The Lies, foibles and misrepresentations of John Kerry

Some people I respect will vote for Bush for reasons that I don't like but can respect. But there are a whole lot of other people who choose who to vote for for the stupidest reasons. (Either party.) That's what I'd like to get away from and dunno how, it's not campaign finance reform -- it's the tabloidization of the election process.

The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices.

Nothing can be more deplorable than this abuse of the powers of thought. I shall have occasion to point out hereafter the influence of the newspapers upon the taste and the morality of the American people, but my present subject exclusively concerns the political world. It cannot be denied that the political effects of this extreme license of the press tend indirectly to the maintenance of public order. Individuals who already stand high in the esteem of their fellow citizens are afraid to write in the newspapers, and they are thus deprived of the most powerful instrument that they can use to excite the passions of the multitude to their own advantage.

The personal opinions of the editors have no weight in the eyes of the public. What they seek in a newspaper is a knowledge of facts, and it is only by altering or distorting those facts that a journalist can contribute to the support of his own views.

Competency tests for voters were mentioned here someplace, I like that idea, really. It would take serious work, and would require a lot of effort to make sure people were not disenfranchised -- interpreters, classes, etc., etc. If people had to pass a test to vote, maybe that would finally make them examine the issues.

I don't like the idea for two reasons. 1) The competence-testers will have their own political agenda, and that would undermine democracy even more than voter incompetence does. To see what I mean, imagine George Bush hiring Karl Rove for the position of Voter Competence Test Commissioner. It seems easy to predict where the story goes from there, and I don't like that story.

Right now all you have to do is check a box when you get your drivers license. Do you think that would discourage people from registering?

In addition it would set up an exceedingly dangerous president where the government or congress could determine who can and who cannot vote for them.

How come it's different in Europe, Australia, etc.? (The page 16 thing.) IS it different there? Is it different, if so, for actually bad core reasons -- something about class, say? Is it something that could be arrived at or something that, once it's gotten away from, it's permanently gone?

Here are my guesses. 1) Because voter turnout is much higher here (see "automatic registration" above), politicians have more votes than in America to gain by swinging the political center, and less votes than in America to gain by mobilizing their more extreme, more ideological base. This pushes the political discourse towards moderation.

What I would go for is a competency test for those running for office particularly congress and the white house. This last election revealed a crying need for that.

That makes sense. Just showing up with ID from that state showing your current address should make you eligible to vote. I think part of the problem here is that each state does its own ids and without too much communication with other states.

However, it could also have kept Georgie out of the presidency of the US. Would that have been so bad?

For the 50% of us who voted for him it would have been. I am still shuddering to think that Al Gore might have been president when 9/11 happened.

Yeah, right. Very typical answer.

Try and move beyond talking point memos while arguing.

Cycloptichorn