OBAMA FOLLOWED THE RULES- DO YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR THAT?

David Freddoso, one of the minions at K-Lo’s House of Crazy, dedicates an entire piece in the WSJ to this:

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama’s petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds — all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that “[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don’t live in the 13th district.”

One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents — including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

Not only have we heard this story over and over an over again, does anyone else find it amusing that law and order Republicans completely get their knickers in a twist because…. Barack Obama followed election laws? I mean, I understand the GOP has become a lawless party of criminals and reprobates, but I didn’t know they were openly advocating NOT following laws.

At any rate, Mr. Freddoso, after watching you and your cohort tongue-bathe the current administration’s perenially lawless and criminal behavior, you might be surprised to find folks getting less than worked up about a candidate who, as you say in your title, played by the rules. It would be a refreshing change.

50 replies
  1. 1
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    […] does anyone else find it amusing that law and order Republicans completely get their knickers in a twist because…. Barack Obama followed election laws?

    Not really. The right pretends to love the law unless it inconveniences them. Then they are above the law. How dare Obama follow the law!

    What kind of example would that set if our President was a Democrat and followed the law? The world as they know it would end.

    Great!

  2. 2
    Paul L. says:

    … law and order Republicans completely get their knickers in a twist because…. Barack Obama followed election laws?

    Maybe they are pointing out some hypocrisy on the democrats.
    Remind me who screamed disenfranchisement when election laws were followed in the 2000 recount?
    Remember Selected not Elected?

  3. 3
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Remember Selected not Elected?

    I’ll never forget it. Only a wingnut of the highest order would try to equate this situation and Florida in 2000.

    Congratulations, now go collect your McCain Points! I hear you guys really like his balls (golf, so get your mind out of the gutter).

  4. 4
    cleek says:

    Obama didn’t play by the Big Rule: he failed to run as a Republican.

  5. 5
    rachel says:

    Remind me who screamed disenfranchisement when election laws were followed in the 2000 recount?

    Show me “After all other due process has been exhausted, the Supreme Court shall decide the winner” in the Constitution.

  6. 6
    Calouste says:

    registered voters signed the petitions but don’t live in the 13th district

    Sounds like a fairly serious problem to me.

    Maybe next time get signatures from real supporters instead of using paid signature gatherers?

  7. 7
    4tehlulz says:

    Republicans are scared because Obama won’t put up with vote fraud.

  8. 8
    Gus says:

    Is PaulL a spoof, or is he really that fucking stupid?

  9. 9
    Walker says:

    Show me “After all other due process has been exhausted, the Supreme Court shall decide the winner” in the Constitution.

    It is in the Supreme Court’s copy. It is written in white-out over the original:

    “and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote”

  10. 10
    RareSanity says:

    In the interest of impartiality and to prove to myself that I can be objective on the the subject of the MUP, I would say that it is not necessarily ridiculous that an opponent would bring this up.

    I mean Obama is running on a “not business as usual” campaign, instances were the same “tactics” (I use that term loosely here) as the people he characterized as “business as usual” participants doesn’t strike me as an outlandish claim.

    Although the claim is a desperate reach AND what his campaign did was well within the letter of the law, I think it is fair game to bring this up to try and illustrate that Obama has some “business as usual” traits.

    Commence flames in…3…2..1

  11. 11
    liberal says:

    RareSanity wrote,

    Although the claim is a desperate reach AND what his campaign did was well within the letter of the law, I think it is fair game to bring this up to try and illustrate that Obama has some “business as usual” traits.

    Of course he does. He’s a politician.

    But the difference between the reality and “image” of Obama is far less than that of McCain, a kleptocrat hawk who wants rape victims to bear the child of their assailant and yet poses as an ethical “maverick” who was critical of the invasion of Iraq and who is somehow “different” from Bush.

  12. 12
    wasabi gasp says:

    When it comes to breaking the rules, the wingnuts shamelessly cross any line drawn in the sand.

  13. 13
    John Cole says:

    In the interest of impartiality and to prove to myself that I can be objective on the the subject of the MUP, I would say that it is not necessarily ridiculous that an opponent would bring this up.

    I mean Obama is running on a “not business as usual” campaign, instances were the same “tactics” (I use that term loosely here) as the people he characterized as “business as usual” participants doesn’t strike me as an outlandish claim.

    Although the claim is a desperate reach AND what his campaign did was well within the letter of the law, I think it is fair game to bring this up to try and illustrate that Obama has some “business as usual” traits.

    Commence flames in…3…2..1

    I am not going to flame you, but I will note that it is an insane notion that the “change” Obama is promising is to no longer follow election law. Obama did nothing wrong, it is quite clear that the signatures were not legally valid, and to suggest that a candidate should disobey election law to his disadvantage is absurd.

  14. 14
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

    Yeah, nothing says “politics as usual” than cleaning off the dead guys from the other candidates’ re-election petitions. I’m surprised he ever got votes from Chicago afterwards.

  15. 15
    Apsaras says:

    RareSanity brings up a good point. Personally, I read the whole story as a positive since it really illustrates just how clueless Maureen “Obambi” Dowd really is. (Not like we needed more evidence anyway)

  16. 16
    Howie says:

    But what about the rest of the article? Forget the signature thing. Did Obama ever buck the Chicago Machine which imposes its will and interests on the rest of downstate ILL?

    Actually I like the Democrats split electoral vote process in the primary. The winner take all system disenfranchises all of the voters south of Chicago who repeatedly vote for conservative dems and republicans only to have their votes nullified in the electoral process by the huge relative population in the Chicago area. Might as well rename the state Chicago.

  17. 17
    Glocksman says:

    You know for someone who the McCain campaign is trying to paint as an ’empty suit’ without the balls to win, BHO sure knew how to win a nasty fight within the rules in that election.

    I guess it’s that whole ‘within the rules’ thing that’s got Freddoso’s panties in a wad because neocons don’t follow any rules.

  18. 18
    John S. says:

    Is PaulL a spoof, or is he really that fucking stupid?

    Sadly, he really is that fucking stupid.

  19. 19
    RareSanity says:

    John Cole says:

    I will note that it is an insane notion that the “change” Obama is promising is to no longer follow election law. Obama did nothing wrong, it is quite clear that the signatures were not legally valid, and to suggest that a candidate should disobey election law to his disadvantage is absurd.

    Agreed.

    I guess my only point is that while the assertion may go against logic, I categorize absurd and ridiculous claims as “Obama’s a Muslim” or any of the other outrageous dispersions that have been thrown out there. This one by comparison, while illogical, does not not strike me as unethical or immoral like the others have.

    Meaning, this claim is rational (although illogical) enough to have a rational response, just as you authored. Other claims have been so irrational that you can’t even formulate a more rational response than “Are you serious?” Then spinning the lack of a response as an implicit admission.

  20. 20
    D. Mason says:

    This makes me feel a little better about Obama actually. After the Bush years it will be nice to have a president who can be clever enough to take what he wants without shattering the rules/laws. It’s really not a rare talent, or usually all that impressive, but relative to the last 7 years it’s breathtaking.

  21. 21
    Xanthippas says:

    According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama’s petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds—all legitimate from the perspective of law.

    Well really, this gives it away. For Republicans, “law” is merely a perspective.

  22. 22
    Steve M. says:

    Oh, fer crissake — both major parties do that evey election cycle here in New York.

  23. 23
    Steve M. says:

    Trying to use technicalities to keep people off a ballot? John McCain and the GOP would never do anything like that!

    Oops.

  24. 24
    slag says:

    I like how Obama has used an in-depth knowledge of the rules to help him win. It’s the classic underdog maneuver, and it’s great because it means winning without cheating. He did it in the primaries, and I hope he continues to do it. It gives me confidence that he’ll be able to be creative but honest when dealing with both Republicans and foreign leaders to get things done as President.

  25. 25
    SteveIL says:

    Not only have we heard this story over and over an over again, does anyone else find it amusing that law and order Republicans completely get their knickers in a twist because…. Barack Obama followed election laws?

    It’s so amusing watching liberal nutjobs spin Freddoso’s piece into exactly what it isn’t.

  26. 26
    Apsaras says:

    You guys missed the best part of the article!

    Mr. Freddoso is the author of the just-published “The Case Against Barack Obama” (Regnery).

    That’s hilarious. It’s like reading

    Mr. Johnson is the winner of three gold medals at the Olympics. (Special)

  27. 27
    rawshark says:

    SteveIL Says:

    Not only have we heard this story over and over an over again, does anyone else find it amusing that law and order Republicans completely get their knickers in a twist because…. Barack Obama followed election laws?

    It’s so amusing watching liberal nutjobs spin Freddoso’s piece into exactly what it isn’t.

    Please explain oh mighty not-liberal.

  28. 28
    Stephen says:

     It’s so amusing watching liberal nutjobs spin Freddoso’s piece into exactly what it isn’t.

    Oh, please enlightened all of us “liberal nutjobs.” If this article doesn’t say what we think it does, then please tell us what it does say … Just saying, “You got it wrong” doesn’t mean that anyone actually got it wrong. So, “educate” uson this one … if you can!

  29. 29
    Lisa says:

    Laughing really really hard at Apsaras last post.

  30. 30
    maxbaer (not the original) says:

    Sounds to me like Obama can be a prick. That’s good to hear. I was beginning to worry a bit.

  31. 31
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    The winner take all system disenfranchises all of the voters south of Chicago who repeatedly vote for conservative dems and republicans only to have their votes nullified in the electoral process by the huge relative population in the Chicago area.

    You guys got 8 years of Bu$h, isn’t that enough to keep you happy for the rest of your life?

    It’s so amusing watching liberal conservative nutjobs spin Freddoso’s piece into exactly what it isn’t.

    Fixed. Your welcome.

  32. 32
    Xanthippas says:

    Laughing really really hard at Apsaras last post.

    If this were the comment Olympics (not special) Apsaras would have a gold for that.

  33. 33
    SteveIL says:

    Please explain oh mighty not-liberal.

    I’ll be happy to. Freddoso isn’t saying at all that Obama had broken the law. What he is saying is that Barack “Hope and Change” Obama is a dirty Chicago politician who used time-honored Chicago-style thuggery to gain office. Obama has never been any kind of a reformer. In fact, he didn’t do much of anything as a state senator until his mentor, another non-reformer now engaging in nepotism (Democrats don’t seem to like to give their constituents a choice, and seem to see political office as inherited fiefdoms), the soon-to-be-retired Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, “juiced up” Obama’s résumé to make it look like Obama did, you know, work.

    Mr. Cole attempts to spin what Freddoso wrote as something akin to Freddoso calling Obama a criminal is just that, spin. Freddoso isn’t calling Obama a criminal, Freddoso is calling Obama what he truly is: a hypocrite.

  34. 34
    John Cole says:

    I’ll be happy to. Freddoso isn’t saying at all that Obama had broken the law. What he is saying is that Barack “Hope and Change” Obama is a dirty Chicago politician who used time-honored Chicago-style thuggery to gain office.

    The Chicago-style thuggery in this case happened to be… using completely legal procedures that Freddoso himself says is completely legitimate.

    Fail. Just, fail.

  35. 35

    What he is saying is that Barack “Hope and Change” Obama is a dirty Chicago politician who used time-honored Chicago-style thuggery to gain office.

    Damn – John got in there first.

    Pray, Steve, enlighten us humble sinners with your wisdom. How exactly is a politician using election law legitimately to his advantage “thuggery”?

    I believe he has had sex with his wife once or twice, and drew a paycheck from the government. Would you like to accuse him of rape and theft while you’re at it?

  36. 36
    SteveIL says:

    The Chicago-style thuggery in this case happened to be… using completely legal procedures that Freddoso himself says is completely legitimate.

    You are absolutely correct, and you would be in agreement with what Freddoso says in his article. Except that Freddoso is pointing out in this piece that Obama is not anything like the reformer he portrays himself to be, and never has been. In fact, Obama has ensured that the thuggery that is Chicago Democrat Machine politics remains in place. Again, one wouldn’t think that Obama’s actions are those of a reformer.

  37. 37
    John Cole says:

    What the hell do you want reformed. You want the election laws to NOT be followed?

    Christ, I have been watching you loons peddle this election meme for months now, and it makes as little sense now as it did when it started. There are election laws. Obama followed them. What is the problem?

  38. 38
    SteveIL says:

    Obama claims to be a reformer. But some of the dirtiest, yet legal, politics come from the city he represented in the Illinois General Assembly, and Obama did nothing in the way of reforming anything (or doing much of anything while a state senator or U.S. Senator). It doesn’t offer a choice to the voters, and it ensures that so-called elected offices are nothing more than inherited fiefdoms (Lipinski, Madigan, Blagojevich, Stroger, Jones, etc.), and this is borne out by the less than 40% turnout for the city elections in Chicago. Freddoso has an excellent grasp of what is Chicago Democrat Machine politics.

  39. 39

    Would you care to offer a comparative analysis of the chances of a running incumbent being elected, based on State?

  40. 40
    John Cole says:

    Ok- I am going to offer some advice. If you want to attack Obama for not reforming enough, you might want to point to something in which he has done something you believe needs reformed. This is where you are losing me and the rest of the public. Nothing needs to be reformed in regards to what Obama did. Those signatures should be verified and conform to the letter of the law. Is the new conservative position that these sorts of things should be ignored? I am not going to hear all sorts of nonsense from you about voter fraud in 08?

    I will give you an example of what you should not do as a reformer. Get caught up in Keating 5, spend years flailing yourself over it, agitate for years to pass campaign finance reform, and then in the VERY FIRST election you run in under the rules you demanded, break them. Wonder who did that?

    Nm. I just checked your site. Malkin, LGF, Red State.

    Dealing with a full fledged wingnut. Rule of law and internal consistency mean nothing.

  41. 41
    rawshark says:

    What he is saying is that Barack “Hope and Change” Obama is a dirty Chicago politician who used time-honored Chicago-style thuggery to gain office.

    Such as?

    Obama has never been any kind of a reformer. In fact, he didn’t do much of anything as a state senator until his mentor… “juiced up” Obama’s résumé to make it look like Obama did, you know, work.

    What was juiced up?

    In fact, Obama has ensured that the thuggery that is Chicago Democrat Machine politics remains in place.

    Democratic dude, the word is democratic. Don’t say democrat and I won’t call you jackass.

    Explain this last point, how did he ensure this?

    Obama claims to be a reformer. But some of the dirtiest, yet legal, politics come from the city he represented in the Illinois General Assembly, and Obama did nothing in the way of reforming anything (or doing much of anything while a state senator or U.S. Senator).

    This sounds like an attack ad. What has Obama claimed to have done that he in fact did not do? Back up at least one thing you said.

  42. 42
    rachel says:

    Is the new conservative position that these sorts of things should be ignored?

    Yes. SATSQ

  43. 43
    QuickRob says:

    Conversation over here is getting lamer and lamer. Defending a loser candidate who goes out of his way to have peoples votes thrown out on technicalities. Did Obama’s opponents do this to him during that race? Is this the new kind of politics?

    Look. In. The. Mirror. at what you have become. You’re all cheerleading –for a politician–

    McCain sucks, he’s nobody’s first choice. But Obama’s just plain full of shit. Everyone’s willingness to open wide for his message of hope and change is downright creepy.

    If you saw some McCain bloggers defending John McCain getting his opponents tossed out of an election with dirty tricks, you would think those people are lame. Right?

  44. 44
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Conversation over here is getting lamer and lamer. Defending a loser candidate who goes out of his way to have peoples votes thrown out on technicalities.

    So you, Mr. Stevie L. Wingnut, view enforcing the letter of the law to be a technicality and dirty trick and anyone who tries to make sure that these laws are followed is a low-life who should be ashamed of themselves?

    You idiots make me laugh.

  45. 45
    John Cole says:

    Conversation over here is getting lamer and lamer. Defending a loser candidate who goes out of his way to have peoples votes thrown out on technicalities. Did Obama’s opponents do this to him during that race? Is this the new kind of politics?

    Christ, you are stupid:

    While Barr is expected to be especially troublesome to Republican hopes in Georgia, it hasn’t stopped one Pennsylvania Republican leader from trying to get Barr tossed off the ballot here.

    A day after the Cumberland County GOP chairman filed a court petition seeking Barr’s removal from the ballot, the Libertarian candidate lamented the move.

    “It’s disappointing that the Republican Party still thinks there are more important things than presenting real ideas,” he said.

    This is nothing new, and, you know, the fucking law.

    QuickRob isn’t.

  46. 46
    Officious Pedant says:

    QuickRob and SteveL, I just want to thank you for highlighting the idiocy that is this talking point.

    People not registered in the district, signed petitions for that district. Obama and his team challenged them, according to election law, and they were thrown out. This is classic Chicago political thuggery, and a dirty trick.

    Wow, that’s some prime stupid right there.

  47. 47
    tofubo says:

    The act of throwing [a challenger] off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

    tell me about it

    http://tofubo.blogspot.com/200.....-from.html

  48. 48
    piltdown says:

    “[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing,…”

    This one always pissed me off.

    I DO NOT USE CURSIVE WRITING. PERIOD!

    I do NOT sign my name in cursive, forcing me to write in cursive is making me sign a DIFFERENT signature than what I use to identify myself.

    They’re basically FORCING me to forge a signature when they demand that I use “writing” instead of “printing”.

  49. 49
    thomas says:

    The stoopid – it hurts
    I worked in Dem Cook County politics many years ago. It is well known that petitions are important and you check them before you submit – if you don’t know the circulator you check them twice. If Alice Palmer and her campaign screwed-up TOO BAD.

    I love these wingnuts that ignore the disenfranchisement in Fla (definately in ’00, probably in ’04) and Ohio but now are all upset because someone challenged petitions.

    It is so stoopid – it hurts so bad.

  50. 50
    Tiktaalikson says:

    The winner take all system disenfranchises all of the voters south of Chicago who repeatedly vote for conservative dems and republicans only to have their votes nullified in the electoral process by the huge relative population in the Chicago area. Might as well rename the state Chicago.

    Can…can we do that?

Comments are closed.