WHAT?!?! So intelligent, fact driven discussion isn't what happens here? If it can't be distilled down to sometime cleaver enough to write it on a poster, it's to "educated" for the readers? Sorry, but most important issues are complicated, rarely black and white, and never easily summarized.
Now, you're trying to attack Sen. Bryant with minutia. Voters can't understand any of this garbage. This is political insider stuff. Normal people don't understand any of this.
- ahammett
- scalwag
Scalwag, I think Andrew's objection to SSHM's attack is NOT whether it's "intelligent and fact driven" but whether the average voter even cares enough to research or accept the premise of the attack.
Alright, Cockleburians, pop quiz! Who among you know ANYTHING about the political activities of Warren Tompkins, or Rod Shealy, or Will Folks, or (beyond his local ties) even Brian McCarty? What about that JDTippett fellow?
Anybody? (Not you MerryMac, Bill.)
We live in an era of 30-second bites and group-tested campaign slogans that are weak on substance but strong on symbolism. We live in a time where people actually decide who to vote for based on WHO HAS THE MOST CAMPAIGN SIGNS or the PRETTIEST CAMPAIGN SIGNS.
There are many who like to discuss the deeper issues driving these elections, and SSHM happens to be one of those. I put myself in that group, also.
But Andrew is right. The "insiderism" style of campaigning serves mostly to confuse people. Just as bringing up the guy from out of state who puts money behind candidates who back school choice means nothing to most voters, bringing up state political operatives that very few people know serves no purpose other than to cloud the issues.
But SSHM does provide some really cool links that I and others who like to do our research actually do follow sometimes. What's wrong with that?