The Washington Post has a story on how Florida Republicans are trying to keep Demoicrats from voting. The same is happening nationwide. Nevada GOP supporters are actually throwing away registrations of those they believe are Democrats.

Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Just not for Americans. Click here and scroll down to “Campaign Security Screening Crowds for Doubters.”

According to The Washington Post, 94 Palestinians and five Israelis have been killed since the Israel entered the Gaza Strip in the past two weeks. This doesn’t include the people killed in the bombing of an Egyptian resort hotel yesterday.

How many people died in that blast is unclear. The print edition of The Post puts the death toll at 35. But the story on the paper’s web site, updated at 8:00 this morning, claims “at least 20” dead.

The print story was front page all across the top page of the paper with a photo, prime newspaper real estate. Other stories about the conflict may have missed the reader’s attention over the past two week:

Israeli Attacks Kill 11 Palestinian Fighters

10 More Palestinians Killed in Gaza Blitz

19 Palestinians Killed in Gaza

7 Palestinians Killed in Spate Of Violence

Why did some of you miss these stories? Because they were, respectively, on pages A26, A14, A22 and A20.

These four stories alone add up to 47 Palestinians killed while 20 people, most presumed to be Israelis, were killed yesterday and five others over the past two weeks. And as noted, The Post puts the two week death toll at 94 Palestinians killed. Yet, The Post today follows its familiar pattern of giving prominent play to attacks that kill Israelis while burying stories about Palestinians killed in the conflict. That hardly seems balanced coverage.

When I wrote earlier this year about this issue, I concluded, “Let’s see where the next suicide attack story is placed.” Now we know.

The Washington Post continues its “For the Record” series as well as its habit of misleading headlines in an effort to appear balanced.

Today’s article about the charges John Edwards made in the debate against Dick Cheney is headlined “Halliburton Charges Jumbled by Edwards And Denied by Cheney.” The lede and second graph:

In the debate with Vice President Cheney on Tuesday, Sen. John Edwards referred to allegations of wrongdoing by Halliburton Corp. several times and raised questions about the Bush administration’s handling of government contracting in Iraq.

But in doing so, Edwards occasionally jumbled or oversimplified the complex details of the company’s role as a contractor and of its ties to Cheney, who served as Halliburton’s chief executive from 1995 to 2000.

But then the 559-word article charges only that

the Democrat conflated two contracts, the second of which is a troop support arrangement awarded to Halliburton before the war, after a competition. That contract helped make Halliburton the top government contractor in Iraq. The Pentagon has considered — but has not acted on — several suggestions from auditors to withhold 15 percent of future payments because of questions about the company’s billing.

The rest of the article essentially confirms Edwards’ charges are accurate.

In fact, next to this article is another about Cheney giving the wrong web address for Fact Check, a non-partisan web site that reviews the accuracy of political charges.

Cheney “wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton,” the Annenberg site wrote in a posting yesterday. “In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn’t profited personally while in office from Halliburton’s Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney’s responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.”

Why then do we have a headline that focuses on one “jumbled” charge?

A better, though not perfect, approach is Jim VandeHei’s in his front page story about Bush’s speech yesterday.

The story is flawed in two ways: The headline, “Bush: Kerry Would ‘Weaken’ U.S.” is simply Bush’s talking point. It’s the message Bush wants to send, and thanks to The Post, it is duly delivered in 32-point type. The second problem is that the truth is not discussed until deep in the story. But when it is, it’s precise.

While Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf War and many defense bills, he has supported numerous increases in defense spending and voted for multilateral action in Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia, as well as for the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

Bush reached back to comments from the early 1970s to portray Kerry as someone who would bow to international pressure and require a “global test” before protecting the nation. In doing so, he misrepresented Kerry’s stated position: the Democratic nominee has repeatedly said he would consult with but never allow other nations to veto U.S. actions.

…Many of Bush’s charges were misleading, including that Kerry would raise taxes on all Americans; Kerry has said he would raise taxes for those making more than $200,000 a year but reduce them for most everyone else, including corporations. Bush also said that Kerry is planning a move toward “Clinton care,” a reference to President Bill Clinton’s failed attempt to create a health care system with more government funding; Kerry would dramatically expand the federal health care system, but the system would rely mainly on private companies to provide coverage and care. Bush warned of consumers facing limited choices and “rationed care,” neither of which Kerry advocates.

Finally, Bush said Kerry would increase spending by $2 trillion or more. “That’s a lot of money — even for a senator from Massachusetts,” Bush said, to thunderous applause and laughter, repeating Cheney’s exact words from the night before. What he did not mention is that budget experts say the president has proposed even more additional spending, perhaps $3 trillion.

Maybe a better headline would have been “Bush Jumbles Charges Against Kerry.” The lede could then reflect that instead of Bush’s talking points.

I’m on the road for a couple of days and won’t b able to post much. Back Weds.

AP is reporting that Kerry’s debate performance might have moved the needle.

Businesswoman Marilyn Morrison of San Marcos, Calif., leans toward Bush, but after the 57-year-old Republican watched the debate, she turned to her Democratic husband and said, “If Kerry won, I could live with it.”

Morrison, who voted for Bush in 2000, says she never would have said that before watching the presidential debate, which focused on foreign policy.

Persuadable voters tended to credit Kerry with doing a better job in the debate. CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of 200 persuadable — or uncommitted — voters on Thursday night. Those voters said Kerry did a better job in the debate by 43 percent to 28 percent, with the remainder saying it was a tie.

More than half, 53 percent, said they had a more favorable view of Kerry after the debate….

Now here’s the kicker: “…22 percent said their view of Bush improved.”

Wonder what they must have thought of the guy beforehand? Fortunately, the debate rules didn’t allow the candidates to walk around much less chew gum.

After only a year on the job, the nation’s top cybersecurity guru quit “amid a concerted campaign by the technology industry and some lawmakers to persuade the Bush administration to give him more authority and money for protection programs.”

But it seems Amit Yoran and George Bush were never made to get along.

Both were born to a life of privilege, but while Bush chose to party and had no interest – until even just a couple of years ago – in foreign policy, Amit never had an interest in things like drugs and was focused from early on on foreign affairs.

While President Bush chose the typical rich boy Ivy League route by going to Yale, Amit chose to serve his country by going to West Point.

While President Bush did as much as possible to avoid having to serve in the military – fleeing to the Texas Air National Guard, and even fleeing AWOL from there – Amit fought to overcome scholastic and physical challenges to fight his way into West Point.

While George Bush was handed businesses by his daddy’s friends and one by one ran them into the ground, Amit started a company on his own and quickly grew it into a massive success.

And while President Bush is a newcomer to “conservative” values and political ideas, only coming to them after 40-plus years of being an unambitious, uninterested alcoholic – and even then only embracing the dishonest, fully-flawed Rush Limbaugh version of conservatism – Amit has always been a moderate socially and conservative politically, and his conservative politics are based on solid ideals and a belief in certain policies that has been borne over years of active consideration and experience.

So in the end the question is not, “Will Amit Yoran make a good chief of cybersecurity for the Department of Homeland Security?”

He will, and, not being a Bush-brand Republican but a true, morally sound moderate, he can be trusted not to abuse his position or attack in the way the hateful, paranoid Ashcroft does.

Yoran’s days were numbered from the day he took the job.

There’s plenty of good analysis about the debate (just not in my beloved Washington Post). Josh Marshall’s take is pretty good.

While most observers say Kerry achieved what he wanted, i.e., to look and sound like a credible commander-in-chief, the real test comes in the next few days to see if the GOP can spin it otherwise. I suspect the one quote you’ll hear the right talk about was when Kerry said a pre-emptive strike must “pass a global test.” He seemed to regret the words as soon as they came out. My guess is that is one of the phrases that will be in the president’s speeches, perhaps an ad and certainly in the right wing cable TV and radio echo chamber. Kerry better have a quick answer.

But Kerry still has work to do. He did not address the mangled “I voted for it, before I against it” syntax. He had the chance and could have said, “I always supported the $67 million for our soldiers but I thought the additional $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction should have come from rich taxpayers who’ve never been asked to sacrifice for this war. I voted for the bill when they were asked to join our soldiers in sacrifice, but when the president said he didn’t want them to sacrifice and backed a competing bill, I voted against it as a protest.”

Kerry also needs to look at the camera. Speak to the people, not to the moderator. TV commentators always respond to questions from the host by turning directly to the camera. Bush was better at this.

He also needs to ridicule the president more. He should make a point of trying to make light of his not including Poland in the alliance – as if they are critical. And when he talks about allies he should refer to them as “world power” allies, to make the distinction between them and Costa Rica et al. He could also use the quote Kevin Drum uncovered.

Here’s what President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland thinks of the coalition today: “They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.”

While the rules say he can’t address Bush directly, he should occasionally look directly at Bush when speaking. I’ll bet that will rattle Bush or cause him to give us one of his unforgettable faces, perhaps the “My Pet Goat” deer-in-the-headlights stare.

Kerry also need to make the point in the town hall debate that he says he’ll win the war in Iraq only because he is responsible enough to know that just because Bush made a monumental mistake we can’t walk away from it, but that we’ll be cleaning up after Bush for a long time to come and Bush must be held accountable.

A second university has rescinded its invitation to filmmaker Michael Moore to speak after protests from conservatives.

President Alan Merten of George Mason University in my community of Fairfax, Va. said of Moore, whose film “9/11 Fahrenheit” was critical of Bush, “It would have been well within our right to [invite Moore],” according to The Washington Post article — but that Merten decided it “was not the wisest use of state money.” California State University-San Marcos, near San Diego, also recently caved to pressure.

The snub came after two of the Virginia state legislature’s most conservative members, Republicans Dick Black of Loudoun County and Bob Marshall of Prince William County, complained.

Word spread quickly, and after complaints from the legislators and some members of the community reached the office of President Alan G. Merten this week, the school announced that the event, coming so close to the presidential election, would be “an inappropriate use of state resources.”

A few things are important here:

One, Moore is coming anyway but obviously won’t be paid a fee by GMU. Who will sponsor his appearance isn’t clear. But my guess is he’ll have a bigger audience because of the flap.

Two, the obvious capitulation of an academic institution that is supposed to be a place where all views are heard sends a chilling message to students and faculty. The state-funded GMU is fast becoming overcrowded and only this year got an infusion of cash after Democrats and moderate Republicans formed an alliance to pass new tax measure. Merten may have feared that having Moore could result in legislation in the next Assembly cutting his funds.

Three, The Post story, co-written by one of the newspapers laziest reporters, Lisa Rein, makes no attempt to find out if conservative speakers were paid to speak at the university. The story broke Wednesday. So reporters had time to do a little research and ask for a list of speakers GMU has paid in the past couple of years. But they either declined to do so or were unsuccessful, a point they should have made in the story. The reporters included a comment from a GMU student who agreed with the decision to cancel the speech to but did give voice to any faculty or student opposed to the cancellation.

But that’s typical of Rein’s conservative and lazy reporting.

I and I’m sure others will be trying to find out who has spoken at GMU.

Care to complain? Here’s GMU President Alan Merten’s email address: amerten@gmu.edu