding of constitutional government, economics and management expertise that is sorely lacking in the Obama administration.

          I don’t trust politicians who operate from a narrow perspective, whether left or right. Obama is such a person. He came to the presidency with no experience in management at all, surrounded himself with advisors who also lacked management experience, and is saddled with a world view that fails to comprehend how to make our system of government function for the benefit of all it’s citizens. Far from being a healer of divisions and an intellectual with a vision of a course to bring prosperity transparency and civility to the nation, he has acted as a typical Chicago politician (untruths come easily, as do vindictiveness and cronyism).

          Opt, you don’t seem to understand that the decision by Massachusetts to develop a state approach to health care approach is distinctly different than Obama’s imposition of a similar approach federally. The Massachusetts approach was popular with the citizens, a heavily Democratic legislature and prominent Democratic politicians. As the Republican governor in a Blue state, Romney’s options were limited to vetoing the legislation (but a veto would have been overridden) or working with the system to make it as practical as possible. Other states, of course, were not affected.

          By contrast, the federal law was rushed through non-transparently, was carelessly written and is opposed by a substantial number of citizens. Although the constitutionality of the mandate survived review by the Supreme Court, based on definition of the penalty as a tax, there still remains the potential of litigation on that point, once the tax has actually been imposed on someone. Romney’s position that he will seek revocation of the federal legislation is consistent.

          I’m appaled by the outright lies attacking Romney by Obama and his supporters. An objective review of his actions at Bain shows that the majority of failing companies with which he worked became more successful, resulting in saving the jobs of their employees and in many cases adding new jobs. His management in saving the Olympic games at Salt Lake City was almost miraculous, preventing a financial debacle and major scandals.

          Our country is at a crisis point. Our current economic problems could all too easily become much worse. I will vote for Romney!

          1. BillD, you can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. If you want to believe that Romney is a conservative despite his complete lack of engagement with or knowlege of the conservative movement, then do be it. Unfortunately, except when he has been seeking conservative votes he has never any inkling of conservative beliefs and any knowledge he has of conservatism has come from staff briefing memos.

            As for the Massachusetts health care law, Romney was not an innocent bystander left to accept or reject a democratic party backed law. The law was his baby. His plan, not one that magically appeared from the legislature. The law had an insurance mandate because he wanted one.

            Further, Romney did not say when he passed the law–that he proposed–that it was a solution in his state to the problems and issues of his state. He stated that it was a model for the county. He had the heritage foundation folks (who had come up with the mandate and the rest in the first place) there to celebrate as this was his big throw down card to national republican fame. (remember, this was the companionate conservative period, another phase mitt went through when it fit the times).

            GOP folks, I get that this is your presumptive nominee and you have to hold your noses and vote for him. Democrats have had some shit candidates too. But trying to rewrite history just in order to pretend that Romney is something more than a “perfectly lubricated weathervane” is pathetic.

            1. Opt, you obviously don’t understand my point that a law may be appropriate for a state, but not for the federal government. This is a republic.

              I consider Romney to be a true conservative in the historical sense, with the expertise and focus to tackle the fundamental problems that threaten our future. I don’t consider Santorum to be a true conservative, but a narrow ideologue lacking — as does Obama — the qualities needed in a president for this time.

              Unfortunately, political discourse has degenerated to bumper sticker slogans and attack ad snippets that distort issues, and are often outright lies. Example: Romney said in a speech that his focus was not on the poor, because they already have safety nets, nor on the rich, because they don’t need it, but on the middle class, where the American Dream is being lost. Obama ads immediately clamored that Romney doesn’t care about the poor! That’s both a non sequitur and a falsehood. Romney’s focus is the correct one, and also the best approach for ultimately lifting the poor and disadvantaged, as well.

              Political discourse has always been messy in our democracy. Complex issues have often been garbled into slogans and chants.

              I’ll never forget hearing Senator Dirksen explain the federal budgetary process to a group of about 60 in rural Illinois, more than 60 years ago. For an hour and a half he explained how the system works; I’ve never seen it presented so clearly in recent times. Ironically, with our vastly improved access to information today, political discourse is almost entirely by 30 second ads that villify and distort the character and experience of the opponent. Enormous amounts are spent on a process that actually has little real information content.

              Mitt Romney is a decent, honorable and capable man with an exemplary record in business and in public service. But that’s not the image being portrayed in attack ads.

              What do you believe? Why?

  3. If Romney and a Republican Congress only accomplish repeal and replace of the Obamacare fiasco and this, then he’ll be a great president:

    Mitt Romney proposes that Social Security should be adjusted in a couple of commonsense ways that will put it on the path of solvency and ensure that it is preserved for future generations.

    • First, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that the retirement age should be slowly increased to account for increases in longevity.
    • Second, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes.

        1. As stated by Jonathan Gruber, architect of the Romney plan:

          what about when Romney says his law is different from Obamacare? “The problem is there is no way to say that, because they’re the same f***ing bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying.”

  4. The presidential elections are a clown show and Mit is just one of the clowns, the other clown is busy telling all of us “yes we can’t”. The remainder of the clown show are those that believe anything either one of them say and think their vote means anything. This election is meaningless. Send a message on election day and vote for a third party looser.

  5. Just to be pedantic, can I point out that he’s actually the presumptive nominee until the Republican convention confirms him in late August (27th onwards).

    I have no doubt that will happen, but you don’t declare the winner when they haven’t made it over the last fence.

  6. Obama stats: first item done was to negotiate with terrorists. Next, largest tax increase in US history. All states with governors from 2010 that have democratic governors are either at the national rate for unemployment or are higher. All states with republican governors are at or lower than the national average for unemployment. He has no business experience and is plain and simply a socialist. His big plan will result in the middle class going away and joining the lower class (the barbell effect). His plan will result in rationing of healthcare to those who can benefit from it the most. When that happens there is a section to the plan which allows the government to decide what doctors will be paid. The flaws and stupid goes on and on. The dumbest thing said in us government history was, ” let’s pass it and then figure out what’s in it”! By the people and for the people DOES NOT EXIST ON OBAMAS SOCIALST SCHEME.

    1. The things you say are not correct. You are guilty of believing Fox News propaganda. Fox News does not report the truth, they report distortions and fabrications.

      1. Dude, “fox news” is not some magic incantation that refutes everything some says that you don’t like. If you dispute what Vega51 had to say, then cite some evidence that contradicts his claims.


    2. Obama is not a socialist and to say so is ignorance. And whats so wrong about being a Socialist anyway?

      The US government has been socialist for years. Lets make a list of US Socialist Institutions: NASA, FDA, NOAA, FAA, FEMA, US Army, US Navy, US Airforce, US Coastguard, public schools, highways, roads, etc…

    3. wow Vega51. That’s some pretty potent Kool Aid there. Did you know that Bush’s last budget provided the largest deficit ever. Obama’s bailout only added less than half a trillion dollars. The rest was Bush and the congress until ’09. H

      mmm… Again, maybe people should actually read a little and learn how our government works instead of heartlessly giving their minds over for brainwashing to the media pundits and personalities that haves stake in your idolatry. Both extremes partake in feel good politics. The only difference is in what feels good to you. Rationale and statistics are both easily slanted.

  7. Am I the only one whose first thought on this is which creepy asshole is taking pictures of Romney and family as they relax?

    Seriously, there are kids in that picture. Not cool.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.