New York Times

Here's an excerpt from a story in tomorrow's New York Times:

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Senator Tom Daschle, in his office on Friday, talked of how his political plans did not unfold as dreamed.

Daschle Reflects on Past and Looks Ahead

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

Published: December 12, 2004

ASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - Like so many politicians who came of age in the 1960's, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota was inspired by the activism of the era. But his 26-year career in Congress - ending with a tumultuous decade as Senate Democratic leader that included a presidential impeachment, terrorist attacks and poisonous anthrax directed at Mr. Daschle personally - did not unfold exactly as he had hoped.

"My dream in coming to the Senate was to be an offensive quarterback," Senator Daschle said Friday morning, in his first interview since losing a bitter re-election campaign in his home state last month, "and for the most part, I've been a defensive lineman. It's been stopping bad things from happening."

That defensive role prompted Republicans to tag Mr. Daschle with the label "obstructionist," which helped cost him his job, landing him a place in history as the first sitting Senate leader to be defeated for re-election in more than half a century.

At the end of this week, he will move out of his elegant chandeliered suite on the second floor of the Capitol, leaving behind the trappings of power - his fabulous view of the Washington monument, his phalanx of aides, the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington on his office wall - for a new, and as yet undefined life in the private sector.

The Argus Leader's front page today also had a blurb about a story they are going to run tomorrow about Daschle speaking out. 

Iowa's 30-year Tradition

Note this report from the Des Moines Register about the Iowa caucuses.  The Republicans have already confirmed Iowa's continuing place at the front of the Presidential nominating line, but apparently some Democrats aren't so happy with this tradition:

The credit some Democrats gave Iowa for launching John Kerry's presidential campaign has turned to disdain since the Massachusetts senator's loss to President Bush.

But scorn alone can't undo a 30-year tradition, Iowa Democrats say as Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe prepares to unveil a commission charged with recommending a 2008 nominating schedule.

"Until there's a viable alternative on the table, there will be a lot of steam blowing off out there, but nothing different will come of it," said Ames Democrat John Norris, who ran Kerry's winning Iowa caucus campaign.

Some observers say the last time the caucuses' lead-off status faced as strong a challenge as they are now was 20 years ago, the last time a Republican had carried Iowa until last month.

"There seems to be a dynamic that if you are going to make a change, this is the right time," said Democratic consultant David Plouffe.

But Plouffe, who advised two-time presidential candidate Dick Gephardt, said there's no groundswell for an immediate change and that most Democratic National Committee members will await the panel's findings a year from now.

I really hope Iowa stays at the front of the line because they're good neighbors and tend to make good decisions.  While some are critical of the Kerry victory, one wonders what they prefer--a Dean victory?  Anyway, South Dakota had some amazing Presidential primaries in 1912, 1952, 1968, 1976, 1988, and 1992.  How about moving up the SD primary to February for the 2008 contest?  Perhaps this is something that the SD blogosphere could unite behind and advocate since the state legislative session is approaching in January.  I've asked some legislators about it already and they seem interested.  Any thoughts on this?

Wadhams

From yesterday's edition of The Hotline:

ALLEN: A Wad Of Influence

      Dick Wadhams, the campaign manager for Sen.-elect John Thune (R-SD), has been hired to be CoS for Sen. George Allen (R-VA). He will start the job 1/1. Wadhams explained that "over the course of the last year," he had the "opportunity" to see Allen "up close and get to know him." He "deflected" talk of the impact of his hiring on the "early positioning" for '08, emphasizing that "the only thing to read is that Senator Allen wanted a chief of staff who could help him in his service and representation to the commonwealth of Virginia." However, one "high-level" GOP strategist was "more blunt" in saying that Wadhams is a "first-round draft pick of '08."
      Allen continues to dismiss talk of an '08 presidential bid, arguing that his attention is "entirely focused" on winning re-election in '06. VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) is mentioned as a possible challenger to Allen, yet Warner also has "presidential ambitions" which could be an "argument against taking on a bruising battle" against Allen.
      Wadhams had managed the 1st gubernatorial bid by Bill Owens (R-CO), who is currently involved in a "high profile separation" from his wife. Wadhams' decision to "sign on" with Allen could be interpreted as a "slackening in Owens' own presidential hopes" (Cillizza, Roll Call, 12/9).

AP

Here's an AP story about Daschle's future.  Excerpt:

"I've talked to law firms and investment firms and different educational institutions, and I'll probably do some speaking, and I'm taking a look at writing another book at some point," Daschle said.

Asked whether he wants to teach, Daschle said, "Yes, yes. I would consider teaching or lecturing over a period of time."

Daschle, 57, flirted with a run for president in 2004. But on Saturday he said he probably would not enter politics again.

"I think this is an important opportunity to close the door and move on to other exciting challenges in life. I guess you never say never, but I can't imagine what that new political challenge would be," he said.

More on CBS Story and Dakota Alliance

Here are some thoughts from Powerline on the recent CBS story mentioning the South Dakota blogs:

The mainstream media don't have a right to free speech because they're someone special. Everyone has that right. The fact that limitations have been placed on politicial speech by unions and corporations is an exception to the general rule of free political speech. Thus, the New York Times is protected by the First Amendment just like you and me, and not because "the courts have been satisfied with the [newspaper] industry's ability to regulate itself." CBS suggests implicitly--and wrongly--that only the government's "satisfaction" with the blogosphere stands in the way of some ill-defined "regulation" of blogs.

There is a certain irony, of course, in CBS News throwing stones at bloggers and suggesting they may need to be regulated. No one is accusing Lauck or Van Beek of reporting anything that wasn't true, or of fabricating documents. Which raises a fundamental point: There is arguably a certain difference between a partisan who is paid and a partisan who acts solely out of conviction. But that is a relatively subtle difference, and the South Dakota bloggers never denied being partisan. No one reading their blogs could have supposed them to be neutral observers of the Thune-Daschle race.

But what about media organizations like CBS and the New York Times? They pretend to be objective and neutral. But in reality, they are highly partisan--sometimes rabidly so. Key employees of CBS News were so hostile to President Bush that they were willing to publish forged documents to try to bring him down. The Times' Corrections section is an ongoing testimony to the newspaper's tendency to let its political biases get in the way of the facts.

The public is not at risk from those who are obviously and aggressively partisan, but who fail to reveal all aspects of that partisanship. The public is greatly at risk, however, from media outlets who purport to be neutral and reliable, but who trade on the respect they are accorded as fair and nonpartisan sources of information to advance an unstated agenda.

Here are some thoughts from Hugh Hewitt:

So what if Rather, Mapes etc didn't receive a check from Kerry-Edwards 'o4?  Did the South Dakota blogs attempt to distort a presidential election using tricked up docs that lasted less than a day under ordinary scrutiny?  The Argus Leader's many sins of pro-Daschle bias have been extensively detailed, but never admitted by that paper. The pro-Thune blogs never made any attempt to hide their pro-Thune, anti-Daschle point-of-view, so the public was not deceived as it routinely is as to agenda journalism's biases.  Complete disclosure would have been preferable, but that omission isn't anywhere near the sin of undisclosed bias masquerading as "objective" journalism.

...

One more thought on the controversy over the Thune campaign contributions to two South Dakota bloggers who were openly pro-Thune: Any critic of these bloggers should also be demanding that all bloggers who hold "fund-raising" support campaigns disclose in detail the sources of their contributions. Among those bloggers who have solicited such funds: Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall.  Subscription campaigns like the ones run by those two and many others of course carries the possibility that donations will be made on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."   The very first thing one finds at Andrew Sullivan's blog is this:

"PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BLOG!
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION"

I don't think for a moment that either of these writers are for sale, and I wouldn't be bothered if George Soros had sent them both a big fat check. If I know where a blogger is coming from --if his or her genuine point of view has been disclosed-- then the source of support is irrelevant, though, again, prudence would dictate disclosure --and perhaps Andrew and Josh will, as well as any other bloggers who take non-blog ad revenue.

Daschle and People for the American Way

The Washington Post reports that Senator Daschle will be presenting the "Spirit of Liberty Award" on behalf of People for the American Way to former PFAW president Carole Shields: "Liberally Awarding Lefties."  Excerpt:

Alerting all celeb spotters -- you didn't hear it from us, but Tuesday night's a good night to lurk around the Kennedy Center. You know the saying: Award 'em and they will come, and that's just what People for the American Way and its Foundation are doing there. The annual D.C. fundraiser for that granola-chomping semi-vast left-wing conspiracy promises to attract a mob of million-dollar faces. (Or at least five.)

Chevy Chase (the comedian, not the suburb . . . or bank, for that matter) and Cynthia Nixon have agreed to co-host the event. We do appreciate that if you're active within the People for the American Way, they do reward, er, award you well. Board member Alec Baldwin is getting a Defender of Democracy award, presented to him by PFAW founder Norman Lear, while former PFAW president Carole Shields is nabbing this year's Spirit of Liberty award, which she'll accept from soon-to-be-former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). Meanwhile, who could throw a liberal bash and not invite Susan Sarandon? She's taking home a Defender of Democracy award, too, which is being handed over by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

According to a recent article in the New York Times, PFAW is "girding for conflict" in preparation for the anticipated resignation of Justice Rehnquist from the Supreme Court. Excerpt from the NYT:

Liberals, especially, are girding for conflict because Mr. Bush has often said he admires Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the court's staunchest conservatives. Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, warns that similar nominees would turn the clock back on civil rights and environmental protections, not to mention Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Identity

The Democrats didn't do well this fall.  A prominent Democrat writing in the Boston Globe says part of the problem is that Democrats need a stronger "identity."  Excerpt:

Members of Congress and chairmen of the 50 state party organizations are pushing the candidates to broaden the DNC's focus from its longtime fixation on winning presidential elections to building a long-term infrastructure. For too long, they say, the organization's resources have been devoted primarily to raising money and turning out votes for presidential campaigns, at the expense of virtually everything else. During the hiatus between national campaigns, the fund-raising, organizing, and communications apparatus in Washington have been underutilized, and state party organizations have withered on the vine.

Those pushing for this transformation are right. Whoever takes the helm must continue work begun under McAuliffe to transform the DNC from a presidential campaign-in-waiting into an effective marketing organization that works to promote Democratic values and advance the interests of candidates at the local, state, and federal levels.

While the DNC has excelled in fund-raising and get-out-the-vote organizing, it has done nothing to build a Democratic brand that clearly communicates the party's vision, values, and goals. That is one reason why so few voters understand what it means to be a Democrat. The lack of a strong party identity puts candidates at a severe disadvantage in the electoral marketplace.

Supreme Court

Daschle's defeat and the GOP's net gain of 4 Senate seats means less of a fight when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, but certainly there will be a fight.  Note this long piece in the National Journal about what could be coming.  Excerpt:

If Rehnquist's chair becomes open and Bush truly wants to be bold, says one former official of this administration, he'll propose elevating Thomas, who is in many ways the Court's most conservative and most controversial member, and then tap a conservative Hispanic to take Thomas's place as an associate justice. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada bluntly warned Bush on December 5 that Democrats are prepared to fight if Thomas is nominated for chief justice.

Moyers

Bill Moyers is retiring:

"I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee," says Moyers. "We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."

CBS, still more

On the eve of the release of the report skewering CBS for trying to undermine the President in the final months of the presidential race, I've been getting some very funny emails about this CBS News report attacking the Dakota blogs for not being "objective."  Please keep them coming.  Anyway, the broad issue is the continuing plausibility of MSM's claims to be "objective" when they are obviously not.  Bloggers, on the other hand, have opinions.  It's what we do.  And that's why SDP started this site a long time ago--to criticize the Argus which, let's face it, favored Daschle in the last race.  Nobody is even contesting that, even the critics of the Dakota Alliance.  Nobody is presenting a series of arguments saying 'here's why the Argus should be considered fair and why the claims of bias are wrong.'  Want to get a sense of the Argus filter?  See this list of 66 stories in national newspapers and magazines that weren't helpful to Daschle that SDP put together in October.  The Argus didn't find them newsworthy, even though the WaPo, the NYT etc did.  I see Captain Ed has noted that CBS has started criticizing bloggers now that they're about to get nailed for "memogate" and noted some in the commentariat didn't like the fact that I was a consultant to Thune, but I did a long post explaining the many problems I saw at the Argus long before I was a consultant.  And SDP and Sibby and others (there was criticism going back 20 years, as it turns out, pre-blog, as the blogs discovered and revealed to those who didn't know about it) were criticizing the Argus a year-and-half before any consulting was going on.  And the Argus reported I was a consultant on the front page the month after I agreed to be one.  Kos and Atrios and maybe other liberal bloggers are consultants too.  They have opinions.  Good for them.  Other bloggers take partisan advertisements, and good for them too.  Blogs never claimed to be "objective" as CBS did.  Anyway, if one read the blog for more than a post they would know it was pro-Thune.  And nobody ever wrote in and said 'what you wrote about Daschle/Argus was wrong.'  I would have posted a correction immediately.  It was mostly stuff that the Argus simply refused to report.  The posts included links and/or text with citations for people to review the information for themselves.  Sometimes a pdf of the articles/information was posted.  It would have been easy to critique or debunk what was written on the blog, but let's face it, the evidence was strong and there wasn't room for debunking.  That's why Daschle and the Argus didn't try.  If they have counter-arguments, let's hear them, at long last.  As for the FEC, this is absurd.  Who is actually in favor of the FEC "regulating" the blogosphere?  CBS?  Captain Ed says it best:

So now CBS favors regulating political speech? Will CBS, with their vaunted credibility in shreds after the Memogate debacle, agree to allow government regulators pre-screen their content in order to make it more credible? I suspect that ABC and the New York Times may decline to go that far in propping up CBS against the blogs.

Beginning next year, the F.E.C. will institute new rules on the restricted uses of the Internet as it relates to political speech.

“I think those questions are going to have to be asked and answered,” said Lillian BeVier, a First Amendment expert at the University of Virginia. “It’s going to be an issue and it should be an issue.”

Under any other circumstances, that would prompt screams of outrage at Black Rock, but now CBS wants the government to protect them from the big, bad blogosphere. 'Free speech for me but not for thee' must have become the new mission statement at Viacom.

I suppose that, as a strategy, going on attack against the credibility of bloggers at least makes them look like they're trying. If nothing else, it will keep the rest of us laughing until the Memogate report reminds us what a lack of integrity really looks like.

Satire alert

Iowahawk discovered the first draft of the latest CBS report on the blogging menace while rooting through a dumpster behind CBS headquarters in Manhattan: "Experts Tell CBS: Time to Clean Up the Blog Industry."  Excerpt:

Also known as "weblos" or "ternetbls," these online publications began to appear on computer screens in early 2004, where they were first seen as an efficient way for ordinary citizens to share delicious dessert recipes and adorable pet photos. Instead, Internet blogs are increasingly being used for a darker purpose: to spread unregulated political opinions. Cleverly exploiting a loophole in the First Amendment, Internet blogs have gained many of the protections of legitimate media, such as newspapers and television. They are increasingly gaining influence....

Little over a month ago, the first Senate party leader in 52 years was ousted when South Dakota Republican John Thune defeated top Senate Democrat Tom Daschle. While more than $40 million was spent in the race, saturating the airwaves with advertising, it is clear that outcome was determined in the shadowy bowels of the violent South Dakota blog underworld: two leading South Dakota blogs were authored by paid advisers to Thune’s campaign.

Federal Election Commission documents obtained by CBS News show that in October the Thune campaign paid Jon Lauck, of Daschle v Thune, $27,000 and Jason Van Beek, South Dakota Politics, $8,000. Both blogs favored Thune, but neither gave any disclaimer during the election that the authors were on the payroll of the Republican candidate.

The shocking allegations were originally uncovered by KELO-TV and The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, after their advertising sales staffs reported increased buying resistance from the Thune campaign.

Read the whole thing.

CBS cont.

More on the absurdity of CBS:

top story tonight: blogs have opinions!

we shake our head in disbelief at cbs's insistence that blogs are the devil. a new piece, titled "blogs: no, really, they are the devil" on cbs.com, accuses atrios of...gasp! oh no, say it ain't so, shoeless joe...being partisan!!! (cue dramatic orchestral sting!)...oh no! atrios is partisan! gasp! that changes everything! all this time we thought his snarky comments about awol were cleverly ironic, intending to get people to love the administration! we are shocked, shocked, to find out there are opinions in blogtopia (yes! we coined that phrase! but we're still shocked)!

"Of Course Atrios Isn't Neutral"

The CBS story about the Dakota blogs seems to have generated quite a bit of commentary--no surprise there, given the source.  Anyway, here are more thoughts:

Does anyone seriously think there's a liberal media anymore? or, does anyone seriously think there's a credible media anymore?

Atrios writes an angry letter to CBS news about an incredibly stupid story they ran on blogging, which includes some notable and obvious mistatements about him:

Hypothetically, if The Washington Post discovered that The New York Times had a reporter being paid by the Bush campaign it would report it. If proven, the suspect reporter would be fired and likely never work in mainstream journalism again. Hence, the courts have been satisfied with the industry’s ability to regulate itself.

In the case of Duncan Black, this is what happened. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. All the while, he was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.

“People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it’s partisan,” Jamieson said. “The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan.”

Those must be three of the stupidest paragraphs I've ever read.  Atrios's letter points out that they contain factual inaccuracies: the blog is called Eschaton, not Atrios, and he's worked for MMFA since June of this year, even though he's been blogging since 2002.  And, of course, there's also the fact that he doesn't work for any political candidate.

But the stupidest part must be Ms. Jamieson's quotation.  This "Ms. Jamieson" is Kathleen Jamieson, "an expert on political communication and dean of the Annenberg School for Communications," and she said: "The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan."  It's hard to say from the context whether she's talking about Atrios or not. 

I'm not expert on what makes experts, but I'd like to gently suggest that if she was indeed talking about Atrios, her degree in expertness should be revoked; it seems like experts on topics should at least have one of the two brain cells required to rub two brain cells together.  OF COURSE ATRIOS ISN'T NEUTRAL.  I'm not sure if it's the section on his site called "Various Dem Party Sites," or the long blogroll of liberal blogs, or the subtitle which says "a proud member of the reality based community," but something there seems to give it away.

In any case, the juxtaposition of the bit about Atrios next to Ms. Jamieson's expert opinion shows one of two things: 1) she's an idiot and didn't do her research, or 2) the author of the story, Paul Kuhn, is an idiot and didn't do his research.  Neither of which are very savory options -- either the Dean of the Annenberg School doesn't actually know anything about the topic on which she is an expert, or a reporter from a major news outlet isn't professional enough to even look at what he's writing about.  Wow.

RIP

Sibby notes that the slow, painful death of the Argus Leader "blog" is finally over. 

CBS v. Dakota Alliance: Bracing for the Thornburgh Report

From Little Green Footballs:

CBS: The Last Minute Hit Network

In another amazing coincidence of timing, right before the Memogate report, CBS News releases a last minute hit piece on bloggers suggesting that they are paid political operatives, and hinting darkly at possible new laws to deal with the upstarts: Blogs: New Medium, Old Politics.

Contrast this with yesterday’s report that CBS is recruiting anti-war bloggers to hype CBS news stories that damage the war effort.

Wadhams

John Thune's campaign manager is going to become Senator George Allen's chief of staff.  Allen might be challenged by Virginia Governor Mark Warner in 2006, but the hiring of Wadhams, who just spearheaded the effort which knocked off the first Senate leader in 52 years, will certainly make such a race less likely for Warner.  Allen is often discussed as a Presidential candidate in 2008. 

Corzine

According to this NPR report, New Jersey Senator John Corzine is going to run for governor.  Remember that Corzine was the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, i.e. he was charged with electing a Democratic majority in the Senate.  Corzine and Daschle were close and Daschle also beat Corzine's per capita spending record this time.  Daschle spent more than $21 million dollars even though, during the summer and fall, the Daschle campaign scoffed at the notion that they would spend $20 million.

New Meaning to the Term "Giant Killer": Daschle Had 515 Staffers!

Wow!  According to Steve Hemmingsen at KELO-Land, the Daschle campaign had lots of help:

Here's another little tidbit. Daschle's campaign had 315 fulltime workers in South Dakota with another 200 part timers.

Thune had 18 staffers in his campaign office.  And the state GOP party had about 70 people working for the "Victory" program to get-out-the-vote.

Morris on blogs

From the latest column by Dick Morris, the dark prince of American politics, in The Hill:

The election of 2004 will be seen historically as the beginning of a dramatic reshaping of the techniques, methods and tactics of American politics.

This year, the nation’s political process was turned upside down as the elites lost power and the masses of average voters gained it.

“Mass communication” usually denotes the few speaking to the many through the journalistic and electronic media that they control. Now it must be redefined as the masses communicating and imposing their views on the elites, often over the furious objections of their former masters.

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather’s men could not put over a forgery of Bush’s National Guard record on America’s bloggers, who eventually forced the CBS anchor from his perch atop our politics.

some 'splaining'

Which way will the Democrats turn for their new party chairman?  To Howard Dean, or more to the middle?  Our former Senate friend to the south, former Nebraskan Bob Kerrey in today's New York Times:

But the prospect of Dr. Dean's emerging as the face of his party is one that even his own advisers acknowledge has not exactly thrilled many members of the party, who remember the implosion of his campaign, his tireless advocacy of his party's left wing and his opposition to the Iraq war.

"He's got tremendous skills, and if he became chairman, he'd do a good job," said Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska senator who is supporting the candidacy of Leo J. Hindery Jr., the telecommunications executive.

"But if he runs, he's going to have some 'splaining' to do, as Ricky Ricardo used to say," Mr. Kerrey continued. "People remember him saying, 'I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' - which means the liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

"Which Howard Dean are we talking about?" Mr. Kerrey said. "If we're talking about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say fine. But if it's presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably no. The committee has got to figure out how to keep people like me in it. If he's firing people up and he's saying we've got to swing to the left - it's harder to swing along with him. And hell, I live in New York City. I don't live in Nebraska anymore."

Beef check-off case

Howard Bashman has all the links to stories about today's oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the beef check-off case HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

SCOTUSBlog has this informal analysis.

In wake of Dakota Alliance triumph, FEC to issue further regulation

CBS has published an article discussing in part the effect of the Dakota Blog Alliance on the hottest Senate race in the country: "Blogs: New Medium, Old Politics."  Excerpt:

Internet blogs are providing a new and unregulated medium for politically motivated attacks. With the same First Amendment protections as newspapers, blogs are increasingly gaining influence.

While many are must-reads for political junkies, are some Internet blogs also being used as proxies for campaigns? In the nation’s hottest Senate race, this past year, the answer was yes.

Little over a month ago, the first Senate party leader in 52 years was ousted when South Dakota Republican John Thune defeated top Senate Democrat Tom Daschle. While more than $40 million was spent in the race, saturating the airwaves with advertising, a potentially more intriguing front was also opened.

The two leading South Dakota blogs – websites full of informal analysis, opinions and links – were authored by paid advisers to Thune’s campaign.

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader and the National Journal first cited Federal Election Commission documents showing that Jon Lauck, of Daschle v Thune, and Jason Van Beek, of South Dakota Politics, were advisers to the Thune campaign.

The documents, also obtained by CBS News, show that in June and October the Thune campaign paid Lauck $27,000 and Van Beek $8,000. Lauck had also worked on Thune’s 2002 congressional race.

Both blogs favored Thune, but neither gave any disclaimer during the election that the authors were on the payroll of the Republican candidate.

No laws have apparently been broken. Case precedent on political speech as it pertains to blogs does not exist. But where journalists' careers may be broken on ethics violations, bloggers are writing in the Wild West of cyberspace. There remains no code of ethics, or even an employer, to enforce any standard.

A CBS reporter complaining about "dirty tricks" and "ethics"?  When will the hilarity end?

I began my blog a year before Thune declared his candidacy.  I became a consultant for Thune in July of 2004, a year and six months AFTER I began blogging.  From the beginning, I have always been very clear about my political predilections.  I consistently told readers of my blog that I was pro-Thune.  If my blog was a "proxy" for the Thune campaign then it can fairly be said that the Argus Leader and CBS have been proxies for Democratic campaigns since time immemorial.  The difference is that I tell everyone I am not an objective observer.  To this day, the Argus Leader and CBS hold themselves out as objective observers.  I think blogs in general have pretty much exploded that notion.  Yet the "mainstream media" continue to splutter about "dirty tricks" and "ethics" and make a nauseating show of wrapping themselves in virtue. 

Oh, and what a relief it is to know that by excercising my fundamental right of political speech, no laws were apparently broken.  You'd think that would go without saying. Not, apparently, anymore.

Committee resources

The Hill, a Capitol Hill publication, has an interesting article today headlined "Frist, Reid clash over 66-33 split."  Excerpt:

The Republicans want control over two-thirds of each committee’s resources, but Democrats have called that unacceptable. They want a 50-50 split in the 109th Congress or, at worst, a division reflecting the 55-44 GOP advantage.  Republicans scoffed at that suggestion, saying 50-50 is not even on the proverbial table.

The battle is the first of Frist’s and Reid’s new relationship as the leaders of their respective parties and could delay business in the Senate next year, as happened in 2003 after Republicans regained control in the 2002 election.

Frist said of his proposed two-thirds-to-one-third split, “That’s the way it’s always been. That’s the way it’s been with a 55-seat majority.”

Reid

From The New Republic's Noam Schieber:

WHERE WAS HARRY REID GOING WITH THIS?: I don't want to jump on Harry Reid before he's had a chance to get his legs as Senate Democratic leader, but this exchange from his "Meet the Press" coming out yesterday struck me as a little bizarre:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to judicial nominations. Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, November 19: "If they"--the Bush White House--"for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they give us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his opinions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."

Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

SEN. REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems--you've talked about them; every people talk--every reporter's talked about them in town--where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this. I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute. So...

MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?

SEN. REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

So, if I'm understanding Reid correctly, Scalia would be okay because, even though he's really conservative, he's also really smart. Thomas is objectionable because he's both really conservative and really dumb. Since Reid doesn't provide any evidence for his low opinion of Thomas, it sounds to me like he's thoughtlessly embracing the increasingly untenable view that Thomas is an affirmative action case utterly incapable of the kind of deep (or independent) thoughts Supreme Court justices are supposed to think, which has more than a slight whiff of racism. But, again, maybe I'm being unfair to Reid, since he didn't have much of a chance to elaborate even if he'd wanted to.

That's a stretch by Noam, of course, but Reid's response seems to indicate that it's not clear what the Senate Democrats intend to do when the SCOTUS wars start in 2005.

Lobbying

Excerpt from The Hill:

Linda Daschle to lobby the Senate By Geoff Earle

Linda Daschle will start lobbying the Senate for corporate clients in January, when husband Sen. Tom Daschle’s term expires. A lobbyist with Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell, she recused herself from lobbying at the chamber, where her husband has served for 18 years. Senate insiders say Linda Daschle will remain a major lobbying force, owing to her long career dealing with aviation issues and her familiarity with most senators. “She’s always been a powerhouse,” said Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). Tension remains between Senate Republicans and Sen. Daschle since his defeat by former Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.). Republicans consider Daschle the architect of Democratic efforts to block conservative judges and policy. Democrats fault Republicans for unprecedented efforts to dethrone their leader. How might lingering animosity affect Daschle’s lobbying? Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) said, “I think initially, a Republican might be more reluctant to respond to her rather than someone to whom they’ve built rapport and a relationship. If she wants to start attending Republican Senatorial Committee functions, we’d be happy to see her.” The National Republican Senatorial Committee spent millions of dollars helping to unseat Sen. Daschle. The Thune campaign made Linda Daschle’s lobbying an issue, running ads that faulted Sen. Daschle for “personally profiting” from her pharmaceutical-industry clients. Daschle campaign aides were outraged, as Thune had set up a lobbying shop and worked at Arent Fox. Linda Daschle said, “The Republicans had been trying to make me an issue in Tom’s race. The campaign is behind us. I’m looking forward, as is Tom.” Few doubt Daschle’s ability to gain entrée to Senate Democrats for her clients. But in an interview, Daschle stressed her career accomplishments rather than her Senate ties.

Reid and SCOTUS

The Senate and the Supreme Court, from today's edition of The Hotline:

SENATE: Getting Harry With Chief Justice Nods

      Both Dems and GOPers "voiced displeasure" with incoming Senate Min Leader Harry Reid's comments on "Meet" 12/5 that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia "could make an acceptable nominee for chief justice." On the program, Reid "qualified his statement, however, saying Scalia first would have to overcome 'ethics problems.'" The comments "startled lobbying groups preparing for the battles sure to come with the likely turnover" in SCOTUS in the near future. Members of several liberal activist groups, like People for the American Way and Alliance for Justice, called Reid's office 12/6 "to seek an explanation" of the remarks "and to say they would oppose the elevation of Scalia." 5 Dems on the Senate Judiciary Cmte didn't return phone calls, but Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) called them "outrageous" (Fletcher, Washington Post, 12/7).

Yes, Reid's comments were a bit odd. 

Pearl Harbor

Jan Nelson at Redstate.org offers some musings on Pearl Harbor.

Bruce Broll 1956-2004

It was with profound sorrow that I learned Bruce Broll, my friend and law school classmate, had passed away.  Bruce was a good man, and he was always an entertaining participant in the constitutional law classes we attended.  He was one of SDP's first readers.  He will be sorely missed by all of us who knew him, and his family is prominent in our thoughts and prayers.  You can read his obituary in today's edition of the Sioux City Journal.

Hildebrand

KELO TV reports some of the comments of Sen. Daschle's campaign manager on "First Monday" earlier this evening: "Daschle Campaign Manager Discusses Election."

Western Governors' Association meeting

Governor Rounds attended the Western Governors' Association meeting in San Diego last week, and the major topic for discussion was the reform of the Endangered Species Act. 

The picture above was taken from the WGA's website.  The LA Times has a story on the meeting headlined "Governors Seek Easing of Endangered Species Act" (registration required).  Excerpt:

Federal officials, and the 12 Republican governors who dominate the 18-member Western Governors' Assn., suggested that the states can take a greater role in protecting rare species, and that they don't need the entanglements that come with the [Endangered Species Act].

"The act has become something other than recovering species," Pombo said. "It's become a tool to stop growth, to stop mining, to stop logging. To stop a freeway from being built. It's become a tool that people are using to accomplish other goals."

At a news conference Friday, Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, said he was amazed that anyone would propose listing black-tailed prairie dogs, "which we consider a pest."

Lame-duck projects

Janet Hook from the LA Times has an article in today's edition headlined "Lame-duck lawmakers leave tokens of their tenure: Exiting politicians link their names to varied projects."  Guess whose name is conspicuously absent from the article.

Beef check-off case

The Argus Leader has an article today on the beef check-off case which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday headlined "U.S. Supreme Court to hear S.D. lawyer argue against beef checkoff."  The article contains a nice profile of South Dakota attorney Ron Parsons, who will be arguing the case alongside pre-eminent constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe.

The Washington Post has an article today about the beef check-off case headlined "Justices to Hear Cattle Producers' Beef on Ads." 

The Grand Island (Neb.) Independent has an article headlined "U.S. Supreme Court to hear checkoff case."

Profile of Dusty Johnson

The Argus Leader recently published a profile of Commissioner-elect Dusty Johnson, the newest member of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, headlined "New face in GOP."  The AP also published the profile.

KELO's "First Monday" to feature Diedrich, Hildebrand

Legendary local anchor emeritus Steve Hemmingsen will host "First Monday" tonight on KELO at 6:30.  Steve Hildebrand, Senator Daschle's campaign manager, will be a guest with Daschle's defeat a topic for discussion.  This should be good. 

Information from:  Hemmingsen's latest contribution, in which he echoes the latest local Democratic talking point by "worrying" that John Thune, who has not yet taken office, has lost his influence with President Bush.  Give it a rest, guys.  By the time Thune stands for re-election, there will be a different occupant in the White House, and the political landscape will have dramatically changed.  If the Dems want to talk about clout in six years, I'm certain Thune will be glad to have that conversation, and I'm equally certain the Dems will not want to have that conversation.

Gannon on Daschle's defeat

Jeff Gannon, resident DC expert on South Dakota politics, recently wrote an article headlined "Opposition to Death Tax Repeal Helped Topple Daschle."  You can read Gannon's complete coverage of the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota HERE.

Maryland governor sued by local newspaper

The New York Times has an interesting story on accusations of local media bias headlined "Maryland Governor Is Sued Over Step Against Journalists."  Excerpt:

The Baltimore Sun filed suit against Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland on Friday, asserting that he violated the paper's First Amendment rights by prohibiting state employees from talking to two Sun journalists.

The suit, filed in federal court in Baltimore, intensifies a feud between The Sun and Mr. Ehrlich, a Republican who contends that the 167-year-old newspaper has a liberal bias.

The AP has this report on the matter.  I hope both sides stick to their guns here.  It would be fascinating to observe how the constitutional issues play out in such a case.