This story not deemed newsworthy enough to be mentioned in any main-stream, Obama/Democrat shielding, liberal media outlet such as the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., etc. seems to indicate that the first lady was asking and encouraging voters to vote a certain way inside an Illinois polling place in violation of federal law.

She is is displaying an elitist "the law doesn't apply to me" attitude, or maybe it's just ignorance of the law. Either way, I'm not the least bit surprised.

Can you imagine if this was Sarah Palin doing this same thing?



There are plenty of links to this story on the web; I've pasted but one.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/14/fi...election-laws/

I am the most conservative person in the world, and am very ****ed about how the press and liberals treated Palin and almost every female and black conservative.. BUT..
I think this story is an example of something overblown and conservatives should take the high road on.
I watched the video over and over... I could not hear her politicing.. If she did it, it must have been cut out of the video (it was clearly edited), or she must have been speaking very quietly to the gentleman showing her how to vote.
Either way, I say cut her some slack IF she says, I made a mistake and I am sorry.
JJ

Originally Posted by RichieLion

This story not deemed newsworthy enough to be mentioned in any main-stream, Obama/Democrat shielding, liberal media outlet such as the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., etc. seems to indicate that the first lady was asking and encouraging voters to vote a certain way inside an Illinois polling place in violation of federal law.

She is is displaying an elitist "the law doesn't apply to me" attitude, or maybe it's just ignorance of the law. Either way, I'm not the least bit surprised.

Can you imagine if this was Sarah Palin doing this same thing?



There are plenty of links to this story on the web; I've pasted but one.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/14/fi...election-laws/

I read the article....it seemed to indicate this may or may not have been a violation of IL law.

But to answer your question ..... If Sarah Palin did this the liberals would be up in arms and you all would say it wasn't anything at all. Business as usual.

Originally Posted by cologal

I read the article....it seemed to indicate this may or may not have been a violation of IL law.

But to answer your question ..... If Sarah Palin did this the liberals would be up in arms and you all would say it wasn't anything at all. Business as usual.

you are so predictable. If you ever considered a different response even once in your life? Why can't you just stick to the Michelle Obama issue. You always have to bring in a Republican. Have you no judgment defense for liberals that you so love?


Yoda

Originally Posted by cologal

I read the article....it seemed to indicate this may or may not have been a violation of IL law.

But to answer your question ..... If Sarah Palin did this the liberals would be up in arms and you all would say it wasn't anything at all. Business as usual.

First of all Sarah Palin is way too smart to do this, unlike the elitist woman in question. if she did though, no one would be defending it and you libs in comparison would be calling for her head on a platter and demanding an federal investigation to vet out the facts of the story.

Gibbs in fact defended the first lady by saying that, in effect, "c'mon, everybody must know where Michelle stands, so it no biggie".
Everybody know where Newt Gingrich stands, but if he was in a polling place telling people they should vote to defeat the Obama agenda inside of a federal polling place the situation would seem a bit different to you, wouldn't it?

Suppose Palin DID do something like this and liberals DID scream about it. I think it would be refreshing for conservatives to just hold hands and repeat after me:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Originally Posted by djplong

Suppose Palin DID do something like this and liberals DID scream about it. I think it would be refreshing for conservatives to just hold hands and repeat after me:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You think electioneering at the polling place should be legal? Really??? You still manage to surprise me.

rules like, no talking in the library or soliciting candidates in a polling place.

And as we all know rules are for those of us who were raised to be considerate of others and follow the rules...we also know there is and always will be the minority (not race) who feel they are above the law/rules.

My personal opinion both M&B Obama fall into the latter category. They roll on and just do with a clean up crew not far behind.

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

Suppose Palin DID do something like this and liberals DID scream about it. I think it would be refreshing for conservatives to just hold hands and repeat after me:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, lets forget Palin. We are speaking of a lawyer who happens to have all the advice that a White House staff can bring to you and still, whether it was or was not a violation, does something that makes you pause.

Imagine if Laura Bush had done this...that is a better comparison.

I believe despite your flowery quotations that it is not allowed to try to infulence voting at a polling place in all states. The specifics vary from state to state, but to me that is not the point....

Richie makes the point about the attitude of this WH, and it is a valid point. I know from past experience with you that you will defend this administration to the hilt (unless they practice catholicism) but his point is well taken. Even quotes from this WH indicate how they feel above the law in so many instances. He preaches and we are to listen and behave !

Originally Posted by djplong

Suppose Palin DID do something like this and liberals DID scream about it. I think it would be refreshing for conservatives to just hold hands and repeat after me:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can you imagine the bedlam if the law that prohibits the practice of electioneering at the polling place were repealed as DJ seems to be passively advocating? You would have to run a gauntlet of advocates and maybe even duress in order to cast your ballot.

Maybe DJ just wants to make an exception for soft speaking First Ladies who dress so stylishly and so "innocently encourage" other citizens to vote a certain way.

I think we need to define "electioneering". If someone is talking about their husband who happens to be a candidate, that's one thing. Here in NH, "electioneering" istaken more to men holding signs and shouting slogans. We have a law against that - locally you can see all the 'electioneering' right across the street from the polling place.

A one-on-one coversation just seems different to me.

Originally Posted by djplong

I think we need to define "electioneering". If someone is talking about their husband who happens to be a candidate, that's one thing. Here in NH, "electioneering" istaken more to men holding signs and shouting slogans. We have a law against that - locally you can see all the 'electioneering' right across the street from the polling place.

A one-on-one coversation just seems different to me.

Maybe you're right, but this would have been a national issue if the shoe was on the other foot and the other foot was Republican.

Originally Posted by djplong

I think we need to define "electioneering". If someone is talking about their husband who happens to be a candidate, that's one thing. Here in NH, "electioneering" istaken more to men holding signs and shouting slogans. We have a law against that - locally you can see all the 'electioneering' right across the street from the polling place.

A one-on-one conversation just seems different to me.

Yes, I agree that a one-on-one conversation between a voter and The First Lady would be different. However it is definitely electioneering to try to influence someone's vote.

And a "hint" from Michelle Obama on how to vote would have a far greater impact on a voter than men holding signs.

Originally Posted by djplong

I think we need to define "electioneering". If someone is talking about their husband who happens to be a candidate, that's one thing. Here in NH, "electioneering" istaken more to men holding signs and shouting slogans. We have a law against that - locally you can see all the 'electioneering' right across the street from the polling place.

A one-on-one coversation just seems different to me.

INSIDE the polling place, RIGHT OUTSIDE THE VOTING BOOTHS...ASKING FOR VOTES.

Not that big of a deal to me by the way, but your defense of anything these folks pull is noted !

#1, they're allegations.

#2, Nobody's quite sure on what was said although there seems to be consensus on her talking about "keeping his agenda going".

#3, has anyone actually brought charges? Is there an indictment?

I suspect the reason for #3 not being around has less to do with politics (though that's assuredly a factor) and more to do with the can of worms it would open up. Now, this is purely a guess on my part, but if I'm in the position of the election board, I don't want to even THINK about raising THAT flag unless it's an egregious violation of the statute.

To be honest, when I'm at the polls, I hear "political conversation" all the time. Maybe, technically, it violates our laws here in NH concerning "electioneering", but unless someone's going way over the line, nothing is done/ I don't know that anyone has ever been charged in NH for violating those laws.