Thune and the Water Crisis

From the Argus Leader:

Sen. John Thune is pushing the Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a solution to the looming water problem in north-central South Dakota, but in the end, this will come down to the same bottom line as so many other problems - money.

The water-supply intake serving 14,000 people on the Cheyenne Indian Reservation and in nearby communities could become useless by August if the drought continues. Even if it doesn't, the intake in the Cheyenne River is being plagued by a growing silt problem in the river.

The corps could move the intake into deeper water, but silt still will be a problem. It's estimated that the Cheyenne River will be silted in by 2011. And the river can't be dredged, because that would stir up arsenic and heavy metals that came downstream from the Black Hills.

This is an issue of great urgency," said Thune, who called the meeting of corps and tribal officials in Pierre. "I think we have to prepare for the worst-case scenario."

Thune attending Columbia dinner

WIStv:

(Columbia-AP) April 9, 2005 - More than 1,000 Republicans from across the state are expected to gather in Columbia Saturday night for the Silver Elephant Dinner.

It's the biggest annual fund-raising event of the year for South Carolina Republicans. The state's top Republicans are expected to attend, including Governor Mark Sanford and US Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint.

South Dakota Senator John Thune will be the headline speaker at the event. Thune made history last year by defeating Senate Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle. 

Republicans are bad for America...

...According to the Democratic Leader Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.  In a radio address on behalf of the Democratic party (the equivalent to the President's radio message), the senator had this to say:

[I]n the past weeks, we've seen Republicans in Congress abuse their power in too many ways. We have a Republican leader threatening judges who protect our rights and corrupting our government by running roughshod over the ethics committee to protect himself.

Senator, its appaling that you feel the Republicans are abusing power.  As Jon Schaff mentioned, Republicans are only looking for a vote while your party blocks nominees that are certainly qualified for the position.  And lets keep in mind, it was this Harry Reid that threatened the filibuster move to begin with.

Republicans are trying to increase their power even if it means ignoring rules that go back to America's beginnings. They seem to think that they know better than our Founding Fathers. Somehow, I doubt that's true.

And you do know better, Senator Reid?  Somehow, I doubt that's true.  Maybe you should follow the advise of your former Senate leader:  "The founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority to approve legislation.  They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle.  Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." (Tom Daschle)

In their latest move, President Bush and the Republican leadership are trying to ram through radical choices for judges who will serve a lifetime on the bench.

I would hardly call these men "radical", Mr. Reid. 

This isn't about some arcane procedures of the Senate. It is about protecting liberty and our limited government.

A Dem supporting limited government?  Hmm.  Somebody's running towards the center.

It isn't even about judges. The fact is that this president has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any president in the past twenty-five years. Only 10 of 214 nominations have been turned down. And those ten had views that were totally out-of-touch with the mainstream values Americans share.

When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way.

Mr. Reid, you have no room to argue about "rewriting the rules."  The Wall Street Journal pointed out, in a March 7 editorial, that Senator Byrd changed the filibuster rule in his favor on at least four occasions.  On one occasion, a change prevented a Republican-led filibuster to confirm Robert White as ambassador to El Salvador by a simple majority vote.

Here, in America, the people rule — and all the people have a voice.

Almost.  Remember, we're actually a republic, not a democracy.  It was Aristotle who warned a democracy was the most dangerous form of government--and with good reason.  Who of us today are willing to admit we're educated enough on EVERY issue that confronts Congress and can make a truly rational decision based on that information?  Americans have busy lives between work, school, children, leisure, and countless other adventures that leave no time for us to completely understand an issue and then vote directly on that issue.  That's why we have the intermediary--Congress--who represents us and makes those decisions for us.

We cannot sit by and allow the corruption of America's values in America's Congress. The Republicans who run Washington should start using their power for the good of all Americans, not abusing it for their own benefit.

Our Constitution tells us that the courts should be free from political pressure and that our rights are protected by checks and balances.

Our children know that you can't change the rules just to get your way. I think it's time that Washington Republicans remembered those truths.

Thank you for scolding us, Senator Reid.  And you want to talk about abusing power for benefits?  Again, I point to my previous example with Senator Byrd.  Perhaps, Senator, you should lecture your own party before you attempt to find these same flaws within the Republican party. 

If Want To Dance The Dance, You Have To Pay The Piper

From the Winston-Salem Journal:

But Democratic opposition to Bush's judicial appointments angers Republicans who believe that judicial nominations deserve an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. They successfully used the issue to help defeat then-Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the Senate minority leader, last year, the first time that a Senate leader had been defeated in nearly 50 years.

Pawlenty Power

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is doing an excellent job raising money for his re-election bid in 2006.  With talk about Gov. Pawlenty for national office, he will have to show that he is a formidable fund raiser and vote getter.

Which Religions Are Growing?

Orson Scott Card has a nice essay this morning about John Paul II from a non-Catholic point of view.  I found this excerpt interesting:

The real division in Christianity today - and in other religions too, I might add - is between the churches and congregations and individuals who are accommodating themselves to the new secularity, abandoning doctrines and commandments in the process, and those that believe that God still requires us to live by faith and by obedience to his commandments, now as much as ever.

Here is one simple truth, borne out by statistics over many decades and generations:  The religions that demand of their members some real and rational degree of sacrifice, obedience, and adherence to faith are growing stronger and stronger; while the ones that say, in effect, that you can do what you want and God doesn't expect much of us anymore, except to be vaguely nice - they are losing members rapidly.

 

Where do you even begin?

Northern Valley Beacon has responded in its usual overheated and intemperate manner to my post on an article NVB posted concerning Christianity.  As is all too typical, blinded by ideology, it fails to take into account some the most basic points I made in my post.  Simply look at my post and it has a link to NVB and the actual words posted at NVB.  If my take on this matter is as far off as NVB says it is, then I encourage readers to look at the article in question and then to write in.  I would be happy to post any intelligent responses, reserving the right, obviously, to respond in kind.  Here is what NVB says about my post.  I apologize for the length of this quote, but I wouldn't want to be charged with being selective.  "This piece" they refer to in the first line refers to the article they reprinted:

This piece, which is clearly the opinion of an individual, was forwarded to us by Brown County Democrats who thought it made some provocative points and represented an intensity of thought and expression that counters the scurrility, the defamation, and the nefarious representations of other people's words that appear to originate on a local university campus. Anyone who knows the Brown County Democrats and their relationships to Christianity knows that charges of being anti-Christian are the product of malevolent dishonesty on the part of the person who makes such charges and do not represent the the attitudes of the Party or the people within it. This article was reprinted in its entirety and without comment when first posted because it is instructive to see how people outside of South Dakota and Brown County respond to the issues of the day. Charging the Brown County Democrats, who include many pastors, with anti-Christian attitudes is treading on very, very dangerous ground. The post that responds to this article makes some dishonest excisions for the purpose of contorting ridiculously nefarious conclusions from them. We find that the canons of integrity have been severely violated, but we trust most people will read the entire article by Mark Morford . His point is not that Christians must toe a "liberal" theological line. In fact, he makes quite an effort to be inclusive about the range of beliefs good, practicing Christians hold. His point is that some people who parade under the banner of Christianity are not practicing any of the precepts which define it, as specified in the four Gospels. We do not respond directly to other blogs, particularly those of such scurrility and malevolent dishonesty, but contributors to the Beacon have thought some response is warranted in this case. We are sending the post in question to Mark Morford to give him an opportunity to respond. We recognize that the purpose of the post is to assassinate the character of a group, and the tactic is debased, thoroughly mendacious, and cheap, cheap, cheap.

Our non-blog editions of the Brown County Beacon will report on who recommended our posting of this article and why they saw it as a point of information, not the kind of defamation those malevolent forces try to contrive out of it.

A couple things.  The first is the most important as this is the most serious charge and misreading of my post by NVB.  My point is specifically that there is no way this scandalous article represents the views of most Brown County Democrats.  I thought that was quite clear.  My concluding paragraph answers this objection.  I wrote, “I continue to say that I cannot believe that the invective and over-the-top boilerplate posted on the Brown County Democrats' website is indicative of the average Brown County Democrat.”  I am NOT "defaming" the county party; I am suggesting they do a better job of policing what is said in their name.  To be plain, the Brown County Democrats are not anti-Christian, but this article may be (in retrospect, I should have put a question mark after the post heading, making it an interrogatory rather than a declaration).  The first line of my previous post indicates the NVB was reprinting an article, not producing ideas original to themselves (readers can decide if there is a relevant difference). 

Also, as they usually do when caught posting outrageous things, NVB starts to back down.  "Jees, this isn't our view, we just thought it was provactive."  A suggestion NVB: If you post something simply to provoke thought, but it doesn't necessarily represent your own views, say so.  If you reprint something without comment, any fair minded reader will assume that you endorse what is in the article. 

One final point. I must directly respond to this claim:

His point is not that Christians must toe a "liberal" theological line. In fact, he makes quite an effort to be inclusive about the range of beliefs good, practicing Christians hold. 

"His/He" is Mark Morford, the author of the article.  I have linked to the article and quoted liberally in my previous post below.  Again, I ask readers to read the entire article and judge whether I have mischaracterized.  I think it is fair to draw the following conclusions from Mr. Morford's article. Those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are, at best, dubiously Christian.  Those who believe homosexuality is a sin are, at best, dubiously Christian.  Those who support the war in Iraq are, at best, dubiously Christian.  Any orthodox Catholic is, at best, dubiously Christian (as, in addition to the comments above about marriage and homosexuality, they would also be against women's ordination, respect the authority of the Vatican, would enjoy candlelight vigils, all things Morford disparages explicitly or implicitly).  Anyone who questions evolution is, at best, dubiously Christian (point: with minor caveats, I accept the theory of evolution as true, but do not have contempt for those who do not).  Those who are deeply concerned about vulgarity in the culture are at least stupid for not seeing the war in Iraq or (what?) Kraft Lunchables as more serious problems, although Morford does not explicitly question their Christianity.  Essentially, Mr. Morford seriously questions the authenticity of the Christianity of anyone who could be described as a "conservative Christian," with a particular emphasis social/moral conservatism.  BTW, I think the Apostles' Creed is a nice distillation of basic Christian belief and can be found here. Our Presbyterian readers will be happy to note I link to a Reformed website.  Morford says of the "real" Christians:

They are the ones who understand that Jesus was, quite simply, one hell of a powerful teacher, and healer, and mystic, and visionary, a pacifist, a liberal, a feminist, the ultimate outsider, one of the finest examples in all of history of how to radiate pure love and compassion and divine interconnection and Lord knows we could all use more of that.

When he says, “Jesus was…a pacifist, a liberal, and a feminist” I think it is a fair to say, Northern Valley Beacon, that he is equating Christianity with a certain kind of liberalism.  Once again, I'd be happy to hear from readers who have serious arguments to the contrary.  Please, well thought out arguments only.  I am less likely to take seriously arguments that willfully misread what I've written.  Those that accuse me of scurrility and malevolent dishonesty, and being debased, thoroughly mendacious, and cheap, cheap, cheap are less likely to get a hearing. Although, if you can back that up with evidence, I'd be happy to consider it. 

Update: I entitled my original post on this matter, "Anti-Christian Bias at NVB."  Above I indicated that I should have put a question mark after that to mitigate the claim.  Upon even further reflection (e-gad!) the title was unwise no matter the punctuation, and here I concede to NVB.  The problem with the title was that it actually represented the vice that most characterizes NVB: it was intemperate and uncharitable (and, I must say, it was, like most of my post headings, dashed off without much consideration ).   I have gone back and changed it to "Throw Them To The Lions!" Lest there be any confusion, that's a joke.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing anyone to any lions, real or metaphorical. 

The Parent Gap

The Wall Street Journal Opinion covers a new paper released by the Progressive Policy Institute, a "centrist Democratic think tank," by journalist James Taranto.  The author of the paper, Barbara Dafoe, noted that according to last year's exit polls, married parents supported President Bush over John Kerry "by nearly 20 percentage points--59 percent to 40 percent."  She recognizes one reason for the gap:

Democrats will not do better with married parents until they recognize one simple truth: Parents have a beef with popular culture. As they see it, the culture is getting ever more violent, materialistic, and misogynistic, and they are losing their ability to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages. To be credible, Democrats must acknowledge the legitimacy of parents' beef and make it unmistakably clear that they are on parents' side.

Should this come as a surprise us that parents shun Democrats affiliated with Hollywood?  After all, it was Whoopi Goldberg who, as the New York Post reported, was "waving a bottle of wine, [and] fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia" and said the country should "keep Bush where it belongs and not in the White House."  John Kerry never rebuked Whoopi for the comments.  As the WSJ article says, "Democrats would be well advised not to flaunt their association with Hollywood vulgarians, as John Kerry disastrously did."  The article also points out one reason the Dems don't eschew such actions is because a lot of money flows in to the Democratic Party from certain Hollywood financers.

Taranto goes further to explain the effect of economics in the gap ("Married people with children are in or approaching peak earning years and they need all the money they can get...the Republican message of lower taxes is all the more compelling to a voter with mouths to feed") and also points out cultural and social issues ("religion, abortion, gay rights, etc.--married people are likely to be more conservative than the average voter because cultural conservatives are more likely to marry and have children in the first place.") 

Taranto submits that demographics favor the "religious right" and that the advice given by Whitehead, "while possibly worthwhile, is unlikely to be sufficient."  The Dems need a new strategy if they ever expect to win elections.  Here's a solution:  stick to your principles.  All too often, it seems that once Dems get a political opponent in their target, they drop principle in order to attack them.  These attacks lead to no fresh ideas from Dems but rather the same old rhetoric that we've been listening to for years. 

You don't believe the Dems drop principles to in order to assault their opponents?  Here are my examples.  First off, recall what Bill Clinton said in the National Security Strategy of 1997:

Our policy is directed not against the people of Iraq but against the aggressive behavior of the government. Until that behavior changes, our goal is containing the threat Saddam Hussein poses to Iraq's neighbors, its people, the free flow of Gulf oil and broader U.S. interests in the Middle East. 

President Bush went to war in Iraq for the same threats that Bill Clinton noted four years ago.  Yet as soon as he committed to action, Dems blasted him for it.  Another example?  That same NSS of 1997:

As for Iran, our policy is aimed at changing the behavior of the Iranian government in several key areas, including its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and missiles, its support for terrorism and groups that oppose the peace process, its attempts to undermine friendly governments in the region, and its development of offensive military capabilities which threaten our Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) partners and the flow of oil. Pending changes in Iran's behavior, our goal is to contain and reduce its ability to threaten our interests. We also seek to coordinate with key allies to maximize pressures on Iran to change its course.

Sound familiar?  Folks, the point is conditions are no different today during the Bush Administration than they were under the Clinton Administration save for one:  the Bush Administration provides action with its words.  Coupled with this hypocrisy in policy and the conditions noted by Taranto, I think the Dems have quite an uphill battle ahead of them.

Throw Them To The Lions!

The Brown County Democrats reprint an article which hurls invective at any Christian who does not toe the liberal line:  Who are the good Christians?

They are the decent Christians. They are the calm, morally progressive, compassionate, open-hearted Jesus-loving folk who don't really give a damn for archaic church dogma or pious noise or sanctimonious candlelight vigils, for repressing women or bashing gays or slamming Islam and, in fact, turned to Christianity precisely because they believe these things are abhorrent and wrong and, well, anti-Christian.

There is the oldest American bias, the one against Catholics:

They are the legions of recovering Catholics, people for whom the radiant and positive aspects of this most intense of faiths still hold powerful sway but who just can't abide by the ridiculous and outdated and often homophobic and sexist doctrines hurled forth like so much flaccid manna from the unhappy red-robed automatons of Vatican City.

The "good" Christian hates George Bush and Republicans:

They are the moderate Christians, the ones who do not support illegal wars or the killing of all doctors who perform abortions and who are all for social justice and who think Bush is a bit of an imbecile, and even if they find themselves for some unfortunate reason in support of the Republican cause overall they still think it's rather abhorrent that the man dares invoke God to support his lie-ridden wars and the smashing down of women's rights and gay rights and abuse of the environment et al.

The "good" and "decent" Christian certainly hates alot of people, for instance:

...they are not setting the cultural agenda like some sort of sanctimonious meth-addled monkey (hi, Sen. Santorum!) right now.

Not exactly "love thy enemy," is it?  Their enemies are "meth-addled” monkeys.

What to do with the non-leftist Christians? Why, make fun of them:

And, to my mind, these people deserve all the fiery verbiage and raw satire and intelligent ideological counterforce I can possibly lob their way.

I continue to say that I cannot believe that the invective and over-the-top boilerplate posted on the Brown County Democrats' website is indicative of the average Brown County Democrat.  The Christian the NVB ridicules with this article happens to describe most people in Brown County and South Dakota, and indeed Christians everywhere.  I argued last week that the Church is and must remain countercultural.  I was referencing the Catholic Church, but it pertains to the greater Church as well. What NVB wants to suggest is that any Christianity that does not parrot NVB's paranoid radical left-wing agenda is not authenticly Christian and is worthy of nothing but ridicule.  John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, and no doubt your local pastor are nothing more than objects of hate and scorn to the official organ of the Brown County Democrats.

Having our fill of filibusters

 

A thought on the Daschle special, the filibuster, which is having a longer political life than the former Senator.  First, I am in favor of Senate rules that allow for filibusters.  While the filibuster is not in the Constitution, it fits nicely within the theory of the Constitution as it pertains to protecting the rights of the minority.  This is a role that the Senate in particular was meant to play.  Let's not forget, fellow conservatives, that the filibuster served us well in the 1990s and for many years kept hated free speech regulations from becoming law (although ultimately they passed in the form of BCRA).  It strikes me that it is shortsighted for Republicans to consider lowering the number of votes needed for cloture.  It sets bad precedent.  Someday there may be a President Hillary Clinton who has a Senate majority and she might want to socialize medicine.  Republicans might need a filibuster to defeat this.  The Democrats will vote to lower the number of votes needed for filibusters because "the people are crying out for socialized medicine" or some such nonsense.  Republicans will then pay for setting a precedent. 

Yet we all agree that the Democrats have made obnoxious use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations.  It seems to me that there is a political solution to a political problem.  The way the Senate operates now is that nobody ever actually has to filibuster.  You show that you have enough votes to defeat cloture and the other side caves.  What if Republicans didn't cave this time?  What if Republicans actually said, "We are not doing any other business until we get an up or down vote on Justice [insert name]"?  What if the Senate can't pass appropriations bills because the Democrats won't end debate?  What if necessary programs are not getting attention because the Democrats won't end debate?  The real nuclear option is to actually force the Democrats to filibuster, to shut down the Senate, and force them to defend their practices in public.  Although it interests activists, to most people the judicial fights are below radar. Thus Democrats can get away with their iniquitous behavior.  This is a way to get the average person concerned with judicial nominations.  Make the Democrat intransigence start hitting people in the pocket book and you'll see things change really fast.  And it will be the Democrats' fault.  All Republicans want is a vote.

 

Next Stop, North Dakota

There's alot going on at Taking Back North Dakota, an attempt by the blogosphere to unseat Dem. Senator Kent Conrad.  The most interesting recent post is about Sen. Conrad voting for an amendment by Robert Byrd that made it easier for foreign nations to impose tariffs on our agricultural goods.  Not so brite, Sen. Conrad. 

Sen. Conrad has something in common with Tom Daschle in that he raises an unusually high percentage of his money from New York and Los Angeles.  Any Senate candidate from the Dakotas will raise more money out of state than in, that's just the nature of representing unpopulous rural states.  But if you investigate on opensecrets.org, you see that Kent Conrad raises 95% of his money out of state.  Nine of his top 10 zip codes for fundraising are out outside of North Dakota.  In fact you have to go down to #10, Bismarck, to find a NoDak city.  Contrast this with Sen. Thune.  Sen. Thune raised 22% of his money in state, 78% out of state.  Compare this with Daschle who raised a Conradesque 92% of his money out of state.  John Thune's top three zip codes for fundraising were Sioux Falls zips, and five of the top ten, or half, were South Dakota zip codes.  John Thune's top metro area for fund raising was Sioux Falls.  Tom Daschle's was New York.  Six of Daschle's top ten zip codes were New York City, with only two in South Dakota (one in Sioux Falls, one in Rapid).  Kent Conrad has five of his top ten zip codes in the DC-VA-MD area.  It is not surprising that any candidate raises alot of money from the DC area, but that is almost the only place Conrad raises money.  Has he gone native?  Money talks, Senator Conrad. 

Rapid City Indian Casino

Mt. Blogmore is following speculation over the possibility of an Indian casino opening up in the Rapid City area:

The NYT has an article this morning about Indian gaming that has all kinds of parallels and maybe even possibilites for tribes in South Dakota — especially the Oglalas of Pine Ridge. In Indians’ Wish List: Big-City Sites for Casinos reporter Fox Butterfield describes how the Cheyenne and Arapaho ribes in Oklahoma are offering the state of Colorado a billion dollars — a “billion”with a “b” –in exchange for 500 acres near Denver and permission to open a super casino the likes of which has never been seen on the Great Plains. The tribes also would agree to give up their land claims to Colorado.

Naturally, the story and the tribes’ offer are more complicated than that. Still, it’s an intriguing idea. One of the proponents — a Colorado venture capitalist — points out that the Oklahoma reservation he visited had 11,500 people and 70 percent unemployment. Sound familiar?

Pheasant Opener Keeps Same Date

I love a state where this is newsworthy.

BROOKINGS - The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission on Thursday turned down a proposal to change the opening day of pheasant hunting season.

Commissioners also made a philosophical statement against shooting pheasant hens and tried to make drawing for elk tags more fair and efficient.

The state's pheasant hunting season has started the third Saturday in October each year since 1958, but Commissioner Spencer Hawley had suggested changing opening day to the Saturday closest to Oct. 15.

"I thought it was a great idea to run it up the flagpole," Hawley said Thursday. "But the flagpole is bent, and the flag is tattered. There's not a lot of support for it out there."

Karl Rove, Hillary Clinton visiting Minnesota this Weekend

Minnesota will be a hotbed of political activity this weekend.  From the Star-Tribune:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- If you're wondering why Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican guru Karl Rove will be in Minnesota this weekend, Larry Sabato has an explanation: It is on the list of "permanent purple" states.

He said it is neither Republican red nor Democratic blue and is bound to be competitive in the 2008 presidential election. "That guarantees Minnesota lavish attention from both parties regularly," said Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Rove will appear at a fundraiser this evening at the Minneapolis Convention Center for Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Clinton will speak Saturday night at the DFL Humphrey Day dinner at the Hilton Hotel in Minneapolis.

Officially, the visits are aimed at revving up state party troops for 2006. But many Minnesotans are looking beyond next year...

While Clinton has remained mum on her presidential plans, Dayton, who will introduce her at the dinner and attend a $1,000-per-person fundraising reception for her at the home of DFLer Vance Opperman, said her visit "shows a breadth of possible interest beyond 2006."

Ann Lewis, a spokeswoman for Clinton, declined to comment on the Minnesota visit. She said Clinton wanted to go because "you've got a state with an open Senate seat, an important one, and she has good friends who urged her to come out." Dayton has announced that he will not seek reelection next year.

I don't know who the Clinton people think they're fooling.  What's remarkable is that although the dust has barely settled on the '04 elections, we are already ramping up to the '08 campaign. 

I am personally heartened to see the once reliably blue state to the east, and my place of birth, transform into a competitive state for Republicans.  The state's congressional delegation is split 4-4, and the senate delegation is likewise split.  Only one Democrat holds a state wide constitutional office.  Although Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate in decades, GOP chances are certainly improving.  My own forefathers are indicative of Minnesota's, and the DFL's (the state Democratic party), change.  I'm told my forefathers were very conservative people, yet staunch DFLers.  The DFL is no longer the party of my grandfathers, farmers, and the working class, but rather the party of the extreme left.

Hitchcock WWII Soldier Honored

From the Huron Plainsman:

His sister says he was a kind, humble man who loved to hunt. Herdis Rudd, 88, of Huron was a year and a half younger than her brother, Pvt. Clement W. Anderson, who was the oldest of seven children born to John and Dagmar Anderson Anderson was killed in action by enemy rifle fire while assaulting a Japanese dugout in the Marshall Islands during World War II. That occurred on Feb. 5, 1944. He was awarded the Silver Star for bravery under fire in January 1944. According to the Silver Star citation, “he crawled under heavy enemy fire to deliver machine gun ammunition and assist in operating the machine gun. When the enemy attacked the position with powerful offensive grenades, Private Anderson located the hidden enemy, dueled with them at a distance of 10 yards and directed the fire of the machine gun until enemy resistance was wiped out.” Five day later he was killed by enemy rifle fire. He also received the Purple Heart. Anderson’s achievements made a significant difference during the Kwajalein Campaign and his action was a determining factor in brining the fight to a swift conclusion, Col Beverly Stripe said. As a result of his heroism, George Summerside of Pierre, a nephew, said two ships were being built by the Army to honor the service of the Marines and one to honor the Army as both played important roles in the campaign. One ship is named for Private Anderson and the other to honor Medal of Honor recipient Richard Keith Sorenson. These ships are used to transport individuals to different locations in the test area; Kwajalein is a major testing area for the military.

Lobbying

The Globe and Mail:

U.S. corporations, unions and interest groups spent $2.4-billion (U.S.) to lobby Congress and the executive branch in 2003, a 50-per-cent increase in six years, according to a report released yesterday by a Washington-based watchdog group. ...

The current crop of lobbyists includes about 250 former members of Congress and heads of federal agencies, the report said. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota recently joined the Atlanta-based lawyer-lobbying firm of Alston & Bird LLP.

Another Native Son

Associated Press: "Former Navy aviator Shane Osborn, a South Dakota native, now plans to pilot his Harley-Davidson around Omaha, where he and his family have a new home.  Osborn is best know for pulling his crippled spy plane out of a harrowing dive and safely landing on Chinese soil four years ago."

Sioux Falls Roots

James T. McGreevy teaches history at Notre Dame and is the author of the book Catholicism and American Freedom: A History.  He is also from Sioux Falls and a graduate of O'Gorman High School, the Catholic school in Sioux Falls.  See his essay about the Pope and the status of the Catholic Church in this week's New Republic.

Canadian man loses pot appeal

That is a lot of pot:

ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Kamloops, B.C., man who pleaded guilty in what U.S. government agents said was one of North Dakota's biggest marijuana busts has lost his case before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Joseph Maltais was sentenced last April to 2½ years in prison. Authorities said Maltais had 102 kilograms of marijuana when he was arrested in August 2003 in Bottineau County, N.D.

Using my math skills, thats 224.4 pounds of pot...

Les Miserables

I think that one of the most beautiful expressions of Christianity is the story of the Priest, Jean Valjean, and the candlesticks, from Les Miserables.  I have occasionally used it in class and I get tears in my eyes whenever I do.  But it has the defect that it is fiction.  The story of Edith Zierer is not.  It is told by Roger Cohen in the New York Times.

In January 1945, at age 13, she emerged from a Nazi labor camp in Czestochowa, Poland, a waif on the verge of death. Separated from her family, unaware that her mother had been killed by the Germans, she could scarcely walk.

But walk she did, to a train station, where she climbed onto a coal wagon. The train moved slowly, the wind cut through her. When the cold became too much to bear, she got down at a village called Jedrzejow. In a corner of the station, she sat. Nobody looked at her, a girl in the striped and numbered uniform of a prisoner, late in a terrible war. Unable to move, Edith waited.

Death was approaching, but a young man approached first, "very good looking," as she recalled, and vigorous. He wore a long robe and appeared to be a priest. "Why are you here?" he asked. "What are you doing?" Edith said she was trying to get to Krakow to find her parents.

The man disappeared. He came back with a cup of tea. Edith drank. He said he could help her get to Krakow. Again the mysterious benefactor went away, returning with bread and cheese. They talked about the advancing Soviet Army. Edith said she believed that her parents and younger sister, Judith, were alive.

"Try to stand," the man said. Edith tried and failed. He carried her to another village, where he put her in the cattle car of a train bound for Krakow. Another family was there. The man got in beside Edith, covered her with his cloak and made a small fire.

His name, he told Edith, was Karol Wojtyla.

I am reminded of the quote, I believe from the Talmud, that begins Shindler's List: 

He who saves a single life saves the whole world. 

 

Another Dakota Senate Battle?

Taking Back North Dakota is noting a piece about the editorial board of the Grand Forks Herald meeting with GOP Governor Hoeven.  The board indicates there might be another big Dakota Senate battle in 2006:

We agreed unanimously, "He's acting like a candidate."  He's looking like one, too.  Hoeven's appearance has changed. He looks more dignified somehow. More senatorial, perhaps. His hair is beginning to show some gray. So is his moustache, which was closely trimmed.

And then note this:

[Hoeven]  didn't seemed surprised when Editorial Page Editor Tom Dennis presented him printouts of an Internet blog that's promoting his candidacy.

War Notes

In case you haven't noticed, the Iraqi insurgency is loosing.  The best example of this is their two attacks on Abu Ghraib prison.  The prison is of no strategic value whatsoever.  The insurgents have largely given up attacking American targets, as these are heavily defended.  They are hungry for headlines, the Tet Offensive option, as some cyberinterloculors are styling it.  See the Austin Bay Blog for a summary.  Tip of the hat to Powerline. 

Saddam’s holdout henchmen are always desperate for headlines. While car bomb attacks on unarmed Iraqi civilians are low-risk (and they continue, particularly against Shiites), public opinion now matters in Iraq, and the thugs’ public slaughters have killed too many Iraqis. With support dwindling day by day, the Sunni thugs are once more seeking “freedom fighter” media status by “playing the Abu Ghraib” card.

Abu Ghraib has now been attacked twice in a three-day period. Attacks occurred on April 2 and today, April 4. US forces took 44 casualties (most wounds were minor).

US forces, however, are hard targets and the Abu Ghraib complex is heavily fortified. Wire reports conclude the terrorists took 50 casualties (out of an attacking force estimated at 60 gunmen). Their attack did trigger s “quick reaction force” (QRF) of Apache helicopters.

The April 4 car bomb also took Iraqi civilian lives. While the mere mention of Abu Ghraib may inflame the Guardian and the DailyKos, for everyone else—particularly Iraqis– January 30th’s seismic political shift dramatically changed the debate and the media focus. The selection of Hajim al-Hassani (a Sunni Arab) as parliament speaker is another political knock for the terrorists.

If you are interested in this, The Belmont Club is a good blog to check on. 

More on the Daschle and the Filibuster

A friend sent some more information on Tom Daschle's previous position on the use of the filibuster which can be found in an article by John Cornyn titled "Our Broken Judicial Confirmation Process and the Need for Filibuster Reform": Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy; Volume 27, Number 1, Fall 2003.

Senator Daschle: "The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote:  A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding.  Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote.  The founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority to approve legislation.  They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle.  Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock."  (141 Cong. Rec. 2832 (1995) (statement of Sen. Daschle)) 

1995, when the previous statement was made, was of course a situation where a Democratic president wanted to pass legislation.  Back then democracy was all about majority rule.  Apparently today democracy is about protecting the minority from the rule of the majority. 

Filibuster Flip Flops

Andres Martinez writing in the LATimes:

The NAACP is lobbying to preserve the Senate's filibuster in Washington these days. What's next for the civil rights group? A campaign encouraging Southern pride in the Confederate flag? A fundraising drive to build more of those odious monuments to Robert E. Lee?

The filibuster, from the Dutch word for pirate, is a parliamentary move that allows a minority of senators to prevent the chamber from voting on a measure by indefinitely extending debate. The Senate filibuster dates back to the early 19th century, but the obstructionist tactic will always be associated with the efforts of the Senate's Southern Dixiecrats to block civil rights legislation in the 20th century. The effort was so successful for so long, as Robert Caro vividly recounts in his "Master of the Senate" tome on Lyndon B. Johnson, that the Senate was widely referred to as "the South's revenge for Gettysburg." The filibuster kept the federal government from combating racial lynchings, the poll tax and plenty of other outrages, which is why the NAACP's Washington office and liberal voices across the country used to rail against the filibuster as the ultimate perversion of American democracy.

It's now a perversion of history for the NAACP and these other liberal voices to champion the filibuster because it is temporarily convenient to do so.

I think he's a little hard on the filibuster.  Its like saying that due process has helped a lot of criminals go on to commit other crimes; its true, but we probably need due process anyway.   Now,  however, every liberal outfit in the nation has done a double somersault over the filibuster.  Its now got light shining on it like it was touched by an angel.

The Sun Kings

Memo to Congress: You can't actually legislate the Earth's rotation.  You can't pass a law to give us longer days.  That's God's job.

Pro-life speaker

If you are in the Aberdeen/Brown County area, you might want to check out this event on Sunday evening. It should prove informative.   

Open-minded Left Update

With a tip of the hat to littlegreenfootballs, here is proof of the open-mindednes of the
British left from the Guardian. 

Israeli academics who refuse to condemn their government's actions in the occupied territories risk a boycott by the UK's leading lecturers' union.

The Association of University Teachers' annual council, which begins on April 20 in Eastbourne, will also debate whether to boycott three of Israel's eight universities - Haifa University, Bar Ilan University and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem - over their alleged complicity with the government's policies on the Palestinian territories.

 

Article continues

 

---

 

 

---

The union voted against an academic boycott policy two years ago, but campaigners believe the motions are more likely to be passed this year.

Kudos to Thune

In the news:

ST. LOUIS-- The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) applauds the Senate for introduction today of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 (WRDA), which includes legislation authorizing seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers.

The legislation was introduced by Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Warner (R-Va.), David Vitter (R-La.), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Tom Harkin (R-Iowa), Jim Talent (R-Mo.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ark.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).

Daschle Event and the Filibuster

I had the chance to attend the event at USD on Tuesday with former Senator Tom Daschle.  My fellow bloggers here at SDP have already commented on several aspects of the speech itself. 

The aspect of Daschle's speech that I found most interesting wasn't covered by any press.   Daschle was asked to comment on the Republican's attempt to monopolize the political process by gaining control of the judiciary as well as the executive and legislative branches. 

Daschle answered by commenting that he had taken a lot of heat in the campaign for his use of the filibuster.  Filibuster in his opinion should not be looked at as a dirty word.  The founding fathers knew there would be a potential for tyranny of the majority so they put procedures like the filibuster in place to control it.  Daschle then switched gears and talked about the history of the filibuster.  In the first 100 years of existence our government had no means to invoke cloture so members of Congress were free to speak forever with no means of ending the discussion.  Later it was determined that this method was not good for the legislative process so 67 votes was made the magic number that would invoke cloture and end a filibuster. 

At this point Daschle torpedoed his own argument.  He said in the 1960's during George McGovern's time in the Senate the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture was lowered from 67 votes to 60 votes.  This was done because Congress didn't want Southern Senators filibustering Civil Rights legislation.  Today people want to lower the number of votes on judicial nominees to 51 votes which would leave the minority with no protection against the majority. 

My reaction to these comments was to scratch my head while a whole bunch of people cheered probably not realizing what Daschle had said.  If the majority viewpoint is something that Daschle agrees with, like Civil Rights legislation, then he has no trouble lowering the votes necessary to invoke cloture. If the minority viewpoint is something he disagrees with, like the President's judicial nominees, then we need to do whatever it takes to ensure the minority position is protected.   

This scenario reminded me of Chief Justice Rehnquist's famous quote in Arnett v. Kennedy.  "Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet."  If Daschle wants to argue the filibuster is necessary to protect minority viewpoints he should stand firm and advocate the protection of all minority viewpoints not just the ones he agrees with.    

Truer Words

I am a fan of Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus at NRO.  Today he has another pithy truism:

And here's Sen. Barbara Boxer, on John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "He's been very contemptuous of the U.N." Well, no sh**, senator. And you haven't? You weren't contemptuous when Saddam Hussein's government chaired the nuclear-disarmament committee? You weren't contemptuous when Qaddafi's Libya and Assad's Syria chaired the human-rights committee? You're not contemptuous that China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and other beauts sit on that committee?

You weren't contemptuous when the U.N. stood by as thousands were slaughtered in the Balkans? You haven't been contemptuous at the U.N.'s performance in Rwanda, and Congo, and Sudan?

Liberalism used to mean something — e.g., opposition to tyranny and lies. And now? Opposition to George W. Bush seems most important.

Kranz: Daschle More Comfortable Speaking His Mind

David Kranz:

"Regardless of how the speech was intended, Daschle seemed more comfortable speaking his mind Tuesday than he did during his 2004 re-election campaign."

It's easier for a liberal to speak ones mind in a red state when unshackled from the burdens of a conservative constituency and campaign pandering, especially when ones mind is filled with thoughts of social entitlements.

...Or why John Thune Won

In the wake of Daschle's Farewell Tour, there has been much discussion on why Daschle lost, or to state it affirmatively, why Thune won.  Reacquaint yourself with Prof. Lauck's excellent post-election analysis here.

Why did Daschle Lose

Let me comment on the remarks of Denise Ross at Mt. Blogmore.  Evidently Tom Daschle suggested the other day in Vermillion that it's John Kerry's fault he lost the election.  Denise writes:

Daschle’s stated logic goes like this: Because Kerry conceded the Rushmore state, that left Bush with a 20-plus point top-of-the-ticket advantage. It is an awfully tall order for a down-ticket candidate to bridge that big of a gap with crossover voters.

This is, of course, absurd. If Daschle wanted a boost from Kerry, he wouldn’t have run TV ads showing himself hugging George W.

I do think there is something to this notion, although Tom Daschle didn't always think so.  During the Meet the Press debate on Sept 19, 2004, Tim Russert quoted something this intrepid political scientist had said to the Argus.  Here is the transcript from MTP (and yes, they spelled my first name wrong):

MR. RUSSERT:  The day before the president went to war, Mr. Daschle, you said the president had failed miserably at diplomacy, and now we're now forced to war.  Professor John Schaff of the Northern State University, according to the Argus Leader, said this is your difficulty.  "So Daschle will have to explain why South Dakota should vote for President Bush and also vote for the person who has done the most to try to oppose President Bush in Washington.  Those votes don't seem to go together."

SEN. DASCHLE:  Well, I think it's just the opposite.  I disagree with him, because, clearly, if we're going to do what we have to do to represent the people of our state, we just can't follow this president or any president. I will support him when he's right.  I will oppose him when he's wrong.  That I think is what the people of South Dakota expect.

My point was precisely that Daschle would have a tougher re-election bid than he was used to because a) it was a presidential year, b) President Bush was obviously going to win this state by a large margin (21 points, as it turned out), and c) Daschle had been identified nationally as the main opponent to Bush in Washington.  Thus Daschle would have a harder time than usual getting the Republican split-ticket voters that he had relied on over the years to win.  Yet in the MTP debate Daschle dismissed this notion, and indeed dismissed the whole presidential race, including Mr. Kerry, essentially saying he'd put South Dakota first over either a President Bush or a President Kerry.  If anyone has a complaint it is John Kerry for being dismissed on national television by the #1 Democrat in Washington.  Now Daschle is singing quite a different tune.  While on MTP Daschle down played the presidential race, now he is saying it was crucial to his loss.  Given the close presidential race, did Daschle really expect Kerry to spend time in a state he had no hope of winning?  I have long argued that Daschle's position as Democratic leader in the Senate was both a blessing and a curse, and it wound up being more of a curse. Daschle was forced to carry so much water for a liberal national Democratic Party in opposition to a popular (in the state) Republican president that Daschle simply alienated too many of his Republican supporters.  Given the presidential election, those folks would be more focused on national issues that normal and more motivated to vote.  In a 4,500 vote race there are lots of reasons to explain the outcome.  I think Daschle is right (now) about the presidential race factoring large in this race.  But what was really going on here was this: Given the presidential dynamic, it made it hard for a liberal Democrat to fool his conservative Republican state that he was best to represent them in Washington.  In other words, the presidential race was one faction among many that exposed Tom Daschle as being out of touch with the average Bush supporting South Dakotan. 

 

Student Impressions of Daschle

It seems the students didn't care for what Daschle had to say at USD Tuesday.
Volante:

Junior Leslie Simdorn said she was disappointed with how the speech became partisan.

"He sounded like he wished he was back in office because he kept saying how everything was going wrong," Simdorn said. ...

Many students that attended said Daschle's visit seemed too political.

"It is nice to have him here, but I think that it is probably just a political move on his part," sophomore Scott Hansen said.

Freshman Robin Nelson agreed, seeing the visit as a small attempt to reach out to young voters.

"I think that he came because he sees us as target voters and I would just assume that he is going to run again for an office," Nelson said.

However, freshman Chris Amon said he believes Daschle will lobby in the future instead of running for office again.

"I don't think he will run again, he's served his time and wouldn't probably want to get back into public service," Amon said.

'04 Vote

Wall Street Journal:

In 2000, Mr. Bush carried 228 congressional districts to Al Gore's 207 on his way to one of the closest victories in American history. This year Mr. Bush carried 255 congressional districts, nearly six in 10. The number of "turnover" districts--those voting for a House member of one party and a presidential candidate of the other--continues to shrink, mostly due to the growth of straight-ticket voting and gerrymandering. There were only 59 such districts in 2004, compared with 86 in 2000 and 110 when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996.

The best chances for Democrats to gain the 15 seats they need to take control of the House in 2006 are in these districts held by "Kerry Republicans." The problem is that there are so few of them. John Kerry carried just 18 GOP House members' districts, while Mr. Bush carried 41 Democratic ones.

Daschle and Politics

Dave Kranz in today's Argus Leader:

Many of the nearly 1,000 people who heard the former Senator at the Farber Forum thought his remarks sounded like a campaign speech. ... Others suggested his address sounded like a presidential campaign speech.

Nuclear Option

Washington Dispatch:

For weeks, [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid has threatened to bring the senate chamber to a halt if Republicans proceed to enact a rules change that would allow a simple majority to vote up or down on 10 federal appeals court nominations who to this point have been filibustered by Senate Democrats. ...

It seems that nearly the entire Democratic Party has learned nothing from successive defeats at the ballot box starting in 2000. By repeating these same obstructionist tactics that lost them the then-majority leader, Tom Daschle, in the previous election cycle, the Democratic Party leadership is once again capitulating to its radical base, and opting for a self-imposed “nuclear option” on itself. ...

It is time for Republicans to start acting like the majority party, and time for Democrats to accept that they are now the minority party. For Republicans to do any less invites a “nuclear option” of a different sort, namely at the ballot box in next year’s midterm elections.

 

Campaign Contributions

Note that Herseth and Daschle top the list (no link currently): 

Contributions from labor union PACs and members amounted to $53.7 million in the 2004 election cycle, with Democrats the biggest beneficiaries, as usual, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers led the charge, contributing nearly $2.25 million. Its PAC gave to 340 congressional candidates. Of those, 21, or 6 percent, were Republicans. They collectively recieved 4 percent of the PAC's donations to congressional candidates.

Here is a look at the leading labor PACs and congressional candidates who received more than $350,000 from labor sources in the cycle.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D.
$447,656

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
$431,650

Talking Points Memo had Republican Origin

The office of Mel Martinez, who unwittingly passed it to Senator Tom Harkin, according to the Washington Times.

UPDATE:  Mickey Kaus:

[Washington Post reporter Mike] Allen doesn't come off looking too good in this latest account. a) The memo was apparently not "distributed to Republican Senators by party leaders," as Allen's initial story, sent out through the Post news service to other papers, reported. It was--at least judging from today's account--handed to one Democratic senator, Tom Harkin, by one freshman Republican senator (who isn't in the party leadership); b) Allen doesn't explain why he told Howie Kurtz he "did not call them talking points or a Republican memo" when he had in fact done just that in the news service draft; c) Even the later, more "carefully worded" account Allen published in the Post itself was apparently wrong. Allen wrote

In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as "a great political issue"...

This is almost the reverse of what Allen now reports. We know the memo was distributed to at least one Democratic senator. We don't know whether it was distributed to any Republican senator other th[a]n the senator whose staffer wrote it (although it's hard to believe it wasn't given to at least some other GOP lawmakers)...

Old Guard, Part II

Minnesota Public Radio:

Daschle is spending this week saying thank you to the people who supported him over the years, and he's allowing people to thank him. He says he's most proud of the constituent work his staff did to help South Dakotans in need. ...

The event was a tribute to the state's old guard -- Tom Daschle, George McGovern and Bill Janklow, the likes of which South Dakotans won't see again. ...

[Bill Richardson, chairman of the University of South Dakota political science department, says] "They are no longer personifying their parties, no longer the face of their parties. But they'll be behind the scenes, and they'll be stiffening spines, helping raise money if needed, if asked, for the next generation," ...

Daschle, who lives in Washington D.C., says he plans to be in South Dakota about once a month.

Capitol Pensions

Star Tribune:

The taxpayers' union examined pensions for members of Congress who departed this year. Topping the list was former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who was eligible for an annual pension estimated at $121,233, with a lifetime payout of more than $5 million, based on average life expectancy.

John Kerry=Lost Election

Mt. Blogmore:

It’s John Kerry’s fault Tom Daschle lost the election. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Daschle himself. That’s what he said at an event in Vermillion Tuesday. ...

Daschle’s stated logic goes like this: Because Kerry conceded the Rushmore state, that left Bush with a 20-plus point top-of-the-ticket advantage. It is an awfully tall order for a down-ticket candidate to bridge that big of a gap with crossover voters.

This is, of course, absurd. If Daschle wanted a boost from Kerry, he wouldn’t have run TV ads showing himself hugging George W. ...

But here’s the new central question: Does Daschle really believe that Kerry campaign swings through Aberdeen and Deadwood would have led to a different outcome in the Senate race?

Chief Justice Gilbertson

The Argus Leader is reporting that South Dakota Supreme Court Justice David Gilbertson has prostate cancer.  We pray for the best and hope for a speedy recovery.

A New Voice, Part II

You have yet another new blogger at SDP.  My name is Jeremy Berg.  I am a first year law student at the University of South Dakota.  It is an honor to join South Dakota's most esteemed political blog and even bigger honor to join such a distinguished group of bloggers.  Thanks, SDP, for your gracious invite.  Look for my blogging to be light as finals are fast approaching.  Following finals, I should be going full steam.

Tom Daschle: Politician of the Far Left

Here are comments made by Tom Daschle last night in Vermillion:

"We have allowed our notion for freedom in all of its gifts to degrade somewhat," Daschle said. "But in an age of such remarkable wealth and affluence, could we not as a nation work together to include economic security that makes freedom real?"

Daschle said older Americans who lose their homes because they cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs also lose their freedom to live their lives as they wish.

Quoting President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Daschle said people need not only freedom of speech and worship, but also freedom from want and fear.

Daschle's speech was titled "The Politics of Freedom: A Progressive Vision of American Liberty." The event included a dinner and remarks from former Sen. George McGovern, former Republican Gov. and Rep. Bill Janklow and USA Today founder Al Neuharth.

Let’s set a couple of things straight right now. I don’t want to hear anymore Daschle supporters telling about how Tom was just a middle of the road guy who was tarred as a left-winger. All that Thune stuff about how Daschle said one thing in DC but another thing in South Dakota was a lie, they say.  Well, here is Tom Daschle embracing an extreme “progressive” (read: left wing) view of freedom and America. Look at the title of his speech. Daschle is aligning himself with “progressivism.” Lest anyone be confused, progressive is now what the left-wingers call, well, left-wing politics. He is aligning himself with the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. Also, Daschle is taking a very Progressive stance, harkening back to the Progressives of the early 20^th Century. Daschle is positing a notion of freedom unrecognizable to the American Founders. This is not a freedom where we pursue happiness free of government interference, but a freedom which demands government provide us with all sorts of material needs as a precursor to “real” freedom. These ideas were popular in the works of Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly. The  two explicitly rejected the American Founding, the Constitution in particular. The Progressives where highly influenced by German philosophy (e.g. Max Weber) with notions of science, social evolution and historicism as their grounding, as opposed to constitutionalism and natural rights.  I don’t wish to turn this into a treatise on American political thought. And this is not to say that Daschle’s views are good or bad. I will leave that to the reader. But there is no doubt that Daschle has aligned himself with notions of freedom and the role of government that have more in common with the radical social democrats of the early 1900s than they do with the American Founders. Dorothy, I think he’s not from South Dakota anymore.

Professors are Lefties Because Republicans are Stupid.

At least that's what the Northern Valley Beacon thinks.  They swallow hook, line, and sinker, the recent poison pen letter from former Exon adviser Paul Krugman. 

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Krugman characteristically confuses scientific questions with political ones.  And this gives the game away: whats really wrong with Republicans is their politics, not their attitude to science. 

Here is a reply that is more thoughtful than Krugman's writing deserves, from James Miller at Tech Central Station.  Miller notes how fast leftists drop their principles when they have a political enemy in their sites.

Larry Summers hinted that women on average might not be as qualified as men to be science professors. Paul Krugman wrote that Republicans en masse are categorically not as qualified as everyone else to be professors. Larry Summers was almost universally condemned by academia for his comments, not because they were necessarily wrong, but because it was considered wrong for him to make negative generalizations about an under-represented group. In academia, Republicans are far more under-represented than women are. So if Paul Krugman is not widely condemned by academics it will constitute pretty strong evidence that academia is biased against Republicans.

And he notes that much of the left is much more explicitly anti-science than anyone on the right.  Religious conservatives are often opposed to Darwinian explanations (for all the wrong reasons, I would argue), but they do not reject the idea of science as such.  Much of the humanities is quite different.

New York University professor of physics Alan Sokal, himself an "unabashed Old Leftist," was bothered by the anti-scientific viewpoints of many left-wing humanities professors. These professors often used their French literary theories to attack science. To prove that these humanities professors actually knew nothing about real science he wrote an article titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" agreeing with the leftists' view of science. But as the author himself wrote, his article contained a "mélange of truths, half-truths, quarter-truths, falsehoods, non sequiturs, and syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning whatsoever." The article was, however, published in 1996 by the academic journal Social Text as a serious piece criticizing the scientific method. Only after it appeared did Professor Sokal reveal that his article was a parody. That such an article could get published would surprise few Republican college professors as we well understand how many leftist humanities professors both hate science and are ignorant of its workings.

If African Americans or Hispanics or women are under-represented in a field, the left automatically assumes discrimination on the part of the institutions in question.  So what is responsible for Republican under-representation?  Not, for the most part, discrimination.  The answer is much simpler: conservatism arose as a campus counter culture only a few decades ago.  It has grown significantly since then, but it is still a counter culture. 

But that doesn't mean that conservatives are not subject to significant hostility in many campus communities.  Says Miller:

Bias against Republicans in academia is an intenselfy personal issue for me.  Smith College recently tried to fire me by denying me tenure. I believe that I was denied tenure for being a conservative. Fortunately, Smith's five person faculty Grievance Committee found that my academic freedom had been violated during my tenure review. As a result I came up for tenure again and this time succeeded. (My story is well told here.) Based on my experience and knowledge of academia, however, I have advised other Republicans to be wary of academic careers.

The Old Guard

Yankton Press & Dakotan:

Janklow, one of about a half-dozen featured speakers, gave Daschle a bear hug and shrugged of their opposite political labels.

"I compare it to the Catholic priest and the rabbi," Janklow said. "Long ago, we quit trying to convert each other. We just try to make the neighborhood a better place to live."

"When they tally up the ledger, whenever you had any impact, you made the neighborhood a better place to live. You're a darn good neighbor," Janklow added. ...

USA Today founder Al Neuharth, a University of South Dakota graduate, criticized the state's voters for defeating not only Daschle in 2004 but choosing Republican Richard Nixon over Democratic presidential nominees Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972, both from South Dakota.

"I am ashamed of what some South Dakotans have done to their best," Neuharth said of the election defeats.

Thanks for scolding us, Neuharth.  You'll also notice the reference to McGovern, the most left-wing presidential candidate in U.S. History who lost 49 states in 1972 being anti-war, pro-choice, pro-tax, pro-welfare, pro-1960s etc...and lost in 1980 bashing Reagan.  It should be no wonder why South Dakotan's voted against him.  Humphrey called McGovern the candidate of "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion" in 1972.

The event was fear from the collapse of the Old Guard falling over themselves to say how great they were.  The Daschle-Janklow deal/relationship was pure and brilliant politics more than anything.  They were the two most powerful guys in the state and had every reason to not undermine one another.  It's just another example of pragmatic politics trumping actually sticking to ones principles.  The Old Guard even includes the former owner of the Argus scolding South Dakotan's for voting against Daschle.  It underscores what a sea of change there's been in our politics--Daschle, Janklow, McGovern, and the Argus monopoly have faded, but what a combination they were.  Furthermore, Janklow and Daschle weren't always best buds.  Note this quote from former Governor Bill Janklow from 1986 (quoted in the Argus Leader, Oct. 29, 1998) when Janklow was thinking of running against Daschle:

"Daschle is a smooth politician. One of the new breed of TV-packaged, public relations kind."

Notice the lack of ideas presented; the only talk was about how great they are.  Daschle never talked about "vision."  He basically said we need to keep propping up the welfare state--Liberals have been saying that for 70 years.  Daschle exemplifies why the Democrats keep losing:  they have no ideas. 

Daschle said following the election he wanted to be a "quarterback" getting laws over the goal line, but his legacy became that of a "defensive lineman."  He was right:  his legacy is blocking anything from getting done.  The Wall Street Journal didn't call the Senate "Daschle's Dead Zone" for nothing.  Again, what has he accomplished after 10 years as Senate leader?  Nada.

South Dakota isn't liberal, but Daschle expected a win while hugging Michael Moore, bashing the President on the eve of war, and being anti-tort reform, pro-gun control, and pro-choice.  Daschle may not have principles, but the voters sure do.

Additionally, Daschle keeps saying "never say never" about running for office again.  The speculation is he wants to make a comeback in 2008 (assuming Johnson retires) or in a 2010 rematch against Thune.  That's why he's so defensive about being a lobbyist.  Anyway, if Daschle is going to act like a candidate it seems wise to treat him like one.  "Daschle Watch" anyone?

Footnote:  Where was Herseth?  Apparently the feud continue between her camp and Daschle's because she made him look so liberal. 

Neuharth

Al Neuharth, former CEO of Gannett, which owns the Argus, was present at Daschle's shindig at USD yesturday.  Here's what he has to say about South Dakotans.

Argus Leader:

[Al] Neuharth took a sharper tone. He criticized South Dakota voters who turned against native sons Hubert Humphrey and McGovern in the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections.

"Everyone knows now our country would have been much better off if either Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern would have beat Richard Milhouse Nixon," said Neuharth, who likened their defeats to Daschle's last year.

"I say in that election, shame on those selfish, special-interest out-of-staters who pumped large money and bigger lies into South Dakota to mislead voters and defeat Tom."

Thanks for calling South Dakota voters dumb, Al.

UPDATE:  What "lies" does he mean here?  Daschle "In His Own words" did him in and the Dems know it.  This rhetoric about "lies" is a convenient fiction they've invented to explain their loss.  Just another example of Gannett/Argus covering for Daschle.

Congressional Democrats Can't Agree On How To Attack GOP

The Hill:

House Democratic leadership staff members initially rebuffed a request from their Senate counterparts to join the upper body in its message blitz against the “nuclear option,” according to senior party aides familiar with the matter.

Senate aides asked House operatives last week for their help in saturating the airwaves with specific and repeated references to the “nuclear option,” a focus that House aides thought was too narrow and esoteric. ...

As a compromise, they offered to keep pounding Republicans for an “abuse of power,” but they urged the Senate to broaden the attack from the “nuclear option” to include broadsides against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

Judges

New poll:

• Eighty-two percent of voters agree that "if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate."
• By 78 to 12 percent, voters agree that Senators have a constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominations.

Hat tip: Taking Back North Dakota.