The television in my office is broken, which means that I can't gauge the pundit insta-reaction to Charlie Black's comments to Fortune magazine about a terrorist attack being a "big advantage" for John McCain. Frankly, I am probably a better analyst without television than with it, but that is a discussion for another day.
When Americans are thinking about of acts of terror, they naturally think back to 9/11. Although it's hard to be absolutely sure, it would certainly seem that another 9/11-scale on America would (quite understandably) scare the living bejebus out of the electorate, and an electorate that has the living bejebus scared out of it will probably not be inclined to vote for a "change" candidate, especially one with limited national security experience.
But what if instead there were something more analogous to the bombing of the USS Cole: an attack on US interests on foreign soil? Or some kind of incident on domestic soil that goes off half-cocked? Say, for instance, a Muslim exchange student with vague connections to Al-Qaeda attempts to detonate a parking garage in Seattle, Washington. There is a complete failure of intelligence in envisioning the attack, but the bombs are poorly constructed and most do not detonate; five people are injured but none are killed. Or, there is some kind of incident at the Beijing Olympics comparable to the Centennial Park bombing in Atlanta, but this time with more connection to international terrorist organizations? Or, a fairly serious incident on U.S. soil, but one perpetuated by a domestic terror group?
Attacks like these are more likely, perhaps by several orders of magnitude, than another 9/11. The electoral implications would depend heavily on the particular facts and circumstances, as well as the timing the incident and the reaction of the candidates.
It seems to me, however, that there is perhaps some margin where the attack is significant enough to represent a serious failure of the Bush Administration's intelligence policy, but not serious enough to really scare people. If that is the case, the electoral implications are vaguer, and could possibly -- possibly -- even work against John McCain, particularly if the incident occurs at some point over the summer where there is still plenty of breathing space for each candidate to frame the narrative. In that eventuality, Black's comments would surely be played on continuous loop, which might make things more difficult for his candidate.
6.23.2008
Is Charlie Black Right?
by Nate Silver @ 7:35 PM...see also controversy, mccain, national security
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

48 comments
Another effect is that an attack that is somehow clearly linked to or originating from Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan could very well bolster the public's disgust with Iraq and serve as further indictment of the Bush Administrations misplaced priorities leading to DECREASED national security.
In this case, there is definitely an opening for Obama to pull a "told ya so" -- He says, all the time, that the current national security posture has made us less safe.
I have to agree with the other posters, personally I would be fairly PO'd. The Republicans had 8 years to do something about terrorism and instead we are in this god-awful war in Iraq. If Obama can make his case, I think this would actually help him.
However, I also agree with Nate that the less serious the attack the more likely it is to help Obama. A serious attack is a bit of a wild-card and could go either way.
I don't know. I think that it wouldn't really help either candidate because the McCain group could say that they know how to handle things, but Obama could say that this is exactly why McCain shouldn't be elected because terrorists are more likely to come after someone more similar to Bush in foreign policy. Anyways I would still have to pray to Jebus.
You know those conspiracy theorists about 9/11? They are considered kooks, and I would say rightfully so.
But an attack *after* McCain's own campaign manager say that an attack would be an advantage to him?
Followed by an actual attack?
You could no longer easily dismiss a conspiracy theorist in that case.
Black just revealed the GOP's october surprise, nothing unexpected, they'll just say it was caused by iran
Let's see: (1) If we're not attacked, we should thank the Republicans because we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. (2) If we are attacked, that helps the Republicans because they're stronger on terror.
Something's wrong with this picture.
OMG
Black's comments change a lot... one thing, though... do they actually have a video clip of this to play over and over, or just the transcript? That'll effect the degree to which this changes things.
You clearly need to read the public opinion literature. Attacks - even those ostensibly linked to the incompetence of the administration - have historically resulted in short-term up-ticks in approval for the president, which would at least partly translate to John McCain. Of course if these attacks were too far away from the election they would have little impact.
Secondly, were Obama (or his surrogates) to explicitly blame the president for terrorist attacks he would be widely booed, a la Bill Maher (that doesn't mean he wouldn't be correct).
Moreover, such an event would heighten the profile of national security issues - which helps McCain (since they are better for him relative to the economy).
Now you may be thinking, but what about Spain? There a last minute terrorist attack may well have made the difference between victory and defeat for Aznar's center-right government. Different kettle of fish. Aznar's cooperation with Bush was already tremendously unpopular, and the immediate link many people drew was Aznar's relationship with America -> terrorist attacks (or some may have thought it was Basque separatists, and I don't really know the politics of Spain's domestic terrorism problems).
By contrast, most Americans believe "they hate us because we're free", and have long refused to accept a foreign policy that is driven primarily by American interests for very long. The limp wrist American press would cast blame only at its peril. A terrorist attack would be a godsend for McCain.
of course it would, which is why the Bushies are planning one as we speak, kill two birds with one stone, Obama and the dems, plus Iran, giving them a reason to launch their panned attacks
united technologies lobbyist charlie black?
military contractor charlie black?
the same charlie black who worked for the military contractor that tried to buy diebold?
what did he say? that if you vote for democrats we'd all die?
yes. that old tired scary-point has been used by republicans ever since they tried to cover up that their own incompetence (or worse) allowed 9/11 to happen.
yet another glass house problem for the GOP.
An attack would result in a Republican landslide and we all know it. To paraphrase that Shakespeare classic, Men in Black, people are dumb stupid animals and you know it. An attack would have every pundit screaming about the need to nuke anything darker than the white on my computer screen and latent anti-muslim sentiment would give Obama a solid 10% total vote in November. He'd win DC and HI and probably even lose IL.
Never underestimate the American people's penchant for stupidity.
"In that eventuality, Black's comments would surely be played on continuous loop, which might make things more difficult for his candidate."
I think the Democrats should do that now. This comment represents the worst side of politics, and it goes against McCain's maverick label.
He shouldn't be right, but is.
If there is another attack, enough people that otherwise would have voted for Obama will switch to McCain that the election would turn on it.
Eh. If there is another attack of any sort, it's very likely that even the lightest scrutiny will reveal yet another bumbling agency rendered incompetent through petty political mismanagement. So no, I don't think that would help John McCain at all.
nate-
do you have any comment on CNN's electoral prediction map so far?
they place New Mexico is leaning mccain! That makes no sense
It also has Maine as only leaning obama...
and then of course, it has alaska as solid McCain, but new jersey as only leaning obama?
it doesn't make much sense to me at all
care to comment?
Poll: Obama leads in South Florida
regarding the comment at 9:18.
It is most likely so CNN can create an artificial news story along the lines of "XYZ candidate has increased/decreased their odds of winning XYZ state. As a result, CNN now projects the state as a toss-up/lean/solid."
The American response to attack post 9/11 (and other terrorist events to date) has been to dig in the heels and lash out. Up to this point in time, I would have predicted that a pre-election attack would have caused such a response--which would work well for John McCain. And, perhaps I'm paranoid, but I've had concerns about the current administration engineering such an attack.
However, it was interesting to note that the attack on the train in Spain prior to their election did not work at all for the incumbent. That may be because the Spanish populace was already opposed to the war. So what would happen if there were a terrorist attack launched against a U.S. populace who was deathly tired of a president who was constantly waving a stick at a wasp nest (to steal something from John Oliver)--and then the wasps turned around and started stinging them? Just a thought. CJ
Barak Obama has military advisors ( http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/photos08/photo031008.html ) who can help craft a message to bolster his claim that the Iraq War detracts from the US ability to fight the War on Terror.
For example, our Air Force UAVs are over-comitted to Iraq, troops are worn out, supplies are not positioned for use elsewhere.
I would like to see the case made to the American people that Obama's plan to end the Iraq War demonstrates he is superior with regard to national security.
We already were attacked again, in what President Bish called, "a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country."
It drives me crazy to think that people would respond to such an attack by thinking we should "stay the course" - such an attack would be proof that we're on the wrong path - it'd be even further reason to get rid of the neocons and vote for Barack Obama.
Who is this 'Jebu' you speak of, O holy one?
Anonymous
Poll: Obama leads in South Florida
2008-06-23 22:41
Unless "South Florida" becomes a state in and of itself, I don't see how this poll is in any way meaningful.
The hicks in the panhandle will come out in droves to counter-balance the South FLA liberals.
Two things:
First, Aznar blew it in Spain when he blamed ETA because the terrorist attack had no markings of an ETA-type terrorist activity, and it backfired on him (my in-laws live in the Basque Country). People in Spain saw it as cheap poitical grandstanding and knew better. So the operative question is would US citizens behave in a like circumstance given similar variables?
Second, is not the best way to discount this potential of McCain gaining political advantage of a terrorist attach to talk about it now, and keep talking about it? Sort of like jinxing the supposed benefit he may receive if there were a terrorist attack on US soil? Is what Charlie Black said analogous to talking about a no-hitter in the dugout while the game is going on?
The only thing it means in November is basically McCain's foreign policy which is the same or nearly the same as President Bush's, which translates to people voting for Obama. There is no way people are going to flock to McCain using the "experience" argument because 8 years of experience didn't cut it.
A couple things about South Florida:
-The "hicks in the panhandle" are not nearly as densely populated as Miami-Dade County.
-The edge among Hispanic voters is perhaps the most significant. I lived twenty years of my life in South Florida and Cuban-Americans are dyed in the wool GOP. The fact that some are willing to consider Obama is striking.
As for CNN's projection map, I wouldn't put any stock into it whatsoever. They don't tell us what their methodology is and, well, it's CNN.
How about bumping that Obama 'hilarious SNL skit' ad off - bad memories.
Before he was stupid enough to actually say this in public, Charlie Black was absolutely right. He simply spoke the truth as to what every GOP and Dem activist knows; namely that whenever there is a terrorist incident, the Republicans will play the fear card and no amount of long winded explanations from the Dems will convince the American public that the Bush/McCain policy has strengthened terrorism.
The problem is that Black has now been caught out saying this publicly and if the Dems have any sense they will hammer them on this and keep this in the news for as long as possible, in the same way as the GOP capitalised on Rev Wright. Then, in the unlikely event of any act of terror occurring, you roll out the Black transcript and undermine the GOP;s message of fear and false patriotism.
Obama's team cannot play the nice guy on this one. They must mercilessly exploit it. The media are ready and willing to give this airtime so I would make sure that several Obama surrogates raise this and then Obama can say that he is "disappointed" that Black would say such a thing.
Imagine if this were the other way round. What do you think the GOP and Fox News would do with it?
I don't know if he's right or not.
There are a couple "security moms" where I work...yes, still...and the ONLY rationale they appear to still have for voting McCain and approving of Bush is that "Bush has stopped us from getting attacked again."
I actually think another attack, particularly a dramatic one, would simply at this point serve to underscore what an absolute failure George Bush has been in every single aspect of government. I completely disagree that it would flip the country's view of him. I think most people would either think he planned it in order to help elect McCain, or that he's so damned stupid and incompetent that, even seven years after 9/11, he still hasn't figured out how to stop them.
Just my two cents.
Four years ago, in June 2004, the WaPo published a poll, and a story, saying that Americans though the Democrats (and Kerry) would be better able to protect the country from terrorism than the Republicans (and Bush). Kerry went right after Bush on this point, "against conventional wisdom," it was said in a couple of newspapers.
That was a real turnabout from the situation in which Bush had found himself right after 9/11, when his approval rating topped 90% and the Republicans rode the anti-terrorism horse into Baghdad. (Bush's approval rating had dropped 20-30 points by then, but rose for a month or so just before and after the fall of Baghdad.)
What had happened by June 2004 to make the Democrats the party seen as better able to fight terrorism? Partly it was that frothy claims and expectations about Iraq; the insurgency; American war deaths.
But more than that, in February through June of 2004 there had been nothing but a PR disaster for the Bush administration as months of hearings and disclosures by the 9/11 commission (and also the Michael Moore's film and wide publicity of "The Pet Goat" and Bush being on vacation prior to 9/11) had torn the cover off of the shining anti-terrorism machine. Condoleeza Rice's "undressing" during the hearings was a PR disaster as well. That 9/11 commission report was issued in June 2004.
So there was seemingly a point when nature itself had turned public opinion against the Bush's claim as terrorism fighters?
Then what happened? The campaign got really serious, the GOP and Bush machine fought back, we went through a summer of further Orange Alerts, we had expressions of concern even about "canceling the election." The Swiftboaters lied through megaphones provided by the MSM. Kerry threw away his medals a thousand times on tv. Kerry flip-flopped off of Nantucket.
My point is that it's not "natural" the the GOP gains from a terrorist attack. But it takes a ferocious PR campaign -- or simply a PR revelation of enormous proportions -- to fight the image that they have pained of themselves. And in the end, in 2004 at least, the GOP and Bush "won" that image war; Kerry and the Democrats had indeed won the first half, but lost the ultimate battle.
Nate Silver: "Or, a fairly serious incident on U.S. soil, but one perpetuated by a domestic terror group?"
Yes. There seems to be a general, and IMO unwarranted, assumption that a terror attack would help the Republicans.
But what if there were another wingnut attack, ala Timothy McVeigh? Frankly, that would be the most likely vector for a domestic attack.
On the other hand, an Al-Qaeda attack might well provoke people to ask, rightly, "Why isn't bin Laden dead yet?"
I don't see how either scenario helps the Republicans.
.
This I think is a shrewdly good move on the part of Charlie Black, who is trying to play the part of the Rove figure, the evil genius behind the campaign. First, everyone knows it's true, it's only audacious to SAY so. Second, he grabs the headlines for a day or two. Third, he frames the issue for McCain: it's about getting attacked or not getting attacked, not about foreign occupation or erosion of civil liberties or a culture of fear. And fourth, it changes the subject to the only issue where McCain is strong.
By doing it himself, Black draws the negative attention that would damage McCain if the candidate said such a thing. Grudging kudos to Black, a perfect Rove move -- notice Burton's carefully turned response, addressing the politics rather than the substance of the claim.
Nah, it wasn't shrewd. It was a blunder. Even McCain says what Black was quoted as saying "Is not true." It got McCain off message -- let's see, what was supposed to be the big message from the campaign yesterday or today? And now the big story that is being covered is Obama and Clinton, and that will likely dominate the next few days.
Evidently, some fool thinks it will accomplish something to keep posting "Everyone knows it's true," despite overwhelming evidence that in fact hardly anyone thinks it's true. I doubt even Charlie Black believes it himself.
Nate and many posters are wisely pointing out that there is no such thing as a generic "terrorist attack" anyway.
As we speak, Cedar Rapids is pretty much underwater and it doesn't look likely that anyone at FEMA can do much about it. Plus, where's the National Guard? Why would anyone in a disaster (whether caused by humans or nature) get the idea to say, "Hey, Republicans can help us! From the wonderful folks who brought you Iraq and Katrina! That's who we need!"
Remember Oklahoma City?
Right after it hit, Rush and the other radio cons (FOX didn't exist yet) were saying that we had to hunt down and execute the dirty Arabs behind it.
But when it was found that WHITE people -- conservative people -- gummint-hating white people like Rush's core listening population -- were behind the attacks, suddenly Rush and the other gabbers went all touchy-feely on us: "We must try to UNDERSTAND their MOTIVES!" they kept saying. See, white people have motives, brown people aren't allowed motives.
All I know is that it scares me that the Republicans think an "October surprise" terrorist attack would help McCain, and the person in charge of stopping such an attack is George W. Bush, who already has one "slip" under his belt. The Republicans are going to be looking at a tsunami loss this November, and I personally can't put it past them to "let one slip" in a desperate attempt to salvage their electoral chances at the last minute. That is what scares me:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/terrorist-attack-mccains-miracle.html
We already had another terrorist attack: the anthrax attacks, which President Bush called "a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country."
The GOP has been running as the "National Security" party for years. Another attack would naturally draw that claim into question. Combine that with the historical disapproval ratings of Bush and Republicans in general, and cynicism may just win out over the natural "rally round the flag" impulse.
Of course, it will depend on the size of the attack and how the campaigns react to it. The biggest backlash could come if either McCain or Obama is seen as trying to politicize the attack. They attacks WILL be politicized. But what matters is which side is perceived as doing it first.
Remember, the Madrid bombings probably contributed to Azner's loss in Spain partially because voters perceived him as trying to capitalize on it.
Nate and most of you seem to be missing the point. It flat DOESN'T MATTER whether a terrorist attack would be good or bad for McCain! IT'S TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS to be looking at a disaster for the country in terms of partisan political advantage.
That's why McCain rushed to repudiate the comments and forced Black to issue his half-hearted apology.
It's exactly like Hillary saying that "anything can happen in June" and mentioning that June was the month RFK was assasinated. It isn't that she's really saying "Hey! Anything could happen. Obama could be assasinated so I should stay in the race." But, it sounded like she was saying that and it's just a terrible thing to say.
This is completely the same. You might privately think that a terrorist attack would be the best thing since sliced-bread for McCain but it's totally inexcuasable to talk about it on national TV!
Obama has to hammer McCain and demand that he fire Black, both for his lobbying connections and his inexcusable remarks.
Actually, security analysts predict that there will be a nuclear attack on the US within the next 8 years. So another 9/11 may be minor.
Hmmm not much diversity here is there? Seems like most of you liberal folks got it figured out. I personally think that no matter how terrible an attack would be, America would, in the words of a previous poster, "rally round the flag" because that's what it has always done. Regardless of how unpopular Mr. Bush is, an attack would awaken patriotism, and patriotism usually leads to folks voting Republican. As sad as this is, history can't be denied.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment