We've moved!

The Smoke Filled Room is now Politics Blog, and we can be found here:

http://politics.blogs.com/

Kerry falls into the orchestra pit

John Kerry won Thursday's presidential debate. He was decisive, in command of the facts, and presidential.

I was disturbed to find out yesterday about a story that suggests Kerry brought in a debate "cheat sheet."

Roger Ailes, a top political consultant before he was head of Fox News, might have filed this one under his "orchestra pit theory." The orchestra pit theory of the media is simple; a man comes onto a stage, announces the discovery of the cure for cancer, and then falls into an orchestra pit. The next day, all across America, the banner headlines scream; "Man falls into orchestra pit."

Will we resist the temptation to make "cheat sheet gate" the talk of the newscycle? Obviously, if Kerry purposely broke the rules, it would be an issue. But debate negotiations were conducted by proxy, and it seems unlikely that Kerry would 1) cheat at all and 2) try to do it in front of the cameras.

I was standing near George W. Bush a week before election day 2000. Because of my vantage point, I could see a discrete crib sheet in his hand, which he'd reference from time to time. Isn't that more disturbing that what Kerry is accused of doing? Shouldn't it be the story of the day that the President looked bewildered, confused, frustrated, and out of control on Thursday?

Or will the headlines announce that Kerry fell into the orchestra pit?

One for the redundancy department?

My friend and I were at lunch yesterday when she noticed a hybrid car, complete with a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. She asked, "Do we really need to know that he's voting for Kerry? He's driving a hybrid car."

Good point, but he could've been for Nader/Camejo.

People know stuff

Larry King Live had a panel that discussed the first presidential debate last Thursday. Some of the smug elitists in the media have been critical of bloggers, as though we're somehow less trustworthy than the "mainstream" media. Here is further proof that anyone can be considered a journalist:

JORGE RAMOS, UNIVISION NEWS ANCHOR: Larry, first let me tell you something. Nothing in the debate would let you know that it was conducted in Miami. I was very disappointed that after 90 minutes, we didn't hear a single word about Latin America. In Miami is the first time that I've seen two political candidates talk about anything, and they did not get a question about Cuba.

Is it me? Should a news anchor know about the format of the debate?

KING: Jorge, what about the Latino community in this country?

RAMOS: Well, I think they're going to be very disappointed that not a single word was mentioned about Cuba, about the possibility of an immigration agreement with Mexico, about a free trade agreement with Central America and the Dominican Republic...

KING: The subject tonight was limited to Iraq and national security, so immigration wasn't going to come up.

Faced with the bottom of the hole, Mr. Ramos continued digging:

RAMOS: Well, I mean, immigration is very important, especially if you want to make an immigration agreement with Mexico. But what's important is that they have the possibility, both candidates, at least at the end of the debate, they had the possibility to at least mention the importance of Cuba, the importance of Mexico, the importance of the relationship between the United States and Latin America, and they decided not to. Both of them, President Bush and John Kerry, they've said in the past that Latin America should be a priority for the United States, and these debates, and this debate specifically, shows that it is not. And...


After a 90 minute debate about the War on Terrorism, which touched on Iraq, al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, and nuclear proliferation, the candidates were supposed to talk about Costa Rica?

I gave Mr. Ramos the benefit of the doubt, assuming he'd talk about the connection between immigration and our national security, between Cuba or the war on drugs and our safety. He didn't. Read the transcript here.

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?