Why on EARTH should it be "not allowed"? There's nothing saying that they are "struggling" to care for Michelle's mother, only that she is a valued member of the family and they desire her contribution and influence in their children's lives. For a nation who pays lip service to family values (particularly in the Obama detractor crowd....You know....that bastion of so called "Family Values") this argument is curious (and hypocritical) indeed.
BOY, some of you guys are seriously grasping at straws here! It's downright mind-boggling. I would think, that this would actually be a good thing....even from the taxpayer's perspective. Past presidents and first ladies have hired a bevy of live-in nannies for this task for decades upon decades (and it's not like there aren't enough empty bedrooms to go around). I think this would be looked upon as a good thing....It speaks volumes for the value of family and continuity, gives a boost and acknowledgment to millions of American grandmothers who care everyday for grandchildren all over the country, and provides stability for the children and piece of mind to the incoming president and first lady knowing that their children are in good hands, with family and not being looked after by paid strangers.
Not only that, it's good for all those much maligned mother-in-laws out there, who tend to get a lot of flack and are the butt of so many jokes. ;o)
Pages
HUH???!!!
Are you now inventing things to be mad about?
I guess you missed the posts on this very board for slamming Palin for running for the VP seat while having a special needs child.
If there were such posts - I would disagree with them.
<>
I don't remember anything said about Palin's mother-in-law. Can somebody refresh my memory (or provide a source)?
It isn't IF it is..They did exist.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=18348.50
<>
Why on EARTH should it be "not allowed"? There's nothing saying that they are "struggling" to care for Michelle's mother, only that she is a valued member of the family and they desire her contribution and influence in their children's lives. For a nation who pays lip service to family values (particularly in the Obama detractor crowd....You know....that bastion of so called "Family Values") this argument is curious (and hypocritical) indeed.
BOY, some of you guys are seriously grasping at straws here! It's downright mind-boggling. I would think, that this would actually be a good thing....even from the taxpayer's perspective. Past presidents and first ladies have hired a bevy of live-in nannies for this task for decades upon decades (and it's not like there aren't enough empty bedrooms to go around). I think this would be looked upon as a good thing....It speaks volumes for the value of family and continuity, gives a boost and acknowledgment to millions of American grandmothers who care everyday for grandchildren all over the country, and provides stability for the children and piece of mind to the incoming president and first lady knowing that their children are in good hands, with family and not being looked after by paid strangers.
Not only that, it's good for all those much maligned mother-in-laws out there, who tend to get a lot of flack and are the butt of so many jokes. ;o)
WOW....You're REALLY desperate aren't you?
<>
It's sure got MY irony meter spinning off the charts.
LOL!
Pages