Julia Ioffe, a columnist at “Foreign Policy” and a contributing writer for “Politico Magazine” was moved to issue the above tweet by accounts that First Daughter Ivanka Trump would serve as First Lady while Melania Trump remained in New York to care for the Trump’s young son . Oh, nice! Keep it classy, news media!
Ioffe now joins John Oliver, Charles Blow, Harry Reid, The View, Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig and others on a growing list of nominees for the 2016 Ethics Alarms Award as the most unsavory passenger on the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck. The problem is that she isn’t a British comedian, a race-baiting Times columnist, a full-time asshole, a talk show hosted by celebrity ignoramuses, or an especially deluded academic. Ioffe is supposed to be a journalist whose analysis can be trusted, and the vicious character and unrestrained hate that her tweet reveals should disqualify her for that profession. Before Donald Trump—you know, the new President whom the New York Times decreed is exempt from ethical treatment?—such a public statement would have disqualified any journalist and ended her career immediately. This would have happened because journalism organizations once valued not just professional conduct and objectivity but the appearance of it.
The tweet wasn’t just disgusting, it was incompetent, misleading and stupid:
- The news report has been denied by the Trump transition team, so the alleged journalist was spreading “fake news.”
- Even if it was had been accurate report, there is precedent, lots of it, for a non-spouse serving as First Lady.
There have been almost two dozen permanent or temporary First Ladies who had other family relationships with Presidents, including daughters, daughters-in-law, nieces, sisters, cousins, and aunts. Three daughters assumed the First Lady role when their mothers died: Letty Tyler Semple for President Tyler, Mary Harrison McKee for President Benjamin Harrison, and Margaret Wilson for Woodrow. Oddly, none of them were accused of having sex with their fathers. Margaret Wilson shared First Lady duties with President Wilson’s cousin Helen Bones, who had worked for the first Mrs. Wilson as personal secretary. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren and Chester Arthur were widowers, so their First Ladies couldn’t be spouses. Jefferson’s daughter Martha Randolph, Jackson’s niece and daughter-in-law Emily Donelson and Sarah Jackson were all First Ladies. James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland were bachelors when they assumed the presidency, so Cleveland’s sister Rose Elizabeth served as his First Lady until he married Florence Folsom fifteen months into his administration, and Harriet Lane, Buchanan’s niece, acted as his hostess and was the first Presidential spouse referred to as the “First Lady.” Many other non-spouses served in the capacity for limited amounts of time for reasons comparable to Melania’s conflicts.
In short, Ioffe is ignorant of American history and didn’t know what she was tweeting about, but did so anyway, misleading the public.
- And even if Ivanka were the first non-spouse to assume the duties, the role of First Lady isn’t subject to “nepotism laws”! It is not an appointed government position, and the First Lady is ALWAYS a relative! How stupid can a tweet get?
Apparently not stupid enough to disqualify someone to write for The Atlantic, where Ioffe is scheduled to begin her new job. Ioffe was running out the string at her old gig with Politico, but Politico, at least, immediately saw the downside of continuing to employ a political reporter so teeming with brain-crippling disrespect and hate for the new President, and fired her, first stating…
“This tweet is completely unacceptable and is an obvious violation of POLITICO standards. Julia Ioffe is no longer with the publication.”
…and then elaborating (sorry for the size and blurry type):
The Atlantic, in contrast, made it clear that it has no standards, at least regarding reporter bias, education, fact-checking, professionalism or civility, announcing,
Why would they be confident of that? Moreover, Ioffe didn’t make “a mistake,” as her immediate reactions to Politico’s boot proved. First she tweeted, “We have a president-elect who popularized ‘saying what everyone is thinking,’ but I guess my phrasing should’ve been more delicate.” Then she added this:
This is called “doubling down, ” or “I wasn’t kidding; I really meant it: I loathe this man.” However, the Atlantic, her agent, or someone managed to persuade the reporter that even in this bottom-feeding journalism environment she was on thin ice, because all of a sudden Julia was contrite, deleting the tweet and issuing a standard CYA apology:
“All that said, I do regret my phrasing and apologize for it. It was a crass joke that I genuinely regret…It was a tasteless, offensive tweet that I regret and have deleted. I am truly and deeply sorry. It won’t happen again.”
This is a Level Ten apology, the worst of the worst, on the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale, “an insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.”There is no reason to trust her, and the initial tweet and the immediate refusal to back down is signature significance for a biased, close-minded, irresponsible journalist. The fact that The Atlantic still sees Ioffe as an asset is also signature significance. No respectable publication would employ a reporter after such outbursts. Quick: would a reporter who publicly suggested that LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan or George W. Bush were “fucking” their adult daughters have been tolerated in any newsroom or news network? Would an accusation coming within ten miles of such vile language about the current President be shrugged off as a “mistake”?
This disgusting episode exposes the entire profession of journalism.
UPDATE! Well, this ethics-free and rotting profession proved me right in record time. The following journalists have applauded Ioffe’s inexcusable conduct, and in some cases attacked Politico. So far, we have..
MSNBC’s hyper-partisan Chris Hayes, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, Ben Berkon of Digitas, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason, Chris Geidner and Miriam Elder of BuzzFeed, Leon Krauze from Univision, journalist Porochista Khakpour, Heat Street’s Louise Mensch, Bruce Arthur, Toronto Star, Esquire’s Corey Atad, Paul Lewis at The Guardian, Amy Davidson of the New Yorker, freelance journalist Lauren Duca, Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone, Kirsten Powers, of USA Today/CNN, Anna Merlan on Jezebel, and Dave Weigel, of The Washington Post, among others.
The approval they express shows every one of them to be biased and incompetent, as well as untrustworthy, and I’m sure this group is but a tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.
Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias.
__________________________________
Pointer: Zoltar Speaks!
Sources: Twitchy, Daily Caller, Mediaite
Ethics Alarms 
This kind of disgusting thing has to stop. Either criticize on substance, or shut up.
Um, I meant that about her, not Ethics Alarms. Sorry for the vague.
I was not confused.
Well, the precedents you cited are off though — most involved death of the First Lady or incoming President and are far removed historically.
Also, while this may be “fake news,” Melania has stated that she is not moving to DC, so perhaps we should call this fake-ish news?
I personally would have a problem if Melania stayed in NYC. It will cost the taxpayers a fortune and her role is First Lady. If she didn’t want to do it, then Trump should not have run.
Her “role”?
The hell is that “role” anyway?
SO far I’ve failed to find any legal function or and civil service function. I’ve found a ton of informal social functions related to the casually developed “position” of First Lady…
No functions requiring someone to be wife of the president.
I mean if we really want to say the wife of a family is relegated by the patriarchy by mere consequence of marriage and gender then sure. Or we can take a breath and decide that hey, maybe someone else can be the social face of the White House.
Otherwise I suppose we really ought to make the First Lady a constitutional and therefore legally impactful position that voters ought to take into consideration before electing the President. But I’m pretty sure one of the key defenses trotted out by the very shills making this complaint was that Bill Clinton was off limits for wondering about his impact on the White House if he was the First Gentl…. I can’t refer to him as that….whatever he’d be called.
It doesn’t get covered a lot by the news, but the First Lady does A LOT. She has an office, staff, and does crap every single day. It is most definitely a job.
If Melania didn’t want it (and hey, I’m cool with that), then she should have made her intention clear during the election cycle. But she did exactly the opposite — she campaigned for her husband, delivered a speech at the convention, rolled out her anti-cyber bullying message, etc. All signs very clearly pointed to the fact that she was going to step into that role.
I don’t follow…by your logic, anyone doing a LOT of crap every single day is engaged in a job. If someone wants to restore an old ’57 Chevy as a hobby? Well, that’s a lot of work, and if they choose to do it every day, it apparently is a job. Want to back pack across the Himalayas? Also a job, apparently. The lady at the private school I teach at, who essentially runs the hot lunch program, and oversees the parent volunteer program, whom I just found out yesterday is not bing paid, but rather, is generously donating her time to the school where her son attends…is apparently not volunteering, but working a job. In college, I worked the overnight shift at the front desk of an apartment building. There was literally nothing to do, for 8 hours, from 11 pm to 7 am. Does my lack of having crap to do, make that not a job?
You are assigning your casual definition of “job” onto someone else. Unfair. And Melania had no responsibility to announce anything about her plans as First Lady…she campaigned for Trump, just like the lady down the street from you did. The fact that she will receive, as Jack pointed out, something that is not an appointed government position, and you neighbor won’t, still does not obligate her to do anything that she might deem harmful to his campaigning, as announcing that she had no interest in being First Lady certainly would have.
Just because you see the signs pointing in a certain direction, still does not obligate her to do zilch.
The lady down the street wasn’t interviewed a thousand times and didn’t roll out her first lady initiative.
But you know what? I really don’t care. I really don’t. This is going to be a crappy Presidency anyway. I’m not going to waste my oxygen on whether or not a former nude model should be going on ribbon cuttings or starting a literacy program.
You are tired of the conversation, I get it. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t note:
1) What initiative? The only things I’ve found are things she’s said since the election, which, ok, she wants to have some role as First Lady, but one scaled back from prior FLOTUSes. I’ve seen nothing from prior to the election; Im not saying that a Melania pre-election list of initiatives don’t exist, just that I can’t find ’em
2) Beng interviewed obligates no one to do anything.
3) If this is not worth wasting oxygen on, and if the First Lady to you is nothing more that a ribbon cutter and small-time education program starter, then why does it matter if she wants to do it or not? If, pre-election, she promised to be the best ribbon-cutting first lady ever, and decides not to do it, post election, why is this an issue?
4) What does her being a nude model have to do with anything? I hate most SJW labels, (especially ones that imply that all bad feelings, like shame, that result from possibly self-destructive behavior must be avoided at all costs…but I digress…), but isn’t that textbook slut-shaming?
“If she didn’t want to do it, then Trump should not have run.”
THAT’s an interesting take. Are you sure you want to hang your hat there?
Seriously though Melania needs to know her place.
A good housewife would know that she needs to be at the house smiling with a beer and sandwich waiting for Donald’s return home.
I know Spart is smarter than this, it’s probably some kind of cognitive dissonance thing, I’m giving her the rope to skip or swing before I get too excited.
The assertion that Trump shouldn’t run because a spouse may not be best suited for the role implies some sort of constituted and legal authority in the “position” of First Lady.
No such authority or legality exists.
The functions of social face of the White House could be anybody regardless of what tradition and cultural norms suggest.
So yes I agree.
Tradition and cultural norms are strong things, and feminists aren’t immune to letting them undermine their judgment. When I first heard Melania wasn’t moving to the White House I had a similar reaction. I’ve thought about it, though, and now I don’t think it undermines Trump’s presidency. A million other things do that, but not this.
WTF? Chris, thanks for the mansplaining. No, my judgment isn’t undermined. Even if Clinton had been elected, these sames roles would have been fulfilled by Bill.
mansplaining… I call foul. This concept is corrupt at it’s core. Rudeness and cluelessness exist in both directions, and to have a word as if all men acted this way is sexist.
Melinia is under NO obligation to do a damn thing, except be protected as the spouse of the president. She was not ethically obligated to serve just because she campaigned, either.
A non-ironic use of “mansplaining.” This is so sad.
Ah, it was ironic, because Chris is a liberal. He and I are cut out of the same cloth.
For what it’s worth, I find “mansplaining” to be not only a pretty useful term, but one I’d apply to myself quite often. I catch myself doing it to my girlfriend way too much. And I think it applies here. Sorry, Spartan; I still disagree with you on this, but I could have demonstrated that without the condescension or the implication that I was A Man Doing Feminism Better Than You.
It’s another hypocritical illiberal “shut up” device, like “white privilege,” and a double standard too. In fact, those less close to an issue are often the ones who can see through the bias and self-interest. It’s called objectivity. “You would feel different if it were YOUR child,” and many more. Amazing that an ideology that supposedly embraces individual equality would so easily stoop to this hypocrisy, but it’s epidemic.
“Rudeness and cluelessness exist in both directions, and to have a word as if all men acted this way is sexist.”
Im just curious…any rebuttal to this portion of Slick Willy’s objection? Why do you find it useful? As a conservative, I’m obviously preprogramed to find the term offensive (snark), but seriously, being as objective as I can possibly be, hearing it makes me want to throw up, b/c as Jack said, it’s a term thats FREQUENTLY used as a shut up device, without actual substance to make the speaker shut up, and as SW said, its flat out sexist.
I don’t feel terms such as “mansplaining” or “white privilege” exist only to shut people up. In this case the use of the term “mansplaining” didn’t make me shut up, and I don’t think Spartan intended it too. It did make me question my tactics, as in the tone I took when responding to her. It didn’t change my overall position, or make me say “Oh my god, of course you are right in your womanly wisdom, and I, a lowly man, could not have possibly grasped the truth through my blinders of privilege!” Which is how I think many conservatives expect male feminists to react to such things.
A term can only really shut down conversation if one is unwilling to engage with it. I assume we all have some words like that–“political correctness” is a term I often find used to shut down conversation. “Democrat plantation” is another one I refuse to engage with.
In fact, those less close to an issue are often the ones who can see through the bias and self-interest. It’s called objectivity.
I think the notion that men are less “close” to gender issues than women–like the notion that whites are less “close” to race issues than minorities–is wrong, and yes, an aspect of privilege. It ignores the often invisible ways that men benefit from sexism against women. We’re just as close to the issue, just in a different way. I don’t see any reason to think the average man would be any more “objective” about gender issues than the average woman.
I just throttled a commenter for using the “you don’t understand because you’re too old” slur. It is EXACTLY the same. That you are not bothered by it is no different from brushing off any other biased slur. It encourages more.
The statement that Ivanka would be First Lady is, apparently, false. And the precedents have nothing to do with why someone other than a wife would First Lady, the precedents show that there is nothing extraordinary about it. The point is that the job isn’t First Fuckee,” as this moron asserted. Why would you defend her?
I didn’t defend her.
To quote John McEnroe, “You Can NOT be SERIOUS!” Talk about anti-feminism! I’ve been amazed that we already haven’t had a potential First Lady who said, “Sorry, got my own career. I’ll visit when I can. Find another “hostess.” Michelle could have done it. And you’re saying that a wife who doesn’t want the job disqualifies the PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE? What? WHAT????
Okay, who are you really?
I’ve been amazed that we already haven’t had a potential First Lady who said, “Sorry, got my own career. I’ll visit when I can. Find another “hostess.” Michelle could have done it.
While I agree with this, I can only imagine the hatred and charges of “disrespect” Michelle Obama would have faced from the right had she done this. Of course, this doesn’t justify Ioffe’s incompetent and sexist tweet, or the hatred Melania is getting for this from the left. This is sheer hypocrisy from the left.
I’d like to think that had Michelle done that I’d have been OK with it, but it’s just as likely I’d be the reverse Spartan and would have to get coaxed into it.
The other item of note is I actually don’t know JT’s wife’s name. I’mma Google it. Sophie. Huh. Three kids? Wow. No idea. I knew Lauren Harper’s name because she tried for a season or three to insert herself into politics a la a first lady, but Canadians weren’t too excited about that. I think it’s wrong minded to give a whole lot of attention to unelected family members of candidates… It reeks of nepotism and gives you potential problems like Hillary. Seriously, anyone wanna make a bet than in less than 20 years Chelsea will make a run for the New York senate? Wanna bet that she’s even less qualified than Hillary was?
I’m about done here. As I said above, I don’t care if a woman (or man) wants the role of First Spouse or not, but they definitely shouldn’t pretend they want it during the election cycle and then back down. That falls somewhere on the scale between disingenuous and fraudulent behavior.
“they definitely shouldn’t pretend they want it during the election cycle and then back down. ”
How did she “pretend” that she wanted it? By campaigning? By…being his wife?
“That falls somewhere on the scale between disingenuous and fraudulent behavior.”
No, it really isn’t. Show me the article discussing how she campaigned to be the first lady. Just because YOU assumed she wanted it, or tradition suggests she should fill that role, does not mean she has any obligation at all to fill it.
I can’t even imagine what the reaction would have been if Michelle Obama decided to stay in Chicago and practice law.
It would have been quite surprising. Michelle Obama hasn’t practiced law since the early 1990s. In the years before the run for the White House, she was the community relations executive for the U. of Chicago Hospitals.
Let me try another try since you are avoiding the obvious question. What do you think the reaction would be if Michelle Obama decided to stay in Chicago for whatever damn reason she wanted?
Oh, she would’ve caught hell, from the right, and wrongly so. There are great big ignorants on each side of the isle, and she would have had zero obligation to appease them.
It would’ve been hard, and will be hard for the 1st first lady who does it, but at some point, someone’s gonna break the tradition, and say, I have a life to, and it doesn’t include a 100% devotion to public services, like my spouse’s does. And, like the followers of all other trailblazers, it’ll be easier for that person’s followers to engage in something that should be normal freakin’ behavior.
My reaction would be–good for her. And at least she wouldn’t be debasing the dignity of the office by dancing with Jimmy Fallon.
I don’t get it. If First Ladies aren’t a real job, and if the spouse is under no obligation to do anything, how does dancing with Jimmy Fallon “debase the dignity of the office?”
I find this a weird form of stuffiness; I don’t think it debases the office for a president to do this either.
You’re welcome to your opinion. The President of the United States, as well as his wife, are not performers, comics or trained seals. You wonder how people had no trouble seeing a reality TV star as a plausible President? The Obamas helped, by blurring those lines.
I think there’s still a pretty bright line between a qualified statesman getting elected president and choosing to have some harmless fun on TV every once in a while, and someone with no qualifications who ran his entire campaign and surely will run his entire presidency like a reality show. And I don’t think the Obamas can be held responsible for people who can’t see that line.
It’s not a clear line at all, and Obama’s one reason. He appears on comedy shows and does satire shtick. She’s talented, but again, performing and representing the nation. This barrier has been shattered, and I called the alarm from the first cracks in it, which include real officials playing themselves in movies and TV shows. It isn’t that others don’t see the line, Chris, it’s that you don’t see the importance f the line, and that it has been obliterated. (You are in the vast, vast majority.)
At this rate the whole journalism industry is headed for becoming a cross between Dan Savage (extremely foul language as a matter of course) and Julius Streicher (vicious attacks without a second thought).
Wait wait wait wait wait.
Is the First Lady a *constituted* “position”???
Or a mere title for the wife of a president, who vicariously happens to be the social face of the Presidential family?
There’s an issue with someone else being the social face of the family when it has literally no governing role whatsoever as it pertains to the functioning of the constituted government?
Is that what we’re moaning about?
What a slug! This creature has the moral fiber of dryer lint and social grace of a festering boil. Yuck!
Holy shit, Julia Ioffe is showing everyone that she has a Sasquatch Brain! How many political hack lefties will choose to “meme” her vomit comment?
I just did a quick internet search about this topic and found this. I’ve never heard of this twitchy.com site, but here it is.
21 journalists who have spoken out in defense of Julia Ioffe after her awful incest tweet
Just posted that on an update. Thanks. Wow.
Spartan maintains that Trump’s wife living in another city will cost the taxpayers more… care to explain? I call BS on an unsubstantiated comment.
Here is one citation: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/
They have the costs pegged at about $1million extra. If Melanie Trump and son were at the White House, a lot of those costs could be consolidated, not to mention the inconvenience of everyone of lives in Trump Tower, their guests, and people who live, work, or commute through 5th Ave.
That would be $1 million a day, or about $365 million extra in security costs for the year.
Tough. Trump was elected, not his wife and son, and they are not ethically nor legally obligated to be have their autonomy restricted through no choice of their own. Anyone who defended Obama’s and Michelle’s needlessly elaborate vacations and now use this as a cheap shot against Trump should wear buckets over their head.
But their security would follow them wherever they went. It’s a fixed cost, to a large extent. Also, this is not a week or two vacation (that the obamas have to pay for out of their own pocket), but a situation seemingly lasting years, or however long Trump stays in office.
Do you think before you post these things? Do you recognize hypocrisy? There is literally not one thing that Trump could think of to do that would not have been tried by some president or his administration long before Trump came along. If you ever allowed or argued for political distortions in the fabric of law, tradition or common decency you don’t have a leg to stand on. In the end integrity counts and it counts heavily.
As far as I know, no President and wife have planned to live apart for so long, especially with the First Lady dwelling in such a high population area, and has the taxpayers actually end up paying them for the extraordinarily high costs of doing so. It seems to be unprecedented, at least from my own (admittedly cursory) search.
Just as I suspected. Nitpicking and a massive failure to feel shame. That’s a sort of inverted integrity I guess.
I’m confused… Melania and Donald wouldn’t often be in the same building, let alone the same room. They would by necessity have separate security details… So if the security needed to be hired anyway, how is that an extra cost? I haven’t read into this yet, but I’d bet dollars against doughnuts that the extra costs associated are with things like retrofitting Melania’s living space… Which I’m certain would have happened on Obama’s vacations, for instance, or at Camp David.
And wait… Weren’t YOU the one arguing that because the costs of Air Force One are fixed, they shouldn’t be included in costs for Obama to do things? Or was that Charles? Regardless.
It’s the cost of renting out two floors in Trump Tower, the costs of hiring police officers to reroute traffic on 5th Avenue, the extra security to stop people going into Trump Tower, and vet them, plus vetting the pedestrians along 5th Avenue who want to shop, etc. There were some low flying jets doing security maneuvers in downtown NYC that flew everyone into a panic, and they were almost certainly related to Melanie Trump being a long term presence there.
Can you cite that? I read your last citation, it said none of this, and it actually pointed out, contrary to your assertion:
“Adding to the expense is the cost of police assigned to Trump’s adult children and his grandchildren, who are also receiving Secret Service protection, John Miller, NYPD’s deputy commissioner of intelligence & counterterrorism, told WCBS Monday. All of them live in the city, and all are entitled to receive Secret Service protection.”
Which means that 1) This isn’t all, or even mostly, about Melania and following that 2) This expense wouldn’t disappear if Melania DID move to the White House, I mean… Not unless she took all their adult children and grandchildren with them. Gee. I don’t remember Jeb living in the Whitehouse, or anyone complaining out the security costs then, do you? Or the costs of security at Sidwell Friends School, where Sasha and Malia went. I mean, maybe to curb security costs, Michelle should have home schooled.
But more than that, I need a citation on “plus vetting the pedestrians along 5th Avenue who want to shop” because that seems at face value to be complete BS.
These are still extra costs. The security detail around adult relatives tends to be rather light as compared to the security details around underage children and spouses.
Here is one cite about security measures that are taken for Melanie and son to remain in Trump Tower: http://www.amny.com/news/politics/trump-tower-security-street-closures-cost-to-nyc-taxpayers-and-more-to-know-1.12685401
It indicates that pedestrians must go through checkpoints along 5th Avenue.
“Despite reports of the cost being $1 million a day, the total de Blasio requested breaks down to just under $500,000 a day.”
Great! We’re already down to half a mil per day. I just saved America 180 million bucks.
“Pedestrians walking along East 56th Street between Fifth and Madison avenues are only able to do so on the south side of the street and must go through checkpoints.”
Inconvenient, but I still don’t think 25,000 people a day are being ‘vetted’,
“Number of extra NYPD officers: 50 per day”
Not even president yet and already creating jobs!
Seriously, yeah… The additional costs of security aren’t great. And yeah, I can see a taxpayers argument that Trump should try to mitigate them. BUT… This is precisely the kind of thing you’ve spent 8 years defending on Obama’s behalf. It’s OK when Obama blows taxpayer funds on lavish vacations, but Trump’s wife can’t be autonomous? Where the fuck do you get the balls to argue this?
That’s $. 5 million just for the NYC taxpayers, not the overall costs.
Presidents pay for their own and their families’ lodging, food and incidentals while on vacation, which may be why they generally prefer to stay at properties they own, as guests of wealthy friends or at the official presidential retreat at Camp David.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html?
“Presidents pay for food, lodging…”
So what? WE (taxpayers) paid for the hundreds of others that were dragged along.
ONE Hawaiian vacation last year cost taxpayers almost 5 million alone, with 1 million just for Secret Service lodging (we don’t know if the hookers stayed overnight)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/obama-familys-2015-hawaii-vacation-cost-taxpayers-4823206-88/
I came across the following quote in another story which I found very interesting:
“Though some of the expenses are supposed to be reimbursed by political parties and campaigns, “only a small portion” of the president’s travel costs are actually repaid, and, unsurprisingly, the White House “keeps the formula for such cost-sharing secret.”
I bet. They don’t pay up even when they are required to by law
Wanna bet the $10,000 per night estate in Hawaii was not out of Obama’s pocket? Man makes $400,000 per year, and spent upwards of $150,000 on his Christmas vacation alone? Pull the other leg, it has bells attached /sarc
What is Ioffe whining about NOW?! So let’s just say the Apprentice IS enjoying incest with his daughter. SO WHAT?! It’s only sex! Ioffe seems to conveniently forget that we Americans (but especially, so-called journalists) are all about normalizing behaviors these days, and not being all judgy and uptight and hung-up and intolerant and bigoted about behaviors previously considered taboo. Trump family relations are nobody else’s business but that family’s! Ioffe’s speculative and proto-puritanical tut-tutting is what leads people to take rifles and go on shooting sprees. SPEECH CONTROL! We need more PRESS CONTROL and SPEECH CONTROL! Anyone up for a few new “czars” in the incoming administration? A czar of tweets? A czar of sex-criticism? A czar of “journalistic integrity and decorum?”
By the way, I have never met or even heard of Ioffe till now. I hate her. I want her dead. I wish her death, as soon as possible – preferably by violent means including kidnapping, torture and fatal rape. Oh all right – yeah, let’s have a czar of Internet blog-commenting, too…
“I hate [Ioffe]. I want her dead.”
Along with all those other so-called journalists who have gone public in defense of her. So they want to ask candidates about ALEPPO? Well, then, let’s give them some remote first-hand experience of Aleppo, from the perspective of the residents who recently lived there (lived, as in past tense of being alive). They’ll never again need to ask about Aleppo.
Julia Loffe along with her creepy cronies should be sent on a slow boat to Aleppo. Maybe we could trade the bunch for some hand picked Syrian refugees.
What the fuck? Comments like lucky’s and Wayne’s are prima facie unethical, and far below the standards of this site. Especially lucky’s. How can he have the gall to pretend he’s any better than Ioffe when his own comments are even more disgusting?
I don’t even know which comment you mean, but to begin with, he’s not a journalist for a national news organization who is obligated to be fair and objective. Now I’ll see what you’re referring to…
Ok, you’ve had time to look at them. Lucky’s comment that he wants Ioffe to be raped to death doesn’t cross any ethical lines worth mentioning?
How do YOU know I’ve had time? I haven’t seen it, as it happens. You know, Bill James said he became estranged from his own readers when they started telling him what he should be doing. Now I know what he meant.
I see some of the cause for confusion. I don’t read comments like you do. I get them in the order they were written across all posts. I had to go to the post to find them.
OK: Lucky’s comment is to be taken as one of his extreme hyberbole or saracasm performances. He has been a commenter for a long time, and has contributed a lot. I think this was a bad misfire, and i will treat it as an anomoly—I don’t know what he was aiming at. Commenters build up an account of credit and good will. A 1st timer who posted that wouldn’t get past moderation.
Wayne: the same.