[Vision2020] Please Respond to Main Point Re: Installment #2 - Character

Sat Dec 25 15:07:10 PST 2010

There was a segment on NPR during the last election that noted several ads for Tea Party candidates funded by Democrats, trying to split the Republican vote.

On Dec 25, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
> Thu Dec 23 19:51:43 PST 2010 wrote:
> 
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073399.html
> 
> It's also worth noting at the same time that even if
> you find out that an advertisement has been funded by a group you
> generally don't agree with, it's still worth looking at the actual
> advertisement itself to see if you agree with it specifically or not.
> For example, if I was a person that wanted to vote for Nader and I found
> out that George W. Bush was funding his campaign to a degree, so what?
> I'd think he was a fool.  I would hope I would vote for Nader because I
> wanted him in office, and not vote for someone I didn't want in office.
> -------------------------
> 
> Why does promoting votes via advertising (by those supporting G. W.
> Bush), for a presidential candidate who has no chance of winning
> (Nader), to take votes away from a candidate opposing G. W. Bush, who
> has a high probability of winning (Gore), make someone a fool?  This
> conduct may be ethically questionable, dishonest, dirty politics...
> But from the point of view of winning an election, regardless of
> ethics in tactics, it is smart politics.
> 
> The fool in this case might be the person who was trying to decide who
> to vote for, between Nader and Gore, who also opposed G. W. Bush,
> perceived the ad for Nader funded by those supporting G. W. Bush, and
> allowed this ad to influence them to vote for Nader, taking a vote
> away from Gore, and thus helped to elect G. W. Bush.
> 
> My point in this case is so simple I doubt you did not already
> consider it, yet your response indicates otherwise...
> 
> Mind Games - John Lennon
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> 
> On 12/23/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Even not-so-virtuous people, assuming that's the case here, can
>> recognize good virtues and have the desire to share them with others.
>> 
>> As far as advertising, political or otherwise goes, I think the more
>> transparency there is the better.  The more informed a decision people
>> make, the better.  It's also worth noting at the same time that even if
>> you find out that an advertisement has been funded by a group you
>> generally don't agree with, it's still worth looking at the actual
>> advertisement itself to see if you agree with it specifically or not.
>> For example, if I was a person that wanted to vote for Nader and I found
>> out that George W. Bush was funding his campaign to a degree, so what?
>> I'd think he was a fool.  I would hope I would vote for Nader because I
>> wanted him in office, and not vote for someone I didn't want in office.
>> 
>> Anyway, if the devil himself had posted a list of virtues on his
>> website, I'd still suggest actually seeing whether or not you agree with
>> each individual virtue.
>> 
>> Also, and maybe I'm way out there in left field on this one, I sometimes
>> don't feel the need to address every single point made in a post.
>> Sometimes I have a thought that's tangentially related to the subject at
>> hand and just bark it out like an ignoramus.  I'm on what I think is a
>> mailing list, not in the midst of a formal debate or a giving a
>> deposition in a court of law.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>> I did not indicate the virtues being discussed were not important.
>>> 
>>> I pointed out that the individual supporting the Foundation for a
>>> Better Life has funded efforts I do not think are vituous (bigotry,
>>> junk science).  You may disagree.
>>> 
>>> My main point was objecting to front groups funding advertising where
>>> the source of the advertising is not disclosed.  Therefore I think the
>>> Foundation for a Better Life advertising should disclose who is
>>> funding it.   I presented data on this issue regarding the 2010
>>> election, that neither you nor Paul R. responded to.  I am including
>>> this data again at the bottom.
>>> 
>>> Of course sometimes the message can be separated from the messenger.
>>> But sometimes in advertising this is definitely not the case,
>>> especially political advertising.  Some of the front groups
>>> advertising is deliberately deceptive, and disclosing who is funding
>>> the advertising would help reveal this deception to the public.
>>> 
>>> I think transparency regarding who is funding advertising, especially
>>> politically oriented ads aimed at influencing elections, helps the
>>> public make informed decisions about what is the real intent behind
>>> the advertising in question.
>>> 
>>> This is not a partisan issue.
>>> 
>>> Consider that groups supporting George W. Bush's election funded
>>> advertising for presidential candidate Nader.  If people knew the ads
>>> were being purchased by those seeking to defeat Gore by promoting
>>> votes for Nader, perhaps the public would not have been duped by these
>>> ads.
>>> 
>>> Again, here is the data from the post you responded to, data that you
>>> made no reference to, on front groups advertising influencing the 2010
>>> election:
>>> 
>>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073326.html
>>> 
>>> Advertising using front organizations that do not reveal the forces
>>> behind the advertising is a powerful tool to deceive the public and
>>> manipulate public opinion.
>>> 
>>> This tactic was used successfully to promote the Tea Pary agenda in
>>> the 2010 election:
>>> 
>>> Citizens Blindsided: Secret Corporate Money in the 2010 Elections and
>>> America’s New Shadow Democracy
>>> 
>>> https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-
>>> 
>>>> From website above:
>>> 
>>> While we do not know who is funding such organizations, we do know
>>> that the groups which played a significant role in the 2010 elections
>>> are overwhelmingly backing right-wing candidates.  “Outside groups
>>> raised and spent $126 million on elections without disclosing the
>>> source,” according to the Sunlight Foundation, which “represents more
>>> than a quarter of the total $450 million spent by outside groups.”
>>> Republican candidates largely benefited from the downpour of
>>> undisclosed money, as pro-GOP groups that did not reveal their donors
>>> outspent similar pro-Democratic groups by a 6:1 margin.  The
>>> nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that of the top ten
>>> groups which did not disclose their sources of funding, eight were
>>> conservative pro-GOP organizations.
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>> 
>>> On 12/21/10, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>  Oh Ted at first I didn't get it, but now that you have shed light on
>>>> the issue, I get it - you mean people like George Soros and
>>>> organizations like the Tides Foundation, the Shadow Party and the Open
>>>> Society Institute.
>>>> 
>>>> One thing I noted about the */Foundation for a Better Life/* that tends
>>>> to separate that org from many others was their non-reliance on outside
>>>> funding (they don't accept donations) and they don't provide grants or
>>>> other funding to other agencies.
>>>> 
>>>> For me, Paul R was right on point - the values promoted transcend the
>>>> politics, the acrimony and the rhetoric so often a part of our human
>>>> dialogues.
>>>> 
>>>> Hopefully all of the "friends" on the V will appreciate the posting of
>>>> the values as a means of self examination and community enhancement -
>>>> nothing less, nothing more.
>>>> 
>>>> Happy holidays to all of you - for whatever reason you use for
>>>> celebration.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================