Comments on: Seeing May be Believing for Some But It’s Not Necessarily the Truth

By: lbwoodgate

lbwoodgate — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:58:50 +0000

“What is most ironic here, but not surprising, given the relative brain-power of the far right, is that Citizen’s United, is nothing if not a full-blown activist interpretation of the constitution”

And a thinly veiled one at that too Sherry. These people really don’t care if they insult many people with these attempts because it is the subjective thinking, dumber ones they want to influence. Somebody sat in smoke-filled rooms years back along with people like Grover Norquist and noticed this weakness about the electorate and decided to gamble and play it out. It has worked for years but it may have run its course now simply because they have become too brazen in passing themselves off as those who “speak for the American people” rather than the corporate mouthpieces they really are.

By: lbwoodgate

lbwoodgate — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:52:25 +0000

“Even astute voters have trouble checking every fact, due to time constraints of our demanding lives”

Absolutely Joan. This is what the money behind the superPACS are betting on. Repeat a falsehood or exaggeration over and over enough and poorly informed people will come to accept it more than they reject it. It will at least create a bogus reasonable doubt about a candidate where none existed before.

By: lbwoodgate

lbwoodgate — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:49:24 +0000

Yes, in the case of Romney and Gingrich it seems these superPACS that don’t answer to the specific campaigns of these men are doing little to promote the positive characteristics of their candidates but are busy demonizing and distorting the image of their political adversaries.

Gingrich acted outrage in the SC primary when asked about his infidelity and claimed that it is “media bias” like this that discourages good people from running for public office. That of course was a dodge on his part. What probably discourages good people more from running for public office is the vast amounts of money that is spent demonizing and distorting the message of those good people rather than disclosing honest differences between candidates.

By: Donna Cavanagh

Donna Cavanagh — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:42:30 +0000

I think these ads work in that I think it is those who spend the most who get elected. They can get their candidates out there easily; however, as we have found out, the rich candidate is not usually the best candidate. I think all candidates play this game. What bothers me most about it is not that they are able to spend the money in campaigns to express their views, do they spend the money as you noted to attack, and voters now deem this tactic acceptable. They now see it as the way life is and transfer this mentality into their daily lives. Too bad that our electoral process has made so many of us attack first-think second people and voters.

By: Sherry

Sherry — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:19:12 +0000

What is most ironic here, but not surprising, given the relative brain-power of the far right, is that Citizen’s United, is nothing if not a full-blown activist interpretation of the constitution, so far beyond anything that Jefferson and Madison could have imagined that it really does make one slightly mad to contemplate it. Of course, as we know, activist judges are those who are not ruling your way.

If our electorate could get any dumber, then surely this high-jinks will contribute to it magificently.

By: lobotero

lobotero — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:10:30 +0000

Our system is an auction (thanx to Dylan Ratigan) he who spends the most gets elected……so I would say that the voter is not as astute as they would like to think they are…….

By: Joan Haines

Joan Haines — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:31:03 +0000

Even astute voters have trouble checking every fact, due to time constraints of our demanding lives. Thank goodness there are fact checking organizations like opensecrets.org, which attempts to follow the money and tell us who is paying for which messages, and politifact.com, which has a “truth meter” for statements made by politicians.

Money and speech are not equivalent. Boooo for that Supreme Court decision.