Wednesday, October 13, 2004
The Supreme Court press gallery is positioned directly across from the massive Adolph Weinman frieze on the south wall of the ceremonial courtroom—the one with Moses, packed in amidst "great lawgivers of history," Ten Commandments in hand. Following yesterday's decision by the court to hear a pair of Ten Commandments cases, reporters around me are speculating about what will happen to the poor Decalogue. Someone suggests the Supremes should just ditch the first four commandments as a matter of federal constitutional law. (Weinman's already done this by coyly draping Moses' beard and robe anywhere on the tablets "God" might appear.) Someone opines that Mohammed and the Quran probably need to come down as well. I'm hoping one of the justices will knit a teeny little commandment-cozy, to slip over the statue.
Today's oral argument in Roper v. Simmons asks whether the execution of people who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed their crimes constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. Obviously the Founders didn't think executions of adolescents were cruel and unusual, so we know where Scalia's vote will go. But Scalia is cruelly pinned beneath the ruling in Trop v. Dulles—a 1958 case holding that the Eighth Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Unlike much of the court's jurisprudence, this analysis does not require poring over texts or channeling Thomas Jefferson. Instead, the court is asked to blink directly into the bright light of science and current events to determine whether "evolving standards of decency" mandate a change in the notion of what is cruel and unusual. Among the justices who believe the human race is evolving in what is decidedly the wrong direction, this is pure hell. Even contemplating the New Age notion that a "teenage brain" exists must be cruel and unusual punishment for Clarence Thomas. But this is the test. So, away they go.
Christopher Simmons was 17 when, in 1993, he robbed and abducted Shirley Crook. He tied and gagged her with electrical wire and duct tape and threw her off a railroad bridge from which she plummeted and drowned. Simmons evidently bragged to friends that he'd get away with this since he was a minor. The jury disagreed, convicting him of first-degree murder and sentencing him to death.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a case about the constitutionality of executing 16- and 17-year-olds was in 1989—when it decided Stanford v. Kentucky. A plurality of the court determined then that there was no social or historical consensus that the death penalty was cruel and unusual for teens of those ages, even though in 1988 the court had determined that such a consensus existed for offenders under 15. In 2002 the court voted 6-3 to ban the execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins v. Virginia, using the "evolving standards" test to find that most states no longer believed it acceptable to execute them and that the mentally retarded had diminished culpability for their crimes.
The Atkins decision somehow emboldened the Missouri Supreme Court—that was deciding Simmons' case—to just overrule the Supremes' original Stanford decision completely. Leaning on the reasoning in Atkins, the Missouri court decided that a new consensus walks among us and that the Supreme Court had missed the boat. Nine out of 10 dentists agree: It's bad to kill teenagers.
James Layton, the state solicitor of Missouri, is here this morning to remind the high court that it's been dissed. He argues that the proper age to be executed should be left in the hands of legislatures and that the issue of an individual's culpability and maturity are best left to a jury. "Some 17-year-olds are culpable," he says, "and some are not."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggests that society treats those under 18 as not-adult in dozens of ways—they are unable to vote, serve on juries or in the military, or buy tobacco. "Why would you be death-eligible at 18 but not eligible to be a member of the community?"
Justice Antonin Scalia heads the other way: "Why stop at the death penalty?" he asks. "Why not say anyone under 18 is immune from all punishment?" (He doesn't really mean this. This is just his way.)
Everyone's eyes are on Sandra Day O'Connor again today. Hers was the swing vote in Thompson v. Oklahoma—the case banning executions for 15-year-olds. Her concurrence was also the key to Stanford v. Kentucky—the case allowing executions for 16-year-olds. We know four justices already oppose killing minors because in 2002, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer all dissented when the Supremes refused to hear a case on this issue. They did not mince words: "The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society. We should put an end to this shameful practice."
So, they need one more vote. But O'Connor says virtually nothing today. She asks a single question of Layton: "Isn't there about the same consensus that existed in Atkins [the case about the mentally retarded]? Aren't we obliged to look at that?" That's all she says, folks. Read your tea leaves here.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the other swing vote in Atkins, asks whether the fact of adolescence can ever be used to increase penalties. Layton says it's only used as a mitigating factor. So, Ginsburg reads at length from the transcript of Simmons' sentencing, in which the prosecutor threatened the jurors with: "Think about it. He's only 17 years old. Isn't that scary?" Mitigating? Quite the contrary! Ginsburg suggests his youth was used to demonize Simmons.
Kennedy then turns to the real nut of the problem: "Let's focus on the word 'unusual.' Forget 'cruel.' There is substantial demonstration that the world is against us, at least among the leaders of the European Union. Does that have a bearing on whether this is unusual?"
The "substantial demonstration" to which he refers includes amicus briefs from 48 foreign countries, assorted Nobel Peace Prize winners, and some high-octane religious, medical, and human rights groups, all reminding the court that no other civilized country permits juvenile executions and that our policy violates the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. A convention only the United States refuses to ratify.
Layton says decisions on the meaning of the Eighth Amendment should not be based on foreign opinion.
Breyer asks, "Do you have any indication of whether Madison or Jefferson would have thought it was totally irrelevant what happened elsewhere in the world?" Layton says Jefferson believed the United States was leading the world but doing so through legislation, not the courts.
Scalia adds, "And what did John Adams think of the French?" Layton replies that he didn't think very highly of them. A reminder that blaming all of life's ills on the French predates Fox News.
Breyer notes that if you look at the past 10 years, only three states have executed juveniles. Texas killed 11, Virginia killed three, and Oklahoma killed two. If even the states that allow it don't do it, isn't that a consensus?
Seth Waxman represents Christopher Simmons, and he starts the morning looking like a guy who only needs one vote. When he says that since Stanford a consensus has emerged, it becomes clear that Scalia won't be that one vote: "Does the constitutional calculus ever move in the other direction?" Scalia asks, meaning, is there ever a consensus toward killing more rather than fewer people?
Waxman soon makes an odd word choice, saying the "world consensus" represents "the better view in Europe." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, previewing the part of George W. Bush tonight, shoots back, "What suggests it's a 'better view in Europe'?"
Waxman points out that the vast scientific evidence amassed in this case to suggest that teenage brains are still undeveloped didn't exist in 1989 when the court decided Stanford. So, the chief justice asks whether all this psychological evidence was introduced at trial. "I would think if you want us to rely on it, it should be introduced at trial. Not just in an amicus brief."
Waxman is a bit stuck. For one thing, some of this research came about after Simmons' 1997 trial. For another, as he points out, the question of whether executing juveniles is constitutional wasn't an issue at trial. It was state law and what the jury was told to work with. The chief justice is unimpressed. And Kennedy, who seems to be searching for a reason to vote for killing teens, agrees all this psychological evidence should have been introduced at trial. Waxman tries to say these are legislative, constitutional facts, having nothing to do with Simmons' murder charges. So, Kennedy flat-out tells him, "Suppose I am not persuaded by this argument. Do you lose the case?"
These are never felicitous words to a man looking for just one vote.
Waxman says teenagers are like the mentally retarded in that they cannot properly communicate with counsel or express remorse and because their characters will change so much. On trial, years later, jurors see a different person.
Scalia says: "I thought we punish people for what they were, not are. To say after the crime that he's come to Jesus … we don't let them off. You're never the same person that committed the crime."
Kennedy finally hits on his reason to vote against the punk kids: "A number of juveniles run in gangs," he says. "Some gang members are over 18. If we rule in your favor, wouldn't that make 16-, 17-year-olds subject to being hit men in gangs? I'm very worried about that."
Kinder to execute them instead. …
Kennedy cites the "chilling" amicus brief filed by the state of Alabama. "I wish all the other amicus that had signed on had read it," he frets. Stupid Dalai Lama. The Alabama brief is hideous indeed—a detailed catalog of the junior Jeffrey Dahmers who have terrorized the state of Alabama. The truism—that kids who kill folks are really, really terrible—is not lost on Kennedy.
Layton's rebuttal is impressive. Suddenly he can see himself pulling this case out. He uses Lee Boyd Malvo—spared the death penalty by a Virginia jury—as an example of how the current system works. Jurors can tell whether someone is immature or culpable.
Dissenting in Atkins, Justice Antonin Scalia once raged: "But the Prize for the Court's Most Feeble Effort to fabricate 'national consensus' must go to its appeal (deservedly relegated to a footnote) to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called 'world community' … the views of professional and religious organizations and the results of opinion polls are irrelevant. Equally irrelevant are the practices of the 'world community,' whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people."
This is an argument George Bush makes five times every debate. (Watch for it again tonight.) While we might agree that world opinion, international law, and scientific truth can't single-handedly dictate American law or policy, the new patriotism holds that they cannot even illuminate it.
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
Also in today's Slate:net election: Google for President: Why the campaigns should advertise in your search results.net election: Last-Minute Activism: A lazy man's guide. foreigners: Enemy Mine: Egypt took sides in the U.S. war on terror and paid the price at Taba.
Today's oral argument in Roper v. Simmons asks whether the execution of people who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed their crimes constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. Obviously the Founders didn't think executions of adolescents were cruel and unusual, so we know where Scalia's vote will go. But Scalia is cruelly pinned beneath the ruling in Trop v. Dulles—a 1958 case holding that the Eighth Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Unlike much of the court's jurisprudence, this analysis does not require poring over texts or channeling Thomas Jefferson. Instead, the court is asked to blink directly into the bright light of science and current events to determine whether "evolving standards of decency" mandate a change in the notion of what is cruel and unusual. Among the justices who believe the human race is evolving in what is decidedly the wrong direction, this is pure hell. Even contemplating the New Age notion that a "teenage brain" exists must be cruel and unusual punishment for Clarence Thomas. But this is the test. So, away they go.
Christopher Simmons was 17 when, in 1993, he robbed and abducted Shirley Crook. He tied and gagged her with electrical wire and duct tape and threw her off a railroad bridge from which she plummeted and drowned. Simmons evidently bragged to friends that he'd get away with this since he was a minor. The jury disagreed, convicting him of first-degree murder and sentencing him to death.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a case about the constitutionality of executing 16- and 17-year-olds was in 1989—when it decided Stanford v. Kentucky. A plurality of the court determined then that there was no social or historical consensus that the death penalty was cruel and unusual for teens of those ages, even though in 1988 the court had determined that such a consensus existed for offenders under 15. In 2002 the court voted 6-3 to ban the execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins v. Virginia, using the "evolving standards" test to find that most states no longer believed it acceptable to execute them and that the mentally retarded had diminished culpability for their crimes.
The Atkins decision somehow emboldened the Missouri Supreme Court—that was deciding Simmons' case—to just overrule the Supremes' original Stanford decision completely. Leaning on the reasoning in Atkins, the Missouri court decided that a new consensus walks among us and that the Supreme Court had missed the boat. Nine out of 10 dentists agree: It's bad to kill teenagers.
James Layton, the state solicitor of Missouri, is here this morning to remind the high court that it's been dissed. He argues that the proper age to be executed should be left in the hands of legislatures and that the issue of an individual's culpability and maturity are best left to a jury. "Some 17-year-olds are culpable," he says, "and some are not."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggests that society treats those under 18 as not-adult in dozens of ways—they are unable to vote, serve on juries or in the military, or buy tobacco. "Why would you be death-eligible at 18 but not eligible to be a member of the community?"
Justice Antonin Scalia heads the other way: "Why stop at the death penalty?" he asks. "Why not say anyone under 18 is immune from all punishment?" (He doesn't really mean this. This is just his way.)
Everyone's eyes are on Sandra Day O'Connor again today. Hers was the swing vote in Thompson v. Oklahoma—the case banning executions for 15-year-olds. Her concurrence was also the key to Stanford v. Kentucky—the case allowing executions for 16-year-olds. We know four justices already oppose killing minors because in 2002, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer all dissented when the Supremes refused to hear a case on this issue. They did not mince words: "The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society. We should put an end to this shameful practice."
So, they need one more vote. But O'Connor says virtually nothing today. She asks a single question of Layton: "Isn't there about the same consensus that existed in Atkins [the case about the mentally retarded]? Aren't we obliged to look at that?" That's all she says, folks. Read your tea leaves here.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the other swing vote in Atkins, asks whether the fact of adolescence can ever be used to increase penalties. Layton says it's only used as a mitigating factor. So, Ginsburg reads at length from the transcript of Simmons' sentencing, in which the prosecutor threatened the jurors with: "Think about it. He's only 17 years old. Isn't that scary?" Mitigating? Quite the contrary! Ginsburg suggests his youth was used to demonize Simmons.
Kennedy then turns to the real nut of the problem: "Let's focus on the word 'unusual.' Forget 'cruel.' There is substantial demonstration that the world is against us, at least among the leaders of the European Union. Does that have a bearing on whether this is unusual?"
The "substantial demonstration" to which he refers includes amicus briefs from 48 foreign countries, assorted Nobel Peace Prize winners, and some high-octane religious, medical, and human rights groups, all reminding the court that no other civilized country permits juvenile executions and that our policy violates the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. A convention only the United States refuses to ratify.
Layton says decisions on the meaning of the Eighth Amendment should not be based on foreign opinion.
Breyer asks, "Do you have any indication of whether Madison or Jefferson would have thought it was totally irrelevant what happened elsewhere in the world?" Layton says Jefferson believed the United States was leading the world but doing so through legislation, not the courts.
Scalia adds, "And what did John Adams think of the French?" Layton replies that he didn't think very highly of them. A reminder that blaming all of life's ills on the French predates Fox News.
Breyer notes that if you look at the past 10 years, only three states have executed juveniles. Texas killed 11, Virginia killed three, and Oklahoma killed two. If even the states that allow it don't do it, isn't that a consensus?
Seth Waxman represents Christopher Simmons, and he starts the morning looking like a guy who only needs one vote. When he says that since Stanford a consensus has emerged, it becomes clear that Scalia won't be that one vote: "Does the constitutional calculus ever move in the other direction?" Scalia asks, meaning, is there ever a consensus toward killing more rather than fewer people?
Waxman soon makes an odd word choice, saying the "world consensus" represents "the better view in Europe." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, previewing the part of George W. Bush tonight, shoots back, "What suggests it's a 'better view in Europe'?"
Waxman points out that the vast scientific evidence amassed in this case to suggest that teenage brains are still undeveloped didn't exist in 1989 when the court decided Stanford. So, the chief justice asks whether all this psychological evidence was introduced at trial. "I would think if you want us to rely on it, it should be introduced at trial. Not just in an amicus brief."
Waxman is a bit stuck. For one thing, some of this research came about after Simmons' 1997 trial. For another, as he points out, the question of whether executing juveniles is constitutional wasn't an issue at trial. It was state law and what the jury was told to work with. The chief justice is unimpressed. And Kennedy, who seems to be searching for a reason to vote for killing teens, agrees all this psychological evidence should have been introduced at trial. Waxman tries to say these are legislative, constitutional facts, having nothing to do with Simmons' murder charges. So, Kennedy flat-out tells him, "Suppose I am not persuaded by this argument. Do you lose the case?"
These are never felicitous words to a man looking for just one vote.
Waxman says teenagers are like the mentally retarded in that they cannot properly communicate with counsel or express remorse and because their characters will change so much. On trial, years later, jurors see a different person.
Scalia says: "I thought we punish people for what they were, not are. To say after the crime that he's come to Jesus … we don't let them off. You're never the same person that committed the crime."
Kennedy finally hits on his reason to vote against the punk kids: "A number of juveniles run in gangs," he says. "Some gang members are over 18. If we rule in your favor, wouldn't that make 16-, 17-year-olds subject to being hit men in gangs? I'm very worried about that."
Kinder to execute them instead. …
Kennedy cites the "chilling" amicus brief filed by the state of Alabama. "I wish all the other amicus that had signed on had read it," he frets. Stupid Dalai Lama. The Alabama brief is hideous indeed—a detailed catalog of the junior Jeffrey Dahmers who have terrorized the state of Alabama. The truism—that kids who kill folks are really, really terrible—is not lost on Kennedy.
Layton's rebuttal is impressive. Suddenly he can see himself pulling this case out. He uses Lee Boyd Malvo—spared the death penalty by a Virginia jury—as an example of how the current system works. Jurors can tell whether someone is immature or culpable.
Dissenting in Atkins, Justice Antonin Scalia once raged: "But the Prize for the Court's Most Feeble Effort to fabricate 'national consensus' must go to its appeal (deservedly relegated to a footnote) to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called 'world community' … the views of professional and religious organizations and the results of opinion polls are irrelevant. Equally irrelevant are the practices of the 'world community,' whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people."
This is an argument George Bush makes five times every debate. (Watch for it again tonight.) While we might agree that world opinion, international law, and scientific truth can't single-handedly dictate American law or policy, the new patriotism holds that they cannot even illuminate it.
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
Also in today's Slate:net election: Google for President: Why the campaigns should advertise in your search results.net election: Last-Minute Activism: A lazy man's guide. foreigners: Enemy Mine: Egypt took sides in the U.S. war on terror and paid the price at Taba.
The Washington Post leads a development that's been percolating for a few weeks: There's increasingly bad blood in Fallujah between local insurgents and foreign fighters, which has apparently escalated into a few gunfights. USA Today leads with flu vaccine makers and regulators agreeing to reallocate millions of doses of the vaccine and save it for people and areas that really need it. The Los Angeles Times leads with a semi-local story: Under the No Child Left Behind law, 1,200 schools in the state, 13 percent of the total, are likely to get failing grades and will face penalties. The New York Times leads with a mostly throw-away campaign check-in: "TIGHTENING RACE INCREASES STAKES OF FINAL DEBATE." But it does have a few named Republicans putting on a sad face about Bush's recent performance. "I don't mean to be disloyal to my friends, but I think the Kerry people are feeling pretty good about things," said conservative activist Gary Bauer.
The Post's lead on Fallujah is based on interviews with residents, and not just on the military's take. Many locals view the foreigners as too fundamentalist and blame them for the U.S. airstrikes. Many also oppose the foreigners targeting of civilians. Locals have been in negotiations with the Iraqi government, while the foreign fighters have opposed the talks. Speaking about Abu Musab Zarqawi, one guerrilla leader said, "He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near." An airstrike in Fallujah yesterday struck a popular restaurant, while it was closed, killing two night guardsmen. The military said it had intel that insurgents linked to Zarqawi were meeting there.
The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox (at least online) with the U.S. stepping-up counter-insurgency operations, including raiding seven mosques in Ramadi and arresting a top Sunni cleric and his son. As the NYT notices, accompanying the GIs were Iraqi troops from Kurdish and Shiite militias. That didn't go over well with locals. "There is a sense of sectarianism in this," said a spokesman for the jailed cleric. "The Americans are just arresting whomever is in front of them at the mosques," said another cleric. "They're behaving in a strange manner."
The NYT teases interim Prime Minister Allawi pushing to let more former Baathists, who are primarily Sunni, back into government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders are apparently opposed to the move. Allawi had wanted to actually close the De-Baathification commission outright, but instead settled on kicking the staffers out of their office and refusing to give most of them passes to enter the Green Zone.
Some good news is buried in the 13th paragraph of the NYT's Iraq wrap-up: Top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is urging a get-out-the-vote drive for all Iraqis. A statement from his office said leaders throughout Iraq should organize committees to get their neighbors registered.
The Financial Times interviews Germany's defense minister who said his country might actually send troops to Iraq if some unstated circumstances change--presumably including Senator Kerry's job.
The Journal reiterates a report in yesterday's NYT in which the White House signaled that it might be willing to offer some carrots to Iran--or have European allies do so--if Teheran abandons its nukes program. Actually agreeing on specific incentives "will be a battle" inside the administration, said one official. But "we're in listening mode."
The Post fronts African American leaders in one county of Florida complaining that people registering to vote are being unfairly rejected. But the Post buries the lead. This is from the 12th paragraph: "A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks. This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the numbers of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites." (Slate's Ann Louise Bardach recently detailed the Sunshine state's history of fraud and disenfranchisement.)
A modest comparison... From the NYT's campaign wrap-up:
"Some Democrats argued that this contest was comparable to the election of 1980, when former President Jimmy Carter saw his standing plummet after a debate in which Ronald Reagan, who had been belittled by Mr. Carter throughout the fall, was widely viewed as winning simply by exceeding the low expectations Mr. Carter had established for him. Mr. Bush's aides have resisted that historical parallel, saying a more apt comparison was Franklin D. Roosevelt's re-election campaigns in World War II." Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108160/
What did you think of this article?Join the Fray, our reader discussion forumPOST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES
The Post's lead on Fallujah is based on interviews with residents, and not just on the military's take. Many locals view the foreigners as too fundamentalist and blame them for the U.S. airstrikes. Many also oppose the foreigners targeting of civilians. Locals have been in negotiations with the Iraqi government, while the foreign fighters have opposed the talks. Speaking about Abu Musab Zarqawi, one guerrilla leader said, "He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near." An airstrike in Fallujah yesterday struck a popular restaurant, while it was closed, killing two night guardsmen. The military said it had intel that insurgents linked to Zarqawi were meeting there.
The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox (at least online) with the U.S. stepping-up counter-insurgency operations, including raiding seven mosques in Ramadi and arresting a top Sunni cleric and his son. As the NYT notices, accompanying the GIs were Iraqi troops from Kurdish and Shiite militias. That didn't go over well with locals. "There is a sense of sectarianism in this," said a spokesman for the jailed cleric. "The Americans are just arresting whomever is in front of them at the mosques," said another cleric. "They're behaving in a strange manner."
The NYT teases interim Prime Minister Allawi pushing to let more former Baathists, who are primarily Sunni, back into government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders are apparently opposed to the move. Allawi had wanted to actually close the De-Baathification commission outright, but instead settled on kicking the staffers out of their office and refusing to give most of them passes to enter the Green Zone.
Some good news is buried in the 13th paragraph of the NYT's Iraq wrap-up: Top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is urging a get-out-the-vote drive for all Iraqis. A statement from his office said leaders throughout Iraq should organize committees to get their neighbors registered.
The Financial Times interviews Germany's defense minister who said his country might actually send troops to Iraq if some unstated circumstances change--presumably including Senator Kerry's job.
The Journal reiterates a report in yesterday's NYT in which the White House signaled that it might be willing to offer some carrots to Iran--or have European allies do so--if Teheran abandons its nukes program. Actually agreeing on specific incentives "will be a battle" inside the administration, said one official. But "we're in listening mode."
The Post fronts African American leaders in one county of Florida complaining that people registering to vote are being unfairly rejected. But the Post buries the lead. This is from the 12th paragraph: "A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks. This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the numbers of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites." (Slate's Ann Louise Bardach recently detailed the Sunshine state's history of fraud and disenfranchisement.)
A modest comparison... From the NYT's campaign wrap-up:
"Some Democrats argued that this contest was comparable to the election of 1980, when former President Jimmy Carter saw his standing plummet after a debate in which Ronald Reagan, who had been belittled by Mr. Carter throughout the fall, was widely viewed as winning simply by exceeding the low expectations Mr. Carter had established for him. Mr. Bush's aides have resisted that historical parallel, saying a more apt comparison was Franklin D. Roosevelt's re-election campaigns in World War II." Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108160/
What did you think of this article?Join the Fray, our reader discussion forumPOST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES
The Washington Post leads a development that's been percolating for a few weeks: There's increasingly bad blood in Fallujah between local insurgents and foreign fighters, which has apparently escalated into a few gunfights. USA Today leads with flu vaccine makers and regulators agreeing to reallocate millions of doses of the vaccine and save it for people and areas that really need it. The Los Angeles Times leads with a semi-local story: Under the No Child Left Behind law, 1,200 schools in the state, 13 percent of the total, are likely to get failing grades and will face penalties. The New York Times leads with a mostly throw-away campaign check-in: "TIGHTENING RACE INCREASES STAKES OF FINAL DEBATE." But it does have a few named Republicans putting on a sad face about Bush's recent performance. "I don't mean to be disloyal to my friends, but I think the Kerry people are feeling pretty good about things," said conservative activist Gary Bauer.
The Post's lead on Fallujah is based on interviews with residents, and not just on the military's take. Many locals view the foreigners as too fundamentalist and blame them for the U.S. airstrikes. Many also oppose the foreigners targeting of civilians. Locals have been in negotiations with the Iraqi government, while the foreign fighters have opposed the talks. Speaking about Abu Musab Zarqawi, one guerrilla leader said, "He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near." An airstrike in Fallujah yesterday struck a popular restaurant, while it was closed, killing two night guardsmen. The military said it had intel that insurgents linked to Zarqawi were meeting there.
The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox (at least online) with the U.S. stepping-up counter-insurgency operations, including raiding seven mosques in Ramadi and arresting a top Sunni cleric and his son. As the NYT notices, accompanying the GIs were Iraqi troops from Kurdish and Shiite militias. That didn't go over well with locals. "There is a sense of sectarianism in this," said a spokesman for the jailed cleric. "The Americans are just arresting whomever is in front of them at the mosques," said another cleric. "They're behaving in a strange manner."
The NYT teases interim Prime Minister Allawi pushing to let more former Baathists, who are primarily Sunni, back into government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders are apparently opposed to the move. Allawi had wanted to actually close the De-Baathification commission outright, but instead settled on kicking the staffers out of their office and refusing to give most of them passes to enter the Green Zone.
Some good news is buried in the 13th paragraph of the NYT's Iraq wrap-up: Top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is urging a get-out-the-vote drive for all Iraqis. A statement from his office said leaders throughout Iraq should organize committees to get their neighbors registered.
The Financial Times interviews Germany's defense minister who said his country might actually send troops to Iraq if some unstated circumstances change--presumably including Senator Kerry's job.
The Journal reiterates a report in yesterday's NYT in which the White House signaled that it might be willing to offer some carrots to Iran--or have European allies do so--if Teheran abandons its nukes program. Actually agreeing on specific incentives "will be a battle" inside the administration, said one official. But "we're in listening mode."
The Post fronts African American leaders in one county of Florida complaining that people registering to vote are being unfairly rejected. But the Post buries the lead. This is from the 12th paragraph: "A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks. This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the numbers of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites." (Slate's Ann Louise Bardach recently detailed the Sunshine state's history of fraud and disenfranchisement.)
A modest comparison... From the NYT's campaign wrap-up:
"Some Democrats argued that this contest was comparable to the election of 1980, when former President Jimmy Carter saw his standing plummet after a debate in which Ronald Reagan, who had been belittled by Mr. Carter throughout the fall, was widely viewed as winning simply by exceeding the low expectations Mr. Carter had established for him. Mr. Bush's aides have resisted that historical parallel, saying a more apt comparison was Franklin D. Roosevelt's re-election campaigns in World War II." Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108160/
What did you think of this article?Join the Fray, our reader discussion forumPOST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES
The Post's lead on Fallujah is based on interviews with residents, and not just on the military's take. Many locals view the foreigners as too fundamentalist and blame them for the U.S. airstrikes. Many also oppose the foreigners targeting of civilians. Locals have been in negotiations with the Iraqi government, while the foreign fighters have opposed the talks. Speaking about Abu Musab Zarqawi, one guerrilla leader said, "He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near." An airstrike in Fallujah yesterday struck a popular restaurant, while it was closed, killing two night guardsmen. The military said it had intel that insurgents linked to Zarqawi were meeting there.
The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox (at least online) with the U.S. stepping-up counter-insurgency operations, including raiding seven mosques in Ramadi and arresting a top Sunni cleric and his son. As the NYT notices, accompanying the GIs were Iraqi troops from Kurdish and Shiite militias. That didn't go over well with locals. "There is a sense of sectarianism in this," said a spokesman for the jailed cleric. "The Americans are just arresting whomever is in front of them at the mosques," said another cleric. "They're behaving in a strange manner."
The NYT teases interim Prime Minister Allawi pushing to let more former Baathists, who are primarily Sunni, back into government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders are apparently opposed to the move. Allawi had wanted to actually close the De-Baathification commission outright, but instead settled on kicking the staffers out of their office and refusing to give most of them passes to enter the Green Zone.
Some good news is buried in the 13th paragraph of the NYT's Iraq wrap-up: Top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is urging a get-out-the-vote drive for all Iraqis. A statement from his office said leaders throughout Iraq should organize committees to get their neighbors registered.
The Financial Times interviews Germany's defense minister who said his country might actually send troops to Iraq if some unstated circumstances change--presumably including Senator Kerry's job.
The Journal reiterates a report in yesterday's NYT in which the White House signaled that it might be willing to offer some carrots to Iran--or have European allies do so--if Teheran abandons its nukes program. Actually agreeing on specific incentives "will be a battle" inside the administration, said one official. But "we're in listening mode."
The Post fronts African American leaders in one county of Florida complaining that people registering to vote are being unfairly rejected. But the Post buries the lead. This is from the 12th paragraph: "A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks. This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the numbers of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites." (Slate's Ann Louise Bardach recently detailed the Sunshine state's history of fraud and disenfranchisement.)
A modest comparison... From the NYT's campaign wrap-up:
"Some Democrats argued that this contest was comparable to the election of 1980, when former President Jimmy Carter saw his standing plummet after a debate in which Ronald Reagan, who had been belittled by Mr. Carter throughout the fall, was widely viewed as winning simply by exceeding the low expectations Mr. Carter had established for him. Mr. Bush's aides have resisted that historical parallel, saying a more apt comparison was Franklin D. Roosevelt's re-election campaigns in World War II." Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108160/
What did you think of this article?Join the Fray, our reader discussion forumPOST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES
October 13, 2004STRATEGY
Tightening Race Increases Stakes of Final DebateBy ADAM NAGOURNEY
ASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - President Bush and Senator John Kerry meet in their final presidential debate on Wednesday night after two encounters that polls suggest weakened Mr. Bush and fortified Mr. Kerry, leaving some Republicans concerned that the final 20 days of the contest would be more competitive than they had expected.
Republicans who had been confident of victory before the debates said they were uneasy as Mr. Bush returns to a format - 90 minutes of questions from one moderator - that has seemed to play to the strength of Mr. Kerry, a 20-year senator and former prosecutor. Mr. Kerry burnished his credentials in the first two debates, averting an early collapse that Republicans had sought, and Mr. Bush has lost some or all of the lead he had before their first debate in Florida on Sept. 30, a series of recent polls suggests.
Republicans are also concerned that the debate, at 9 p.m. Eastern time in Tempe, Ariz., is the only one devoted to domestic policy, and polls show Mr. Kerry has an edge on many of those issues.
"By any objective measure - if Republicans are going to be intellectually honest with ourselves - prior to the first debate, we were pretty comfortable, '' said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. "It was a chance for the president to lay him out and just lock it. In the past two weeks, that's been turned on its head."
Gary Bauer, a conservative who ran for the Republican nomination in 2000, said that Mr. Bush's performance had improved markedly in the second meeting and that he was confident Mr. Bush could take advantage of what he said were openings Mr. Kerry provided in the first two debates. But, he said, "I don't mean to be disloyal to my friends, but I think the Kerry people are feeling pretty good about things."
Mr. Bush's aides, expressing confidence, pointed to polls finding that voters were uncomfortable with the idea of Mr. Kerry as a wartime president, as well as some showing Mr. Bush with a slight edge.
Still, some Democrats argued that this contest was comparable to the election of 1980, when former President Jimmy Carter saw his standing plummet after a debate in which Ronald Reagan, who had been belittled by Mr. Carter throughout the fall, was widely viewed as winning simply by exceeding the low expectations Mr. Carter had established for him. Mr. Bush's aides have resisted that historical parallel, saying a more apt comparison was Franklin D. Roosevelt's re-election campaigns in World War II.
In this remarkable tight race, aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry said the candidates were heading into the final debate, as well as the final phase of the campaign, with aggressive plans to return to familiar territory for the two political parties over the past 30 years.
Mr. Kerry is going to turn up his efforts to portray the president as a tool of special interests, an approach he has signaled in his campaign speeches and in television advertisements, including one in which Mr. Kerry said the "middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden, and the wealthiest are paying less." It was a line of attack, though worded less strongly, reminiscent of the "people versus the powerful" argument Al Gore made in the closing days of his contest in 2000. Democrats said it was designed to appeal to supporters of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who looms as a continuing threat to Mr. Kerry, and to rouse Democratic voters that some recent polls found have been left somewhat unmoved by Mr. Kerry.
"The reason you're hearing this tough populism is because he's underperforming with some of these groups, and this is a way of bringing it home,'' said Donna Brazile, who managed Mr. Gore's campaign in 2000.
Mr. Bush's aides mocked the approach as crass class warfare, saying it had not worked for Mr. Gore and would fail again this time.
"Who was the last Democrat who got elected on a class-warfare platform?'' said Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager. "Harry Truman in 1948. They are running in 2004 the same way they are running in 2000."
Mr. Kerry's aides argued that Mr. Bush's record provided numerous opportunities to try to paint his policies - on subjects like tax cuts and health care - as benefiting the wealthy.
"Gore won the election,'' said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser. "And if he had used it earlier, he would have been president."
If Mr. Kerry is looking to 2000, Mr. Bush is drawing on 30 years of Republican political strategy as he seeks to portray Mr. Kerry as a liberal, particularly on issues of spending, taxes and the military. That is designed to stir excitement among core supporters and appeal to undecided voters, Mr. Bush's aides said.
"If you say to swing voters, what are the most important issues, they are going to say terror and taxes,'' Mr. Mehlman said. "And in terms of taxes, this is the most liberal Democrat who has run since Walter Mondale pledged to raise taxes when he ran in 1984."
A senior Kerry aide, Michael D. McCurry, responded: "It's like the greatest hits of the 1970's and 1980's. That's a message that resonates peculiarly with the Republican base. But the irony is that it helps to shore up our base, too."
Since Wednesday's debate is the third and final one, history suggests that it will draw fewer viewers; it is also competing with the second game of the New York Yankees-Boston Red Sox playoffs.
Yet the event could prove particularly consequential because the race continues to be so close, because of the high number of voters who watched the first two debates and because the pace of television advertisements in swing states has been so heavy that at this point, they are a blur to many voters.
"It would be good for Bush to reclaim this aura of presidential authority and at the same time have one or two opportunities to pierce through Kerry's veneer and tag him as a liberal on something," said Nelson Warfield, who was press secretary to Bob Dole in 1996 when Mr. Dole was the Republican nominee.
Mr. Bush's aides and some Republicans said they were not worried about how the race was shaping up, saying they had always expected it to tighten.
"Kerry gained some traction because the expectations were set so low,'' said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican consultant. ''But I think it's now the president's to lose. I don't think the American people are going to want to change direction at this particular time."
Mr. Fabrizio, the Republican pollster, said Mr. Bush's advisers were expressing confidence at their peril. "We should be concerned,'' he said. "The race is close. This whole 'We expected it to get close again' thing, I just don't buy it."
In a sign that the race is moving into its final phase, the campaigns have cut down the number of states where they are placing advertisements, a generally reliable way of measuring what states each side views as in play.
The University of Wisconsin Advertising Project and Nielsen Monitor Plus, which monitors political advertising nationwide, released a joint study on Tuesday showing that the battleground, at least as far as campaign commercials are concerned, had contracted to mainly 10 states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Both campaigns have pulled out of Missouri, a state that Mr. Kerry had once hoped to win back from Mr. Bush but is now widely expected to fall under Mr. Bush's column on Election Day. Arizona, Louisiana, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia are also among the states that were once considered competitive but are not being heavily emphasized by either campaign.
They have, however, increased spending in Colorado, a state Mr. Bush was favored to win but now appears deadlocked, according to the study. Aides to both campaigns said the shape of the final map would probably become clear by the weekend, when polls measure the cumulative effect of the three debates.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
Tightening Race Increases Stakes of Final DebateBy ADAM NAGOURNEY
ASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - President Bush and Senator John Kerry meet in their final presidential debate on Wednesday night after two encounters that polls suggest weakened Mr. Bush and fortified Mr. Kerry, leaving some Republicans concerned that the final 20 days of the contest would be more competitive than they had expected.
Republicans who had been confident of victory before the debates said they were uneasy as Mr. Bush returns to a format - 90 minutes of questions from one moderator - that has seemed to play to the strength of Mr. Kerry, a 20-year senator and former prosecutor. Mr. Kerry burnished his credentials in the first two debates, averting an early collapse that Republicans had sought, and Mr. Bush has lost some or all of the lead he had before their first debate in Florida on Sept. 30, a series of recent polls suggests.
Republicans are also concerned that the debate, at 9 p.m. Eastern time in Tempe, Ariz., is the only one devoted to domestic policy, and polls show Mr. Kerry has an edge on many of those issues.
"By any objective measure - if Republicans are going to be intellectually honest with ourselves - prior to the first debate, we were pretty comfortable, '' said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. "It was a chance for the president to lay him out and just lock it. In the past two weeks, that's been turned on its head."
Gary Bauer, a conservative who ran for the Republican nomination in 2000, said that Mr. Bush's performance had improved markedly in the second meeting and that he was confident Mr. Bush could take advantage of what he said were openings Mr. Kerry provided in the first two debates. But, he said, "I don't mean to be disloyal to my friends, but I think the Kerry people are feeling pretty good about things."
Mr. Bush's aides, expressing confidence, pointed to polls finding that voters were uncomfortable with the idea of Mr. Kerry as a wartime president, as well as some showing Mr. Bush with a slight edge.
Still, some Democrats argued that this contest was comparable to the election of 1980, when former President Jimmy Carter saw his standing plummet after a debate in which Ronald Reagan, who had been belittled by Mr. Carter throughout the fall, was widely viewed as winning simply by exceeding the low expectations Mr. Carter had established for him. Mr. Bush's aides have resisted that historical parallel, saying a more apt comparison was Franklin D. Roosevelt's re-election campaigns in World War II.
In this remarkable tight race, aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry said the candidates were heading into the final debate, as well as the final phase of the campaign, with aggressive plans to return to familiar territory for the two political parties over the past 30 years.
Mr. Kerry is going to turn up his efforts to portray the president as a tool of special interests, an approach he has signaled in his campaign speeches and in television advertisements, including one in which Mr. Kerry said the "middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden, and the wealthiest are paying less." It was a line of attack, though worded less strongly, reminiscent of the "people versus the powerful" argument Al Gore made in the closing days of his contest in 2000. Democrats said it was designed to appeal to supporters of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who looms as a continuing threat to Mr. Kerry, and to rouse Democratic voters that some recent polls found have been left somewhat unmoved by Mr. Kerry.
"The reason you're hearing this tough populism is because he's underperforming with some of these groups, and this is a way of bringing it home,'' said Donna Brazile, who managed Mr. Gore's campaign in 2000.
Mr. Bush's aides mocked the approach as crass class warfare, saying it had not worked for Mr. Gore and would fail again this time.
"Who was the last Democrat who got elected on a class-warfare platform?'' said Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager. "Harry Truman in 1948. They are running in 2004 the same way they are running in 2000."
Mr. Kerry's aides argued that Mr. Bush's record provided numerous opportunities to try to paint his policies - on subjects like tax cuts and health care - as benefiting the wealthy.
"Gore won the election,'' said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser. "And if he had used it earlier, he would have been president."
If Mr. Kerry is looking to 2000, Mr. Bush is drawing on 30 years of Republican political strategy as he seeks to portray Mr. Kerry as a liberal, particularly on issues of spending, taxes and the military. That is designed to stir excitement among core supporters and appeal to undecided voters, Mr. Bush's aides said.
"If you say to swing voters, what are the most important issues, they are going to say terror and taxes,'' Mr. Mehlman said. "And in terms of taxes, this is the most liberal Democrat who has run since Walter Mondale pledged to raise taxes when he ran in 1984."
A senior Kerry aide, Michael D. McCurry, responded: "It's like the greatest hits of the 1970's and 1980's. That's a message that resonates peculiarly with the Republican base. But the irony is that it helps to shore up our base, too."
Since Wednesday's debate is the third and final one, history suggests that it will draw fewer viewers; it is also competing with the second game of the New York Yankees-Boston Red Sox playoffs.
Yet the event could prove particularly consequential because the race continues to be so close, because of the high number of voters who watched the first two debates and because the pace of television advertisements in swing states has been so heavy that at this point, they are a blur to many voters.
"It would be good for Bush to reclaim this aura of presidential authority and at the same time have one or two opportunities to pierce through Kerry's veneer and tag him as a liberal on something," said Nelson Warfield, who was press secretary to Bob Dole in 1996 when Mr. Dole was the Republican nominee.
Mr. Bush's aides and some Republicans said they were not worried about how the race was shaping up, saying they had always expected it to tighten.
"Kerry gained some traction because the expectations were set so low,'' said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican consultant. ''But I think it's now the president's to lose. I don't think the American people are going to want to change direction at this particular time."
Mr. Fabrizio, the Republican pollster, said Mr. Bush's advisers were expressing confidence at their peril. "We should be concerned,'' he said. "The race is close. This whole 'We expected it to get close again' thing, I just don't buy it."
In a sign that the race is moving into its final phase, the campaigns have cut down the number of states where they are placing advertisements, a generally reliable way of measuring what states each side views as in play.
The University of Wisconsin Advertising Project and Nielsen Monitor Plus, which monitors political advertising nationwide, released a joint study on Tuesday showing that the battleground, at least as far as campaign commercials are concerned, had contracted to mainly 10 states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Both campaigns have pulled out of Missouri, a state that Mr. Kerry had once hoped to win back from Mr. Bush but is now widely expected to fall under Mr. Bush's column on Election Day. Arizona, Louisiana, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia are also among the states that were once considered competitive but are not being heavily emphasized by either campaign.
They have, however, increased spending in Colorado, a state Mr. Bush was favored to win but now appears deadlocked, according to the study. Aides to both campaigns said the shape of the final map would probably become clear by the weekend, when polls measure the cumulative effect of the three debates.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
October 13, 2004
Bush and Kerry Focus on Debate; Running Mates Sharpen RhetoricBy DAVID STOUT
resident Bush and Senator John Kerry practiced for their third and final debate tonight, leaving their running mates to throw gibes during the day.
Vice President Dick Cheney, campaigning in northwestern Pennsylvania, accused Mr. Kerry of not being serious enough to shoulder the burdens of the Oval Office. And Senator John Edwards said the American people could help the economy by firing George W. Bush.
Mr. Cheney based his attack on a word that Mr. Kerry used recently and might like to have back. The senator responded to a question for an article in The New York Times magazine by saying, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
Mr. Cheney turned Mr. Kerry's words against him today as the vice president spoke to supporters in Saxonburg, Pa. "There was never a time when terrorism was a nuisance," Mr. Cheney said, according to a transcript released by the White House. "There never can be a time when terrorism is a nuisance. Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level — our goal is to defeat terror, and with George Bush as president, America will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
The Kerry campaign quickly retorted that one of President Bush's advisers, retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, had used the word "nuisance" in the same context just two years ago, asserting that the United States could reduce the threat of terrorism "so that it is a horrible nuisance, and not a paralyzing influence."
The focus of this evening's prime-time debate between Mr. Bush and his Democratic challenger was to be domestic issues, so the back-and-forth between the vice president and the Kerry campaign may have been the day's last words on terrorism.
Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor and the Bush-Cheney campaign chairman, said today that 20 Republican governors and other prominent party members will be on the road until Election Day conveying the president's message of "a safer world and a more hopeful America."
Senator Edwards was concentrating on domestic issues as he campaigned in Oregon and Colorado. Mr. Kerry's running mate described Mr. Bush as being out of touch with problems of deep interest to less privileged Americans, like health care and unemployment.
Mr. Edwards seized on a remark Monday by Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who said on Monday that it was simply a "myth" that the Bush administration has a poor record on job creation.
Telling a crowd in Medford, Ore., that four million Americans "have fallen into poverty in the last four years," Mr. Edwards said, "I wonder if that's a myth."
He added: "Here's the truth. Come November 2 we're going to send George Bush out of town and that will not be a myth."
Historically, the first debate between presidential candidates is the one most watched. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry faced off for the first time, on Sept. 20 at the University of Miami in Florida, they were watched by nearly 63 million people. The television audience dropped by about 17 million people for their second debate, last Friday in St. Louis.
This evening, the candidates were not just up against a sense of familiarity. They were competing against two baseball playoff games, which were likely to siphon away millions of potential viewers. The games between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox in New York and the Cardinals and the Houston Astros in St. Louis were both scheduled to begin at 8:19 p.m.
Since the debate in Tempe, Ariz., was to begin at 9 Eastern time and run 90 minutes, there was sure to be plenty of opportunity for channel-surfing.
Randal C. Archibold contributed reporting from Oregon for this article.
Bush and Kerry Focus on Debate; Running Mates Sharpen RhetoricBy DAVID STOUT
resident Bush and Senator John Kerry practiced for their third and final debate tonight, leaving their running mates to throw gibes during the day.
Vice President Dick Cheney, campaigning in northwestern Pennsylvania, accused Mr. Kerry of not being serious enough to shoulder the burdens of the Oval Office. And Senator John Edwards said the American people could help the economy by firing George W. Bush.
Mr. Cheney based his attack on a word that Mr. Kerry used recently and might like to have back. The senator responded to a question for an article in The New York Times magazine by saying, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
Mr. Cheney turned Mr. Kerry's words against him today as the vice president spoke to supporters in Saxonburg, Pa. "There was never a time when terrorism was a nuisance," Mr. Cheney said, according to a transcript released by the White House. "There never can be a time when terrorism is a nuisance. Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level — our goal is to defeat terror, and with George Bush as president, America will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
The Kerry campaign quickly retorted that one of President Bush's advisers, retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, had used the word "nuisance" in the same context just two years ago, asserting that the United States could reduce the threat of terrorism "so that it is a horrible nuisance, and not a paralyzing influence."
The focus of this evening's prime-time debate between Mr. Bush and his Democratic challenger was to be domestic issues, so the back-and-forth between the vice president and the Kerry campaign may have been the day's last words on terrorism.
Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor and the Bush-Cheney campaign chairman, said today that 20 Republican governors and other prominent party members will be on the road until Election Day conveying the president's message of "a safer world and a more hopeful America."
Senator Edwards was concentrating on domestic issues as he campaigned in Oregon and Colorado. Mr. Kerry's running mate described Mr. Bush as being out of touch with problems of deep interest to less privileged Americans, like health care and unemployment.
Mr. Edwards seized on a remark Monday by Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who said on Monday that it was simply a "myth" that the Bush administration has a poor record on job creation.
Telling a crowd in Medford, Ore., that four million Americans "have fallen into poverty in the last four years," Mr. Edwards said, "I wonder if that's a myth."
He added: "Here's the truth. Come November 2 we're going to send George Bush out of town and that will not be a myth."
Historically, the first debate between presidential candidates is the one most watched. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry faced off for the first time, on Sept. 20 at the University of Miami in Florida, they were watched by nearly 63 million people. The television audience dropped by about 17 million people for their second debate, last Friday in St. Louis.
This evening, the candidates were not just up against a sense of familiarity. They were competing against two baseball playoff games, which were likely to siphon away millions of potential viewers. The games between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox in New York and the Cardinals and the Houston Astros in St. Louis were both scheduled to begin at 8:19 p.m.
Since the debate in Tempe, Ariz., was to begin at 9 Eastern time and run 90 minutes, there was sure to be plenty of opportunity for channel-surfing.
Randal C. Archibold contributed reporting from Oregon for this article.
