South Dakota Politics

Argus Leader shows institutional bias

Ethanol is a hugely important issue in this year's Senate race in South Dakota. Since ethanol is so important, it is illuminating to observe the coverage of the issue in the Argus Leader, the state's newspaper of record. Last fall, when the energy bill with its ethanol provisions was poised to pass in the Senate, and which the President was prepared to sign into law, the AL had a front page, above the fold, horizontally placed story with the headline "Daschle lends clout to energy bill" (Nov. 20, 2003). That is a laudatory, cheerleading headline, which goes far beyond reporting the fact that Daschle supported the energy bill, and into the realm of pamphleteering. Worse, the headline was misleading. The fact is, Daschle didn't "lend clout" to the energy bill. The National Journal quoted Democratic sources to that effect:

But Democratic senators and aides close to leadership today said Daschle feels he has done enough in announcing his support for the bill and will respect the fact that a majority of Senate Democrats strongly oppose it. "He doesn't owe [Senate Majority Leader Frist] anything," one Democratic source said today.

The energy bill ultimately failed due to a Democratic-led filibuster.

Today, when Tom Daschle's efforts to tack the ethanol amendment onto the internet tax bill failed miserably, the story about it in the Argus Leader did not make the front page, above the fold. It was relegated to a different section of the paper. There was no headline like "Daschle fails to deliver on ethanol." It seems that when Daschle succeeds, or is even on the brink of success on an important priority, it's front page news, but when Daschle fails, it's kept off the front page.

Clearly, the bias at the Argus Leader is institutional. The people making the decisions about story placement and headline writing know that what they do has a major impact on public opinion in South Dakota. Somehow, their decisions almost always cut in favor of Tom Daschle. Who makes these decisions? The editors. Who are the editors? The executive editor is Randell Beck, but the executive editor is more involved with the long-range visions and goals of the newspaper, and has less to do with the day-to-day decision-making. The managing editor and the assistant editor are involved in the day-to-day decisionmaking on things like story placement and headline writing. Interestingly, the assistant editor of the Argus Leader is a fellow by the name of Patrick Lalley, who in the early 1990's was the editor of the now defunct Sioux Falls Tempest, a free alternative weekly. I believe Lalley may have even founded the Tempest. The Tempest was known as the Sioux Falls version of the Village Voice, and advocated issues from a far-left perspective. There's certainly nothing wrong with advocating left-wing views, but there is something wrong with advocating left-wing views under the cloak of "objectivity." I'll be looking up old copies of the Tempest in the coming weeks to investigate whether Lalley has left a paper trail that might explain what's behind the institutional bias at the Argus Leader.

Sibby on a roll

Sibby is on a roll with his efforts to expose the misleading Daschle ad in the Mitchell Daily Republic that appeared recently (Daschle was taking credit for something he voted against). The MDR has now responded with an editorial. You can find more background info HERE.

Grassley didn't support Daschle ethanol amendment

Mike Madden has a report in today's edition of the Argus Leader about Tom Daschle's desperate ploy yesterday to salvage his reputation as a champion of ethanol: "Ethanol measure discarded." Excerpt:

South Dakota politics loomed large over the Senate floor Thursday. Since last summer, Daschle has featured his support for ethanol in his television ad campaign. Republicans blasted him last fall, when the energy bill failed to pass, saying the Democratic leader hadn't done enough to bring members of his caucus on board.

The Washington Post has a similar report headlined "Bid to Revive Energy Legislation Via Unrelated Bill Fails in Senate." Excerpt:

Daschle has championed ethanol both in the Senate and in his close election battle against former House member John Thune (R) in corn-producing South Dakota. Although he lost the vote on his proposal, it enabled him to blame Republicans for its failure. And he was quick to do so, accusing GOP senators of squandering an opportunity to boost the rural American economy and "send a powerful message to the Persian Gulf oil producers who are intent on driving up American gasoline prices."

No, Tom Daschle squandered an opportunity last fall, when the energy bill with the ethanol provisions only needed Senate passage to become law. (If the energy bill had passed the Senate today, it would not have passed in the House because the bill lacks a provision giving MTBE manufacturers immunity from lawsuits.) Instead of gathering two more votes from the caucus he leads, Dashle went out and signed copies of his book.

At the time, Senator Chuck Grassley, also a champion of ethanol, took Tom Daschle to the woodshed for not wielding his purported clout to pass the energy bill. It is interesting to note that Chuck Grassley did not support Tom Daschle's ethanol amendment yesterday, voting to reject the motion for cloture.

It is also interesting to note that Tom Daschle wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal last October, confidently predicting that the ethanol provision would pass on its own. That certainly didn't happen yesterday. It wasn't even close. It leads one to believe that Tom Daschle is better at empty political posturing than delivering for South Dakota.

Daschle fails to deliver on ethanol--again

DVT points to this Investor's Business Daily report headlined "Efforts to revive Senate energy legislation fall short." Excerpt:

In an odd twist earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., sought to add an amendment to an unrelated Internet tax moratorium bill that would enact popular ethanol provisions of the energy bill that stalled out in the Senate last fall.

(Emphasis added.) As DVT notes, Daschle missed the one opportunity to get these ethanol provisions passed last fall, and instead of rounding up the last couple of votes needed, he went out to sign copies of his book.

The above photo was taken during a book signing in New York on November 10, 2003. By the way, Daschle is at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York tonight receiving an award for blocking tort reform.

It's worthwhile to flash back to a letter Tom Daschle wrote to the Wall Street Journal last October regarding ethanol. Excerpt from the letter:

You also suggest that I would abandon my opposition to drilling in the wildlife refuge in order to advance the energy bill's ethanol provision, which is supported by more than two-thirds of the Senate and President Bush. I never will make that trade, and I am confident that the ethanol provision will become law this Congress, either in the energy bill or on its own merit."

(Emphasis added.) So far, Daschle's confidence seems to have been misplaced. Perhaps it is because of this misplaced confidence that Daschle didn't bother to get the number of votes when the energy bill came within an eyelash of passing last fall, and instead went out and signed some books.

Isn't it interesting, too, that even though the ANWR provision was dropped from the energy bill, Daschle still didn't wholeheartedly lobby for its passage? Now, Tom Daschle is blaming the failure of the bill on the MBTE provisions, and those provisions have been taken out too. Still, we can't seem to get these ethanol provisions into law. It leads one to ask what kind of clout Tom Daschle supposedly has, when he can't or won't get ethanol passed into law.

Daschle selling access to lobbyists for $25,000

The Hill has a report set to appear in tomorrow's edition headlined "Meet the leader, only $25K; Senate Dems sell lobbyists access for the maximum." Excerpt:

Senate Democrats are offering lobbyists new access to Senate Democratic leaders and lawmakers in exchange for personal contributions of $25,000, the maximum amount allowed to national party fundraising committees.

Also, as DVT has noted, Daschle will be going to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City tomorrow to receive the "Law Day 2004 Award" for his efforts to block tort reform. The award is given by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association. Trial lawyers are Tom Daschle's biggest contributors. Hopefully, the Argus Leader will inform the voters of South Dakota about this event. As DVT states, tort reform is an issue ripe for debate in South Dakota, and there is a stark contrast in views between the two candidates. The story would practically write itself.

Argus Leader meets standard on Daschle story

Yesterday, I set down the standard for the Argus Leader's coverage of Tom Daschle's illegal attack phone calls. I'm happy to report that, in my estimation, Mike Madden's story headlined "Daschle telephone campaign broke law" has met the standard. The standard to compare the story to was a February 11 negative story on John Thune alleging that Thune had violated campaign laws. That story ran on the front page (1A) of the Argus Leader, contained 922 words, and used variations of the phrase "Thune broke the law" three times.

Madden's story today was published on page 1A of the AL. - Check
Madden's story today had much fewer than 922 words, but it didn't take many words to explain the Daschle violation, so it's understandable why there were fewer words. - Check
Madden's story today contained three variations of the phrase "Daschle broke the law." - Check

Madden's story meets the standard, and that's all that should be expected from the Argus Leader. I advocate hard-nosed coverage of both campaigns in this year's Senate race. Today's story by Madden is an encouraging sign that the AL is attempting to do so. Kudos to Mike Madden and the Argus Leader.

Breaking: Daschle admits his calls broke the law

KELO 1320 AM radio is reporting that the Daschle campaign is admitting that it violated campaign laws (namely the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) with its attack phone calls last Friday and yesterday made to practically everybody in the state. The phone calls did not have the disclaimer at the end saying "I'm Tom Daschle, and I approve of this message." All political communications are required to have this disclaimer. You can read more HERE. I'm not buying the argument that this was an "inadvertent oversight" as the Daschle camp is claiming. That they didn't tack on the disclaimer to the phone call helped the Daschle camp immensely. If people were told that Tom Daschle had approved this phone call, the whole purpose of the call would have backfired. People's ire would be directed at Tom Daschle instead of John Thune. It's unsurprising that this "oversight" cut in favor of the Daschle campaign.

The disclaimer provision is not some extremely technical and complicated part of BCRA, as the Daschle campaign is disingenuously trying to argue. The Daschle campaign has run millions of dollars of radio and television ads that have the disclaimer on them. Obviously, the campaign is very familiar with the disclaimer reqirements. Also, Tom Daschle was a huge proponent of BCRA. BCRA was one of his priorities when he was the majority leader of the Senate, and Daschle was the major force behind the passage of BCRA in the spring of 2002. It's ridiculous to argue that he would have "overlooked" the disclaimer. The disclaimer provision was a big deal when BCRA was being debated. The bottom line is that the Daschle campaign has engaged in a strategy of breaking the law in order to benefit politically.

Now it remains to be seen whether the Argus Leader will report this story in tomorrow's edition. Greg Belfrage is reporting that they will be.

On February 11th of this year, almost three months ago, the Argus Leader ran a 922-word front page story (1A) headlined "Thune spending questioned" written by Mike Madden and David Kranz. (I've discussed this story HERE.) The story was about MERE ALLEGATIONS that John Thune had broken campaign laws. In the story, variations of the phrase "Thune broke the law" were used three times. Now that Tom Daschle has ADMITTED that he broke campaign laws, will the Argus Leader use multiple variations of the phrase "Daschle broke the law" at all? Will the story be on the front page (1A) of the AL? Will it be nearly 1000 words? I think this February 11th negative story on John Thune will be a good standard to compare what the AL reports on Daschle breaking the campaign laws tomorrow.

Kudos to Greg Belfrage for doing the legwork on this story.

UPDATE: DVT has more.

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.

Charlie Cook: Daschle's clout argument "moot"

Political analyst Charlie Cook has an analysis of the Daschle v. Thune race under the headline "Serious Senate Races." Excerpt:

Daschle has spent $6.4 million, and the average South Dakotan has seen about 140 Daschle ads over the last year. Yet Daschle's lead over Thune is less than 10 points. This race will be very close. It is ironic that one of the most powerful members of the Senate is the only elected incumbent now facing a really tough race.

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.

Andrew Sullivan on Beck

It has been an eventful week. On Wednesday, Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck let loose a tirade against "the internet" in response to the emergence of the Bombshell Memos. Beck unwittingly kindled an outcry from the blogosphere. The most powerful response to Beck's comments came from Andrew Sullivan, whose criticism of Howell Raines, the former executive editor of the New York Times, was a factor in Raines' eventual resignation from the NYT. It's worth recalling Andrew's remarks as we await Beck's weekly column tomorrow:

AN EDITOR LOSES IT: The editor of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader cannot take any criticism from the outside about the blatant bias displayed by one of his key political reporters. Money quote:

The internet is both a good and a bad thing. The bad is that it has allowed people who hate to distribute their vitriol anonymously, um, using gang emails, using blogs, what have you, with barely a shred of proof, manipulating facts, to perpetuate an ideology. And it's a truly sad thing. And I guess that I would suggest that I’m not going to dignify that kind of crap with an answer.

Using blogs to criticize newspapers? How sad. How awful. How terrifying. I think we've hit a nerve here, haven't we? When you stumble onto the truth, it sometimes hurts.

Will Beck respond thoughtfully and substantively in his piece tomorrow?

Allegations of bias

A fellow named Benjamin Lehman has a letter to the editor of the Argus Leader published today in which he voices concern over Professor Jon Lauck (of DVT fame) being quoted as "some sort of unbiased academic" in a story about ethanol written by the "unbiased" David Kranz and published in the AL nearly six weeks ago.

In that March 14 story, headlined "Ethanol wields power in Senate race," Professor Bob Burns of SDSU was also quoted as "some sort of unbiased academic." Here is one Burns quote from the story:

Thune said Daschle's actions made him want to enter the race. "That series of events was a catalyst in my deciding to run. It convinced me Senator Daschle's priorities had changed. I think it was a tragedy when [the energy bill] didn't pass last fall. If you look at Senate Democrats in the Midwest with farm constituencies that vote against it, why wasn't there an effort to reach out to some of those senators in states where ethanol was an issue?"

Observers have mixed reactions about who is right or wrong.

"If that is a campaign strategy for the Thune campaign, it will be a difficult strategy to implement in large part because the White House and the Bush administration are very important to the passage of an energy bill," said Bob Burns, political science professor at South Dakota State University. "Senator Daschle has established himself as a leader of ethanol in South Dakota, and whether the energy bill with ethanol provisions is finally approved or not, Senator Daschle will continue to enjoy the reputation as a champion of ethanol."

SDSU history professor Jon Lauck questions Daschle's influence. "On ethanol, Daschle didn't even try to use the clout he supposedly has," he said. "His caucus was so furious with him for failing to kill the prescription drug bill that he was forced to let the ethanol bill die. It's a case of Daschle's obligations to his liberal caucus trumping his obligations to South Dakota."

(Emphasis added.) Obviously, Lauck made a pro-Thune comment, while Burns made a pro-Daschle comment. If one were to look to history, one would discover that Burns ran for the South Dakota state legislature in 1980 as -- you guessed it -- a Democrat. But I guess in Lehman's world, only conservative academics should be identified as such in the Argus Leader.

UPDATE: Ryne McClaren and DVT note that there's a certain irony to this letter.

Belfrage reports on Daschle phone calls

Be sure to read Greg Belfrage's report of a mass pro-Daschle phone call campaign yesterday where a female caller read a script urging the recipient to call John Thune's office and tell him to "stop his friends from polluting our airwaves."

A friend of mine also received this message on his voicemail and allowed me to listen to it (transcript of call follows, the caller evidently began speaking before the recording started):

"...negative television ads, and a news story where John Thune says it's OK for outside groups to run these ads.

In fact Thune's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said there's nothing wrong with negative ads. I don't know about you, but the negative campaigns of 2002 were enough for me.

I'm a Republican, but this year I won't support any candidate who runs a negative campaign.

It's time to send a message that we won't stand for it anymore. If you agree, call John Thune's office at 1-605-221-1010, and ask him to stop his friends from polluting our airwaves. Again, that's 1-605-221-1010. Thank you."

Greg promises to investigate who financed these calls and report back to us. Stay tuned.

Ryne McClaren joins the Dakota Alliance

It's official. South Dakota expatriate Ryne McClaren has become the newest member of the Dakota Alliance. He joins this blog, DVT, and Sibby Online. Welcome aboard, sir! You're in for one hell of a ride!

Transcript of another Beck outburst published

Now you can read a transcript of another outburst made by Randell Beck last summer.

Andrew Sullivan on Beck

I can't believe I missed this. The great Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor at The New Republic, has also weighed in on the outburst by Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck.

Blogosphere responds to Beck

That didn't take long. The blogosphere has been abuzz today about the outburst made by Argus Leader executive editor Randell Beck on Greg Belfrage's show yesterday. DVT has an excellent summary of the situation. Also see a very kind post by a fellow in Spokane, headlined "Investigative journalism by South Dakota blogger." My good friend Ryne McClaren also has a very kind post, even going so far as to solicit beer money for me. What a guy!

Ryne McClaren did the honors of kicking things off today with this post. Then the good professor took note.

And of course we can't forget the fellows over at Powerline, who Beck called "a couple of yahoos in Minneapolis." Powerline's response? "Funny, we don't look yahooish." Beck also referred to "a guy out in Denver" as being a yahoo, who could only be Cory Skluzak, another good friend.

Pejman takes note too:

YOU KNOW YOU'VE MADE IT IN THE WORLD . . . When you are accused of being part of "a small cabal." If that doesn't constitute having power, I don't know what does.

Argus editor calls Bombshell Memos 'crap'

As SDP regulars know, over the last two weeks I have published two documents on this blog which I discovered in researching the publicly available papers of former Senator Jim Abourezk. These papers (what historians call a "primary source") are held at the I.D. Weeks Library here at the University of South Dakota, where I am a third year law student. I have coined the term "Bombshell Memo" to describe the documents I uncovered because they detail some of the political activities of David Kranz, then the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, and now known as the dean of South Dakota political reporters. You can access a pdf copy of the First Bombshell Memo HERE and a pdf copy of the Second Bombshell Memo HERE.

Yesterday on Greg Belfrage's radio show, Randell Beck, executive editor of the Argus Leader, was asked about the Bombshell Memos, and blogs in general. You can access a transcript of Beck's remarks HERE. (Note that I link to the full text of what Beck actually said, allowing the reader to come to his own conclusions, which is more of a courtesy than Beck affords to me or the others he attacks.)

Beck never substantively dealt with the issue of the Bombshell Memos, instead resorting to name-calling and saying ridiculous things that drew attention away from the central issue (in other words, using the red herring fallacy). The Bombshell Memos are powerful pieces of evidence that support the argument that David Kranz is not an objective observer of the South Dakota political scene. Calling these memos "crap" is not an argument. Beck never explains WHY these memos are "crap." I and many others would be interested to know why Beck calls these memos "crap." But he never tells us.

Why won't Beck deal substantively with the issues that are presented by the existence of the Bombshell Memos? Why won't he at least offer an argument? As caller Steve Kirby told Beck at the end of the program, in much more measured tones than Beck was ever able to muster, the Argus Leader has a perception problem. Name-calling and dangling red herrings may be an effective way to manage the employees of the Argus Leader, but such tactics won't cut it beyond the confines of the Argus Leader building in downtown Sioux Falls.

Beck appears to want to talk about the Bombshell Memos. The problem is that he wants to have a debate about the memos behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of informed readers. That would be a worse than useless exercise. The Argus Leader has a very public perception problem, and the only way to deal with the problem is to have a public debate. If Randell Beck wishes to have a debate about the information that is published on the blogs, that would mean that Randell Beck would have to specifically cite what website he is referring to when he talks about them. I fear that Randell Beck is afraid to reference specific blogs because that will allow his readers and his listeners to come to these blogs and find out for themselves what we're saying. At that point, these readers will find out that what Randell Beck is saying about the blogs isn't true, and that our criticism of the Argus Leader is substantive criticism backed by solid evidence, with reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. That is much more than these readers got yesteday from the executive editor of the most influential newspaper in the state.

Oh, and in case you didn't know it, my name is Jason Van Beek. Just like it says below every post I write.

Giago explains why he dropped out

Tim Giago had a piece in the Yankton Press & Dakotan yesterday headlined "Why I Decided To Withdraw From The S.D. Senate Race." Excerpt:

It is true that if I drew a lot of votes from the very large Indian community in South Dakota, the man who would suffer the most would be Daschle since Indians nearly always vote as Democrats.

Some laughed at my audacity, but Tom Daschle did not. In fact, after the narrow victory of Sen. Tim Johnson, also a Democrat, in the last election, largely because of the support given to him from the Indian reservations, even the man Johnson defeated, John Thune, has been out beating the bushes in Indian country.

Sorry about the delay

Apologies to my readers for the sparse posting lately. I just completed my mock trial final for my trial techniques class (we won). But I'm too tired to blog, so just go to DVT, who's doing his usual bang up job, particularly with this post. Back to blogging tomorrow.

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.

Giago drops out of the race

As DVT first reported, Senator Tom Daschle met with Tim Giago this past weekend in Rapid City to beg him to get out of the race. Now the WaPo is reporting that Giago has relented and will drop out. When Giago first announced his candidacy, Daschle said that he welcomed him to the political arena. It ended with Tom Daschle begging Giago to get the hell out of the political arena. The bottom line is that Daschle's scurrying to shore up support indicates fatal weaknesses in his campaign.

That, and the Dakota Alliance of blogs got a whiff of this story long before the Big Media did.

Hugh Hewitt

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for linking to SDP and the rest of the Dakota Alliance today.

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.

Daschle and the Iraq war

Recall this piece from the Aberdeen American News a little over a week ago, about Tom Daschle's latest position on the Iraq war:

America started its war with Iraq under false pretenses, Tom Daschle said Friday.

But Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, told reporters during a conference call that the war is justified because Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed. But, the Aberdeen native said, the main reasons President Bush gave Congress and the public for invading Iraq have turned out to be inaccurate[.]

Victor Davis Hanson discusses this apparently contradictory position in a piece headlined "Our Present Chaos; Inconsistency is the order of the day." Excerpt:

Still, despite all this, we are told by all both that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein and that the United States cannot precipitously withdraw from the country and cease its reconstruction efforts. Yet does such sentiment translate into support for the ongoing effort to bring "democracy" to Iraq? Hardly. Apparently a new exegesis has arisen that goes something like the following: The United States was wrong to go to war to take out a monster who deserved to be taken out but nevertheless should stay to ensure stability in a country that it has no right to be in.

Is there any general explanation for all these contradictions? I think very little other than the general lesson that we can draw about a rather humane, affluent, and leisured society after September 11 finding itself confused and in a baffling war against medieval enemies it thought were not supposed to be around in the 21st century.

(Emphasis original.)

South Dakota and NYT

The New York Times mentions South Dakota in two different contexts today. One piece is headlined "Bad New Days for Voting Rights." Excerpt:

With South Dakota's senior senator, Tom Daschle, running in another hotly contested race this year, Indians are bracing for more trouble at the polls. Many Indians feel their situation is similar to other so-called ballot integrity efforts over the last few decades.

There's no mention at all in the piece about Tim Giago, the Native American journalist making an independent bid for the Senate in South Dakota. It is rumored that Tom Daschle met with him yesterday to try to get him out of the race (so much for Daschle welcoming him to the political arena). With Giago on the ballot, the trouble at the polls for Tom Daschle might be that his get-out-the-vote effort on the reservations might be getting out the vote for Tim Giago.

Elsewhere in the NYT, Sheryl Gay Stolberg has a piece headlined "In Politics, Too Much Money Is Never Enough." Excerpt:

It is a rule of thumb in politics that candidates need enough money to respond to attacks, which is one reason campaign managers insist they can never have enough. When Senator Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat, ran for re-election last year in South Dakota, he spent $7 million; in a state with little more than half a million people 18 years old or older, that amounted to more than $18 for every registered voter. (By contrast, Mr. Bush, if his campaign costs $200 million this year, will spend pretty close to $2 per registered voter.)

Yet at the end of the campaign, Mr. Johnson did not have enough to respond to a negative direct mail ad, and he eked out a victory by just 524 votes. "We definitely didn't raise enough money,'' Mr. Hildebrand said. Political consultants of both parties agree that so far Mr. Bush seems to be making smart use of his millions. Senator Kerry came out of the Democratic primary season slightly ahead in the polls; since the Bush-Cheney ads began, most polls show the president has narrowed the gap. The decision to scale back, said Dick Wadhams, a Republican strategist, is smart politics.

"Obviously the president needed to get back into the political game,'' Mr. Wadhams said. But, he said, "the public has probably had their fill of politics at this point.''

Interestingly, Dick Wadhams, who is John Thune's campaign manager, has not spent a cent to date on television advertising (although the Thune campaign has advertised on blogs). By contrast, Steve Hildebrand, who is Tom Daschle's campaign manager, has spent millions on television advertising that has been going on since last summer. Still, most polls show the margin between the two candidates to be very close, considering the disparities in television advertising.

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.

DVT's "word on the street"

DVT relates the latest rumor: that Tom Daschle has requested a meeting with Tim Giago in order to persuade him to get out of the race.

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.

Thanks to Ryne McClaren

Thanks to Ryne McClaren for his kind words--about me, that is.

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.

Frist visit

The NYT had an interesting story a few days ago regarding Majority Leader Bill Frist's efforts to keep the Republican majority in the Senate, headlined "Frist's Got the Cards, but He Ain't Betting the Senate." I'd forgotten the fact that Frist was an integral component of Republican successes in 2002 as head of the NRSC. Excerpt from the NYT piece:

The former transplant surgeon knows a little bit about political operations. Dr. Frist headed the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2002 when Republicans took back the majority; in the process, he built a base of support among his colleagues that helped propel him to the leadership slot after Senator Trent Lott was forced aside. Dr. Frist concentrated on recruiting well-known candidates such as Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee during his tenure and said the key to the 2004 Senate elections remains settling on the most formidable candidate in a given race.

This explains Frist's planned campaign stops in South Dakota next month on behalf of John Thune. As the piece concludes, the Democrats "have to worry about their leader, Senator Tom Daschle, who faces a serious challenge at home in South Dakota."

Frist coming to South Dakota

Roll Call reports today that the Senate majority leader will be in South Dakota next month to campaign for John Thune. The piece, headlined "Frist Going to Daschle’s Turf," has this observation:

Senate Historian Richard Baker could not recall a time in the modern era of campaigns when one floor leader campaigned against the other in his home state, mostly because Daschle is the first floor leader since the 1960s to face a tough re-election fight.

In 1962 and 1968, then-Republican leader Everett Dirksen (Ill.) faced tough campaigns, winning with 53 percent of the vote each time. Dirksen enjoyed a very cordial relationship with the Democratic leader at the time, Mike Mansfield (Mont.).

The last Senate floor leader to lose his re-election was Ernest McFarland (D-Ariz.), who was defeated in 1952 by Barry Goldwater (R).

I think it would be illuminating to examine the 1952 McFarland-Goldwater race for any parallels to this year's Daschle-Thune race. Perhaps this is a project better suited for DVT (which is operated by an historian at SDSU), but I'll certainly try to add my thoughts in the next few days.

Daschle the subject of Novak's "Outrage of the Week"

On this past weekend's edition of CNN's "Capital Gang," Bob Novak stated the following:

NOVAK: The stranglehold over the United States Senate by Democratic leader Tom Daschle has tightened. He has exerted life and death power over any federal judicial nomination, and many bills for the use of the filibuster.

Now he is preventing legislation, passed by both the House and Senate, from going to a Senate-House conference to iron out differences. That gives the minority of one chamber an absolute veto over everything.

In 16th Century Poland, a single member of parliament could veto any piece of legislation. Tom Daschle has that same power today.

In other words, Daschle is exercising his vaunted clout to further the interests of the national Democratic party by preventing legislation that has passed on a bipartisan basis to be ironed out in conference. And then Daschle has the temerity to blame President Bush for the poisonous partisanship in Washington. I think it's safe to say that by blocking legislation that has passed both houses of Congress, Tom Daschle is damaging South Dakota's interests and favoring the interests of the national party he leads.

Elsewhere in the news, Novak reports on Daschle's maneuverings to block the recess appointment of judicial nominees (scroll down to the "Blocking judges" heading).

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.

Daschle: war started under false pretenses

According to a report in the Aberdeen American News, Senator Tom Daschle told reporters on Friday that the Iraq war was "started under false pretenses." Is Daschle saying that President Bush deliberately lied to get this country into a war? Daschle listed two of the "false pretenses":

1) There were no weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger; and

2) There was no link between Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist groups that attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

Okay. Eviscerating the first claim is simple enough: Bush never said that WMD posed an imminent danger. He said in his 2003 State of the Union address that we can't afford to wait for Iraq's WMD to become an imminent threat. See this post at Instapundit.

The jury is still out on the second claim.

The bottom line: this is yet another example of Tom Daschle's "Kerryitis."

UPDATE: Blogger Gerry Daly points out that the Clinton Justice Department brought an indictment against Osama bin Laden, claiming, among other things, that Osama and the government of Iraq had reached an understanding "that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Steyn's latest mentions Herseth

Mark Steyn has a new piece about the Daily Kos blog, published in the UK Spectator (registration), headlined "Murderous Rhetoric." Excerpt:

You can find anything on the Internet if you look hard enough. But not many website wallahs who exult in the murder of American citizens are as well-connected as Mr Zuniga. He claims his site is ‘the most popular political weblog with over three million monthly visits’ and boasts of his access to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The Daily Kos carries advertisements from Democratic congressional candidates around the country, including incumbents — North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy — and challengers — South Dakota Democratic House candidate Stephanie Herseth, who raised $21,000 in one day on Zuniga’s site.

Via LGF. As Ryne McClaren notes, Stephanie Herseth is still taking donations from a site whose operator exults in the murder of American citizens.

Daschle tries to evade Kerry, Byrd

This photo was taken on March 11, 2004.

UPDATE: Speaking of Senator Daschle and Senator Byrd, see the latest post at Sibby Online about George McGovern's announcement kicking off his 1980 campaign in Mitchell. Besides Daschle and Byrd, David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, was also on the scene that day.

Poll comparison

According to a paragraph from a March 17, 2002 report by David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, John Thune led Senator Tim Johnson in the polls 49% to 43%. Senator Johnson, of course, went on to win that race by 524 votes. Comparing the March 2002 poll to the latest poll in this year's Daschle v. Thune race is illuminating. The latest poll, published last week, and conducted on March 27 and 28, shows Daschle leading Thune 48% to 43%, numbers that look remarkably similar to the numbers in March of 2002. So if history is any guide, John Thune will overcome Daschle's lead and squeak out a victory, much as Tim Johnson did to Thune in 2002.

Dodd-gate morphing into Daschle-gate?

I'm back. Sorry, I didn't realize I'd have access to the internet. Happily, I do. Anyway, see the latest:

Andrew Sullivan has coined the term "Dodd-gate" to describe the uproar over Senator Chris Dodd's remarks praising Senator Robert Byrd, an old segregationist. The remarks are reminiscent of Senator Trent Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond that eventually toppled Lott from his leadership post. Byrd "would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation," said Dodd.

Now Tom Daschle has leapt to Dodd's defense, according to a story in today's Washington Times headlined "Dodd praise for Byrd hit by GOP." Excerpt:

Sen. Tom Daschle said there was "no parallel" between Sen. Christopher J. Dodd's praise of Mr. Byrd and Republican Sen. Trent Lott's praise of former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond.

The piece continues:

But Mr. Daschle of South Dakota said Mr. Dodd's speech was not comparable to the remarks that cost Mr. Lott his leadership post.

"I wasn't on the floor when Senator Dodd made his comments," Mr. Daschle told reporters yesterday. "I don't know what he said. But I would think even he would tell you there's no parallel."

Why is Tom Daschle injecting himself into this? Making these statements only jeopardizes his leadership position.

Gone til the weekend

Heads up to SDP readers: I won't be posting again until the weekend. Meanwhile, read this excellent piece at DVT about Winner, SD, a place where many of my relatives come from.

Daschle on ads: It's the first thing that pops into my mind

DVT discusses a piece that appeared in Roll Call today headlined "South Dakota Reality TV;
Daschle Has Advertised Steadily While Thune Stays off the Airwaves." Excerpt from the Roll Call piece:

Daschle has been on television almost continually since July 2003; in that time he has run 11 different campaign commercials, an effort that has cost him roughly $1 million. Daschle has spent nearly $10 million total on his re-election effort since 1999.

Thune has yet to run a single ad since formally entering the race at the beginning of the year, and his campaign said no immediate plans are in the works to take to the airwaves.

Interestingly, a 1991 Washington Post piece reveals how Tom Daschle thinks primarily in terms of political ads. The piece, dated November 26, 1991, and headlined "On Capitol Hill, Symbols Triumph;
Substance Suffers Amid Frustrating Fiscal Pressures, Political Fears" contains the following quote from Tom Daschle:

"I dare say the first thing that comes to my mind in a vote is: Can it [the issue] pass the 30-second test, how successful will my opponent be in applying it to a 30-second ad? It's a screen that comes up whenever there is a vote," said Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).

The Senate and tort reform

The AP has a report headlined Senate GOP Tries to Curb Medical Lawsuits." Excerpt:

Senate Republicans are trying for a third time to persuade Democrats to curb medical malpractice lawsuits and help alleviate what proponents of limits call a health care crisis....

Republicans on Wednesday will try to overcome a Democratic blockade on the medical malpractice legislation. Senate Republicans and President Bush have argued that the measure - which would set caps on damages - could help reduce unnecessary lawsuits that make it harder for doctors to practice. They've said the lawsuits drive up obstetricians' and emergency room doctors' insurance costs....

The bill is supported by the American Medical Association and the American Insurers Association. Both are longtime GOP allies who argue that frivolous lawsuits drive up insurance premiums for doctors. In several states, obstetricians have said higher insurance bills are forcing them to stop delivering babies.

But trial lawyers - longtime Democrat allies - oppose the bill. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is fighting caps on damages, alleging that insurers' poor returns on investments are largely responsible for the premiums' increases. The group also argues that state-imposed caps on damages do not lead to drops in premiums.

Opponents of the bill also filed a complaint against Frist, a heart surgeon, for participating in the debate since his family founded the HCA hospital chain and its subsidiary malpractice insurer, Health Care Indemnity.

Last weekend, Tom Daschle conveniently glossed over the fact that he leads the effort to oppose tort reform when he was confronted on the issue by a constituent. Trial lawyers are Tom Daschle's biggest campaign donors. And Tom Daschle will lead the effort to kill this latest reform measure today.

AP story on Indian Country

The AP's Carson Walker has a "new" piece headlined "Republicans Eye American Indian Vote" that looks suspiciously similar to a piece published a month ago headlined "GOP eyes American Indian vote in traditional Democratic stronghold." The new piece contains one important passage that the old piece did not:

Daschle is by far South Dakota's most powerful politician, with three terms in the Senate and more than eight years as the Senate Democratic leader. His leadership position has brought immense clout to this rural state of about 750,000.

Daschle couldn't write a better script for one of his ads than that. The Argus Leader refused to publish the old piece, sans the the Daschle ad script, when it came out a month ago. I guarantee that the newly revised piece, containing the paragraph above, will be published in tomorrow's edition of the AL.

UPDATE: Indian Country Today recently published a piece headlined "In South Dakota, Senate may again depend on Indian vote."

Would the Daschle campaign characterize this as an attack on Bill Frist's family?