-PC-Taishar wrote:Holy crap AJ defending Michelle Obama? NO WAY!!!!
24. which is exactly what my link said. Which is exactly what Michelle Obama's office said. And which is still the same as Laura Bush, and plenty of other first women (which your hitjob story fails to mention). You are saying how wasteful it is, yet I don't think that you or I even know what they do.The key difference is, according to the Canadian report (and confirmed by Mrs. Obama's staff), Mrs. Obama has an additional 8 members on her staff. That's an increase of 50%.
Tai believes some absurd hitjob story? No way!
I forgot to attach my link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_ ... lady_staff-PC-Taishar wrote:Nevertheless, the story is about facts. Mrs. Obama does not need all the people on her staff (24 is more than Laura Bush BTW.
Maybe 24 people is way too many. I don't really know, but my guess is it isn't.Typical liberal justifying something by comparing it to republicans. Here's an idea start justifying actions on merit rather than republicans (republicans should do the same).
I had your post about Mojib Latif in the other thread in mind...I guess its not really a "hitjob" on a person, but more on a concept that you disagree with (in that case, global warming). I haven't responded to it yet, but I think it is a good example of how being "misinformed" is much worse than being "uninformed". I can only imagine you found that from someone, somewhere, specifically looking to misinform people about global warming.BTW, by your mirroring sarcasm, I suspect you think that I always believe hitjob stories. In order for you to believe that, it must mean that I've done it before in the past...numerous times.
I'm doing both. If you aren't merely dumping on the democrats, why bring this up now? Even if you aren't, clearly whoever wrote this editorial is doing it just to dump on them. Why else characterize it as a staff to "cater to her every whim", yet forget to mention what they do? Why else say it's "unprecedented", when clearly it isn't, and forget to mention how Laura Bush had the same number?I'm not a republican, and only support republicans when they support common sense. I'd say they do this only slightly more often the democrats. Since you obviously glossed over it, I'll say it again: argue with reason, not comparison.
So just what does a staff of 24 do for Michelle Obama? Well, for starters there are the 32,000 pieces of mail that have flooded the East Wing since Michelle Obama took occupancy in January, but the main official duty of the first lady is to tend to the care and maintenance of the White House and its seemingly endless social functions. Of course some first ladies, like Michelle Obama, maintain a higher profile than others, and with that comes the need for people to help write speeches, arrange travel and security details, handle media inquiries, etc. About the myriad tasks and responsibilities handled by White House staffers, Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff, recently said, "There's never enough people to do the amount of work that has to get done.
You really think the press is afraid to run a story like this? The much more likely answer is...it's not a story.Thanks Canada!! At least your press isn't afraid of her.
Like Jacklyn Kennedy had? Don't forget that the role of the first lady has increased quite a bit since the 60's too.-PC-Taishar wrote:Will the first lady in 2020 have 40 staffers?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest