The real story here is that the voting machines are apparently racist.
Via the Obama Report:
President Obama visited the polling station at the Martin Luther King Community Center in his hometown of Chicago on Thursday to cast an early vote for the 2012 Presidential election.
But the purportedly tech savvy President appeared to be befuddled by an ordinary, run-of-the-mill voting machine. Ultimately, an employee at the polling station came to the rescue, as he guided the President through the step-by-step process of using the typical, every-day, run-of-the-mill voting machine.
Even the left-leaning Politico is out there mocking the Obama campaign as having no real message for the American people. They have a new blog posting titled, Chicago Gets Serious…, in which the first sentence reads, “…and by serious, we mean not at all serious.”
The Obama campaign is out this morning with a goofy video of the Big Bird variety, mocking Mitt Romney, as the president has put it, as going easy on Wall Street but heavy on Sesame Street.
The campaign is calling this a TV spot, but did not, as officials there usually do, say where it’s airing, suggesting this is a video for media and YouTube consumption.
As Alex noted yesterday when the Pew poll numbers came out, we’ve long warned – and been warned – about big swings in surveys in what has been a fairly stable race. But the sampling of surveys out there do suggest a real Romney bounce.
And the president, as others have noted, and his team have been going fairly small at a moment when Romney is consistent in a message and pivoting toward going bigger (the foreign policy speech, more emotion on the trail, and so forth). And this video is the kind of small ball that Boston smacked over for months.
Here’s the ad in question…
Earlier today, Republicans were hitting on a recording of Obama in 1998 in which the future President says he “believe(s) in some redistribution”.
“I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”
It’s those final words – “I actually believe in some redistribution” – that Republicans have latched onto, characterizing them as an endorsement of redistributing wealth, rather than making sure government agencies were well supported. Many conservatives argue redistributing wealth is akin to socialism.
That’s hardly a revelation. The President’s staunch support of taking from those who work and giving to those who watch the work is well-documented, in word and deed.
Now though, a new recording has surfaced of Obama in 2001, and it’s a rather alarming statement on just how far he thinks government can reach in their quest to spread the wealth. Essentially, he believes there is theoretical justification for the Supreme Court to do the redistributing.
Back in 2001, Barack Obama gave this stunning interview to a Chicago public radio station in which he talked about using the Supreme Court, the most undemocratic of the three branches of government, to “spread the wealth.”
A rough excerpt:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as, I think, people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical; it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution…. One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that. You can craft theoretical justification for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
The Chicago teachers strike entered its second week Monday, with many people still wondering what it’s all about. The average salary for teachers in Chicago is $76,000, and the new contract offered annual pay raises.
So what are the striking teachers looking for?
Terrific video by the Heritage Foundation and Ben Howe explains…
Why are teachers striking in Chicago? What are teachers unions fighting for? Is it for the students? For the schools? For the union?
Listen to the union officials themselves. You might be surprised.
Nay, you should be surprised.
Black and tan. Going dutch. Holding down the fort. Rule of thumb.
This according to the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State.
In a column written for State Magazine, John M. Robinson provides a primer of phraseology that most people might not realize is racist.
Via the Daily Caller:
John M. Robinson, the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State, wants America’s diplomats to know that common phrases and idioms like “holding down the fort” are, in fact, deeply racist.
Robinson, who also serves as director of the Department’s Office of Civil Rights, used his “Diversity Notes” feature in the July/August issue of the official “State Magazine” to examine the hateful roots of everyday sayings. In one recent public relations kerfuffle at Nike, Inc., he wrote, the company torpedoed a sneaker called the “Black and Tan.”
“What a wonderful celebratory gesture and appreciation for Irish culture. Not!” wrote Robinson, an adult.
Remember that the next time one of you insensitive dolts heads out to a bar and orders a Black and Tan. Best part of that excerpt are the last two words – an adult. Not!
Robinson notes that “Black and Tan,” in addition to being an enjoyably robust alcoholic concoction, can refer to the brutal Protestant militiamen who ravaged the Irish countryside in the early 20th century — which is why Irish bartenders always get so upset when you order one.
In an effort to avoid offending those notoriously fragile Irish sensibilities, Nike pulled the shoe from stores.
Robinson would like us all to learn from the sneaker company’s inadvertent racism and really start watching what we say.
And God forbid you ever go dutch on a black and tan in Chicago.
Chris Matthews was on Hardball tonight covering the Republican National Convention with guests Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Hielemann of New York Magazine. In what is seemingly the natural progression of things these days with Matthews, the subject of the ‘otherization‘ of the President was being discussed. Because, if you weren’t aware already, Barack Obama is black, and any time a Republican chooses to discuss the failure that is his administration, the media will be there to quickly remind you that they only feel that way because of his skin color.
But tonight’s episode of race-baiting with Chris Matthews was a bit odd in that the panelists somehow came to the conclusion that reminding people of the President’s roots in Chicago politics is racist. In fact, simply saying Chicago is racist. (Video below).
Robinson sets the racial tone by saying (h/t The Right Newz):
“It’s all part of this Barack Obama as ‘other’ sort of blanket campaign that has been waged by the Republican Party for some time now. It may be gaining some traction now, though I wonder why now as opposed to a bit closer to election.”
Matthews then demonstrates his mind-numbing ability to take an idiotic statement, amplify it, and subsequently make it exponentially more idiotic coming from his mouth, when he said this:
“Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman. What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes. That’s basically what they’re charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago.”
He added, “They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That’s another thing that sends that message – this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the ‘burbs.”
Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them – Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement:
“There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.”
Yes, because referring to the city of Chicago would have nothing to do with trying to link the President to a long, storied history of corruption. It simply has to be in reference to all of the black people living there.
By the way, Mr. Hielemann, there are a lot of black people in Chicago. Guess what, though? There are even more white people.
According to the Census Bureau in 2010, the percentage of African-Americans in the city of Chicago was roughly 32.9%. The percentage of whites? 45.0%.
Incidentally, any idea who else has linked the city of Chicago to government corruption? MSNBC.
In an article titled, Illinois Has Long Legacy of Public Corruption, MSNBC discussed the fact that nearly numerous elected officials had been convicted of wrongdoing since 1972 – in Chicago.
It included this statement:
“Chicago, with its long history as a center of vice and organized crime, has had its share of official graft.”
Oh, those racists!
At a meeting with 20 conservative Jewish leaders yesterday, President Obama laid claim to having more knowledge of Judaism than other previous President. What does the President cite for his breadth of knowledge?
He read about it.
By this logic, I once read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting, thus apparently making me a zen master of all things childbirth.
The Weekly Standard reports:
“Obama … stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it,” Haaretz reports. “[He] wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel [sic] about their support to Israel.”
Similarly, he said to the group, “I [am] not going to tell you again how I even feel about Israel, but why [are] we still talking about it?”
He then suggested that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the Jewish state because “all his friends in Chicago were Jewish – and at the beginning of his political career he was accused of being a puppet of the Israel lobby,” Haaretz reports.
Do not question his commitment because his friends in Chicago were Jewish? He was also friends with Bill Ayers, should we not question his commitment to domestic terrorism. His pastor for decades was Jeremiah Wright, should we not question his commitment to anti-American racists?
And how do we know he read about Judaism anyway, did he take a college course on the topic? We’ll likely never know.
It’s a shame he didn’t read up more on basic economics or capitalism. Perhaps then he’d be an expert on those topics as well.
This isn’t unnerving or anything…
President Barack Obama wants companies such as Google and Facebook to reform their privacy practices.
But that’s not stopping his re-election campaign from tapping the rich data Internet companies hold on millions of potential voters.
Obama for America has already invested millions of dollars in sophisticated Internet messaging, marketing and fundraising efforts that rely on personal data sometimes offered up voluntarily — like posts on a Facebook page— but sometimes not.
And according to a campaign official and former Obama staffer, the campaign’s Chicago-based headquarters has built a centralized digital database of information about millions of potential Obama voters.
It all means Obama is finding it easier than ever to merge offline data, such as voter files and information purchased from data brokers, with online information to target people with messages that may appeal to their personal tastes. Privacy advocates say it’s just the sort of digital snooping that his new privacy project is supposed to discourage.