How Would Christ Vote?

Now here's a scandal one can sink his teeth into.  According to Stephanie Simon, in the LATimes, some Christian conservatives are using the pulpit as a political platform.

With a pivotal election five weeks away, leaders on the religious right have launched an all-out drive to get Christians from pew to voting booth. Their target: the nearly 30 million Americans who attend church at least once a week, but did not vote in 2004.

Their efforts at times push legal limits on church involvement in partisan campaigns. That is by design. With control of Congress at stake Nov. 7, those guiding the movement say they owe it to God and to their own moral principles to do everything they can to keep social conservatives in power.

Preachers "ought to put their toe right on the line," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm that supports conservative Christian causes.

The article is dripping with innuendo about "pushing legal limits."  Ms. Simon strives to leave the impression that conservative pastors have violated the law, despite the fact that she has no evidence of this.  What law is in question?

The law restricting political activity of churches and charities dates to 1954, when then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson pushed it through in a pique of anger over a nonprofit's effort to derail his re-election. Tax-exempt organizations, including churches, may not participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of any candidate. Intervention is broadly defined as "any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidate for public office," according to the Internal Revenue Service.

If the law says that, then the law is an ass.  And an un-American ass at that.  Perhaps it is necessary to say that the leader of the civil rights movement was a Reverend Martin Luther King, and that the movement began in a Montgomery Alabama church.  The anti-slavery movement in America was likewise a largely religious movement.  Moreover, some of the best collections of political rhetoric from the American Revolution consist largely of sermons delivered from the pulpit.  Trying to gag politically motivated pastors is about as un-American as you can get. 

VDH and Jimmy Carter

Victor Davis Hanson:

In his dotage, Carter is proving once again that he is as malicious and mean-spirited a public figure as he is historically ignorant. And for all his sanctimonious Christian veneer, and fly-fishing, ‘aw shucks blue-jeans image, he can’t hide an essentially ungracious and unkind soul. . . . Carter’s Waterloo, of course was the Iranian hostage crisis. It was not just that his gutting of the military helped to explain the rescue disaster. Far more importantly, we can chart the rise of radical political Islam with the storming of the American embassy in Teheran and the impotent response of Jimmy Carter.

Read the whole thing.  HT to Instapundit.

Foleygate

You don't need the New York Times or a new book to make Republicans look bad.  They'll just do it themselves.  Ed Morrissey is absolutely correct:

Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.

And speaking of Bob Woodward's new book, John Wixted notes this:

A shocking fact the administration has kept secret? Please. As I noted, information about the number of attacks on American troops -- including this particular statistic of one attack every 15 minutes -- is not secret. Instead, it is very publicly available in the form of a big graph on page 22 of the Iraq Index (published by the Brookings Institution). In fact, that's probably where Woodward himself got the information. Some secret. The Iraq Index has been publishing attack statistics for a long, long time for anyone who is interested.

. . .

But this talk of withdrawing troops is made with reference to the anti-American insurgency only, with no mention at all of sectarian violence when that is the real problem. In other words, like Bob Woodward, they gloss over the most important detail -- the one that undermines their position. The insurgency is not getting worse, but sectarian violence has gotten worse. If we leave, it will get worse still, and the Iraqi experiment in democracy could easily fail. And that's why calls for a timetable for withdrawal reflect a strategically unwise, anti-humanitarian attitude.

UPDATE:  And speaking of the New York Times, here's another one of their non-story stories: "Al Qaeda Increasingly Reliant on the Media."  As if it wasn't obvious. . .

UPDATE:  John Hinderacker has more thoughts on Foleygate and brings up some good points.  Tom Maguire has a long discussion about the issue.

Kranz

Dave Kranz provides a "blogger alert" in his column, informing us that he went to school with another prominent individual besides Tom Daschle.  He discusses the new president of SDSU in this column:

I hesitated to say before the decision was made that David Chicoine was the no-brainer choice for president of South Dakota State University.

I know how much the Board of Regents dislikes the news media and how secrecy is important to them, so I was concerned that anything coming from here could have hindered Chicoine's chances.

Blogger alert: I went to college with Chicoine, so I have known him since way back when. And I heard volumes about his qualifications from Mr. Elk Point, John Curry, Chicoine's head cheerleader.

Rich Engels

According to South Dakota Straight Talk, one Democrat's platform for his legislative run is "I'd be the smartest guy in the legislature."  Too funny.

We don't need no stinking agenda

Twelve years ago the Republican Party in the House issued its famous "Contract with America," stating what the House Republicans stood for.   Newt Gingrich's troops went on to capture the House in the 94 elections, and have held it ever since.  It is unlikely that those two facts have anything to do with one another.  But the thought that the former might have contributed to the latter has entered the collective mind of House Democrats approaching this fall's election, and they have quite reasonably ignored it.  Mort Kondracke, in Real Clear Politics, has the scoop:

The 12th anniversary of the Republicans' 1994 "Contract with America" came and went on Wednesday without a 2006 Democratic counterpart. And there won't be one.

Instead, Democratic House and Senate leaders held yet another press conference to denounce the Republican Congress' "rubberstamping the Bush administration's misguided agenda."

Despite repeated urging from various quarters, including from former President Bill Clinton, that the party needs to make clear what it stands for and not just against, Democrats contend that off-year elections are referenda on the party in power and that a Democratic alternative agenda would only provide targets for the GOP to attack.

The Democrats have it right, for more reasons than Kondracke mentions.  To begin with, the Democrats are at this point congenitally incapable of forming a coherent agenda.  The gulf between the "stand on your principles" wing, represented by the Kosacks, and the "do what you have to do to win," represented by folks who are actually running for office, is at present too broad for Evel Knievel to jump with a rocket scouter. 

Secondly, they have neither the will nor the stamina to think through most of their policy preferences.  Most Democratic Congresspersons would, I suspect, like to get out of Iraq right now.  But what would happen if we did, and how would we deal with that?  If they are thinking about that, they are doing so in private. 

Finally, and most importantly, the Democrats realize that the only thing they have going for them in this election is a loss of confidence in Republican leadership.  The last thing they want to do is draw any attention to themselves. 

Senator Thune Welcomes Home Charlie Battery

See more photo's Senator Thune with Charlie Battery here.  Welcome home, troops!

For those that don't know, Charlie Batter is a field artillery unit of the South Dakota Army National Guard - Battery C, 1st Battalion, 147th Field Artillery and are headquartered in Yankton.  While in Iraq they served under the 720th Military Police Battalion, and the 42nd and 49th Military Police Brigades, as well as elements of the 3rd and 4th Infantry Divisions and the 101st Airborne Division.  Their primary mission was to act as police transition team missions with Iraqi police, conducting joint patrols, rescue and recovery missions, and convoy wrecker support missions within Baghdad and south into Kuwait. 

Please take the time to remember those Charlie Battery soldiers that were killed or wounded in the line of duty:

    Sgt. 1st Class Richard Schild, killed in action by an improvised explosive device in southeast Baghdad on December 4, 2005.
    Staff Sgt. Daniel Cuka, killed in action by an improvised explosive device in southeast Baghdad on December 4, 2005.
    Sgt. Corey Briest, wounded in action by an improvised explosive device in southeast Baghdad on December 4, 2005.
    Sgt. Allen Kokesh Jr., wounded in action in southeast Baghdad on December 4, 2005 and died as a result of those wounds on February 7, 2006.
    Staff Sgt. Gregory Wagner, killed in action by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad on May 8, 2006.
    Spc. Brian Knigge, wounded in action by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad on May 8, 2006.

Heroes

I suppose the Minnesota Twins still have to beat the odds in order to win the World Series.  It takes a lot of skill and even more luck to go all the way.  But after reading this story about Brad Radke, I can't think of a major sports team that is more admirable.

The Fertility Gap

I posted earlier concerning the "marriage gap" story in USAToday.  Here is the gist:

The marriage divide drew attention in the 2004 presidential race. President Bush beat John Kerry by 15 percentage points among married people and lost by 18 percentage points among unmarried people, according to an exit poll conducted by national news media organizations.

Make what you want of that.  USAToday has a second article on the "Fertility Gap." 

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of Congress: 87,727.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398.

These two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide between the congressional districts controlled by the major political parties.

Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month.

This strikes me as very interesting.  People who invest significant portions of their time and treasure in their children tend to vote Republican by significant margins.  People who invest in something else are significantly more likely to vote Democrat.  I am sure this is a new thing in American politics.  It suggests a more solid basis for the underlying division in American political culture than in the past, and it may have serious consequences for the future.  Of course, children do not always grow up to vote the same way their parents did.  But they mostly do.  Whatever happens this November, Republicans are steadily outbreeding the Democrats. 

Senate Adopts War Tribunal Legislation

As many of you know by now, the Senate passed a very important piece of legislation today that responds to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdan.  This legislation allows the President to establish war tribunals to try alleged terrorist suspects held in military prisons.  In addition, this bill, which passed 65-34, empowers the President to set the rules for how interrogation will be carried out.  Here is a summary article from Bloomberg, and excerpt:

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate joined the House in authorizing President George W. Bush to begin military war-crimes trials of suspected terrorists detained at the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

By a 65-34 vote, the Senate approved legislation establishing military tribunals and empowering Bush to set guidelines for aggressively interrogating suspects without violating international prohibitions on prisoner abuse.

Once the House votes to accept technical changes made by the Senate, the measure will go to Bush for his signature. Military prosecutors have prepared war-crimes charges against 10 suspected terrorists seized since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

``We can tell the world at large'' that U.S. detention and interrogation policies ``are not only humane and just but will allow us to protect ourselves from a vicious enemy,'' said South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham. ``We are very close to that day coming.''

For good reason, this bill has strong supporters and equal opposition.  After attending a recent debate between two scholars on opposite sides of this issue (George Washington Univeristy Law Professor's Gregory Maggs and Jonathan Turley), I noted several points on each side.

First off, the opposition to this bill argues several important points.  Since 1789, the United States has been a world leader against torture.  Many have began to question our dedication to human rights because of stories of poor treatment in Abu Ghraib and Guantamo Bay.  Hamdan may have restored some of this credibility, but if the newly reinstated war tribunals are not given careful oversight and used responsibly, America could be labeled a torturing state.  I am confident; however, that the integrity of America's leaders will not let this happen.  Opponents of this legislation are strong in their beliefs as well, and are not afraid to say that they would give up life to maintain integrity.

I am on the opposite side of this opinion.  As a support of the War on Terror, I have always felt that it is better to fight this war away from American soil, and do everything we can to protect the citizens of this country on our soil.  From the debate, I noted several great arguments for this legislation.

Torture is obviously an unacceptable practice.  However, defining torture is difficult.  Some of the practices employed by our military have come under question, and the press has never let up on the issue frequently shaming our military and challenging their practices.  This constant barrage has, as Professor Maggs put it, forced us to change our practices.

First of all, American soldiers have adapted their approach to taking prisoners.  In fact, the change has been to not take prisoners when possible.  This is the technique used by many European countries who take no prisoners, or if they do, they release them to local authorities.  So instead of the US taking prisoners, we have begun killing them instead to avoid the scrutiny of our treatment of them.  Here is an example from the Nashua Telegraph:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military is taking as few prisoners as possible in its campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, partly to forestall more complaints about its conduct after at least eight prisoners died in custody, an American commander said Monday.

Next, we have also started releasing more prisoners.  Yet when we release them, where do they go?  Well back to the ranks so they can again try to kill our soldiers and civilians.  As far back as October, 2004, we had already seen 10 released prisoners return to the battlefield to engage our soldiers (Washington Post; Oct. 22, 2004).  In my opinion, this is unacceptable.

We could do as some European countries do, and release the prisoners to local authorities.  However, how is this any different than executing them without a trial or torturing them.  You might be wondering what I mean.  Well, check out this excerpt from the JURIST on September 11, 2006 here:

Detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, recently transferred from US to Iraqi control, are allegedly being tortured by prison officials, according to an independent observer who told the UK's Telegraph that screaming was heard coming from the inmate cell blocks, that health conditions there are unacceptable, and that inmates are given inadequate food and no time to exercise. Prison staff have also said that dozens of terror suspects have been transferred in the last week to Abu Ghraib from the controversial Interior Ministry facility at Jadriyah, where US troops discovered 173 malnourished Iraqi detainees in November, some showing signs of torture. Last week, 27 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib, the first mass execution in Iraq since the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

Finally, my argument continues to be that we are safer because of the defensive measures we are taking.  By seeking to eliminate terrorism abroad, we are helping keep it away from our shores.  Its hard to prove, simply because you can't prove we've prevented something that hasn't happened.  However, I would suggest that 9/11 happened before we established the military prisons.  And since then?  We've been safe.  I certainly do not believe that torture should be condoned.  But fair tactics with reasonable oversight should be employed.  I am confident that Congress is seeking just that, and I hope and believe that the United States will maintain its integrity while ensuring the safety of our country.

Herseth, Whalen, and Debates

The Whalen campaign requested 13 debates with Representative Herseth.  I gather she has agreed to three, which is not an unreasonable number.  This is not exactly the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  My friend Chad at CCK has this comment:

Can someone explain to me why Stephanie Herseth is obligated to debate a man who attempted to spread false, vicious rumors about her?

I reply that Ms. Herseth is not obligated to debate anyone, regardless of how they have behaved.  If she had really chosen not to debate Mr. Whalen at all on the grounds Chad suggests, it would demonstrate that she is too thin-skinned for the job.  I would note that the only example of false rumors of which I am aware was sharply condemned on this blog. 

I suspect that our sole representative in the U.S. House made her decision on more mature grounds: does it help or hinder her reelection chances?  No comfortable incumbent wants to debate a challenger.  Debates are a chance for the challenger to raise his stature by appearing as an equal in some forum, and more importantly, they present the incumbent with a chance to make a serious mistake.  For the incumbent, they are nothing but a liability.  Perhaps the number thirteen was chosen in the hopes that it would bring Congresswoman Herseth a little bad luck, as the campaign approaches Halloween?

Agreeing to debates is the responsible thing to do.  The Whalen organization notes that Governor Rounds has agreed to eight debates.  Maybe eight is better than three, but we will get to see the candidates for the Rushmore House seat face up to one another. 

Cameras Help Stop Crime

From Georgetown University's The Hoya:

Closed-circuit TV surveillance cameras have been in widespread operation in the United Kingdom for a little over a decade. A 2002 estimate in an UrbanEye study coordinated by the Technical University of Berlin estimated the total number of these CCTV cameras in Britain to be over 4 million. American law enforcement should study the British use of cameras and create plans for implementing them in the United States.
                   
Seven such cameras recently installed in the Middlesbrough, England town center don't just to watch but have also been equipped with loudspeakers so operators can talk to offenders. These cameras will be even more effective at fighting crime than ones without speakers, but the additional feature prompts concerns about “Big Brother” style policing. These concerns, however, avoid the central issue: Cameras help fight crime in two distinct ways that greatly improve everyone’s quality of life.

Read the whole thing.

Twins Tie Tigers

Joe Mauer hits a home run in the bottom of the ninth to tie the game.  Barlett drives in the winning run in the tenth.  The Twins handed the suffering royals their 100th defeat.  The Blue Jays beat the Tigers. The bad news is the Tigers have two games left with Kansas City, and the Twins have three games at home against the White Sox.  I still say the Twins come out ahead.  Brad Radke made what was probably his last regular season start, and lasted six innings.  He may well pitch a post season game. 

The Argus Blog

A reader at Plains Politics takes a rather dim view of the new Argus Leader blog:

Kranz starts blogging?? You've got to be joking. You can forget about any thoughtful "analysis" from him. Beyond cutting and pasting other people's work and writing about his hero George McGovern, what does he have to say? As for the Argus Leader's "voices"/blog gambit, you might as well call it the liberal Argus reporters' "echo chamber," where all the Argus liberals will talk to one another.

The Nature of the Enemy

The eloquence of Tony Blair:

The new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit. This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible. This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life. It's global. It has an ideology. It killed nearly 3,000 people including over 60 British on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of. It has been decades growing. Its victims are in Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey. Over 30 nations in the world. It preys on every conflict. It exploits every grievance. And its victims are mainly Muslim.

This is not our war against Islam. This is a war fought by extremists who pervert the true faith of Islam.  And all of us, Western and Arab, Christian or Muslim, who put the value of tolerance, respect and peaceful co-existence above those of sectarian hatred, should join together to defeat them.

HT to Andrew Sullivan.

Safe, Legal, and Whatever

Joe Knippenberg has the goods on pro-choice members of Congress who say they want to reduce the number of abortions but can't think of any way to do so other than more publicly funded birth control.  Joe sums up the position some Democrats, including Stephanie Herseth, have staked out. 

That leaves us with eleven Democrats who say they want to reduce the number of abortions but can't support a relatively mild parental notification measure.  For the record, they are Rosa DeLauro, Anna Eshoo, Stephanie Herseth, John Larson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, James Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel, and Marcy Kaptur (all of whom voted "nay"), as well as Harold Ford, Sherrod Brown, and Ted Strickland, who were apparently too busy campaigning to bother to vote.

Guardian of Small Business

From the Black Hills Portal:

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) today named Senator John Thune as a “Guardian of Small Business” for a strong voting record on behalf of America’s small businesses. Senator Thune had a 100 percent NFIB voting record in the 109^th Congress.

“Our small businesses in South Dakota and across the country are the backbone of our nation’s economy. They generate goods, services and revenue that keep our economy growing, provide millions of Americans with quality jobs, and keep our nation highly competitive in the global community,” Thune said. “I’m honored to accept this award and will continue to work hard in the Senate to strengthen small businesses and keep the entrepreneurial spirit in America alive and well.”

AQ Dropping in the Polls

Apparently al Qaeda is polling badly in Iraq.  That's odd.  I thought Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism.

Minnesota Chosen for GOP Convention

Associated Press:

Republicans have chosen the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul _ in the politically pivotal Midwest _ for the 2008 presidential convention, GOP officials said Wednesday.

The selection was expected to be announced later in the day, said the Republican officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The convention is slated for Sept. 1-4.

Losing out were New York City, Cleveland and a joint bid from Tampa and St. Petersburg, Fla., other cities that had sought the convention.

The four-day event will be held at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn., home of the National Hockey League's Minnesota Wild.

By choosing the Twin Cities for 2008, the GOP will ensure plenty of news converge in media markets in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa _ all battleground states in the 2004 election and ones expected to be competitive in the next presidential race.

Kranz to Start Blogging

According to Patrick Lalley of the Argus Leader, Dave Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, is joining the dark side and will start blogging:

This is the companion blog to the Argus Leader’s Voices section. Voices is a new concept that combines the elements of a traditional newspaper editorial page with the growing world of community conversation.

What you’ll find in this blog is a collection of commentary from our Voices section staffers including me, Chuck Baldwin, David Kranz, Sheri Levisay, Laura Buseman and Nestor Ramos.

Lalley on DM&E

Argus Leader reporter Patrick Lalley writes about DM&E on the new Argus blog:

The media wars over the DM&E Railroad’s plans to haul coal across South Dakota and Minnesota are heating up. The Prostrollo General Motors dealership in Huron is using its radio advertising to promote the approval of the railroad’s expansion plans.

The radio ad that I heard was a call to arms for people to rise up against the forces in Rochester - read Bill Janklow and Tom Daschle - who are working to defeat the railroad’s plans.

Meanwhile, I’ve seen a video produced by the Mayo Clinic folks featuring Tom Daschle that lays out the what they see as the potential dangers to the famed clinic from the DM&E running a couple dozen trains each through Rochester.

Not sure where this approximately five minute video will show up but they didn’t spend the money on it just to show it cocktail parties.

More coming on this issue as things really start to heat up.

Wise Words From A Reasonable Liberal

One must admit that we classify as reasonable those who agree with us.  With that caveat, see Kirsten Powers over at The American Prospect, a liberal journal. Powers, who served in the Clinton administration, takes to task those who equate conservative Christians with radical Muslims.  I call Powers reasonable not just because I think she is right on the money, but also because she understands that one does not have to agree with conservative Christians to see that they are not the real threat to liberal values. She defends Benedict XVI while having sharp words for Rosie O'Donnell (who recently said "radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam.").  Powers's main point is that those who suggest and equality between conservative Christians and radical Muslims are blind to important distinctions between the two, at its worst ignoring the true assault on liberal values one sees in certain aspects of radical Islamic culture.  Read the whole thing, but here is a snippet:

Rosie’s beef with Christian opponents of gay marriage would presumably pale should she find herself living in many Islamic countries. Perhaps she missed former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s speech at Harvard recently saying that, “Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable. And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is debatable.” And he’s considered a reformer. Just being a woman in an Islamic country is enough to get you sent to jail or killed. In Pakistan last week, the parliament was debating whether they should continue to jail women for being raped. In Saudi Arabia, the religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress. Seventeen girls burned alive. Under Islamic law, women who seek a divorce -- even from abusive husbands -- can still be lawfully murdered by their families in so-called “honor killings.” The U.N. Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor killing victims may be as high as 5,000.

Hat tip to K-Lo. 

Herseth's Vote Against Parental Notification

The House once again passed a bill making it a federal crime to transport a minor across state borders to obtain an abortion and in order to avoid state parental notification laws.  One would think that parental rights would extend far enough to give parents the right to know if their daughter is getting an abortion or not.  Forty Democrats agree with that proposition (see the roll call here).  Apparently Stephanie Herseth does not, as she voted against this very modest bill.  Is there any wonder why there is such a big marriage gap? 

The Marriage Gap

USAToday has this interesting bit of news.

The wedding band could be crucial in this fall's congressional elections, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census data.

House districts held by Republicans are full of married people. Democratic districts are stacked with people who have never married. This “marriage gap” could play a role in the Nov. 7 congressional elections. Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to take control of the House of Representatives.

Twenty-seven of the 38 Republican-held districts with seats considered vulnerable by independent political analysts have fewer married people than found in the average GOP district. The USA TODAY analysis also shows that:

•Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people. 

•Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.

The political tug-of-war is between people who are married and those who have never been.

The “never married” group covers a variety of groups who form the Democratic base: young people, those who marry late in life, single parents, gays, and heterosexuals who live together.

The marriage divide drew attention in the 2004 presidential race. President Bush beat John Kerry by 15 percentage points among married people and lost by 18 percentage points among unmarried people, according to an exit poll conducted by national news media organizations.

Most serious Democratic challenges this fall are in Republican-controlled House districts that have lower marriage rates.

The lesser of two CHADS.

My mistake on the gripping Chad v. CHAD issue.  And apologies to CCK. Coat Hangers At Dawn, one of the more hysterical residents on the local blogosphere, got all wired over my contraception post. 

Is Blanchard Really This Stupid?    

He is trying to claim that the Catholic Church has no interest in pushing their no contraception agenda on other people and that the current pro life movement isn't also interested in restricting or outright banning contraception as their next move. Banning contraception is a key agenda item of the "pro life" movement.

I like to think the jury is still out of the first question.  On the second, I will believe that the Catholic Church has an anti-contraception agenda that involves legislation and legal prohibitions when I see evidence.  Given such a large organization, there surely ought to be such evidence. Unless, of course, I am right and no such agenda exists.  To say that "banning contraception is a key agenda item of the "pro life" movement," is nonsense. 

That CHAD has no evidence for the statement is evident from the links provided.  Abstinence Clearinghouse, and One More Soul look to be rather ordinary, religiously based advocacy groups.  They are clearly aimed at persuading people to delay sex until marriage, and not to use contraceptives.  In neither case did I notice any mention of legislation to prohibit contraception of any kind.  Perhaps I should note that I am not politically or personally opposed to contraception, nor am I Catholic. 

The remaining links concern the question whether the state should pay for and help provide contraception.  To say that the state should not pay for X is very different from saying that the state should prohibit X.  The State of South Dakota bans smoking in public buildings, in large part because of the anti-tobacco movement.  Smoking nonetheless remains legal in South Dakota.  Is it part of the agenda of the anti-tobacco forces to one day make smoking illegal?  Maybe, maybe not.  But even if it were, this would have no bearing on whether smoking should be banned in, say restaurants, or whether Congress should stop subsidizing tobacco farmers.  Extreme possibilities can always be imagined and projected by one side on the other.  That is what Coat Hangers is up to here.

Schwangate Continued

A letter to the editor in today's Argus Leader:

This is in response to Marynel Jorgensen's letter about Jodi Schwan's salary.

Here is what I know. Schwan does not have any experience being involved in the running of city government, or any government agency, nor does she have the educational background for the job she received. There is nothing in her background that gives the taxpayers any indication of whether or not she will do a good job. I know that most successful businesses would not give someone with her qualifications the top salary for the job.

I know that Mayor Dave Munson tried to pass a tax increase by increasing the franchise tax of cable subscribers to cover operational costs of the city. This was not the intended purpose of the franchise tax.

The issue is the waste of money at City Hall, not the gender or age of the person hired. The people at City Hall should be doing what any successful business or head of a family household does, try to find ways to get the most out of every dollar spent, not spend the most dollars.

More Dissatisfaction with the Argus

SDPP is having more doubts about the "new" Argus Leader:

Looking around the blogosphere, it looks like the "new" Argus Leader is being met with mostly ridicule. People seem to get it--the Argus is run by a bunch of entrenched liberals. Just adding some color and some links doesn't change what these same old liberals and hacks like Dave Kranz write the copy. If the Argus wants a "conversation" blah blah blah, why don't they start by addressing the fact that all the decision-makers at the newspaper are liberals? Why keep giving a crusty bore like Kranz a liberal monopoly on news "commentary," which in the case of Kranz mostly amounts to cutting and pasting other people's work! Put him out to pasture and hire a good writer who isn't so enmeshed in the old political battles and isn't so obviously pro-Democrat. With a little effort, everything Kranz says can be predicted before his column even comes out. ok, Argus Leader, if you want something "new," how about hiring a political columnist who might actually surprise readers with something interesting/unique to say??

Another reader of SDPP notes that the Argus is essentially "unchecked" because of a lack of competition.  I've written previously about the Argus monopoly problem.  Also be sure to read this DVT post on the Argus monopoly.  I know plenty of people who don't subscribe to the Argus Leader because of their bias and they think it's a poor newspaper (I'm an historian / news clipper so I can't give up hard copies, but their point is well taken).  The biggest critique of the paper is it's lack of balance in political reporting.  Since the paper is the largest in South Dakota, it's influence is large and has a tremendous state-wide ripple effect.  The newspaper has been losing subscriptions and the format changes were an attempt to curb that.  But executive editor Randell Beck has missed the point.  If he wanted a real turnaround for the Argus Leader, he would adopt real reforms and create a better product and thus reduce criticism and boost sales.

The NIE and the NYT

Andy McCarthy:

Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.

It is bad enough when the Muslim charlatans opportunistically use American policies they don’t like for militant propaganda purposes. It is reprehensible when American politicians do it.

Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq.

If you actually read the report, you see that there is nothing definitive about their conclusions--despite what the New York Times says (no surprise there).  After reading this, I'm a little worried about our intelligence service.  Is this the best we can expect?  I agree with John Hinderacker and Glenn Reynolds: we should fire the leakers and the people that drafted the report, which is "a meaningless document full of empty bureaucratic twaddle."  Indeed, generalities abound.  One of Prof. Reynolds's readers provides an apt analogy:

You're on target in your scorn for the NIE assessment as released in nonclassified form. It sure contains a lot of "coulds," "likelies," and "mights." As for what the US government is supposed to do, it reminds me of those sportcasters who, whenever someone misses a pass, says, "You've got to catch those." Uh, yeah.

Go here for a roundup of reactions.  The New York Times has once again reported a leak to an absurd level of distortion.

UPDATE:  Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding has more thoughts here and here.  Ed Morrissey also has some observations worth reading.

Dangling Chads

Lest there be any confusion, this post was about Coat Hangers At Dawn (CHAD), not Clean Cut Kid (Chad Schuldt).  Perhaps Coat Hangers should change its name to For Reproductive Enjoyment not Discrimination (FRED).  That'd make things easier. 

Pro-life = Contra-Contraception 2

My colleague, Professor Schaff, defends me against my friend Chad at CCK, and contrary to the usual case he employs stronger language than I would.  Here is Chad's post:

... I think you had better ask Leslee Unruh, the leader of the "pro-life" movement in South Dakota where she stands on contraception.

And it's pretty disingenuous to discount the influence of the Catholic Church on the "pro-life" movement and contra-contraception in this country.

I think the comment misses my point, and I do think that Chad is making something of a straw man here.  Chad often takes me to task, rightly or wrongly, for picking out some extreme element of the left pretending that such an element represents the left as a whole.  I think Chad is doing much the same thing here.  But I don't think that the comment above was over the line. 

My point was that there has not been any organized political opposition to birth control as such.  I know of no bills at the state or federal level that would ban contraception except in such cases where the form of contraception is believed to amount to abortion.  If Chad knows of such bills or organizations actively campaigning for such legislation, I would be interested to hear of them.  Both the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement build their arguments on the same list of unalienable rights found in the Declaration.  There is no doubt that the pro-life movement is heavily influenced by religion, as were the civil rights and anti-slavery movements.  But the framework of liberties that dates to the founding controls the expression of such sentiments.  This is a sign of the strength of American political culture, and I for one am glad for it. 

I do not doubt Chad's point that there are Americans who consider contraception to be immoral, but that is not the same thing as believing it should be illegal, let alone trying to make it illegal.  I have known a lot of conservative Catholics, and I have not yet heard one of them say that the pill, or the diaphragm, or prophylactics, should be outlawed.  So I do not discount the influence of the Catholic Church on the pro-life movement.  Professor Schaff backs me up on this.

While I think that Chad's comment was reasonable (though I disagree with it), the same cannot be said for the comments of his readers.  They do not bother to engage in the argument or present their evidence.  They accuse me of all sorts of personal, psychological flaws on no other grounds than that I frequently express my opinions in writing.  They are left-wing bigots. 

Just for the record, I do not suggest that they are representative of the left in general or Democrats in particular.  I have a lot of friends who are staunch Democrats and firmly pro-choice.  They somehow seem to know how to disagree with me while none-the-less maintaining an attitude of respect.  They would be ashamed to say once what rolls out of Chad's comments section again and again.

How About Some National League?

The implosion of the St. Louis Cardinals is reminiscent of the Hindenburg.  Oh, the humanity.

Condom-nation

In the 19th Century, Martin Van Buren argued that demagoguery would run rampant in an era of weak political parties.  Free from any institutional controls, candidates would resort to rash promises, extremism and scare tactics in order to gain votes.  The demagogue seeks to gain power by appealing to voters' fears and their worst instincts.  Van Buren saw this first hand in the late Jeffersonian era before the rise of the Whig party.  We see it today as the void left by weak parties has been filled with interest groups, left and right, that tell us that the end is just around the corner if their political enemies succeed. 

To wit, I give you the South Dakota blogoshpere, left and right.  As is all too typical, CHAD attacks my friend Ken Blanchard in the most illiberal manner.  CHAD is apparently unwilling or unable to make a distinction between arguing against artificial contraception and wishing to see it banned.  Let's take a look at the article from the Chicago Tribune which causes this ruckus.  First, the article states that there is division among pro-lifers as to whether contraception should even be an issue.  So it can hardly be said that concern about contraception is a secret agenda of the pro-lifers.  Second, as near as I can tell, the public policy advocated by the anti-contraception crowd largely entails denying public funding for contraception, mostly through eliminating the rather substantial amounts of public dollars that go to Planned Parenthood.  This may or may not be a good idea, but one hardly can believe that the fate of the Republic hangs on public funding for Planned Parenthood.  Third, as the article states, 91% of Americans support access to contraception.  The question of legal access to contraception was settled more than two generations ago and virtually no one suggests reinstating a contraception ban.  CHAD is simply trying to appeal to fear by making his/her enemies look like monsters. 

I can say this. I travel in conservative Catholic circles.  I have known dozens of priests, some of them very well.  I don't know how many times I've been to mass in my years.  I read substantial amounts of conservative Catholic literature.    I spent 20 years in Catholic institutions of education.  I never heard anybody suggest that contraception should be make illegal.  There are lots of arguments about why artificial contraception is contrary to God's will and why it is harmful to male/female relationships, but not once in my 35 years have I heard anyone suggest it be made illegal.   My colleague wrote that in recent memory "there has been no significant political opposition to contraception as such," even from Catholic circles.  He is correct. 

I now wait to be called names and denounced in the most vile terms.

Thune Approval Rating

Senator John Thune's approval rating is up to 62% according to this poll.

More Hammering of the "New" AL

SDWC hammers on the "new" Argus Leader.  And a reader provides this great comment:

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I find the Argus Leader's talk of "owning the conversation" very revealing. We are all damn lucky for the internet, because I remember a day and age when the Argus Leader really did "own the conversation." They were the only game in town. They are still just as arrogant and liberal as they were then, but now at least a few bloggers can make sure they don't have a COMPLETE monopoly on the news. If they were serious about making the Argus a better newspaper, they'd clear out all the dead wood and liberal hacks who run the newspaper and freeze out the non-liberals. At this point, they are just rearranging the deck chairs on a newspaper that continues to sink in credibility and value. Their own arrogance and liberalism won't allow them to make the changes they need to make.

UPDATE:  More thoughts about the Argus redesign over at South Dakota Straight Talk.

Pro-life = ContraContraception?

My friend Chad at CCK notes this story from the Chicago Tribune:

Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement's success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal group of Christian conservatives is arguing that it's time to mount a concerted attack on contraception.

Their voices were raised in Rosemont on Friday and Saturday at an unusual anti-abortion meeting that drew 250 people from around the nation to condemn artificial birth control. Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.

"Increasingly vocal" does not indicate influence or momentum, as the Trib concedes. 

No one knows how many supporters Scheidler and his colleagues have, but conservative leaders are watching to see if the anti-contraception rhetoric gains traction.

Well, they aren't really, and it ain't gonna.  The Catholic Church has long been opposed to contraception, but there has been no significant political opposition to contraception as such.  The reason that there has been a pro-life political movement is that many Americans see abortion as a civil rights issue analogous to slavery or segregation.  At stake is the constitutional status of a class of Americans (the unborn) who currently enjoy no protection.  The Constitution controls American politics and it gives no purchase to those who oppose contraception that does not involve abortion.  I realize that it is politically useful for Chad to imagine otherwise.  But it's a red herring.

Twins Eliminate White Sox

Professor Schaff beat me to the punch.  Back in April he and I watched the White Sox clobber the Twins in Cellular One Park.  Jon made the perfectly accurate statement, at that moment, that the Twins were an altogether mediocre team.  In one of the restrooms a fellow walked in just behind me with a Twins cap on.  The room full of relievers razzed him mercilously.  I  though it prudent not to declare a position.

Tonight the Twins beat the Royals 8 to 1 on a fine performance by Boof Bonser.  It isn't often that Joe Nathan is called in to close with a score like that.  Oh, and Torii Hunter knocked out his 30th home run.  Meanwhile in Cleveland the Indians beat the living snot out of the White Sox, 14 to 1.  Two to one would have been fine, but there is no substitute for humiliation.  The Sox managed to make two errors in one play in the fifth.  And this is icing on the cake:

      Before the game, Guillen lamented Chicago's lack of fundamentals as one of the biggest reasons the White Sox might not make the playoffs. And in the first, a blown play at the plate led to Cleveland scoring three unearned runs.

    With one out, Michaels singled and went to third on Martinez's base hit. Garko followed with a routine grounder to third baseman Joe Crede, who threw home in plenty of time to get Michaels.        

      However, catcher A.J. Pierzynski let the ball pop out of his glove. The error was then compounded when Choo's hard grounder toward right got past second baseman Tadahito Iguchi, scoring Martinez.

Twins Win!

The Twins are playoff bound!

More Reactions to the AL Changes

A reader at Plains Politics comments on the "new" Argus Leader:  "The 'new' Argus format is a big let-down. Notice it is all the same liberal hacks writing for the paper. If they want to hear some different "voices" then hire some writers who aren't same old liberals like Kranz and Harriman."

Clintonian Snit

Whatever his policy achievements (there were some big ones) or his failures (there were a lot), Bill Clinton will surely go down in history as one of the most immature human beings ever to serve as chief executive.  Here's the story, from Howard Kurtz at Washington Post:

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace said that he was stunned when Bill Clinton accused him of a "conservative hit job" after he challenged the former president on his record in fighting terrorism.

"I thought it was a fair, balanced and not especially inflammatory question," Wallace said yesterday in recounting his "Fox News Sunday" sit-down with Clinton. "I even said, 'I know hindsight is 20/20.' But he went off. And once he went off, there was no bringing him back. He wanted to talk about it in detail. He wanted to conjure up right-wingers and conservative hit jobs and a theory involving Rupert Murdoch that I still don't understand."

Here is how Clinton's hissy fit happened:

Wallace began with a couple of questions about the initiative before citing the 1993 U.S. military withdrawal from Somalia and several bombings connected to al-Qaeda in asking, "Why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"

In an impassioned, finger-wagging answer, Clinton told Wallace, a former ABC News correspondent: "You did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. . . . You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about . . . what we did out there to raise $7 billion-plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care."

Clinton is not a stupid man.  He knows he made mistakes, and that these mistakes were very costly to his reputation.  But emotionally, he simply cannot take responsibility for them.  They are always someone else's fault, some vast, right wing conspiracy out there.  Clinton's sins don't matter because they pale in comparison to those of Kenneth Star, or Fox News, or whoever.  The latest fit was a repeat of his snit in front of Peter Jennings.

Clinton has on occasion scolded other interviewers, most notably in a 2004 sitdown with ABC's Peter Jennings, who drew this response after alluding to Clinton's personal misconduct: "You don't want to go here, Peter. . . . Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked."

Poor, poor, pitiful Bill. 

Theocracy In South Dakota

Don't you hate it when churches take positions on political issues and try to tell us how we should vote?  The proponents of such measures are often denounced as "theocrats."  Unless, of course, they agree with us, and then it's just a sign of how enlightened and decent they are, unlike our opponents who are evil and malicious.  Why we even bother with self-government is beyond me.  The liberals are so clearly more compassionate than the rest of us.  I now officially call for the Tyranny of the Compassionate to begin.  Please, kill us with your kindness. 

Lest there be confusion, I don't think anyone in South Dakota is a theocrat, and am on the record as welcoming all kinds of religious voices into the public realm (see, for example, the end of this post on Barak Obama).  If we are to criticize such voices it should be based on the merits of their arguments, not based on the perceived audacity of religious people to even speak about public matters.

Daschle Still Considering '08 Run

This just out from CNN:

Daschle still has an eye on '08

From CNN's Ed Henry

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Life in the private sector is good for former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who is making big bucks and no longer has to criss-cross the country in search of campaign dollars. And despite speculation he may be content enough to sit on the sidelines in 2008, Daschle insisted in an interview last week that he is keeping the door open on a possible White House bid.

When longtime Daschle adviser Steve Hildebrand recently accompanied Sen. Barack Obama to Iowa, Democratic consultants were buzzing that this may be a sign the Illinois Democrat is getting serious about a presidential run and Daschle had
decided to pass again on a White House bid. But the South Dakota Democrat, who seriously considered running in 2004, said be careful about making assumptions regarding his political future.

"I don't know that there's any tea leaves to read out of it at this point," Daschle said. "I think it's too early to make any decisions about the future. I think it's important to see what the layout of the land looks like and to make my assessment as time goes on. I'll do that -- I haven't made any final conclusions yet. But one way or the other I'm going to stay involved."

And Hildebrand said in an interview today that he spoke to Daschle over the weekend and noted nothing has changed.

"We talked further about it and his mind is exactly where he said it was last week," Hildebrand said.

As for accompanying Obama to Iowa, Hildebrand said he was happy to help Obama in his efforts to elect Democrats in 2006.

"Senator Obama has said that he has no plans to run for president in 2008 and that he is very focused on 2006," Hildebrand said. "I will do anything I can to help him in that regard."

Changes to the AL Layout

PlainsPolitics discusses the new Argus layout:

New Argus Layout

In another attempt to further confuse the older demographic of the Argus Leader reader base, they have changed their format once again.

First, they took out the stock quotes, something the older generation has depended on for quite some time, and they don't always have easy access to the internet.

Now they have done a complete overhaul, adding a "local touch" to their paper. More local news, more local sports, and a new emphasis on opinion, named "Voices," so named for the whispers in Dave Kranz's head.

UNFORTUNATELY, we still have to put up with his column 3 days a week. This time it is Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; instead of Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. I think the voices in his head will do better under this easy-to-follow schedule.

It is high time the Argus devote more to local sports and local news. This may just be another way to introduce their new more-Liberal approach: "More Herseth, less Thune."

"VOICES" will be a new platform for Kranz and Beck to infiltrate the media with more of their political hackery. I don't think Beck has found out how old Kranz's rolodex is, it is written on old egyptian manuscript with an ink and feather pen.

I guess we'll see how the public views this new format.

Wal Mart Assaults the Poor Yet Again

By making drugs cheaper.  From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Love Wal-Mart or hate it, you can't deny its shrewd business sense -- and, don't scoff, its social benefits -- in using its clout to lower the cost people have to pay for consumer goods. But muscling record companies into lowering the cost of CDs was one thing. Making some 300 generic drugs available for $4, which it announced it will do, has the potential to improve the quality of life for many uninsured and under-insured people and force the pharmacy industry to introduce more competitive prices for the drugs. (The sharp drop of shares of CVS and Walgreens tells you what a radical notion that is.)

The new policy also drives home, for those who still need it driven home, the importance that landing a Wal-Mart holds for poor communities. People there benefit not only from lower prices, but, crucially, from desperately needed job opportunities.

Can no one save us from this big box menace?

Argus Format Changes

Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck this morning touts the "new" Argus Leader that will be unveiled Monday.

Doubts About AP Reporting in the Middle East

Boston Herald:

The Associated Press, the reliable just-the-facts news agency you and I once knew, no longer exists. Amoral propagandists have taken over.

It is not only in the disturbing matter of Bilal Hussein, AP photograher and al-Qaeda associate, being held without charge in U.S. custody in Iraq that this is evident. But also in the departure from balanced, nonpartisan coverage that has always been the AP’s promise to us, its customers.

The AP was, in fact, a pioneer in balanced coverage. The concept was born with the AP in 1848 and tempered in the Civil War. The AP served newspapers of different stripes and had to keep politics out of it.

Be sure to read it all.