Is anyone else bothered by the bizarre way the recent "gay marriage ban" defeat has been covered?

For example, the Associated Press (in typical oh-so-neutral style) has the following first paragraph:

The Republican-controlled House emphatically defeated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes pushed to a vote by GOP leaders in the run-up to Election Day.

CNN's story had the subheading "Vote is 227-186 against a constitutional measure", saying the House acted "decisively" against the amendment.

But that's absurd. The vote wasn't 227-186 against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it was 227-186 in favor of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage! To call a significant majority an "emphatic defeat" is ludicrous, and saying the vote was "against" the measure is just flat-out wrong.

The reason it didn't pass, of course, is because 2/3rds of the House was needed, which would have been more than 270 votes. But those details are buried deep within the article, as was the point that more Democrats supported the measure than Republicans opposed it.

Personally, I'm in favor of gay marriage and am glad the amendment failed. But I'll still point out when bias is so extreme as to actively deceive the reader.

Some thoughts on the candidates' performances:

Bush's Three Strongest Moments

1. Bush's (repeated) articulation that Kerry can't constantly say the war was wrong and a mistake and unjust, and then somehow use that to convince other nations to send more troops. He's right: if countries didn't want to send troops to what the U.S. said was a just war, does anyone think Kerry could get them to send troops to an unjust one? As Bush said, what would you say to them -- "join us in a grand diversion?"



2. Bush's skewering of Kerry's very weak argument on North Korea. (See Kerry's final "weakest moment" on this.)



3. Bush's very gracious and classy refusal to hit Lehrer's softball question on whether Kerry has the character to be President, instead spending the time praising Kerry's service, his love of country, being a good dad, etc. Plus, it made Kerry have to do the same, admitting for the first time that Bush very much loved his country and was doing what he thought was right. In such an intensely bitter contest, Bush stepped up and improved the tone, and it was genuine.

Bush's Three Weakest Moments

1. Bush's too-defensive and pissy "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." Eek, I should hope so.



2. Bush's very careful pronounciation of his vocabulary word "vo-cif-er-ous-ly", and his occasional lost-puppy look before answering a difficult question.



3. Bush's constant, eyeroll-inducing revisiting of past speeches and sound bites, particularly his repetition of Kerry's "wrong war wrong place wrong time" speech line. Bush repeated it so many times that it stuck in my head. It was like giving free advertising space to the competitor.

Kerry's Three Strongest Moments

1. Kerry's detailing the other nations who were more of a threat than Iraq, though oft-used, was clear and powerful here, especially with regards to Iran.



2. Kerry's dramatically improved likeability (and orange-covering makeup), and actually looking Presidential for once (visually, the podium height really did a lot to help him there.)



3. Kerry's best line: "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong." This struck me as far more powerful than just saying Bush is "stubborn". As I've said on this blog repeatedly, if Kerry's biggest problem is constantly shifting positions, than Bush's biggest problem is his unwillingless to consider changing positions or strategies based on new information.

Kerry's Three Weakest Moments

1. Kerry's continued inability to articulate a clear Iraq stance is extraordinarily disturbing. But the moment that really got me was, after a debate (and last few months) of constantly detailing how (1) our men and women were dying in Iraq, and (2) that it was an absolute mistake to go to war, when Jim Lehrer asked Kerry if our men and women were dying for a mistake, he emphatically said no! And then went into typical both-sides-of-the-mouth Kerry speak for a while.



2. Kerry's flat-out mistakes, such as claiming never to have used the word "lied" with respect to the President (despite many sound bites to the contrary), and his bizarre claim that the New York subways were shut down during the Republican convention (they weren't.)



3. Kerry's blink-inducing opposition to multilaterial talks on North Korea. For the senator to constantly hammer the President on not having enough nations beside us in Iraq, to claim that going back to non-working one-on-one talks with North Korea instead of the new multination summits shows yet another example of how Kerry's positions are driven by opposing the President at all costs, regardless of which are better ideas.

Actually, to limit myself to three Kerry "weakest moments" is very difficult, since I could also talk about the additional inconsistency between wanting to take the burden off of American troops and then criticizing the President for allowing weak Afghani troops to search for (and allegedly lose) Osama, his untrue claim that only "the rich" got tax cuts (even CNN criticized Kerry for that lie), the still-too-frequent mentions of Vietnam, giving uranium to Iran (what?!), the "global test" line, etc, etc. etc. Needless to say, I remain convinced Kerry would make a pretty awful President.

Overall, I think on content, Bush was the winner, and on exceeding expectations as a debater, Kerry was the winner. The public seems to agree with me on that, based on the Gallup poll (detailed one post below). If I had to guess how this debate will affect the overall polls, I'd say Bush's numbers will stay the same, and Kerry will pick up some undecideds. But the real test is going to be the debate on domestic policy, which Bush is weaker at -- if Kerry can do that well in a debate on his weakest subject, Bush better be on his A-game in the coming weeks.

It's interesting to look through the polls this morning regarding the public's reaction to the debate last night. The most in-depth assessment was the Gallup/USAToday poll, whose numbers could be best be summed up as this: Kerry won the debate, but Bush would make a better President. What's striking is how some of the numbers compare to Bush-Gore back in 2000 -- Kerry was viewed as much more likeable than Gore, expressed himself more clearly than Gore, was more believable than Gore, etc. And yet Kerry looks like he has far less chance of winning than Gore did. So what gives?

The aforementioned poll reveals a few clues, most strikingly in that only 37% of people believe Kerry is "tough enough for the job." That strikes me as a very low number (Bush is at 54%). If Kerry only has 37% support on this key issue, that means independents and even many of his own party don't have confidence in him. Bush also won several other key points from the debate watchers, such as who would better command the military (Bush 54%, Kerry 44%), who would do a better job in Iraq (Bush 54%, Kerry 43%), and who was more likeable (Bush 48%, Kerry 41%). He also won a few more with closer margins, such as who agreed with you more on the issues (Bush 49%, Kerry 46%), and who was more believeable (Bush 50%, Kerry 45%).

In fact, the only question Kerry won over Bush was who expressed himself more clearly, which was Kerry 60% (!), Bush 32%. Which is why the majority believes Kerry did a better job in the debate. But the public saw past the debate skill and into the content, and sided with Bush. Which is why, even being perceived as a weak debater, Bush will likely win reelection.

Thanks to all who participated in the chat! The whole transcript is too large to post, but I'll go through it and post some interesting questions that came up tomorrow.

The official debate debate is done, but I left the chatroom open (instructions are below) should anyone care to keep chatting.

More coverage tomorrow!

Greetings! If you'd like to join our post-debate chat, I have the following recommendations.

1) Registering your username is optional. The only benefit is that no one can take your name later. All you have to do is enter a username (whatever you like), and scroll down to the bottom and click the CHAT button. Don't worry about rooms; we're only using the default area which is where you'll login to.

2) When you get in, I highly recommend you first type the following command: /notify This will eliminate the Person X has entered the room type comments which clutter the screen.

3) I am djj (as in, defeatjohnjohn, get it?) I will ask specific questions but all conversation is welcome.

Obviously it goes without saying that we should be respectful, and I will kick off anyone making personal attacks against another (not counting attacks on their opinions). I debated making this a moderated forum, but I've decided for a bit of a free-for-all for our first experiment, especially since I don't even know if anyone will show up. :)

The chat will last from 10:45pm - midnight Eastern Standard Time.

To login to the chat, click here.

Despite the constant quoting and requoting of campaign speeches and talking points from both candidates, and the ridiculous restrictions placed on the debate formats in general, I did think this debate was actually pretty useful and valuable for the voter. There were some very stark differences between the candidates, and some bizarre similarities, too. Both candidates did much better than I was expecting, and I look forward to reading the transcript when it's available.

Let's find out if some of you agree! I'll be posting login instructions in a few minutes, and we'll have a chat from 10:45pm-midnight Eastern Standard Time.

I'm all set up over here for our first experimental live chat.

Directly following tonight's debate (around 10:30-10:45 eastern), I'll post a link and instructions for using the online chat program I've set up. It's pretty basic but should do. I'm not going to require registration, so feel free to chat anonymously.

There will be a few moderated questions but otherwise, since this is just an experiment, we'll leave the rules pretty open this time.

Hope to see some of you tonight!

Some of you have probably received that old urban legend email about a secret plan to reinstitute the draft. You may remember the same emails back when they accused Clinton of being the one with the "secret plan". Now they've been re-edited to scare young people away from voting for Bush.

Only problem? Bush is on record many, many, many times as opposing the draft, and has repeatedly assured all voters that military service will remain strictly voluntary. No one in his administration supports bringing back the draft. The vast majority of congress would never pass a draft. Bush can't even drink a draft anymore. That this is even up for debate is silly.

Of course, this isn't stopping Bush opponents from using the issue to scare people, such as Colorado's "Students for Kerry", who have been posting flyers everywhere reading: "You blew it. You didn't vote last time. Now you're gonna get drafted."

It's not enough to outrageously exaggerate a person's position on an issue, such as "Bush wants to eliminate gay rights." No, these people think they can scare more voters if they claim Bush has the exact opposite position, which would be the equivalent of an anti-Kerry group putting up flyers claiming "Kerry will take away a woman's right to choose! Vote Bush!"

Surely a responsible news organization would want to debunk these rumors. So naturally, CBS News last night did the exact opposite. In their latest piece of psuedo-journalistic vomit, they interviewed Beverly Cocco, who they called a typical concerned mother scared that her sons will be drafted. Nowhere in the piece did they mention the Cocco is hardly just an "average independent mom", but a Chapter President of the organization "People Against the Draft." Worse, after complaints to CBS about this omission, they recently added a line to the online transcript about her "involvement" with the group, without even revealing that the line wasn't actually in the aired broadcast!! Who in the hell do these people think they are?

And, although the story did mention that Bush claims to oppose the draft, it ended with the oh-so-neutral line "she's a Bush supporter today, but if she doesn't like what she hears between now and November, she could easily cross over." (Frankly, I find it hard to believe she's a "Bush supporter" based on her organization's website, but I'm sure the story "sold" better that way.)

What's really infuriating the blogosphere is that, incredibly, CBS even showed the debunked urban legend emails without even mentioning what they really were. And, like the urban legend emails, it's mentioned that there are bills in the House and Senate to reintroduce the draft, without mentioning that (1) neither bill had any support and didn't get out of committee, and (2) BOTH BILLS were sponsored by DEMOCRATS, with 100% DEMOCRATIC co-sponsors, and not supported by Bush OR A SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS.

What was left of CBS' journalistic integrity has now officially left the building. The Great Eye is closed.

Now, I'm not quite sold that this newest CBS deal is "worse than the guard memos", to quote rathergate.com. But it's still unconscionably sleazy, and another example of CBS transparently trying to sway the Presidential election in favor of Kerry. Can there really be any other explanation?

Ya know, it's oddly flattering when you don't post for a day and you get emails asking if you're okay. Oh, and when's the next comic coming out. Oh, and if the chat is still on for Thursday.

To answer the last part, yes, a few of us political junkies will be chatting live on this site directly following the first Presidential Debate on Thursday, from 11:00pm - midnight. I'm not sure how many will be attending (readership has died down since I stopped offering monetary rewards) but even if it's just a dozen of us, I think it could be fun. If you're at a computer at 11:00pm, feel free to drop by and share your thoughts.

For those looking for a new political posting, since I deprived you of one earlier, I'd advise checking out this short and sweet little election breakdown from ludicrosity.com. Which group are you in?

As far as comics go, I'm waiting until the debate for some new material ;) , but I found a few of my controversial old college comic strip from 2000-2001 (from MSU's school newspaper) which still seem relevant. (As you can see, I wasn't much of a cartoonist then, either.)






He, he. And I wondered why I got hate mail.

I sometimes get emails and comments asking my opinions on certain issues, so I thought I'd offer some quick Monday morning thoughts on topics of the day and weekend. Which, actually, is closer to what other blogs usually do, anyway. :)

The Debates: I love the 32 page debate rulebook the candidates have agreed to. I think it's hysterical. I also love that Kerry is now being portrayed in the mainstream press as the poor underdog, like in this tidbit from CNN: "The debates mark the first time Kerry will match up face-to-face with Bush, a fact that has elevated lower-profile candidates in the past, like Sen. John F. Kennedy in 1960." Ah, so Kerry's "lower-profile" now?

Bush's Increasing Lead: There seems to be a widespread assumption by the left that the only reason people aren't supporting Kerry is because they don't yet know who he is (I guess cause he's so low profile). But wouldn't that theory hold more water if his numbers started weak and gradually got better? Instead, they've been going down in recent months, and Bush's have been rising, which to me is indicative that the reason people aren't supporting Kerry is precisely because now they do know who he is.

The Killian Forgeries: Believe it or not, I'm still getting emails from people who are convinced the CBS documents are genuine and could "obviously" have been made from an Executive D, Selectric Composer, or other obscure professional typesetting equipment. I've been as nice as I can to these misguided individuals, and I'm appreciative of all comments (even dissention), but it can get pretty maddening. It is not possible for a rational person to read this Washington Post report, not to mention all available research from every TrueType and typesetting expert from Newcomer to Dolinar, and still believe the memos are genuine. And there's the far more logical point: if it was possible to recreate the memos with 1972 technology, someone would have done it by now. This site alone generated 100,000 visitors and significant national publicity with our $50,000 challenge, and yet none of the many people who tried were successful. And I'm just a small site -- don't you think CBS themselves (not to mention everyone else in the media) tried every single typewriter and typesetter they could think of so they wouldn't look like morons? I am flabbergasted that at this point it's even debatable.

Florida Pummeling: According to a recent survey, 31% of Floridans say the recent storms have "caused them to think about leaving" the state. The survey is being reported as "eek there might be an exodus from Florida", and I'm sure you might see a little of that. But what's more striking to me is that 69% haven't thought about it. Really? Not even a tiny bit? Never even popped into your head as the third hurricane hit? I'm not sure if that's dedication or stubbornness. :)

AP Bias: Not much I can say on this issue that Power Line didn't already cover here, but I'm not terribly surprised. Recent studies by non-partisan (and even left-leaning) media organizations such as the Center for Media and Public Affairs seem to show the problem worsening, especially around this election. Despite the subheading "Study Finds Election News Tilts Both Ways", the report (which you can download here) actually shows ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Time, and Newsweek to be dramatically and demonstrably pro-Kerry (and anti-Bush), whereas Fox is alone on the other side by being anti-Kerry. That's hardly "balance", since Fox only has 2 million viewers vs. 100 million on the networks, but it's still troubling. Especially since most people know that Fox has a conservative slant, but don't realize that it's no more conservative than the networks are liberal. (Personally, I don't care for Fox -- not because of bias, but because I hate that trashy tabloid-tv style they package everything into.) People are starting to notice, for as Gallup recently reported, media trust and credibility is at its lowest point ever recorded -- and lower among all political parties, too, not just Republicans mad at CBS. But the Killian forgeries were just the latest proof that the mainstream press will try anything and everything to get Kerry elected, and those of us who disagree have to watch them very, very carefully.

Kerry's Comments on Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi: I was going to write a long posting on this a few days ago, but really, what more can I say? Things like that are why this site exists: Kerry is an ass, and demonstrably, flat-out unfit for the Presidency.