Saturday, September 23, 2006
Northup supports clueless voting.
Interesting how Anne Northup's website trying to take John Yarmuth's comments out of context has this humdinger, "Millions of Americans will go to the polls next week and cast clueless votes.”
The implication is that ultra liberal John Yarmuth thinks voters are stupid sheep. But Anne once again excerpts his quote like a bad movie review without any context (although she does attach the article). In the article, found here, John Yarmuth says that voters go to the polls ill informed, but that both the news media and the candidates themselves do little to improve the situation. He essentially saying that voters, candidates and the media all do themselves a disservice by not pursing the truth behind the positions candidates hold.
Is it really possible that Anne DISAGREES with that statement? Does she think it's better to have voters going to the polls with as little information as possible beyond some saturation bombing of negative ads by her campaign?
The answer is obvious. Of course she does. After all, a voter who fears that the liberal Democratic candidate is going to open up the borders to every bomb toting terrorist, allow people to marry farm animals, and sell the country to the UN is one that will vote for them. As Bush shows us every day, ignorance is bliss.
I also have to wonder why Anne doesn't highlight Yarmuth's comments in the editorial about Jim Bunning, the Kentucky elected Senator for Cincinatti who doesn't pay any attention to the news. Does she think it's okay for a Senator to not read newspapers or pay any attention to news sources except for the ones that are favorable to his own positions? Maybe she herself is guilty of ignorance when it comes to the news.
And why not highlight the comment about her friend in Indiana, Mike Sodrel? Does she truly believe that labor friendly Democrats are more likely to support jobs going overseas than her Republican brethren who are so deeply in the pockets of big business they are covered in lint?
The truth here is that Anne likes cluelessness. The truth is the biggest thorn in the side of Republicans these days.
The implication is that ultra liberal John Yarmuth thinks voters are stupid sheep. But Anne once again excerpts his quote like a bad movie review without any context (although she does attach the article). In the article, found here, John Yarmuth says that voters go to the polls ill informed, but that both the news media and the candidates themselves do little to improve the situation. He essentially saying that voters, candidates and the media all do themselves a disservice by not pursing the truth behind the positions candidates hold.
Is it really possible that Anne DISAGREES with that statement? Does she think it's better to have voters going to the polls with as little information as possible beyond some saturation bombing of negative ads by her campaign?
The answer is obvious. Of course she does. After all, a voter who fears that the liberal Democratic candidate is going to open up the borders to every bomb toting terrorist, allow people to marry farm animals, and sell the country to the UN is one that will vote for them. As Bush shows us every day, ignorance is bliss.
I also have to wonder why Anne doesn't highlight Yarmuth's comments in the editorial about Jim Bunning, the Kentucky elected Senator for Cincinatti who doesn't pay any attention to the news. Does she think it's okay for a Senator to not read newspapers or pay any attention to news sources except for the ones that are favorable to his own positions? Maybe she herself is guilty of ignorance when it comes to the news.
And why not highlight the comment about her friend in Indiana, Mike Sodrel? Does she truly believe that labor friendly Democrats are more likely to support jobs going overseas than her Republican brethren who are so deeply in the pockets of big business they are covered in lint?
The truth here is that Anne likes cluelessness. The truth is the biggest thorn in the side of Republicans these days.
