The Ultimate In Elitist Entitlement

Michelle Obama went to Illinois and cast her early ballot (I wonder who she voted for) and while she was IN the polling place she discussed voting and how important it was for people to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going.

This violates Illinois election law which states:

“No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place [or] within 100 feet of any polling place.”

Of course there was nothing done about this. In fact, she was given a pass because of who she is.

A top Ilinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT that Mrs. Obama — a Harvard-educated lawyer — may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally.

“You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?” the official explained late Thursday. “I mean, she’s pretty well liked and probably doesn’t know what she’s doing.”

You have to drop the standard for the first lady? Seems to me that she should be held to a higher standard especially since she is a LAWYER and Harvard educated at that.

No, we drop the standard for the elites. This is why they do not pay their taxes and run afoul of the very laws they force us to comply with. Ignoring the law is an elitist entitlement.

The only thing that made sense in the quote is that she probably does not know what she is doing.

Ditto for her husband, for whom she illegally campaigned.

You can bet the standard would not be dropped if the violator had been Laura Bush…

Source:
Drudge

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “The Ultimate In Elitist Entitlement”

  1. A dictatorial state — the technical term is autarchy — is one in which a single man’s word is the law, no matter what’s written in the law books. With the rise of Barack Hussein Obama, we’re just about there.

  2. Blake says:

    “…Imean, she’s pretty well liked and probably doesn’t know what she’s doing.”
    Wow- that statement indicates that the election official thinks Michelle is stupid.
    SHE’S A LAWYER! She knew exactly what she was doing- she, being an elitist, thought that these petty little laws don’t apply to HER!
    Most progressives think this way- it is funny in an ironic but hypocritical way to see how these people who want the rest of us to “share the wealth” are busy amassing their own stash of millions- Al Gore, the Obamas, George Soros- all these buttheads and more are more than willing to forget their own talking points in order to get more wealthy.
    Smell that hypocrisy-

  3. Adam says:

    The funny thing is the more this story travels the less it seems like something illegal happened:

    Pallasch told Washington Wire that the voters came up to Obama after they had cast their own ballots, and that they initiated conversation with her.

    Election-law specialists said those circumstances mean Obama is off the hook.

    Even Fox News backed off the story eventually:

    Rather, the elections official said, Obama told the group how important it is to vote early and vote in general, a perfectly appropriate suggestion at a polling place. Campbell’s characterization of the conversation may simply have included his political position, that he voted “to keep her husband’s agenda going,” but not that the first lady had specifically encouraged Campbell to support Obama-friendly candidates.

    But of course let’s not let facts get in the way of another outrageous outrage.

  4. Big Dog says:

    So, the original election official was lying or giving his opinion of what she was doing or said and the subsequent official is now telling the truth.

    One of them was there and one of them witnessed what happened. The other person was NOT there.

    Your idea of the facts is that someone who was not there tells you what they think happened rather than the people there who said what happened.

    The one person in this who has no political agenda and was probably telling the truth since he probably did not know what happened was wrong, is the electrician who voted that day. He stopped to get his picture taken with her and he indicated that she said they had to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going.

    A reporter who was there said the conversation took place in the polling place.

    So let’s recap. A person there who had the conversation said what that was and a reporter reported it. An election official says you have to cut her slack and then during the entire issue the stories from people who were NOT there, changes from what the people on the scene said happened.

    This, according to you, constitutes facts that get in the way.

    How about you don’t let the eyewitness accounts get in the way of your spin.

  5. Big Dog says:

    And if they initiated the conversation she is off the hook? Right.

    That would be true if people said hey I voted for your husband and she said good we need to keep his agenda going.

    There is no indication that the electrician initiated any political conversation and that he was only getting his picture taken. The only thing we do know is that it was reported that she said it, not that he initiated anything.

    The issue is not whether she did it or it was wrong. If they investigated and said that someone else initiated the conversation then it would be one thing. Perhaps instead of saying that you need to drop the standards for the first lady he should have said that they were looking into it.

    He could then have said they investigated and found that someone else initiated the conversation (and then they would need to go after THAT person for violating the law).

    It gives the appearance of elitism when they say you need to drop the standards or when Robert Gibbs says

    “I don’t think it would be much to imagine that the first lady might support her husband’s agenda,” he said. “But that’s just me going way out on a limb.”

    You see, I bet it would be no surprise that Rush Limbaugh supports anyone who runs against Obama in 2012. If he walked into a polling place and said we needed to vote to keep the Obama agenda from going forward you would not be defending him and saying that someone else initiated.

    And I bet Gibbs would not dismiss it as no surprise Limbaugh supports conservatives.

    It is much like this phony allegation of foreign money from the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove. They are following the law, there is no proof of any impropriety and no evidence to the contrary. Liberals are on the hunt making phony claims about this all across the country (talk about facts…) and they do not think for a moment that it is ironic considering how many of Obama’s donors have not been disclosed…

    • Adam says:

      “Your idea of the facts is that someone who was not there tells you what they think happened rather than the people there who said what happened.”

      I’m going by statements from the report Pallasch who was the original source of the story that Drudge picked up and not just some person who was not there. Here are some of the things from Pallasch:

      Pallasch told Washington Wire that the voters came up to Obama after they had cast their own ballots, and that they initiated conversation with her.

      And:

      Pallasch, of the Chicago Sun-Times, told Fox News the conversation seemed completely innocuous based on Campbell’s recollection. “When I wrote the pool report and the story, it did not occur to me that Mr. Campbell’s second-hand account of his mutually agreeable conversation with Mrs. Obama might constitute a violation of the law,” Pallasch wrote in an email responding to a Fox News request.

      Notice the term “mutally agreeable” used by Pallasch. Obama did not have a conversation to change minds of voters there. She had a conversation after voters voted with supporters of President Obama.

      “That would be true if people said hey I voted for your husband and she said good we need to keep his agenda going.”

      That is exactly what happened though, according to Pallasch. The trouble is your side ran with a few statements and framed them as if Michelle Obama approached voters in a polling place and told them about the importance of voting for Obama’s agenda. In later accounts and clarifications from Pallasch we see that is simply not the case.

      • Big Dog says:

        No, no, no, no. I did not claim she initiated the conversation. The law is clear about engaging in the conversation and it does not delineate between those who voted and those who did not.

        The reality is, the reporter based his story on what the guy told him. Second hand to the reporter but certainly not to Campbell.

        The only thing that is apparent is that if a conversation took place and it discussed what was reported then it was a violation of the law.

        Might have been inadvertent and they might not have realized but the fact is, someone who was there reported the infraction.

        The incident is secondary to the initial reaction to it, which you avoided. That is, the reported infraction was dismissed as relaxing the standard for the first lady.

        Whether the infraction occurred or not is of secondary concern. The response was elitist in that this person of stature did not have to worry about the standard.

        Address the reaction to an alleged infraction (one that was not proven true or false at the time) instead of what the actual outcome was.

        If someone said she robbed a bank and the bank manager and FBI said they had to lower the standard for the first lady would it make a difference if she did it or not, considering the response?

        And if we have to lower the standard for her then we might have to lower the journalistic standard and the voting official standard to make sure it was not an infraction.

        Look at it from that perspective.

        It is no different than saying we have a different standard for allowing Chuck Schumer to carry a gun than we do for other people in New York.

        The fact he has the permit is not the issue (except for his stance on gun control). The issue is that he could get one when it is nearly impossible for others.

        • Adam says:

          “Address the reaction to an alleged infraction (one that was not proven true or false at the time) instead of what the actual outcome was.”

          Given the fact that no law was actually broken I don’t have much to say about the opinion of an un-named top Illinois State Board of Elections official. Like Gibbs’ comments on the subject, they were most likely made without sufficient knowledge of the situation.

          “The issue is that he could get one when it is nearly impossible for others.”

          This is where you and I still differ. A US Senator is voted the privilege of office by his or her constituents and it comes with certain abilities and responsibilities that others do not have. That includes in this case getting a permit that is hard but not impossible for others to get.

  6. Mr. Ogre says:

    I remember that line when I read this story, too. It’s amazing, but shouldn’t be, when you read about different standards for special people. The story is quite clear on the position of the election officials:

    We don’t care if she broke the law, she’s the queen, so the rules for the peons and working people don’t apply to her. Isn’t she wonderful? I got to touch her dress when she was here.

    Welcome to what passes for “law” in America today.