Cut Taxes, Raise Revenues

Conservatives have always had this crazy idea that if you cut taxes, revenue coming into the treasury will actually increase.  No doubt that's because they were dropped on their heads when they were young.  Just because it worked when JFK tried it, and again when Ronald Reagan tried it, its still a crazy idea, right?  So when Bush proposed it, Democrats in Congress sensibly dismissed the idea as more voodoo economics.  So what happened?  The Wall Street Journal fills us in. 

Let's see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it's bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it's still bad news.  At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week's report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on . . . dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he'll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent.

This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut.

Here's a chart.

U.S. News and World Report on Daschle's Permanent Campaign

USNWR is writing this week about the Daschle's "permanent campaign":

Daschle-Thune Fight Goes On

How many attack blogs does it take to keep former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle 's political hopes alive? So far, five. Or so say friends of Daschle-slayer Sen. John Thune, the target of the blogs. Maybe it's revenge or just his old pals trying to soften up rookie Thune for a 2010 race, but we've failed to find any other political newcomer hit so hard by the latest Internet fad. Is it a conspiracy? The Rapid City Journal reveals that Daschle's political action committee still pays his old campaign partner, who runs one of the blogs.

Daschle is leaving quite a legacy. 

Suicide Bombers

Times Online:  "Are you ready? Tomorrow you will be in Paradise . . ."

"[B]y pressing the detonator, you can immediately open the door to Paradise — it is the shortest path to Heaven.”

Hat tip to NRO.

Very Different Worlds

Dean Barnett is commenting on the rise of the left-wing blogosphere and its detrimental impact on the Democratic party in "The Electoral-Based Community."

[T]he level of discourse on the Daily Kos and other prominent liberal blogs is not something that would be attractive to the majority of the American public. The writings are often obscene and usually relentlessly hostile and negative. Crude personal attacks, whether aimed at right-wing bloggers or politicians, are the order of the day. ...

More ominously--and more to the party's detriment--its leaders have adopted the blog's hysterically shrill style as their own. For instance, Ted Kennedy's diary for the Daily Kos adamantly demanded "accountability" for Iraq. When you've entered a realm where Ted Kennedy is a straight-faced champion of accountability, you know for sure you're in "a different world."

A long column, but definitely worth the read.

Permanent Campaign, Even More

One of the anti-Thune blogs out there that chooses to remain anonymous--the person hasn't said why they want to be anonymous--says that criticism of the Daschle machine's permanent campaign is based on SDP's view that people "should no longer participate in our democracy because they supported Tom Daschle in the last election."  What?!?  Nobody is saying they can't do what they're doing.  What critics are pointing out is that this "protest" only represents a marginal faction and is mostly driven by out-of-work Daschle staffers who can't give it up and realize they lost.  What's also very strange is that Daschle himself is subsidizing the whole operation by paying his campaign manager, who is constantly calling the press to plant anti-Thune stories, $6 thousand a month from his campaign funds and his PAC funds.  So what's really unique about this situation is that Daschle can't give it up either, which is sad.  In addition, the conservative blogs in South Dakota were going during an election year, not five years before an election.  If you haven't read this yet, it is very important. 

More on Daschle's Permanent Campaign

This was in today's edition of The Hotline:

SOUTH DAKOTA: The Permanent Campaign

      Sen. John Thune's (R) victory over ex-Senate Min. Leader Tom Dachle (D) "didn't really end" the '04 campaign. The "Dachle team," including ex-campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, "continues to wage political war against Thune." Staffers have "hammered" Thune on his "failure" to keep Ellsworth Air Force Base off the closure list, "compared" Thune "unfavorably" to the money Daschle secured for state projects, and "questioned" Thune's role "securing" loans for friend Dan Nelson.
      UVA prof. Larry Sabato: "It's unusual, though it's part of a common pattern...the permanent campaign. Even for a six-year Senate term, the campaign never ends." Daschle campaign aide Jeremy Funk used his blog to "promote "F--- Thune" T-shirts. Thune communications dir. Kyle Downey: "it's unfortunate that a small partisan group continues to wage these negative campaign-style attacks."
      Hildebrand: "On (Thune's) watch, we've seen a reduction in transportation money; we've seen a reduction in money for the Lewis and Clark water project...I'm not going to sit by and not call (Thune) on the carpet." Hildebrand is paid $6K a month from Daschle's campaign fund and DASHPAC. Dachle: "I have not asked Steve to make any comments on John Thune. Those are his decisions" (Wooster, Rapid City Journal, 7/10).
      More on Hildebrand and Funk: Dem bloggers "have pressed newspapers and local television departments to investigate Thune's ties to" Nelson. Wooster: "The Dem bloggers certainly prompted me to get into the story sooner than I might have otherwise." Thune was "forced" last week to "respond to the bloggers' charges" after Wooster and KELO-TV "ran stories" that included the "bloggers' accusations" (Stanton, Congress Daily, 7/14).

POTUS '08 Watch

New York Times:

Gov. George E. Pataki of New York is headed to Iowa this weekend for what associates described on Thursday as an exploration of whether he should run for president in 2008, reflecting what they called an increased likelihood that he would forgo a bid for a fourth term next year and turn to the national stage.

Mr. Pataki's associates said he viewed the trip - as part of a visit by him to a National Governors' Association meeting, taking place in a state that begins the presidential selection process with its winter caucuses - as a test of whether a moderate Republican from New York has a real chance of winning his party's presidential nomination.

If he ran, Mr. Pataki, who supports abortion rights and gun control, would most likely be the most moderate candidate in the Republican field, and would face significant hurdles with a Republican primary electorate that has become increasingly conservative, particularly in states like Iowa.

Democratic Disarray in the Senate

Jonathan Turley, who appears frequently on Fox News, and whose sympathies apparently lie with the Democrats, has a devastating piece on the Senate Democratic leadership as President Bush prepares to nominate a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor [tip to RealClearPolitics].  How devastating?  It turns out that the Democrats are Highlanders!

IN ONE of the most gripping scenes from Braveheart, thousands of Scottish yeomen face the professional army of the English King Longshanks. Stripped to the waist and painted blue, the yeomen spoil for a fight, daring the English to join them in battle. The problem was their leadership, conniving lords who were equally determined to avoid a battle with Longshanks and negotiated for their own interests.  This week, the scene seems eerily familiar for some Democrats who seem more ready to fight than their leadership.

Now I have to admit being one of the few who rooted for Longshanks instead of William Wallace, and anyway the thought of Chuck Schumer stripped to the waist and painted blue leaves me hoping that the paint is very, very thick.  But perhaps it is better to be a conniving lord than an incompetent one, and that is what Turley makes of Harry Reid.

As the White House comes closer to a nomination, the Democratic Senate appears in near-total disarray. Conflicting statements from Democratic leaders appear to be ferocious one day and fawning the next. What is clear is that there is a dangerous and growing disconnect between Democratic leaders and their base.  . . . [S]ince the fight over the filibuster rule, shifting Democratic positions have been not just inexplicable but incoherent.

If Turley's portrait is to be trusted, and he is after all a fellow Scot, two things are clear.  One is the SouthDakotaPolitics was right to argue, against the wisdom of most conservative blogs, that the filibuster deal was strategic victory for Frist's Republicans.

Seven Democratic senators agreed to a proposal that protected the right of the filibuster while allowing some candidates to be confirmed. The result was a disaster for the Democrats. To this day, most people cannot figure out what the Democrats got from the deal. The four candidates that the Democrats had vowed to filibuster as the previously deemed "worst of the worst" were allowed to be confirmed, while the Democrats promised (according to some of the signatories) not to filibuster any nominee on the basis of ideology. At the time, Minority Leader Harry Reid heartily praised the deal and the dealmakers for a masterful and historic agreement. Now, the Democrats are facing either a breach of the agreement by voting on the basis of ideology or a vote with Republicans to prevent a filibuster under the prior agreement.

In case you are wondering, that's what winning looks like. 

The second thing is that the Thune organization, and South Dakota Republicans in general, did more than just beat a powerful Senate incumbent in the last election.  They crippled the Senate Democratic leadership at a key moment in the Bush presidency.  It seems almost certain that Bush will get at least two SCOTUS appointments, and perhaps as many as four.  Not bad work.

French Uniforms Explained

We should remember the origins, history and tradition of the uniforms
worn with pride by militaries around the world.   For example, a long time
ago, Britain and France were at war.  During one battle, the French captured an English colonel. Taking him to their headquarters, the French general began to question him. Finally, as an afterthought, the French general asked, "Why do you English officers all wear red coats? Don't you know the red material makes you easier targets for us to shoot at?"  In his bland English way, the colonel informed the general that the reason English officers wear red coats are so that if they are shot, the blood won't show and the men they are leading won't panic.  And that is why, from that day to this, all French Army officers wear brown pants."

Permanent Campaign

Joel Rosenthal at "South Dakota Straight Talk" is commenting on Kevin Woster's "permanent campaign" story and focusing not so much on their permanence but on the unique intensity of recent campaigns:

The United States is a pretty evenly divided country politically. Consequently we have this enormous INTENSITY of partisan politics 24/7/365. The divisions also account for the nature and nakedness of GOTCHA politics. Further these are exacerbated by how good political science is and the decentralized way that people get their information today.

Calling names focusing on taking advantage of every little, even perceived inconsistency has become a way of life in politics today. GOTCHA politics doesn’t take place only during the active political seasons but now full time and by almost everyone.

Political science while still a social science and not perfect has become very good. Polling techniques and focus groups have allowed political groups to become expert at knowing what people are thinking at any point in time (It was recently reported in a Vanity Fair story that Dem Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that while Moynihan polled only once every six years between elections, in contrast Bill Clinton polled while in office twice a week!).

If you aren’t convinced how evenly divided America is or how good political science is remember the contested 2000 Presidential election, the Florida count, recount, and litigation. Consider that these national campaigns are focused almost entirely on the swing states that have been determined by extensive polling, narrowing of a targeted message to targeted swing voters and other extremely clever marketing techniques. In many lower level campaigns these same tactics are also employed. To wit, the 2002 and 2004 Senate campaigns in South Dakota – Tom Daschle’s began running television campaign advertising in July of 2003.

Jason Heppler is also writing about the "permanent campaign" today:

When will Daschle quit subsidizing this hate campaign against Thune?  One thing is for sure, Daschle is cementing his political legacy: scorched earth.

Future AG

Speaking of AGs, South Dakota War College is speculating about who the next South Dakota AG will be. 

The Last Rodeo

According to the Argus Leader:

Fewer barrels, more bull - State Fair dumps state sport

Full rodeo dropped in favor of favorite event

Also, Blog Watch Man has a HUGE round-up of local newspaper stories which is fun to read. 

Context

When trying to understand the recent car dealership story, an e-mailer says to keep in mind that Nelson was a used car dealership for people with bad credit so it's not surprising there were defaults.  Here's what KSFY reported:

It's not all over for the Dan Nelson Auto Group, the dealerships are closing down but the financing office is still in operation. But there are those left behind who still owe thousands.

Charity Counts is one of them, and says, "When I first started looking at new cars, Frankman ran my credit report and just looked at me and laughed and I just got up and left."

Car shopping isn't fun when you have bad credit. Charity Counts says Dan Nelson Group was a last resort, but they had a good offer on the table.

So in exchange for taking bigs risks on people with bad credit (who were turned down elsewhere) Nelson's business charged high interest rates, which isn't too surprising.

Sibby is also talking about why the IA AG was so quick to sue when a settlement could have been reached to address the AG's concerns:

Staunch Democrat supporter Tom Miller, who is the Iowa Attorney General that filed suit against Dan Nelson Automotive, refused to resolve issues with the automobile dealer. As the Delusional Dumped Daschle Disciples had the SD MSM reporting that John Thune should have known about the plans of Tom Miller, Dan Nelson’s attorney tells us the exact opposite:

Mark Weinhardt, attorney for the Dan Nelson Automotive Group, said the company was surprised by the filing of the lawsuit.

And here is the reason for the surprise:

"We asked for a proposal to settle this matter and instead of a proposal, we got a lawsuit," Weinhardt said.

This brings back into question the alleged political motivation behind Tom Miller’s action. Why did he refuse to work out a solution with Dan Nelson Automotive? A business that Larry Long, South Dakota’s Attorney General, concluded done nothing criminal.

Read Sibby's whole post.

Bravo

Instapundit:

BRAVO FOR JOHN HOWARD:

MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?

JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.

The Permanent Campaign

About a year ago, John Thune first started running television ads in for the 2004 Senate race.  Daschle started his first television ads two years ago, during the summer of 2003.  And Daschle isn't done.  His campaign is still going.  Daschle is still paying his campaign manager Steve Hildebrand $6,000 a month from both DASHPAC and also the Daschle campaign coffers (e.g., A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle).  As noted before, this could be just payments to finalize items from the campaign, though, as Jon Schaff noted, "it certainly raises questions when those who run 'independent' political groups that do nothing other than attack John Thune are actually on the payroll of Tom Daschle."  Furthermore, Hildebrand (and others) is busy contacting the press on a regular basis to bash Thune and is coordinating anti-Thune efforts generally.  He's even hired the former Daschle staffer famous for promoting "F--- John Thune" t-shirts.  When will Daschle quit subsidizing this hate campaign against Thune?  One thing is for sure, Daschle is cementing his political legacy: scorched earth.

Off to Nepal

I'm not, but our former Senate Majority Leader is:

First it was US Assistant Secretary of State, Christina Rocca, who visited Nepal in early May this year to reiterate her government's position on the post-February 1 situation in Nepal. ...

Now it is the turn of Tom Daschle, former senate majority leader, which clearly indicates the sustained US concern and interest in Nepal, which is grappling not only with a decade-long Maoist conflict but is also embroiled in a constitutional and political crises since the February 1 royal takeover. ...

Daschle is here to study the situation first-hand and also come up with suggestions on political party reforms. She declined to give further details but did say that Daschle is also scheduled to meet political party leaders.

Profane Blogging

Sibby is reminding us that "we had Hildebrand issuing a press release that demanded an apology from Thune, because one of his guys used the "S-word" in front of poor Jeremy [Funk]. Now the same Jeremy uses the "F-word" in reference to Thune and Hildebrand takes no responsibility."

UPDATE:  Not only profane, but also slanderous.

Bored Over Rove

I find the whole Karl Rove story ponderous and boring.  This is a story only of interest to those who see politics as nothing other than a game of power in which our team must beat their team.  So who cares about the facts of the case.  Democrats must pounce on Rove, because it's their chance to score points against Bush.  Republicans, now on defense, must protect Rove and keep the Democrats from scoring too many points.  The truth of the matter is presented by Jim Lindgren over at Volokh.  Read the whole thing, but it goes something like this.  Joe Wilson was running around the New York Times and network news lying about his trip to Africa and what he found about Iraq seeking nuclear materials.  It makes sense that the White House then tried to correct his lies, such as Wilson's claims as to how he was recruited for the Africa trip.  But is Rove vindicated?  Maybe legally Rove has nothing to worry about, but what if he lied to the President about being one of the leaks for the story?  Then Bush's loyalty will be tested.  I think Bush's strong sense of loyalty is a virtue, but one that gets him in trouble from time to time (George Tenet, anyone?).  So a pox on both houses, but to keep my right-wing nut job card, a bigger pox on the Democrats. 

National Journal

From today's National Journal:

POLITICS
Thune Foes Seeking Cyberspace Payback
     Veterans of former Senate Minority Leader Daschle's unsuccessful re-election effort have launched an aggressive Internet-based campaign against GOP Sen. John Thune in South Dakota, taking a page from the freshman senator's 2004 election playbook.
     Mimicking Thune's successful use of paid Web loggers to prod state media outlets to run stories damaging to Daschle, the Democratic bloggers have pressed newspapers and local television news departments to investigate Thune's ties to a used car salesman who is under investigation by the Iowa attorney general for alleged predatory lending practices.
     "The Dem bloggers certainly prompted me to get into the story. Or, more accurately, to get into the story sooner than I might have otherwise," Rapid City Journal political reporter Kevin Wooster said in an e-mail Wednesday.
     Former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and campaign aides Jeremy Funk and Todd Epp have been posting information for over a month on the financial woes of Dan Nelson Automotive, which is owned by longtime Thune friends and advisers Dan Nelson and Chris Tapken.
     The three former Daschle aides are operating separate political Web sites largely targeting Thune. Hildebrand still draws a salary from the Daschle campaign account.

SDWC and Ryne McClaren

PP at South Dakota War College is working on a guide to blogging for political candidates.  Ryne McClaren is Earth googling in the backyard and coming up with Mt. Rushmore photos:

Tonight, for example, I buzzed around the Black Hills of South Dakota (an area which features up-to-date, high resolution images), and I must say that I was impressed. Tilt the map at just the right angle, and you can clearly see the topography of the Black Hills and "fly" your way up and down all the back roads. GE is also a handy tool for looking around your favorite cities.

Definitely a "must see" type of deal.

A cloud obscured Mt. Rushmore, facing north (click for larger image):

That's not really a very good example, because Google Earth itself can display views up to 1024x1024 resolution, but at least this gives you an idea.

Hotline

The national political publication Hotline discussed SDP today:

THUNE: So Basically, SD Is To Bloggers As NJ Is To Consultants

      Over the weekend, the Rapid City Journal's Kevin Wooster wrote a story on the "permanent campaign" in SD being waged by ex-staffers of ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) against Sen. John Thune (R-SD). In particular, ex-Daschle staffer Chad Schuldt runs Clean Cut Kid  -- CCK 1st started reporting on the MetaBank case, which the Blogometer picked up starting 7/1. (Had we clicked over to the FAQ and found this info at the time, it would have been duly noted. Consider it noted.) Another is Jeremy Funk, who runs Don't Worry About The Government, where he has promoted  "F--- Thune" T-shirts.
      Ex-Daschle manager Steve Hildebrand: "What he does on his own time is just that. He's not being paid by anybody to write that Web site." But according to Thune's office, Funk works for Hildebrand's firm -- and Hildebrand gets "money each month from both" Daschle's '04 SEN fund and DASHPAC -- so the "effect" is "the same." Daschle "said by e-mail" on 7/8 "that he hadn't visited Funk's Web site and hadn't seen the controversial T-shirts." Daschle added: "But I would say anything that uses profane language is inappropriate."
      Meanwhile, the conservative bloggers at SD Politics point out that initial reports on the MetaBank loan were erroneous. Nelson had $23M in assets, not $6M, and while the pro-Daschle bloggers "insinuated" that Thune "made possible" the loans, in fact "MetaBank was loaning money to Nelson for at least 8 years, long before Thune was on the board." Plus, the $28M loss to MetaBank was "wrong" -- Nelson owes $6.8M to MetaBank and the rest to other creditors. Adds SDP: "So the insinuations of the former Daschle staffers about a sweetheart deal don't make much sense." Note: SDP' Jon Lauck (who did not write the above post) was himself paid to blog on Thune's behalf, news that didn't come out until after Thune had defeated Daschle.

Federal Deficit

Our faithful Wisconsin reader (i.e., my brother) points out to me that the federal government estimate of the deficit has decreased by $100 billion from January to June, from roughly $420 billion to $320 billion.  I'd rather that number be zero, but you gotta start somewhere.  The Wall St. Journal argues that the Bush tax cuts have alot to do with this trend (the article is for to subscribers only; I used Nexis). 

The tax cut debate resumed in January 2003, however, as Mr. Bush decided to pursue a more supply-side course. This time he aimed his tax cuts directly at the collapse in business investment, proposing to eliminate the double tax on dividends and to accelerate his income tax cuts at the top marginal rates. House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas compromised on a 15% dividend rate but added a capital gains cut to 15% (from 20%).

Almost from the very day in May of 2003 when those tax reductions became law, the U.S. has experienced a robust expansion driven by investment and productivity gains, not by consumer spending....Consumer spending has been close to flat over the period with a modest dip at the very bottom of the recession. But investment has experienced a stunning U-turn...

One lesson in all of this is that not all tax cuts are created equal. Tax rebates and other temporary measures aimed at stimulating consumer demand don't work. Consumers aren't irrelevant, but prosperity is created on the supply side of the economy with the incentives to produce goods or services that people want to consume. So tax cuts in marginal rates that boost incentives to work and invest provide a much bigger bang for the buck.

 

The economic growth of the past two years has left the government awash in revenue.  Now only if those damned congressional Republicans could hold the line on spending.

The Glory of St. Andrews

The important event of the weekend is the British Open.  The event is more notable than usual as it is the last event as a pro for the greatest golfer ever, Jack Nicklaus.  A buddy of mine and I play a game each major tournament in which we each pick three golfers and whoever gets the best cumulative score from his three golfers wins (the prize is glory).  The rule is that you cannot take a player currently in the top ten in the world.  I am currently on pace for the grad slam.  My team for this weekend's tournament is Tim Clark, Justin Leonard, and Tom Lehman.  I hope the Lord shines on me and Lehman's putter. 

The Left

See this new Daily Standard article from Minnesotan Ed Morissey:

HILLARY CLINTON made headlines earlier this week when she compared President George W. Bush to Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman, the gap-toothed, freckle-faced mascot whose signature statement is "What, me worry?" As political put-downs go, this hardly ranks as the most egregious, even in the modern era of politics. Fellow Democratic Senator Harry Reid called Bush both a liar and a loser earlier this year, and later only grudgingly offered to retract the latter. The American left, exemplified by MoveOn.org, has compared Bush to Adolf Hitler--unfavorably. Howard Dean has spent his entire term as Democratic party chairman issuing insults to and about Republicans, explicitly declaring that they have never done an honest day's work in their lives and that the GOP is entirely comprised of unfriendly white Christians. Even as an insult to Bush's physical looks, Sen. Clinton's comparison pales to the usual references to chimpanzees that the Left has beaten to death.

SD Dems

Joel Rosenthal is talking about the future of the South Dakota Democrats at "South Dakota Straight Talk":

WILL HOWARD HELP?

Recent reports are that SDDP chair Judy Duhamel thinks Howard is the bees’ knees. In fact Judy is so enamored of Howie that she actually said “I love him.” Well I might love Howard too if he were giving me a reported $85,000 to hire three new staffers.

Let’s lay out the facts. The South Dakota Democrats in 2004 were devastated in the general election. They lost the Presidency (as expected) and they lost their coveted minority leader (their ATM) Tom Daschle in South Dakota’s most expensive and hardest fought election. It was close but they lost the big one. Jim Burg their three term incumbent and last remaining Dem on the Public Utilities Commission lost. They even lost another seat in the State Legislature (if that were conceivable). Of course they retained Stephanie Herseth although she may have cost them the Daschle re elect.

Immediately and throughout the winter and the 2005 legislative session (South Dakota’s late winter political season - the other season being the even year fall elections season) Democrats beat their chests and talked about revitalization, rebuilding and renewal. What’s amazing is that the Dems reelected their same state party team and Congresswoman Herseth did not seize the leadership of their party apparatus and organization. After all she is the future of their party and the best thing they have going. Further in the foreseeable future she is running every two years and needs the party to help her elections and political career.

Go to work. With no evidence to the contrary the Dems haven’t done a damn thing. South Dakota needs them to get off their butts and go to work. An honest hard working political opposition with new ideas will make government better. South Dakota deserves more than tired rhetoric and the same old faces.

Despite a lot of post election hype and blue parties in a red state, the revitalizethedems website hasn’t had a post in almost 3 months! The site grassrootsdems.org hasn’t posted in almost two weeks. They have a nice book club, Grassroot Democrats Liberal Book Club, but what about coming to the real political debates with solutions and candidates. One wonders why we have all these ad hoc groups and why political organization (reorganization) can not be accomplished by the political parties? Not revitalized Dems and not by grassroots Dems but by the SDDP. To a far lesser degree this ad hoc criticism also applies to Ed Olson’s new Mainstream Coalition and perhaps I’ll talk about that in the future.

We are about 10 months from the primary filing deadline and Ron Volesky is the only Democrat candidate who says he is running for Governor. No one else is even mentioned or has put out feelers. Talk about a worn out politician and old face (maybe later a blog on Ron’s spotty political career too.) Ron does get credit for being a one man PT Barnum publicity machine (that means circus); the problem is his ideas are tired too. Raise the state minimum wage - that’s a real campaign winner!

Maybe Ron should pick Frank Kloucek for his Lieutenant Governor running mate, another old face with worn out rhetoric but a one man PR machine too. - An all Czech (to be pc - make that Czechoslovakian heritage) ticket!

So will the Dems who lost their sugar daddy (Tom Daschle) use this new Howard Money to actually recruit candidates for the constitutional races and the legislature or will they still just spend the money sending out press releases condemning Republicans and their initiatives?

AG v. AG

According to the Argus Leader this morning, the Nelson bankruptcy is over.  The story also notes what the judge and MetaBank thought about the Iowa AG's actions:

Judge Irvin N. Hoyt agreed with the major lender, MetaBank, which said Dan Nelson Automotive Group Inc. had failed to properly account for its inventory and had been "fatally wounded" by a consumer fraud lawsuit in Iowa.

Sibby is noting a KELO-Land story which quotes the South Dakota AG Larry Long:

“I would say this: I would say his business conduct is no better or no worse than any other auto dealer we deal with.”

Here's why Long says South Dakota can't copy Iowa's lawsuit. Iowa law says when a creditor sues someone to collect money, they must do so in the county where the debtor lives. Long says in other words, Dan Nelson Automotive was trying to collect on some unpaid loans, and in some cases, it didn't file suit in the correct counties.

“If the creditor fails to do that, it's a crime, so the creditor can be prosecuted criminally for starting his lawsuit in the wrong county,” Long said. “It's one of the tools the Iowa Attorney General had in his toolbox by way of consumer protection we simply don't have.”

Long says he did consider his own legal action against Dan Nelson Automotive, but concluded there was no proof of any criminal wrongdoing.

See this for much more background on this matter. 

The State vs. the ACLU

I noted a while back that the state Supreme Court ordered South Dakota lawmakers to redistrict Indian reservations because the previous redrawing of voting districts that occured in 2001 had supposedly weakened the voting strength of South Dakota Indians.  The state argued that nothing could be done now because the state is only allowed to redistrict once every ten years.  Daschle-appointed U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier disagreed, telling the state that it had 30 days to submit a new plan to her which, in turn, led to a special legislative session.

The state legislature is now fighting against that ruling.  Basically, the state told Judge Schreier that she can forget it and they will not redistrict the reservations.  Denise Ross comments:

The SD Legislature, it appears, wants to stand and fight the ACLU. Same goes for another branch of govt — the AG’s office, the SOS office and the Gov’s office. It’s standard operating procedure that they all put their heads together on these deals.

So is this a vainglorious exercise that ultimately will result only in a hefty bill to SD taxpayers or a valiant fight that must be confronted? And what of the American Indian voters who a federal judge has ruled are being disenfranchised under the state’s current legislative districts?

I’ve been watching the ACLU in action pretty much since I started covering the political beat in 1999. Jennifer Ring is always polite but firm when she tells them (I’m paraphrasing here): “This is how we would like you to do it. If you get close, cool. If you do it this way, we’ll sue. We don’t want to sue, but if you do it that way, we will.”

I haven’t checked the scoreboard lately, but I think the ACLU is ahead.

 

Patriot Fact

I have been teaching two courses at Northern this session (Logic, and Philosophy of Religion).  This means 4 hours in the classroom each day, and about 6 more in preparation time.  This leaves precious little time to blog.  But here's a short one.

According to a new poll reported in the London Times (see Real Clear Politics), the British Public backs strong new laws to prevent terrorist acts.  This should sober the American Left.  Its all well and good to worry about FBI agents combing through our library records, but the American People aren't yet worried about terrorism, not really.  They know that most of us are about as likely to die in a terrorist attack (of the recent kind) as we are to perish of excessive exercise.

But one of these days something may happen that will put the fear of the reaper into hearts deep in the heartland.  If it does, we may be willing to accept virtually anything that will make us feel more secure.  If you want avoid such reactions you have to prevent that terrible event.  Maybe if the Democrats spend as much time worrying about that, they'd be better serving civil liberties.

Does the Left Support Our Troops?

Dennis Prager is asking if the Left honestly supports our troops:

The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.

A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim -- war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements -- the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.

How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest. ...

A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and Communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.

Naturally, read the entire commentary.

Daschle Campaign & Tom Miller

Sibby is raising some good questions concerning the Daschle campaign's connection to Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller:

With Steve Hildebrand the manager of the Gore 2000 campaign, whose campaign received huge support from Tom Miller, coupled with Hildebrand’s continued interest in Iowa politics…more questions about the alleged political motive behind Tom Miller’s charges against Dan Nelson Automotive seem in order. Perhaps the real conflict of interest is on the side of the pro-Democrat operative in Iowa.

Read the whole thing.

Tom Daschle Opposes the Filibuster

Remember when Democrats hated the filibuster?  Remember when I made the point that the Constitution makes it clear when supermajorities are needed to pass legislation?  It turns out that Tom Daschle agrees with me.  Here's what he said January 30, 1995 when opposing a Balanced Budget Amendment:

This so-called supermajority is the Senate's filibuster rule. All of America had a good taste of how the filibuster rule worked in the 103d Congress. It brought work to a full stop. It put into the hands of a minority the power to bargain for, hold hostage, blackmail, or simply block anything they wanted.

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.

If Tom Daschle had governed by these principles during the Bush Administration, then he still might be Democratic Leader in the Senate.  As it is, he's left paying people to make fun of Senator John Thune. 

The Real News

I am trapped by over 1000 pages of grant applications I have to read (ok, skim) for the US Department of Education, so I won't be posting much this week.  I do want to note the most important news story of the day, which is this piece in the Argus on Napoleon Dynamite.  Why didn't they cite me? 

By the way, I recently re-watched the film In America and once again confirmed my belief that this is the best movie of the last 30 years.  Yes, it's that good. 

Ryne Weighs In

True South Dakotan Ryne McClaren is weighing in on last week's events here in his home-state:

The Long, Long, Lo-o-o-o-ng Twilight Of The Daschle Campaign

I've been pretty far out of the loop lately when it comes to my fair home state to the north, but I have been paying some attention to the Dan Nelson - John Thune story.

Lefty blogs around South Dakota have been a little wound up over the "story" that Dan Nelson, of Dan Nelson Automotive, was the beneficiary of a $28 million dollar loan from MetaBank. John Thune, when he was a private citizen, sat on the MetaBank board of directors. After that, you really need your tin-foil hat to steer this story where it needs to go to somehow implicate Thune in... well, whatever. A "scandal" I suppose is what they were looking for.

Quentin Riggins pretty much tore this story up in a post yesterday, so you really ought to go and read it. I'm not going to rehash it here, mostly because Quentin doesn't leave much standing.

I for one certainly find it hilarious that KELO took a bite of this nasty sandwich. (Although if that's what it takes to get a bunch of pissed off ex-Daschle staffers off your back, I can understand the temptation to run a biased, skewed story.)

But what else can you say about the Daschle ongoing Daschle campaign that hasn't been said already?

A funny bit from the Rapid City Journal about the Dumped Daschle Disciples:

John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle last November shook up the power structure of the U.S. Senate and ended the 26-year career of one of the nation's most prominent politicians.

But it didn't really end the 2004 campaign — at least, not for some former members of Daschle's staff.

Led by public statements from former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and the pointed and sometimes profane Internet sniping from other former staffers, the Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune.

The former Daschle staff members have hammered on Thune for his failure to keep Ellsworth Air Force Base off a military closure list and compared him unfavorably to Daschle in the levels of funding he has been able to secure for state water projects and highways. Recently, they have questioned Thune's role in securing millions of dollars in bank loans for a friend, Dan Nelson, who is now in bankruptcy.

Thune staff members label the criticism coming from the Daschle camp as a petty and well-orchestrated attempt at revenge for Thune's victory last November. Daschle supporters and former staff members, particularly Hildebrand, say they are simply trying to point out Thune shortcomings and make him live up to his campaign promises.

And Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics says the ongoing tussle is a perfect example of an emerging phenomenon in national politics: the permanent campaign.

"It's unusual, though it's part of a common pattern, which is the permanent campaign. Even for a six-year- Senate term, the campaign never ends," Sabato said. "In this case, a very bitter race produced the upset of a Senate leader, and Democrats are determined to get revenge in six years. I suppose their assumption is that they need to attack virtually every day."

Ha-ha. And one of the funniest angles the Journal covers has to be Tailgatin' Jeremy Funk's t-shirt brainstorming:

It [sic] some cases, it can also be profane. Former Daschle staff member Jeremy Funk, who works with Hildebrand, uses a personal Web log, or blog, to promote "F... Thune" T-shirts.

[...]

Hildebrand said neither he nor Daschle supported the use of profane commentary or the Thune T-shirts promoted by Funk.

"What he does on his own time is just that," Hildebrand said. "He's not being paid by anybody to write that Web site."

Downey said, however, that since Funk works with Hildebrand's consulting firm, which receives money from Daschle's funds, the effect was the same

"This is a perfect example of their tone," Downey said, referring to the T-shirt. "It's sad."

The Daschle campaign: the gift that keeps on giving. Er, if you're a Sioux Falls area screenprinter, that is.

More from the Left in South Dakota

The leftists at Tokola Resistance, which is "Sowing Seeds of Revolt on the Dakota Prairie," are apparently endorsing the "fragging," or killing, of officers by the soldiers in their command in order to protest the war--and TR doesn't think much of SDP's Professor Blanchard and Jason Heppler for opposing "fragging":

At the height of the Vietnam War, fragging became an anarchic epidemic. Over a thousand fragging attempts were made throughout. In 1969, there were 126 successful assassinations. In 1970, 271. In 1971, there were 333. After that year, the military stopped keeping count.

Recently Ward Churchill pointed out that the assassination of military officers does a hell of a lot more to stop war than conscientious objection. Ken Blanchard and Jason Heppler, in response, are expressing outrage at the suggestion that such mutinous behavior be propagated to subvert the war.

It's obviously a very frightening development for those Americans behind the rape and pillage of Iraq, but the numbers show it makes some sense for the common soldier. Warmongering flag-wavers might not approve, but you better believe there's a reason for fragging. The US invasion of Iraq ranks with the Nazi invasion of Poland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as one of the most despicable war crimes in recent history. Thank the Lord that the American military and "intelligence" services are so brain-dead that rag-tag bands of rebels armed with homemade bombs are kicking their asses a la "Red Dawn."

Even with the courageous resistance of the Iraqi population, they still have little chance to strike back at the US policy-makers and higher-ranking military officials, who, unlike the decentralized on-the-ground leaders of the insurgency, cowardly and callously scheme atrocities from the safety of bases or the American homeland, and with little regard for the resulting human death toll.

Yet even more than the lowest-ranking US terrorist (who in the end is the one to carry out the order to torture or pillage), the officials are responsible for the horrors committed. And they must be held accountable. We know the government and military will look the other way; so it becomes the general army's job to mete out justice.

Good officers don't get fragged. Fascist, asshole officers get fragged. If you don't like that, Uncle Sam, than you should train your officers better, and pull your prick out of defenseless third-world nations.

This invasion isn't just a mistake-its the most evil atrocity of the new millenium. Only a fool would think there wouldn't be hell to pay (how could we learn so little from 9/11?). If you supported the American invasion, if you rape and pillage and murder innocents, if you benefit from this occupation, you better believe you have it coming.

One last comment: I DARE YOU TO DRAFT THIS GENERATION! If you think the Vietnam-era hippies were mutinous, you haven't seen nothing yet!

TICK TICK TICK TICK

The bitterness and anger of the left should be scary to everyone. 

Dinosaurs

In South Dakota War College's funny interview with state auditor Rich Sattgast we find out that the state dinosaur is NOT the t-rex but the triceratops.  SDWC is also making some news in the interview.

Eddie Weighs In

Eddie is offering some thoughts on his new blog about the continuing attacks on Senator Thune:

When I read the blogs on the left tearing on him daily, I want to point out this blog will never be one of them. Bloggers on the right (SD Politics, Sibby) and left (CCK, Thunewatch, Funk kid) love to run with storylines. That's a part of blogging. But gracious, the meanness those on the left have shown to Senator Thune recently is ridiculous. If you disagree with his policymaking, suggest why. You're mad that John beat Tom. It's one election, move on.

Good call Eddie.  The former Daschle staffers are only succeeding in tarnishing Daschle's legacy.  If Daschle had more sense and less bitterness, he'd stop subsidizing his former campaign manager's efforts to coordinate the attacks on Thune by not continuing to pay him $6,000 a month from his campaign entities. 

Hat tip to Blog Watch Man for pointing out Eddie's comments.

Supreme Court Battle

John Hinderacker is noting the Democrats' dilemma for them during the Supreme Court battle:

This Rasmussen poll on the public's view of the coming Supreme Court battle highlights the Democrats' dilemma. Rasmussen found that 58% of likely voters say that Senate Democrats should vote to confirm a qualified conservative nominee. Only 24% say the Democrats should oppose a nominee merely because he or she is a conservative. Even among Democrats, only a slight majority (53%) favor such obstructionism.

So the Democrats can only sell their opposition to the President's nominee on the ground that he or she is something other than a conservative; this is why they constantly refer to judges they dislike as "out of the mainstream." The problem, from their point of view, is that none of the candidates under consideration for the Court can be so characterized with any plausibility. When you ask a poll respondent to assume that a judicial nominee is a "conservative," the respondent will presumably assume that the nominee is not crazy about abortion or gay marriage, will be sympathetic to property rights, and will be slow to discover new "rights" not heretofore noticed in the Constitution. So the Democrats will have to come up with something else to convince voters that a particular nominee is somthing other than a garden-variety conservative, i.e., an "extremist."

It's a tall order. Most likely, the outcome of the Democrats' attacks on whoever Bush nominates will be similar to the results we have already seen of the Democrats' hysterical and unreasoning hatred of the President; their attacks will, indeed, do some damage to their opponents, but they will hurt the Democrats even more.

It must be asked whether Tim Johnson will vote for the President's nominees.  It's also odd that the South Dakota MSM hasn't been questioning the Senator's views on this.

How KELO-Land Got Conned by the Ongoing Daschle Campaign

The Rapid City Journal reported today on how former/current Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand is still being paid by Senator Daschle and how the "Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune."  A part of this "permanent campaign" includes former Daschle staffers flogging reporters for the past few weeks for not writing about the Dan Nelson Automotive bankruptcy and its relationship to Senator Thune.  Last week the Rapid City Journal reported that it was "Thune critics, primarily Daschle supporters and former employees," who were pushing the story.  After some important facts were revealed, the insinuations of the former Daschle staffers seem quite hysterical.  When discussing the alleged $28 million MetaBank loan to Nelson Automative, the first press accounts kept saying that the company only had $6 million in assets, which "raised questions."  It turns out that Nelson's assets are over $23 million.  It was then insinuated that when then private citizen Thune served on the MetaBank board of directors in 2003-04 he made possible the $28 million loan to Nelson, which sounds ridiculous given how conservative banks are and how many hoops lenders jump through and how much analysis banks' accountants do.  As it turns out, MetaBank was loaning money to Nelson for at least 8 years, long before Thune was on the board.  It also turns out that even the $28 million figure is wrong.  The Des Moines Register reported that MetaBank is owed much less than was earlier reported, i.e. $6.8 million instead of $28 million, which is a big difference!  The other $22 million in loans was offered by other banks which went through the same review process as MetaBank and, apparently, also thought they were making smart loans.  Here's the relevant portion from a Des Moines Register story:

Meta, which operates MetaBanks in Iowa and South Dakota, was listed as being owed $28 million by Nelson Automotive last month when it declared bankruptcy. Meta indicated in regulatory filings that it owns $6.8 million of that loan, while other banks are believed to have participated in the remaining portion of the loan.

So the facts are that Nelson Automotive had assets fairly similar to its debts, that MetaBank only had small portion of Nelson's debts, that several other banks thought the loans were wise, and that MetaBank had been offering loans to Nelson for a long time before Thune ever served on the board.  So the insinuations of the former Daschle staffers about a sweetheart deal don't make much sense.  In addition, it's generally true that bank loans are thoroughly studied by bank management, accountants, analysts, and probably regulators and in this case it was done by multiple banks.  The news organization which looks the most ridiculous in their embrace of the former Daschle staffer spin is KELO-Land News, which ran a hyped-up story about whether Thune "used his influence" to secure loans for Nelson.  If KELO had bothered to check and report the facts--such as the fact that Nelson and MetaBank had a banking relationship going back 8 years--maybe they wouldn't have been conned by the former Daschle staffers.  Or maybe they wanted to get conned and wanted to run a sexy story.  Their reporting was clearly irresponsible.  The KELO-Land website says "Have a concern about a news story or news content? Contact our News Director, Mark Millage."  If you also think KELO-Land's sensationalism was too much, drop Millage a line (and let us know what you hear):

markmillage@keloland.com

One other thought.  This motion by MetaBank in the bankruptcy filing says that Nelson's business, which was apparently profitable in 2004, was "decimated" by a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of Iowa earlier this year.  That seems to be a big story if the Iowa AG wrecked a South Dakota company before the company ever got a day in court.  Sibby has been addressing this too.  Maybe this angle should be analyzed a bit more by KELO-Land.  But maybe KELO-Land hasn't been given this information by the permanent Daschle campaign so they aren't interested.

Note: The new blogger Ryan Kolbeck, a "Big Labowski" fan, has a lot more to say about this whole deal. 

Judicial Activism Defined.

My colleague prudently says below that the question "What is "judicial activism" vs. "judicial restraint"?  ... can't be answered in a blog post."  He then, of course, proceeds to answer it.  Here is my stab at it.

Any kind of activism means trying to implement or prevent the implementation of some policy.  An activist may do so by means which are both proper and legal (winning Elston's and assembling legislative majorities) or by means which are improper or illegal (bribery and assassination).  Judicial activism is simply activism by means of judicial power rather than legislative power. Whether it is proper or not is the whole debate.

For example, consider issues over which a New York Times writer has gone to jail.  Some folks think that reporters should be protected against having to reveal their sources in court.  That is their preferred policy, and they have good if not necessarily convincing reasons for it.  In some states shield laws have been enacted to just such a purpose.  That's the result of ordinary political activism. 

But other activists are not satisfied with protections under state law.  They want a protection which no legislature, including Congress, could override.  With little hope of amending the Constitution to get what they want they have for decades been trying to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the Constitutional protection for freedom of the press implicitly includes such a policy.  That is judicial activism: trying to get from the Courts what you can't get from democratically elected legislatures. 

Unfortunately, the New York Times has failed to get the courts to go along.  So the Times insists on behaving as if it needs neither the popular will, nor Congress, nor the Courts to back it up.  It can ignore any law it thinks objectionable.  That is sovereign contempt for both the law and Democracy. 

 

Today's MUST READ

Rapid City Journal: "Long after the vote, Thune-Daschle campaign continues":

John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle last November shook up the power structure of the U.S. Senate and ended the 26-year career of one of the nation's most prominent politicians.

But it didn't really end the 2004 campaign — at least, not for some former members of Daschle's staff.

Led by public statements from former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and the pointed and sometimes profane Internet sniping from other former staffers, the Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune.  ...

Hildebrand said he does not get any direction from Daschle in making those statements. He does, however, get money each month from both the 2004 campaign fund and Daschle's political action commission — DASHPAC.

Funk and another former Daschle staff member, Chad Schuldt, run personal Internet blogs critical of Thune. And some of that criticism is shaped in language that many South Dakotans would consider offensive.

Hildebrand said neither he nor Daschle supported the use of profane commentary or the Thune T-shirts promoted by Funk. ...

Daschle said by e-mail that he was keeping his campaign and PAC funds open and paying Hildebrand to manage them.

"I have no plans to run for office again, but something could change," Daschle said.

Yes, some think Daschle wants to run again, which the anti-Thune work of all his former and current staffers indicates.  Some additional questions remain about the orchestrated anti-Thune effort in South Dakota.  Whose payroll is Chad Schuldt on?  Is he working for Hildebrand's group?  Why won't he say?  And do the people who run "Thunewatch" and "Politics in a Dangerous World" have connections to Daschle/Hildebrand?  Why do they remain anonymous?  What are they hiding?  And who is "Blog Watch Man"?  Sibby has thoughts on BWM's identity. 

And Supreme Nonsense

From the sublime to the ridiculous, I have been meaning to deal with a typically silly post from Clean Cut Kid about judicial activism.  The claim is that the real activists are the conservatives on the Supreme Court because they have been more likely to strike down acts of the US Congress.  This position is eviscerated here and here.  To sum up, although the conservatives on the Court have voted to invalidate many federal laws, this has mostly been part of the return to federalism characteristic of the last fifteen or so years.  The liberal activists have been far more likely to strike down state and local laws, which represent a higher proportion of cases before the Court.  This is especially true of the controversial areas of religion, abortion, the death penalty, etc.  Also, CCK needs a math lesson.  Even if Clarence Thomas has held 2/3rds of the federal laws presented before him to be unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the thinks 2/3rds of all acts of Congress are unconstitutional.  I am sure CCK is aware that only a small handful of federal laws ever get challenged up the Supreme Court.  He must have momentarily forgotten this. 

What is "judicial activism" vs. "judicial restraint"?  That's a big question which can't be answered in a blog post, but let me try out some thoughts.  First, the controversies arise because the Constitution contains some ambiguities.  Looking simply at the Bill of Rights, what is an "unreasonable" search?  What is "cruel and unusual" punishment?  Since we all pretty much agree that "fighting words" or libel and slander are not protected speech, what does "free speech and press" mean?  Or as Prof. Blanchard and I argued about recently, what is "public use" as stated in the 5th Amendment?  Generally (and thus simplifying), it is fair to say that the believer in judicial restraint thinks that the court is a bad place to go to resolve these ambiguities.  First, when deciding the meaning of these phrases, the surest and most consistent way to interpret them is in light of the original intent of those who wrote the words (Rehnquist and Thomas) or in the plain meaning of the words (Scalia).  The words can't mean simply anything, so let's try to figure out what they meant to those who wrote them.  As society progresses and mores and values change, these words do not change meaning.  The Court is thus the wrong institution to advance societal change.  Also, the Court works in an adversarial process.  They do not pick the controversies, the controversies pick them.  Also, there is winner and a loser in a court case, thus making middle ground hard to find.  Many of the thorniest questions of our day require compromise, but the Courts are not institutionally designed for compromise.  Compromise is the art of the legislator, and when the judge acts as a compromiser he is acting more like a legislator than a judge.  Also, as an unelected body, the Court is not necessarily representative of public opinion.  This all adds up to the Court justly being restrained in the use of its power of judicial review. If the people want to expand the grant of rights and privileges accorded to citizens, they should do so through the majoritiarian processes of legislation or amendment to the Constitution and not look to the Court as an agent of social change.  The Constitution has many devices to protect rights, especially minority rights, and to elevate the Court as the ultimate protector of rights suggests a profound misunderstanding of the constitutional order. 

The judicial activist is more likely to see the Constitution as a living document whose meaning changes as mores and values change.  If the meaning of the Constitution changes, the judge who interprets the ambiguities of the Constitution must apply the new meanings.  After all, the founders were not as enlightened by science and progress as we are, so it is a disservice to the republic to constrain ourselves to the Founders' outmoded views.  The judge is thus fulfilling his role as interpreter when he recognizes new rights and privileges that those who wrote the document would not have considered as being worthy of constitutional protection.  Also, majorities are often bigoted and self-interested, and so only the unelected Supreme Court has the objectivity needed to solve the most controversial questions.  All of this means that the Court should be active in using its power of judicial review since the Court is an agent of progress and justice (indeed it might be the most important agent of progress and justice). 

I have simplified, and thus have ignored important nuances in these two positions, but I think this description is accurate enough.  Clearly I think that the restraintest position is the most consistent with the intended constitutional order, and I think a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers (especially #'s 9, 10, 47, 48, 51 and 78) bear this out. 

I note that the second link above is to the Volokh Conspiracy, a site I highly recommend for very sane readings on legal developments across the nation.  I detect a slight libertarian bent to the blog, but the bloggers on the site (all law professors so far as I can tell) are very sober in their opinions. 

Supreme Sense

Well, all indications were that Rehnquist was going to retire on Friday. At least that's what the world's most trustworthy sources, Bob Novak and Matt Drudge, were reporting.  I then took off to lovely Lemon, SD to reduce the prairie dog population.  I come back and Rehnquist is still around.  I guess Novak and Drudge are indeed fallible.  So am I, as a reader pointed out that in a post hastily written before I took off for Lemon I misspelled Alberto Gonzales (I have since gone back and corrected this, but for the curious I missed the "r" in his first name and wrote "Gonzalez" instead of "Gonzales").  So I guess everything I write from now on is suspect, because I once misspelled "Alberto Gonzales". 

So with that caveat, count me in the Michael McConnell for Supreme Court Fan Club.  I have read some of McConnell's writings on religion for my Politics and Religion class.  McConnell is a lucid and logical writer.  He has the additional virtue of being right much of the time.  For a defense of McConnell from attacks from the right, see Powerline.  For those who wish to defend Roe v. Wade as law, this short essay by McConnell must be dealt with.