A viral campaign is targeting voters but its poisonous message can easily be disproved.
As the Presidential election comes in for a landing, last minute efforts are being made to poison public opinion against the likely winner. LIV’s or Low Information Voters are being targeted with viral campaigns intended to spread fear, hatred and confusion. Since LIV’s are the least likely to vote, this viral campaign won’t actually change the outcome but it will instigate misguided outrage and deep seated panic.
What I hope to do in writing this piece is to clarify these aberrational fears and put them to rest. Low Information Voters are not stupid people, they have simply been fed malicious gossip during an important period in our nation’s history. The lies told to them concerning Barack Obama are as follows:…
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
That old lady in the video calls me way worse things than just 'bastard'. But be good. I could email it to you too. I'm hoping I can find a similar one for McCain - such a thing ought to exist.
Dave
27 - Dr Dreadful
I kinda knew you'd go off on one of your linkfests, RJ, but congratulations on using Rolling Stone, etc. They're a departure from your usual less-than-impartial citations.
(BTW, why do you get to decide that the moderates, independents and undecideds are Low Information Voters? Where the hell did that come from?)
And Cannon, I concede that 'newswire' wasn't what I meant. It was late, I was getting ready for bed, and I couldn't think of the right word. (I still can't, for that matter.) I had in mind websites such as World Net Daily and Newsbusters, which RJ and his ilk are fond of citing in attempts to support their arguments.
Anyway, back to RJ. Since we can only post three links per comment, bear with me.
1. 'Obama is a former Muslim'. Well, (a) who gives a shit, (b) there are several practicing Muslims, Buddhists and Jews and at least one atheist in Congress right now, and (c) living in a predominantly Muslim country, attending a Muslim school and wearing (gasp!) a sarong does not make you a Muslim. Some perspective here.
2. 'Obama is a former member of a black nationalist church'. Well, that kind of depends on your definition of 'black nationalist', doesn't it? Non-African-Americans are certainly not barred from joining Trinity, and at least one guest preacher there, the flamboyant Father Pfleger, was conspicuously not black. Some perspective here.
3. 'Obama opposed a law that would have protected babies born alive during late-term abortions'. As Lisa already pointed out in #14, there was already an Illinois law protecting such babies - not to mention the Hippocratic oath. Obama voted against the bill because he felt that it undermined Roe vs. Wade, of which he has been an unwavering supporter. Some perspective here.
To be continued...
28 - Clavos
Correction to my #25:
It was a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California not Royal Dutch Shell, that, in 1933 entered into partnership with the house of Saud, in the person of Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud to form California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC).
Later, during WW II, Texaco, Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron entered into the partnership, which was then renamed ARAMCO, Arabian American Oil Company.
The Bushes didn't get involved with the house of Saud until the 1970s.
29 - Cindy D
RE# 26
LOL Dave, That is who inspired me!
I was hoping I would be that feisty when I am here age. :-)
Could you email it? That would be great! I can't seem to get it.
I just sent you an e-mail so you have my address. Thanks!!!
30 - Cindy D
Dave your email address had a fatal error.
No problem, I created a public account just for posting on a web site.
[Cindy, unfortunately for you BC frowns upon posting personal contact info in the comments space. Sorry. Comments Editor]
Thanks!
31 - Dr Dreadful
4. 'Obama is more of a socialist than Bernie Sanders'. While Sanders is admittedly a socialist, the vast majority of the bills which find their way onto the floor of the Senate are not written by socialists. It therefore shouldn't surprise anyone that he would have a difference of opinion with the authors of some bills of which Obama approves; or vice versa. Besides which, measuring the 'liberalness' of a politician is as subjective as scoring an ice skating competition: there are plenty of other studies which show Obama to be not particularly left-wing. Some perspective here.
5. 'Obama has terrorist friends.' Despite the fact that this claim is a stretch that would snap Elastigirl in two, clearly it's one that you badly want to believe and won't be dissuaded from. Nevertheless, some perspective here.
6. 'Obama is a corrupt Chicago politician.' Really, RJ, what do you expect me to say here? I can just as easily say that George W. Bush is a lying, conniving, dictatorial warmonger, and provide hundreds of articles to support my case, and it won't make it one bit closer to the truth or one bit less my own personal opinion. Some perspective here, not that it is likely to penetrate the prejudiced cranium of Arjay.
32 - Cindy D
Give peas a chance, Clav.
33 - Dr Dreadful
And finally...
7. 'Obama supported violent extremists in sub-Saharan Africa'. Presumably you're referring to his alleged meddling in Kenyan politics. There's not even any perspective needed here - your assertion is simply bullshit.
34 - T.R. Parker
I'm a retired Special Agent and executive of the FBI, having spent almost 25 years in the Bureau in both investigative and management positions.
I have just finished reading the article posted on this blog by Alex Hutchinson wherein he sets out a rather complex process which, he contends, is deployed to vett individuals wishing to run for Federal office. Unfortunately, Mr. Hutchinson is totally wrong. He writes that those who do not pass this "test", are declared unfit for Federal office by the FBI. That is not true.
The process Hutchinson describes is the one used to vett possible Presidential appointments to senior administration positions or to high-level positions in other Federal agencies.
While I'm a stauch Democrat and an Obama supporter, and would like to think that the Republicans knew of the very minor and tenuous relationship between Senator Obama and William Ayers in advance but disingenuously raised the issue anyway, I must point out Hutchinson's egregious error.
ExFed
Santa Barbara, California
35 - pablo
EXFed,
Thanks for the clarification, I also knew Hutchinson's vetting claim was a crock too.
36 - Dave Nalle
I think I pointed that out 30 comments ago.
Dave
37 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, or anyone else who wants a personalized Moveon video, drop me a line using the contact form on my site at Republic of Dave.
Dave
38 - Cindy D
Thanks Dave,
Done.
39 - moon
Low information voters are not, nor have ever been, the problem in Gringolandia.
The problem is voters who do not know the difference between information and propaganda--and who, morever, do not care.
Over the past couple of years I have spotted and confronted quite a few of those folks right here in River City--er, Blogcritics.
They still don't care.
In fact, they like it that way.
Which is why folks in other countries who DO care have no use for Gringolandia.
Att this particularly interesting time in world history, folks who do not care have opted out of being citizens of this planet and are actively engaged in destroying it.
40 - Lisa Solod Warren
Clav, actually I am pretty fiscally conservative, too. I just believe in spending money now to save it later, which is, I think, conservative.
I agree with you about the Saudis,and I know their history; it's just that the Bushies made them so damned respectable!
41 - Baronius
These aren't last-minute allegations being spread by McCain. Most of them came out when Clinton was running against Obama.
42 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, did you mean to post that last comment on the 'Character, Assassinated' thread? It reads like a bit of a non sequitur otherwise.
If so, I should be able to move it for you if you'd like.
43 - Dave Nalle
Any Republican who supports the slave-owning Saudis should have the ghost of John Brown permanently haranguing them in their dreams.
Dave
44 - Baronius
Thanks, Dread, but I prefer to live sequitur-free. Both articles are about supposed last-minute slurs against Obama, except they've been circulating for at least a year.
45 - Cindy D
LOL sequitur-free. Not bad Baronius.
46 - Joanne Huspek
Re #1: I'm really annoyed your equate independents with LIVs. I'm an independent, and I can tell you my head is full of more information right now than I can digest. One thing for certain, I won't be voting for either Dem or Rep come November 4.
47 - Cindy D
Joanne,
Have a look at the article again. Did he equate LIV's with independents?
48 - Lisa Solod Warren
Not true, Bar. No one has taken it to the level of McCain. His robo calls and hate filled rallies have ratcheted the whole thing up several notches.... And Sarah's claim to be one of the middle class when she is so far from it is laughable. Their whole campaign stinks. At least Clinton talked about issues. McCain only attacks and repeats and attacks and repeats. I am surprised any of his LIV supporters as any idea WHAT he stands for. All THEY know is Obama is a Muslim and a Communist and a pal of terrorist. I know, I made calls last night. I got an earfull.
49 - Dr Dreadful
Not the actual article, Cindy. It was RJ, in comment #1, who decided unilaterally to equate the undecideds, etc with LIVs - and I've already called him out on it.
50 - Cindy D
ooops. sorry Joanne. I need to learn to read myself. Thanks Dr.D
51 - Cindy D
And on that note I shall retire to my comfy bed to hear Joe Mantegna read an unabridged Spencer novel by Robert B. Parker.
For it is clear that I am weary.
g,nite.
52 - Baronius
Lisa, is this the first campaign you've worked on? I don't mean that in a belittling way; I think it's great that you're involved. It's just that the more I've worked on campaigns, the less I'm stunned by the ignorance of many voters.
53 - Lisa Solod Warren
No, no Baronius. It is certainly no. Bad inference. The ignorance has just been, in my experience, particularly viral.
54 - Cindy D
I think we need a viral campaign showing those that believe Democrats are big spenders and Republicans will straighten those wasteful bastards out, to be the victims of fraud.
In the last 36 years every Republican (you know those people against big spending) has outspent Democrats (HUGELY). In fact Democrats have consistently stabilized or reduced spending. Republicans are unbelievable--no incomprehensible spenders.
Like I always say. Challenging the "conventional wisdom" (a phrase coined by economist John Kenneth Galbraith, you know the one that said Friedman's version of capitalism had flaws we should pay attention to.) is ALWAYS a good thing.
We need to stop out of control Republican spending!
Here is a colorful Red and Blue chart detailing Democrat vs Republican spending (of your money) over the last 36 years!