First Lady or East Wing Cleopatra?

Coach is Right ^ | 11/17/2011 | Ron Reale

[Oldpuppymax]

When did the Presidents wife, known for nothing other than servicing the President (except Mrs. Clinton) become anything other than a White House tour guide, a la Jackie Kennedy?

When is the Congress going to cut off all project funds these unelected concubines seek to steal from the American taxpayer? If the position of First Lady is anything requiring the spending of one dime, they should have to run for it separately and it should not just automatically be the Presidents wife.

If these women are going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars, shouldn’t they be vetted? Or is sleeping with an elected official all it takes?

Hillary Clinton, Americas most famous political prostitute, had absolutely no experience in anything but having sex with Bill Clinton (at least once as evidenced by the existence of Chelsea although, without a DNA test, I doubt it) and destroying either all the women who actually seemed to enjoy having sex with Bill Clinton, or those he assaulted or raped like Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick.

Is that the only experience needed to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without oversight?

When will Elliot Spitzer’s (better known as Client Number 9) girlfriend run for office? With her resume she is a shoe-in!

What has Michelle Obama done in her life besides being forced to give up her law license and sleeping with Obama (when Larry Sinclair wasn’t available)? Did anyone vote for this woman who is now trying to tell all Americans how to raise their children?

Why should anyone listen to her and why has no one had the stones to stand up and tell her to STFU about anyone else’s family but her own!

[napscoordinator]

I hate these types of stories. Keep in mind. Democrats will not ALWAYS be in the White House. We are so short sighted in our complaints. If we do away with the office of First Lady for Michelle, we will get rid of the Office of First Lady for Gloria Cain, Anita Perry, Mrs. Gingrich, Mr. Bachmann, or whoever is our President in January 2013. Someday Mr. Palin will need the office. Keep the office, Michelle Obama won’t be using it after January 2013. Just to ensure that I am right about our complaints, not one time in EIGHT years did any FREEPER or Republican for that matter complain about Laura having this office.

[mewzilla]

If a Pubbie's spouse was pulling this kinda cr@p.....

Expensive massages, top shelf vodka, and five star hotels: First Lady accused of spending 10m

.....I'd be just as incensed.

[SMARTY]

SOME First Ladies actually earned their keep. As a semi-official diplomatic asset or a functioning representative of the Administration and the American people, First Ladies are emblematic DC society and serve a necessary and unique purpose. However, somewhere along the line, the 'First Ladies' have become, politically and financially, an additional burden to American taxpayers.

This is wrong. The First Lady is NOT elected and has accountability to no one. Some First Ladies are more objectionable than others and take their status AS First Lady as complete license to do and say what they want, nevermind the cost or consequences. Evita is the best example of how they may and often DO overstep. It is the height of arrogance and bad form for any First Lady to forget that her actions and behavior reflect upon and are paid for by taxpaying Americans.

[Terry Mross]

Obviously the republicans are as dirty as the dems. It’s the only reason I can come up with to explain why they’re not doing anything about the corruption.

[Chuzzlewit]

while I don’t entirely disagree with the article, it contains an awful lot of ugliness...

we can win on the issues and not get involved in this kind of invective.

[rollo tomasi]

"If we do away with the office of First Lady for Michelle, we will get rid of the Office of First Lady for Gloria Cain, Anita Perry, Mrs. Gingrich, Mr. Bachmann, or whoever is our President in January 2013."

That would be fine by me. Any Presidential extravagance/perks have always been a pet peeve of mine, even when discussing George Washington's perks. The Chief Executive and the White House are not royalty. The same goes for Congresscritters when they exempt themselves from certain laws they lay upon the citizenry.

Our politicians are to serve, not to be served, including their wives.

"But without those perks, no one would want the job." That would be the whole point about desiring to do public service, to give of themselves, not see $$$ at the end of the rainbow. We have a Constitution that tackles Separation of Powers, Division of Powers, specific duties by each Branch, specific limits of power by each Branch, along with a detailed line of succession. We have a spending problem, fraud waste and abuse at each Department and Branch of government. It is high time we curb perks and exemptions while emphasizing servants when talking about public servants.

[Maceman]

If we do away with the office of First Lady for Michelle, we will get rid of the Office of First Lady for Gloria Cain, Anita Perry, Mrs. Gingrich, Mr. Bachmann, or whoever is our President in January 2013.

Good.

The nation will survive without an activist first lady.

[lacrew]

I don’t agree with the tone of the article; but, I would not object to elimination of most FLOTUS staff, no matter what party affiliation.

The advertised cost for her office is $1.3 million...but Michelle has staff outside of her office, running $360k. We’re approaching $2 million here, just to ‘service’ the FLOTUS?

How about one personal secretary. You don’t need a ‘staff’, unless you are a ‘decision maker’.

[Texan5]

To paraphrase rollo’s very apt remark, the occupants of the White House are not royalty-and they should not be given a credit card with no limit on personal spending. I think first ladies should manage their own households in a way that reflects the mood of the times-and times are hard right now. Michelle Obama has made the phrase “let them eat cake” relevant again.

And at the risk of being pedantic, Elliot Spitzer’s girlfriend would be a “shoo-in”, not a “shoe-in!”