A day before the infamous crossfire appearance, Jon Stewart was on C-span's "America Perspectives" for a one-hour talk. He covers a lot of the same ground (and uses a few jokes that showed up in his show in subsequent weeks) and it's really quite something to see him at work. Here's the stream, pass it on.

He's clearly not entirely comfortable in the role he's playing here. He makes jokes to get away from tough questions -- totally dodged the "where do you get your news from" query -- but he has good answers here on a number of standard critiques. For instance, on the idea that "kids get their news from the Daily Show," his answer is simple: they don't, because if they didn't already understand current events the show wouldn't be funny.

I also think it's very revealing the kinds of questions other people ask him. For instance, the first question from the audience was from an older guy, a dad, who worked at Citigroup, a muslim, and his question was "how do we make peace with the 1.2 billion muslims who want to make peace?"

That's the question he asked Jon Stewart. I begin to see why Jon's so uncomfortable being in the position he's in. Fighting for the Truth (cap-t) is hard, and when you do it in times like these, people fucking up and swarm to you like you came down from heaven. Tough, ugly business.

Tucker Eskew is an advisor/spokesperson for the Bush/Cheney campaign, and seems to have started a blog. Unlike the Bush (or Kerry) blogs, this seems to actually be a blog, rather than a series of press releases. Kudos to Tucker for venturing out with a more open kind of spin, disagree with it though I might.

I'll probably pick some of the messages apart later.

This is one of the few times I've killed five minutes taking a web quiz and not been dissapointed by the results:

Which File Extension are You?

I emailed Jay Rosen about the poll of Bush supporters below. He's head of NYU's journalism school, so I figured he'd have an interesting take. He said it's complecated, and that it's hard to make a story out of journalists jaws dropping. The best quote:

Strange as it sounds, we're going to have an election to settle this "reality" thing.

Here's hoping that it works.

More dishonesty from a Bush campaign that thrives on illusions.

The text of their new scare ad, "Wolves," begins with something along the lines of "Even after the first terrorist attacks on America, Kerry voted to cut intelligence funding."

They're referring to the attempted WTC bombing in 1993, of course, but millions will assume (wrongly) they mean 9/11. This deception is plain and intentional.

The conclusion of the ad, that such cuts would have made us more vulnerable, is also not necessarily supported by the facts. FactCheck.org reports that Kerry's proposed cost-savings amounted to a 1% cut, and that similar measures were advanced by Republicans.

Baseless fearmongering seems to be the 9th inning strategy for team Bush, while the Democrats seem to be resorting to a plea for sanity. The DNC has responded with a lighter ad comparing Eagles to Ostriches; soring high with sharp vision vs. head in the sand. It's a nice contrast, and makes sense to me, but my gut tells me the dishonest scare-ad will be more effective. Hope I'm wrong.

Krugman: Voting and Counting

By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is influential because of its illustrious history, report a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines "likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point Bush lead among registered voters. And as the Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger), Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a much smaller proportion of both minority and young voters than the actual proportions of these voters in the 2000 election.

I think his credits to Teixeria and Soto mark a NY Times first, though real insiders must still wonder when and if he'll credit Brad Delong, who's often a week or two ahead of him on economic analysis (sometimes they use the same charts). However, here he's tackling a distorted media perception and a pattern of disenfranchisement, not economics. His conclusion is red hot, incendiary:

But we must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support.

While most other columnists are running out the clock with recycled conventional wisdom and bland metaphors, Krugman is bringing heat in the 9th inning, throwing all his fastballs. And why the hell not? Why not go all the hell out? Yeah! Let's fucking bury these goddamn crooks!

Krugman: Voting and Counting

By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is influential because of its illustrious history, report a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines "likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point Bush lead among registered voters. And as the Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger), Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a much smaller proportion of both minority and young voters than the actual proportions of these voters in the 2000 election.

I think his credits to Teixeria and Soto mark a NY Times first, though real insiders must still wonder when and if he'll credit Brad Delong, who's often a week or two ahead of him on economic analysis (sometimes they use the same charts). However, here he's tackling a distorted media perception and a pattern of disenfranchisement, not economics. His conclusion is red hot, incendiary:

But we must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support.

While most other columnists are running out the clock with recycled conventional wisdom and bland metaphors, Krugman is bringing heat in the 9th inning, throwing all his fastballs. And why the hell not? Why not go all the hell out? Yeah! Let's fucking bury these goddamn crooks!

The Doctor Speaks:

"Some people say that George Bush should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on November 2nd."

Plenty more good stuff in there. He's slowing down in his age, but's he still got it.

A look into the non-reality-based community. PIPA survey of Bush, Kerry supporters:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program...

75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission...

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves.

I don't know what to do about this. The propaganda and pride are a lot to overcome, and simple "making people aware of the facts" isn't going to do it. The Bush/Cheney04 campaign is one of the most patently dishonest in US history: fully 1/2 of its support is based on outright misconceptions.

Young voters turning to fake anchor for insight / Comic Jon Stewart scores points with rant on 'Crossfire':

"Here is someone who is ridiculing the system, yet he will be part of the system and vote," said Josh Koenig, a co-founder of Music for America, a year- old effort based in Redwood City to engage young voters. "When he did that on 'Crossfire,' we were jumping up and down. That's exactly how young people feel. "

Hey! I got a quote above the fold on the front page of the SF Cronicle! Saw that when I walked into my downstairs coffee shop. Cool!

Maybe I should start a new category explicitly for "self aggrandizement."