Posts
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Don't wear your Obama shirts to the polls on November 4
Props to DCist, who reports on this from the DC Board of Elections and Ethics:
D.C. Municipal Regulations sections 708.4, 708.5 and 708.8 cover restrictions on “political activity” within 50 feet of the entrance of a building used for voting. Section 708.8 clearly states that “the term ‘political activity’ shall include without limitation, any activity intended to persuade a person to vote for or against any candidate or measure...”
This means that if a voter is showing an outward sign of support for a candidate (i.e. wearing hats, buttons, t-shirts, etc.) the voter will be asked to remove or cover the article before entering the polling place.
This is likely true in MANY STATES. So please - tell your friends, family, friends of friends. Don't wear your Obama gear to the polls. Save it for the parties on election night.
UPDATE: Snopes has some information on passive electioneering (wearing shirts, buttons, etc.) on their website. They also note that sometimes it can extend further than candidate approved materials - they cite an instance where wearing Cowboys jerseys or apparel could have been construed as supporting a referendum in Texas. Best bet: IF IN DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING OR ACCESSORY WOULD QUALIFY AS PASSIVE ELECTIONEERING, LEAVE IT AT HOME.
Submit This Article!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Or....you could wear a jacket, since it will most likely be cold. Just putting that out there.
Always the pragmatist Mike. Well done.
Let's assume you're homeless and and the only articles of clothing you own are pants that say "Obama" and a shirt that says "Obama." You don't own any underwear.
Are you expected to show up to the polls naked? Surely, that would be unacceptable.
Of course the homeless would own an Obama T-shirt.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_real_obama.html
Have you read the book referenced Chris?
You mean this book, Matt, written by a National Review contributor?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/david-freddosos-hatchet-j_b_118410.html
No, I haven't read it, but I read Sowell's article earlier today. Personally, Thomas Sowell's recommendations don't mean all that much. He's a brilliant guy, but he also has a worldview that I pretty fundamentally disagree with.
I'm from Chicago. I know exactly the political climate that Obama is coming from - and I'm comfortable with that. The critiques made of him ignore that the only way to advance in Chicago politics is to play that game - and that's fact. Does the fact that he's good at the game change anything for me? Actually, perhaps it does - it gives me more confidence that as president he'll be better able to take on his political foes, and perhaps really enact the change in Washington he's talking about.
Changing campaigning has never been what Obama's core point is - and Sowell's article only discusses campaigning. Is he cutthroat? Sure, because he wants to win. But at the same time he has managed - largely - to keep a fairly high level of integrity in the course of this campaign.
The real point of Obama's message - apart from his dramatic platform differences with McCain - is to restore some kind of civil discourse in policy making. In order to be able to do that, you have to be able to win. And sadly for you, Obama happens to be very good at winning.
Actually, I have less interest in this election since the recent economic downturn because it effectively prevents Obama from increasing taxes.
So while the economic downturn benefits Obama, it also inhibits Obama's ability to carry out his socialist platform. Gotta love it!
Ahh, right...refuted points don't yield any kind of responses, I forgot.
No Chris - You haven't refuted my point.
You said the only way to succeed in Chicago is to "play the game." That's just not true. I don't like to use her often, but Sarah Palin proved that a person doesn't need to play the game but rather can seek to reform the political problems and be successful.
I'm not going to refute every point of yours because I just don't want to get in a back and forth with you about Obama. You see him as a much different figure than I do. I see Obama as a person with a lot of skeletons in his closet which haven't been adequately covered. I've never seen a candidate have the same level of questionable associations as Obama yet not suffer political backlash. There are a lot of reasons for this (media, the unprecedented level of hatred for George Bush, etc.). Do I think these associations mean Obama is going to turn America into a terrorist breeding ground or any other extreme view? Absolutely not. But it does make me question his character. You couple that question mark with a fiscal policy that is the most liberal since McGovern and I just refuse to buy into the Obama-hype machine. Trust me, I wish the Democrats had put a more moderate figure out there because I’d jump right on board. But Obama is anything but moderate.
These same skeletons are the exact reason why Obama can’t start mudslinging. If he starts he’ll lose because he has such a questionable/checkered past.
Years ago, when I was about 12, my family and I went to church every Sunday. We continued to go even though my father didn't like the general message of the particular church. He still believed in Catholicism but he didn't particularly like the priests at this church because of their antiquated worldview. Then one day one of the priests stood behind the alter and said something on the lines of “women should be able to drive now, I guess but I’m surprised we give them the right to vote.” Needless to say, my family and I never stepped foot in that church again. I write this not to praise my family or denounce that particular church but rather to raise a question of why the hell would Obama continue to associate with a person who obviously had such a radical message. Afterall, it can’t be that hard to walk or drive a few extra blocks to a different church.
If Obama had one association it’d be alright (just as McCain’s loan association in the 1980s) but Obama has Ayers and the corrupt political machine you referenced too. It’s just too much for a person to look past. Afterall this isn’t just womanizing, like Clinton, but it’s associating with people who have fundamentally different views than I care to tolerate.
Thanks Matt - that was a much more meaningful response. I don't mean that sarcastically in the least. That's all I'm asking for if we're going to be discussing things like this on this comment thread.
Chicago is not Alaska. Not in the least. The Daley political machine is not one that you can attack in the way that you reference Palin. It is remarkably entrenched. Is that a good thing? Probably not, but it is the way that it works there. And you're dealing with far, far more people in a media market that is far larger and more expensive, thus demanding the donor base and support, who are influenced greatly by the Daley operation.
If you'd like some insight into how the Chicago machinations work, check out some of these articles:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-campaign-chicagosep23,0,1477901.story
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/04/11/obamas-years-in-chicago-politics-shaped-his-presidential-candidacy.html
We can agree to disagree on Obama and what those associations mean. I just don't see him as having a checkered past - I think you're buying too much into the GOP propaganda line. I hope you're wrong for the sake of the country, and I believe you to be. The next president is facing enormous, enormous challenges - and I'll be right there to critique an Obama administration along the way.
Post a Comment