Campaigns and the people who budget them

This is why people shell out big bucks for access to NationalReview.com (decidedly not free registration required). For those who have it (and why are you reading my blog if you do), it's here. Some interesting facts about budgeting a presidential campaign:

• John Kerry has spent $47 million on overhead.
• George Bush has spent $27.5 million.
  

Why the $20 million dollar difference?

"It's a built-in advantage for the president. He gets to fly around on Air Force One every time he goes somewhere and he can give a speech -- call it official business -- and doesn't have to reimburse virtually anything (they always reimburse something) but they don't have to reimburse that much for the use of Air Force One."

"Senator Kerry has spent $20 million on travel in terms of charter jets and so forth and basic travel for his staff, whereas President Bush has spent about $4 million."

Now here's the kicker:

"The next big way that they differ is that they have very different fund raising approaches. And if you look at sort of the overall numbers so far -- and this is just through the primary season -- you're talking about fund raising outlays for Senator Kerry of about $20 million. And on the president's side of the ledger, you're talking about fund raising expenses of $50 million. So
there's a $30 million difference. Big difference."

$30 million dollars? Can you imagine just dumping that in a swing state like Florida? Let's not even mention cheaper media markets like West Virginia, Iowa, or Wisconsin. If you've already bought every available second of airtime, what about get out the vote? You could hire the margin of victory to work for you on election day. You could force your opponent to defend a state they should be taking for granted, or try to put a new state in play. A consultant with an extra $30 million dollars can have a lot of fun (think Brewster's Millions, with Richard Pryor).

When it comes to areas within his control, it looks like George W. Bush is guilty of bad financial management (or fuzzy math, as your prefer).

If Kerry wins in a squeaker (can we all agree, probably the only way he can win?), and it's $30 million dollars close, it could be because Bush either needed or wanted to raise money with expensive, fancy, black tie dinners. Seeing the Republicans lose a national presidential campaign that way is not without a certain ironic pleasure.

Can Justice Stevens hang on?

Could it be that after all the debate, fear, anxiety, and high stakes manuevering, that the impact of a re-elected Bush on the Supreme Court could be negligible?

Speculation centers around the imminent retirement of three Justices, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens. President Bush could hardly do better than Chief Justice Rehnquist. It's like successfully defending a senate seat; it feels great, but you have merely held off a change for the worse. O'Connor is a dependable conservative vote, but like John McCain, another conservative, she gets branded with the "moderate" or "liberal" label for deviating on some high profile issues. Of course, I care a great deal about these high profile issues, which include religious freedom, race based affirmative action, and abortion. The chance to replace O'Connor with a true believer is exciting, but it wouldn't have nearly the impact that the retirement of Justice Stevens would. Justice Stevens is the leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, and his replacement with even a mild conservative would change the court's jurisprudence in a vast number of areas.

If President Bush won re-election, would Justice Stevens hang on? Could he? Born in 1920, Justice Stevens is now 84. If he were a senator, however, he would not be the oldest member, but one of a group of octagenarians. Nor would his tenure break any records (he was confirmed by the senate in 1975).

Ernest "Fritz" Hollings is not seeking re-election. He's 82, and he's been at it since 1966. He was the junior senator from South Carolina until 2003, when the legendary Strom Thurmond, who was over 100, retired. He had been a senator since 1954.
One person who has no plans to retire is Robert Byrd, the oldest member of that august body. He's 87 years old, and a member of congress since 1959. Justice Stevens would have to hang on until 88 to have the prospect of a Democratic president. Daniel Inouye is 80 years old, serving the great state of Hawaii since 1963. Frank Lautenberg is 80 years old. He recently returned after a brief retirement, taking the seat of his arch-nemesis Bob Toricelli.

Lautenberg made a mistake when he retired before he was ready, and Stevens would as well. After a long, legendary career in the law, what satisfaction would he derive watching his successor on the court? Would that be a fun retirement, watching the court take a hard right turn, and knowing that you could have stopped it? Thurgood Marshall instructed his clerks, if he died during the Reagan administration, to prop him up in his chair and not tell anyone.

Death or serious illness could cause Justice Stevens to leave the court, but precious little else. Re-elected Bush gets two seats.

Similarly, would both O'Connor and Rehnquist retire for President Kerry? It's possible that Kerry would get only Stevens' seat were he to win election. Justice O'Connor, who is rumored to want to retire, is only 74 years old (a whipper snapper by senate standards), while the Chief Justice is 80.

After all this wonderful speculation, could it be that the next four years yield but one Supreme Court appointment?

Home

A Nation of Nominations

Hey all

I would be sorely remiss if I didn't tell you about Nomination Nation, an outstanding new blog with the inside track on the future of our federal judiciary. After this election, nominations will be the issue, and Nomination Nation promises to be the best resource in the blogosphere.

Bush/Kerry Debate

Here at The Smoke Filled Room, we endeavor to bring you the story behind the story. Debate coverage thus far has centered around mundane predictions (i.e., "Bush will win on likability, but Kerry will win on points).

What about this?

"It turns out that Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, two years apart in New Haven, shared
the same oratory teacher and debate coach, Rollin G. Osterweis."

"Ms. Hughes writes that she was once so frustrated that she asked Mr. Bush how a
speech should be written. He scrawled out for her, she recounts, that it should
have "an introduction, three major points, then a peroration - a call to arms,
tugs on the heartstrings," then a conclusion, which "is different from a
peroration." When Ms. Hughes asked how he knew all that, Mr. Bush replied, "The
History of American Oratory, at Yale."

Today's story in the New York Times is a gem. You can read it here (free registration required).

2008 Presidential Election Part 2

"It shows that if you live long enough, anything can happen."

--Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

This week John McCain received the "Team Player of the Week" award from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for his efforts on behalf of GOP senate candidates. The Washington Post has the story (free registration required).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50521-2004Sep25.html

The award was given by Senator George Allen (R-VA), Chairman of the NRSC. Allen is almost certain to be a fellow 2008 presidential contender.

Later this week McCain voted to extend some of the Bush tax cuts. McCain has a well deserved reputation as a deficit hawk, and voted against the tax cuts when they were originally approved.

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2423641,00.html

This vote sends the strongest signal yet that the Arizona senator is running for the 2008 presidential nomination.

For more info on the 2008 election:

http://thesmokefilledroom.blogspot.com/2004/09/2008-presidential-election-part-1.html

No choice for you!

38% of Chicago public school teachers send their children to private schools.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-teach26.html

"Public school teachers are savvy education consumers. They know which schools do a good job and which ones don't," said Chester Finn, president of the Fordham Institute. "It's a damn shame that more of their own schools aren't good enough for their own kids, but everyone should be able to choose his or her children's school, teachers included."

How many of these teachers are opposed to school choice for people who can't afford private school tuition?

How Will They Remember Us?

I wrote previously about living a historically significant life. An article I read today got me thinking (Hat tip to Federalist No. 84 at Crime & Federalism).

"Richard Sheppard Arnold, the bow-tied Arkansas jurist whose inimitable legal brilliance and scrupulous fairness landed him on the short list for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has died. He was 68. "

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Z7P

His biographer called him "perhaps the best judge never to serve on the Supreme Court."

Judge Arnold made the short list for the Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Breyer.

In the end, though, Arkansas native son passed over another native son and selected Stephen Breyer. In his autobiography published earlier this year, My Life, the former president wrote that he "probably would have appointed [Arnold], except for the fact that he had been treated for cancer and his prognosis was not clear." As for Arnold, his anxiousness surrounding a possible appointment ended once the president nominated Breyer. "I was relieved because I wouldn't have to worry about it anymore."

If someone else said it better, I always quote:

"Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, it might have been."

--Whittier

A sidebar: Can you imagine how the death of a Supreme Court Justice would have impacted the presidential election? President Bush certainly would have moved to gain ground in a key constituency nominating Alberto Gonzalez or Emilio Garza, or perhaps even Janice Brown. The Senate Democrats would have almost certainly put up a fight. The election would have then become about every judicial issue that stands as the result of a 5-4 vote. It would have been the most interesting and high stakes judicial nomination in U.S. history.

Bill Frist Announces "Peace in our time!"

On the 30th day of September, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from the conference at Munich, where the Sudetenland was ceded to Nazi Germany without the firing of a single shot. In front of 10 Downing Street that evening, he read a statement and then gave his countrymen the following assurance.

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Since the first days of the Bush administration, Senate Democrats have obstructed a number of judicial nominations. The administration has not been tough enough on this issue. From day one, the President should have insisted on an up or down vote on his nominees, with the threat of a recess appointment for all who did not receive should a vote within 100 days. If the president has lacked bravado on this issue, the Senate Republicans have been worse. Whenever a senator signals that they will fillibuster a nominee, Republicans head for the hills. Why not force the Democrats to physically hold the floor until they can do so no longer? Why not force them to send that message to the public? Why not force them to delay popular legislation? Are we that gun shy after the shutdown of 1996, that we don't pick a fight even when we're right and we would win? Wouldn't it just be fun to see Ted Kennedy try to stand for hours on end? Obstructionism should come with it a price.

The Hill reports the hasty retreat of Senate Republicans over the issue of judicial nominations. I was concerned about Bill Frist when he became majority leader; I thought he lacked gravitas, lacked guts. He didn't get the job the right way. Tennessee's fortunate son has no record of fighting for anything in his life, no record of triumph in the face of adversity. Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle would eat his lunch. Unfortunately, I was right.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/092304/judges.aspx

"The GOP plan to force Democrats to sustain repeatedly their filibuster of conservative judicial nominees dissipated in the face of looming legislative priorities, which include reform of the nation’s intelligence agencies and 12 unfinished annual appropriations bills."

"Frist did predict, however, that he will “likely bring up judges at some point.”"

Whoa, settle down tough guy!

The Senate Republicans have let down their supporters, and let down the nominees whose lives are now in limbo. But hey, at least Ted Kennedy didn't get cross with Bill Frist.

Bill Frist has presidential designs in 2008. He does not have the toughness to win a presidential election, and does not have the gravitas to serve.

Republicans need a Churchill, not a Chamberlain.

Go home and get a quiet nights sleep.

What about Iran?

George Will has a great column in today's Washington Post (free registration required).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43384-2004Sep22.html

Can Iran's nuclear ambitions be prevented? If not, what consequence?

"Iran knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired such weapons, he would still be in power -- and in Kuwait."

Who will remember us?

My friend at Crime & Federalism, Federalist No. 84, has a post that really made me think. Why are some great lawyers remembered and others forgotten?

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2004/09/who_will_rememb.html

"The lawyers who are remembered will be those who fought for causes. Clarence Darrow and William Kunstler come immediately to mind. But a lot of lawyers fight for causes. Yet no one knows, and no one remembers, them.
I think that the only lawyers that we will talk about ten years from now are those who used their extraordinary skills for the service of the public. Being good enough (morally or tactically) isn't good enough. You must have both skill and compassion.
A hired gun will be forgotten as soon as he runs out of bullets. And a big heart doesn't necessarily lead to big wins."

Could this be true for other historical figures, namely, American Presidents?

• George Washington is remembered for leading the military during the revolution, and for being first, but his presidency has largely been consigned to history.
• Similarly, Thomas Jefferson is remembered for his contribution to the revolutionary war, namely, as the principle author of the Declaration of Independence. What part of his presidency pervades the American consciousness?
• Abraham Lincoln was the seminal figure in the Civil War, perhaps the central event in American history.
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt lead the nation during the Great Depression, and during the second World War.

Other presidents who rose to the occasion, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, are not as well remembered, and time will probably only decrease their notoriety. The last president to leave such an imprint on the public is Ronald Reagan, primarily because of his association with the Cold War and the fall of communism. Could it be that only the presidents who faced the greatest crises are the only ones that history will remember?

The Senate and the SCOTUS

Editor's note:The Smoke Filled Room is now Politics Blog, and we can be found here: http://politics.blogs.com/

The debate about the future of the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far centered on the outcome of the presidential election. Equally important, however, will be the outcome of this year's senate elections. As political junkies of all stripes are painfully aware, a President's wish is not the Senate's command when it comes to Article III appointments.

Here is the scenario most favorable to Republicans that is still reasonable, especially in light of a possible blowout by President Bush this Fall.

When given the option, I always take the bad news first. Republican Alan Keyes is going to get murdered by Democrat Barack Obama. It won't even be funny. The seat is currently held by Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican. 1 DEM gain.

In Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski overcomes a challenge by popular former governor Tony Knowles.

In Colorado, beer scion Pete Coors defeats Attorney General Ken Salazar. The seat is currently held by Ben-Nighthorse Campbell, a Republican.

In Oklahoma, former Congressman Tom Coburn defeats Congressman Brad Carson. Coburn, a physician, has been having an awful time against his dynamic young opponent. The race has recently been dominated by a scandal regarding his sterlization of a former patient, and whether it was malpractice. Because Coburn formerly represented Carson's district, the most Democratic in the state, perhaps he can neutralize his edge there and win big margins across the rest of this redder than red state. This will be the toughest Republican seat to hold, with the exception of Illinois. Remember, we're in best case scenario mode here, so Coburn wins (this is not, however, my prediction).

In North Carolina, Richard Burr gets his act together (he was hand selected by the White House, who cleared the field for him well in advance, yet he hasn't quite gotten his bearings) and defeats Erskine Bowles, the former White House Chief of Staff. Bowles, who ran a spirited campaign against Elizabeth Dole in 2002, has been doing better this time. The presence of incumbent Senator John Edwards on the Democratic ticket could increase Democratic turnout in this otherwise heavily red state. However, we're still in best case scenario mode, so Burr wins. 1 GOP gain.

In South Carolina, Congressman Jim DeMint defeats state education superintendent Inez Tannenbaum. 1 GOP gain.

In Georgia, Congressman Johnny Isaacson wallops rookie Congressman Denise Majette. Because this is Zell Miller's seat, there will be no real change here regarding votes for judicial nominations. 1 GOP gain.

In Florida, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez wins against Betty Castor for the seat currently held by Bob Graham. 1 GOP gain.

In Louisiana, Congressman David Vitter defeats Congressman Chris John for John Breaux's seat. This is a red state where Bush will win heavily, and Vitter should become the state's first Republican senator. 1 GOP gain.

South Dakota could be the upset of the election cycle. Tom Daschle is not poised to become Majority Leader (see above), so this will not be an issue as it was during the 2002 squeaker between John Thune and Tim Johnson. President Bush will be on the ticket, and will carry the state by an enormous margin. Thune is the former Congressman (elected statewide in South Dakota), and he ran a tough campaign last time around. He would have won the state's governorship (as he originally planned on doing) in a cakewalk. 1 sweet feeling GOP gain.

I hate to discount the "giant killer," Congressman George Nethercutt in Washington state (who holds his seat by virtue of beating the incumbent Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, in the Republican landslide of 1994), but he has shown no signs of being able to defeat incumbent Patty Murray.

The best case scario is this:

1 GOP loss and 6 gains for a total gain of 5. The Republicans currently have 51 votes in the Senate. With 56 Republican votes, add Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska (a conservative Democrat in a red state who would like to keep his job) and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida (up for re-election in 2006 in a swing state), who will put their self-interest above the chance to help Ted Kennedy fillibuster a nominee. Other Democrats in red states such as Mary Landrieu (up in 2008) will be mindful of this as a potential future issue.

Some final points:

• I don't think that a fillibuster of a Supreme Court nominee is sustainable. The media attention will be enormous, and the White House will never ever back down until an up or down vote.
• The real threat to a conservative nominee by President Bush is the defection of moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and lightweight legacy Lincoln Chafee (R-Andover). With a large enough margin in the Senate, these threats are empty.
• With the likely exits of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Associate Justices O'Connor and Stevens, the stage is set for a major change on the U.S. Supreme Court.
• I know that I have completely ignored the effects of the senate races on the rest of the federal judiciary, and I apologize. I will say, however, that selecting a dozen or so nominees and blocking them, the current Democratic strategy, will be nearly impossible if the above described best case scenario plays out.

Don't take my word for it...

Wise political junkie William Safire has written a column that advises Senator Kerry. We are in agreement on several important points (See Free Advice for Kerry 1 and 2, below).

Among other things, we agree that Kerry should:

• Focus more on turning out his base. (I maintain that emphasizing the assault weapons ban and abortion rights would also appeal to undecideds).
• Avoid nuance at any cost.
• No more issues that have fallen flat thus far. Cut your losses.

New York Times (free registration required).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/opinion/20safire.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire

The 5th Amendment Does Not Apply in Connecticut

George Will has an excellent column in today's Washington Post (free registration required).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html

The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether to grant cert. The state's high court has held that the government can, pursuant to it's eminent domain power, take the middle class neighborhood of Fort Trumball and give it to wealthy developers to increase tax revenue and "enhance" pharmaceutical giant Pfizer's research facility.

"The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood's middle-class homeowners. "

"The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth?"

"But the Fifth Amendment says, among other things: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (emphasis added). Every state constitution also stipulates takings only for "public use." The framers of the Bill of Rights used language carefully; clearly they intended the adjective "public" to restrict government takings to uses that are directly owned or primarily used by the general public, such as roads, bridges or public buildings. "

The decision below is available here:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:UhpB66rGoJgJ:www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR268/268cr152.pdf+kelo+v+new+london&hl=en

If the state court decision ignored or upheld, the prospect of "new jobs," more "tax and other revenues" and "revitalizing" urban areas is enough to satisfy the public purpose requirement of the 5th Amendment. This low and subjective "standard" (for lack of a better term) would allow the government to take our homes and hand them over to powerful interests anywhere in America, at any time.

Aren't you glad to know that your right to read this at your home exists so long as Wal-Mart doesn't want what's yours?

Finally, riddle me this Connecticut Supreme Court. If the area is so badly in need of "urban revitalization," why are the people who live there fighting so hard to keep it?

We should all be watching to see what the U.S. Supreme Court does.

New Hampshire Senate

Sometimes in life, the right words come to you at the right time. In New Hampshire's U.S. Senate race, incumbent Judd Gregg's Democratic opponent showed up at his campaign headquarters (incidentally, with an aide named Blue). They were given a tour and ballons, which they promptly released once outside.

Per a Gregg staffer:

That is “not a very environmentally friendly act.”

Scroll down to find the story:

http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=44022&archive=1

Free Advice For Kerry, 2: Assault Weapons Ban

68% of Americans are with you on the assault weapons ban.

• Time for an ad featuring a real police officer, saying goodbye to his family in the morning (it's time for reality campaign commercials).
• This officer should explain why he and the national police organizations are supporting John Kerry for president.
• The ad should feature a widow of a police officer who was killed with an assault weapon prior to the ban in 1994.

Senator Kerry

The 2nd Amendment enthusiasts are not voting for you anyway. Hang the National Rifle Association around Bush's neck like an albatross. America is split between the rural and urban vote. Suburbia is the battleground. Here some gun control and limited abortion rights are supported. Clear contrast with your opponent, where the public is behind you. You have less than two months left.

Free Advice For Kerry, 1: Emphasize abortion

Senator Kerry

Here is some free advice. Your campaign is in free fall, and you're losing ground in the key battleground states. The lead that you have held over the president has turned into a huge lead in his favor. Ever the optimist, I believe that few campaigns are unwinnable. That statement begs the question: "What will it take to win?"

I have some free advice for you, with more to come.

Talk about abortion. Pro-life voters who feel strongly about the issue are not voting for you. Most Americans favor abortion rights with some restrictions. You want America to fire the president and hire you. It's time to start drawing a contrast. You must argue the following:

• If Bush wins re-election, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. George W. Bush has said that his favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas. Both of them would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
• No Supreme Court Justice is under the age of 65. Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Chief Justice Rehnquist will almost definitely retire within four years.
• The Constitutional right to abortion is two votes away from being overturned.

If John Kerry wins, Roe is upheld. If George W. Bush wins, it will be overturned. That is how clear you have to make it. You are almost tied with Bush among women. As you well know, a Democratic candidate for president must win by a huge margin among women in order to succeed.

Stark, clear contrast, in areas where the public is behind you. You have less than two months.

Military service and the course of honor

Ancient Romans were familiar with a concept referred to as cursus honorum, "the course of honor." Before becoming consul, the highest office in the Republic, Romans were expected to serve in a series of offices, beginning with quaestor. Here is a good website which explains things in more detail.

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romangvt.html

Military service was once considered a prerequisite for winning the presidency. This post is a response to a question asked by a friend, "Is military service a requirement for becoming president?" I had long since held the belief that, while not a prerequisite, it was something of a plus. I am now unsure of that. Please consider the following stunning fact.

The last time that a veteran beat a non-veteran for president was in 1968, when Richard Nixon narrowly defeated Hubert Humphrey. Richard Nixon served in the Navy during World War II, while Humphrey was a lifelong civilian.

Is military service irrelevant now?

Bill Clinton defeated medal of honor winner Bob Kerry, and bona fide war heros George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. Al Gore was in Vietnam (albeit in a non-combat capacity), and was defeated by Texas National Guard Lt. George W. Bush. The latter seems poised to defeat decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry, just as he dispatched POW and war hero Senator John McCain.

The last time a candidate with a more impressive war record than his opponent won was in 1988, when George H.W. Bush trumped Korean War veteran Michael Dukakis.

Please check out the military service of all of our presidents at the following site:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Military%20service%20of%20U.S.%20presidents

I would love to hear your reponses.

Other people make fun of Scott Robinson, ivy league tough guy who hits women

For those of you who missed my angry rant below, Scott Robinson is a privileged ivy league tough guy who kicked a female protester who was being held on the ground by three secret service agents. Here is the address for his blog, where he and the other Koch fellows (don't ask me, I have no idea) talk about how great it is to be tough and conservative and Christian.

http://ksfp2004.blogspot.com/

Bloggers have responded to his act of violence en masse (on his blog). Here are some of the very best postings (you can find them by scrolling down, and clicking on the "comments" section under the last post by Scott Robinson).


"Dude, I saw you on TV! I'd like to kick women while they're down, too. Let me know when you're doing it next. Go Republicans!

Anonymous said...
Ha ha! That was quite the zing on Al Gore! Resources indeed!Seriously, you stuck it to him like you were kicking a young woman being held down on a floor.Enjoy the fellowship!

Anonymous said...
Scott,Way to go! The Bible tells us that women are meant to be the chattel of men...I'm glad you kicked the devil out of that woman on live TV at the RNC. Beating women is your duty as a God-fearing, Republican fundamentalist Christian: keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...
Scott, you're quite a "fellow".Not much of a man though, huh?

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...
I think we should round up the Liberals women and kick the shit out of them It's what Republican Jesus would do.

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...
Scott, you should find out if Anonymous is a woman. If he or she is, then you should ask a couple of your friends to hold her down while you kick her.

Jim said...
It's too bad no commie Democrats tried that at the convention, no? If a protestor had dragged a Republican to the ground and kicked her, I bet he'd be in Gitmo by now.(Good thing you're a Republican!)

Anonymous said...
Dude, I'm so glad I found you. I've been wanting to give you a high-five for putting that girl in her place since I saw the video. Not only is she uppity for even paying attention to politics, how dare she try and distrupt any function of dear leader's party. Just ignore anyone who gives you grief for kicking a trator like that. You gave her exactly what she had coming.

Jason said...
Nice job taking care of that woman and her protest sign of mass destruction. It's great to know that there are heroes like you who are willing to kick a woman on the ground for George W. Bush.

Anonymous said...
Oh, you poor loser. I'm not going to pile on here, since you are so very very fucked. That would just be kicking you when you're down, and we can't have that, can we?

Anonymous said...
All you lefty communists need to leave this fine patriot alone. You should all be "Scott Robinsoned!"

Anonymous said...
Something tells me you shouldn't leave the house again, like, ever...."

You get the point. The network media have refused to cover the story, and the prosecutors in New York are showing an uncharacteristic lack of zeal. If you haven't noticed, this incident has really gotten to me.

Scott Robinson, Ivy League Tough Guy, Hits Women

Sorry in advance for the anger in this post. Nothing gets me angrier than violence against women, except perhaps when that violence comes from a privileged little ivy league tough guy when the woman is being held down.

At a recent speech by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, ivy league tough guy Scott Robinson kicked a protester (with his Cole Haan loafers) who was on the ground, being restrained by three secret service agents. Watch out Scott Robinson, you might muss up your dockers. I am certain that Scott Robinson has referred to Democrats as "sissies" and "cowards." What makes this whole situation so much more appalling is that the protester was a woman, a small woman (who doubtless would have beaten him up had she been standing). Apparently, being a man means assaulting women who are already being held on the ground. I have not been so embarrassed to be a Republican since Al Franken punked Rich Lowry. Watch the video here:

http://www.actupny.org/reports/rnc_nyc-kicking.mov

Hats off to Reason: Hit and Run for putting together the evidence proving the identity of the ivy league tough guy, Scott Robinson.

"Yesterday, I reported that numerous people believed that they knew the identity of the person who appears in this video, purportedly kicking a restrained protester: They believe the person on the tape is Wharton student Scott Robinson, who interned in Washington, D.C. this summer. At this point eight of them, seven D.C. interns and a University of Pennsylvania political science student who says he lived across the hall from Robinson for a year, have provided comments for attribution, claiming to be certain the person on the convention video is the student and intern they know. (Various others have sent anonymous statements to myself and other bloggers to similar effect.)"

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/09/robinson_respon.shtml#006649

Atrios blog has a photograph of the ivy league tough guy, while he interned at the National Taxpayers Union.

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109536781620176238

For his part, Scott Robinson has denied any part in the attack, which proves that he is even more of a sorry failure of a man. Scott, I'm about your size, 5'11'', 175 pounds. Please contact me if you'd like to try to kick me.

I wanted to list Scott's email, so that you could contact him with your thoughts on violence against women. His UPenn email address is now listed as private (probably a recent development).

Someone should beat you until their hands get tired, you sad strange little man.

Immigrants Need Not Apply, Part 2

An addendum to my post below, "Immigrants Need Not Apply," which advocated a Constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to become president.

In that post, I listed a group of English monarchs that were born in other countries, but went on to become great and loyal rulers.

Per my friend Richard, I add an example from Russian history, that of Catherine II (aka Catherine the Great).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Cathrin2_Reign.asp

Catherine was born in a small German state, and moved to Russia in order to marry an heir to the throne. After her husband was deposed, she was installed as ruler. A quintessential "enlightened monarch," Catherine the Great was a great reformer at home and greatly extended Russia's power abroad, in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East.

Please email me with any other examples from history.

Dog Shoots Man

The old adage goes something like this. "Dog bites man is not a story. Man bites dog, now that's a story."

What about when a dog shoots a man?

http://www.local6.com/news/3716897/detail.html

Quote of the Day

I said today that America provides absolutely no safeguard against criminal prosecution. The response to that assertion must be the quote of the day. I was in shock. I thought the person was kidding. They were not. I'm still in shock.

"One prosecutor's opinion can make you stand trial in this country. There are no safeguards against prosecution."

"What about the grand jury?"

I don't know what to say.

Jesus Endorses Keyes

As a recovering Illinois Republican, I thought I had seen it all. After George Ryan's license for bribes scandal, Jim Ryan's pathetic "campaign" for governor, and the near Democratic sweep of statewide offices in 2002, I was used to being humiliated.

When Alan Keyes was selected as the U.S. Senate nominee for Illinois, I confess to being a little excited. He wouldn't win, but he would energize the base and perhaps elect a few Republican legislators downstate. I also expected some great debates between these two bright, articulate candidates. For the record, I think residency requirements and residency expectations are a ridiculous peculiarity. I for one would rather have the 535 best people in America in Congress, rather than the best 535 that geographical districts can cough up (yes, I realize that we seldom get the actual best in Congress, and if we do, it's likely by accident).

Now Keyes claims the best endorsement of all. No, it's not Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps, but close! Keyes claims that Jesus would not vote for Obama. Read the story here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641858.shtml

This is your government, part 2

My ongoing chronicle of gross government misconduct:

My friend used to work for the DA's office. He told me about a case where a woman wrote incorrect information on her driver's license application. Apparently she transposed her birth day and birth month. Easy enough, I figured. A girl lied to make herself 21. That would be too simple, wouldn't it? It was a 54 year old woman who made herself three months older. She was also in the middle of a legal name change....having had the pleasure, I can tell you that half of your stuff is in one name, and half in the other. She used her old name on the license.

The result of this horrible criminal conduct? A perjury charge, and an offer of one year in jail. Ironically, I am willing to bet the prosecutor thought he was being a nice guy by charging one count instead of two. Apparently, the maximum in CA for such a grave offense against society is five years.

This woman was paying taxes and living her life, and now faces an unimaginable hell behind bars and for what? A simple, common mistake, that couldn't have been anything but.

And yet, the legal elite tell us that the constitutional right to a jury nullification is against the law, and to argue for it is against the rules of ethics.

Any prosecutor or judge who abides this positive law run amok horror would have been just as happy working in a fascist regime.

More good numbers for Bush

Check out this Newsweek poll:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244238&EDATE

In a two way trial heat, the president would today win a landslide victory over his challenger. In a three way race with that other guy, he's up but more than ten points, and breaking the magic number of 50%.

The poll is of registered voters, which makes it even better news for Bush. Republicans have a much better record of turning out to vote, and so polls of registered voters tend to amplify the support of the Democrat.

Again, I ask, what can Kerry do?

President Bush way ahead...is this ballgame?

According to a Time magazine poll, President George W. Bush leads Senator John Kerry 52% to 41%. The margin of error was plus or minus 4%. That other guy got 3%. The sample was 900 some odd likely voters.

Most of the survey was taken before the president's acceptance speech on Thursday, and seems to confirm a trend first identified in the LA Times poll taken the week before the convention, showing Bush breaking ahead.

Since the outset, the race had usually been a statistical tie, usually favoring Kerry.

What can John Kerry do at this point to win the presidency? Undecided voters tend to break toward the challenger, but because this has been the longest presidential election in history, and because of the polarized nature of the electorate, there are few undecideds.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Three months to go.

This is your government, part 1

I'm going to write a recurring feature about appalling government misconduct, focusing on the criminal justice system. There couldn't be a better article to kick things off

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-raid4sep04,1,6136155.story

"Dessie Robinson, a 55-year-old welfare recipient who suffers from a heart ailment, diabetes and ulcers, had just finished showering in her room at a downtown homeless shelter early one morning in July when she heard a loud knock at the door. Throwing on some clothes, she opened the door and was confronted by half a dozen armed federal agents who proceeded to arrest her on a misdemeanor charge of cheating the government out of $746.10, the monthly payment she receives under the federal program to aid the blind, disabled or elderly poor."

21 people were arrested in the raid. If you take the government's worst allegations at face value (I do the opposite, i.e., presumption of innocence), these disabled criminal masterminds were bilking the federal government for a handful of nickels and dimes. I wonder how much these paramilitary raids cost the taxpayers.

This is your government...

Americans born abroad, rejoice!

People who really understand politics in America know what I'm about to talk about. If you're a PhD in Math, students memorizing their times tables tend not to argue with you. Because people know the names of the two parties (generally), the names of the candidates for president (even, sometimes, their running mates), they labor under the false impression that they can talk about politics with anyone.

(Please don't take this to mean that I don't enjoy talking politics with everyone. This only applies to those who are both clueless and convinced they're right).

Yesterday, I was having a conversation with some people in the atrium of my law school. We were talking about the "natural born citizen" requirement for presidential candidates (if this subject interests you, please see my post below, "Immigrants Need Not Apply.")

Here's how the relevant part of the conversation went:

Me: "One time, some idiot tried to argue with me, saying that people born outside of America can't be president."

Some idiot: "That's true. If you're born outside of America, you can't be president."

No, this can't be. Two people really think this is true? How many more are there?? Why are they so convinced???

I tried to ignore it, but he wouldn't let up.

Some idiot: "I have friends who were born on a base in Germany, and they can't be president, so that's how I know."

The most convincing proof for anything that I have ever heard. Remember, this guy is probably going to be a lawyer.

I'll spare you the end of the story, but I needless to say I couldn't resist putting him in his place.

Should you encounter such a determined individual, please direct them here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm

Ken Rudin is a political genius who used to write an answer column in the Washington Post. I have no clue why the column was discontinued, but at least it still exists in cyberspace.

And for those of you born an American citizen anywhere in the world, be of good cheer. You too can be president of the United States.

Want to be this guy's consultant?

You have to see this. You need to see this.

Per the Arizona Republic:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/city1/articles/0903sr-marsh03Z8.html

This is the most damaging political article that I have ever seen, if not the funniest. Wes Marsh, former Arizona state representative, is trying to make a comeback.

The highlights:

"Over his past two campaigns, the former four-term member of the Arizona House has been accused of everything from lying about his military record to falsifying residency."

"Moments before participating last month in a candidates debate in Carefree, Marsh was served court papers for unpaid child support."

Strike tonight's line about "cracking down on deadbeat dads."

"Two weeks later, a former girlfriend filed a lawsuit claiming he owed her more than $10,000 for a loan to finance his unsuccessful 2002 election."

"Now, a complaint has been filed with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission questioning the legality of the loan, which apparently was not reported to the secretary of state."

"Marsh claims that Davies (his ex-wife) was physically abusive during their eight-year marriage, that she forged one of his checks and had a child with another man."

This woman used to be on the Republican National Committee. I'm serious.

"Marsh claims he was a battered husband and that Davies gave him tinnitus, a ringing in the ears, and cracked his front tooth when she pushed him to their tile floor."

"Usually she sat on me," Marsh said. "She's almost 300 pounds."Court records lists Davies as 5-foot-8, 290 pounds. Marsh is 6-feet, 170 pounds. "

Uncle! Uncle!

"According to Marsh, Davies was physically abusive, behavior that stemmed from her own abusive childhood and former forced marriage to her stepfather."

Former? You mean it didn't work out!?

Her response:

"She doesn't deny her abusive childhood or marrying her stepfather. "Whatever," she said. "That was a long time ago."

I don't know a political reporter with the guts to ask a follow up. In fact, I'm sure that this was a phone interview. Maybe e-mail.

"Marsh works as a Homeland Security consultant and is a major in the Air Reserve. "

I feel way safer.

Conclusion?

"He's a non-entity," candidate David Burnell Smith said. "If he gets 5 percent of the votes, I'll be shocked."

Roger that Dave.


Richard Nixon once said that all news is good news. Richard Nixon didn't read todays Arizona Republic.

Immigrants Need Not Apply

Per the United States Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The mantra goes something like this; "we live in a country where anyone can dream of growing up to be president." Unless, of course, you were, by accident of birth, born someplace else. I agree with Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We should amend this part of the Constitution and extend the right to seek the presidency to every citizen who has been naturalized for 20 years.

I am generally opposed to all measures that limit the rights of voters (term limits, age limits, even residency limits). Consider the cases of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm. They are the governors of California and Michigan respectively. Arnold is a successful actor and businessman who is the governor of America's biggest state. He has been a citizen for over 20 years. Jennifer is a Harvard educated former attorney general of a big industrial state. She was born just over the border in Canada, where she lived until she was 4.

As a citizen, I am prohibited by law from voting for either of these candidates for president. Some things I would like to point out:

Immigrants who seek America often understand our values better than we do ourselves. They are, on balance, extremely hard working and patriotic.

Other countries throughout history have had foreign born leaders, sometimes to great success. In the history of England, with which I am most familiar (besides, of course, American history), we have foreign born Henry Tudor (Henry VII, born in Wales, then a completely different country) who ended the war of the roses, among his many achievements, Charles II (born in France), who led the restoration of the monarchy and healed the deep wounds of the English civil war, and William III (born in Holland), who helped lead England into a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary supremacy. George I, who ascended to the throne through a very tenous blood relationship to Queen Anne after she died without heirs, did not even speak English (this lead to the creation of the first British Prime Minister).

Both candidates could score major points by coming out in favor of Senator Hatch's Amendment, especially among key demographics (like the Latino community).

Here is a link to a great article on the subject:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/argument_amar_marpar04.html

2008 Presidential Election Part 1

Editor's note: The Smoke Filled Room is now Politics Blog, and we can be found here: http://politics.blogs.com/

As a regular feature of this blog, I am going to analyze the 2008 presidential election. If the president wins re-election, which I expect he will at this point, 2008 will be the most exciting presidential election in memory. With Dick Cheney out of the running, both sides will have wide open primaries. Everyone who wants to run will run, and we can expect an incredible race on both sides. In future posts, I'm going to profile different potential candidates and size up their chances. For starters, I'm going to list the names of people I expect to run. Remember, my list of Democratic contenders is subject to the president winning re-election. I don't expect any changes in the Republican field based on the results of the 2004 election.

All are listed in no particular order

Republican Candidates:

Senator Rick Santorum, Senator from Pennsylvania
Senator George Allen, Senator from Virginia
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusettes
Senator John McCain of Arizona
Governor Bill Owens of Colorado
Governor George Pataki of New York
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York

Democratic Candidates:

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana

There are lots of other interesting possibilities out there. For instance, soon to be Senator Barack Obama could capitalize on his star power to join the field four years from now. I promise to talk about some of the less likely prospects in my other posts. I am not focusing on perennial or vanity candidates (you know who you are!), unless one of these candidates has the potential to affect the election (i.e., the presence of Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer could smooth the path for a McCain candidacy by balkanizing some of the conservative vote).

For more check out 2008 Presidential Election Part 2

Everyone a winner?

The revisionist history of the Kobe Bryant debacle is already being written. Check out this appalling article, titled, "Win-Win Situation."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/kobe_bryant_dismiss_040902-1.html

Mark Hurlbert, Eagle County Prosecutor, ruined the reputation of a man on the basis of a lie. The prosecution throughout concealed exculpatory evidence, leaked information to the media, and forced Kobe Bryant to spend millions in his own defense. On the eve of trial, faced with certain defeat, he ran for the hills. A winner?

Kobe Bryant lost millions of dollars in endorsements, spent millions to defend this bogus rap, and has suffered a loss in his public image that can never be replaced. This on top of the personal and family problems created by a lie, and the prosecutor's willingness to buy wholesale into that lie. A winner?

Everyone is a loser in the Kobe Bryant case. Everyone except, perhaps, criminal defendants, who may now benefit from exposure to the fact that even a powerful man can be brought down by overzealous and illegal prosecution.

Kobe Bryant as martyr

I'm in my last semester of law school in Southern California. It has it's advantages, but you also have to deal with individuals like the one I'm going to tell you about.

Reacting to a flyer for the California Innocence Project:

Idiot: "Help an innocent person in prison? HA! How can they be innocent if they're in prison?"

Faith in the criminal justice comes easy to the spawn of filthy rich white people. For the rest of us, experience doesn't give us that luxury. Kobe Bryant spent hundreds of days looking into the gates of hell. The prosecutors violated his Brady Rights, trashed him in the press, and forced him to spend millions in his own defense. Now they have run for the hills, agreeing to dismiss with prejudice (this is a change in their former position; they wanted to keep the case open 'indefinitely.' My command of the English language is insufficient to describe my reaction to this).

Does anyone think for a second that, if Kobe Bryant weren't rich, he would be a free man today? (this is all arguendo, considering the lying little trollop who accused him would not have had sex with him if he were not rich).

I hope that people realize how easy it is to find yourself in the defendant's chair. The ordeal that cost Kobe Bryant millions of dollars, his good name, and a year of his life can serve as a lesson for everyone, if we're paying attention.

The Smoke Filled Room

Virtual forum for talking law and politics