Montana Wolf Killings

The New York Times:

The animal that killed more than 120 sheep in the northeastern part of the state last year was a domesticated wolf, DNA testing has shown. The results mean that ranchers whose sheep were killed will not be eligible for reimbursement from a fund for livestock losses. “There’s no possible way for the wolf to have been bred in the wild,” said Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife, the environmental group that pays the reimbursement. “And the fund doesn’t cover domestic wolves or hybrids or dogs.” The 106-pound wolf was killed by federal trappers on Nov. 2 after it killed and injured sheep over seven months.

Another Indefensible Act by Coulter

Well, she's done it again: she's gone and said something indefensible, stupid, and hateful.  The Republican Party needs to stop associating with Ann Coulter.  I agree with Howard Dean that the GOP needs to denounce what she said.  Ed Morrissey writes:

First, criticizing Coulter's use of the word "faggot" is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We're not advocating her arrest for using the word. We're just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians "Christofascist Godbags" and Amanda Marcotte's incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter's appearance at CPAC?

Indeed.  Dean Barnett also states:

Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic.

I guess you could say that Ann loves to shock us, but at this point, who’s shocked? She obviously can’t behave well enough to attend a respectable political gathering. It’s not a lack of intelligence. It’s an indifference to self-control and a preening sort of narcissism that compels her to need the spotlight, even if it’s unflattering.

Coulter loves the sound of her own voice and, when that happened, abandoned all sense of self-control.  She should never be invited to speak at CPAC again.  She should be shunned by anyone who cares about advancing the conservative cause.  Rather than getting headlines about Giuliani or Romney, the media will latch on to Coulter's bigoted statement.

UPDATE:  Three leading GOP candidates have denounced Coulter's remarks.

SDP Jazz Note: Dexter Gordon 1964

Despite what Internet sophists are saying, youtube has not crowded out its competition.  My son delights in break.com, and I delight in dailymotion.com, which has a treasure chest of jazz videos.  This week I discovered a clip of Dexter Gordon, a tenor sax master.  As the clip begins, Gordon walks down a dark alley toward the jazz club.  The location is identified as Romainville, in France, but I think that this is wrong.  I believe the location is in Holland.   The piano trio is thumpin as he enters the club, walking past the bottles of booze.  He takes off his trench coat and hat, slides his axe out from under the piano, and announces, with a lot of drama, that they are going to play "A Night in Tunsia".  What follows explains why God created man. Hit the link above and see what I mean.

Private Schools for the Poor in the Poorest Nations

Teachers unions in the United States constitute one of the greatest obstacles to effective educational reform.  The reason is simply that they work relentlessly to protect their constituency, teachers, from any kind of pressure, and pressure is always necessary to reform.  It comes as no surprise to learn that in many, if not all developing nations, private schools do a better job of educating the poor than public schools, and they do so at a fraction of the cost.  The Atlantic, a liberal leaning magazine, to which I have subscribed for decades, has a fascinating article on this, by Clive Crook.  Crook reports on the work of James Tooley, "a professor of education policy at England’s University of Newcastle upon Tyne," who has discovered a hitherto well-kept secret.

Several years ago he was working as a consultant in Hyderabad, India, for the International Finance Corporation, an arm of the World Bank. One afternoon, while wandering around the alleys beside the Charminar (a sixteenth- century monument and Hyderabad’s best-known tourist attraction), he came across a school for the children of slum dwellers. To his surprise, he found that this was not a state school but a private one—providing education to the extremely poor and collecting fees (of a few rupees a day, or less than a dime) for its services. Intrigued, he kept looking, and found other, similar schools. They were typically small and shabby operations, sometimes occupying a single classroom, staffed in some cases by just the teacher-proprietor and an assistant. Yet they were busy—crowded with eager pupils—and the teacher was actually teaching. (This, Tooley knew, was not something you could take for granted in the classrooms of Indian public schools.)

Why are private schools in developing countries so much better than public schools?  The answer is that a position in a public school is a government job, and government jobs almost everywhere are looked upon as a guaranteed income: once you have one, you don't have to worry about anyone taking it away.  So why bother to actually do your job?  Private schools, by contrast, survive only if they actually deliver a quality education, or at least, a better one than is available elsewhere at that price. 

Tooley has demonstrated that private schools for the poor in developing countries do a better job across the board than their public counterparts. 

Why have these findings been so reluctantly received? The answer is politics. The consensus on economic development—specifically, on the role of the state in promoting growth—cycles to and fro. At the moment, orthodox thinking embraces a leading role for the market in most areas of economic life. But in most developing countries, as in many rich ones (including the United States), schooling is widely regarded as quite another matter. Children’s education is higher than commerce. These realms must not be allowed to mix. Many development and education officials wish to enshrine free education as a universal human right. Education, in other words, is too important to be left to the market.

The international aid industry is allergic to private enterprise solutions.  It prefers grand projects with large budgets, the better to hire more international aid workers.  It wants to believe that the poor are dependent on government largess.  It doesn't want to hear that the poor are capable of solving their own problems, given half a chance. 

But Tooley is putting his money where his mouth is. 

As for Tooley himself, he is now moving beyond research alone, preparing to embark on a new project: the management of a new $100 million fund to invest in private schools for the very poor in developing countries. Development professionals need not be concerned, however. The money is from a private foundation. It won’t waste any country’s aid budget.

The awful truth of the matter is that free markets are almost always better at delivering services than government is.  It is more efficient, to be sure; but more importantly, it motives everyone involved to invest their own genius and energy in turning out something that their fellows need. 

Conrad Wants to Cut Troop Funding

North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad wants to cut off funds to soldiers fighting in Iraq:

Democrats are considering cutting President Bush's budget $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year by $20 billion, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said Thursday.

The war funding cut would affect the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and is separate from the ongoing debate over Bush's $100 billion request for immediate supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The North Dakota Democrat said he likely will use Congressional Budget Office estimates - instead of the administration's February budget request - as the basis for estimating Iraq and Afghanistan war costs.

More thoughts at the North Dakota blog, Say Anything.

Herseth Sells Out to Unions

Power Line:

Earlier today, John wrote about how, in a thank-you to organized labor for its role in November's elections, the congressional Dems are attempting to deprive American workers of the right to a secret ballot in union certification elections. Pat Cleary at the NAM blog is, of course, all over this story. In this post, he exposes some of the falsehoods that organized labor is peddling in order sell this patently un-American attack on freedom of the ballot box.

UPDATE: The pro-union, anti-democratic legislation has passed the House by a vote of 228-183. However, Senator McConnell has vowed to prevent the bill from becoming law. He noted that "in 2001, a group of Democrat lawmakers wrote on behalf of Mexican workers that ‘the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.’" McConnell added that his party "will not allow. . .coercion by employers or unions. . .and [will] stop this attempt to strip away workers’ rights."

JOHN adds: This vote is a great test of the "conservative" Democrats who won in November. When I have time later on, I'll track down the roll call and see which Democrats were actually willing to cast an honest vote in the face of union pressure.

UPDATE: Sure enough--only two Dems were willing to stand up to the unions' pressure, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Dan Boren of Oklahoma. Keep that in mind next time you hear nonsense in the press about "Blue Dog" Democrats, "conservative" Democrats, and next time you hear anyone try to tell you that the Democrats care anything about working men and women.

Nine Eleven Conspiracy again

Todd Epp posts "without comment" on a post at 9/11 Special Interest Group.  Here is the key passage:

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result only in local damage which would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

That's from a February 3, 1964 memo released by the National Institute of Standards and Techonology (NIST), the U.S. government agency responsible for analyzing the collapse of 1 and 2 World Trade Center, and NIST's recent analysis appears to support it.

Todd invites us, his readers, to come to our own conclusions.  Here is mine: the 1964 NIST analysis was wrong.

UPDATE: I am not criticizing Todd for posting the above information.  This is a barrel of fun.  But I did follow the link from the 9/11 Special Interest Group to its "sponsor," The Wisdom Fund.  It's a pro-Muslim outfit (not that there's anything wrong with that!), with a big, loud, 9/11 bee in its bonnet. 

Snow in Aberdeen III

We are experiencing what is called the "wrap-around effect," where a single system hits us once and then wraps around to hit us again.  So when someone says: "more snow is coming," they are wrong.  It's the same damn snow that hit us the first time. 

Johnson for Obama?

When did Senator Johnson endorse Obama for President?  Dave Kranz says Johnson did just that:

With presidential endorsements flowing freely from South Dakota, it should be no surprise that Gov. Mike Rounds got in the act.

Rounds gave his support to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the race for the Republican nomination for president.

He follows Sen. Tim Johnson, who is backing Sen. Barack Obama, and Sen. John Thune ,who endorsed Sen. John McCain. Rep. Stephanie Herseth has not made public an endorsement, but she has been leaning toward former Sen. John Edwards.

Former Sen. Tom Daschle has endorsed Obama.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot find a single news item or press release about Johnson endorsing Obama.  Freudian slip, maybe?

Most Entertaining Regional Blog Entry

Goes to Todd Epp, for "Separated at Birth: Tim Johnson and the Alltel Dude."  Don't miss it. 

The Democrat's Tony Soprano Law

One of the cheap pleasures of writing for the American News is that my picture occasionally appears above that of George Will.  This happened today, when my column on early primaries stood on top of Will's column on the "Employee Free Choice Act," which the Democrats just pushed through the U.S. House.  I had thought that, with their very narrow majority in the Senate (Joe Lieberman), the Dems might have been hesitant to push an obviously odious piece of legislation.  I miscalculated. 

The Democrat's bill concerns the procedure by which workers in some business can form a union.  Under current law, the workers have to vote in an election by secret ballot.  This is something that Democrats used to champion, as it protects workers against personal pressure.  Their employers cannot know whether they voted for the union or against it.  Of course, neither can the union organizers, and this is now what rubs unions the wrong way.   

The "Free Choice" act would replace the secret ballot by system where workers sign cards favoring a union.  Why do the unions like that system better?  Because then Tony and his boys can go worker to worker to "encourage" each one to sign.  After all, it's in everybody's interest, isn't it?  And if you don't see it our way, well, we know where you live.   Union culture is not pretty.   

If I thought that the Congressional Democrats really wanted to pass this pro-leg-breaker legislation, I would have to think the very worst of them.  But in fact I think they are pushing it only as a cheap return for the $60 million or so that unions poured into their purse during the last election. The  Democrats know that Republicans in the Senate will block the legislation, and that President Bush would veto it if the stinking piece of parchment landed on his desk. 

The "Employees better do what the Union Says" Act is a sign of union decline.  Here is how the Washington Times puts it:

The fact is, organized labor has seen its best days. It's hemorrhaging members at a steady pace — losing 325,000 members last year, down to 12 percent nationwide. That's quite a fall from 20 percent a quarter-century ago and a 35 percent high-water mark in the 1950s. But even last year's dismal number is inflated by the sole bright spot for unions — government employees, 36 percent of whom are unionized. In the private sector alone, where Big Labor's bread was buttered for decades, union membership has dropped to a meager 7.4 percent.

I doubt that Tony Soprano can reverse that trend. 

Blanchard on Early Primaries

Jason blogs below on the idea of an early South Dakota Primary (which, I gather, has been tabled in Pierre).  His views are neatly incorporated in my essay, published this morning in the American News.  I reproduce it here. 

Front-loading primaries really bad idea

One of my grad school professors described the simple rule by which his German grandfather approached child-rearing: Find out what the children are doing and make them stop.

I sometimes think that rule should be applied vigorously to Congress and to state legislatures whenever they are in a mood to reform our political institutions.

Many states, including our own, have been toying with the idea of moving their presidential primaries to dates earlier in the election year. It's not hard to see why. Iowa and New Hampshire have long enjoyed the role of getting the nomination process rolling. As a result, any candidate with money and staff to invest will sink a load of it in these two states. Winning Iowa is no guarantee of nomination, but at least for a moment it makes you the front-runner.

So, as would-be chief executives zip back and forth between Council Bluffs and Concord, shaking hands and kissing babies, both states fill up with camera crews and journalists, until you can't spit in either place without hitting someone carrying a press badge.

Restaurants and hotels do not suffer from this attention, nor, I should add, do political scientists. Reporters occasionally like to talk to us when they are looking for informed observers of local politics. If South Dakota could muscle in on some of Iowa's action, that would be the best chance I will ever have to show up on Fox channel with Brit Hume.

An early primary might well be good for South Dakota and myself. It would just be bad for the United States. A lot of other states are thinking along the same lines, including that 3,000-pound electoral gorilla, California. The Schwarzenegger state has its primary late in June, after the nomination has often been decided, and it doesn't feel that it gets the attention it deserves. But if California and a lot of other states move their primaries forward, that would front-load the nomination process. The contest would likely be decided by the end of February. There are several things wrong with this.

A front-loaded process would give a bigger advantage to candidates who enter it with name recognition and war chests large enough to buy lots of TV time in a bunch of states. Lesser known but worthy candidates with smaller purses would be out of contention. It would increase the chance that someone will capture the nomination very early, before the electorate has had time to become properly acquainted with the candidate. By contrast, a process strung out over several months gives the voters more time to separate the Howard Deans and Jesse Jacksons from the John Kerrys and Al Gores. It also presents more chances for a candidate's fatal flaw, if he or she has one, to show itself.

For most of our nation's history, the nomination process was in the hands of party activists, who convened in order to present the nation with two viable candidates for chief executive. I am not sure that this wasn't the better system. Since the middle of the last century, we have largely turned that process over to millions of people whose only activism consisted in voting in primaries or attending a local caucus. Broadening the base for party selection has made the process much more expensive and much longer. It is well underway now, almost two years before the next presidential election.

If the process is further front-loaded, it will get longer still, and will put more power in the hands of money. The candidate who approaches the starting gate with the most cash may be assured of victory.

If you really want reform, the way to do it is divide the states into five groups, each including large and small states from every region of the country. Each group would be assigned the first Tuesday of some month from February to June. In subsequent elections the order would be rotated, so everyone gets to go first sooner or later. The purpose would not be to benefit one party or another, or any state over the others, but to do what is best for the Republic.

---

Kenneth C. Blanchard Jr., is a professor of political science at Northern State University. His columns appears occasionally in the American News. Write to him at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, SD 57402, or e-mail americannews@aberdeennews.com. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of Northern State University.

Business Tax Climate

Here's some good economic news for South Dakota:  "A new handbook published by the Tax Foundation of Washington, D.C., lists South Dakota as second in the nation for its business tax climate. . . . 'Part of it is that we don't tax businesses the way other states do,' [Gov. Rounds] said Wednesday. 'We try to bring them in and develop the economy with those businesses.'  The best business climate honor went to Wyoming. Following South Dakota were Alaska, Nevada and Florida, making up the top five."

Clever Headline of the Day

Goes to the Aberdeen American News: "Open government debate closed"

Obit Blogging: Arthur Schlesinger

UPDATE:  The New Republic has posted a book review written by another great historian, Sean Wilentz, which examines Schlesinger's memoir.  It's a good look at Schlesinger's life and his impact on history and historiography.  Also see the obits in The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, a very well-respected individual and a strong voice for American liberalism, has passed away:

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Kennedy insider who helped define mainstream liberalism during the Cold War and remained an eminent public thinker into the 21st century, has died, his son said. He was 89.

Schlesinger suffered a heart attack while dining out with family members Wednesday night in Manhattan, Stephen Schlesinger said. He was taken to New York Downtown Hospital, where he died.

Among the most famous historians of his time, Schlesinger was widely respected as learned and readable, with a panoramic vision of American culture and politics. He received a National Book Award for "Robert Kennedy and His Times" and both a National Book Award and a Pulitzer for "A Thousand Days," his memoir/chronicle of President Kennedy's administration. He also won a Pulitzer, in 1946, for "The Age of Jackson," his landmark chronicle of Andrew Jackson's administration.

Be sure to read the whole article.

Poll: Clinton Out Front

A new poll shows Hillary Clinton leading the pack on the Democratic side, with Obama coming in second with 24%, Gore at 14%, and Edwards at 12%.

L.B. Foster

One repercussion from the denial of the DM&E loan was the hit L.B. Foster took.  Coupled with the two percent drop in stock prices (followed by the expected recovery), the stock took a major hit that it has yet to recover from.  From the Pittsburg Business Times:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average on Tuesday had its worst day since Sept. 17, 2001, dropping 415 points, or 3.3 percent. The L.B. Foster Co. had an even worse day.

L.B. Foster (NASDAQ:FSTR), a Green Tree-based railroad parts manufacturer, saw its stock price plummet 21 percent, or $5.37, to close at $20.20. L.B. Foster's drop followed the Federal Railroad Administration's decision to reject a $2.3 billion expansion loan to Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, a railroad of which L.B. Foster is a part owner.

L.B. Foster owns 13.4 percent of the railroad's common stock. In addition, as a rail and railroad tie manufacturer, the company was in a good position to pick up tens of millions of dollars in contracts as well as part of any revenue boosts the railroad realized though its expansion.

"Despite the FRA's rejection of the DM&E's loan application, the company believes that the total value of its investment in the DM&E significantly exceeds the sum of these amounts," L.B. Foster officials said in a prepared statement on Tuesday.

For years, the railroad has been angling to expand into the lucrative coal fields of Wyoming's Powder River basin. The company sought to build an additional 280 miles of track and sought to rehabilitate more than 600 miles of track in three states, a $6 billion project.

But to expand, the railroad sought a $2.3 billion loan under the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program. In February, the FRA approved the DM&E's environmental study for the project. But on Tuesday, FRA administrator Joseph Boardman shot down the railroad's loan application, saying he was concerned that the railroad company was already highly leveraged. Among other issues, he said he also was concerned that the railroad might not be able to ship enough coal to cover the cost of the loan.

In a prepared statement, DM&E president and CEO Kevin Schieffer said the company will continue to pursue the expansion.

"This project is too important to the future of our company, regional rail transportation and the many supporters in the agricultural and energy sectors, the communities we serve, and beyond who are relying on it," Schieffer said.

Other local companies that saw stock decreases Tuesday in the wake of a selloff in China include Alcoa Inc. (NYSE:AA), which fell 4.44 percent, or $1.57 to $33.79; U.S. Steel (NYSE:X), which was off 7.87 percent, or $7.39, to $86.51.

Now, realize that the media made the stock price decline sound like the end of the world.  A two-percent drop is nothing, it's pocket change for investors.  Remember that in 1987, the stock market took a hit when, in one day, stock prices dropped a whopping twenty-three percent. 

Here is L.B. Foster's Yahoo Finance page. 

UPDATE:  Maybe I was wrong.  The NYSE has initiated trading curbs (a program put together after the stock market slide of 1987), which is a point at which the stock market will cease trading for a period of time in response to substantial drops in value.

Bloggin' From The Road

I got out before the weather hit, and have a spare moment.  Professor Blanchard below discusses puritanism and tobacco.  As I believe I have noted on this blog before, in Tocqueville's discussion of the many onerous laws of Colonial era Puritans, he concludes that they were so crazy that they even tried to outlaw tobacco. 

As Ken points out, by any measure alcohol is far more of a public nuisance than tobacco.  But everybody drinks while few smoke.  This makes it politically easy to go after the smokers rather than the drinkers. 

Presidential Primaries

On the issue of whether South Dakota should have moved up its presidential primary, see this report by The Hill, especially this line:  "Allies of candidates who expect to do well in these states are taking lead roles in moving primaries there to early February. By holding primaries soon after the Iowa caucuses, the first contest of the year, such states will have a bigger impact than before on who becomes the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees."  I'll admit I'm still of two minds on the issue, but holding an early primary would certainly give South Dakota a larger voice, which would be good for our state.

Dems Feeling Strain of Missing Vote

From the Associated Press:

When Senate Democrats move next month to narrow President Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq, at least one of their own won't be there to help. The same goes for trying to pass a spending bill for the war or a budget for the government.

Such is life for a razor-thin majority two months after Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., suffered a brain hemorrhage that has left him physically weakened, relearning how to speak and unable to report to work - even when big votes hang in the balance.

Democrats haven't needed Johnson's vote yet, but they're rapidly approaching the point where not having it in their pocket could spell defeat in the notoriously freewheeling Senate.

"I worry about his vote on the budget. I worry about his vote on the supplemental (war spending bill). I worry about all those things," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. Conrad said he has been tracking Johnson's recovery through the South Dakotan's staff, but he has refrained from visiting at the suggestion of the senator's family.

Read the whole thing.

The Gore Effect

This, from all the news that's fit to invent:

Climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change are now 90% certain that a public screening of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, actually reduces temperatures at the screening site to record lows.  The actual mechanisms are mysterious, but the Washington Post has declared Gore to be the "The Coolest Ex-Vice President." 

The IPCC is now trying to determine whether Gore's recent Oscar might be responsible for this spring's severe winter storms. 

It is too soon to be certain, but don't listen to the Gore Effect deniers.  A wave of snow storms is steadily, if temporarily, erasing South Dakota from the map just after Gore walked off the stage with his shiny gold man.  Coincidence?  I don't think so. 

SDP Jazz Note: The Traneumentary

Anyone who has followed the SDP Jazz Note feature of this blog, maintained by Jason Heppler and myself, knows that we are fully hooded members of the Coltrane cult.  I will confess that I have my doubts about the extraordinary emphasis on John Coltrane as the central figure of modern jazz.  I think that Wayne Shorter was just as brilliant and influential, but that maybe just because I really like Shorter's work. 

But the Coltrane cult is probably good for jazz.  A new testament from the faithful is The Traneumentary: Celebrating the Artistry and Recordings of John Coltrane.  If the title is a little goofy, the idea is pure gold.  Here is how it started:

In the summer of 2006, I was contacted by Concord Records to create a podcast episode on a John Coltrane box set entitled “Fearless Leader.” After reviewing the material, it dawned on me that it would be nearly impossible, and somewhat a disservice, to create a single podcast episode on such an intense and profound artist. Having spent countless hours listening to Coltrane myself, I knew first hand his essence transcended the very music he left us and penetrated deeper areas within those who embraced it.

I had a bigger and better idea to introduce Coltrane to the podsphere and I quickly proceeded to contact my record label colleagues at Atlantic, Blue Note and Impulse. I told them about Concord’s request and presented a way we could all work together. I wanted to celebrate and introduce the great music of John Coltrane through his most famous recordings but also through personal stories and accounts from a variety of musicians, producers, writers and educators. Within thirty minutes, the Traneumentary was born.

The words are those of Joseph Vella, who has produced the podcast.  It consists of a number of interviews with jazzmen who knew and were influenced by Coltrane.  It makes for great listening.  You get jazzmen like Terrence Blanchard (no relation) talking about Trane, with a lot of Trane's music in the background.  There are also lots of links to purchase bits of Trane's output. 

From the link above you can download the episodes or, better yet, subscribe to the podcast if you use iTunes or some similar client.  I note that I was tipped off to this podcast project by Jeff Siegel's marvelous podcast Straight No Chaser.  There are great riches of modern jazz at that site.

The Dime's Worth of Difference on DM&E

I second Todd Epp's comment on Professor Newquist's post on the DM&E railroad loan.  That post is interesting and informative.  But I can't help comparing this issue to the Ellsworth Air force Base crisis.  That was not a "Republican" Air force base, it was a South Dakota Air force base.  Our Congressional delegation, all three of them, pulled together to save Ellsworth, though of course only Thune would have got the blame if we had lost it. 

Just as one could make an argument that the national interest was not served by maintaining the Ellsworth Air force site, so one can argue that the national interest outweighs benefits to South Dakota from a new coal line from "the Powder River Basin of Wyoming to . . . to electrical generating plants in the east."  Professor Newquist makes such an argument.  But why the difference?  Is it because former South Dakotan Tom Daschle was on the anti-DM&E side?  Apparently, a railroad expansion that benefits South Dakota is a "Republican railroad" and not a South Dakota railroad, if Tom is against it. 

Neo-Puritanism and Tobacco

I second everything my colleague, Professor Schaff, says in his strong post on tobacco and abortion.  Regarding the demise of the "no smoking in bars" bill, I would note a stronger contradiction than the one that Professor Schaff mentions. 

Secondhand smoke is by far the lesser of the two public safety problems created by your local watering hole.  Allowing public establishments to serve alcohol to people who have cars parked outside is going to kill people on a regular basis.  There are more than 16,000 fatalities due to drunk driving every year, and I am guessing that almost all of the drunks who got behind the wheel and killed themselves and other folks got snonkered at a bar or a restaurant that serves alcohol.  So why not just prohibit serving alcohol altogether?  If there was a bill before the state legislature to that effect, I missed it. 

The United States has a strong element of puritanism left over in its political culture, an element altogether detached from its religious roots.  Anyone who has visited Europe (or at least, England), knows how much looser our cousins over there are about cigarettes and whiskey.  When I visited London in 1988 everyone smoked.  Even the babies.  America, by contrast, is almost a tobacco free zone.  But why are we willing to place restrictions on public smoking that we won't place on public drinking, which is obviously the more serious danger?  The answer is that our policies have little to do with a rational estimation of public safety, and everything to do with political culture.

The answer is that, at some point, cigarette smoking became one of those things that distinguishes upper class culture from not so upper class culture.  When my daughter was born in California I noticed that virtually none of the hospital doctors, x-ray technicians, etc., smoked.  Virtually all of the nurses did.  Very few of my colleagues at Northern smoke cigarettes, but almost all of the construction workers who built our new Tech Center lit up whenever they got the chance.  In America, cigarette smoking is the most visible distinction between the elect and the lesser folks. This is neo-puritanism.

This is mostly a good thing.  It reduces smoking in general, but it works largely by moral persuasion.  Maybe we should leave it at that.  Liberty means letting other people do things that you and I don't approve of.  By all means educate the public about the dangers of smoking.  But let free adults make what they will of their education.   

Sabbatical

Like Prof. Schaff, expect blogging from me also to be light or nonexistent for the next few days.  I will be out of the state starting tomorrow (weather permitting) until Saturday and cannot guarantee I will have access to a computer from which to blog from. 

Epp Is Completely Wrong...

OK, only partly wrong.  Sorry Todd (and Chad) money doesn't win elections.  It's actually the votes.  Example: Republicans on the national level have long held a monetary advantage over the national Democrats.  But Democrats, obviously, are able to win elections from time to time.  Money, of course, is not disconnected with electoral success.  But money tends to chase votes, not the other way around. 

I will let these gentlemen get the last word.  I am out of town for over a week starting tomorrow.  See y'all later. 

Foolish Hobgoblins

Our friend Mr. Schuldt over at CCK is disappointed that the expanded ban on smoking in bars has failed.  The human mind is an interesting thing.  Chad is convinced that adult women are completely competent to decide whether or not to abort their unborn children and should not be told how to use their bodies, but apparently these same women are not competent to decide whether or not to go into a smoky bar, and indeed this is such a matter of public concern that we must have legislation on it.  I do not mean to chide our friend.  Which of us does not hold some views which are inconsistent with each other.

This is illustrative, though.  Chad and Mr. Epp get very agitated regarding "abortion rights" and insist that women (and men, I suppose) have the right to "control their own bodies."  Here are a list of laws that one has to get rid of if we are to take that notion to its logical conclusion: laws against prostitution, public nudity, public sex acts, public urination and defecation, all laws against drug use, any laws that seeks to restrict food and drugs because of safety issues (good-bye FDA), laws mandating seat belts and motor cycle helmets (where such laws exist).  This list is not exhaustive.  It is only what I came up with off the top of my head.  Now, these fine gentlemen may protest that, for example, they are for laws against public urination and public defecation because such laws protect public health.  Indeed.  But then that admits that sometimes public interest trumps my right to control my own body.  All of us except the anarchists believe that there are times when the public interest should contravene our "right to control our own bodies."  So when it comes to abortion, Chad and Todd don't really think that people have the right to control their own bodies in every case, just that the public interest in abortion is not enough to counteract that right in that case.  But Chad clearly thinks that the right of people to control their own bodies is trumped by the public interest against second hand smoke and that, in effect, adult Americans must be protected from themselves.  I, for one, think that the public interest in the moral status of the unborn is enough that the public should decide what protections the unborn get, not individuals, thus the public interest outweighs the interest in women controlling their bodies.  But I don't think the public interest in smoking is enough that we need to tell bar owners, who run establishments only frequented by adults, whether they can allow smoking or not.  I err on the side of private people deciding whether to go into a smoky bar or a smoke free bar.  Perhaps that makes me as inconsistent as Chad.  Or maybe it just illustrates that politics is about what we value, and we all evaluate things differently.      

Lalley and the "evil Republicans"

Does Argus Leader editor Patrick Lalley still think Republicans are "evil," as he once wrote?  On the Argus blog he is sounding very defensive about his past writings.  Decide for yourself by reading his old Tempest articles, where he praises Tom Daschle, makes fun of the Argus Leader, and criticizes Bill Clinton for not supporting the "American Left," to name a few things.  Lalley also said when he left the Tempest to work for the mainstream media that he had "come to the conclusion that I have an obligation to work from the inside."  Lalley also ignores all the direct evidence of bias against Dave Kranz, which Kranz has never addressed.

If there's such an issue with noting his previous political writings, why didn't he ask for a correction from Jason Van Beek and Jon Lauck in 2004?  He had plenty of opportunities in 2004 to correct the record, either by writing on the old Argus blog or writing to one of the bloggers.  Plus, every article that Van Beek, Lauck, and myself had quoted from are fully available online, as I indicate from the link above.  No readers have ever contacted us and said that our characterization was "taken out of context," as Lalley charges.  But thanks to the existence of the Argus blog, readers have seen both sides of the story and are free to decide on their own.

Body Parts

An intrepid reader alerts us to a piece in the Watertown Public Opinion on SB 197, which concerns organ donation.  There is no link to the actual opinion piece, but here is an excerpt:

The state Senate wants organ, tissue and eye banks and other organizations to be able to harvest body parts much easier and faster from dead or dying persons in South Dakota.  Senators voted 35-0 Tuesday for legislation that gives harvesters----formally known as procurement organizations----first priority in the process of deciding whether a person's body parts should be donated.

 

Harvesters would move ahead of the spouse, children, siblings or other family members.

 

The measure, SB 197, now heads to the House of Representatives for consideration.

 

The legislation would reverse a key principle of existing law.

 

Currently the spouse is first on the list of who decides whether donations should occur; followed by other family members.

 

The legislation would move from last to first on that list the harvesting organizations and others who have legal responsibility to dispose of a body.

 

The proposed law would allow a procurement organization to override a family member's wishes.

Sounds pretty gruesome to me.  This bill leads us one step closer to seeing the human body as nothing but material to be harvested, like we harvest corn or slaughter cows.  Incidentally, the related issue of buying and selling human organs is something of a hot topic in bio-ethics.  And argument against an organ market is here, while the argument for is here.  Currently it is illegal to sell body parts. 

 

Smoking Ban May Be Terminal

Efforts to expand the ban on smoking in public places have failed.  I suspect that next year this bill will resurrect, like a zombie in a B horror movie.  The caption to the photo currently on the Rapid City Journal homepage (may be gone by the time you get there) is of two people at a bar in Rapid.  One of the people pictured, one James Fahey, is quoted as saying, "If there is no public smoking permitted, then why should we even bother selling them."  That, Mr. Fahey, is precisely the point of the tobacco Puritans. 

Spreading the Wealth

From the Blogfather, Glenn Reynolds:

THIS SOUNDS POSITIVE:

The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law today that would set guidelines for countrywide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry. The endorsement marked a major agreement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian political blocs on one of Iraq’s most divisive issues.

The draft law approved by the cabinet allows the central government to distribute oil revenues to the provinces or regions by population, which could lessen the economic concerns of the rebellious Sunni Arabs, who fear being cut out of Iraq’s vast potential oil wealth by the dominant Shiites and Kurds.

The law also grants regional oil companies the power to sign contracts with foreign companies for exploration and development of fields, opening the door for investment by foreign oil companies in a country whose oil reserves rank among the world’s top three in size.

It's not the oil trust idea, but it will give a lot of people a stake in a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

DM&E Loan Denied

The DM&E rail project, the largest economic project to come to South Dakota in over a century, has been denied its request for a loan.  Here is an early report from the Argus Leader:

Saying it posed too high a risk to taxpayers, a government agency has denied a $2.3 billion federal loan for the Sioux Falls-based Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad.

In a decision released today, Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Boardman said there is too high a risk concerning the railroad’s ability to repay the loan.

DM&E president Kevin Schieffer said the company is reviewing the decision and that it is too soon to say whether the decision permanently dooms the project.

“It’s obviously a disappointment, but not the first we’ve had in the last nine years and I’m sure it’s not the last,” Schieffer said.

The DM&E is seeking to rebuild its rail line and extend it 280 miles to Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The plan is expected to cost $6 billion.

Asked whether the decision dooms the project, Schieffer said, “I think it’s premature for anybody to rush to judgment on it one way or the other.”

He said it’s too early to speculate and that “there’s nobody pulling up stakes this afternoon.”

The DM&E has been awaiting word from the Federal Railroad Administration as to whether it would approve the $2.3 billion loan.

In a statement accompanying the agency's decision, Boardman said he was concerned by several factors, including:

§ The DM&E’s current highly leveraged financial position;

§ The size of the loan relative to the limited scale of existing DM&E operations;

§ The possibility that the railroad may not be able to ship the projected amounts of coal needed to generate enough revenue to pay back the loan.

Boardman also cited concerns that the DM&E's application did not sufficiently address how the railroad would handle potential cost overruns and schedule delays with the Powder River Basin construction project.

Officials in Rochester, Minn. had strongly opposed the expansion, which would have gone through the southwestern Minnesota city. The plan, they said, would threaten patients and employees at Rochester's renown Mayo Clinic.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, called the decision “really good news.”

“We wanted to find a compromise between some real concerns of the Mayo Clinic and the Rochester community, and the DM&E, and that wasn’t achieved, so I’m glad the loan was denied,” Pawlenty said in an Associated Press report.

UPDATE:  Rep. Herseth and Sen. Thune express their disappointment in the decision, with Thune remarking that Tom Daschle and Bill Janklow's "efforts were not helpful."  Remember that they once supported the DM&E project before they opposed it:

Thune said the South Dakota congressional delegation saw the project "as an opportunity that only comes around once in a lifetime" for small agricultural communities that could benefit.

"This is a major setback for our agriculture, ethanol, and energy industries and small towns struggling to survive," he said.

Thune criticized intense lobbying efforts from the Mayo Clinic.

"Simply put, there was a huge amount of money spent to sabotage this project by powerful special interests and their hired guns," he said. "This is a case of special interests beating the little guy."

The Mayo clinic spent more than $200,000 lobbying Congress and the federal government on the issue, according to federal lobbying records.

"Our interest has always been in protecting the safety of our patients, the safety of our staff, and the safety of the community," Dr. Glenn Forbes, CEO of the Rochester clinic, said in a statement.

The hospital had some unlikely South Dakota allies _ former South Dakota Gov. and former U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow, a Republican, who advised project opponents, and former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who sits on the Mayo Clinic's board. Daschle, who was defeated by Thune in 2004, has said he supported the clinic's position.  

"Clearly their efforts were not helpful," Thune said.

South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth, a Democrat, also expressed disappointment in the decision and said it could affect electricity rates if railroad capacity does not open up.

UPDATE:  SDWC comments:  "This is bad news for South Dakota. That's $2.3 billion worth of infrastructure enhancement and economic development that we are not going to see."

Peltier and Daschle

Denise Ross points out that there's a connection between Tom Daschle and Leonard Peltier as well, thus presenting David Geffen with an interesting "conundrum":

A decades old South Dakota criminal case is at the root of the much ado surrounding the first round of sniping between 2008 presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

...

But here might be Geffen’s conundrum. Tom Daschle, once-adviser to President Clinton and now-supporter of Obama, may have had the last word on the pardon, reported Indian Country Today.

Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD) said Clinton asked his view on clemency for Peltier and he advised against it, according to a Jan. 15 (2001) Associated Press report: “I’m opposed to a pardon of Leonard Peltier and have always been opposed. That is what I shared with him. I believe the law enforcement agencies … and the accounts they provided about what happened and how it happened. I believe that is a matter well documented.”

In the event of an Obama presidency, no matter what position Daschle might hold (vice president, perhaps?), with most of Daschle’s one-time senior staff now surrounding Obama, could Geffen reasonably expect a different decision?

Daschle Endorses Obama

From the Wall Street Journal blog:

Five current or former Democratic senators are running for president, but former Senate leader Tom Daschle has endorsed the only one he never served with — Illinois freshman Barack Obama.

“There is something unique about Barack,” he said in an interview. “I’m still hoping that in my lifetime I’ll experience again the inspiration I got in the ’60s…from the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, when I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. And I think Barack may have that quality.”

He wanted to endorse early, when he could be of more help, Daschle said. Since some argue the freshman senator doesn’t have the experience to be president, he said, “If somebody with experience is comfortable supporting him, maybe it will help blunt that argument.”

Daschle was upset in his bid for reelection in South Dakota by Republican John Thune in November 2004, at the same time Obama was elected to an open seat in Illinois. But he had met the then-Illinois state senator when Obama first was considering running for the U.S. Senate, then got to known him during the campaign year “and we really hit it off.” Daschle, a former Senate majority and minority leader, briefly had considered running for president himself in 2008.

As his party’s Senate leader for a decade, Daschle worked closely with the other four senators — New York’s Hillary Clinton, Connecticut’s Chris Dodd, Delaware’s Joe Biden and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. He and Dodd ran against each other for Democratic Senate leader in late 1994, and Daschle won by a single vote. Though Clinton didn’t join the Senate until 2001, Daschle worked with her at times through the Clinton administration, in particular on the failed 1994 effort for universal health care, when he was assistant majority leader.

He says he called each of the senators and had talked to most of them about his decision. “I am very, very fond of my former colleagues and, without exception, I think they’d all make a terrific president.”

In one sense, the Daschle endorsement isn’t a surprise: If he doesn’t know Obama well, a number of his former top staffers do — about 20 of them now work for the Illinoisan, either in his Senate office or campaign. Former Daschle Chief of Staff Pete Rouse now has the same job for Obama, and Obama’s political advisers include Daschle veterans Steve Hildebrand, Dan Pfeiffer, Devorah Adler and Julianna Smoot, his finance director. –Jackie Calmes

Kranz and "Obstructionism"

Democratic shill Argus Leader political reporter Dave Kranz writes today in the Argus Leader that Senator John Thune has become an "obstructionist," thus hitting a hypocritical note after Daschle was marked as an obstructionist.  Where to begin?  The point here is to shed light on what sort of institution the Argus Leader is, offered because people have a right to know.  Unfortunately, the Argus Leader elite takes issue with the public's right to know.

For one, the vote was not to end debate but to continue it.  The reason for the vote against cloture is because the Democrats would not allow the Republicans to offer an amendment.  Harry Reid refused to let the Republicans engage in open debate, but Kranz conveniently ignored that.  See Power Line and Captain's Quarters for more.  Therefore, Thune's actions do not represent "obstructionism."  The same couldn't be said for Daschle in 2004.  Long-time readers will recall the Wall Street Journal article entitled "Daschle's Dead Zone," remarking that "the filibuster has become a tool to block an entire legislative program that had won a mandate from the voters. All of this has been part of a deliberate political strategy by Minority Leader Tom Daschle" who made the Senate into a "reform graveyard."  Let's remember that the Argus Leader did nothing to chronicle the long list of bills supported by many South Dakotas that Tom Daschle blocked in Congress.  But when the Democrats block the Republicans from offering an amendment on the Senate floor, Kranz rushes to his computer to label Senator Thune an obstructionist.

Kranz tries to be "objective" by quoting Michael Barone, who concludes that Thune doesn't deserve the criticism.  But Kranz ends up concluding that Thune's actions are "[at odds with] the country's pride in free speech."  Not hardly.  It's clear that Kranz is simply taking talking points from those who have been raising the "obstructionism" point for weeks.  His national reputation as a Democratic hatchet man is well deserved. 

Can we trust the reporting of someone who, as this blog has long pointed out, cannot remain objective when covering Republican politicians?  Or, for that matter, a newspaper who has an editor, one Patrick Lalley, that thinks Republicans are "evil," despises Reaganism, and who once ran an alternative leftist newspaper in Sioux Falls?  Given Lalley's track record, along with Kranz's, given how very few sources of political information there is in this state besides the monopoly control the Argus has, given that editors on the Argus board are predisposed to see Republicans as "evil," given the boosterism often afforded to Daschle and other Democrats, and given the long past of complains about liberal bias at the Argus, can we trust this information?  Now I don't know Kranz or Lalley personally and I'm sure they're both fine guys.  I admire their passion for what they believe in and their interest in politics.  But the ultimate question is whether or not you can trust political reporting from the Argus when it involves Republicans.  Obviously, I think Thune is a great guy and I'll help him in any way I can.  Since I have a preference, I shouldn't be expected to make similar editorial calls on what constitutes political news.  Given what we know about the institutional bias within the Argus, I believe a reasonable case can be made that some folks in their newsroom shouldn't be making such calls either.  The blogs never claim to be objective, as the Argus does.  I make no attempt to hide my pro-Thune point-of-view, so the public is not deceived as it is routinely by journalistic agendas.  The Argus Leader, the paragon of of truth and crusader of openness and transparency can't see past its own biases to report the facts honestly.

UPDATE:  Patrick Lalley responds to my post, so head over and read it.  Lalley does make the point that it's unfair and wrong to call Kranz a Democratic shill when compared to the article he wrote last week about Stephanie Herseth's shifting war position.  He doesn't, however, address that Kranz never took issue with Herseth changing her stance, but took a major issue with Thune's vote to "end debate," which is a myth the media continues to perpetuate.   And no, I don't demand that Kranz write columns that only show Senator Thune in a positive light, I only wish they would get the facts straight.  There's a huge difference between "ending debate" and voting against cloture and then insinuating that he's an obstructionist.

As for Lalley's charge that I'm misrepresenting him when I quote him as saying Republicans are "evil," check out Jason Van Beeks' post and Lalley's post and read the old writings and make your own decision. 

HPV Vaccination, Second Thoughts

The legislature seems primed to pass legislation, HB 1061, providing state money to help vaccinate girls against the HPV virus.  The overwhelming vote in the House suggests broad based support for this measure.  While I remain in support of this bill, in the newest National Review (subscribers only) Kate O'Beirne writes of Texas Governor Rick Perry's executive order to mandate HPV vaccinations.  South Dakota is not debating a mandate, but O'Beirne provides information to make one pause and think. 

First, "the vaccine doesn’t guard against eleven other high-risk strains of HPV that cause cancer."  The vaccine shouldn't be viewed as a "cure" for cervical cancer.  Related to this, experts are warning against being too quick to mandate this vaccine:

The American College of Pediatricians opposes requiring the vaccination for school attendance, saying that such a mandate would represent a “serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children as well as on the rights of the children to attend school.” The chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, Dr. Joseph A. Bocchini, believes a vaccine mandate is premature. “I think it’s too early,” he said. “This is a new vaccine. It would be wise to wait until we have additional information about the safety of the vaccine.” The Texas Medical Association also opposes the mandate, expressing concerns over liability and costs.

Finally, the sudden interest in the HPV vaccination did not arise spontaneously.  It apparently is almost wholly the product of an campaign of the drug's manufacturer, Merck, which stands to make an enormous profit from this vaccine:

The Washington Post recently reported that Virginia and 17 other states are considering the vaccine requirement “at the urging of New Jersey–based pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. . . . [which] stands to earn hundreds of millions of dollars annually on Gardasil, according to Wall Street estimates.” Public-health organizations have joined Merck in urging that the vaccine be made available in public clinics and encouraging its coverage by private insurers, but they don’t support Merck’s push for a school requirement.

There were 210 cases of cervical cancer in Maryland last year. Democratic state senator Delores Kelley introduced a bill to require the HPV vaccine for sixth-grade girls. Following complaints from parents and recent non-compliance problems with current mandated vaccinations, Kelley has withdrawn her bill (though she has spoken openly of reintroducing it next session). She explains that she was unaware of Merck & Co.’s lobbying efforts, and that she learned about the new HPV vaccine through a nonpartisan group of female legislators called Women in Government. More than half of its listed supporters are pharmaceutical manufacturers or other health-related companies.

O'Beirn characterizes the move to vaccinate against HPV as a case of public interest meeting the profit motive of a large corporation.  As she puts it, "There is little controversy over the recommendation that the vaccine be broadly used."  HB 1061 is a good bill and not a mandate, but legislators should get all the information before they vote. 

In other magazine news, the New Republic is cutting back to a bi-weekly publication rate. It is not clear how that will effect those of us who subscribed to a weekly, not bi-weekly, publication.  Are we getting some of our money back? 

Herseth as Mainstream Democrat

See this op-ed in the Rapid City Journal regarding Stephanie Herseth.  Especially given her shifting position on Iraq, it's hard to consider her an "independent voice."  Here's the whole thing:

Herseth is a mainstream Democrat
By Alan Aker

Please, no more talk about how independent Stephanie Herseth is. You Democrat operatives can keep up the spiel about how hard she works, what a good listener she is, how good she is at bringing home pork, and how much common sense she has, but please, quit pounding on the “she’s an independent voice for South Dakota” theme.

Last week’s vote on the Iraq resolution revealed Herseth for what she is: a garden-variety, toe-the-line, mainstream Democrat.

A certain segment of voters love the idea of the independent politician.

It warms their hearts to imagine Herseth storming into Nancy Pelosi’s office, slamming a fist on her desk, and shouting, “I can’t vote for the gun control (or immigration, or tax, or energy) bill you’re pushing! The everyday, hard-working people back in South Dakota come first with me, and this bill isn’t what they’d want. The folks back home are more important to me than what our party’s Hollywood and trial lawyer contributors want.”

Usually, the dream sequence ends there, but I’m curious about what you dreamers imagine happens next. Does Nancy Pelosi gaze solemnly into Stephanie’s eyes, extend a hand of friendship, and with a tear in her eye, say, “You’re right Representative Herseth. I was wrong to ask you to vote in a manner that’s more to the liking of our Hollywood contributors than the good and noble folks back South Dakota. Forget that I even asked. Now, let’s get to work on that ethanol amendment you were interested in…“

I have no idea what Herseth really thinks about Iraq. Her published comments are a masterpiece of obfuscation: they’re sprinkled with words and phrases like “nonbinding”, “complex”, “oversight”, “tough questions,“ “the right answer is somewhere in between,“ and “concern.“ I challenge anyone to study Herseth’s public comments on the matter, and tell me what it is she wants to do about Iraq, other than hold a lot of hearings and ask those tough questions.

In the entire three years before last week’s vote, Herseth stayed away from the Iraq issue. Unlike most Democrats, she steered clear of strong criticism of how President Bush was conducting the war. She understood that most of her voters supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, wanted badly for us to win in Iraq, and had confidence that our military could eventually find a way to do so. Sure, some of her voters believe Bush is a war criminal and go spastic whenever they hear the word “Halliburton.“ But that’s a pretty small group in South Dakota, and, after all, who would they vote for besides Herseth?

So for three long years, as the media and the urban Democrats worked themselves into an ever-frothier lather that Bush bypassed the clueless Hans Blix and the United Nation’s corrupt Oil for Food farce, Herseth stayed quiet. So what made her change course and vote for a resolution that gives aid and comfort to the lying, lazy cowards who are, right this moment, devising ways to kill South Dakota soldiers serving their country in Iraq?

Did Bush stubbornly reject opposition recommendations to replace Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, increase the number of troops, and implement more aggressive rules of engagement? Did conditions on the ground worsen? Quite the opposite. Bush changed course on Iraq, and early indications are that it might be working.

What changed Herseth’s position is that Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House. I’m not claiming she was explicitly threatened or bribed.

Washington politics aren’t that straightforward. And although Herseth won’t tell us what she wants to do about Iraq, we now know that she’s no independent.

The Return of Daschle?

Brian Edwards has some thoughts on Tom Daschle running for Tim Johnson's Senate seat in a post entitled "The Return of Tom Daschle?":

With Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota undergoing intensive rehab at George Washington University Medical Center, the question of whether he will be able to run for reelection for his Senate seat in 2008 has yet to be asked, primarily out of respect. However, while I was thinking about this very question the other day it occurred to me that the former Senate Majority and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who was ousted from his Senate seat in 2006 [sic] by John Thune, could make an easy trip back to Washington if he were to run for Senator Johnson's seat. I have not run across anything so far in the media indicating that Daschle has even considered retaking his seat, but I assume it has at least occurred to him.

If he were to run again, Daschle could throw a wrench in the gears currently running the Democratic Majority, which has scored its first electoral victory in over a decade. I am not sure how the Democratic caucus accounts for temporary absence when determining seniority, but it could make for interesting C-SPAN drama if a Daschle return sparked a battle among Dems for party leadership.

Snow in Aberdeen II

Just in case some of our readers in warmer climes have forgotten what it looks like.

Daschle for VP? Not Likely.

Jason mentions the AP story on Daschle as a possible Obama running mate.  The story is pretty hollow.  There is no indication that anyone in the Obama organization is seriously  thinking about Daschle.  Why would they?  According to the tradition joke, there are only three questions that you should ask when picking a running mate: 1, will he help you win? 2, will he help you win? and 3, will he help you win?

The first thing one looks at is the candidate's home state and whether he can bring it in.   Given South Dakota's record in Presidential elections, there is no guarantee that Daschle could deliver it to Obama, and if he did, that would be three out of the 270 electoral votes Obama needs to win.

Daschle is a politician of national stature, widely admired and respected; but that could be said about a lot of people.  At this point, the question looks silly. 

On the other hand, Daschle may be working toward some kind of post in an Obama administration. If so, this very early endorsement, before the candidates have really had their strength tested, may earn him some loyalty.  Daschle probably can bring a lot to the campaign when it comes to dealing with Senate Democrats and national interest groups.