Michelle Antoinette Obama took a lot of grief for her decision to vacation in Spain last week, a glitzy getaway that prompted one New York Daily News columnist to liken her to Marie Antoinette. But now we're learning more about the trip, which, despite the furor over its alleged excess, seems to have been launched with good intentions. More likely launched with the idea that she would head somewhere cool with the kids, and an idea popped into her head when she thought of her friend. And very likely she had half a dozen of her personal attendants take care of the pesky details.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, Michelle made the trip because she wanted to spend time with her best friend, Chicago physician Anita Blanchard, who lost her father this summer. Why head to Spain to do that? Just fly her in from Chicago. I'm sure you've got a spare bedroom or ten somewhere there that she can use.
Blanchard (who is married to President Obama's best friend, Marty Nesbitt) planned a Spanish vacation with her daughter and invited the first lady and her daughters to come along. "Hey, my dad died. Let's head to Spain to grieve!"
Michelle, who missed Blanchard's father's funeral in July, agreed and dragged along her 9-year-old daughter, Sasha. "OK, but I gotta bring my younger daugher. Our whole house and property and everything we hold dear could burn down and Barry wouldn't notice! He's such a bad babysitter."
The first couple's older daughter, Malia, is away at camp. Yeesh. That's some spendy daycare there, Michelle. Maybe Sasha could help out by offering Anita some advice on grieving, too. Or maybe she could play with some Legos on the floor while you chat.
According to Sweet, one other mutual friend came along with her own two daughters. And according to the White House, all parties paid for their own hotel rooms and personal expenses. And Marie Michelle paid for all the extra security and plane expenses out of her own Gucci handbag, too!
The Secret Service booked Her Higness' rooms at the luxury Hotel Villa Padierna, in part because agents could guard the perimeter of the property much better than they could at rival facilities. "So in part, we had no choice!"
Why did the White House wait nearly a week to get this information out? Because it took them that long to get over the denial that their only excuse was a total loser?
By simply refusing to comment with any detail on the first lady's trip, the White House gave serious ammunition to a story that probably wouldn't have been nearly as controversial if all the facts had been laid out in the beginning. Oh for sure. But only among dogs that are blue, dear columnist.
Sometimes it's the first lady herself who makes such media decisions. And sometimes not. And sometimes the media decisions are made by incompetent czars staffers that are appointed by, well, someone.
Laura Bush often refused to allow her press office to comment on stories about her or her daughters that she felt intruded on her personal life. But as Sweet notes, first ladies are public figures whether they like it or not. And just when I thought they had run out of life on the "It's Bush's fault" meme.
#2
lame spin by the sycophants for this elitist America-hating b*tch
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/12/2010 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A woman in Spain for a vacation without her man... there is a typical question for that situation and I have to ask it... did she pick up some handsome boytoys?
#7
The thought of a Spain holiday is one of those decadent, eating and drinking tours. Plates full of tapas(*) that are different in every bar and eatery, along with a great selection of wines and liquors. Oh yeah, and check out the Prado and the Alhambra.
#1
Boxer (D-umb as a box of rocks) will really wallow when the heavy ad rotation starts. She's an unpleasant arrogant elitist, and not very smart, so she can't debate Fiorina. Carly oughtta ask for 10 debates
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/12/2010 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm no Carly fan, so I wouldn't salivate for debates, but if she does win, Barry better check his Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care now because he'll be on life support.
#3
@2 that's 54% as of yesterday. you still have a few of them Obama lovers who just don't see the light. Or the ones who are scared they will be called racist.
Posted by: chris ||
08/12/2010 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
By most historical metrics it would seem impossible for Republicans who currently hold 41 seats in the U.S. Senate to win enough races in November--with only 37 seats are up for grabs-- to take control of the chamber, but a new poll shows GOP candidates in 13 battleground states holding a collective commanding edge over their Democratic counterparts.
The eight-point spread is a considerable advantage 84 days until the election.
The poll was conducted by Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies and commissioned by American Crossroads, a group affiliated with Fox News Contributor Karl Rove and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie. It is not a generic ballot poll which asks respondents about their party preference but rather mentioned specific candidates by name. The 47% - 39% margin comes from polls in 13 battleground states: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.
"The landscape that has tilted so dramatically toward Republicans in the House is continuing to move in a dramatic way on the Senate side as well," said American Crossroads communications director Jonathan Collegio in a statement announcing the results. "People often think that only House races can get swept up in an electoral wave, but this survey shows that Senate may very well get swept over in the same wave."
Perhaps the data that most suggests a huge wave of support for Republican candidates is the support for GOP nominees from Independent voters who say they favor Republicans 47%-25%.
According to its website, the mission of American Crossroads is to "make Main Street values-individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and strong national security-once again the top priorities and guiding ethic of American governance."
On the House side there is also some cautious optimism, with a new Gallup poll showing that Republicans are close to taking over the House, but not quite there yet.
Based on comparison to other president's, Obama's approval rating puts Democrats in a more vulnerable position than if the president's approval were more than 50 percent. President Obama's approval is at 45 percent by their latest measure.
The Gallup poll notes the average midterm loss for president's with an approval rating below 50 percent is 36 for the House. The GOP needs 39 for a takeover.
#2
The real action has been the slow moving primary purge among Republicans. More than a just a Republican sweep, it is going to be a huge "freshman" sweep, displacing a LOT of "moderates" and RINOs.
This is important in several ways. In the "second quarter" of the Clinton terms, the Contract With America sweep revitalized Washington, by sending in fresh and enthusiastic Republicans, who did much to turn the country around, despite opposition by Clinton.
But this could take this even further, because they would be both enthusiastic *and* conservative.
This is the best possible way to handle a crisis, because they will want to tackle it head on, not try to bluff their way through it. And that almost assures a better outcome.
#1
Jerry Pournelle had these semi-cynical comments: Education: about half the high school dropouts come from fewer than 10% of the schools. One of the results of Gates Foundation research is that one of the biggest improvements we could make in education would be to eliminate the worst 10% of teachers. Alas, union rules make that impossible: in California we have fired fewer than 40 teachers in the past decade. I do not believe that the California system level of competence is that good...Of course that will never be done. The unions are part of the Ruling Class, and they are not about to let go.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Michelle 
By most historical metrics it would seem impossible for Republicans who currently hold 41 seats in the U.S. Senate to win enough races in November--with only 37 seats are up for grabs-- to take control of the chamber, but a new poll shows GOP candidates in 13 battleground states holding a collective commanding edge over their Democratic counterparts.
