Do you really think that the country would be in the same situation it's in today if Al Gore had been president since 2001?

Quite possible that it would be.

The ugly "get the Democrats" mood that prevailed during the Clinton years would not have abated. A lynch mob in Congess might have brought Pres. Gore down in the wake of 9/11, leaving Lieberman in charge. The veep turned president would have likely lost re-election in '04 (or changed party).

I believe the MSM is largely responsible for the "know nothing" attitude of the American public. (Look at the relentless seriousness with which they treated Lewinsky-gate) And, this attitude, my friends, is really the driver in this country's plunge toward the bottom.

We might all have Dr. Strangelove's curious arm tic by now were it not for the exisitance of the very media you now employ. (Not that the internet is anything like an adequate offset.)

Kevin Russell Cook

RE: "It's the American people themselves who are responsible for those tastes."

Perhaps it is, in some sort of perfect world, some world where we really are all equal. And, I could argue that a belief in this sort of personal responsibility is constructive.

But, to assert that some of us are not more responsible for various types of trends in thought and behavior? Well, that's quite another matter. Some of us are far better positioned and equipped to edify or corrupt.

As for our speculation, it may be amusing, but it also is necessarily frivolous. (And, there’s little wrong with that.)

In closing, there are an awful lot of us who think democracy depends on a free and diverse press and who further feel our MSM doesn’t quite stack up.

Kevin Russell Cook

another question is do we really want voters with no grasp of the issues voting? It's scary to talk to some people about issues and candidates. Some of them vote based on astrology charts or if the candidate is cute and other assorted nonsense. Let's face it -- a large percentage (25% or more) don't really have clue what's going on politically in this country. I'm not sure i want people like that voting, if they are not going to do due diligence and educate themselves.

Three of the four media organs you cite are distinctly non-mainstream. And, the WSJ is marginally mainstream as reflected by the audience it reaches.

I suggest you browse Robert McChesney's carefully researched work (Rich Media, Poor Democracy, for one) or any of Eric Alterman's works on the media for a more studied view of the concentration of ownership and, accordingly, influence in our media.

So, we disagree. My point here is not that I'm right and your wrong, but simply that there is a lot of very good work that runs counter to what you assert. I hope you have or will take the time to get past the dearly held assertions and look at the underling facts.

Back to voting (I hope.)

Kevin Russell Cook

Do you seriously think that serious people who will prevent know nothings from being elected are being prevented form voting?

Yes, absolutely. The folks in Cuyahoga County, which is rather Democratic since it includes Cleveland, faced unreasonable and unworkable wait times in 2004. They were effectively prevented from voting by the tactic of not providing enough machines.

People in Florida were prevented from voting by being found on incorrect felon lists (why Florida can take away a fundamental civil right simply because a person was once convicted of a felony is beyond me).

Challenges raised against registrations in 2004 amounted to about 3 million nationwide. Most were shunted to provisional ballots, and most of those were not counted. Conservatives have always restricted elegibility---liberals have always attempted to increase it. Conservatives always accuse liberals of demagoguery, rounding up gullible voters, and liberals always defend by showing that participation increases legitimacy of the outcome, and promises more certain political support for legislation.

Interesting to compare practices like Huey Long going around giving out Thanksgiving turkeys for votes--sleazy, yes, but the flip side was poll taxes, threats, and physical violence against voters that were black. So the current arguments about voter "fraud", meaning false-identity voting, resonates as some folks wanting to keep undesiirable elements out of politics. Call me unpersuaded there is a major threat of false positives, false identities, when I know there is a major problem of false negatives, disallowed votes.

Your question makes no sense. Do you believe in democracy or not? The fact is that thousands of people, the majority black, were unlawfully prevented from voting because their names were wrongfully included on a Republican-produced list of disenfranchised felons. Their votes alone would have tipped the election to Gore. What "provisional ballots" are you talking about?

You can call the systematic intimidation, disenfranchisement, and disinforming of tens of thousands of voters in key states and districts "anecdotal", but that's just a lie. It would be anecdotal if it happened to one or two people. When it happens to thousands, it's an organized effort to subvert democracy.

Further, your assumption that minority voters are "know-nothing" is not just racist, it's wrong. In fact, exit polling showed that twice as many Republican voters in 2004 (in fact, a majority of them)were ignorant of their candidate's stand on most issues. Since the black vote for Bush was somewhere south of 5%, it's clear that the worst ignoramuses in the voting booth in 2004 were white Republicans. No surprise.

Exactly, Tom, we have a Chairman of the House Intel Committee that didn't even know Hezbollah was a Shiite Muslim organization when asked -- very scary.

We need a rigorous exam similar to the bar exam every perspective candidate has to pass to be able to run for office in this country. If you want to be President, the exam should be even more extensive and difficult to pass. There would be no W in the White House, had we had such an exam, and I'm not sure Gore would have been a candidate either.

The provisional ballots are the ones that Tom Wright referenced: Those ballots allowed to be casted provisionally by those who cannot show evidence that they are qualified voters.

I did not claim that minority voters are “know nothing“, “know nothing” was as term that Mr. Wright applied to politicians who are elected of enough people do not vote. My challenge to him was his assumption that the people prevented from voting in elections prevented election of more knowledgeable politicians.

I don’t think I injected party or race into the commentary, that is your contribution.

To the poor, the elderly, the unsettled, the "trivial inconvenience" that you refer to--still no specifics from you on what you propose--might be far from trivial. A lot of people don't have drivers licenses and can't afford either the hassle, the time, or the cash to obtain a Voter ID card, or to leap over whatever hurdle you want to put between them and the polls.

Unless there's some benefit from instituting a "trivial inconvenience"--and no benefit has yet been demonstrated, as there has been no demonstration of any measureable degree of so-called "voter fraud"--what's the point? Your assumption that a low hurdle to you is low to everyone is arrogant and unsupportable.

My "hypothesis" about uninformed voters benefiting Republicans is backed by fact. Twice as many Bush voters in 2004 were ignorant of his stands on issues as Kerry voters were of his.