DeRatings

Ratings for the three debates:

Debate 1: 62.5 million people
Debate 2: 46.7 million people
Debate 3: 51.2 million people

To put it in context, an average of around 20 million people watched the conventions (22.6 for the Republican Zell-fest, 20.4 for the Democratic milquetoast-a-thon). Typically, 90 million people watch the Super Bowl. I don't really have much insight into this. I guess it's a good sign that the most people watched the first ass-whomping, but who knows?

Tangentially: How about changing the format of the debates to make it spicier? Here are two ideas: 1) I didn't like the moderator having too much power to ask all the questions. How about having at least one question for each side asked by whichever organization each candidate designates? I like the potential drama of a partisan publication like the Weekly Standard trying to design the most difficult, damning question for their blood rival. 2) Have a 10 minute intermission whereby a crack team of experts publicly refute any egregious mistatements by either of the candidates. Lots of problems with this idea, not the least of which being that both sides would never agree on who's impartial enough to be on the fact-checking team. But I think it would both make the debate more interesting and ensure both teams go to press with a more truthful presentation, lest they get caught red-handed in a lie.

Sexual Harassment = 'Silly Racket'

Check out the National Review's "The Corner." It's on the blogizroll on the right -->
I check it most days -- it's usually good for at least a laugh and, on occasion, a surprisingly intelligent conversation. Sometimes, though, you get gems like this ridiculousness by John Derbyshire (commenting on the Bill O'Reilly suit):

"The thing that strikes me most forcefully, though, is what a silly racket this whole "sexual harassment" business is..... It would just -- and I repeat, this is EVEN IF it were all true -- be a guy behaving obnoxiously. When did women cease to be able to deal with that? The very few times I've been obnoxious to women, they gave as good as they got, and then some. But then, my pockets are barely an inch deep."

I don't know if the suit against O'Reilly is true or not. I'm thinking it's probably not, largely because the plaintiff resembles a hippopotamus. But does this jackass really think that those comments are acceptable in the workplace? Does he not think that she should have the right to sue HER BOSS for making her that uncomfortable and abused? I'm baffled. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- he's the same fool who thinks homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia

Or maybe I'm wrong. Shit.

Looks like the big story from the debate is not Bush's Osama bin Laden idiocy, but that vicious, gay-baiting, outing of Mary Cheney by Kerry. As Los Pants exemplified yesterday, it's silly to articulate how ridiculous this flap is when Andrew Sullivan has written so amazingly on the topic. But, while I'd really like to set both Lynn and Dick Cheney on fire, it's apparent that bringing up their daughter was a mistake. Those on both sides of the aisle are perceiving it as political opportunism. You may disagree. But I think it was was telling that when Los Pantalones and I were watching the debate with four or five other like-minded, NYC, single males, there was an audible gasp, a "no you didn't!" moment after Kerry referenced Cheney's daughter. Yes, it's disgraceful that most of America still holds deep prejudices against the homosexual community. But that's not the issue. Kerry's ham-handed handling of it is.

More than anything, though, it pisses me off that this, of all things, is the big story emerging from the debates.

Good rebound!

I thought this was interesting. Conventional wisdom is stupid:

Want to know something funny about Taxachusetts? For every dollar it pays Uncle Sam in taxes, it receives only 97 cents back in federal services and subsidies. That ranks it 44th among the 50 states in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes. Indeed, there's a very strong correlation between liberal, pro-government "blue states" and states that are least dependent on federal spending. There's also a strong correlation between conservative, anti-government "red states" and states that are most dependent on federal spending. If you think of Red America as stubbornly self-reliant and Blue America as a drain on the Treasury, you've got it exactly backward.

Good to see Noah got back on his game after that dreadful, piece of dung article he wrote about swing voters a few weeks ago.

Egg-zaa-ger-ay-shuns

I'm feeling good about last night.
As you've all probably seen by now, the flash polls are showing a Kerry victory.
But more importantly, Kerry has a much stronger highlight reel moment from Bush's Osama gaffe. (I continue to be impressed by how quickly the Dems are getting out these campaign videos). Simply put, the Republicans harping about Kerry's "vicious" attack on Cheney's lesbo daughter doesn't inspire or excite people the same way as the President of the United States saying he's "not concerned" about catching the man who masterminded the killing of 3,000 Americans.

I'm feeling better about Kerry's chances now than I ever have been.

Nice, manly jab

From CNN:

Leno asked Edwards if he could beat the president in a foot race. Edwards, who said he jogged about five miles Tuesday, reminded the audience he played football as a student. Bush, he noted, was on a cheering squad. Bush "was on the side, with his pompoms," the North Carolina senator said. "I don't know, can you run fast with those cheerleading outfits on?"

Hindsight is 20/20, but...

With the Jeter-ARod-Sheffield-Matsui combo coming up in the bottom of the 8th, Francona needed to put Foulke in the game. Maybe he would have given up a few runs, maybe it would have been shortsighted if the BoSox wound up tying the game in the 9th, but you can't give up those two runs after scoring seven straight runs. Poor, if conventional, decision.

Pedro shuts the Yankees down tonight. 6-2 Boston win.

Complete Horse Pucky

Another Bush whopper refuted. You know how he claims that he's only raised discretionary spending (non-defense/homeland security) by only one percent in his tenure? Well, that's not true. In fact, his spending has far exceeded the last five presidents:

Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
Carter: 2.0% per year
Reagan: -1.3% per year
Bush 1: 4.0% per year
Clinton: 2.5% per year
Bush Jr: 8.2% per year

If you say it enough times, it becomes true, though.

Can he be serious?

This Sinclair group anti-Kerry informercial that will be aired in many of the swing states is clearly absurd. But worse still is their CEO/Spokesperson/Douchebag's reasoning. I'd like this troglodyte to explain how a bunch of crotchety Vietnam vets is somehow analagous to fighting a war versus Islamic fundamentalism?

"Why won't John Kerry speak with these Vietnam POWs? He has been avoiding them for 31 years. If he's afraid of a bunch of 60 and 70- year-old men who were wounded and tortured in Vietnam, what does it say about his ability to respond to al Qaeda if they were to attack the U.S. if he were serving as president?"

The Daily Krug

What's a left-leaning blog without a little Krugman?
Although I questioned the logic behind the tax cuts, especially after the first year, I thought the declining economy/Sept. 11th had more to do with the deficit. Kerry should really hammer this home:

"Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit."