Comments about low-info voters
A letter writer recently asked that Henry Seiter define what he means by a low-information voter. Still another complains that Seiter’s letters are too repetitive.
Answering the first is easy. A low-information voter is one who doesn’t know what low-information voter means.
Responding to the repetition complaint, however, is problematic in that the complainant complains about Seiter letters he says he never bothered to read.
Wouldn’t it be prudent to read the letters before complaining about what’s in them? Could it be we have a low-information voter type here?
I suggest the complainant would do well to read those letters. Who knows, he just might find himself informed. Then his complaints would be worth considering.
Meanwhile, for the complainant’s benefit, should he decide to read before complaining again, it’s worth repeating that in our country’s recent history, not since the Nixon and Carter days have we seen such blatant ineptitude in a presidential administration. Even Bill Clinton is reputed in private conversations to have lamented the Obama administration’s arrant incompetence.
Even the one thing our president has honed to perfection, the dubious art of obfuscation, has become so overused and logically twisted that it, too, is caving in on him.
Clearly, the only people continuing to fall for our president’s obsessively compulsive face-saving excuses in light of his numerous administrative disasters are those who fit the definition of low- (I would add, no-) information voter.
Dick Durbin loves this guy. Need more be said?
R. STAN MARSH