Andrew Sullivan on Beck

It has been an eventful week. On Wednesday, Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck let loose a tirade against "the internet" in response to the emergence of the Bombshell Memos. Beck unwittingly kindled an outcry from the blogosphere. The most powerful response to Beck's comments came from Andrew Sullivan, whose criticism of Howell Raines, the former executive editor of the New York Times, was a factor in Raines' eventual resignation from the NYT. It's worth recalling Andrew's remarks as we await Beck's weekly column tomorrow:

AN EDITOR LOSES IT: The editor of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader cannot take any criticism from the outside about the blatant bias displayed by one of his key political reporters. Money quote:

The internet is both a good and a bad thing. The bad is that it has allowed people who hate to distribute their vitriol anonymously, um, using gang emails, using blogs, what have you, with barely a shred of proof, manipulating facts, to perpetuate an ideology. And it's a truly sad thing. And I guess that I would suggest that I’m not going to dignify that kind of crap with an answer.

Using blogs to criticize newspapers? How sad. How awful. How terrifying. I think we've hit a nerve here, haven't we? When you stumble onto the truth, it sometimes hurts.

Will Beck respond thoughtfully and substantively in his piece tomorrow?

Allegations of bias

A fellow named Benjamin Lehman has a letter to the editor of the Argus Leader published today in which he voices concern over Professor Jon Lauck (of DVT fame) being quoted as "some sort of unbiased academic" in a story about ethanol written by the "unbiased" David Kranz and published in the AL nearly six weeks ago.

In that March 14 story, headlined "Ethanol wields power in Senate race," Professor Bob Burns of SDSU was also quoted as "some sort of unbiased academic." Here is one Burns quote from the story:

Thune said Daschle's actions made him want to enter the race. "That series of events was a catalyst in my deciding to run. It convinced me Senator Daschle's priorities had changed. I think it was a tragedy when [the energy bill] didn't pass last fall. If you look at Senate Democrats in the Midwest with farm constituencies that vote against it, why wasn't there an effort to reach out to some of those senators in states where ethanol was an issue?"

Observers have mixed reactions about who is right or wrong.

"If that is a campaign strategy for the Thune campaign, it will be a difficult strategy to implement in large part because the White House and the Bush administration are very important to the passage of an energy bill," said Bob Burns, political science professor at South Dakota State University. "Senator Daschle has established himself as a leader of ethanol in South Dakota, and whether the energy bill with ethanol provisions is finally approved or not, Senator Daschle will continue to enjoy the reputation as a champion of ethanol."

SDSU history professor Jon Lauck questions Daschle's influence. "On ethanol, Daschle didn't even try to use the clout he supposedly has," he said. "His caucus was so furious with him for failing to kill the prescription drug bill that he was forced to let the ethanol bill die. It's a case of Daschle's obligations to his liberal caucus trumping his obligations to South Dakota."

(Emphasis added.) Obviously, Lauck made a pro-Thune comment, while Burns made a pro-Daschle comment. If one were to look to history, one would discover that Burns ran for the South Dakota state legislature in 1980 as -- you guessed it -- a Democrat. But I guess in Lehman's world, only conservative academics should be identified as such in the Argus Leader.

UPDATE: Ryne McClaren and DVT note that there's a certain irony to this letter.

Belfrage reports on Daschle phone calls

Be sure to read Greg Belfrage's report of a mass pro-Daschle phone call campaign yesterday where a female caller read a script urging the recipient to call John Thune's office and tell him to "stop his friends from polluting our airwaves."

A friend of mine also received this message on his voicemail and allowed me to listen to it (transcript of call follows, the caller evidently began speaking before the recording started):

"...negative television ads, and a news story where John Thune says it's OK for outside groups to run these ads.

In fact Thune's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said there's nothing wrong with negative ads. I don't know about you, but the negative campaigns of 2002 were enough for me.

I'm a Republican, but this year I won't support any candidate who runs a negative campaign.

It's time to send a message that we won't stand for it anymore. If you agree, call John Thune's office at 1-605-221-1010, and ask him to stop his friends from polluting our airwaves. Again, that's 1-605-221-1010. Thank you."

Greg promises to investigate who financed these calls and report back to us. Stay tuned.

Ryne McClaren joins the Dakota Alliance

It's official. South Dakota expatriate Ryne McClaren has become the newest member of the Dakota Alliance. He joins this blog, DVT, and Sibby Online. Welcome aboard, sir! You're in for one hell of a ride!

Transcript of another Beck outburst published

Now you can read a transcript of another outburst made by Randell Beck last summer.

Andrew Sullivan on Beck

I can't believe I missed this. The great Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor at The New Republic, has also weighed in on the outburst by Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck.

Blogosphere responds to Beck

That didn't take long. The blogosphere has been abuzz today about the outburst made by Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck on Greg Belfrage's show yesterday. DVT has an excellent summary of the situation. Also see a very kind post by a fellow in Spokane, headlined "Investigative journalism by South Dakota blogger." My good friend Ryne McClaren also has a very kind post, even going so far as to solicit beer money for me. What a guy!

Ryne McClaren did the honors of kicking things off today with this post. Then the good professor took note.

And of course we can't forget the fellows over at Powerline, who Beck called "a couple of yahoos in Minneapolis." Powerline's response? "Funny, we don't look yahooish." Beck also referred to "a guy out in Denver" as being a yahoo, who could only be Cory Skluzak, another good friend.

Pejman takes note too:

YOU KNOW YOU'VE MADE IT IN THE WORLD . . . When you are accused of being part of "a small cabal." If that doesn't constitute having power, I don't know what does.

Argus editor calls Bombshell Memos 'crap'

As SDP regulars know, over the last two weeks I have published two documents on this blog which I discovered in researching the publicly available papers of former Senator Jim Abourezk. These papers (what historians call a "primary source") are held at the I.D. Weeks Library here at the University of South Dakota, where I am a third year law student. I have coined the term "Bombshell Memo" to describe the documents I uncovered because they detail some of the political activities of David Kranz, then the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, and now known as the dean of South Dakota political reporters. You can access a pdf copy of the First Bombshell Memo HERE and a pdf copy of the Second Bombshell Memo HERE.

Yesterday on Greg Belfrage's radio show, Randell Beck, executive editor of the Argus Leader, was asked about the Bombshell Memos, and blogs in general. You can access a transcript of Beck's remarks HERE. (Note that I link to the full text of what Beck actually said, allowing the reader to come to his own conclusions, which is more of a courtesy than Beck affords to me or the others he attacks.)

Beck never substantively dealt with the issue of the Bombshell Memos, instead resorting to name-calling and saying ridiculous things that drew attention away from the central issue (in other words, using the red herring fallacy). The Bombshell Memos are powerful pieces of evidence that support the argument that David Kranz is not an objective observer of the South Dakota political scene. Calling these memos "crap" is not an argument. Beck never explains WHY these memos are "crap." I and many others would be interested to know why Beck calls these memos "crap." But he never tells us.

Why won't Beck deal substantively with the issues that are presented by the existence of the Bombshell Memos? Why won't he at least offer an argument? As caller Steve Kirby told Beck at the end of the program, in much more measured tones than Beck was ever able to muster, the Argus Leader has a perception problem. Name-calling and dangling red herrings may be an effective way to manage the employees of the Argus Leader, but such tactics won't cut it beyond the confines of the Argus Leader building in downtown Sioux Falls.

Beck appears to want to talk about the Bombshell Memos. The problem is that he wants to have a debate about the memos behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of informed readers. That would be a worse than useless exercise. The Argus Leader has a very public perception problem, and the only way to deal with the problem is to have a public debate. If Randell Beck wishes to have a debate about the information that is published on the blogs, that would mean that Randell Beck would have to specifically cite what website he is referring to when he talks about them. I fear that Randell Beck is afraid to reference specific blogs because that will allow his readers and his listeners to come to these blogs and find out for themselves what we're saying. At that point, these readers will find out that what Randell Beck is saying about the blogs isn't true, and that our criticism of the Argus Leader is substantive criticism backed by solid evidence, with reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. That is much more than these readers got yesteday from the executive editor of the most influential newspaper in the state.

Oh, and in case you didn't know it, my name is Jason Van Beek. Just like it says below every post I write.

Giago explains why he dropped out

Tim Giago had a piece in the Yankton Press & Dakotan yesterday headlined "Why I Decided To Withdraw From The S.D. Senate Race." Excerpt:

It is true that if I drew a lot of votes from the very large Indian community in South Dakota, the man who would suffer the most would be Daschle since Indians nearly always vote as Democrats.

Some laughed at my audacity, but Tom Daschle did not. In fact, after the narrow victory of Sen. Tim Johnson, also a Democrat, in the last election, largely because of the support given to him from the Indian reservations, even the man Johnson defeated, John Thune, has been out beating the bushes in Indian country.

Sorry about the delay

Apologies to my readers for the sparse posting lately. I just completed my mock trial final for my trial techniques class (we won). But I'm too tired to blog, so just go to DVT, who's doing his usual bang up job, particularly with this post. Back to blogging tomorrow.

Jeff Gannon on the Second Bombshell Memo

Jeff Gannon, resident DC expert on South Dakota politics, has written a new piece about the Second Bombshell Memo headlined "More Evidence Against Pro-Dem Reporter Surfaces."

You can access the Second Bombshell Memo HERE.

BlogoSFERICS examines the ramifications.

Giago drops out of the race

As DVT first reported, Senator Tom Daschle met with Tim Giago this past weekend in Rapid City to beg him to get out of the race. Now the WaPo is reporting that Giago has relented and will drop out. When Giago first announced his candidacy, Daschle said that he welcomed him to the political arena. It ended with Tom Daschle begging Giago to get the hell out of the political arena. The bottom line is that Daschle's scurrying to shore up support indicates fatal weaknesses in his campaign.

That, and the Dakota Alliance of blogs got a whiff of this story long before the Big Media did.

Hugh Hewitt

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for linking to SDP and the rest of the Dakota Alliance today.

Another Insta-lanche

The good professor takes note of the Second Bombshell Memo.

DVT and Sibby Online also chime in.

Meanwhile, a local television icon says he's scared of Dave Kranz. Apparently intimidation tactics and a code of silence are the name of the game in South Dakota journalistic circles.

UPDATE: Powerline chimes in too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ryne McClaren dubs this "Kranzgate: Vol. 2" and senses that a pattern is beginning to emerge.

Bombshell: Second Kranz collaboration memo discovered

In researching the Abourezk papers held by the I.D. Weeks Library here at the University of South Dakota, this writer has discovered another internal office memo written by a staffer for Senator Jim Abourezk. The memo discusses a meeting with David Kranz, then the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, and currently known as the dean of South Dakota political reporters. This second memo, dated 12/7/76, and found in Box 1041 of the archive, details Kranz' complaints about Abourezk's public relations efforts, and how he makes helpful suggestions on how to improve P.R. in order for Abourezk to be re-elected. You can access a PDF copy of the memo HERE. Key text from the memo:

Having lunch today with Dave Kranz of Mitchell paper he related to me that on a one to ten scale Jim [Abourezk] rates a 3 as far as public relations go....

On press releases I explained that Jim had been out of the country for a couple of weeks now which is the reason for the lack of meaningful releases, but Dave said in the last six months he has been in Mitchell, [Senator George] McGovern has had "ten times the releases Jim has had out." Part of this problem could be that the releases taken over to the paper are given directly to the 'country or city' editors and that Dave only sees them when he reads the paper. McGovern mailes the releases or used the 'mailgram' method and so Dave actually sees the releases on his desk. This could be corrected by me mailing the releases to Dave in addition to taking one to the other copy editors.

Dave also stated that McGovern sends him copies of letters he has written to various agencies on South Dakota issues.... He (Dave) has not received any copies of letters from our office. Not that he would do anything with the copies...but still the editors can gain an impression that Jim is doing something for SD.

Phone calls from DC have only been one from Ron I believe. The editors (especially Dave) need to be pumped up from time to time. Dave likes to know the inside workings of issues and ect. and is not content to just sit and watch the world go by. They want to know exactly whats going on and who is doing the work to make things go....

In addition, Dave feels Jim is not doing the hocky things necessary to be elected again. Like sending out calendars, X-Mas cards, birthday, marrages, weddings, and other hocky letters to SD people. The question is not if its hocky or not--but rather for many people its the only chance they will ever receive a personal card, greetings, or thank-you from someone they will or have voted for.

I am not bringing this up to complain about the job necessary we are doing in the public relations category, but rather that maybe we are slipping a bit, plus the fact in SD we have not had to deal with friendly editors before and since maybe we have not had these gripes brought forth to us in the past.

(Emphasis added.) In handwriting at the bottom of the memo is a postscript that reads:

Dave doesn't want his name mentioned as one who is complaining about Jim's P.R. so if (Al) you call him up, Don't mention this memo.

This is past as prologue. Kranz collaborating with the Democrats in 1976 explains his biased reporting today. It will be interesting to look through the Daschle papers thirty years from now for similar memos. Of course, given the uproar the past few days, such memos will probably mysteriously go missing.

You can access the first Bombshell Memo HERE.

Daschle and the Iraq war

Recall this piece from the Aberdeen American News a little over a week ago, about Tom Daschle's latest position on the Iraq war:

America started its war with Iraq under false pretenses, Tom Daschle said Friday.

But Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, told reporters during a conference call that the war is justified because Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed. But, the Aberdeen native said, the main reasons President Bush gave Congress and the public for invading Iraq have turned out to be inaccurate[.]

Victor Davis Hanson discusses this apparently contradictory position in a piece headlined "Our Present Chaos; Inconsistency is the order of the day." Excerpt:

Still, despite all this, we are told by all both that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein and that the United States cannot precipitously withdraw from the country and cease its reconstruction efforts. Yet does such sentiment translate into support for the ongoing effort to bring "democracy" to Iraq? Hardly. Apparently a new exegesis has arisen that goes something like the following: The United States was wrong to go to war to take out a monster who deserved to be taken out but nevertheless should stay to ensure stability in a country that it has no right to be in.

Is there any general explanation for all these contradictions? I think very little other than the general lesson that we can draw about a rather humane, affluent, and leisured society after September 11 finding itself confused and in a baffling war against medieval enemies it thought were not supposed to be around in the 21st century.

(Emphasis original.)

South Dakota and NYT

The New York Times mentions South Dakota in two different contexts today. One piece is headlined "Bad New Days for Voting Rights." Excerpt:

With South Dakota's senior senator, Tom Daschle, running in another hotly contested race this year, Indians are bracing for more trouble at the polls. Many Indians feel their situation is similar to other so-called ballot integrity efforts over the last few decades.

There's no mention at all in the piece about Tim Giago, the Native American journalist making an independent bid for the Senate in South Dakota. It is rumored that Tom Daschle met with him yesterday to try to get him out of the race (so much for Daschle welcoming him to the political arena). With Giago on the ballot, the trouble at the polls for Tom Daschle might be that his get-out-the-vote effort on the reservations might be getting out the vote for Tim Giago.

Elsewhere in the NYT, Sheryl Gay Stolberg has a piece headlined "In Politics, Too Much Money Is Never Enough." Excerpt:

It is a rule of thumb in politics that candidates need enough money to respond to attacks, which is one reason campaign managers insist they can never have enough. When Senator Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat, ran for re-election last year in South Dakota, he spent $7 million; in a state with little more than half a million people 18 years old or older, that amounted to more than $18 for every registered voter. (By contrast, Mr. Bush, if his campaign costs $200 million this year, will spend pretty close to $2 per registered voter.)

Yet at the end of the campaign, Mr. Johnson did not have enough to respond to a negative direct mail ad, and he eked out a victory by just 524 votes. "We definitely didn't raise enough money,'' Mr. Hildebrand said. Political consultants of both parties agree that so far Mr. Bush seems to be making smart use of his millions. Senator Kerry came out of the Democratic primary season slightly ahead in the polls; since the Bush-Cheney ads began, most polls show the president has narrowed the gap. The decision to scale back, said Dick Wadhams, a Republican strategist, is smart politics.

"Obviously the president needed to get back into the political game,'' Mr. Wadhams said. But, he said, "the public has probably had their fill of politics at this point.''

Interestingly, Dick Wadhams, who is John Thune's campaign manager, has not spent a cent to date on television advertising (although the Thune campaign has advertised on blogs). By contrast, Steve Hildebrand, who is Tom Daschle's campaign manager, has spent millions on television advertising that has been going on since last summer. Still, most polls show the margin between the two candidates to be very close, considering the disparities in television advertising.

Ryne McClaren and 'Kranzgate'

Ryne McClaren offers his interpretation of President Bush's views on "Kranzgate."