Emily's List punishes its own who oppose partial-birth abortion

Stephanie Herseth has said she supports the ban on partial-birth abortion, with exceptions for life and health of the mother. Although the ban on partial birth abortions has been signed into law and is now being contested in the federal courts, and is therefore something of a moot point, it is illuminating to observe how Emily's List, one of Herseth's major contributors, behaved toward Senator Mary Landrieu when she voted to support the partial-birth abortion ban.

A September, 2002 piece in the liberal American Prospect headlined "Emily's List Hissed" offers the details:

Republicans have vowed to pour money into Louisiana to unseat Landrieu, who was narrowly elected in 1996 with the backing of Emily's List, in order to retake the Senate. Emily's List, which supports only pro-choice Democratic women, announced in 1997 that it would no longer fund Landrieu thanks to her vote for an amended ban on the so-called partial-birth procedure. So Landrieu, the first woman senator from the South elected in her own right, will need all the Democratic Party dollars she can get.

(Emphasis added.) The TAP piece also contains this quote from Democratic operative Paul Begala:

"Now, I wonder if Emily's List contributors wouldn't rather see their money spent helping, say, Mary Landrieu, one of the few women in the Senate, keep her seat. Well, no dice, says Emily's List. Senator Landrieu, you see, supported the ban on partial-birth abortion. Doesn't matter that her Republican opponents support a total ban on all abortions. Wasn't it Santayana who said: 'Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts after you've lost sight of your aim'?"

When uber-Democrat fanatic Paul Begala characterizes Emily's List as engaging in "fanaticism," that's saying something, and it contradicts Stephanie Herseth's protestations that Emily's List is not an extremist group:

Herseth has been criticized for accepting donations from Emily's List, an organization characterized as supporting pro-choice candidates.

But she said it is an organization comprised of individuals from South Dakota and across the country who are interested in seeing more women elected and helps them become more financially viable.

Emily's List has been treated unfairly and it is wrong to suggest it is a radical feminist organization, Herseth said.

It strains credulity that Herseth describes herself as a moderate when she is so beholden to an extremist group like Emily's List. It's no surprise that The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuval is a Herseth fan.

Out-of-state Dems descending on SD

Check out the DCCC's blog, which has pics of Paul Begala and Robert Matsui firing up volunteers headed for South Dakota to help Herseth's GOTV efforts. I wonder if there were any remarks about "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party?"

Then check out the South Dakota GOP's blog, which has pics of these out-of-state Dems cravenly papering over the "John Kerry for President" signs on their bus (scroll down a couple of posts for the pics). That is a microcosm of Democratic politics in South Dakota.

More on illegal anti-Diedrich phone calls

KELO-TV recently had a report on the illegal anti-Diedrich phone calls conducted last Tuesday. The state GOP has filed a complaint with the FEC. While it's too late to find out who paid for these calls and hold them accountable before the special election on Tuesday, it will be useful to know who conducted these calls before the general election in November.

CJR on KELO-TV's scrutiny of campaign ads

The Columbia Journalism Review's "Campaign Desk" has an interesting piece discussing KELO-TV's scrutiny of a Larry Diedrich ad.

KELO's "Ad-Watch" feature is a good idea. Hopefully, KELO will employ this feature when Tom Daschle comes out with ads touting himself as a champion for ethanol. There's a wealth of information to contradict Daschle's claim HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The principle of the people's right to know

The Argus Leader deserves plaudits for its coverage of the secret Janklow pardons, which has culminated today in an unmitigated victory for the people's right to know. Clearly, the AL has the ability to do determined, thorough, and hard-nosed investigative reporting, an ability that the paper needs to demonstrate more often on a wide range of issues in this election year. To be sure, the AL does not exactly have clean hands when it comes to the issue of secrecy, as the statement of one of the pardoned individuals indicates.

Earlier this week, it was discovered that the Argus Leader editors had surreptitiously made a major factual correction to an important story without publishing the correction in their "Corrections & Clarifications" column, which seems to be part of this problem. Hopefully, the Argus Leader's editors understand the concept of media accountability, which is why the people's right to know should not stop at the newsroom door.

Vote today

This is a friendly reminder to SDP readers to vote by absentee ballot today if you haven't already. Go vote, and then work to get out the vote next Tuesday.

NPR covers McKennan park rally, skips Johnson's "Taliban" comment

NPR's "All Things Considered" has a nearly six minute piece on the Diedrich v. Herseth race, and spends a significant amount of time covering the McKennan Park rally last Sunday in which Senator Tim Johnson kicked things off with his "Taliban" comment. The subsequent flap over Johnson's comment even made it into the liberal New York Times. But NPR completely skips the "Taliban" remark. There's no mention of it at all. Once again, we see that what is NOT reported is just as important as what IS reported. The best part? This report is your tax dollars at work.

Argus Leader makes major correction to Kranz story, but fails to report it

The Tuesday, May 25th hard copy edition of the Argus Leader contains the following passage from a David Kranz report titled "Diedrich wants apology for 'Taliban' comment":

Johnson could not be reached for comment, but no apology will be forthcoming from the senator, said Julianne Fisher, Johnson's communications director.

She said Diedrich and other critics needed to be aware of what Johnson went through in 2002 during his re-election campaign.

"This is certainly not directed at Larry Diedrich, but at the outside groups that came in two years ago and attacked his patriotism and his religious faith," Fisher said. "He has no intention of apologizing."

The reference was to an ad in the 2002 race against then-Rep. John Thune. A television ad compared Johnson to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

(Emphasis added.) Now compare the bolded text above to that in the online version of the same story below:

Johnson could not be reached for comment, but no apology will be forthcoming from the senator, said Julianne Fisher, Johnson's communications director.

She said Diedrich and other critics needed to be aware of what Johnson went through in 2002 during his re-election campaign.

"This is certainly not directed at Larry Diedrich, but at the outside groups that came in two years ago and attacked his patriotism and his religious faith," Fisher said. "He has no intention of apologizing."

The reference was to an ad in the 2002 race against then-Rep. John Thune. A television ad showed a picture of Saddam Hussein and criticized Johnson for votes in Congress against a missile defense system.

Obviously, the AL's editors corrected the story in order to be more accurate. Good for them. Here's the kicker, though. Neither the Wednesday edition of the AL, nor today's edition, make any reference to this correction in the AL's tiny "Corrections & Clarifications" column usually found on page A3 of every edition. This means that once the online edition of the story disappears into the AL's Memory Hole, the hard copy edition will live on as fact in the historical record, without there being any accurate correction to the story in the historical record. That is a serious oversight for a paper that touts its journalistic standards.

What's more, the text that was surreptitiously corrected by the AL's editors is a rather salient fact in the brouhaha regarding Senator Johnson's "Taliban" remark, particularly in light of a telling excerpt in Wednesday's edition of the Argus Leader by Dave Kranz titled "'Taliban' remark draws apology from Johnson":

"This was a flip remark at an informal gathering," Johnson said. "I should have been more precise about who attacked me without causing the confusion. In this case it was the Republican Senate Campaign Committee and their operative who came into South Dakota and ran the same ads against me that they did against Max Cleland."

He said that ad campaign in 2002 was "a painful experience when my own son was in danger in combat at that time."

Johnson staff members were not able to identify the specific ad to which he was referring.

Ironically, this phantom ad comparing Johnson to Osama and Saddam that Johnson keeps referring to, and which his staffers cannot identify, is the ad Senator Tom Daschle cited as an example of the "startling meanness" in American politics in his speech a few weeks ago in Manhattan, Kansas. As DVT states, Johnson was never compared to Osama or Saddam. It never happened. To say there was such an ad is false, and, along with the fact that Daschle laughed and clapped as Tim Johnson made the "Taliban" comment, indicates that the Manhattan speech was a thorough exercise in cynicism.

The Argus Leader should prominently publish the correction they made in the online edition of the Tuesday story to an upcoming hard copy edition.

More on Herseth and Project Vote Smart

An anonymous e-mailer writes:

It doesn't appear that your little "blog" is concerned with accuracy, but to the extent it is, you might want to also note the similarly "stunning developments" that former Rep. Bill Janklow, Governor Rounds, and Arnold
Brown, Pres Pro Tem of the SD Senate have also "refused to provide any responses" to the [Project Vote Smart] test. Btw, your lame attempts to be the Matt Drudge of the greater Vermillion area are completely entertaining! Keep 'em coming! We are getting lots of laughs in DC. Good luck with your job search!

The e-mailer is correct that Bill Janklow, Governor Rounds, and Arnold Brown have all told PVS to take a hike. However, each of these individuals have a voting record that can be scrutinized. Janklow and Rounds have spent a long time in public life, and therefore there is an abundance of publicly available material to sift through that can be analyzed to predict voting behavior, and be held accountable for it. Additionally, none of these individuals are running for South Dakota's lone House seat.

Larry Diedrich, as a former state legislator, also has a voting record that can be scrutinized, and has previously provided responses to PVS. By comparison, Stephanie Herseth has no voting record, and has shown a tendency to dissemble and obfuscate when directly questioned on the issues. The fact that she has refused to provide any responses to PVS is just another piece of evidence that indicates a pattern of obfuscation and dissembling on the part of Stephanie Herseth.

Herseth refuses to provide any responses to Project Vote Smart

Now here's a stunning development. According to Project Vote Smart, STEPHANIE HERSETH HAS TWICE REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH PROJECT VOTE SMART'S 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST. Project Vote Smart is a non-partisan organization. PVS's website explains the 2004 National Political Awareness Test thusly:

The National Political Awareness Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-Defense system. It has one central purpose: to measure each candidate's willingness to demonstrate a good faith effort to provide voters with the candidate's inclinations on the issues he or she will most likely face on the citizen's behalf. The NPAT is administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative offices.

PVS further states:

At a time when Americans are increasingly frustrated with the attack advertising and empty rhetoric of many campaigns, the need for this relevant information has never been greater. The public integrity of candidates and the quality of their campaigns can be viewed, in part, as a measurement of their willingness to provide their prospective employers (voters) with this information during a campaign, the point when voters need the most help and when the candidates are asking for their vote.

Stephanie Herseth's campaign has been the epitome of empty rhetoric and attack advertising. The fact that she has twice refused to stake out her positions with PVS should give pause to all South Dakotans considering voting for her. There can only be one reason she has twice (twice!) refused to take any positions on the issues. It's because she knows her positions on the issues would turn off a majority of South Dakota voters.

BOMBSHELL: Anti-Diedrich calls today don't have disclaimer

A source tells me he received the following voicemail message this afternoon:

"Hello, this is Marilyn Stamp. I work an extra job in Sioux Falls so my children can attend college. I'm very disappointed with Larry Diedrich's record in South Dakota government. Larry Diedrich has voted twice against South Dakota's college students, and his bill to give out-of-state student scholarships was vetoed by our governor, who said 'South Dakota's taxpaying parents should NOT be burdened with Larry Diedrich's law.' Call Larry Diedrich at 605-334-7077, and tell him he needs to fight for South Dakota, NOT his out-of state-friends."

Note that there's no disclaimer that says who paid for the phone call, a clear violation of BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act). A few weeks ago, Tom Daschle did precisely the same thing, and subsequently admitted that his calls broke the law. Assuming today's phone calls were paid for by Herseth, who, after all, is a lawyer, she can hardly plead ignorance of the disclaimer requirement. Which leads one to believe that, should it be discovered that Herseth paid for the call, the Herseth campaign is consciously and systematically violating the law.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls radio talk-show host Greg Belfrage, who did a masterful job of exposing the illegal Daschle calls, is on the story.

NYT on Johnson's "Taliban" remark

The NYT's Carl Hulse has a piece on the "Wild West" flavor of South Dakota politics headlined "The Battle for South Dakota." Excerpt:

With so much riding on the outcome, the next few days promise to be pretty tough, as evidenced by the current fight over a weekend crack by Senator Tim Johnson, the Democrat who defeated Mr. Thune in 2002. Mr. Johnson suggested that a victory by Ms. Herseth would not go over too well with "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party."

That comment has provoked protests of outrage up and down the Republican hierarchy, with much of the anger directed at Ms. Herseth. Republican leaders are demanding that she demand that Mr. Johnson apologize. "Her continued refusal to demand an apology for these comments can only mean that she accepts them and their hateful message," said Representative Tom Reynolds, Republican of New York and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Mr. Johnson so far is not apologizing and has said his flip remark was meant to refer to only a small wing of the Republican party — such as the ones who in 2002 ran an ad saying his vote against a missile defense system could empower people such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Evidently, when it comes to politics, South Dakota still has a bit of that Wild West flavor.

Hulse even links to the Rapid City Journal's excellent report by Denise Ross on the flap, rather than the Argus Leader's report by Dave Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters. I think that says something about whose report is more thorough, informative and, um, accurate.

Daschle mentions lobbyist friend at SD Tech Summit

I attended the annual South Dakota Technology Summit in Sioux Falls yesterday, an event sponsored by Tom Daschle. There were a couple of interesting items, one involving E-Trade CEO Mitch Caplan and the other involving FCC Commissioner Jonathon Adelstein.

Tom Daschle introduced Mitch Caplan, and while doing so mentioned Betsy Barclay, E-Trade's lobbyist, who Daschle said was a friend of his and his wife, Linda. Linda Daschle, of course, is a powerful DC lobbyist. Mitch Caplan praised Barclay's ability to "pull together" members of congress whenever a piece of legislation affecting E-Trade arises. Caplan even talked about treating congressional members to a Rolling Stones concert in DC (lamenting the fact that he was extremely late to a lobbying meeting with congressional members prefacing the Stones concert, which incensed Betsy, who had worked hard to "pull people together" in DC, presumably including Tom Daschle). It was remarkable how candid Daschle and Caplan were about these lobbying activities.

The picture below is of Caplan and Daschle during the "Q & A session," which strangely seemed to be questions written by Daschle staffers, as we in the audience were never offered the opportunity to ask questions, or write them down to give to someone.

During the "breakout sessions," the audience was allowed to ask questions at the conclusion of the speaker's remarks. I attended the session hosted by FCC Commissioner and South Dakota native Jonathon Adelstein. A remarkable comment made by Adelstein was his criticism of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which he said often "acts as a mini-FCC." "They're obsessed with telecommunications issues," said Adelstein. "They think they know better than us, but they're just judges." A questioner also asked Adelstein to talk about the hurdles to his appointment, giving Adelstein the opportunity to talk about how hard Tom Daschle is fighting to keep him on the FCC. Adelstein is a pawn in the battle over judicial nominations. Below is a photo of Adelstein taking questions from the audience yesterday.

Also, here's a picture of Daschle introducing Bill Gates, who made a speech by satellite from Redmond, Washington.

Sen. Johnson's "Taliban" remark backfires

Senator Tim Johnson's remark about "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party" at Stephanie Herseth's Sunday rally is drawing fire from various congressional leaders as well as the blogosphere. Johnson seems to be digging in his heels by refusing to apologize, although he does seem to be backpedaling furiously, saying his comment "was a flip remark" that "has nothing to do with Larry Diedrich." Oh, really? Johnson made those comments in the context of Stephanie Herseth defeating Larry Diedrich, yet somehow we're led to believe those comments have nothing to do with Larry. It's more unsettling that Johnson admitted that it was a "flip remark." Apparently, to Johnson's mind, it's just conventional wisdom that Republicans can fairly be equated to the Taliban, a murderous terrorist regime.

Larry is a good man who has run a clean campaign on the issues, drawing fair comparisons to Stephanie Herseth's record. Yet he has been maligned by Stephanie Herseth as "not committed to running a truthful campaign" (even non-partisan commentator Stuart Rothenberg declared that Herseth was guilty of directing a "negative attack" by accusing Larry of untruthfulness) and now Senator Johnson maligns Larry further by implying that it is the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party" that supports Larry.

Ironically, Senator Johnson's "Taliban" remark comes on the heels of his colleague Tom Daschle's speech in Manhattan, Kansas a few weeks ago decrying the "startling meanness" in contemporary American politics (Daschle was on the stage right next to Johnson when the "Taliban" remark was made, and laughed and clapped when it was made). Daschle's and Johnson's behavior subsequent to the Manhattan speech is stark evidence that Daschle's speech was insincere, and merely another cynical ploy at playing the victim, in a long line of such cynical ploys.

UPDATE: Recall, too, Daschle standing next to John Kerry at a press conference on March 11, in which Kerry refused to apologize for and stood by his comments referring to President Bush and his advisors as "the most crooked ... lying group I’ve ever seen.” Here's what Kerry said at that press conference with Daschle looking on:

"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks. I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country. George Bush doesn't have a record to run on. He has a record to run away from."

After that, Daschle and Kerry shook hands, exchanged backslaps, and grinned for the cameras.

Yes, there's a startling meanness in American politics today, and Tom Daschle is in the thick of it.

Herseth rally at McKennan Park

I attended the Herseth rally at McKennan Park last night, and Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson were both on the stage with her. Daschle had an interesting story about an old friend of his named Claude Pepper. Claude Pepper was a U.S. Senator and Representative from Florida, who advocated sharing our atomic bomb technology with Stalin in the months after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Daschle seems to tell the Claude Pepper story (recited below) quite frequently, as a Google search of "Tom Daschle" and "Claude Pepper" indicates. To wit from the Iola Register, a local paper in Kansas, reporting on Daschle's speech at Kansas State University a few weeks ago:

When [Daschle] was first elected to Congress in 1978 he went to Rep. Claude Pepper of Florida for advice. Pepper served first in the Senate, was defeated and then came back as a Representative and served for still another 25 years.

"I asked him if he had any any advice for me. He sat there rubbing his chin in his hand for so long I thought perhaps he hadn't understood my question. He had two hearing aids. I was about to repeat myself, when he looked up and said he did have something to share with me.

"Remember, it doesn't matter much whether you are an R or a D., a Republican or a Democrat. But it matters a great deal whether you are a C or a D; whether you are constructive or destructive."

Of course, one could also add an "O" for "obstructive." But perhaps "obstructive" is a subcategory of "destructive," as Tom Daschle seems to define being destructive as "blocking progress" according to this piece in the June 7, 2001 St. Petersburg Times:

Cs -- constructive leaders -- work together, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, Daschle said Pepper told him. Ds -- destructive politicians of both parties -- block progress.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, by his own definition, Tom Daschle is a destructive politician.

See the pics below. My apologies for their grainy quality. It was an overcast evening and I took them from some distance. The graininess stems from digital "enhancement" of the photos.

Apparently Dave Kranz will have a piece in today's edition of the AL about the rally (helpful hint: he's the guy in the middle scribbling in his notebook).

As always, there's the traditional raised handclasp at the conclusion of festivities.

I'm back

I'm back. Yayyy, as Special Ed from the the Comedy Central show "Crank Yankers" would say.

So I flip open the New York Times on Saturday and, much to my pleasant surprise, notice a big picture of the Corn Palace in Mitchell, above the headline "McGovern, Once Again, Is Getting Respect at Home." The piece discusses the planned George and Eleanor McGovern Library and Center for Public Service at Dakota Wesleyan University, where McGovern once taught.

Can you believe the Argus Leader didn't have on the front page (A1) the purportedly historical and "unprecedented" visit to South Dakota by a Senate leader campaigning against another Senate leader? I'm referring, of course, to Dr. Frist's visit to South Dakota on Saturday. Worse, the AL failed to report on a very interesting proposal by Frist for unmanned aircraft at Ellsworth Air Force Base. By way of comparison, the Rapid City Journal billed the Frist visit as its top story on Sunday, and reported the unmanned aircraft development.

The AL story on the Frist visit is a one-two punch of bias. First, the Frist story is buried in the B section of the paper, and second, the story omits the umanned aircraft development. The burial of the story is the editor's decision, and I think I'm on to something when I discuss the likelihood of institutional bias at the AL. DVT has more HERE, and also shares a remarkable e-mail received from a reporter who is now convinced that the AL is a partisan pamphlet, due to the burial of the Frist story, as well as what the Frist story did NOT report.

In digesting AL executive editor Randell Beck's latest serving of cheap shots and straw man arguments, I couldn't help but take issue with the following text:

Before I proceed, let me say what you already know: Americans are deeply divided about our role in Iraq. And, as often happens in these cases, folks on both sides, unable or unwilling to distinguish the message from the messenger, have turned on the media as A) the willing dupe of those who would destroy our country; or B) the willing dupe of those who would pull us into another Vietnam.

The AL is Tom Daschle's messenger. The AL delivers Tom Daschle's messages. As observed in Sunday's paper, the AL generally does not report, or buries, information that is damaging to Tom Daschle. Conversely, the AL blares Daschle's message on the front page when an event reflects positively on Tom Daschle. With the AL, the problem is not that people are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the message and the messenger; it is simply a fact the message and the messenger are indistinguishable.