Low Information voters, then and now....

[Arbo]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/low-information-voters-then-and-now.php



John does a great job of keeping Power Line readers up-to-date on the pitches that Democrats make to low-information voters. Some historians contend that the low point in such pitches was reached by the Whig Party in the presidential election of 1840 (William Henry Harrison vs. Martin Van Buren).Issac Morse, a Louisiana politician during the 1840s used to regale friends with this story of young Whig orator who, Morse swore, delivered this attack on Van Buren regarding a ginned-up government purchasing scandal:
Fellow citizens: Who is Daniel Webster? Daniel Webster is a man in Massachusetts who is making a dictionary. Who is General Harrison? Every knows who General Harrison is. He’s Tippecanoe and Tyler too.
But who is Martin Van Bulen (sic)? He is the man who bought wood in [New] Orleans, paid 24 dollars a cord for it, and carried it round to Florida and had to cut down trees to land it.
["Coals to Newcastle," a fellow in the crowd cried out.]
Yes, them coals he carried to Newcastle. I don’t know so much about the coals, but about the wood, I’ve got the documents.

If the pitches of today’s Democrats don’t quite contain the ignorance quotient of the 1840 Whigs, it isn’t for lack of effort.

LOL, good stuff.

[fj1200]

I think the best way to compare LIVs from then to now would be to compare the comments section from the blogs of today to the Ye Olde Gazzetteer. If only the internet went back that far.

[Arbo]

I think the best way to compare LIVs from then to now would be to compare the comments section from the blogs of today to the Ye Olde Gazzetteer. If only the internet went back that far.

If only they had a 'comment' section in the paper then. But most of the political stuff back then was generally written by people with an education, so their philosophies may have been whacked, but they usually said it good.

An good book on papers back then is: Infamous Scribblers by Eric Burns.

[cadet]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/10/is-obama-a-diplomatic-genius-on-syria/

If you don't want to read it, it basically says that obama is trying to rally the american people into saying no to war in syria by supporting it.


A rapid-fire succession of events on Monday has to leave observers of U.S. foreign policy questioning what’s really going on in regard to the proposed strike on Syria. The developments raise questions about what it is that President Obama wanted all along (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/05/does-obama-really-want-a-war-with-syria/) and whether he is actually a diplomatic genius who has been able to steer events in a direction that virtually guarantees the U.S. will not go to war....................




............................Meanwhile, back in the States, President Obama undertook a series of television interviews — with ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, and FOX — purportedly to shore up support amongst the American public for a military strike on Syria before he addresses the nation on Tuesday. A new poll by the Pew Research Center/USA Today (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/9/opposition-to-airstrikeinsyriasurgesinnewpoll.html), also released on Monday, shows that 64 percent of Americans now oppose such a strike.........



...............How well things moved Monday was extraordinary, like dominoes falling, each one toppling the next — from Kerry, to Russia, to Syria, to Obama, to Reid. Is this a serendipitous convergence of suddenly, inexplicably, like-minded leaders? Or is there more to this story than meets the eye?
The question comes to mind of whether there has been a diplomatic strategy all along, worked out behind-the-scenes, among a diverse cast of characters. Did Obama take the issue of a strike to Congress precisely for this reason — to allow time for cooler heads to prevail and for a non-violent option to emerge, perhaps an option he had in mind from the very beginning? Was it an end run around the hawks and the lobbyists, like AIPAC — a maneuver that urged a strike in order to show strength, but ultimately intended to achieve a different, better outcome?
If Obama is the mastermind behind a complicated chess game that ends with a viable political/diplomatic solution, rather than a military one, he may just be a diplomatic genius.

This is my definition of uninformed brainwashed sheep.
This story makes me chuckle. And cry a little. Poor poor stupid people...