Daschle as Cheney?

Argus Leader political columnist Dave Kranz is acting like Tom Daschle's press secretary again.  Note that in this column from today's paper, his main source is Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's former campaign manager and current employee of Barack Obama.  How objective!

Daschle might be Obama's Cheney

Eyebrows raise among political observers when they see Sen. Barack Obama's fund-raising success.

This ability of a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois to generate significant cash leaves prognosticators believing Obama can actually hang tough and play the game against Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

Maybe it is the infectious popularity coupled with the desire by Democrats to have a new face that fuels his success.

But credit former Sen. Tom Daschle for much of that. Everyone knows that a number of former Daschle staffers are aboard Obama's wagon, but it goes deeper than that.

"He has the benefit of Daschle's contributors' list with 85,000 names," says Steve Hildebrand, a former Daschle campaign manager and now a senior advisor to Obama.

"Having access to that list is very helpful, a big plus for Obama, but you have to keep in mind that Hillary Clinton has a list of 250,000 donors from her Senate race," Hildebrand said.

So far the Obama campaign is pleased with the cash totals.

But Daschle's commitment to Obama goes beyond a list with names. He has begun traveling to key states on his candidate's behalf.

"Tom has made a trip to New Hampshire. He will go to Iowa for Obama, and he has three or four fundraisers for him scheduled around the country," Hildebrand said.

Daschle is doing very well for himself in private life, but once bitten by the political bug, it is a difficult transition back to life away from politics.

So one has to wonder if the journey to the nomination might also mean an Obama-Daschle ticket.

Daschle continues to dismiss any future personal political plans, but his heavy lifting for Obama is not going unnoticed.

For example, a recent column by Howard Fineman for MSNBC: "If Obama wins the nomination, Daschle will be a top contender for running mate. Far-fetched? Maybe. South Dakota is a red state, and one with the fewest possible electoral votes: three. But in 2000, political novice George W. Bush chose a congressional veteran from a sparsely populated state as his reassuringly experienced running mate. Is Tom Daschle the Democratic answer to Dick Cheney? Then Daschle would be back, big time."

Democrats might not welcome comparisons to Cheney, but a discussion of this scenario might come to pass for Daschle.

Kranz Gets Facts Wrong

Dave Kranz has a column in today's Argus Leader entitled "Parties' choice of leaders will decide direction" and examines the issues of leadership in the South Dakota political parties.  However, Kranz got a number of facts wrong, as Sibby notes.

Kranz

Dave Kranz did some reaching in both of his weekday columns this week.  He started out the week by attempting to fuel speculation that Thune Chief of Staff Matt Zabel is challenging Rep. Herseth in 2006. 

Political observers writing on the Internet who pay attention to this House race say that Matt Zabel, chief of staff for Sen. John Thune, reserved a mattzabel.com Web site registered via Domains by Proxy.

Thune has said he encouraged Zabel to consider a candidacy, but Zabel said he is happy in his current job.

I wonder if Kranz took the time to ask Matt Zabel whether he reserved the domain name, or any other Republican for that matter?  My suspicion is rather than take the time to investigate the story he took the word of a left wing anti-Thune blog.  Where is the evidence it was Zabel who registered it?  There is none, only speculation by political observers writing on the internet.  (code for liberal bloggers who are former Daschle staffers that are so bitter they promote F--- John Thune T-shirts.)

Then today Kranz did an excellent job taking quotes out of context in an effort to make Sen. Thune look like he's not serious.  This is what Kranz wrote this morning under the heading "Whats Cool?". 

When Sen. John Thune appeared on the TV show “FOX & Friends” Wednesday, he was asked what, in his first 100 days, was the coolest part of being a U.S. senator.

“I think being able to park wherever you want, maybe,” he said.

This is the full exchange via Fox:

DOOCY:  And finally, Senator, I know you've only had the job for
100 days, but what is the coolest part of being a U.S. senator?

THUNE:  I think being able to park wherever you want maybe.

DOOCY:  Sweet.

(LAUGHTER)

THUNE:  Actually, it's great to be here.  It's exciting to be
here, but it's very challenging.  We've got some heavy lifting ahead.
But we're ready to get after it.

DOOCY:  All right.  Well, then get to it.

John Thune, U.S. senator from South Dakota, thank you, sir.

THUNE:  Thank you all very much.

DOOCY:  Stay away from the hydrants.

(LAUGHTER)

THUNE:  I'll do what I can.

HILL:  Do they still tow there?

DOOCY:  They do me.

END

Kranz took a joke by Senator Thune and wrote it up to appear that Senator Thune really thinks the coolest part of being a Senator is the parking.  Speaking of jokes that is exactly what both of Kranz columns this week were.  Maybe he should write about something serious such as Senator Johnson's comments in support of filibustering judges. 

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, has this to say about Daschle's defeat today:

Daschle became the subject of unprecedented attacks. Out-of-state interests promised to destroy him. They got personal with him. Web sites characterized him as the devil.

As DVT states, I too would like to know the link to those sites.

Why Kranz can't be allowed to moderate debate

"Managing Editor is Dave Kranz, 30, formally of Austin Minn, and Watertown S.D. Went to SDSU (Mu U. with Tom D[aschle] and Tom Klinkel) Very much a strong Demo." - Excerpt from memo dated 10/15/1976, written by a staffer for a Democratic U.S. Senator from South Dakota.

David Kranz is scheduled to be one of two moderaters for the Senate debate to be held this coming Sunday evening.

FLASHBACK

In 1990, David Kranz was the managing editor of the Argus Leader. Today, of course, he is known as the dean of South Dakota political reporters. The 1990 Senate race was similar to this year's Senate race in terms of competitiveness. The Argus Leader and Dave Kranz sensed an opportunity to defeat an incumbent Republican (Larry Pressler) and let loose a fusillade of negative stories about Pressler. It was so ridiculous that, after the election, even the New York Times characterized the AL as "vituperative." Here's the relevant graf from the November 7, 1990 edition of the NYT:

In the Senate race the incumbent, Larry Pressler, narrowly defeated two opponents: a well-financed Democrat and a vituperative newspaper....

Mr. Muenster, who served as chief of staff under Richard F. Kneip when he was Governor, seemed to take his campaign script from The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the state's largest newspaper. At times the Senator reacted more stridently to the newspaper's criticisms than to his opponent's.

In the midst of the 1990 Senate campaign, Roll Call published an article headlined "Pressler is Running for Re-Election Against Newspaper" dated July 30, 1990. Excerpt:

The Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader's almost hysterical bashing of Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) took on a more weighty tone a week ago with the newspaper's publication of page-one stories by Gannett reporter Norm Brewer suggesting potentially serious impropriety in some of the Senator's real estate activities here in Washington....

While the extremely lengthy, multiple-article series purported to be a major profile of the Senator, covering everything from his legislative activities to his character, it never mentioned an event that would seem to be central to any analysis of the Senator. In 1979, Pressler angrily refused an illegal campaign contribution from some Arab sheiks who later turned out to be FBI agents. None of the other Members of Congress involved in what came to be known as the Abscam sting reacted so unequivocally to proffered favors....

Schieffer believes the guiding hand behind the AL's treatment of Pressler is Kranz, the managing editor, and this claim was backed up by two South Dakota reporters very familiar with the paper's operation.

Given this kind of background of Kranz, coupled with the fact of the Bombshell Memos (listed on the right side of this blog) which indicate Kranz has collaborated with Democratic campaigns in the past in his capacity as a "journalist," the ability for Kranz to be a fair an impartial moderator of the KELO-TV debate between Thune and Daschle can legitimately be questioned. The debate should be Thune vs. Daschle, not Thune vs. Daschle and Kranz.

Quote of the Day

"When I began reporting 25 years ago, I knew the ground rules of the profession that dictated distancing from sources to assure objectivity." David Kranz, Argus Leader, April 25, 1993.

KELO-TV ad: Debate to be "moderated" by Kranz and Hemmingsen

"...Dave Kranz is not, and never has been, the moderator in the upcoming KELO-TV/Argus Leader US Senate debate (Monday, 10/11)." - KELO-TV News Director Mark Millage, in an e-mail to SDP yesterday.

"Daschle vs. Thune Monday, October 11, 2004 7 P.M. on KELO Moderated by David Kranz and Steve Hemmingsen" - Newspaper ad in today's edition of the Argus Leader (page 7A).

Again, the moderator/panelist distinction is not a big deal. I just couldn't resist illustrating the fact that KELO's protestations that Kranz is not a moderator is beside the point. David Kranz's capacity to be fair and impartial is what's at issue here. Kranz's impartiality can legitimately be questioned, and KELO should seriously consider whether they wish to have a debate they are hosting tainted with even the perception that it is being conducted unfairly. The debate should be Thune vs. Daschle, not Thune vs. Daschle and Kranz.

A distinction without a difference

The fact that David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, is not a "moderator" for the October 11th KELO-TV debate but instead is a "panelist" is a distinction without a difference. Kranz has no business being involved in a debate that includes Senator Daschle, given Kranz's long history of shilling for Daschle and other Democratic politicians. The bottom line is that the debate be conducted fairly and impartially, and not have the taint of being conducted unfairly. David Kranz will not ask fair questions. He'll lob softballs at Daschle and try to skewer Thune, just as he does in his columns. In light of Kranz's history with Daschle, I think reasonable people can agree that Kranz is unable to be fair and impartial in this debate. Even the Argus Leader does not have Kranz covering the Daschle v. Thune race. If the AL is mindful enough of the criticism of Kranz to pull him from covering the race, KELO would be well advised to pull him from the debate.

Because it seems people have forgotten documents exist that indicate Kranz collaborated with Democratic campaigns in the past in his capacity as a "journalist," it's time to release another document that is evidence of Kranz's inability to be impartial. This document is a letter from Senator George McGovern to David Kranz dated October 3, 1979, when Kranz was the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic. It can be found in the McGovern Papers at Princeton University. Here's a screen capture of the letter:

You can view a pdf copy of the letter HERE.

The fact that a sitting Democratic senator was moved to write to Kranz "...I trust you will do your best to keep the McGovern name in the headlines" speaks volumes about the efforts Kranz must go through to generate good press for his favorite politicians under the guise of being a "journalist." Does KELO-TV really wish to taint this debate in the biggest Senate race in the country with even the perception of being conducted unfairly?

Former Daschle publicity chairman to moderate debate

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, has been scheduled as the moderator for the KELO-Land TV debate on October 11th. Kranz, of course, has been a shill for Daschle since their college days together in 1968 at SDSU, when Daschle was president of the Political Science Club and Kranz was his publicity chairman. Kranz wrote one of his very first laudatory articles about Daschle in the SDSU Collegian under the headline "Daschle was workhorse for political convention." Below is a picture of the article:

In and of itself, this article is not a big deal. But when you examine the article with the gloss of history, it is compelling evidence that Kranz is too closely linked to Daschle to be a fair and impartial moderator for a debate in the biggest Senate race in the country. The gloss of history I'm referring to is, among other things, the four "Bombshell Memos" that indisputably document Kranz to have actively worked behind the scenes to promote Democratic political figures in this state in his capacity as a "journalist." You can view the "Bombshell Memos" HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Kranz's impartiality can be legitimately questioned. Is it really a good idea to have someone with such a long history of shilling for Democratic political figures while posing as a journalist moderating a debate between his old friend and John Thune?

Remember that the people who are presently running Daschle's campaign had local television anchor Mitch Krebs pulled from a debate in 2002 because he was MC at a GOP event. The same standard should be applied to Kranz.

Should Kranz be the moderator for this debate, it will be a nice reunion--from 1968-2004, shilling for Daschle.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, who has been Tom Daschle's most rabid partisan supporter in his columns since their college days together in 1968, delivers another such column today. Perhaps it's about time to release another "Bombshell Memo" that indisputably documents Kranz to have actively worked behind the scenes to promote Democratic political figures in this state. Today, Kranz offers a few items for us to digest that are patronizing toward John Thune. First there's this:

Thune was perceived as timid and uncomfortable in his race against Sen. Tim Johnson in 2002, often short of the emotion needed to make a convincing point.

In his race against Sen. Tom Daschle, he has adopted a bulldog style that commands attention - evident at their DakotaFest and "Meet the Press" debates.

Some say he probably went to school to sharpen his tone.

As DVT notes, the "some" Kranz refers to are Kranz's sources in the Daschle campaign.

The next item in Kranz's column is a snippet from the National Journal's Chuck Todd about Daschle "scoring more points" than Thune at last Sunday's Meet the Press debate:

Chuck Todd assessed the Daschle-Thune Senate race last week for the National Journal.

He writes: "We never really understood why Daschle agreed to the 'Meet the Press' debate since it seems he had everything to lose and nothing to gain. Then again we saw what times the show airs in South Dakota - 8 a.m. in the two big markets - and realized very few folks would see it.

"That said, from our perspective, we thought Daschle scored more points than Thune. As noted above, Thune got off a good line about Daschle and his use of Bush. But on some other topics, particularly on the issue of the gas tax, we thought Daschle came out in better shape and fairly unscathed."

Interestingly, earlier this week the Daschle campaign's website was making a big deal out of this item from Chuck Todd. (See the Daschle Digest item dated Wednesday, September 22.)

Unfortunately, CNN still takes Kranz seriously, despite him obviously being in the tank for Daschle. Kranz appeared on CNN's "Capital Gang" last night to discuss the Daschle v. Thune race. Relevant excerpt from the transcript:

SHIELDS: Welcome back.

In South Dakota, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle faces a serious challenge from former Republican Congressman John Thune.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: Tonight, the president has called us again to greatness. And tonight, we answer that call.

ANNOUNCER: Senator Daschle helped forge a consensus to rebuild our military.

JOHN THUNE (R), SOUTH DAKOTA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: For years, Tom Daschle has been telling us one thing here in South Dakota and then doing the opposite in Washington. He says he's fought for lower energy prices, but he hasn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHIELDS: The candidates met in debate for the first time on NBC's "Meet the Press" this last Sunday. And the Republican attacked the Democratic leader's criticism of the Iraq war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THUNE: What it does is emboldens our enemies and undermines the morale of our troops.

DASCHLE: I take this personally. It's not only an attack on me, it's an attack on where I'm from.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHIELDS: A new poll by the "Argus Leader" and KELO TV shows a five-point Daschle lead, compared with a two-point lead in May. Joining us from Chicago is David Kranz, political columnist of the Sioux Falls "Argus Leader."

David, how do you explain this apparent improvement in Senator Daschle's poll numbers?

DAVID KRANZ, SIOUX FALLS "ARGUS LEADER": Well, there's a couple of things you can look at. Really, the race is really starting to intensify in the middle of August, and one of the things that happened was a more aggressive, more pointed campaign by former Congressman Thune. And one of the things I can tell you about our poll that showed up -- I'm not at the liberty of telling you the exact numbers, but Mr. Thune's negatives went up quite substantially compared to last time. And so it may be somewhat of a backlash in that particular situation. You also had the "Meet the Press" debate that may or may not moved some of the numbers some.

SHIELDS: Bob Novak.

NOVAK: Tell us about that, David. Do you think that the position taken by -- by Mr. Thune on the "Meet the Press" debate hurt him? A lot of people thought that the -- the weepy performance by Senator Daschle was a little ridiculous, but do you think it went over in South Dakota?

KRANZ: You know, the reaction to that was kind of like we are in the country today, or in the Senate, when you vote in South Dakota. It was kind of a 50-50 response.

You heard a lot of people saying that that was over the top as far as Mr. Thune was concerned. And other people said, well, Daschle needs to be accountable.

I do know some people who are not in the Thune campaign who wished he wouldn't have said it, though, because it's something for them to deal with that they weren't anticipating.

SHIELDS: Kate O'Beirne.

O'BEIRNE: David, in 1998, Tom Daschle won reelection with 62 percent of the vote. I was intrigued that during that "Meet the Press" appearance, the clip we showed, he seems to think it's necessary to make any criticism of him look like a criticism of South Dakota. Is he so unsure of his own popularity six years after that big win that it's now an attack on South Dakota if you're opposed to Tom Daschle.

KRANZ: That does seem to be one of his messages. And, of course, Mr. Thune is using sort of as a theme that he's a leader and Senator Daschle portrays himself as a victim.

So that's going to be part of that campaign as it intensifies when we're near the finish line. But I think Daschle knows he's in the race of his life right here now. And right now I think when he speaks out he tries to protect South Dakota a lot. And I think that's what he really is intending to do by that approach.

SHIELDS: Al Hunt.

HUNT: David, John Thune a couple of weeks ago, gay marriage was going to be his big issues. And then he turned to terrorism. And now it's the question of Daschle emboldening our enemies.

Is he just desperately searching around for something? Because right now, with -- with, what, only five weeks to go, most people seem to have made up their minds. KRANZ: I think that's true. You really see a lot of rock-solid support on both sides. There's not a lot of undecideds left in this race.

And Mr. Thune's approach, I think he's more taking a nationalized approach to his campaign, discussing national issues that he thinks will resonate with South Dakota voters, while Senator Daschle is localizing his campaign, talking more about "what I did for you," you know, in Brule County, or "what I did for you" elsewhere in Sioux Falls. And he's trying to keep it local, saying this is where I've exercised by clout.

SHIELDS: David, looking at the race, the last time Tom Daschle ran in the presidential cycle it was 1992. And I'm trying to figure out who are the Bush-Daschle voters? Have you figured that out in this campaign?

KRANZ: The Bush-Daschle voters are people who basically look at the big picture nationally, because we generally always vote for the Republican for president. Like three times in our history we voted for a Democrat. But the bottom line is they like, you know, the conservative leadership of the president. But the people who look at Daschle say, "Gee whiz, you know, he can get things done for us. He can deliver for us."

And I think that's a big issue right now that gives him an advantage. And it's surprising with almost 20 percent of the Republican voters consistently are supporting Daschle.

SHIELDS: OK. Hey, David Kranz, thank you so much for being with us.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, has a report today headlined "USD student and GOP activist regrets calling Herseth a witch."

It's interesting to know that David Kranz and the editors at the Argus Leader think it's acceptable to hold a college kid accountable for what he writes, going so far as to try to drag federal candidates into the mix. Last year, when Kranz was under scrutiny for his connections to Senator Daschle, it came to light that Kranz and Daschle were friends while they attended South Dakota State University, and that Kranz wrote at least one report for the SDSU Collegian that lauded Tom Daschle. That began a 30-year trend in which Kranz has continuously been writing laudatory reports about Tom Daschle.

Here's how Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck responded to this scrutiny of Kranz:

So the decision was made when that didn’t happen that they were going to get a Democrat to come be a participant in that convention, and I believe off the top of my head it was Dick Kneip at the time. He came. Was a part of the mock convention. And Dave, who was a member of the staff of The Collegian wrote about it. Well, I’ve got news for folks. You know, that’s the way things happen at colleges all over this country. And I’m sure that Dave at that time did not perceive that he was going to be the preeminent political reporter for the Argus Leader. If he had, I’m sure he would have avoided carefully those conflicts. That’s a facetious comment. The point is, that, you know, you do those things in colleges, and I – it doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean anything.

Since the Argus Leader has now taken the stance that a college kid should be accountable for what he says, perhaps they will report some of the controversial things Tom Daschle said in college, too. Here's a jpeg of a story that appeared in the May 1, 1968 SDSU Collegian in which Daschle advocated, among other things "encourag[ing] the passage of federal regulation of the sale and possession of firearms." Note too that Daschle states no platform at all is better than a conservative platform (click on the image to blow up):

Here's a jpeg of one of the first in a long line of pro-Daschle articles Kranz has written:

Ah, there's nothing like the Argus Leader double standard. Republican college kids get skewered while what Kranz and Daschle did in their college days "doesn't mean anything."

Kranz skates by Senate poll

Yesterday, I predicted David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, would skip the latest Rasmussen poll in his column today. Well, my prediction was wrong, sort of. If you blinked, you missed it. Here's how Kranz reported the results of the poll, in a paragraph near the end of his column:

...Thune over Daschle, 50-47...

That's how the dean of South Dakota political reporters reports the historic news that a Senate leader is losing to a challenger. That hasn't happened since 1952, when Senate Majority Leader Ernest McFarland of Arizona began falling behind his 43 year old challenger, Barry Goldwater.

Also, as predicted, Kranz skipped the Bob Novak quote on CNN reporting that "[T]he Democrats I talked to here in Washington are very worried about South Dakota, where the Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is actually a point or two behind in the polls[.]"

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, as well as the Argus Leader, came in for some blistering criticism from former U.S. Rep. Clint Roberts yesterday:

The Argus Leader "has been a pretty strong supporter of Daschle over the years" and Kranz "is about as biased as they come," although he's a nice guy personally.

Kranz's pro-Daschle bias will soon become more evident, because it's almost a lead pipe cinch that he won't mention the latest independent poll that shows Thune leading Daschle in his column tomorrow. It's too damaging to Daschle for Kranz's taste.

And it's a complete lead pipe cinch that Kranz won't mention the following quote from conservative commentator Bob Novak on CNN yesterday:

"[T]he Democrats I talked to here in Washington are very worried about South Dakota, where the Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is actually a point or two behind in the polls[.]"

For the sake of the last remaining vestige of his credibility, I hope Kranz proves me wrong. I'm not holding my breath, though.

BOMBSHELL: Kranz overheard priests' conversation; used info to aid Democratic campaign

In this election year, the matter of Catholic politicians who do not subscribe to the Church's pro-life stance on abortion has come to the forefront. It has become an issue largely because John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, is a Catholic politician who does not subscribe to the Church's pro-life position. The issue has become prominent in South Dakota as well, because these Catholic politicians include Senator Tom Daschle, who in 2002 sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of NARAL. This is a sea-change in Daschle's position on abortion, as he ran as a pro-life Democrat in 1978 (when he said "I am opposed to abortion. I do not support it. I have never supported it. It is an abhorrent practice. As a citizen and as a lifelong member of the Catholic faith I will do everything in my power to persuade others that abortion is wrong") and 1986 (when he said "I am unalterably opposed to abortion on demand"). In this election year, Daschle has been trying to have it both ways on the issue of abortion, as observed in a story last spring by Bob Mercer for the Aberdeen American News headlined "Anti-abortion group criticizes Daschle: Senate minority leader under fire for voting both for, against fetal rights."

Last week, Bishop Robert Carlson of the Sioux Falls Diocese published an article in the "Bishop's Bulletin" headlined "The responsibility to have a well informed faith life" declaring the following:

[Y]ou cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion when you have a choice and remain a Catholic in good standing....

In the Diocese of Sioux Falls, those who act in defiance of these fundamental principles of life should not be honored or invited to speak at Catholic colleges, schools or parishes, or hold any office such as lector, Eucharist Minister, usher, parish council member or religious education teacher.

This passage means that the Bishop of Senator Daschle's home diocese has ordered parishoniers not to vote for him, and that Senator Daschle cannot speak at Catholic colleges, schools or parishes. While this is an extremely controversial and newsworthy event, there has not been anything reported about it in the pages of the Argus Leader at the time of this writing.

What is so interesting about this issue is that it in many ways is history repeating itself. While researching the papers of Senator George McGovern, I discovered a memo dated April 24, 1979 written by a McGovern staffer named Cindy Kranz to another McGovern staffer named Judy Harrington. The memo relayed sensitive information overheard by David Kranz on the issue of the Catholic Church and its opposition to the pro-choice position of Senator McGovern, who was worried that the issue would sink his reelection bid in 1980. David Kranz, of course, is the current dean of South Dakota political reporters who at that time was the managing editor for the Mitchell Daily Republic. Cindy Kranz is David Kranz's sister.

The memo in question has the initials "GVC" scrawled in handwriting above the text, which are the initials of George V. Cunningham, who was McGovern's chief of staff. Beside the initials is scrawled the word "WOW!" indicating that the contents of the memo were a big deal to the higher ranking staffers for McGovern.

The text of the memo details how David Kranz overheard a conversation in the Mitchell Holiday Inn between two priests discussing strategy on McGovern and abortion, subsequently approached Bishop Dudley (the bishop of the Sioux Falls diocese at that time) about it, and then passed the information gleaned on to the McGovern staff. Kranz then wrote a story for the MDR which included a purported quote from the Bishop asking people "not to involve themselves with politics and personalities" regarding the abortion issue. The story was then picked up by the AP wire. You can read the pdf copy of the memo as well as the attached background story on why the priests were at the Mitchell Holiday Inn by clicking HERE. Excerpt from the memo:

While removing his coat, [David Kranz] overheard two priests talking, one of whom he recognized as Father James Wolf, Holy Name Church, Watertown. The other one was younger with a beard. They mentioned McGovern and the pro-life people and the younger one told Wolf they have to sit back and take stock of the situation before they do anything as a unit. At that point, my brother pretended to make a phone call to overhear the rest. It sounded as though they had discussed the situation in some committee meeting and finally the younger priest convinced Wolf that they shouldn't be too hasty about their plans.

With a chuckle, I commented to Dave that I should have "worked the meeting." He said he finished it for me. He talked to Bishop Dudley about the conversation and Dudley was just shocked and wanted to know who the priests were, but my brother kept his sources. Dudley said that the subject has never come up in this meeting or any committee meetings. He said he has written letters to the priests about pro-life, but is upset because the church is being misunderstood-by its own people, also. He says their goal is to advance life and not to mention or endorse any candidates toward that end. Although he said he cannot control what individual priests do on the altar, he will not issue any memo or mention any names when it comes down to elections. And, he will not encourage any such actions.

(Emphases added.) This memo indicates that Kranz was working as a McGovern operative, gathering and passing along intelligence to the McGovern campaign. He even tells the McGovern campaign who his sources are, but refuses to tell Bishop Dudley. As the memo states, the McGovern staffer wanted to "work the meeting" but David Kranz told the staffer that "he finished it for me." This behavior brings to mind a quote from a former lieutenant governor of South Dakota that "when George McGovern sneezes, it's Dave Kranz who catches the cold."

Four months later, Kranz wrote a story on the issue of abortion and McGovern that appeared in the September 6 Mitchell Daily Republic. The AP picked up the story and beamed it around the state. The Kranz story ran in the September 7 edition of the Argus Leader under the headline "Dudley: 'Baby killer' tacky pro-life tactic." The story quoted Bishop Dudley to the effect that people ought not involve themselves with politics and personalities on abortion. You can read a pdf copy of the AP story, along with an attached correction (to be explained below) by clicking HERE. Excerpt:

The proclamation by the Life Amendment Political Action group that Sen. George McGovern and other U.S. senators are "baby killers" does not meet with the approval of Bishop Paul Dudley of the Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese....

Bishop Dudley said he was writing a letter to all clergy in his diocese asking the people of the parishes to treat the matter "with kindness and love" and not to involve themselves with politics and personalities.

The story caused an uproar. First, Kranz had mistakenly attributed the "baby killer" quote to the Life Amendment Political Action Committee. In fact, the quote had been made by "Americans for Life" which had no connection with South Dakota pro-life organizations. A curt correction was run the next day by the AP:

The Associated Press erroneously reported September 5 that the Life Amendment Political Action group had referred to Sen. George McGovern and others as baby-killers. The group which made the statement is known as Americans for Life.

Second, Bishop Dudley claimed to have been misquoted in the story by Kranz. Shortly after the publication of the AP story, the South Dakota Right to Life organization published an article in its newsletter headlined "Bishop Dudley Urges Political Involvement." You can read a pdf copy of the article by clicking HERE. The article included a letter Bishop Dudley had written in response to the AP story, which is excerpted below:

A recent AP news article has given rise to misunderstanding of my message on political involvement in the Right-to-Life issue. The article stated that I asked people "not to involve themselves with politics and personalities." That was misleading. I did state that I was writing to our priests and urging them to keep politics and personalities of politicians out of the pulpit. At the same time, I urged priests to motivate our people to fulfill their duties as citizens by getting involved in the political process.

Kranz was inaccurately quoting organizations and priests in his zeal to protect McGovern's political vulnerability on the issue of abortion. The Right to Life newsletter's article goes on to quote a letter to the publisher of the Mitchell Daily Republic and all daily newspaper editors written by the state coordinator of the Life Amendment Political Action Committee, which reads as follows:

This act of irresponsible journalism has had a devastating effect upon many people in the state of South Dakota. Attempts at correction have been spotty at best and unsatisfactory. Even the most concerted efforts at correction would never completely overcome the damaging effect of such careless reporting. One cannot be certain that the corrections reached everyone who heard or read the original report; and even if they could there is the overriding influence of first impressions.

It is hoped that Mr. Kranz will be informed of the seriousness of his act and reprimanded for such careless journalism.

Clearly, Kranz was making efforts to undermine conservative politicians and enhance the prospects of liberal politicians twenty years ago, and continues to do much the same thing today. This past Sunday, Kranz wrote a column on the tiff between Native American activist Russell Means and John Thune. Of course, Kranz never wrote anything at length about Russell Means' endorsement of Thune last winter. Kranz's rich history of bias continues unabated.

Kranz Watch

DVT is noting how quickly David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, ran a quote from Senator Jim Abdnor in his column yesterday that was helpful to Daschle, without asking Abdnor about it first. Conversely, when a quote from an Atlantic Monthly reporter was published that was damaging to Tom Daschle, Kranz bent over backwards to downplay the quote, actually calling the reporter and getting him to elaborate before running the quote. In the Kranz world, Abdnor doesn't deserve a chance to elaborate.

Frankly, what Kranz is doing is what we Dakota Alliance bloggers do everyday. We emphasize certain facts and downplay others because we don't pretend to be objective observers. The thing is, Kranz does pretend to be objective, and in theory should be treating Daschle and Thune to the same kind of coverage. Clearly, that's not happening.

Kranz Watch

Last week, David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, reported in a piece headlined "'Fahrenheit 9/11' not flattering portrayal of Daschle" that Senator Tom Daschle, who was personally invited by Michael Moore to the movie's premiere, "left early." Excerpt from the Kranz piece:

[A]rea residents who saw the film say there may be a reason why Daschle left the movie early.

As DVT rightly points out, Daschle didn't leave early, as reported in the cover story of Time magazine this week. Instead, Daschle stayed until the end of the movie, hugged Michael Moore, and told Moore how bad he felt about supporting the war. Relevant excerpt from the Time cover story:

Moore does not spare the Democrats entirely in his film. Most Democratic Senators, including Kerry, not only voted for the Iraq war but until recently refused to criticize the President's decision to invade. Among the clips in Fahrenheit 9/11 is one of minority leader Tom Daschle last year urging other Senators to follow his lead and vote for Bush's Iraq war.

Two weeks ago, at the Washington premiere, Moore sat a few rows behind Daschle. Afterward, says Moore, "he gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good sport."

Will Kranz report on this development in his Wednesday column? Answer: no way. There's absolutely no way to spin this without damaging Daschle, so Kranz will conveniently ignore it. Typical.

Daschle fundraising letter says Bush agenda "reckless," Kranz fails to report

This past Sunday, David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, quoted a recent Thune fundraising letter at length. It's interesting to note that Kranz never reported one word of a Daschle fundraising letter sent this past February in which Daschle makes the following comment:

"The White House views me as the chief impediment to President Bush's reckless agenda, and they will stop at nothing to defeat me this November."

You can read the entire text of the Daschle letter by clicking HERE.

It's interesting how Daschle tells his liberal supporters that the Bush agenda is "reckless," but when he's at home in South Dakota he boasts about supporting Bush 75 percent of the time.

At any rate, Kranz never reported one word of this letter. According to DVT, at the time this Daschle letter came out, Kranz made the claim that he didn't report on fundraisers. Obviously, there's selective reporting going on here. It's yet another example of Kranz's outrageous bias while holding himself out as an objective observer.

Kranz Watch

Quentin Riggins and DVT do a fine job of dissecting David Kranz's latest column. David Kranz, of course, is the dean of South Dakota political reporters. DVT makes the excellent point that while Kranz was quick to disclose his sources on a piece of information damaging to Tom Daschle, Kranz doesn't tell us today how he obtained a copy of John Thune's national fundraising letter. "Do you suppose the Daschle campaign gave it to him?" DVT queried. Answer: "Of course they did, silly."

Clearly, there are many layers to David Kranz's pro-Daschle bias. But I think the Dakota Alliance is doing a masterful job of peeling away these layers and exposing Kranz for the Daschle shill that he is.

Kranz Watch

DVT and Sibby Online have done a good job of analyzing David Kranz's latest piece. David Kranz, of course, is the dean of South Dakota political reporters, who has been systematically scrutinized for his pro-Daschle bias for well over a year. The only thing I would add to DVT's and Sibby's observations is an observation in light of the following passage from the Kranz piece:

Last Thursday, three Thune staffers or advisers sent e-mails within an hour of each other, all mentioning an interview earlier in the week by Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" show.

How nice that Kranz details who sent along this information to him. In the future, can we expect Kranz to detail who sends him a negative piece of information about John Thune? Why, I think NOT!

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, mentions Tom Daschle's "blog ad" in his column today:

Daschle, like Thune, has a political ad on an Internet blog site. The Daschle message says, in part: "Besides his own re-election for president, there is nothing more important to George Bush than defeating Tom Daschle. You can help fight back. Don't let Washington Republicans have their way. ... The more you help, the better chance we have to defeat Bush and Frist."

Curiously, Kranz omits the most prominent, hard-to-miss text on the face of the ad, which read "Help Stop George Bush! Bush & Thune Team Up To Defeat Tom Daschle! It's Up To You To Stop Them!"

It's easy to see why Kranz omitted the Daschle quote "Help Stop George Bush!" The word "stop" is synonymous with the word "obstruct." Nothing "disappoints" Daschle more than being called an obstructionist, as the term was used to describe him in 2002, with devastating results. But out of their own mouths shall ye know them. Once again, we see an example of Kranz placing Daschle in the most positive light possible.

Even more curiously, the Daschle campaign has now discarded the blog ad mentioned in Kranz's column. In its place is a new blog ad, seen below.

Interestingly, the image captured (shown at right) is not the image you see on the ad, which has pictures of Tom Daschle and John Kerry side by side. Nevertheless, one can read the small print below the message "Give John Kerry a Senate He Can Work With!" You can see the ad at, among other blogs, www.mydd.com.

UPDATE: A reader has kindly captured the main photo from the Daschle blog ad, with photos of Daschle and Kerry side-by-side:

Daschle blog synchronizes nicely with Kranz column

Tom Daschle's blog has a link to today's column by David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, regarding the Frist visit three weeks ago. Apparently, Daschle is still smarting about that visit, despite reports to the contrary.

Kranz's piece today quotes a newspaper editorial in the Chatanooga (TN) Times Free Press in Frist's home state, chastising Frist for campaigning against Daschle. Note that at least Daschle's blog mentions that the CTFP's piece is an editorial. Kranz doesn't even bother to mention that.

DVT's analysis on Kranz

Be sure to read DVT's latest analysis of the biased reportage of David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters: "The Double Standard of Dave Kranz." The fundamental point is that Kranz can be a hard-nosed investigative journalist when it comes to covering conservatives, but he is never a hard-nosed investigative journalist when it comes to covering liberals. He should be equally hard-nosed in covering both liberal and conservative politicians.

Bombshell: Two more Kranz memos unearthed

The image to the left (click image to enlarge) is that of an ad in the Argus Leader yesterday touting David Kranz's "insights and analysis" as "a must-read for anyone." David Kranz, of course, is the dean of South Dakota political reporters. Early in his 30-year career in journalism, he seemed to have spent a lot of time with the Democrats as managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic in the late 1970's. SDP readers first discovered this when I unearthed the First Bombshell Memo and the Second Bombshell Memo. Last week, on Greg Belfrage's radio show, Randell Beck, executive editor of the Argus Leader, called these memos "crap." Now, my research of the Abourezk papers held here at the University of South Dakota has yielded two more memos that mention Kranz. These memos acknowledge almost in passing that Kranz is "a good Democrat" and that friendly (biased) coverage of Democrats can be expected.

You can access the first of my latest discoveries, titled "Sioux Falls Weekly Report" and dated November 13, 1976 HERE (pdf). It can be found in Box 1061 of the archive. Key excerpt:

I learned that Craig [Steensland, Abourezk's staffer in Mitchell, SD] is in better company than I thought with the Mitchell Daily Republic. In addition to Dave Kranz, the City Editor is Sheryl Crase who is another good Democrat.

(Emphasis added.) The second of my most recent discoveries was written by the above-mentioned Craig Steensland, and details a more humorous side to Kranz's involvement with the Democrats. This is a document titled "Weekly Report" and dated October 22, 1976. It can be found in Box 1022 of the archive. You can access a pdf copy of the document HERE. Key excerpt:

Spoke with Gene Oliver (Chair), young guy from Burke and appears pretty good. Kranz (Mitchell paper) Oliver, and I then went over to the Winner demo dinner. (Oliver likes to watch the go-goes in the Peacock Bar in Winner.)

(Emphasis added.) The evidence of David Kranz's long term friendly relationship with the Democrats in the state explains the complaints of his biased reportage over the ensuing years, right up to the present day.

In 1983, when Kranz left the Mitchell Daily Republic to work for the Argus Leader, he stated the following in his farewell column in the 11/3/1983 edition of the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Provoking thought is a must in a community that is searching for ways to grow. In those provacative[SIC] terms, I have heard the disatisfaction[SIC] and the allegations of bias.
Yet I do not apologize for any one position I have stood for.

In 1986, lieutenant governor Lowell Hansen wrote a piece published on the editorial page of the January 15, 1986 edition of the Argus Leader, stating the following:

Everybody has biases -- even writers -- and I understand and accept that. But Kranz goes too far.

When Kranz was the editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, he was an unapologetic promoter of Democratic candidates for political office. During the golden years of the Democratic party in South Dakota, folks like Kneip, Jimmy Carter, and George McGovern beat a path to Kranz's door. In Mitchell, they used to have a saying: "When George McGovern sneezes, it's Dave Kranz who catches the cold."

And that's fine. Everybody is entitled to have a preference. But, when that someone has access to thousands of readers, the public deserves to know where he's coming from.

When Kranz was the city editor for the AL from 1986 to 1989, his assistant city editor was Steve Erpenbach, who in 1990 became a spokesman for the Democratic Senate candidate that year. Erpenbach is now Senator Tom Daschle's state director.

In 1990, when Kranz was managing editor of the Argus Leader, the New York Times even took note of the AL's "vituperative" coverage of Senator Larry Pressler during that year's Senate race, stating that the Democratic candidate "seemed to take his campaign script from the Argus Leader." A July 30, 1990 report in Roll Call identified Kranz as being the one responsible for the AL's treatment of Pressler:

Schieffer believes the guiding hand behind the AL's treatment of Pressler is Kranz, the managing editor, and this claim was backed up by two South Dakota reporters very familiar with the paper's operation.

In a 1997 piece for Campaigns & Elections magazine, Karl Struble, Tom Daschle's media consultant, detailed how he worked in tandem with friendly reporters in South Dakota to generate "damaging articles" on Larry Pressler during the 1996 Senate race. This pattern of cooperation was observed as recently as a few weeks ago when a pro-Daschle piece written by Kranz was sent out in a mass fund-raising e-mail by the Daschle campaign.

During a 2002 campaign event, the Johnson Senate campaign was observed handing out stickers which said "We love Dave Kranz."

In the summer of 2003, Jeff Gannon wrote a series of articles on Argus Leader bias.

As anyone can readily observe, Kranz has a rich history of bias that one can easily sort through. As the historic 2004 Senate race here in South Dakota heats up, everyone should be aware of that fact when they read anything Dave Kranz writes.

Jeff Gannon on the Second Bombshell Memo

Jeff Gannon, resident DC expert on South Dakota politics, has written a new piece about the Second Bombshell Memo headlined "More Evidence Against Pro-Dem Reporter Surfaces."

You can access the Second Bombshell Memo HERE.

BlogoSFERICS examines the ramifications.

Another Insta-lanche

The good professor takes note of the Second Bombshell Memo.

DVT and Sibby Online also chime in.

Meanwhile, a local television icon says he's scared of Dave Kranz. Apparently intimidation tactics and a code of silence are the name of the game in South Dakota journalistic circles.

UPDATE: Powerline chimes in too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ryne McClaren dubs this "Kranzgate: Vol. 2" and senses that a pattern is beginning to emerge.

Bombshell: Second Kranz collaboration memo discovered

In researching the Abourezk papers held by the I.D. Weeks Library here at the University of South Dakota, this writer has discovered another internal office memo written by a staffer for Senator Jim Abourezk. The memo discusses a meeting with David Kranz, then the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, and currently known as the dean of South Dakota political reporters. This second memo, dated 12/7/76, and found in Box 1041 of the archive, details Kranz' complaints about Abourezk's public relations efforts, and how he makes helpful suggestions on how to improve P.R. in order for Abourezk to be re-elected. You can access a PDF copy of the memo HERE. Key text from the memo:

Having lunch today with Dave Kranz of Mitchell paper he related to me that on a one to ten scale Jim [Abourezk] rates a 3 as far as public relations go....

On press releases I explained that Jim had been out of the country for a couple of weeks now which is the reason for the lack of meaningful releases, but Dave said in the last six months he has been in Mitchell, [Senator George] McGovern has had "ten times the releases Jim has had out." Part of this problem could be that the releases taken over to the paper are given directly to the 'country or city' editors and that Dave only sees them when he reads the paper. McGovern mailes the releases or used the 'mailgram' method and so Dave actually sees the releases on his desk. This could be corrected by me mailing the releases to Dave in addition to taking one to the other copy editors.

Dave also stated that McGovern sends him copies of letters he has written to various agencies on South Dakota issues.... He (Dave) has not received any copies of letters from our office. Not that he would do anything with the copies...but still the editors can gain an impression that Jim is doing something for SD.

Phone calls from DC have only been one from Ron I believe. The editors (especially Dave) need to be pumped up from time to time. Dave likes to know the inside workings of issues and ect. and is not content to just sit and watch the world go by. They want to know exactly whats going on and who is doing the work to make things go....

In addition, Dave feels Jim is not doing the hocky things necessary to be elected again. Like sending out calendars, X-Mas cards, birthday, marrages, weddings, and other hocky letters to SD people. The question is not if its hocky or not--but rather for many people its the only chance they will ever receive a personal card, greetings, or thank-you from someone they will or have voted for.

I am not bringing this up to complain about the job necessary we are doing in the public relations category, but rather that maybe we are slipping a bit, plus the fact in SD we have not had to deal with friendly editors before and since maybe we have not had these gripes brought forth to us in the past.

(Emphasis added.) In handwriting at the bottom of the memo is a postscript that reads:

Dave doesn't want his name mentioned as one who is complaining about Jim's P.R. so if (Al) you call him up, Don't mention this memo.

This is past as prologue. Kranz collaborating with the Democrats in 1976 explains his biased reporting today. It will be interesting to look through the Daschle papers thirty years from now for similar memos. Of course, given the uproar the past few days, such memos will probably mysteriously go missing.

You can access the first Bombshell Memo HERE.

Ryne McClaren and 'Kranzgate'

Ryne McClaren offers his interpretation of President Bush's views on "Kranzgate."

Pejman weighs in on the Bombshell Memo

Pejmanesque, who coined the term "Kerryitis" to describe Tom Daschle's flip-flops on the war, now shares his take on the Bombshell Memo. Excerpt:

The "What Liberal Media?" canard has been punctured again. At the very least, there appears to be a lot of smoke pointing towards the conclusion that Tom Daschle is getting downfield blocking help in his campaign from the likes of David Kranz.

Andrew Sullivan takes note of the Bombshell Memo

So I roll into the law school late this morning, and, much to my amazement, discover that the great Andrew Sullivan has a post linking to SDP headlined "Daschle's Best Buddy." The text of the post:

Yep, he's a journalist - a very influential one in a very important paper in South Dakota. And he's been blatantly spinning for the Democrats for years. A South Dakota blogger is on the case - and has uncovered some very interesting memos from the past.

Thanks so very much for the link, Andrew. The memo can be accessed HERE. DVT has more.

Also, Ryne McClaren has coined the term "Kranzgate" to describe the fallout from the Bombshell Memo.

Finally, DVT reports a "telling detail" about the whole Kranz affair, first uncovered by Sibby Online. Apparently, during a campaign event in the 2002 Johnson-Thune Senate race, Johnson staffers were handing out stickers that said "We love Dave Kranz." That, indeed, is telling.

Pot, meet Kettle

DVT notes that in 1990, David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, accused a news publication in South Dakota (Madison Daily Leader) of being biased.

Fallout

Sibby Online details an incident in the 1980 McGovern-Abdnor Senate race that indicates David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, who was then with the Mitchell Daily Republic, was collaborating with the McGovern campaign on a negative story about Republican Congressman Jim Abdnor. Interestingly, the 1976 bombshell memo (pdf) discovered in the Abourezk papers indicated that a negative story about Rep. Abdnor was in the works at the Mitchell Daily Republic, where Kranz was the managing editor. Kranz seemed to have developed a lot of animosity toward Congressman Abdnor from 1976 to 1980. But Abdnor went on to defeat McGovern in 1980 anyway.

Meanwhile, Jeff Gannon, resident DC expert on South Dakota politics, has a follow-up report about the bombshell memo.

DVT says this could be the biggest story of the 2004 campaign to date, and notes the "Inst-lanche" from the good professor, as well as the link from Powerline. As DVT states, these two blogs are powerful hit generators, and my hit counter has literally exploded through the roof.

Kristi Golden was sitting in for Greg Belfrage yesterday afternoon on Sioux Falls radio station KELO 1320, and spent over an hour discussing Kranz and the bombshell memo.

All in all, there's been quite a bit of fallout already in the alternative media in the state and around the country.

BOMBSHELL: Internal memo reveals Kranz collaboration with Democratic Senator

This past Sunday, David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, wrote a piece headlined "Politicos see no danger of Daschle losing clout." The piece had all of the markings of a collaborative effort between Kranz and the Daschle campaign to "deflate" the notion that Tom Dachle might not be selected to lead the Democrats should he win re-election (see DVT's thoughts on the piece). And, as night follows the day, it has been discovered today that Steve Hildebrand, Tom Daschle's campaign manager, has launched a mass fundraising e-mail citing Kranz' piece as third party "validation." Clearly, Kranz and Hildebrand think that the notion that Tom Daschle will not be re-elected to his leadership position is potentially very damaging, and that it needs to be squelched. The relevant text of Hildebrand's mass fundraising e-mail follows:

In recent weeks, John Thune and his supporters have been spreading the false idea that Tom Daschle may not remain as Leader when he is reelected.

An article in Sunday's Argus Leader found there was absolutely no evidence to support Thune's claim. The Argus asked three national political analysts to comment on Thune's argument that Daschle would no longer be Leader; each of them said that Daschle would retain his position.

* Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia: "Honestly, I don't hear a word about Daschle losing his position as minority leader. To the contrary, I think Daschle is in good shape
with his caucus."

* Stu Rothenberg, Rothenberg Political Report: "I don't hear of any move afoot to push him aside. There is no anger about his leadership."

* Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report: "I haven't heard anything to that effect."

To read the entire article, please click here: http://www.argusleader.com/news/Sundayarticle5.shtml

This pattern, where Kranz sets 'em up and Tom Daschle knocks 'em down, is not a new pattern. Karl Struble, Tom Daschle's media consultant, wrote a piece in 1997 for Campaigns and Elections magazine in which he admitted that this is precisely their strategy:

The press ate it up. Our campaign systematically doled out the information piece by piece to reporters in D.C. and South Dakota. The result was a series of damaging articles. ... We used the headlines generated as validators for our ads.

Clearly, the collaborative effort between Kranz and Hildebrand to deflate a potentially damaging argument is a classic example of the Struble strategy. The only difference is that now the Daschle campaign is using Kranz to play defense instead of offense.

Now, it might be asked, where would one possibly get the notion that Kranz is collaborating with the Daschle campaign? It has long been suspected by this writer that David Kranz has collaborated with Democratic politicians in South Dakota, past and present, to influence the news in a way that tends to cast Democratic politicians in a positive light, and Republican politicians in a negative light. Today it can be revealed that this writer's worst fears have been corroborated. This writer has discovered an internal Senate office memo in the Abourezk papers, an archive held in the I.D. Weeks Library at the University of South Dakota, that details Kranz' collaboration with Senator Jim Abourezk's staff while Kranz was the managing editor for the Mitchell Daily Republic in 1976. The memo, dated 10/15/1976, and found in Box 1022 of the archive, is a "Weekly Report" from an Abourezk staffer based in Mitchell at the time to his bosses in Washington, DC. The relevant text from the memo follows:

The Mitchell Daily Republic has given Jim [Abourezk] good coverage the last few weeks, usually run the releases on front page in "News Briefs". (Roberta will confirm that statement) Managing Editor is Dave Kranz, 30, formally of Austin Minn, and Watertown S.D. Went to SDSU (Mu U. with Tom D. and Tom Klinkel) Very much a strong Demo. and have been attending county demo. functions together. If Ron or Al can provide him with good info. on whats happening in D.C. it would be a good venture. He received one call from Ron this week. Thanks Ron...

(Emphasis added.) Deeper into the same memo, the following text can be found:

NWPS-Dave Kranz of paper is checking out some of the local biggees in Mitchell to see how much support we have to do something.

In handwriting, scrawled at the bottom of the document, the memo states the following:

Mitchell paper is going to expose [Republican Senator Jim] Abdnor on rating by National Alliance of S. Citizens next week, Info I called Grace's office on.

You can access a pdf copy of the original document HERE. "Tom D." of course, is Tom Daschle, who was Senator Abourezk's staffer at that time. Tom Klinkel was Tom Daschle's brother-in-law at the time (Daschle has since divorced and re-married).

Can there really be any doubt, in light of David Kranz' documented collaboration with Senator Jim Abourezk's staff, that he is doing precisely the same thing today with Tom Daschle's campaign? Can there really be any doubt that Kranz has told the Daschle people that "it would be a good venture" to "provide him with good info?" Can there really be any doubt that Kranz is doing investigatory work on behalf of the Daschle campaign, in light of the fact that he did investigatory work on behalf of Abourezk "to see how much support we have to do something?" And the thing is, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard to apply to David Kranz. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that is only applicable in a criminal proceeding where one's life or freedom is at stake. The standard to determine whether Kranz can be an impartial journalist covering Tom Daschle today is the reasonableness standard: would an ordinarily prudent person believe that Kranz could not be impartial. For more discussion of the reasonableness standard click HERE and HERE.

Throughout his long career as a political journalist in South Dakota, it has been suspected that David Kranz has been engaging in precisely the kind of activity the Abourezk memo documents. Jeff Gannon, resident DC expert on South Dakota politics, detailed Kranz' collaboration with Tom Daschle in 1968 at SDSU. Sibby Online uncovered a 1983 farewell piece written by Kranz in which Kranz addresses allegations of bias during his tenure at the Mitchell Daily Republic. Later, in 1986, the lieutenant governor of South Dakota wrote a piece for the Argus Leader excoriating Kranz for his Democratic bias. In 1990, the New York Times noted that the Democratic Senate candidate that year "seemed to take his campaign script from The Sioux Falls Argus Leader" a phenomenon observed this week with Kranz' piece and Hildebrand's subsequent mass e-mail. In 1990, Kranz was the managing editor of the AL, and a piece in Roll Call reported that it was Kranz who was behind the "hysterical bashing" of the Republican Senate candidate. In 1999, Senator Larry Pressler wrote a letter to the editor of the Argus Leader stating that Kranz is "my longtime nemesis.... He is a good writer, but intellectually flawed in that he lets his biases show through." Last summer, Jeff Gannon ran a series of articles revealing Kranz' bias. In January of this year, AL executive editor Randell Beck acknowledged the conventional wisdom that the AL is "in bed with Tom Daschle."

Two weeks ago, Randell Beck cited Kranz' "distinguished career" in a piece on journalism's role in elections. In light of today's revelations, it has become more obvious that a reasonably prudent person could conclude that Kranz cannot be impartial in covering the Daschle-Thune race. The press holds a preeminent place in democracy's deliberations. But there cannot be a full and fair opportunity for the people of South Dakota to deliberate when the gatekeeper of political information in South Dakota is collaborating with the Democrats.

Kranz Watch

Be sure to read an excellent post over at DVT headlined "The Argus Leader and Democracy." Excerpt:

While South Dakota used to be a state rich with newspapers, now there are only 11 dailies left in the entire state, and only two of them are owned by South Dakotans (the Madison Daily Leader, as previously noted, and the Pierre Capitol Journal, which is owned by the Hipple family). Many of these dailies depend on the Argus Leader for political news--taken directly from the Argus Leader or through the Associated Press, which often picks up Argus Leader stories--and much of the Argus Leader's political news is written by Dave Kranz. This means, in the lingo of journalism scholars from the 1970s forward, that Kranz acts a "gatekeeper" of political information and as an "agenda setter." If Kranz decides to report something or not to report something, therefore, it has a tremendous state-wide ripple effect[.]

Yes, it's the ripple effect of Kranz' reporting that Tom Daschle counts on to frame issues and put a positive spin on developments, and which Daschle in turn exploits to maximum effect in his ads and e-mails. Karl Struble, Tom Daschle's media consultant, has essentially said as much in a piece he wrote for Campaigns and Elections magazine in 1997 a few months after Tim Johnson's victory over incumbent Larry Pressler. In it, Struble wrote:

Our campaign systematically doled out the information piece by piece to reporters in D.C. and South Dakota. The result was a series of damaging articles. ... We used the headlines generated as validators for our ads.

The Argus Leader has 53,310 daily readers. By contrast, SDP has around 500 readers on a good day. Obviously, David Kranz is a powerful weapon for the Daschle campaign in his position as the dean of South Dakota political reporters. It is reasonable to believe, given Kranz' history, that Kranz is not an objective observer. As I've stated many times before, there's nothing wrong with Kranz having his liberal view of the world. There IS something wrong with Kranz organizing and reporting the news in collaboration with political campaigns, and cloaking it all in "impartiality." All that is required is fundamental fairness and impartiality. And it is reasonable to believe that Kranz' reporting is not fundamentally fair or impartial.

Kranz Watch

When David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, publishes a story that is embarrassing to Tom Daschle, the first thing I do is brace myself for the coming onslaught of pro-Daschle columns. Since I think it's reasonable to believe that David Kranz collaborates with the Daschle campaign, Kranz writing a negative story about Daschle means he has to make up for it the following week with some major pro-Daschle spin.

Last Sunday, much to my surprise, Kranz actually reported the fact that Tom Daschle had called Tim Giago, a Native American journalist who is making an independent bid for the Senate, to beg him to get out of the race. I was surprised, because it is unusual for someone who reports the news as a political stratagem for Tom Daschle to report a story that is embarrassing to Daschle. As I said, I braced myself for the coming pro-Daschle onslaught. And Kranz didn't disappoint. Yesterday's column, headlined "Politicos see no danger of Daschle losing clout," is ridiculous. It's classic Daschle cheerleading. It's obviously an attempt to squelch what Kranz and Daschle must consider an effective line of criticism by the Thune campaign, namely, that Daschle will not remain the Democratic Leader even if he is re-elected.

It's not as though that criticism of Daschle was made out of thin air. Even one of Tom Daschle's former staffers has publicly questioned whether Daschle can still lead the Democrats. As DVT has reported, the Democratic base is in an uproar about Tom Daschle's leadership. DVT has also noted a January story in The Hill quoting Chris Dodd as saying “There is an appetite out there for Democrats to start answering in a more aggressive way … policies that we disagree with.”

Sibby Online and DVT have both responded to yesterday's column by Kranz. Sibby notes this quote from Stuart Rothenberg a month ago:

Arlington, Va.: Is there any incumbent Senator of either party who would be a good bet to be defeated this time around?

Stuart Rothenberg: Only two are really vulnerable at this point: Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who was appointed to her seat by her daddy, and Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) who has a terrific opponent in John Thune and has lost the "clout" issue that saved his SD Democratic colleague, Tim Johnson, in 2002.

(Emphasis added.) Charlie Cook has also recently said that the "Daschle as power-broker" argument has diminished. Of course, none of this was reported by Kranz in any of his Sunday columns.

David Kranz is held out to be an impartial observer of the political scene in South Dakota. But yesterday's column is one in a long line of columns that encapsulate partisan journalism. I don't have a problem with partisan journalism, as long as those who practice it don't pretend to be objective. The problem is that David Kranz pretends to be objective. And sadly, we can only expect more of this partisan journalism cloaked as impartiality as the year progresses. Perhaps it's time once again to discuss the reasonableness standard, in trying to come to grips with whether it's reasonable to believe that David Kranz is now and has in the past collaborated with Democratic political candidates. Stay tuned.

Kranz Watch

DVT offers a clarification of the reasonableness standard regarding the reportage of David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters:

SDP is advocating a civil reasonableness standard, i.e. would an ordinarily prudent person believe that Kranz could not be impartial given his past associations with Daschle, as opposed to a criminal-like standard of bias beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, obviously a civil standard is the way to go, and perhaps the best way to describe the standard is whether a reasonable person can be more than 50% certain that Kranz cannot be impartial in covering the Daschle v. Thune race given his close association with Democratic political figures past and present. A "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is relevant only to criminal law and hence is irrelevant to the weighing of Kranz's impartiality.

In the context of the reasonableness standard, DVT also cites a piece written by Noel Hamiel, publisher of the Mitchell Daily Republic, headlined "Disclosure healthy, even for reporters, but college activities irrelevant." Hamiel basically sets a standard by which to weigh Kranz's impartiality, and states that Kranz's college activities are irrelevant to weighing Kranz's impartiality. Hamiel does essentially say, however, that the standard by which to weigh Kranz's impartiality should be applied to Kranz's post-college years. Hamiel says there should always be disclosure by the reporter of the nature of his relationships with specific political figures, and also discusses when a reporter should NOT cover someone. This is where the reasonableness standard comes into play. Could a reasonable person come to the conclusion that Kranz cannot be impartial given his close associations with Democratic political figures past and present? Stay tuned.

Kranz Watch

DVT says it's unclear what standard of judgment I have in mind for concluding that David Kranz, the Argus Leader political reporter known as the dean of South Dakota political reporters, is too closely associated with Democratic figures past and present to report objectively and credibly on the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota. DVT suggests a "reasonableness" standard: whether Kranz's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This reasonableness standard is henceforth adopted. I would argue, in view of the careful documentation of Kranz's bias by myself (link is to Kranz Watch archive) and others, that this standard has been met.

We know about Kranz's collaboration with Daschle on a mock Democratic Convention while both were in college in 1968; Daschle organized the convention, and Kranz wrote a purportedly unbiased report for the college newspaper on Daschle's involvement in organizing the convention, without disclosing his affiliation with Daschle. In 1976, Kranz wrote a piece for the Mitchell Daily Republic fondly recalling the convention. In 1986, then lieutenant governor Lowell Hansen wrote a guest editorial for the Argus Leader excoriating Kranz's biased coverage of the governor's race that year. Roll Call indicated that the AL's hysterical and vituperative bias in the 1990 Senate race was instigated by then managing editor David Kranz. And of course, over the past year, Kranz's biased reporting has been documented through the "Kranz Watch" feature on this blog. All of these instances described above indicate that the reasonableness standard has been met. Kranz's impartiality can reasonably be questioned.

Kranz Watch

According to the Scripps Howard Foundation, David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, is the joint winner of the 2004 Roy W. Howard Award trophy for public service reporting:

PUBLIC SERVICE REPORTING - Under 100,000 circulation

Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, S.D. (Stu Whitney and David Kranz). The newspaper will receive $5,000 and the Roy W. Howard Award trophy.

The Argus Leader won for a series of stories that examined former South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow’s liberal and questionable use of his executive powers to pardon convicted criminals and commute sentences. Judges said, "The Argus Leader’s dogged pursuit of the extent and nature of secret gubernatorial pardons is an outstanding example of public service journalism. As a result of their efforts, the public’s right to know has been broadened in the best tradition of a determined free press.”

Congratulations to Dave Kranz for winning this honor. Of course, the public's right to know does not stop at the newsroom door. The public also deserves to know whether Kranz has collaborated with various Democratic campaigns and politicians throughout the years in his capacity as a purportedly unbiased journalist.

Kranz Watch

I was pleasantly surprised to stumble upon a guest column written in the opinion pages of the Argus Leader, dated January 15, 1986, that takes David Kranz to task for his Democratic cheerleading. Kranz is the so-called dean of South Dakota political reporters, and has been systematically scrutinized by this blog for his biased reporting. The guest column I refer to above was written by Lowell Hansen, who at the time was lieutenant governor, and running for the Republican nomination for governor. Hansen lost the primary to George Mickelson later in 1986. It's remarkable how Hansen's column, published eighteen years ago, strikes almost precisely the same themes regarding Kranz and the Argus Leader that I've been striking on this blog for the past year.

The piece by Hansen is headlined "Columnist's political prediction, Argus Leader fail to tell the whole story." The entire piece follows:

A recent political column by Argus Leader City Editor David Kranz promoting former Ambassador Richard Kneip for governor deserves a response.

Everybody has biases -- even writers -- and I understand and accept that. But Kranz goes too far.

When Kranz was the editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, he was an unapologetic promoter of Democratic candidates for political office. During the golden years of the Democratic party in South Dakota, folks like Kneip, Jimmy Carter, and George McGovern beat a path to Kranz's door. In Mitchell, they used to have a saying: "When George McGovern sneezes, it's Dave Kranz who catches the cold."

And that's fine. Everybody is entitled to have a preference. But, when that someone has access to thousands of readers, the public deserves to know where he's coming from.

In predicting Kneip would be elected governor, Kranz unobjectively ignores several well-known factors.

First, Kneip caries the highest negative name recognition of any non-incumbent South Dakota politician. People generally feel he had his three terms as governor before he ducked out to work for Carter, and that's enough time on the taxpayers' payroll.

More importantly, there is a prevailing attitude of distrust for Kneip among even Democrats, as evidenced by two very attractive Democrat primary challengers.

Taxpayers remember the excesses of the Kneip administration, his nonstop campaign for a state income tax, the cement plant mess, the bankrupt railroads and on and on. It was a good time for Democratic cheerleaders like Kranz to have an inside track to state government but a lousy time for taxpayers.

Kranz further continues to promote long, marathon political campaigns when he knows more than 80 percent of South Dakota voters favor short campaigns.

A recent poll conducted by Decision Making Information confirmed the folly of long political campaigns in South Dakota. After spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours campaigning last fall, the three most "active" Republican campaigners for governor all lost statewide support, one by as much as 10 percent.

So what is his motive? To measure public opinion or make public opinion based on his view of who should be governor. You decide.

But my problems with the Argus Leader go far beyond Kranz pursuing his Democrat political hobby.

With the exception of a few years out of state for college, the Army, and ranching, I've spent my entire life in this city. I've seen the good times and the bad, and I've seen our locally owned and respected paper bought up by out-of-state interests. That's where the trouble began.

A few months ago, two other concerned citizens and myself met with the editorial board of the Argus Leader to express our concerns about the negative way in which they treat our city.

We felt the Argus Leader attitude was seriously affecting our state's image as a positive market and that the paper did not reflect the interests of its readership. There was no political basis for this meeting but rather a concerned community attempting to communicate with this major media.

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader management takes criticism very poorly. Basically, they told us to mind our own business and they'd run things the way they wanted.

I knew that I was doing myself little good when I met the editorial board, but I didn't know that I'd be unleashing Kranz.

Now, personally, I like Kranz. He reminds me a lot of Howard Cosell. Like Cosell, he wants us to believe that "he tells it like it is." But, also like Cosell, He's "never played the game." He'd like to believe he's on the inside of every campaign. When he's not, watch out, you'll read about it in his column on Sundays.

Last year, as your lieutenant governor, I made 156 public appearances in South Dakota. Not once throughout our state did I hear one positive comment about the Argus Leader. Not one.

In spite of those 156 public appearances, Kranz says I am not active. This reflects an apparent Argus Leader policy to discredit those who speak up or disagree with their views.

In the coming weeks, you can be sure the Argus Leader will continue to promote their favorite candidates for public office. However, Republicans know better than to be duped by Democratic Party cheerleaders or a newspaper that too seldom reflects the interests of South Dakotans.

In the quiet of the voting booth, Republicans and Democrats will nominate those candidates they feel can best lead our state.

Next time you read about me in the Argus Leader, please take a moment to remember "the rest of the story." We have too many important things to accomplish in South Dakota than to bow to a media chain which thrives on negativism and people's problems in order to turn a profit each month.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, finally mentions the term "blog" in his column, over a year after the emergence of SDP on the South Dakota political scene. Since then of course, the Dakota Alliance of blogs has emerged, including Sibby Online and the Daschle v. Thune blog. South Dakota radio personality Greg Belfrage often shares his thoughts online too. Kranz's piece is headlined "Daschle-Thune race heating up." Relevant graf:

Even though Thune is not in the middle of TV-ad wars, there is a campaign presence, including a message on a Web site blog with a his logo and the words, "Stop Tom Daschle's obstructionism."

This is Argus Leader journalism at its finest. There's no explanation of what a "blog" is, even though this is the first time Kranz has ever used the term in his column. Kranz doesn't refer the reader to where they can find the blog with the Thune ad, which seems like a rather egregious omission to me, and leads me to wonder why he omitted that information. The blog Kranz refers to, of course, is Instapundit.

Charlie Cook in South Dakota

Charlie Cook, arguably the premier political analyst in the country, has a piece today headlined "Power Struggle," in which he briefly discusses the U.S. Senate race in South Dakota. Relevant graf:

The lone vulnerable Democratic incumbent is Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. In January, Republican former Rep. John Thune announced that he will challenge Daschle. Thune lost his state's 2002 Senate contest by 524 votes. He was considered the only Republican who could give Daschle a very competitive race.

I have to admit I'm a bit red-faced about the fact that Charlie Cook himself was in Pierre, South Dakota last week, and I didn't find out about it until I read Rapid City Journal political reporter Denise Ross' latest column this morning, headlined "Major political players descend on Pierre." And what a column it is! Excerpt:

There will be differences this time, [Charlie Cook] said, and two on which Cook dwelled are likely to Thune's benefit.

First, Thune's campaign team will be better this time around, Cook said.

"The Thune campaign, technically speaking, will be a lot better than it was two years ago," Cook said.

Thune has hired political warrior Dick Wadhams as campaign manager, a choice the Capitol Hill press has described as a nice matchup with the equally extolled Hildebrand.

Second, Daschle is no longer Senate majority leader, and, perhaps worse, the Democrats are expected to lose Senate seats in 2004.

"Last time, they said a vote for Tim Johnson was a vote to keep Tom Daschle as majority leader. The choice was, do you want the majority leader or do you want a Republican senator," Cook said.

In 2002, GOP momentum tipped the balance of power to Republicans but left Daschle a strong minority leader with 48 of 100 seats in the Democratic caucus plus one independent who associates with that caucus.

In 2004, Democrats are expected to slide further in the Senate, Cook said. Republicans are losing two of their incumbent senators compared to five incumbent Democratic senators who are retiring. And four of the Democrats are from what Cook calls the "real South." The other is from Florida.

Cook expects most, if not all, of those Democratic seats to flip to Republicans due to the GOP's advantage in that region.

"Those are very, very hard places for Democrats to defend," Cook said.

With the Daschle-as-power-broker argument diminished, South Dakota voters might make different choices than they did two years ago, Cook said.

"That takes a pretty strong arrow out of the Democratic quiver," Cook said.

(Emphasis added.) I find it incredible that David Kranz, the so-called dean of South Dakota political reporters, despite the presence of so many political players in one place, did not report these events that took place in Pierre last week in his Sunday column, particularly the fact that Charlie Cook himself was in South Dakota. Kranz normally loves to quote the Cook Political Report and often quotes its writers in his pieces.

On January 5, 2004, the day Thune announced his candidacy for the Senate, Kranz quoted the Cook Political Report's Jennifer Duffy in his report on the event. On January 4, 2004, Kranz also quoted Duffy regarding the prospective Thune v. Daschle race. On December 10, 2003, Kranz quoted the Cook Political Report's Amy Walters in a story regarding whether Thune would run for the vacant House seat. On September 21, 2003, Kranz again quoted Walters. On September 14, 2003, Kranz cites the "Cook Report analysis" of a "handful of potentially close Senate races next year." On September 7, 2003, in one of his Sunday columns, Kranz wrote the following:

Senate analysis

Charles Cook, a well-respected national political analyst, assessed the South Dakota Senate race last week and said there are two ways to describe Sen. Tom Daschle:

"He is a tireless advocate for his state, has the kind of seniority in the Senate important to a small state and keeps in close touch with constituents, visiting each of the 66 counties every year.

"Or, he is a liberal Democrat and national spokesman for his party who works to obstruct President Bush's agenda in the Senate, opposed the war with Iraq, and is fundamentally out of step with the state's voters."

But when Charlie Cook himself is IN SOUTH DAKOTA to assess the South Dakota U.S. Senate race, we have yet to hear anything from the dean of South Dakota political reporters about it, or for that matter from any reporter at the Argus Leader. Why is that do you suppose? Could it be because what Cook had to say is damaging to the "Daschle as power-broker" message that is the very foundation of Tom Daschle's campaign? Just asking.

Kranz Watch

Jay Rosen has an interesting piece about the "Adopt a Campaign Journalist" method of blogging, where a blog is devoted to watching the work of a political journalist. Excerpt:

Adopting a campaign reporter, and writing a weblog about the work that reporter does, is involving yourself in the press. And you can never predict how involving things will evolve. But that's not why I love it. I love it because it's one-to-one. That cosmic abstraction, The Media, which has no earthly address, is reckoned with by reduction to a single journalist, somebody who, far from the news wars, might be eating a sandwich when you are eating your sandwich. This gives the activity human scale, even if it's antagonistic. Our expanding culture of complaint about Big Media could use more of that-- a human scale.

Here at SDP, I've been monitoring the writing of David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, for over a year. I've documented many of the more egregiously biased reports of his, but it may come as a surpise to some that I've frequently pulled my punches (I've sometimes ignored pieces of his that deserved analysis). The reason I've sometimes pulled my punches is because my blog is not dedicated solely to keeping an eye on David Kranz's reportage. I also try to make my blog a place where South Dakotans can get news about Tom Daschle that they're unlikely to see elsewhere in the local media, and conversely, for those outside South Dakota to get news that otherwise doesn't travel beyond the borders of South Dakota. It's no secret that my agenda is to help Republicans get elected in South Dakota, and to expose fake Republicans like Tom Daschle and Stephanie Herseth. By contrast, Dave Kranz's agenda is to help Tom Daschle and Stephanie Herseth get elected. The problem is, he holds himself out to be an objective observer of the South Dakota political scene. I don't pretend to be objective.

I dedicate many hours of the day to blogging about South Dakota politics in part because many South Dakotans appreciate what I'm doing. But the bottom line is that I operate this blog because I want to make a difference, and I believe that I am making a difference.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, has subtly changed the lede in his piece this morning to read that Daschle "has slightly increased his lead."

Still wrong, of course.

Last night, Kranz wrote that Daschle "continues to gradually increase his lead over former Rep. John Thune."

The sample was two polls. You cannot have a gradual increase with a sample of two.

This is just basic poll reporting. Editors and reporters know this, or should. Which leads one to conclude that bias is a problem.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, purported to be an objective observer of the political scene in South Dakota, is appallingly and purposefully misleading in his "PM Update" on the latest poll of the South Dakota Senate race, headlined "Daschle gradually increases lead over Thune." Excerpt:

Sen. Tom Daschle continues to gradually increase his lead over former Rep. John Thune as the two likely U.S. Senate candidates prepare for what is anticipated to be the most-watched race in the nation.

The assertion is not followed by the facts:

Daschle's percentage of support remains the same as the last test in November 2003, but Thune has dropped one point.

That's not a gradual increase, that's a dead flat no-change. One percent is within the margin of error.

Disgraceful.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, discusses John Thune's appearance on "Jeff Gannon's Washington" in his column today. Jeff Gannon is the DC resident expert on South Dakota politics, and you can read his insights HERE.

Jeff Gannon has also reported on his radio show that there is a possibility that Hillary Clinton may visit South Dakota on behalf of Stephanie Herseth.

KRANZ WATCH

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, in his report today about campaign funding headlined "Finance laws may affect Senate election," does not discuss the fact that Tom Daschle plans to raise an anticipated $2 million for his campaign next Monday in a fundraiser headlined by Bill Clinton and John Mellencamp. It's reasonable to expect a political reporter to mention that timely and relevant bit of information when he writes an article about campaign funding.

Some might argue that the Argus Leader's Mike Madden has already reported that bit of information, so David Kranz can skate by without reporting it. Not so. Much of the campaign funding information Kranz cites has already been reported in the pages of the AL, some of it even by Mike Madden. Why is it that certain information is worth being reported two or more times, but timely and relevant information that reflects negatively on Tom Daschle is not worth repeating?

KRANZ WATCH

Once again, we see David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, up to his usual shenanigans. Lately, he's been trying to portray Stephanie Herseth as a "moderate" Democrat, while omitting any reference to Larry Diedrich's moderation. I noted this bias technique in an earlier post.

Today, Kranz has a piece headlined "Close House contest forecast." Excerpt:

Most political observers attach the "conservative" tag to Diedrich's politics. Republicans, including Diedrich, quickly label Herseth a liberal. They get some disagreement, though.

"I would classify her as a moderate Democrat," Richardson said. "She might be considered liberal in some social hot button issues like abortion, but she is well-grounded in what South Dakotans consider social-economic issues like the rural economy."

Schotten said she will run this race as a moderate and has probably shunned the "outsider" label that stalked her in 2002, because she left a Washington law firm and moved back to the state to work.

Burns agrees that Diedrich is a conservative in respect to fiscal issues and is a neoconservative on issues such as abortion.

"I haven't heard him express opinions on issues like school prayer, the death penalty, gun ownership, gay and lesbian issues. I tend to associate him with being fiscally conservative," he said.

He sees efforts to classify Herseth as a liberal in the state because of her pro-choice position on abortion, but Burns said she would be regarded more of a moderate by national standards.

Her position on abortion isn't necessarily a negative in this state, he said. "Past elections have shown that candidates can win here and not have the endorsement of Right-to-Life."

Aside from leaving me wondering what the hell it means to be a "neoconservative on issues such as abortion" Kranz has engaged in the classic "quote-someone-who-agrees-with-me" bias technique. As Bob Kohn, author of Journalistic Fraud, writes:

Distorting a story with opinion--by including someone else's speculation or directly injecting one's own view into a story--is another basic technique of disguising a newspaper's political viewpoint in the form of a straight news story.

Opinions may be employed for influencing public opinion in the following basic ways:

1. Quoting someone who agrees with you
2. Directly injecting your opinion
3. Omitting the opposing opinion
4. Faking fairnes and balance

The point is, Kranz has cherry-picked experts who say that Stephanie Herseth is a moderate, and by implication that Larry Diedrich is not a moderate. Then Kranz attributes that opinion to "most political observers." Why doesn't Kranz quote those who disagree with the statement that Herseth is a moderate? Instead, the only people he quotes are those who disagree with the statement that Herseth is a liberal.

Now I'm off to watch "First Monday" which has Diedrich and Herseth squaring off for the first time.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, is up to his usual stunts in his contribution today. In his traditional Sunday column, which is touted as a "straight" news story (and therefore purported to be unbiased and unopinionated), he labels GOP House candidate Larry Diedrich a "strong conservative" and Democratic opponent Stephanie Herseth as "considerably more moderate." Excerpt:

[Diedrich] brings his strong conservative philosophy to the campaign, probably against Democrat Stephanie Herseth, who is considerably more moderate.

Bob Kohn, in his book "Journalistic Fraud," discusses the use of labels by the editors of the New York Times to make its political allies seem more reasonable or sympathetic and the NYT's political opponents seem less reasonable or sympathetic. Excerpt from Kohn's book (ppg. 141-142):

It is generally agreed that the words "liberal" and "conservative" have each become pejorative terms in today's political vocabulary. By contrast, the terms "moderate" and "centrist" have become euphemisms. Thus you will find the Times liberally using the term "conservative" to label its opponents but avoiding the use of "liberal" to label its supporters. Instead, to lend credibility to liberals, they will label them as "moderates" wherever possible.

Kohn's method of exposing the bias of the NYT can be applied to expose the bias of David Kranz. Thus, we see that Kranz, instead of labeling political ally Stephanie Herseth a "liberal" (which she is), labeling her a "moderate" in order to give her credibility among independent-minded voters. At the same time, Kranz labels Diedrich a "strong conservative" in order to give him less credibility among independent-minded voters.

On a completely different point, isn't it interesting how only yesterday Kranz wrote that Diedrich had to worry about a Republican primary, but today Kranz writes that Diedrich has to worry about a Democratic primary?

The fundamental point is that it's unconscionable for the Argus Leader to allow David Kranz's opinions to be touted as a straight news story. It would be much more palatable if Kranz's traditional Sunday piece were prominently labeled "News Analysis" at the very top of the piece.

Kranz Watch

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, made an appearance on CNN's "Capital Gang" yesterday. As seen by his piece yesterday, headlined "Analysts expect nastiest ever South Dakota campaign" (in which not a single analyst is named) Kranz is trying to shape the contours of the debate in South Dakota. Because he is an instrument of the Daschle campaign, that can't be allowed to happen. You can access the transcript HERE. The segment with Kranz follows:

Next on CAPITAL GANG, "Beyond the Beltway" looks at the challenge to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota, with David Kranz of "The Sioux Falls Argus Leader."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: Welcome back. In South Dakota, former Congressman John Thune announced as a Republican candidate against Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. Immediately began debating whether the state should elect a senator to support President Bush, or to retain the leader of the opposition party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I've also been able to develop a very close and good relationship with the people of my state, and I'm proud of that. So I'm not sure that -- whether it's President Bush or any other celebrity is going to make that much difference.

JOHN THUNE, REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, SOUTH DAKOTA: The person with the clout in the United States Senate is going to be the one who can work in a constructive way with the majority party, with the White House, with the House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHIELDS: Joining us now from Sioux Falls, South Dakota is David Kranz, political writer for "The Sioux Falls Argus Leader." Thank you for coming in, David.

DAVID KRANZ, SIOUX FALLS ARGUS LEADER: Hi, how are you.

SHIELDS: David, if John Thune could not defeat Tim Johnson two years ago for the Senate, why we consider he should have a chance against Tom Daschle in 2004?

KRANZ: That's a question he began weighing about a couple of weeks after that 2002 election. Some Republicans were telling him, you run this race and lose again, your political future is done. So as time went on, he was sorting out his decision, he started to contrast Senator Daschle's record with Senator Johnson, and he said, Daschle is far more liberal, and I think a race of John Thune versus Daschle would be easier to define for voters; Thune the conservative, Daschle the liberal. And that was one of the thins that really pushed him to the point of getting into the race.

SHIELDS: Bob Novak.

NOVAK: David, let me take a minute to say that I created quite an uproar in South Dakota with some remarks I made on this program and on "CROSSFIRE" about Native American voting, I want to say I did not intend any bias against Native Americans. I don't have any bias against Native Americans or anybody else, but I do feel, based on my reporting, that there were very serious voting irregularities in 2002 in South Dakota, which the -- I also believe that -- which the Republican Party, for political purposes, did not want to protest.

My question is, are the Republicans looking at the voting on Indian reservations in this upcoming election and worrying about taking any corrective measures on it?

KRANZ: Governor Rounds in particular is paying close attention to improving relations with the Native Americans. He's appointed a Native American to the state senate, and they are actively interested in playing this election a lot harder. They feel that they can make a case on the reservation for their side. You have some very key Native Americans, including Russell Means (ph), who tells Democrats, don't take this for granted anymore. You just can't. Tim Daego (ph), a gentlemen who announced his candidacy against Tom Daschle in the primary said the same thing. He says, hey, Democrats, don't take, you know, the Native Americans for granted.

So they've sounded out the warning shot, that on the other hand the Daschle campaign is saying, if you thought that our 2002 effort was big for Johnson, you ain't seen nothing yet. So it's going to be interesting to watch.

SHIELDS: Margaret Carlson.

CARLSON: David, in the special election in June, to replace former Congressman Janklow, Stephanie Herseth is greatly favored, and if she wins, the Democrat, is that going to effect Tom Daschle's race? In that you would have a completely Democratic congressional delegation in what's a Republican state?

KRANZ: You hear Republicans saying that, they're saying, hey, we need, you know, to make sure that we preserve one of those seats and hopefully pick up the Senate seat. And so that's become an issue out here. And so John Thune when they said, Congressman Thune, we need you to bypass the Senate race, get in this race so we can, quote, "save the Republican Party." He says, the party doesn't see -- need saving, many good Republicans in this race that can do it. And so he went to the Senate race instead.

But there are some people who believe that these Republicans, these 20 percent Republicans who oftentimes vote Democrat may choose between one of the two, and let either Daschle or Herseth fall by the wayside, and so that's part of the discussion.

SHIELDS: Al Hunt.

HUNT: Dave, as you know, in 1992, Tom Daschle ran 25 points ahead of Bill Clinton in South Dakota, but that was against a very weak Republican opponent. This time, he's got a formidable opponent. Is there any concern among the Daschle people about the top of the ticket, particularly Howard Dean being the nominee and hurting Tom Daschle in South Dakota?

KRANZ: I think their side is concerned about that, but one of the things about South Dakota when you look at it, we're pretty inconsistent with the rest of the country. We have voted for many -- we have only voted for three Democrats for president, only four governors have been Democrat. Yet we continue to have an equal opportunity seat in the United States Senate, and Democrats are comfortable that that's not going to be an issue. In fact, when you talk about the previous question of the Republican advantage of maybe trying to win all three seats, Democrats are saying, well, you've got George Bush to vote for; we'll take the other three, and they're making that case and that particular argument.

SHIELDS: David, in 2002, there wasn't a state of all the Senate races where the president devoted more attention, energy and time than he did in South Dakota, trying to help John Thune against Tim Johnson. With all due respect to the state of Mount Rushmore, it's highly unlikely that the president will be visiting South Dakota much in 2004. How will that effect the Daschle-Thune race?

KRANZ: I don't want to speak for John Thune, but I got to believe he's thinking that's OK with him, because virtually every visit by President Bush in 2002 ended up in some sort of a mess. On August 15, he went to Mount Rushmore, didn't bring aid, disaster aid to the farmers and ranchers out there, and had a little bit of a backlash. He went to Aberdeen on October 29, and a ticketing snafu left 2,000 people holding tickets standing in the cold. On November 3, he came back for a final hurrah, filled the arena, tore down the entire Republican operation for getting out the vote so they could fill the arena, and Bush's visits weren't exactly a big plus for him at that point in time.

SHIELDS: Short time, Bob.

NOVAK: Dave, do you think the fact that Tom Daschle is no longer majority leader undermines the necessity for South Dakota to keep their high position in the U.S. Senate?

KRANZ: I'll tell you this, the majority leader, minority issue is a big deal in South Dakota. I've talked to a lot of Republicans who are sympathetic to Daschle, some of that 20 percent, and I asked them, what happens if Daschle runs for reelection but does not run for minority leader? The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) over the top of the table or over the phone, I hear saying, listen, South Dakota is so often 50th in everything. We finally got somebody in the United States Senate in the position of power and influence that can get things done for the state, and oh by the way, get things done for us. So why would we throw that out?

And that becomes a real tough point for that 20 percent of the Republicans who still support or will support Democrats. It's going to be awfully tough for John Thune to go get that vote, even though that has to be one of his top priorities in this election.

SHIELDS: David Kranz, thank you again very much for being with us. You've been terrific.

KRANZ: Thank you.

Kranz Watch

Daniel Okrent, the ombudsman or "public editor" for the New York Times, is doing a great job at his new post. We've e-mailed back and forth occasionally regarding certain stories, and Okrent and his assistant, Arthur Bovino, have made a good faith effort to investigate the issues brought to their attention. Okrent's latest piece is headlined "You Can Stand on Principle and Still Stub a Toe" and makes a point that could be applied to the events last summer that outed David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, as too inextricably linked with Tom Daschle to be able to report objectively on stories related to Tom Daschle (for the details, see the links under "Talon News Series on Argus Leader Bias" on the right side of this page). Excerpt from Okrent's piece:

WHEN a news subject tries to get a reporter removed from a story, a challenge has been issued to the core of a newspaper's self-image: its integrity. Unless editors see a clear case of bias or conflict, they tend to respond the way you or I would respond to, say, an insult to a family member. They stiffen with indignation. They try at the same time to support the wounded loved one. Were they to concede, the humiliation could hurt more than the charge itself.

The distinction is that the subject of Kranz's reporting--Tom Daschle--is not trying to get Kranz removed from stories relating to him. In fact, Tom Daschle WANTS Kranz to cover him, because the Argus Leader in general and Kranz in particular are instruments of the Daschle campaign, tending to highlight stories that reflect positively on Daschle, and tending to bury or ignore stories that reflect negatively on Daschle.

The point is, there is certainly evidence that exists which tends to show Kranz has a conflict of interest in covering Tom Daschle. If the AL is interested in at least appearing to objectively cover Tom Daschle, it could start by relegating Kranz's Sunday columns to the op-ed page, where they used to appear. Another thing the AL could do is to hire someone to perform as a "public editor" in the same way that Okrent performs for the NYT. Having the AL's executive editor moonlighting as the "public editor" doesn't wash.