Does Michelle Obama need this much staff?

#1
SavageOrangeJug

SavageOrangeJug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,569
Likes
6
#1
Does any First Lady need these large staffs?

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)

4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)

5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)

10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)

13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)

14. Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)

16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Click to expand...

FactCheck.org
 
#2
#2
You left out the FactCheck answer that Laura Bush had 18.

I think it's too many but the original email that LB only had one is way wrong.
 
#6
#6
Do I have this right?

Its Savage Orange Jug, who is basically a conduit to the VN for Drudge or Fox or all things anti-Obama, and the thread title is "Does Michelle Obama need this much staff?"

He posts that Laura Bush only had one staffer but that Michelle has 22.

When it is noted that in fact Laura had 18, SOJ changes the text of his post to be, does "any first lady" need this much staff, and tries to pass off this ENORMOUS and grievous error by saying oh, I wasn't attacking Michelle so much as I was saying no first lady needs this much staff.

I have no clue how much staff she needs or how much is appropriate. I don't know what they do, I don't know if all their tiame is devoted to her or just some. I don't know if they are overpaid.

What I do know is that SOJ came in here, as usual, with incomplete and errant facts and with misleading conclusions.

You should admit your real error here (which is allowing your mindless allegiance to anything anti-Obama to once again get the best of you), apologize for the thread, and ask the mods to remove it. If you had any sense of integrity you would do that. But you don't. And so you won't.
 
#8
#8
She has no government responsibilities, she needs no staff. More typical "change" that we were promised.
 
#10
#10
droski said:
you don't think this looks bad when our economy is in the crapper?
Click to expand...

No more so than it did when Laura Bush had 18. Where was SOJ's or the uber-right's outrage then?

This story appeared on FOX News' website. Curious in that they did not carry a similar story when Laura Bush had just a few less than Michelle.

I'll ask you -- as our econokmy tanked in 2001 and again for the last year or so of the Bush presidency, where was the outrage at the size of her staff?


superdave1984 said:
She has no government responsibilities, she needs no staff. More typical "change" that we were promised.
Click to expand...

I do not recall any promises to reduce the number of staffers for the first lady.




Again, I do not pretend to know whether they need these people or whether they are earning their salaries. I am just taking issue with the snideness of the observation and the flat out total pretense that this is something peculiar to Obama, which is what the promoters of the story hope you take from it.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
Do I have this right?

Its Savage Orange Jug, who is basically a conduit to the VN for Drudge or Fox or all things anti-Obama, and the thread title is "Does Michelle Obama need this much staff?"

He posts that Laura Bush only had one staffer but that Michelle has 22.

When it is noted that in fact Laura had 18, SOJ changes the text of his post to be, does "any first lady" need this much staff, and tries to pass off this ENORMOUS and grievous error by saying oh, I wasn't attacking Michelle so much as I was saying no first lady needs this much staff.

I have no clue how much staff she needs or how much is appropriate. I don't know what they do, I don't know if all their tiame is devoted to her or just some. I don't know if they are overpaid.

What I do know is that SOJ came in here, as usual, with incomplete and errant facts and with misleading conclusions.

You should admit your real error here (which is allowing your mindless allegiance to anything anti-Obama to once again get the best of you), apologize for the thread, and ask the mods to remove it. If you had any sense of integrity you would do that. But you don't. And so you won't.
Click to expand...
No, you have it wrong, as usual.

1. Click the link. I copy and pasted the first few paragraphs of the story. I added nothing, I took nothing away.

2. The link isn't to a Fox story.

3. I rarely, almost never read Drudge.

4. I CHANGED NOTHING IN THE ORIGINAL POST. THERE WERE NO EDITS. DO YOU SEE ANY CONNOTATION OF AN EDIT? YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY, FOR YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS!

5. Perhaps you should contact the webmaster of the linked site. Demand an apology. Demand the article be removed immediately.

6. You should then make a thread apologizing profusely to those of us with common sense, for your helping to vote that unqualified, racist idiot into the White House.
 
#16
#16
SavageOrangeJug said:
No, you have it wrong, as usual.

1. Click the link. I copy and pasted the first few paragraphs of the story. I added nothing, I took nothing away.

2. The link isn't to a Fox story.

3. I rarely, almost never read Drudge.

4. I CHANGED NOTHING IN THE ORIGINAL POST. THERE WERE NO EDITS. DO YOU SEE ANY CONNOTATION OF AN EDIT? YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY, FOR YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS!

5. Perhaps you should contact the webmaster of the linked site. Demand an apology. Demand the article be removed immediately.

6. You should then make a thread apologizing profusely to those of us with common sense, for your helping to vote that unqualified, racist idiot into the White House.
Click to expand...


I was under the impression from the exchange between you and bham that you had changed the substance of your post (not the article, but your commentary) to be generic as to all first ladies.

Accepting as true your representation that you meant it as an indictment of large staffs for all first ladies, regardless of skin color or party, I am curious about two things.

First, why did you posit the thread title as wondering whether Michelle Obama needed that size of a staff? Why not just ask, "Do first ladies need such large staffs?"

Second, if this offended you so much, why didn't you post this during the Bush presidency? Is it because she had 18 and Michelle has 22? Is the dividing line, like, 20?

I look forward to your drivel....errrrr, I mean answers.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
I was under the impression from the exchange between you and bham that you had changed the substance of your post (not the article, but your commentary) to be generic as to all first ladies.

Accepting as true your representation that you meant it as an indictment of large staffs for all first ladies, regardless of skin color or party, I am curious about two things.

First, why did you posit the thread title as wondering whether Michelle Obama needed that size of a staff? Why not just ask, "Do first ladies need such large staffs?"

Second, if this offended you so much, why didn't you post this during the Bush presidency? Is it because she had 18 and Michelle has 22? Is the dividing line, like, 20?

I look forward to your drivel....errrrr, I mean answers.
Click to expand...
Did you click the link? The article happened to be about Michelle Obama's staff.

From this day forward, should we mak 'Bush' the title of all posts about that unqualified idiot....errrrr, I mean Mr. Obama?
 
#18
#18
SavageOrangeJug said:
Did you click the link? The article happened to be about Michelle Obama's staff.

From this day forward, should we mak 'Bush' the title of all posts about that unqualified idiot....errrrr, I mean Mr. Obama?
Click to expand...


You answered neither question. Naturally.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
You answered neither question. Naturally.
Click to expand...
I answered the first question once. I'll spell it out this time.

1. T-h-e a-r-t-i-c-l-e w-a-s a-b-o-u-t M-i-c-h-e-l-l-e O-b-a-m-a.

OK, I'll answer the second question.

2. The article was written August 5, 2009. Bush was no longer the POTUS. Although my powers are great, I've yet to master predicting the future. Therefore, I was unable to comment on the article during Bush's term.

You have retracted none of your erroneous statements. Naturally.
 
#21
#21
4 more is 20% higher than bush when we have the biggest deficit in american history. this from a president who claims he is in tune with joe public, yet acts more like he thinks he is john f kennedy and american royalty.
 
#22
#22
SavageOrangeJug said:
I answered the first question once. I'll spell it out this time.

1. T-h-e a-r-t-i-c-l-e w-a-s a-b-o-u-t M-i-c-h-e-l-l-e O-b-a-m-a.

OK, I'll answer the second question.

2. The article was written August 5, 2009. Bush was no longer the POTUS. Although my powers are great, I've yet to master predicting the future. Therefore, I was unable to comment on the article during Bush's term.

You have retracted none of your erroneous statements. Naturally.
Click to expand...


So until there is an article or report published by one of the sources you happen to rely upon, the morality or wisdom of the issue is grandfathered in? Interesting philosophical scheme.



droski said:
4 more is 20% higher than bush when we have the biggest deficit in american history. this from a president who claims he is in tune with joe public, yet acts more like he thinks he is john f kennedy and american royalty.
Click to expand...


Now I am even more confused.

Are you saying that Laura's 18 were okay but that Michelle's were not based on the numbers? (If so, I am still curious as to whast the "ok" number is. 19? 20?)

Or, are you saying that its okay for the Bush administration to spend money recklessly because he didn't promise not to whereas its not okay for Obama to do it because he claimed to be in tune with Joe Public?

I have to confess, this logic escapes me. Particularly if the Bush administration is supposed to be conservative. Plus, it still confuses me as to why you would not be critical of 18, but would be of 22.
 
#23
#23
droski said:
4 more is 20% higher than bush when we have the biggest deficit in american history. this from a president who claims he is in tune with joe public, yet acts more like he thinks he is john f kennedy and american royalty.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
So until there is an article or report published by one of the sources you happen to rely upon, the morality or wisdom of the issue is grandfathered in? Interesting philosophical scheme.
Click to expand...
I can't comment on an article until it is published. I was unaware of the size of ANY First Lady's staff, until I read this article.

You seem to be claiming there was an article written about Laura Bush's staff. Link?
 
#25
#25
I am more concerned with all the number of czars being named by our presidents now. I am sure they are getting paid a lot higher salaries than the first lady's staff.

We don't need a czar to oversee this and a czar to oversee that. Here's a concept: if you don't like the job the particular government agency is doing, fix that particular agency instead of creating another executive position and appointing czars to make it look like you are doing something about a problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top