More on Peltier

From the Washington Post blog:

Geffen's animosity toward the Clintons is traced by Dowd to Bill Clinton's decision in the final days of his administration not to pardon Native American activist Leonard Peltier. Peltier had been convicted of the murder of two FBI agents on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation in the late 1970s. Geffen political adviser Andy Spahn had strongly pushed for Peltier's release, with the approval of his boss.

Since that pardon decision, Geffen has made a number of anti-Clinton comments. In 2005, he said Sen. Clinton couldn't win the presidency because she was too "polarizing," adding that "ambition is just not a good enough reason."

Geffen's commentary and the ensuring hubbub reveals the risks that any candidate runs when wooing high-dollar donors to their campaigns. These extremely wealthy individuals are used to speaking their minds whenever and however they see fit. It is a difficult task for any campaign to try and rein them in.

When will the South Dakota media cover this?

Daschle Would Consider VP Spot

Associated Press:

Former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, who endorsed Barack Obama for his party's presidential nomination, said he would consider being Obama's running mate if asked, but said it's not likely to happen.

"I don't believe there is much possibility that I will be asked," the former Senate minority leader from South Dakota said Saturday by phone from Washington.

"If I would, I would consider it, but I don't expect it to happen,"

Daschle, who lost re-election in 2004, gave some thought to seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. After visiting early primary states New Hampshire and Iowa, he said in December that he would not run.

Daschle said his two-year absence from public office is one reason Obama would look elsewhere for a running mate.

In his endorsement, Daschle said the Illinois senator has the ability to unify the nation and inspire a generation of young Americans.

"We have not talked about a specific role (in the campaign) at this point, but we have talked about campaign appearances and travel, speaking for the campaign on occasion, providing advice, raising resources - just a whole range of different activities that I might be involved in."

Daschle said he endorsed Obama because of his ability to unify the nation and inspire young Americans. Daschle told The Daily Republic of Mitchell that it was a difficult decision because he knows many of the other Democratic candidates from his time in the Senate.

Clinton v. Geffen

Robert Novak:

Democratic sources believe that the harsh response by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign to criticism by Hollywood producer David Geffen stems from an overreaction by Bill Clinton to any attack on his pardon policy as president.  Geffen sniped at the Clintons in his interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd because President Clinton had pardoned financial contributor Marc Rich instead of American Indian activist Leonard Peltier.

Geffen, a longtime backer of Bill Clinton, is backing Sen. Barack Obama for president.  The movie mogul's comments marked the first time Bill Clinton had been subjected to an attack from his party since the 1992 campaign.

The former president was reported as infuriated, raising the question of whether he will rise to the bait in any further intraparty criticism of his wife.

Back In The Game

With new hard drive installed, I am back to blogging.  I simply want to note the progress of a couple bills we have been tracking through the Legislature.  The child safety seat bill passed a Senate committee this week, while SB 173, which would massively overhaul how we tax agricultural land, passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority. 

I have a ton of grading to do so I will not attend the Aberdeen area Cracker Barrel this morning. 

Headlines Worth Noting

He was trying to get the robot before it changed into a SUV.

Man sentenced for shooting at transformer

They must have stashed the money in the pants pockets.

Fla. teen gets $35K in topless lawsuit

This took guts.

Truck spills 40 tons of cow intestines

Sure, if you are pitching,

Three strikes can be a good thing

Of all the dam things.

Beaver seen in NYC; first in centuries

Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.

Man sentenced to prison, gets married

Pictures from Northern

I promised in an earlier post to includes some pictures from Aberdeen from time to time.  Here are a couple from the new Tech Center on the Northern campus, where Professor Schaff and I have our new offices.  Here is one, looking left from my new office door at the center of the Tech Center third floor. 

Here is a nice one looking at the Tech Center from the northwest.  All in all, it is a very nice job. 

Leonard Peltier As a Cause

I confess that I do not know enough about the specific facts of the Peltier case to form from them an educated opinion about his guilt.  If Peltier were indeed innocent, then his thirty plus years in prison are surely a great injustice.  But someone executed two FBI agents, and if was not Peltier, then he surely knows who it was.  By keeping silent about that, he is part of a conspiracy that includes the guilty party and anyone else who could identify the real killers, a conspiracy to keep himself in prison all these years.

I will allow myself to say that this story fits an all too familiar pattern.  Over the last century the Left in America and elsewhere fell in love with a series of terrorists and traitors, and spent decades raising them to sainthood.  Sacco and Vanzetti, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, all got the innocent martyrs persecuted by Amerika treatment.  But in fact Sacco, at least, was guilty of the murder for which the pair were executed.  Julius Rosenberg committed treason on behalf of the second most murderous regime in human history (Maoist China being number one), as did Hiss. 
If Mrs. Rosenberg was not an active participant in her husband's treason, she cooperated in keeping quite about it. 

It is the responsibility of both left and right to point out the character flaws in the other.  This is my contribution.  If Peltier is indeed innocent, well, that would be a first. 

Peltier-Obama-Clinton

I see that Prof. Blanchard beat me to the punch regarding the Obama-Clinton-Peltier triangle.  Apparently David Geffen has a sore spot in Bill Clinton's decision to pardon Leonard Peltier, an American Indian Movement activist who killed FBI agents Ron Williams and Jack Coler in 1975 on Pine Ridge.  In my mind, the evidence for Peltier's innocence doesn't stack up too well.  You can read more about the situation here (along with relevant court documents).  Of course, Peter Matthiessen's famous In the Spirit of Crazy Horse is an attempt to demonstrate Peltier's innocence.  Peltier was moved to a Pennsylvania prison a year or so ago and is awaiting a parole hearing scheduled for December 2008.

Perhaps an even greater question now looms in light of this event: has Obama promised to pardon Peltier?

UPDATE:  SDWC has thoughts here and here regarding the issue.  And he also makes the same observation I did: "[I]t's legitimate to ask if a promise has been extracted from the Obama people that he will pardon Leonard Peltier in exchange for Geffen's support."

Hollywood, Hillary, and Pine Ridge: the Real Probem with Sen. Clinton's Prospects

The first big Hollywood mogul to endorse Obama and open up on Senator Clinton reminds us of why Ms. Clinton is not the inevitable nominee. 

David Geffen, once among Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's biggest financial backers, threw Hollywood's first mega-fundraiser of the election cycle on Tuesday — for Barack Obama. His criticism of Hillary Clinton, reported Wednesday by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, sparked an amusingly overwrought exchange between the Clinton and Obama camps.

The LATimes thinks that Ms. Clinton problem is the one that Geffen mentioned:

Geffen was on to something with his passing mention of the fact that Obama is not from "the Bush royal family" or the "Clinton royal family." Regardless of what you think of Bill Clinton's presidency, or his wife's talent, the dynastic aspect of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is an issue that will increasingly come to occupy center stage in this campaign. Is the country prepared to be governed, potentially, for 28 years by two families who alternate turns in the White House?

I think that's nonsense.  If we really come to feel comfortable with Hillary, her last name, or the part after the hyphen, won't matter.  What does matter is Geffen's real motive for trying to torpedo his former friends.  This, from NewsMax:

DreamWorks co-chairman Geffen and Bill Clinton were once close, and Geffen raised some $18 million for Clinton. He was even a guest in the White House's Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton presidency.

Geffen turned his back on his friend when he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich in the last days of his administration – after rebuffing Geffen’s request for a pardon for Leonard Peltier.

In June 1975 – during protests by the American Indian Movement – federal agents entered a ranch on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. Following a shootout, two agents were found shot at close range through the head.

Peltier, who was on the reservation that day, fled to Canada but was later extradited, convicted of murder and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. He remains behind bars. Supporters, including Geffen, have claimed that authorities falsified evidence and withheld other evidence at the trial, and have long sought a pardon for Peltier, now 62 and in poor health.

Apparently, Bill Clinton promised that he was going to pardon Peltier before he left office.  No doubt Bill put on his deeply concerned face, and declared that he shared Mr. Geffen and Mr. Peltier's pain, as he made that promise.  But he didn't issue that pardon.  Instead he pardoned someone else, with no principle higher than money and favors to explain it. 

It is that kind of baggage that now leaves the Clinton candidacy short a mogul or two.  In the coming days, a lot of Hollywood hotshots will conclude that they don't want to carry it for eight more years.

Vilsack Leaving Presidential Race

From The Fix:

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa) is expected to drop out of the 2008 presidential race on Friday with an announcement set for later in the day, according to sources both in Washington and Iowa.

Vilsack served as governor for eight years -- leaving office earlier this year. It was not immediately clear whether he would throw his support behind any of the remaining candidates.

It was probably a long shot for him to be sucessful, though he seemed optimistic in a write-up about him in the latest New Republic.  Also see this post about the current presidential field.

Global Warming: Science and Uncertainty

A colleague of mine at Northern recently expressed to me some doubt about the widely circulated claim that human activity is contributing to global warming, a claim with which I agree.  It was a good question.  How exactly do we know that human industrial output (in terms of green house gases) is responsible for the current global warming trend, and not, for example, other natural forces.  Since the world has frequently been much warmer than it is now, and much colder, why assume that we have anything to do with current global climate trends? 

Anyone who, like myself, is curious about global warming but is altogether an amateur when it comes to climate science, would do well to read Kerry Emanuel's lead article in the current Boston Review On-line.  Emanuel is Professor of Meteorology at MIT, and an expert in the science of hurricanes.  He is no doubter when it comes to global warming, but neither is he an hysterical Al Gore.  He careful distinguishes confidence from uncertainty in the science. 

He gives a chart that neatly answers my colleague's question. 

The bluish shading represents models of natural influences of climate change: solar radiation and volcanic activity which, I gather, is a cooling factor.  The pinkish shading represents models including the natural influences and the anthropogenic, or human influences, including the production of greenhouse gases along with human activity that mitigates warming.  The black line represents actual observations, and it corresponds neatly with the natural + human influence model. 

This, in a nutshell, is why almost all climate scientists today believe that man’s influence on climate has emerged from the background noise of natural variability.

In other words, what we actually observe when tracking climate change confirms the view that human activity is rapidly accelerating global warming. 

Unlike climate expert Al Gore, Kerry Emanuel is honest and straight forward on the uncertainties in the science, and they are great indeed.  But he convinces me, at least, that the general conclusion about human influences is sound. 

What is very uncertain is whether all of this is bad news or not. 

Projections based on climate models suggest that the globe will continue to warm another 3 to 7°F over the next century. This is similar to the temperature change one could experience by moving, say, from Boston to Philadelphia. Moreover, the warming of already hot regions—the tropics—is expected to be somewhat less, while the warming of cold regions like the arctic is projected to be more, a signal already discernable in global temperature measurements. Nighttime temperatures are increasing more rapidly than daytime warmth.     

Is this really so bad? In all the negative publicity about global warming, it is easy to overlook the benefits: It will take less energy to heat buildings, previously infertile lands of high latitudes will start producing crops, and there will be less suffering from debilitating cold waves. Increased CO2 might also make crops grow faster. On the down side, there will be more frequent and more intense heat waves, air conditioning costs will rise, and previously fertile areas in the subtropics may become unarable. Sure, there will be winners and losers, but will the world really suffer in the net? Even if the changes we are bringing about are larger than the globe has experienced in the last few thousand years, they still do not amount to the big natural swings between ice ages and interglacial periods, and the earth and indeed human beings survived these.

Consider that increases in nighttime temperatures without much increase in daytime temperatures means longer growing seasons with less evaporation.  You'd have to be a farmer to see bad news in that. 

I think it very unlikely that we can halt the increase in greenhouse gases in the near term.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but trying will require such technologies as nuclear power.  Mostly what we have to do is prepare for more warming.  I am not yet much worried about this, but I live a long way from the beach. 

Hildebrand Emails Revealed

UPDATE:  More thoughts from John Hinderaker.

From the Sun-Times: 

WASHINGTON -- South Carolina is a key primary state, and Democratic White House front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton competed to hire the same influential African-American consultant -- a state senator who is pastor of a 10,000-member megachurch.

Clinton's campaign made a deal, worth at least $10,000 a month, with state Sen. Darrell Jackson's firm, Sunrise Enterprises. The contract surfaced when Jackson earlier this week endorsed Clinton for president without mentioning his company would be working for her.

But e-mail exchanges obtained by this column show how the Obama campaign tried to woo Jackson, who was also negotiating with former Sen. John Edwards.

Obama and Clinton are making their first visits to South Carolina as presidential candidates. The Illinois Democrat is scheduled to stump in the state today and Saturday, while Clinton arrives Monday.

Both are crafting their Southern strategies with an eye on the Jan. 29, 2008, South Carolina primary.

E-mail exchanges between Obama campaign adviser Steve Hildebrand and Jackson's sister Andrea McCoy, who handles his correspondence, provide a rare inside look at how these kinds of deals are cut.

• 7:40 a.m. Feb. 6. Hildebrand sent an e-mail to McCoy: "Senator, I spoke with David Ploufe, Barack's campaign manager about your contract and we agree to start it on March 15. I'm looking forward to working with you. I'm very glad you are on our team."

• 6:39 p.m. Feb. 6. Hildebrand gets an e-mail from McCoy, asking for 48 hours before making a "definite commitment" to Obama. "He has received information of which I am not at liberty to discuss and is taking it into consideration."

• 9:47 a.m. Feb. 7. Hildebrand e-mails McCoy, "I know that Senator Jackson and Barack spoke last night. Barack is very concerned about this and wants to ensure that he has Senator Jackson on his team. If Darrell has a concern about the contract we proposed, we need to make sure we work out these concerns."

• 8:21 p.m. Feb. 7 Hildebrand writes, "I hope this is not problematic. I did leave the Senator a message a couple of hours ago. If there are questions he has, I hope that he will bring them to us. Barack needs his help and we take his possible support very seriously."

Politico: Daschle to Endorse Obama

From The Politico:

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle has committed his support to Barack Obama, two Democrats with knowledge of Daschle's decision said.

"I certainly expect that he will be supporting Barack," said Leo Hindery, a Daschle friend who backs John Edwards. "Senator Obama could have no better ally and advisor than Tom Daschle."

Two of Daschle's former top staffers, Pete Rouse and Steve Hildebrand, already work for Obama, but Daschle himself brings, along with a broad popularity among Democrats, a set of long friendships and relationshps with Democrats around the country that can help compensate for Obama's recent arrival on the national scene.

Daschle's office said he was at a board meeting today and unreachable.

Tim Johnson's Recovery

The news on Senator Johnson sounds good, but cautious.  USAToday has this:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two months after his brain hemorrhage, South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson has left a Washington hospital and entered a private rehabilitation facility, his office said Tuesday.

A spokeswoman refused to say whether the senator remained in Washington or was moved to a facility in South Dakota, citing family concerns about media scrutiny. "They just want him to focus on getting better and not worried about outside cameras snapping away," said spokeswoman Julianne Fisher.

. . .

Johnson will continue undergoing physical, occupational and speech therapy at the private facility. Dr. Philip Marion, the hospital's chief of rehabilitation, said in a statement released by Johnson's office that the senator has made "great progress" and a final test showed no evidence the tangled arteries that triggered the senator's hemorrhage remain.

Part of Johnson's therapy has been to deal with weakness on his right side. Doctors have said the senator showed that weakness when he arrived at the hospital in December.

Johnson's office has said his recovery is expected to take several months, though he has been doing some work from his bed.

"He's reading memos, but he still needs time for recovery," Fisher said.

Johnson is up for re-election in 2008 and could face a tough race if he runs again in Republican South Dakota.

"That's what he had anticipated doing before and that's what we are working toward," Fisher said of a re-election bid. "We are setting everything up that way. He is determined to get back."

There has been some chatter about the secrecy involved in Senator Johnson's recovery.  I think that the Senator and his family have every right to protect his privacy at this point.  There is no reason the press should demand to know the location of the treatment facility.  On the other hand, South Dakota Voters, and indeed all US citizens, have a right to wonder about the recovery prospects of the senior member of our state's Senatorial delegation. 

I continue to expect that Senator Johnson will remain in office until the end of  his present term, but will not run for re-election.  I hope and trust that the Senator is indeed making great progress, but everything indicates that he has a long road to recovery ahead of him.  I cannot imagine wanting to return to that job if I were in his place. 

Non-binding Profiles in Non-courage

I heard on NPR the other day that, having passed a "non-binding" resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge policy, that House Speaker Pelosi was now prepared to "challenge" funding for the surge.  Well, that'll teach 'em.  It may be that "elections have consequences," as my friend Chad has declared, but that's only if the winners are willing to put their muscle where their mouth is.  The Democrats ain't, just yet. 

The Constitution gives the power of the sword to the Commander in Chief.  That means that he can order such forces as he has at his disposal into or out of Iraq, or Iran for that matter.  That same charter gives the power of the purse to Congress.  It can control the President's policy by funding or not funding it.  It was that device by means of which Parliament ultimately wrested control of the British government from the Crown. 

If the Democrats really believe that the surge is a bad idea, they can act by blocking funding for for the President's policy until he agrees to return to the status quo, or to withdraw all troops from Iraq.  But that, of course, would make them responsible for the outcome in Iraq.  The question is not whether the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, but what to do now.  Here is how Mickey Kaus puts it:

It's pretty clear in retrospect, that the war with Iraq, however it comes out, was a bad gamble. A mistake, in other words. But now that we've made the mistaken gamble, it also seems clear that the surge might do some good. The correct position, by these lights, was War No, Surge Yes. It would be selfishly callous, in a stereotypically American way, for us to invade Iraq, make a mess, and then not be willing to pay any extra price to help fix the mess we've made. . . .

Yet through a conscientiously applied mixture of high-minded comity, Machiavellian calculation, stubbornness and bad expert advice, Hillary has managed to arrive at a position that's precisely wrong on both counts: War Yes, Surge No.

The Democrat's position right now is: we think the surge is wrong, we but aren't going to stop it.  Politically that has a lot to recommend it.  If the surge works (God forbid!), then they can say: well, we let you do it.  If it fails, as they expect, if not as they hope, then they can say "we told you so."  From the point of view of good policy, it is ridiculous.  It doesn't remove a single solider from harm's way, but sends the message to the insurgents: we aren't done yet, but punish us just a little more and you will get what you want. 

Lincoln and Christian Doctrine

The following letter appeared in our mailbox, addressed to Jon.  I take the liberty of offering an answer of my own. 

There are many things about Lincoln that I admire.  I'm curious, though, as to his commitment to Christ.  He spoke in general about God, but there is little evidence that he was a regular church attender, which is one of the marks of a Christian.  Obviously, many people attend for the wrong reasons, but I'm still curious as to what you have found.  Rev. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church has claims evidence that Lincoln truly was a Christian.

In my opinion, his second inaugural address was his greatest speech ever.

don

Thanks for the note, Don.  I have never been able to say what is Lincoln's greatest speech, since so many of his addresses crowd other great pieces of American rhetoric out of the top ten.  But I suspect that this letter includes his clearest statement on his faith, or lack thereof.

To the Voters of the Seventh Congressional District.

FELLOW CITIZENS:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years.  And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.

I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.

A. Lincoln

July 31, 1846

This is a fine example of Lincoln's rhetorical genius.  He vehemently state that he has never denied the truth of the scriptures, or spoken with "intentional disrespect of religion in general."  But he does not tell us whether he accepts the one or participates in the other.  He does acknowledge private conversations where he argued for the "doctrine of necessity."  Some of his readers would have associated this with the teaching of religious determinism: that all things are exactly determined in all their actions by God.  But of course the doctrine of necessity has its nontheistic forms as well, as those who believe that all events in the universe are determined by blind physical necessity.  We cannot know which doctrine Lincoln once argued, but has, by 1846, ceased to argue, or whether he still believes it or not. But he says that this doctrine is "also held by several Christian denominations," which indicates that Lincoln's doctrine was not, itself, a a religiously inspired doctrine. 

If Lincoln were a believing Christian in any sense, surely it would have been easier just to say so.  He was certainly never so coy regarding his views on the injustice of slavery.  I infer from this that Lincoln was not, in fact, a believing Christian.  On the other hand, I know of no evidence whatsoever that Lincoln was an atheist.  He clearly understood that open respect for religion is a requirement for statesmen in a largely religious republic.  That is good enough for me.   

Johnson Transferred

The Argus Leader reports, with a rather aggressive headline, that Tim Johnson is being transferred to a rehabilitation facility whose location will remain a secret from the media:

More than two months after surviving a massive brain hemorrhage, South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson was quietly moved from George Washington University Hospital last week to a private rehabilitation facility.

The Democratic senator’s staff would not reveal the name of the facility or even its general location out of concern the news media or camera-wielding citizens would pester him. His staff waited until Tuesday to tell the public that Johnson was moved on Friday.

“When he first went into the hospital, there were cameras camped outside our office in D.C. and two of the three offices in the state and outside of the hospital for days on end,” Johnson’s spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said. “It was very intense.

I don't blame the family for keeping it a secret considering the way the media reacted when they learned of Johnson's medical condition. 

Fascism Watch

Watertown native John Hinderaker:  "Campos' attack on Reynolds and Hewitt betrays his ignorance of the subject matter at hand and his failure to do even the most elementary research before denouncing others as 'accessor[ies] to murder.' As happens so often on the left, 'murderer' and 'fascist' are the common coin of a polemic that bears no relation to reality. And, needless to say, Campos offers no constructive thoughts as to how we should deal with the threat Iran poses to our troops in Iraq, or the threat a nuclear Iran will pose to us and our allies."

Is Campaigning in Iowa’s Living Rooms a Thing of the Past?

See this from New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney:

Iowa, with its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, has been celebrated for 30 years for its intimate campaigns where future presidents would perch on living room couches or sit at kitchen tables and take questions from 20 or 30 people late into the night.

But it was standing room only on Sunday afternoon at the Grand River Center here, where hundreds of people showed up for a forum with John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president. When Mr. Edwards asked for questions, dozens of hands shot up. Many were still up when he called an end to the meeting.

Mr. Edwards’s experience has been shared by most of the major candidates on recent visits to Iowa, almost a year before the caucuses. It is evidence of what appears to be the demise of the living room campaign, signaling a potentially profound change in the way presidential campaigns are conducted here, and to a lesser extent in New Hampshire.

A chapter in American political history that began in 1976 when Jimmy Carter rose from obscurity by working the living rooms and kitchens of Iowa may be drawing to a end. It is, at least for this election cycle, the victim of an era of celebrity candidates tracked by busloads of reporters, and of intense interest in the 2008 race among voters, who are turning out in numbers that would fill many, many living rooms.

“Perhaps it’s time to write the obit to the living room,” David Yepsen, the state’s premier political columnist, wrote in The Des Moines Register after Senator Barack Obama drew thousands of people to a gym in Ames. “They are now relics of past campaigns, as ancient as the torchlight parade. Rock-star candidates need room for their fans and the gawkers.”

The Rise and Fall of the Newspaper

From the W$J Opinion Journal:

The news about newspapers could hardly be more dismal: falling circulation, repeated rounds of layoffs, disappearing ads and a chain of bad earning reports. It's an unsavory stew of ills, one that shows little prospect of becoming more appetizing.

Many journalists--and having spent the first slice of my career reporting for the New York Times, I still regard myself as one--would prefer to blame the nasty folks in their corporate offices. By this reckoning, it was the layoffs that degraded the quality that cost the readers that led the advertisers to flee that caused more layoffs and so forth.

That smacks of a vicious circle, or perhaps more of a perfect storm that began with the loss of readership. The Washington Post, a model of journalistic excellence, has lost 14% of its circulation since 2000. Across the industry, circulation has been dropping for 20 years, and worse, the pace of decline seems to be accelerating. In the 12 months ending in September of last year, the 50 largest papers lost 3.2% of their daily circulation. Only two newspapers in the top 25--the two New York tabloids--grew circulation during this period, a statement in itself.

Perhaps most worrisome is the loss of young readers, who have drifted away steadily since the early 1970s, long before there was an Internet, when more than 70% of 18- to 34-year-old Americans read a daily newspaper. Last year that figure stood at 35%.

Hillary Clinton

Captain's Quarters:  "The Best Endorsements Money Can Buy"

McCain

Here's another story by Chris Cillizza entitled "McCain Inks South Dakota's Giant Killer" about John Thune's endorsement of John McCain:

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is throwing his support behind Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential bid, according to Paul Kane's Capitol Briefing blog.

Thune's support is significant for McCain as the South Dakota senator is not only beloved within the social conservative movement but is also revered among establishment Republicans for defeating the top Senate Democrat, Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), in 2004.

Thune is just the latest high-profile social conservative to make his preference in campaign '08 known early. As Alan Cooperman and I wrote recently in The Post, many social conservative leaders and activists are opting to side with McCain or former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.), making the pragmatic assumption that those two best combine a chance to win with solid stances on the issues most important to this crucial voting bloc.

The Impact of "Pandagate"

Dan Gerstein, who was ostracized by leading liberal bloggers for serving as Senator Joe Lieberman's communications director, writes in The Politico about the John Edwards blogger flap ("Pandagate") and the "angry, adolescent glory" of liberal blogs:

If the liberal blogs want to understand why so few people outside their narrow echo chamber take them seriously, and what it will take to gain the broader credibility they crave, they should look no further than their handling of the recent flap over John Edwards’ foul-mouthed blogger hires.

This ugly morality tale - which mercifully concluded Tuesday  with the second of the two offending online staffers resigning from the Edwards campaign - revealed the Kossacks in all their angry adolescent glory: impudent, impotent, unreflective and unaccountable.

Throughout the course of the controversy, the left’s bigger digital diatribers never stopped to address the substance of what the Edwards bloggers actually wrote before joining the campaign. Had the bloggers done so, they might have found the postings were widely deemed by Democrats and Republicans alike as bigoted and patently offensive to many Christians, not just devout Catholics or evangelicals.

Nor did they ever stop to think how hollow and hypocritical it sounded for the same people who ravaged George Allen, for his “macaca” moment in last year’s Virginia Senate campaign to cry “free speech” when confronted with a far more nasty, vulgar, and hurtful display of prejudice from two of their own.

Instead, right until the bitter end, most liberal bloggers responded in their familiar mode – by lashing out at their critics and trying to marginalize them. This was, in their eyes, purely a manufactured controversy by the “right-wing smear machine” and a cynical attempt to silence and marginalize the Netroots.

He also points out an issue I mentioned below:

One sure way to . . . consign our party to minority status is to broadly tar Christians in general and Catholics in particular as “Christo-fascists” and misogynists, as the Edwards bloggers did.

Catholics are one of the biggest and most important swing-voting blocs in this country. They often tend to decide elections. So it’s probably not the smartest idea for a leading Democratic presidential candidate to hire people who openly defame Catholicism’s sacred figures by talking about the Lord filling the Virgin Mary with “his hot, white, sticky spirit.”

HT to the Beltway Blogroll.

Thune Endorses McCain

From the Washington Post blog Capitol Briefing:

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has signed on to back Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, providing another significant conservative endorsement for a candidate once estranged from the right wing of his party.

As Capitol Briefing's colleague, The Fix, has noted on many occasions, the Arizona Republican has actively courted conservatives ahead of the early GOP primaries. With no clear favorite emerging for evangelical voters,
McCain and ex-Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) have been shadow boxing for support on the right.

One clear area of competition is the drive for support among GOP members of Congress, many of whom have connections to their own local conservative constituencies.

Which makes McCain's bagging of Thune an important "get."

Thune remains very popular among evangelical Christian conservatives because of his 2004 election victory over Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who had been despised in conservative circles as a Democratic leader who tied the Senate in knots and blocked many of Bush's judicial appointments.

Thune said he recognized that McCain has taken some positions that are not popular among conservatives. "He's tough when he's on the other side," Thune said, pointing to McCain's support of campaign finance reform in 2002 and opposition to a federal ban on gay marriage.

But Thune told Capitol Briefing he extracted a promise from the Arizonan on judicial nominations. Thune said McCain told him he would appoint "guys like Roberts and Alito". That's a reference to Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom were nominated by President Bush and were popular selections among Christian conservatives.

Without attacking them by name, Thune noted that other candidates in the GOP field have inconsistent records on abortion, an issue that has been dogging Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"Whether you like him or not, McCain has been consistent on issues," Thune said Saturday, noting that McCain's voting record in the Senate has been consistently anti-abortion. "He's got a voting record, and it's been consistent."

More than two years after his defeat of Daschle, Thune is still popular on the rubber-chicken circuit. This coming week, he'll be in Michigan helping the state GOP raise money. Although it's not in his capacity as a McCain supporter, Thune's appearance there might help McCain, who won the Michigan primary in 2000 but can't take it for granted because Romney's family has political roots in Michigan.

Thune's role in the McCain campaign has not been officially worked out, but he noted that South Dakota borders Iowa and he expects to play a role in trying to help boost McCain both with rural farmers and Christian voters in the all important Hawkeye State caucus next year.

In addition, Thune said McCain's standing on international security issues should play well among conservatives, which was an important factor in Thune's decision to back McCain. Similar to his consistency on domestic social issues, McCain has remained a steadfast supporter of President Bush's war on terror and the war in Iraq even as it has grown more unpopular, Thune said.

"That's a quality at this time in our nation's history that is in need," Thune said.

Thune is now the seventh senator to endorse McCain, which already tops the number of his colleagues who backed his 2000 bid. Thune said he expects several more of his colleagues to join the McCain team shortly.

While Romney trails McCain in Senate endorsements, he has done far better among House Republicans.

Check out The Fix for the most recent breakdown of Congressional endorsements for Republican presidential candidates.

More thoughts from the crew over at Straight Talk Iowa Style.  And speaking of presidential campaigns, have you voted in our Presidential Straw Poll?

Early Presidential Campaigns

As readers are aware, we often discuss early primaries and early presidential campaigns on this blog, a topic that's been especially pertinent this year.  That is the topic of this Cincinnati Post article by historian Michael Kazin, author of A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan.  Kazin says that "the nearly permanent campaign" has a long political tradition stretching back to "before the Civil War" as "mass parties" organized together and campaigned for votes from the "mass electorate."  While presidents ranging from Martin Van Buren to John Kennedy have started early campaigns, the "prize for the earliest start probably goes to William Jennings Bryan," who began campaigning one month after his 1896 loss to William McKinley.  It's a good read, so be sure to check it out.

For those wondering about how Kazin's book is, I have no idea.  But it's sitting on my desk awaiting a read.  It looks pretty good, and it appears Kazin is arguing that Bryan was an early advocate of what became American liberalism.  Bryan's image was tarnished by H.L. Mencken, who covered his role in the Scopes trial of 1925 and painted him as a religious fundamentalist.  But, Kazin seems to argue, Bryan's beliefs were not extreme but sincere and provided a basis for his views on public policy.  Seems like an important discussion given today's political atmosphere, where some on the Left (including some libertarians) find it easier to believe in the idea that religious people ("Christianists" or "fundamentalists," in their vernacular) are marching America towards Gomorrah rather than respectfully consider their ideas and positions.

UPDATE:  This essay by Mary Eberstadt entitled "The Scapegoats Among Us" includes a section on the "Christianist"/"fundamentalists" fears among the Left and Right. 

Kranz on Herseth's Shifting War Position

According to Dave Kranz in today's Argus Leader, when Stephanie Herseth was running for Congress she said she was "committed to victory" and just last June voted to "complete the mission."  But now she has voted against sending reinforcements to the soldiers at the front.

Revisionist History Watch

The Los Angeles Times:

No one disputes that Obama was active in organizing Altgeld residents. Several who worked directly with him say that he was the most effective organizer they had seen — a surprise, given his youth. "He was our motivator" said Callie Smith, now 50, who was active in Obama's group. "We did all the work, but he was our inspiration."

The varying accounts of what occurred 20 years ago are noteworthy because Obama, now a freshman U.S. senator, has begun a campaign for the White House after three years on the national stage.

Beyond Illinois, where Obama was a state legislator, much of what the public knows about the Chicago Democrat comes from his two best-selling books. On the campaign trail, he has said that through the books he has revealed more of himself to the public than has any other candidate. They provide "insights into how I think and how I feel about the issues facing America," he told reporters this month, according to an account in the Wall Street Journal. Many people coming to his rallies bring copies.

But "Dreams From My Father," the first of Obama's books, is not a historical account. In it, Obama uses literary techniques that are rarely found in political memoirs.

Dialogue in the memoir is an "approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me," Obama wrote in its introduction. For the sake of compression, he wrote, some characters are "composites of people I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology." Most names in the book were changed for the sake of privacy, he wrote.

And while most memoirs place their authors at the center of events, critics of "Dreams From My Father" say it is unfair in omitting the others who were responsible for the successes of the asbestos campaign, an event that Obama portrays as central to his maturation as a political leader. For example, Johnson is not mentioned, and no character in the book appears to resemble her, even though she was already a prominent Altgeld activist and her presence in the anti-asbestos effort is confirmed by interviews and news accounts at the time.

Check out the whole article.

The Slow-Bleed Democrats

Mark Steyn writing in the Chicago Sun Times:

In the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off. Consider this extraordinary report from the Washington Post:

"Democratic leaders have rallied around a strategy that would fully fund the president's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would limit his ability to use the money. . . . The plan is aimed at tamping down calls from the Democrats' liberal wing for Congress to simply end funding for the war.  The Murtha plan, based on existing military guidelines, includes a stipulation that Army troops who have already served in Iraq must be granted two years at home before an additional deployment. . . . The idea is to slowly choke off the war by stopping the deployment of troops from units that have been badly degraded by four years of combat."

So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally "fully funding" a war you don't believe in but "limiting his ability to use the money." Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:

"Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy."

"Undermining"? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war.

UPDATE:  Also see this Investor's Business Daily editorial debunking the notion that the midterm elections were a referendum on the war (HT to Instapundit).  Note this poll data from the article:

Meet the New Majority, Same As the Old Majority

The Washington Post writes about how the more things change the more they stay the same in "In Majority, Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did":

Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.

And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.

Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.

Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.

...

Some say Democrats risk being accused of the same abuse of power that Republicans were charged with when they were running Capitol Hill. Republicans became notorious for tactics such as prolonging a roll call vote for three hours in order to round up enough Republicans to pass a bill or failing to notify Democratic members of committee meetings or negotiating sessions.

"They're on thin ice now," Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said of the new Democratic leaders. "I'm getting uneasy about this lack of amendments. . . . They're getting to the point where you're past the initial period where you've got an excuse to operate with a firm hand. It's going to be increasingly difficult to rationalize."

In May, months before her party won control of Congress and she became speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute." After the election, Pelosi told the Associated Press: "The principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something we promised the American people. It's the right thing to do."

In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.

Be sure to read the whole story.  Politicians on the national and local level assured us they learned their lesson in November.  But with stories like the one above and with local events (it seems like the entire South Dakota blogosphere has come down on the legislature for it's nanny statism), a simple question must be asked: what has changed?

Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel, Week III

Some issues that came up at yesterday's Cracker Barrel.

1. The Northern Route to the Black Hills seems dead for now, but there is some indication that the issue will rear its head again next year with greater support from the Legislature.
2. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.  I will not even try to explain the rather byzantine discussion of the various tax proposals being bantered around in Pierre.  This looks like it might be a big week for taxes, though.  Al Novstrup's HB 1308 is scheduled for discussion and vote in the House on Tuesday and SB 173 later in the week.  I think the quote of the day went to Burt Elliott, who stated that SB 173 might be good for some parts of the state, but "it's crap for Brown County."
3. Education.  The legislators think that k-12 will get 3% and then around $9 million more.  It sounds like there is some discussion as to whether extra money should go into the formula or be treated as one time money. 
4. HPV vaccination.  This isn't that controverial.  Al Novstrup did point out that right now there is only one supplier of the vaccine, but another is one the way.  The cost to the state from the one supplier (Merck) is about $1 million for every life saved.  Novstrup stated that it is uncomfortable to talk in those terms, but a legislator has to decide whether $1 million for one life here is worth it when you might save ten lives spending that money another way.  Still, he did not come out in opposition. 

I will leave it at that.  I am experiencing massive computer problems so I am not linking to the bills.  You can easily find them at the LRC site.  My blogging might be light this week as my hard drive slowly dies.