Sen. Grassley: "Daschle puts politics and party ambitions in first place"

In 2002, Senator Tim Johnson was in a tough race against John Thune and used a quote from Senator Chuck Grassley in one of his television ads. The ad was effective because it seemed to show Tim Johnson was a centrist coalition builder. One thing Johnson's ad certainly did was show that Chuck Grassley calls things the way he sees them. With that in mind, take a look at what Grassley has to say about Senator Daschle in today's edition of the Des Moines Register, in a story headlined "Iowans dig into wallets for hot race in S. Dakota":

Grassley, however, said Daschle's leadership position in the Senate has become a "curse instead of a blessing."

"Daschle puts politics and party ambitions in first place. And by doing that, he is sacrificing the interests of farmers and rural America," Grassley said.

(Emphasis added.) One example of Daschle putting party ambitions first and sacrificing the interests of farmers can be found in a harsh, uncompromising letter Senator Daschle sent to the Wall Street Journal last year. The contents of Daschle's letter follow:

In your Sept. 25 editorial, 'Daschle's Ethanol Dilemma,' on the energy bill now pending in Congress you state that 'Alaskan drilling already has majority support in the Senate.' Yet the proposal to drill for oil in the Alaska wildlife refuge received only 48 votes when the Senate last voted on the question in March of this year, and drilling proponents mustered even fewer votes on other recent occasions. You also suggest that I would abandon my opposition to drilling in the wildlife refuge in order to advance the energy bill's ethanol provision, which is supported by more than two-thirds of the Senate and President Bush. I never will make that trade, and I am confident that the ethanol provision will become law this Congress, either in the energy bill or on its own merit.

(Emphasis added.) Of course, the energy bill, with its provisions for ethanol, and without a provision for ANWR drilling, failed because Senator Daschle couldn't get two more votes to defeat a Democratic led filibuster. Daschle himself said on the Senate floor that he only "reluctantly" supported the bill and that he "understood" the choice of those who were mounting the filibuster and respected them for it.

Daschle's reluctance to support the bill, coupled with his refusal to actively work for the bill's passage, outraged Senator Grassley:

“If a Democrat leader can deliver 46 out of 49 votes to keep the president’s good judges from being approved,” Grassley said, “he surely ought to be able to deliver 15 out of 49 votes for the energy bill when it’s so important to South Dakota.”

Aside from Grassley, Lisa Richardson, one of the most influential lobbyists in South Dakota, said the following about the failure of the energy bill, according to Congressional Quarterly Weekly:

Those affiliated with the state's burgeoning ethanol industry may also take their anger out on Daschle if an energy bill is not enacted this year, said Lisa Richardson, executive director of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association.

In sum, this is what Grassley is talking about when he says Daschle "puts politics and party ambitions in first place. And by doing that, he is sacrificing the interests of farmers and rural America."

UPDATE: You can find out more details HERE.

Good to be in DC

Jibjab has a hilarious new animation entitled "Good to be in DC." It's a side-splitter.

Tom Daschle: A strong voice for NARAL and Planned Parenthood

It's interesting to note that a look at the NARAL scorecard for Senator Daschle shows he votes with them on more than 85% of important pro-choice (abortion) issues. Planned Parenthood gives Senator Daschle an 80% score.

Also, Daschle used his strong voice to put the general counsel of the National Abortion Federation (no euphemisms there, at least) into an important post in the federal government, according to the Washington Post:

"The President intends to nominate Barbara J. Sapin, of Maryland, to be a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. . . . Ms. Sapin currently serves as general counsel for the National Abortion Federation in Washington, D.C."

A White House spokeswoman noted that this was a Democratic selection to the board, which by law has to include non-Republicans. Sapin, she said, was Democratic "Senator [ Thomas A.] Daschle's pick."

Daschle anti-anti-choice, anti-abortion, not definitively pro-choice

The Aberdeen American News has a story today headlined "Abortion surfaces in U.S. Senate race." The story discusses Senator Daschle's 2002 mass-fundraising e-mail sent out on behalf of NARAL. Excerpt:

Asked directly Thursday whether it would be fair to call him pro-choice, Daschle said sternly, "It would be fair to call me anti-abortion."

It was at least the second time in the past week Daschle has avoided a yes or no answer to the question.

The inquiry followed more general questions and answers about a fund-raising letter Daschle sent out two years ago for the National Abortion Rights Action League. The letter was, in part, on behalf of Sen. Jean Carnahan, D-Mo., as she ran for election. Carnahan lost the race. The letter said Daschle has "stood up for a woman's right to choose."

When Daschle is up for reelection, he tells constituents he's "anti-abortion." When he's laying the foundation for a possible run for the presidency, he raises funds for NARAL saying:

"As the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, I’ve stood up for a woman’s right to choose, and the pro-choice leadership of the Senate has made a difference by safeguarding women’s rights from the anti-choice agenda of the Bush administration. Please give to NARAL today, so NARAL can mobilize the resources to get out the pro-choice vote on Election Day."

(Emphasis original.) Even in a place like South Dakota, with good-natured people willing to give one the benefit of the doubt, you can't have it both ways.

Below is a screen capture of Daschle's NARAL e-mail (which can be found at this website):

Laura Ingraham to blog with SDP and DVT

National talk radio host Laura Ingraham will be in Sioux Falls next week and has scheduled time to blog with DVT and SDP. We'll be getting her take on the Daschle v. Thune race, among other things. More details soon.

Q: How did Daschle camp get my cell number?

Quentin reports that the Daschle camp called his private cell number last night, and it's a number he doesn't publish willy-nilly:

Last night I received a phone call from the Daschle for Senate office. That would normally not be something out of the ordinary, except it was on my cell phone and I don't give that number out to people. I asked the caller where he got my number but he refused to tell me other than that he got my number from a list. I couldn't get him to tell me where the list came from though. Today, I talked with some members of my law school class and found they had received the same calls on their cell phones as well. It would appear that somebody in law school provided the Daschle campaign with a list of all our personal information including phone numbers. Hopefully I can figure out where the Daschle campaign got the information from and put a stop to it. It is one thing to get information from a person's voter registration cards but quite another to acquire a number that is supposed to be private information.

Ryne McClaren reports on Giago

Ryne McClaren delivers another stellar report from West River headlined "Tim Giago on campus." Tim Giago is the Native American journalist who ran as an independent candidate in this year's Senate race, but dropped out. Had he stayed in, it probably would have cinched Daschle's defeat. Anyway, he was on the campus of Chadron State College tonight, and Ryne was there.

Daschle weighs in on the viability of a draft

Yesterday's edition of the New York Times had an article headlined "Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House" containing the following quote from Senator Daschle:

Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest.

"I would expect you're going to continue to see debates about the viability of a draft as we move forward," Mr. Daschle said.

Sibby gets double-crossed

Randell Beck, the executive editor of the Argus Leader, has revoked his offer to Sibby to respond to the Argus Leader's piece on Linda Daschle last Sunday.

KELO-TV ad: Debate to be "moderated" by Kranz and Hemmingsen

"...Dave Kranz is not, and never has been, the moderator in the upcoming KELO-TV/Argus Leader US Senate debate (Monday, 10/11)." - KELO-TV News Director Mark Millage, in an e-mail to SDP yesterday.

"Daschle vs. Thune Monday, October 11, 2004 7 P.M. on KELO Moderated by David Kranz and Steve Hemmingsen" - Newspaper ad in today's edition of the Argus Leader (page 7A).

Again, the moderator/panelist distinction is not a big deal. I just couldn't resist illustrating the fact that KELO's protestations that Kranz is not a moderator is beside the point. David Kranz's capacity to be fair and impartial is what's at issue here. Kranz's impartiality can legitimately be questioned, and KELO should seriously consider whether they wish to have a debate they are hosting tainted with even the perception that it is being conducted unfairly. The debate should be Thune vs. Daschle, not Thune vs. Daschle and Kranz.

Prairie dog poisoning

The Rocky Mountain News has a report today headlined "Pact restricts prairie dog poisoning in South Dakota." Excerpt:

Eight environmental groups and the federal government reached a settlement Wednesday over the government's plan to poison prairie dogs in South Dakota near Badlands National Park.

The groups sued the government in U.S. District Court last month, opposing the poisoning because it would further endanger rare black-footed ferrets in the area.

Easy on the new guy

A warm welcome to Wes Roth, the newest member of the Dakota Blog Alliance, who will be providing aid and comfort to Ryne McClaren in covering South Dakota politics from a West River perspective.

DVT: "Tom Daschle's Identity Politics"

I was remiss in not pointing readers to DVT's excellent piece in NRO yesterday headlined "Tom Daschle's Identity Politics." Read the whole thing.

DVT: Daschle "was screaming" at RCJ reporter

DVT reports that Senator Daschle was screaming at Rapid City Journal reporter Kevin Woster for asking him whether he is pro-choice or pro-life in light of Daschle's NARAL fund-raising e-mail. I think one can get a sense of this in Woster's report, headlined "Abortion letter still an issue." In Woster's report is this sentence: "Daschle also questioned the appropriateness of the question."

Yes, how dare a reporter question the most powerful man in the universe about his position on an important issue? Why, you'd think this was a democracy or something, where elected officials are actually held accountable! It seems that Daschle is the one whose behavior was inappropriate here.

A distinction without a difference

The fact that David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, is not a "moderator" for the October 11th KELO-TV debate but instead is a "panelist" is a distinction without a difference. Kranz has no business being involved in a debate that includes Senator Daschle, given Kranz's long history of shilling for Daschle and other Democratic politicians. The bottom line is that the debate be conducted fairly and impartially, and not have the taint of being conducted unfairly. David Kranz will not ask fair questions. He'll lob softballs at Daschle and try to skewer Thune, just as he does in his columns. In light of Kranz's history with Daschle, I think reasonable people can agree that Kranz is unable to be fair and impartial in this debate. Even the Argus Leader does not have Kranz covering the Daschle v. Thune race. If the AL is mindful enough of the criticism of Kranz to pull him from covering the race, KELO would be well advised to pull him from the debate.

Because it seems people have forgotten documents exist that indicate Kranz collaborated with Democratic campaigns in the past in his capacity as a "journalist," it's time to release another document that is evidence of Kranz's inability to be impartial. This document is a letter from Senator George McGovern to David Kranz dated October 3, 1979, when Kranz was the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic. It can be found in the McGovern Papers at Princeton University. Here's a screen capture of the letter:

You can view a pdf copy of the letter HERE.

The fact that a sitting Democratic senator was moved to write to Kranz "...I trust you will do your best to keep the McGovern name in the headlines" speaks volumes about the efforts Kranz must go through to generate good press for his favorite politicians under the guise of being a "journalist." Does KELO-TV really wish to taint this debate in the biggest Senate race in the country with even the perception of being conducted unfairly?

KELO: Kranz a panelist, not the moderator

Mark Millage, news director for KELO-TV, sends along this e-mail:

Jason:
You need to know, and you need to let your readers know, that Dave Kranz is not, and never has been, the moderator in the upcoming KELO-TV/Argus Leader US Senate debate (Monday, 10/11). Steve Hemmingsen of KELO-TV is the moderator. Steve (representing KELO) and Dave (representing the Argus) will be asking the questions. This was the format agreed upon by both candidates. I don't know where your misinformation came from, but thought you and your readers deserved to know the truth. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
Mark Millage
News Director, KELO-TV

I apologize for the slight inaccuracy of saying David Kranz is the "moderator" of the debate. The point is that David Kranz should not in any way be involved in any debate between John Thune and Senator Daschle. He should not be involved because of his links to and biased reporting about Senator Daschle, and the documented fact that he has in the past worked behind the scenes to advance the interests of Democratic politicians in this state in his capacity as a "journalist." Mitch Krebs, the anchor for a competing station, was pulled from participating in a debate in 2002 because he was an MC at a GOP event. By that standard, Mr. Kranz should not participate in this debate, either.

This is not in any way a commentary on David Kranz as a person, only a commentary on his capacity as a journalist. I know many people who say Mr. Kranz is a kind, good-hearted, and warm person. However, I think that reasonable people could question his ability to be fair and impartial in asking questions at the KELO-TV debate on October 11. Mr. Kranz should not be involved in this debate in any way.

To see my original post on the matter, click HERE.

Drudge links to RCJ piece on Daschle's NARAL e-mail

Drudge has linked to Kevin Woster's report in today's edition of the Rapid City Journal headlined "Abortion letter still an issue." The Drudge headline reads "Daschle called abortion 'murder'; now won't say he's pro-life."

Rapid City Journal reports on Daschle's NARAL e-mail

The Rapid City Journal's Kevin Woster has a report headlined "Abortion letter still an issue" that is a must-read. Kevin Woster's report is a stellar example of reporting the facts "without fear or favor." DVT has a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the piece that is also a must-read.

In Woster's report, Daschle made the following breathtaking statement:

"That letter was not intended to be a fund-raiser for NARAL whatsoever."

In the heart of that NARAL letter, written and signed by Senator Daschle, is this statement:

"Please give to NARAL today, so NARAL can mobilize the resources to get out the pro-choice vote on Election Day."

(Emphasis in original.) That NARAL e-mail written and signed by Daschle contained variations of the phrase "give to NARAL" no less than FIVE times. Yet now we're supposed to believe that Daschle did not intend it to be a fund-raising e-mail. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, the breathtaking dishonesty Daschle is exhibiting here should give one pause. Senator McGovern never made any pretense about his position on the issue of abortion, and I respect him for that. Senator Daschle is no Senator McGovern.

You can view a screen capture of Daschle's NARAL fund-raising e-mail below, which I obtained from this website:

Sharon Gray once supported Daschle; now is working "doubly hard" to defeat him

At my request, SDP reader Sharon Gray of Vermillion, SD, submitted the following opinion piece, which details Sharon's story about working to elect Senator Daschle early in his career. At the time, Daschle convinced Sharon he was pro-life, but now it has become abundantly clear to her that he is pro-choice. Here's Sharon's opinion piece:

First, let me start by saying I am an unabashedly single-issue voter. I truly believe that without a right to life, no other right matters. We currently live in a country where more than 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion. At least 95% of those abortions are for reasons OTHER than rape, incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother. There are more than 1.2 million abortions in the U.S per year. That is more than 3000 abortions per day. The supposed “right” to abortion through all nine months of a pregnancy is a tragic result of judicial law-making, rather than law-interpreting (through the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton U.S. Supreme Court decisions), which federally foisted abortion on demand on all 50 states, regardless of existing state law.

With that said, I am ashamed to admit I worked to help Tom Daschle get elected when he first ran for Senate many years ago. I did so gullibly believing his assertion (along with the blessing of the Presentation Sisters) that he was pro-life. Imagine my horror and regret as I watched him repeatedly toe the NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) line. Writing letters got me the typical response pro-choice-voting candidates give their pro-life constituency explaining his “personal” dislike of abortion but his belief that the choice should reside with the mother. It is inconsequential what a candidate’s “personal” feelings are on the issue of abortion; what matters is how the candidate votes. A pro-life candidate is one who votes pro-life. A pro-choice candidate is one who votes pro-choice. I am infuriated by Daschle’s attempt to disingenuously straddle the fence when he so CLEARLY votes pro-choice. He knows good and well this state is overwhelmingly pro-life. He knows he must go to great lengths to persuade voters that his “personal” pro-life sentiments (even allowing they are genuine) are enough.

In the Sunday (10/3/04) Argus Leader, Representative Mel Olson (a Democrat from Mitchell) said he believed Senator Tom Daschle would like to find a way to outlaw abortion as birth control. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Once again, Daschle was being painted as a pro-lifer at heart. This blatantly misleads voters! I should know: I was one of those misled voters many years ago.

Daschle voted six times against the partial-birth abortion ban, a horrific procedure which in sworn testimony to Congress doctors have said is unnecessary and which is almost always performed on healthy fetuses of healthy mothers. He voted for a substitute amendment that would have killed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which gives protection of law to a fetus killed in commission of a federal crime. He wants to use taxpayers’ money to fund abortions for low-income women. He supports embryonic stem cell research, in which we cannibalistically destroy human embryos to “harvest” their stem cells ignoring the scientific success of NON-destructive, ETHICAL stem cell research using umbilical cord stem cells, for instance. Most disturbingly, however, Daschle has repeatedly acted in an obstructionist manner, preventing fully-qualified judicial nominees from getting a Senate vote unless they passed the litmus test of being pro-choice.

I extremely regret my work years ago to get Daschle elected. To try and make amends, I am working DOUBLY hard to effect his defeat. I hope and pray South Dakotans are more wise to his tactics than I was so many years ago.

Here is a screen capture of Daschle's mass fundraising e-mail on behalf of NARAL, which I took from this website:

Compare Daschle's NARAL e-mail to the letter sent on behalf of Daschle in 1986 by Rev. Terry Miller of Freeman, SD, in which Rev. Miller says Daschle used the word "murder" to describe abortion in a conversation they had. (You can read all of Daschle's pro-life letters HERE.) Rev. Miller's letter was sent along with a companion letter written by Daschle saying "I am unalterably opposed to abortion on demand":

Rancher in Daschle ad received $15,907 due to Thune's work

Gene S. Williams, a rancher who appears in the most recent Daschle drought ad attacking Thune, received $15,907 in disaster payments in 2002. This is the same year he attacks John Thune for purportedly failing to do something for people suffering from the drought. That $15,907 is obviously money out of the $1 billion in assistance Thune pushed through that year. In 2002, Gene Williams got $15,907 in disaster payments because of John Thune's efforts. He got $0 from Tom Daschle.

And of course major disaster assistance was not passed and signed into law until 2003, AFTER Daschle lost his majority leadership position.

Daschle wanted an issue, not a solution, on the drought in 2002, and the same thing is happening this year.

Below is a transcript of Daschle's drought ad:

Tom Daschle: I'm Tom Daschle and I approve of this message.

Margaret Nachtigall, Rancher, Owanka, SD: We're in the third year of an ongoing drought. People are selling the major part of their herds.

Gene Williams, Rancher, Interior, SD: John said that he would stand up to the President when he needs to but when it came to the drought a couple of years ago and he had an opportunity to, he didn't.

Nachtigall: President Bush didn't look at our situation at all. He basically ignored us. I would like to have seen Congressman Thune talk to the President and suggest that they do something for the people who are suffering from the drought in South Dakota.

Williams: For Congressman Thune to sit there and let the President tell us that we just needed to tighten our belt and get along with what we've got was kind of a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. If there's ever a better opportunity to stand up to the President in dealing with the drought I don't know where you're going to find it and if he didn't do it then I don't think he'll do it in the future. When you're looking out for the President instead of South Dakotans you're not doing what we put you there for.

So much for Daschle's pledge to ban third party ads

DVT and Sibby are all over a full page ad that appeared in the Argus Leader today paid for by a pro-Daschle 527 group called "Focus South Dakota." Obviously, Daschle's "Third Party Ad Ban" pledge was as useless as the scrap of paper it was printed on. But you already knew that.

DVT notes that Jeff Masten, one of the three people running "Focus South Dakota," actually wrote a letter to Roll Call defending David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters after Roll Call exposed Kranz as the person behind the "hysterical bashing" of Senator Pressler in the Argus Leader.

Sibby notes that almost all of the money funding "Focus South Dakota" is from out-of-state interests.

Former Daschle publicity chairman to moderate debate

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, has been scheduled as the moderator for the KELO-Land TV debate on October 11th. Kranz, of course, has been a shill for Daschle since their college days together in 1968 at SDSU, when Daschle was president of the Political Science Club and Kranz was his publicity chairman. Kranz wrote one of his very first laudatory articles about Daschle in the SDSU Collegian under the headline "Daschle was workhorse for political convention." Below is a picture of the article:

In and of itself, this article is not a big deal. But when you examine the article with the gloss of history, it is compelling evidence that Kranz is too closely linked to Daschle to be a fair and impartial moderator for a debate in the biggest Senate race in the country. The gloss of history I'm referring to is, among other things, the four "Bombshell Memos" that indisputably document Kranz to have actively worked behind the scenes to promote Democratic political figures in this state in his capacity as a "journalist." You can view the "Bombshell Memos" HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Kranz's impartiality can be legitimately questioned. Is it really a good idea to have someone with such a long history of shilling for Democratic political figures while posing as a journalist moderating a debate between his old friend and John Thune?

Remember that the people who are presently running Daschle's campaign had local television anchor Mitch Krebs pulled from a debate in 2002 because he was MC at a GOP event. The same standard should be applied to Kranz.

Should Kranz be the moderator for this debate, it will be a nice reunion--from 1968-2004, shilling for Daschle.

NYT: Daschle's election in 1986 a "turning point" on abortion

In light of Senator Daschle's attempt to parse his fundraising e-mail on behalf of NARAL as "for a colleague and not a cause" it's important to digest what the New York Times had to say about Senator Daschle's election to the Senate in 1986.

In a piece by Linda Greenhouse dated November 13, 1986, (shortly after Daschle's defeat of Senator Jim Abdnor) and entitled "A Turning Point On the Abortion Issue?" the NYT reported the following (the piece even contained a photo of Daschle):

After long years on the defensive, advocates of abortion rights are cheering the results of last week's elections. They say that the victory of pro-choice candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the defeat of several anti-abortion measures on state ballots, strengthens their movement not only to resist further erosion, but to regain the initiative on such issues as public financing of abortions for poor women....

Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, says the pro-choice side picked up at least three seats in the Senate and five in the House, while no pro-choice incumbent was defeated for any Federal office.

The three Senate seats, all won by Democrats, are in Georgia, with the substitution of Wyche Fowler Jr. for an anti-abortion Republican freshman, Mack Mattingly; South Dakota, where Representative Tom Daschle defeated James Abdnor; and North Carolina, where the Senate seat was held by one of the chamber's most committed abortion foes, John P. East, until his suicide last summer.

Isn't it interesting that the New York Times and NARAL knew Tom Daschle's true position on abortion only TWO WEEKS AFTER Daschle had sent out a letter to constituents in South Dakota stating "The truth is I am unalterably opposed to abortion on demand"? The letter was even enclosed with a letter from a pastor in Freeman, SD vouching for Daschle's pro-life credentials. You can read a PDF copy of the letters by clicking HERE.

Below is a screen capture of Daschle's 1986 letter:

Contrast that letter with Daschle's apparent long and cozy relationship with NARAL, which led him to write a mass fundraising e-mail on NARAL's behalf in 2002. Below is a screen capture of Daschle's NARAL e-mail:

NYT: Daschle a "friend of Roe v. Wade"

It's interesting to observe that a story in the October 23, 2003 Late Edition of the New York Times headlined "Bill Barring Abortion Procedure Drew on Backing From Many Friends of Roe v. Wade" lists Senator Daschle as one of Roe v. Wade's "friends." The NYT story discusses the passage of the partial birth abortion ban. Excerpt:

Some Democrats who voted in favor, like Ms. Lincoln, said they felt that they were reflecting the views of their constituents. Some, like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said the procedure was morally repugnant.

Others, like Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader, said that after eight years of divisive debate, they were ready to get the matter out of Congress and into the courts. Advocates of abortion rights say they will challenge the measure in court as soon as Mr. Bush signs it; they contend that the ban is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the health of the pregnant woman and, they maintain, is overly broad.

"The time has come to move on," Mr. Daschle said on Wednesday. "I have a lot of misgivings about this bill. I have initially opposed it because I didn't think it took into account the need for women's health adequately. But I also believe that we've got to address this issue and let the courts decide whether it's constitutional. In my view, the vote yesterday just moves that process forward."

If Mr. Daschle sounded conflicted about the vote, many of his colleagues seemed equally so. And if those senators are conflicted, so, it appears, is the general public.

More on the Rasmussen poll

Rasmussen Reports offers a link to the latest poll numbers on the Senate race in South Dakota. DVT also has a breakdown of the poll.

Sen. Feingold: Daschle's reaction to contentious dissent "brutal"

I was having a conversation with a liberal friend of mine this weekend, and he reminded me of Senator Daschle's treatment of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold during debate over the USA Patriot Act. Senator Feingold was the lone vote in the Senate against the USA Patriot Act, and his contentious dissent incensed Senator Daschle. The story is worth recalling, in light of Daschle playing up his dissenter credentials after John Thune questioned Daschle's judgment in making his divisive comments on the eve of the Iraq war.

Senator Feingold was interviewed by The Progressive and here's what he had to say about the Daschle squeeze:

Q: You were the lone Senator to oppose the USA Patriot Act. How would you describe Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's reaction to you?

Feingold: Fairly brutal. I want to thank Tom Daschle on campaign finance reform. He really came around and helped us move it through. I had a reverse experience on the USA Patriot Act. When the original Ashcroft anti-terrorism bill came in, they wanted us to pass it two days later. I thought this thing was going to be greatly improved. They did get rid of a couple of provisions, like looking into educational records. But there were still twelve or thirteen very disturbing things, and I thought, OK, we'll take care of this. But then something happened in the Senate, and I think the Democratic leadership was complicit in this. Suddenly, the bottom fell out. I was told that a unanimous consent agreement was being offered with no amendments and no debate. They asked me to give unanimous consent. I refused. The Majority Leader came to the floor and spoke very sternly to me, in front of his staff and my staff, saying, you can't do this, the whole thing will fall apart. I said, what do you mean it'll fall apart, they want to pass this, too. I said, I refuse to consent. He was on the belligerent side for Tom Daschle. And everybody said they were surprised at his remarks. Reporters thought it was so unlike him. And it is unlike him....

What happened in the Senate was that even though the Attorney General was going to allow these changes to make it moderately better, the Administration insisted, and Daschle went along with pushing this through. I finally got to offer the amendments late at night, and I got up there and I made my arguments. And a lot of Senators came around to me, who, of course, voted for the bill, and said, you know, I think you're right. Then Daschle comes out and says, I want you to vote against this amendment and all the other Feingold amendments; don't even consider the merits. This was one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation relating to the Bill of Rights in the history of our country! It was a low point for me in terms of being a Democrat and somebody who believes in civil liberties.

Nat Hentoff wrote a column about this headlined "Sen. Tom Daschle, the enforcer." Excerpt:

In the May issue of The Progressive -- a national monthly magazine based in Wisconsin -- Feingold reveals an intriguing similarity between Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's attitude toward contentious dissent and Ashcroft's assertion that those who criticize the USA Patriot Act are providing immunity to the enemy.

While that bill was being rushed through Congress by the administration, Daschle asked his troops to unanimously agree to it without debating or amending the bill. Feingold refused because the bill, he said, had some "very disturbing things."

At that point in The Progressive interview, Feingold revealed that "the majority leader came to the floor and spoke very sternly to me, in front of his staff and my staff saying, 'you can't do this, the whole thing will fall apart.'"

Feingold would not be intimidated by his leader. According to Feingold, Ashcroft -- whom Feingold voted for in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- said on the phone that Feingold might be right about some of the changes the senator wanted. But, Feingold said, "the White House overruled him."

Late that night, Feingold, defying Daschle, rose to offer an amendment to the USA Patriot Act. Feingold recalls: "A lot of senators came around to me who, of course, voted for the bill, and said, 'you know, I think you're right.'

"Then Daschle comes out and says to them, 'I want you to vote against this amendment and all other Feingold amendments; don't even consider the merits.' This was one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation relating to the Bill of Rights in the history of our country! It was a low point for me in terms of being a Democrat and somebody who believes in civil liberties."

Argus Leader profiles Mrs. Daschle

The Argus Leader has published a profile of Linda Daschle, the corporate lobbyist spouse of Senator Daschle, headlined "As lobbyist, Linda Daschle navigates ethical minefield." The scrutiny of Linda Daschle is far more circumspect and far less hard-hitting than the Argus Leader's scrutiny of Harriet Pressler, the wife of Senator Larry Pressler, in 1990.

Still, it is to be commended that the AL published a wide-ranging profile of Linda Daschle that at least mentions some of the more brow-raising events in the interwoven careers of the senator and his spouse four weeks before the election. As one CNBC reporter noted, South Dakotans "will have to decide if they have a problem" with the fact that "her work as a lobbyist means big companies with business on Capitol Hill can legally put money into Tom Daschle's bank account."

The AL story reports the telling detail that Linda Daschle "drives herself to work in a blue Jaguar" and then proceeds briefly through some of the more controversial episodes in the long careers of Senator Daschle and his wife in Washington, DC. Here's the brief treatment of the story about the "Daschle Squeeze":

After a 1994 plane crash in North Dakota killed four men, the government investigated whether Sen. Daschle had acted improperly on behalf of the plane's owner, a personal friend, to limit safety inspections. Linda Daschle, then second in command at the Federal Aviation Administration, was investigated after officials said documents related to the crash had been destroyed.

Both Daschles were cleared of any wrong. The Senate Ethics Committee exonerated Sen. Daschle. The Transportation Department found that Linda Daschle had not violated her pledge to avoid involvement in aviation matters connected to her husband or South Dakota, The New York Times reported.

This story was even covered by "60 Minutes," which is where the phrase "the Daschle Squeeze" comes from.

Then the AL story offers exactly two sentences about the fact that in 1999, Linda Daschle was hired by the pharmaceutical Schering-Plough to protect their patent for Claritin:

In 1999, Linda Daschle lobbied for pharmaceutical giant Schering-Plough in its effort to get Congress to protect the company's exclusive rights to the prescription drug Claritin....

Linda Daschle said when her work for Schering-Plough was questioned: "We have tried to separate as best as we possibly can our activities."

There's no explanation of why someone whose lobbyist expertise is supposedly restricted only to commerical aviation somehow became an expert on the pharmaceutical industry. Somehow, I would think that's worth investigating. Here's the AP story on the matter.

Then there's the issue of Boeing, one of Linda Daschle's clients, leasing 100 air tankers to the Air Force. The AL reports:

In 2003, the [New York] Times mistakenly reported that Linda Daschle had lobbied on a controversial $20 billion plan to lease 100 air tankers from Boeing Corp. The Times ran a correction, saying Daschle lobbies for Boeing but only on commercial, not military, issues. Critics checked the fine print and found that she was listed as a lobbyist for that bill. But further checking shows she did not work on defense issues, only Transportation Department matters pertaining to airlines, such as hiring sky marshals and modifying cockpit doors in the wake of 9-11.

I'm not sure why Boeing, a company that only builds airplanes, would care about "matters pertaining to airlines" or the "hiring of sky marshals." That seems awfully altruistic for a big corporation. For further review, here's the post I wrote on the "small print" referred to in today's AL story.

The Washington Monthly has a hard-hitting piece on Mrs. Daschle headlined "Tom Daschle's Hillary problem."

LA Weekly has a hard-hitting piece on Mrs. Daschle headlined "I'm Linda, Fly Me."

Slate has a hard-hitting piece headlined "Why Dems Should Be Glad Daschle Won't Run; He's got a big problem. Her name is Linda."

DVT and Sibby have a lot more.

Argus Leader muddles Daschle NARAL letter

The Argus Leader's Terry Woster has an article in today's edition headlined "Letter provokes abortion dispute." The article is about the fact that Senator Daschle sent out a mass fundraising e-mail on behalf of NARAL in the last few days before the 2002 election. Below is a screen capture of that e-mail which I took from the lower portion of this webpage:

This e-mail is the starkest evidence there is that Daschle is misleading people when he says he's "opposed to abortion." As DVT points out, Daschle himself says in his NARAL e-mail that "As the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, I’ve stood up for a woman’s right to choose, and the pro-choice leadership of the Senate has made a difference by safeguarding women’s rights from the anti-choice agenda of the Bush administration."

Yet the AL article only adds to Senator Daschle's attempts at muddling the meaning of his NARAL e-mail. First, there's the subtitle to the story, which reads "Daschle pro-choice, Thune says." Clearly, it's not Thune saying Daschle is pro-choice, it's Daschle himself saying it in his NARAL e-mail, as DVT also points out. Then there's the content of the article. Relevant excerpt:

Daschle said the letter was for a colleague, not a cause.

"I sent an e-mail urging support for Senator Carnahan, whose husband had died in a plane crash,'' he said in an interview. "This was a fund-raising letter that was meant to help her campaign.''

What are you going to believe? What Daschle says or your own eyes? Daschle's NARAL e-mail requests its readers to "give to NARAL" no less than FIVE times. The truth is that this e-mail was for both a colleague and a cause.

Daschle's NARAL e-mail illustrates with stunning clarity Daschle's true position on the issue of abortion. Today's report in the AL subtracts from the clarity of Daschle's NARAL e-mail.

Latest poll: Thune leads Daschle 50%-46%

DVT relays the latest poll numbers from Rasmussen Reports:

South Dakota, Survey of 500 Likely Voters, Conducted September 27, 2004:

Thune 50% Daschle 46%
Daschle: Favorable 52%, Unfavorable 46%
Thune: Favorable 58%, Unfavorable 37%