South Dakota Politics

Sabato: South Dakotans don't want to be represented by three Democrats in DC

SDP reader Reb Wayne sends along the following e-mail he recently received from Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics:

Dear Mr. Wayne,

Thanks for this. Just yesterday, I talked to several key SD reporters and activists. They were unanimous in believing that Herseth would win. They may be unanimously wrong, but I'll stick with the home folks! I also say that if Herseth wins, it's actually bad news for Daschle. South Dakotans don't want to be represented by three Democrats in DC. One is going to have to go---either Herseth in November or Daschle. That's my guess, anyway.

As for the TX races, I'm with you. My team is more cautious. I'm forwarding your comments to them. I'll personally be very surprised if more than one of the endangered TX Dems wins in November.

Best wishes,
Larry Sabato

(Emphasis added.)

The Hill: Diedrich effectively conceding defeat

Tom Daschle's re-election prospects are officially in jeopardy. The Hill, a Capitol Hill publication, has a story just published for tomorrow's edition headlined "Narrow loss will do, says Diedrich in S.D." Excerpt:

Republican congressional hopeful Larry Diedrich is effectively conceding defeat in today’s South Dakota special House election before the polling booths even open....

Pointing out that he was 30 points behind Herseth when he entered the race in late January, Diedrich said that as his name recognition has jumped, so have his poll numbers.

What matters, Diedrich said, is that South Dakotans see that momentum is on his side. If he loses by a narrow margin, he added, voters will think the June 1 election came too soon....

The piece discusses the ramifications of a Herseth win on Tom Daschle's re-election prospects:

Still, there might be some truth to a theory bandied about by Republicans that Daschle doesn’t want Herseth to win, said Sharon Stroschein, the Democratic National Committeewoman for South Dakota.

According to this reasoning, Daschle will have an easier time winning a fourth term if the congressional delegation is not all Democratic. Otherwise, the thinking goes, Thune can make the case to voters that they need a Republican in Washington to make sure South Dakotans have the ear of the GOP-controlled Congress and the White House.

“I’m sure [Thune] would use that argument, and I’m sure it would work to some degree,” Stroschein said. “I’m sure the Daschle people have to be thinking about that.”

It looks like my dad, the cold-eyed analyst, is right, as usual, as seen by this piece in a recent edition of the Washington Times:

"I see her winning, number one. Number two, she's a bright new face. That violates a lot of the political knowledge in South Dakota. Certainly, her opponent has got more experience," said Ron Van Beek of South Dakota-based American Public Opinion.

But see my dad's quote in an earlier edition of the Washington Times:

Ron Van Beek, president of American Public Opinion Survey and Market Research, based in South Dakota, said Mr. Frist's visit is a bigger deal in Washington than in South Dakota.

"It is, really. Even [Mr.] Bush himself doesn't pull that many voters towards Thune because politics is local in South Dakota," he said.

He said the election's backdrop will be set after the June 1 special election to fill South Dakota's sole congressional seat. Democrat Stephanie Herseth is leading the race against Republican Larry Diedrich and, if she wins, South Dakota will have an entirely Democratic congressional delegation.

"If she wins, then many of those people who would probably vote for Daschle — Republicans — would probably vote for Thune," Mr. Van Beek said.

Emily's List punishes its own who oppose partial-birth abortion

Stephanie Herseth has said she supports the ban on partial-birth abortion, with exceptions for life and health of the mother. Although the ban on partial birth abortions has been signed into law and is now being contested in the federal courts, and is therefore something of a moot point, it is illuminating to observe how Emily's List, one of Herseth's major contributors, behaved toward Senator Mary Landrieu when she voted to support the partial-birth abortion ban.

A September, 2002 piece in the liberal American Prospect headlined "Emily's List Hissed" offers the details:

Republicans have vowed to pour money into Louisiana to unseat Landrieu, who was narrowly elected in 1996 with the backing of Emily's List, in order to retake the Senate. Emily's List, which supports only pro-choice Democratic women, announced in 1997 that it would no longer fund Landrieu thanks to her vote for an amended ban on the so-called partial-birth procedure. So Landrieu, the first woman senator from the South elected in her own right, will need all the Democratic Party dollars she can get.

(Emphasis added.) The TAP piece also contains this quote from Democratic operative Paul Begala:

"Now, I wonder if Emily's List contributors wouldn't rather see their money spent helping, say, Mary Landrieu, one of the few women in the Senate, keep her seat. Well, no dice, says Emily's List. Senator Landrieu, you see, supported the ban on partial-birth abortion. Doesn't matter that her Republican opponents support a total ban on all abortions. Wasn't it Santayana who said: 'Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts after you've lost sight of your aim'?"

When uber-Democrat fanatic Paul Begala characterizes Emily's List as engaging in "fanaticism," that's saying something, and it contradicts Stephanie Herseth's protestations that Emily's List is not an extremist group:

Herseth has been criticized for accepting donations from Emily's List, an organization characterized as supporting pro-choice candidates.

But she said it is an organization comprised of individuals from South Dakota and across the country who are interested in seeing more women elected and helps them become more financially viable.

Emily's List has been treated unfairly and it is wrong to suggest it is a radical feminist organization, Herseth said.

It strains credulity that Herseth describes herself as a moderate when she is so beholden to an extremist group like Emily's List. It's no surprise that The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuval is a Herseth fan.

Out-of-state Dems descending on SD

Check out the DCCC's blog, which has pics of Paul Begala and Robert Matsui firing up volunteers headed for South Dakota to help Herseth's GOTV efforts. I wonder if there were any remarks about "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party?"

Then check out the South Dakota GOP's blog, which has pics of these out-of-state Dems cravenly papering over the "John Kerry for President" signs on their bus (scroll down a couple of posts for the pics). That is a microcosm of Democratic politics in South Dakota.

More on illegal anti-Diedrich phone calls

KELO-TV recently had a report on the illegal anti-Diedrich phone calls conducted last Tuesday. The state GOP has filed a complaint with the FEC. While it's too late to find out who paid for these calls and hold them accountable before the special election on Tuesday, it will be useful to know who conducted these calls before the general election in November.

CJR on KELO-TV's scrutiny of campaign ads

The Columbia Journalism Review's "Campaign Desk" has an interesting piece discussing KELO-TV's scrutiny of a Larry Diedrich ad.

KELO's "Ad-Watch" feature is a good idea. Hopefully, KELO will employ this feature when Tom Daschle comes out with ads touting himself as a champion for ethanol. There's a wealth of information to contradict Daschle's claim HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The principle of the people's right to know

The Argus Leader deserves plaudits for its coverage of the secret Janklow pardons, which has culminated today in an unmitigated victory for the people's right to know. Clearly, the AL has the ability to do determined, thorough, and hard-nosed investigative reporting, an ability that the paper needs to demonstrate more often on a wide range of issues in this election year. To be sure, the AL does not exactly have clean hands when it comes to the issue of secrecy, as the statement of one of the pardoned individuals indicates.

Earlier this week, it was discovered that the Argus Leader editors had surreptitiously made a major factual correction to an important story without publishing the correction in their "Corrections & Clarifications" column, which seems to be part of this problem. Hopefully, the Argus Leader's editors understand the concept of media accountability, which is why the people's right to know should not stop at the newsroom door.

Vote today

This is a friendly reminder to SDP readers to vote by absentee ballot today if you haven't already. Go vote, and then work to get out the vote next Tuesday.

NPR covers McKennan park rally, skips Johnson's "Taliban" comment

NPR's "All Things Considered" has a nearly six minute piece on the Diedrich v. Herseth race, and spends a significant amount of time covering the McKennan Park rally last Sunday in which Senator Tim Johnson kicked things off with his "Taliban" comment. The subsequent flap over Johnson's comment even made it into the liberal New York Times. But NPR completely skips the "Taliban" remark. There's no mention of it at all. Once again, we see that what is NOT reported is just as important as what IS reported. The best part? This report is your tax dollars at work.

Argus Leader makes major correction to Kranz story, but fails to report it

The Tuesday, May 25th hard copy edition of the Argus Leader contains the following passage from a David Kranz report titled "Diedrich wants apology for 'Taliban' comment":

Johnson could not be reached for comment, but no apology will be forthcoming from the senator, said Julianne Fisher, Johnson's communications director.

She said Diedrich and other critics needed to be aware of what Johnson went through in 2002 during his re-election campaign.

"This is certainly not directed at Larry Diedrich, but at the outside groups that came in two years ago and attacked his patriotism and his religious faith," Fisher said. "He has no intention of apologizing."

The reference was to an ad in the 2002 race against then-Rep. John Thune. A television ad compared Johnson to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

(Emphasis added.) Now compare the bolded text above to that in the online version of the same story below:

Johnson could not be reached for comment, but no apology will be forthcoming from the senator, said Julianne Fisher, Johnson's communications director.

She said Diedrich and other critics needed to be aware of what Johnson went through in 2002 during his re-election campaign.

"This is certainly not directed at Larry Diedrich, but at the outside groups that came in two years ago and attacked his patriotism and his religious faith," Fisher said. "He has no intention of apologizing."

The reference was to an ad in the 2002 race against then-Rep. John Thune. A television ad showed a picture of Saddam Hussein and criticized Johnson for votes in Congress against a missile defense system.

Obviously, the AL's editors corrected the story in order to be more accurate. Good for them. Here's the kicker, though. Neither the Wednesday edition of the AL, nor today's edition, make any reference to this correction in the AL's tiny "Corrections & Clarifications" column usually found on page A3 of every edition. This means that once the online edition of the story disappears into the AL's Memory Hole, the hard copy edition will live on as fact in the historical record, without there being any accurate correction to the story in the historical record. That is a serious oversight for a paper that touts its journalistic standards.

What's more, the text that was surreptitiously corrected by the AL's editors is a rather salient fact in the brouhaha regarding Senator Johnson's "Taliban" remark, particularly in light of a telling excerpt in Wednesday's edition of the Argus Leader by Dave Kranz titled "'Taliban' remark draws apology from Johnson":

"This was a flip remark at an informal gathering," Johnson said. "I should have been more precise about who attacked me without causing the confusion. In this case it was the Republican Senate Campaign Committee and their operative who came into South Dakota and ran the same ads against me that they did against Max Cleland."

He said that ad campaign in 2002 was "a painful experience when my own son was in danger in combat at that time."

Johnson staff members were not able to identify the specific ad to which he was referring.

Ironically, this phantom ad comparing Johnson to Osama and Saddam that Johnson keeps referring to, and which his staffers cannot identify, is the ad Senator Tom Daschle cited as an example of the "startling meanness" in American politics in his speech a few weeks ago in Manhattan, Kansas. As DVT states, Johnson was never compared to Osama or Saddam. It never happened. To say there was such an ad is false, and, along with the fact that Daschle laughed and clapped as Tim Johnson made the "Taliban" comment, indicates that the Manhattan speech was a thorough exercise in cynicism.

The Argus Leader should prominently publish the correction they made in the online edition of the Tuesday story to an upcoming hard copy edition.

More on Herseth and Project Vote Smart

An anonymous e-mailer writes:

It doesn't appear that your little "blog" is concerned with accuracy, but to the extent it is, you might want to also note the similarly "stunning developments" that former Rep. Bill Janklow, Governor Rounds, and Arnold
Brown, Pres Pro Tem of the SD Senate have also "refused to provide any responses" to the [Project Vote Smart] test. Btw, your lame attempts to be the Matt Drudge of the greater Vermillion area are completely entertaining! Keep 'em coming! We are getting lots of laughs in DC. Good luck with your job search!

The e-mailer is correct that Bill Janklow, Governor Rounds, and Arnold Brown have all told PVS to take a hike. However, each of these individuals have a voting record that can be scrutinized. Janklow and Rounds have spent a long time in public life, and therefore there is an abundance of publicly available material to sift through that can be analyzed to predict voting behavior, and be held accountable for it. Additionally, none of these individuals are running for South Dakota's lone House seat.

Larry Diedrich, as a former state legislator, also has a voting record that can be scrutinized, and has previously provided responses to PVS. By comparison, Stephanie Herseth has no voting record, and has shown a tendency to dissemble and obfuscate when directly questioned on the issues. The fact that she has refused to provide any responses to PVS is just another piece of evidence that indicates a pattern of obfuscation and dissembling on the part of Stephanie Herseth.

Herseth refuses to provide any responses to Project Vote Smart

Now here's a stunning development. According to Project Vote Smart, STEPHANIE HERSETH HAS TWICE REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH PROJECT VOTE SMART'S 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST. Project Vote Smart is a non-partisan organization. PVS's website explains the 2004 National Political Awareness Test thusly:

The National Political Awareness Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-Defense system. It has one central purpose: to measure each candidate's willingness to demonstrate a good faith effort to provide voters with the candidate's inclinations on the issues he or she will most likely face on the citizen's behalf. The NPAT is administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative offices.

PVS further states:

At a time when Americans are increasingly frustrated with the attack advertising and empty rhetoric of many campaigns, the need for this relevant information has never been greater. The public integrity of candidates and the quality of their campaigns can be viewed, in part, as a measurement of their willingness to provide their prospective employers (voters) with this information during a campaign, the point when voters need the most help and when the candidates are asking for their vote.

Stephanie Herseth's campaign has been the epitome of empty rhetoric and attack advertising. The fact that she has twice refused to stake out her positions with PVS should give pause to all South Dakotans considering voting for her. There can only be one reason she has twice (twice!) refused to take any positions on the issues. It's because she knows her positions on the issues would turn off a majority of South Dakota voters.

BOMBSHELL: Anti-Diedrich calls today don't have disclaimer

A source tells me he received the following voicemail message this afternoon:

"Hello, this is Marilyn Stamp. I work an extra job in Sioux Falls so my children can attend college. I'm very disappointed with Larry Diedrich's record in South Dakota government. Larry Diedrich has voted twice against South Dakota's college students, and his bill to give out-of-state student scholarships was vetoed by our governor, who said 'South Dakota's taxpaying parents should NOT be burdened with Larry Diedrich's law.' Call Larry Diedrich at 605-334-7077, and tell him he needs to fight for South Dakota, NOT his out-of state-friends."

Note that there's no disclaimer that says who paid for the phone call, a clear violation of BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act). A few weeks ago, Tom Daschle did precisely the same thing, and subsequently admitted that his calls broke the law. Assuming today's phone calls were paid for by Herseth, who, after all, is a lawyer, she can hardly plead ignorance of the disclaimer requirement. Which leads one to believe that, should it be discovered that Herseth paid for the call, the Herseth campaign is consciously and systematically violating the law.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls radio talk-show host Greg Belfrage, who did a masterful job of exposing the illegal Daschle calls, is on the story.

NYT on Johnson's "Taliban" remark

The NYT's Carl Hulse has a piece on the "Wild West" flavor of South Dakota politics headlined "The Battle for South Dakota." Excerpt:

With so much riding on the outcome, the next few days promise to be pretty tough, as evidenced by the current fight over a weekend crack by Senator Tim Johnson, the Democrat who defeated Mr. Thune in 2002. Mr. Johnson suggested that a victory by Ms. Herseth would not go over too well with "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party."

That comment has provoked protests of outrage up and down the Republican hierarchy, with much of the anger directed at Ms. Herseth. Republican leaders are demanding that she demand that Mr. Johnson apologize. "Her continued refusal to demand an apology for these comments can only mean that she accepts them and their hateful message," said Representative Tom Reynolds, Republican of New York and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Mr. Johnson so far is not apologizing and has said his flip remark was meant to refer to only a small wing of the Republican party — such as the ones who in 2002 ran an ad saying his vote against a missile defense system could empower people such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Evidently, when it comes to politics, South Dakota still has a bit of that Wild West flavor.

Hulse even links to the Rapid City Journal's excellent report by Denise Ross on the flap, rather than the Argus Leader's report by Dave Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters. I think that says something about whose report is more thorough, informative and, um, accurate.

Daschle mentions lobbyist friend at SD Tech Summit

I attended the annual South Dakota Technology Summit in Sioux Falls yesterday, an event sponsored by Tom Daschle. There were a couple of interesting items, one involving E-Trade CEO Mitch Caplan and the other involving FCC Commissioner Jonathon Adelstein.

Tom Daschle introduced Mitch Caplan, and while doing so mentioned Betsy Barclay, E-Trade's lobbyist, who Daschle said was a friend of his and his wife, Linda. Linda Daschle, of course, is a powerful DC lobbyist. Mitch Caplan praised Barclay's ability to "pull together" members of congress whenever a piece of legislation affecting E-Trade arises. Caplan even talked about treating congressional members to a Rolling Stones concert in DC (lamenting the fact that he was extremely late to a lobbying meeting with congressional members prefacing the Stones concert, which incensed Betsy, who had worked hard to "pull people together" in DC, presumably including Tom Daschle). It was remarkable how candid Daschle and Caplan were about these lobbying activities.

The picture below is of Caplan and Daschle during the "Q & A session," which strangely seemed to be questions written by Daschle staffers, as we in the audience were never offered the opportunity to ask questions, or write them down to give to someone.

During the "breakout sessions," the audience was allowed to ask questions at the conclusion of the speaker's remarks. I attended the session hosted by FCC Commissioner and South Dakota native Jonathon Adelstein. A remarkable comment made by Adelstein was his criticism of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which he said often "acts as a mini-FCC." "They're obsessed with telecommunications issues," said Adelstein. "They think they know better than us, but they're just judges." A questioner also asked Adelstein to talk about the hurdles to his appointment, giving Adelstein the opportunity to talk about how hard Tom Daschle is fighting to keep him on the FCC. Adelstein is a pawn in the battle over judicial nominations. Below is a photo of Adelstein taking questions from the audience yesterday.

Also, here's a picture of Daschle introducing Bill Gates, who made a speech by satellite from Redmond, Washington.

Sen. Johnson's "Taliban" remark backfires

Senator Tim Johnson's remark about "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party" at Stephanie Herseth's Sunday rally is drawing fire from various congressional leaders as well as the blogosphere. Johnson seems to be digging in his heels by refusing to apologize, although he does seem to be backpedaling furiously, saying his comment "was a flip remark" that "has nothing to do with Larry Diedrich." Oh, really? Johnson made those comments in the context of Stephanie Herseth defeating Larry Diedrich, yet somehow we're led to believe those comments have nothing to do with Larry. It's more unsettling that Johnson admitted that it was a "flip remark." Apparently, to Johnson's mind, it's just conventional wisdom that Republicans can fairly be equated to the Taliban, a murderous terrorist regime.

Larry is a good man who has run a clean campaign on the issues, drawing fair comparisons to Stephanie Herseth's record. Yet he has been maligned by Stephanie Herseth as "not committed to running a truthful campaign" (even non-partisan commentator Stuart Rothenberg declared that Herseth was guilty of directing a "negative attack" by accusing Larry of untruthfulness) and now Senator Johnson maligns Larry further by implying that it is the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party" that supports Larry.

Ironically, Senator Johnson's "Taliban" remark comes on the heels of his colleague Tom Daschle's speech in Manhattan, Kansas a few weeks ago decrying the "startling meanness" in contemporary American politics (Daschle was on the stage right next to Johnson when the "Taliban" remark was made, and laughed and clapped when it was made). Daschle's and Johnson's behavior subsequent to the Manhattan speech is stark evidence that Daschle's speech was insincere, and merely another cynical ploy at playing the victim, in a long line of such cynical ploys.

UPDATE: Recall, too, Daschle standing next to John Kerry at a press conference on March 11, in which Kerry refused to apologize for and stood by his comments referring to President Bush and his advisors as "the most crooked ... lying group I’ve ever seen.” Here's what Kerry said at that press conference with Daschle looking on:

"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks. I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country. George Bush doesn't have a record to run on. He has a record to run away from."

After that, Daschle and Kerry shook hands, exchanged backslaps, and grinned for the cameras.

Yes, there's a startling meanness in American politics today, and Tom Daschle is in the thick of it.

Herseth rally at McKennan Park

I attended the Herseth rally at McKennan Park last night, and Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson were both on the stage with her. Daschle had an interesting story about an old friend of his named Claude Pepper. Claude Pepper was a U.S. Senator and Representative from Florida, who advocated sharing our atomic bomb technology with Stalin in the months after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Daschle seems to tell the Claude Pepper story (recited below) quite frequently, as a Google search of "Tom Daschle" and "Claude Pepper" indicates. To wit from the Iola Register, a local paper in Kansas, reporting on Daschle's speech at Kansas State University a few weeks ago:

When [Daschle] was first elected to Congress in 1978 he went to Rep. Claude Pepper of Florida for advice. Pepper served first in the Senate, was defeated and then came back as a Representative and served for still another 25 years.

"I asked him if he had any any advice for me. He sat there rubbing his chin in his hand for so long I thought perhaps he hadn't understood my question. He had two hearing aids. I was about to repeat myself, when he looked up and said he did have something to share with me.

"Remember, it doesn't matter much whether you are an R or a D., a Republican or a Democrat. But it matters a great deal whether you are a C or a D; whether you are constructive or destructive."

Of course, one could also add an "O" for "obstructive." But perhaps "obstructive" is a subcategory of "destructive," as Tom Daschle seems to define being destructive as "blocking progress" according to this piece in the June 7, 2001 St. Petersburg Times:

Cs -- constructive leaders -- work together, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, Daschle said Pepper told him. Ds -- destructive politicians of both parties -- block progress.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, by his own definition, Tom Daschle is a destructive politician.

See the pics below. My apologies for their grainy quality. It was an overcast evening and I took them from some distance. The graininess stems from digital "enhancement" of the photos.

Apparently Dave Kranz will have a piece in today's edition of the AL about the rally (helpful hint: he's the guy in the middle scribbling in his notebook).

As always, there's the traditional raised handclasp at the conclusion of festivities.

I'm back

I'm back. Yayyy, as Special Ed from the the Comedy Central show "Crank Yankers" would say.

So I flip open the New York Times on Saturday and, much to my pleasant surprise, notice a big picture of the Corn Palace in Mitchell, above the headline "McGovern, Once Again, Is Getting Respect at Home." The piece discusses the planned George and Eleanor McGovern Library and Center for Public Service at Dakota Wesleyan University, where McGovern once taught.

Can you believe the Argus Leader didn't have on the front page (A1) the purportedly historical and "unprecedented" visit to South Dakota by a Senate leader campaigning against another Senate leader? I'm referring, of course, to Dr. Frist's visit to South Dakota on Saturday. Worse, the AL failed to report on a very interesting proposal by Frist for unmanned aircraft at Ellsworth Air Force Base. By way of comparison, the Rapid City Journal billed the Frist visit as its top story on Sunday, and reported the unmanned aircraft development.

The AL story on the Frist visit is a one-two punch of bias. First, the Frist story is buried in the B section of the paper, and second, the story omits the umanned aircraft development. The burial of the story is the editor's decision, and I think I'm on to something when I discuss the likelihood of institutional bias at the AL. DVT has more HERE, and also shares a remarkable e-mail received from a reporter who is now convinced that the AL is a partisan pamphlet, due to the burial of the Frist story, as well as what the Frist story did NOT report.

In digesting AL executive editor Randell Beck's latest serving of cheap shots and straw man arguments, I couldn't help but take issue with the following text:

Before I proceed, let me say what you already know: Americans are deeply divided about our role in Iraq. And, as often happens in these cases, folks on both sides, unable or unwilling to distinguish the message from the messenger, have turned on the media as A) the willing dupe of those who would destroy our country; or B) the willing dupe of those who would pull us into another Vietnam.

The AL is Tom Daschle's messenger. The AL delivers Tom Daschle's messages. As observed in Sunday's paper, the AL generally does not report, or buries, information that is damaging to Tom Daschle. Conversely, the AL blares Daschle's message on the front page when an event reflects positively on Tom Daschle. With the AL, the problem is not that people are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the message and the messenger; it is simply a fact the message and the messenger are indistinguishable.

Time for a vacation

This note is to let SDP readers know I'm taking a much needed break from blogging for awhile. I'm going to Key West to recharge the batteries and get away from it all. I'll be back on May 24th.

Daschle breaks law he championed -- again

The Argus Leader has a story today headlined "Violations alleged in Senate race." Excerpt:

[A]ides to Republican candidate John Thune say fliers mailed to advertise this month's South Dakota Technology Summit, hosted by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, violated campaign finance laws because Daschle's name and picture are featured.

The summit, which Daschle has hosted every year since 2001, brings together South Dakota business representatives in an effort to help the state capture high-tech jobs.

Thune's campaign contends the mailing is a backdoor way of promoting Daschle by using the corporate money that will pay for the conference. Under new campaign rules that took effect in November 2002, candidates are no longer allowed to work with outside groups - such as the tech-summit organizers - on mailings or ads that refer to candidates within 120 days of a primary or general election.

You can access the South Dakota Technology Summit's website HERE. DVT has more.

Only two weeks ago, the Daschle campaign even admitted they violated the federal campaign law that Daschle championed. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was one of Daschle's top priorities when he was the Senate Majority Leader. Shouldn't Tom Daschle be "troubled" by his campaign systematically breaking the law he championed?

Letter of the day

D. Elliot Apland of Sioux Falls has an excellent letter-to-the-editor published in today's Argus Leader. Excerpt:

Voting records speak for themselves, and I hope you will study the voting record of Tom Daschle. I doubt John Kerry will carry this state in the election, so take note that John Kerry and Tom Daschle's voting records have a strong parallel.

Well said.

UPDATE: This Reuters photo was taken March 11, at the conclusion of a press conference in which John Kerry said he stood by his comments referring to President Bush and his advisers as “the most crooked ... lying group I’ve ever seen.” What was that again about Tom Daschle decrying the "startling meanness" in politics?

Bill Sammon on Daschle's '02 strategy

Bill Sammon of the Washington Times has a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of the mid-term elections in '02 headlined "Democrats played into GOP hands." The passage in the piece regarding Tom Daschle's maneuverings during the run-up to the Iraq war is most interesting:

The public was livid over Mr. McDermott's stunt, which recalled Jane Fonda's infamous visit to Hanoi. Then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt came under intense pressure to get his caucus under control.

Sensing an opportunity, the White House quietly opened a direct line of negotiation with the Missouri Democrat over the congressional resolution authorizing war.

"It was a night-and-day difference between Gephardt — who was straightforward and 'I'm with you' — and Daschle, who was the nuanced, on-the-one-hand-this-on-the-other-hand-that guy," Mr. Rove said. "Daschle basically was saying very noncommittal things."

And so, Mr. Daschle became the only congressional leader not present at a bipartisan show of support for the president in the Rose Garden. His absence was glaringly obvious as Mr. Bush surrounded himself with Democrats and Republicans from both houses of Congress.

Nine days later, even Mr. Daschle came around to the president's way of thinking. He was among a minority of congressional Democrats who voted yes on the resolution authorizing the president to wage war against Iraq.

(Emphasis added.)

Hugh Hewitt on Ted Kennedy's latest outrage

Hugh Hewitt urges his readers to contribute to John Thune after digesting the following remark on the Senate floor from Senator Ted Kennedy on Monday:

"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."

Hugh also notes that Kennedy's comments were not reported anywhere in the elite "mainstream" media yesterday. This is yet another example of how what is NOT reported is just as important as what IS reported.

TNR's Ryan Lizza mentions Sioux Falls

The New Republic's Ryan Lizza briefly discusses his 2002 Election Day experience in Sioux Falls following around Republican volunteers conducting the get-out-the-vote effort. Excerpt:

In 2000, I spent Election Day hanging out in Newark, New Jersey with Democrats who specialize in turning out black voters. In 2002, I spent Election Day in Sioux Falls, South Dakota with leaders of the GOP's new get-out-the-vote operation, the 72-Hour Task Force. In Newark, the work was easy. Nine out of ten blacks vote for Democrats, so GOTV targeting was strictly racial. The "flushers" would pour into black neighborhoods and try to get every voter they could find to the polls. In South Dakota, the Republicans I hung out with worked a suburban neighborhood that was a mix of Democrats and Republicans. This meant that months of phones calls and door-knocking researching how the residents would vote had to precede the actual flushing. On Election Day, as they worked the neighborhood, the GOP flushers skipped over the homes that had already been identified as housing Democrats.

Daschle said he "reluctantly" supported energy bill

Last November, Tom Daschle said on the Senate floor that he "reluctantly" supported the energy bill, and would "understand and respect my colleagues who oppose this bill." This bill would have more than doubled ethanol production. You can read the relevant portion of Daschle's floor statement contained in the Congressional Record HERE. Excerpt from the CQ piece:

I understand and respect my colleagues who oppose this bill. There is much in this conference report that is objectionable.

Despite secrecy, the partisanship and the shortcomings in this bill, I will vote to invoke cloture—reluctantly— because America needs to improve its energy situation, and I think this proposal takes a few small steps forward.

(Emphasis added.) The next day, the Congressional Quarterly Weekly published an article headlined "Regional Issues Leave Energy Bill A Hair Too Unwieldy for Senate" discussing Senator Tom Daschle's reluctance to support the energy bill, due in part to his desire to defeat one of the Bush administration's top domestic priorities. The energy bill died due to a Democratic led filibuster. Excerpt:

The cloture vote was a major victory for New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer, whose filibuster threat over MTBE was dismissed by Republicans earlier in November as insignificant.

The vote was a challenge for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who was forced to cast a vote on a Republican bill that most of his Democratic colleagues opposed but that included provisions on ethanol--the fuel additive made from corn--that most of his constituents support.

Daschle, who is up for re-election in 2004, handled the issue gingerly, saying he "reluctantly" supported the bill and quietly voting to end debate even as a majority of Democrats voted to sustain a filibuster.

Despite the final total, GOP leaders were actually just two votes shy of the 60 needed to end the filibuster....

To secure the 60 votes needed to win Senate passage, Republican leaders included generous provisions for ethanol to win votes from Daschle and other Midwestern Democrats.

The bill would require a more than doubling of ethanol production by 2012, providing a major economic boost farm states....

Schumer's victory on the cloture vote certainly strengthened Daschle's hand on Capitol Hill, dealing Republicans in the White House and in Congress a stinging rebuke. But the victory in Washington could weaken Daschle in his home state if the bill and its ethanol provisions are sunk.

"The ethanol provisions [in the bill] are the best thing for American farmers that we will ever see," Domenici warned....

Agricultural lobbyists--who represent South Dakota's leading industry--said Daschle could suffer from political backlash if Republicans do not succeed in passing the energy bill. That would especially be true among corn farmers, who would see their profits soar under the bill as the price per bushel increased.

Those affiliated with the state's burgeoning ethanol industry may also take their anger out on Daschle if an energy bill is not enacted this year, said Lisa Richardson, executive director of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association. She ticked off a number of statistics to underscore her point.

The state currently has seven ethanol plants, and five more are in various stages of development, she said. More than 8,000 farm families have invested in ethanol production in the state. And the industry provides 400 direct jobs at plants and thousands of indirect jobs in rural areas of the state.

"It will be hard to come back to South Dakota without it," Richardson said. "As leader of that side, people expect" him to deliver his party's votes....

Jason Glo[d]t, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, said Republicans would "absolutely" use the issue against Daschle in his bid for a fourth term, especially in light of news reports that he did little to pressure his colleagues to support the bill.

"He's basically running his campaign on his ability to deliver for South Dakota," Glo[d]t said. "This energy bill goes directly to the issue of whether or not he can deliver for South Dakota, whether or not he has any clout."

...

Less than one year out from his next contest, [Daschle] is considered the clear front-runner. He has drawn no top-tier challengers, has a sizable treasury and is already airing campaign ads on television -- the first of which touted his longtime advocacy for ethanol.

But Daschle could falter if a certain Republican -- popular former Rep. John Thune (1997-2003) -- were to jump into the race....

Thune spokesman Ryan Nelson said Daschle's failure to enact ethanol legislation would factor into his boss's decision on whether to mount a Senate bid and also said Thune would "absolutely" make it an issue if he runs.

"If he can only convince less than a quarter of his caucus that ethanol is a good thing for America, I think that is a failure," Nelson said. "He's not lifting a finger to convince his caucus that this is the right thing for his country."

Daschle validated that claim to some extent the morning of the cloture vote, when he took to the floor to notify his colleagues that he would vote for cloture but that he understood their choice to mount a filibuster and respected them for it.

Herseth and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes

Brian Hansen, a former punter in the NFL, and currently the state director of the South Dakota chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, has an interesting letter in today's edition of the Rapid City Journal:

Regarding the recent TV ads featuring Stephanie Herseth and her reference to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes: The South Dakota Fellowship of Christian Athletes has not been contacted about the use of our name in her ad. We do not endorse or support Stephanie Herseth in any way, and we were very surprised to see FCA mentioned in her ad.

FCA, as a non-profit charitable organization, is not able to support or endorse any political candidate or cause.

However, our hope and prayer for the candidates of this very important race in our state is that they will be led by or led to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

BRIAN HANSEN

State Director, Fellowship of Christian Athletes

Sioux Falls

UPDATE: You can view the Herseth ad referring to the FCA (entitled "Faith") HERE.

Institutional bias at the Argus Leader

As promised, I have tracked down many of the past writings of Patrick Lalley, currently the assistant managing editor at the Argus Leader. Lalley was promoted to that post last fall, according to a report in the November 7, 2003 edition of the AL headlined "Argus Leader's state, city editors promoted." "[T]he opportunity to move Patrick into a senior editor role...was one I just couldn't pass up," said Randell Beck, executive editor at the AL, according to the report. Previously, Lalley had served as state editor for the AL. Today, in his capacity as assistant managing editor, Lalley generally has the final say in the day-to-day operations of the AL newsroom. He decides what goes in and what stays out. In many ways, it's not news in South Dakota until Patrick Lalley says it's news.

From 1990 to 1994, Lalley served as editor of the now defunct Sioux Falls Tempest, an alternative bi-weekly publication that could be picked up for free in the lobbies of various establishments in Sioux Falls and the surrounding vicinity. What I have discovered in many of these writings lends some insight into the split-second, day-to-day decisions that are made in the chaotic atmosphere of the newsroom, and explains why these split-second decisions almost always cut in favor of liberal interests.

I am certain that Patrick Lalley is a good person, and this post I have written is intended to shed light on what sort of institution the Argus Leader is. This post is offered in the spirit of the people's right to know, because I believe that the people's right to know does not stop at the newsroom door. Unfortunately, the AL leadership takes serious issue with the public's right to know about the decisionmaking process in the newsroom, as indicated by Randell Beck's comments last summer.

Every piece of Lalley's that I cite below is a publicly available record and is fair game to analyze and discuss. (The Tempest archives can be viewed at the South Dakota State Historical Society in Pierre.) I link to the entire text of every document I cite, giving the reader the opportunity to decide for himself whether my characterizations of the document are valid. In short, this post is an attempt at media accountability. It's fair to watch the watchdogs. I am a determined critic of the AL because I want it to become the daily document it is capable of becoming, rather than to continue as the Democratic pamphlet it is widely and justifiably perceived as being.

With all of that in mind, let us turn to what I have discovered.

Patrick Lalley wrote an editorial piece for almost every edition of the Tempest during his tenure there. These pieces usually appeared on page five. Perhaps it is best to first read this semi-autobiographical piece Lalley wrote for the February 19-March 3, 1992 edition of the Tempest, in order to understand his approach to the world.

In a piece for the June 10-23, 1992 edition, Lalley wrote that his editorials "set the tone" for the Tempest. Interestingly, one of the first issues of the Tempest, dated March 1990, (when Lalley was managing editor) contains a letter from Catherine V. Piersol of Sioux Falls, a prominent Democratic activist in the state, offering her "congratulations on giving Sioux Falls an answer to the Village Voice." For those readers who are unaware, the Village Voice is an extremely liberal New York City publication, as a visit to its website can easily attest.

In a September 1990 editorial, Lalley indicated that Gary Hart was his "hero," who was "the dashing savior of the anti-Reaganites" and would "surely defeat the evil Republicans." Relevant excerpt:

Strangely, as the Persian Gulf crisis unfolded I found myself thinking back to a simpler time, a time of heroes and villains. In 1987, my hero was Gary Hart, the dashing savior of the anti-Reaganites. At that time if someone would have said Donna Rice, I would have replied, "No, I'll have the baked potato."

In the race for the Democratic nomination in the 1988 Presidential race it was rather difficult to pick out the issues. Hell, it was difficult to pick out faces let alone issues. But Hart was leading the pack. He didn't need issues, he had image. He was the most promising Democrat since Kennedy--any Kennedy--and he would surely defeat the evil Republicans. Hey, I said it was a simple time.

So the assistant managing editor of the AL has in the past glibly characterized Republicans as "evil." That's not a promising indication of objectivity in the AL newsroom. Lalley's opinions don't make him a bad person, but I think it would be difficult to believe that he can separate himself from his strongly held feelings as he makes split-second decisions in the day-to-day chaos of the newsroom.

In 1992, when Senator Tom Daschle was up for reelection, facing Republican Charlene Haar, Lalley wrote a piece profiling the candidates dated October 28-November 10, 1992. Not surprisingly, Daschle is portrayed positively in the piece, while Haar is portrayed negatively. Now that Daschle is facing a tough reelection battle in 2004, the 1992 piece is an illuminating example of what can be expected in the day-to-day decisionmaking Lalley will make as the year progresses. As I have already noted, the AL has developed a troubling pattern of ignoring negative stories about Daschle, but fully covering and following up on negative stories about Thune.

Ironically, Lalley occasionally blasted the AL during his tenure at the Tempest. Because of the Tempest's success in its niche coverage of local music and cultural events, the AL's editors decided to try their hand at competing with the Tempest, publishing a supplement to the Thursday edition of the AL named Venture. Lalley wrote the following, in a piece dated October 4-27, 1992:

You need to ask yourself who better represents your interests in this community: this tiny publication, that is basically a few well-intentioned people with a couple Macintosh computers, or the huge media conglomerate that sucks untold millions out of this community every year, with the profits earmarked for the corporate coffers in Washington D.C. or wherever it is the Gannett fortress calls home?

Lalley's commentary on the AL in a piece dated July 31-August 15, 1991 is also striking:

Since time eternal, it seems, people in Sioux Falls have been complaining about the Argus Leader, our daily newspaper.

As the largest daily in South Dakota, the Argus should elicit a certain amount of attention from the populace. But mentioning the Argus anymore is about the easiest way to receive a sneer or half-hearted "hrumph" in conversation. The paper doesn't have the best of reputations.

However, with a few exceptions, the people who complain about news coverage generally have no particulars on why they think the Argus is the worst publication they have ever seen, other than how "liberal" they are. I have news for you: they aren't as far to the left as you might think.

There are some things to keep in mind when discussing the Argus and media in general. With the exception of the Public Broadcasting System, media is a business, a big business....

Businesses need to advertise to bring in business. The voting populace needs to be informed to make decisions on issues and topics that face us. We need the media to survive as a democracy. There is a balance between what we want to know and what we should know. The Argus is the best example of that....

I think that as part of the Gannett chain of papers, they are overly influenced by the dollar and the bottom line, but that's my opinion....

Your comments, as always, are welcome, because media coverage is an issue and, like other issues, it needs to be discussed to establish what is best for the community as a whole.

The attitude reflected in that last sentence seems to have been lost on the executive editor of the AL, who only a few weeks ago complained about blogs discussing and criticizing the AL's political coverage.

Lalley does throw something of a curveball in a piece written in 1992 entitled "H. Ross Perot for President." However, when you read the content of the piece, you get a sense of what issues are important to Lalley, and his view of the issues almost always seems to cut in favor of the left. Excerpt:

On issues [Ross Perot] is as non-partisan as they come. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, hyper-patriotic, supported the Contras and Reagan, but opposed the Gulf War.

As seen by a piece cited above, Lalley characterized himself as an "anti-Reaganite." In that aspect, he disagreed with Ross Perot's support of Reagan. In other pieces, Lalley clearly opposed the first Gulf War. So we know he agreed with Perot's sentiments on the Gulf War. I think it's fair to say that Lalley is "pro-choice" and "pro-gun control" given the revealing paragraph he writes later in the Ross Perot piece:

Voting for Bush has never been an option for me and Clinton is a political opportunist who I believe has forgotten, or perhaps never cared, about the American left and the working men and women of this country.

It seems Lalley has a soft spot for "the American left," and openly admits that voting for the first President Bush was never an option. I think it's fair to assume that if voting for the first President Bush was never an option, voting for the second President Bush is definitely not an option for Lalley, either. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. However, Lalley's sentiments for "the American left" and Republican presidents goes a long way toward illuminating the mindset that is making the decisions about what is printed, and more importantly what is NOT printed, in the AL.

For a glimpse of Lalley's views on the first Gulf War, see this piece, dated December 1990. The piece also offers a glimpse of Lalley's liberal views on the environment.

Another issue Lalley discusses in an editorial for the Tempest dated September 16-29, 1992, is the death sentence handed down for Donald Moeller, one of the most notorious and repugnant murderers in the history of South Dakota. "Please don't kill Donald Moeller," Lalley wrote. Lalley is opposed to the death penalty, which is certainly a legitimate position to take, and one on which reasonable people can disagree. However, Lalley's position on the death penalty, like most of his positions on a swathe of issues, are not positions taken by the majority of South Dakotans.

Lalley also addresses his concern about an "ill-informed populace" with "little concern for the machinations of governmental bodies" in this piece. This concern is poignant given the AL's penchant for ignoring Tom Daschle's behind-the-scenes machinations on such issues as ethanol, or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. As DVT has noted, such behavior at the AL is strangling democracy, by not giving voters all of the information they deserve to know. Lalley himself wrote a piece dated February 15-26, 1991 in which he declared "The free exchange of dialogue is the cornerstone of Democracy at every level." It's high time the AL put that concept into practice.

Finally, in Lalley's farewell piece dated January 26 - February 8, 1994, he made the following announcement:

In what could be construed as a sellout, I have taken a position in the mainstream media in a neighboring community. I have been critical of the mainstream for many years and I have come to the conclusion that I have an obligation to work from the inside, as it were. I'm not on some covert mission of reform but I am hopeful that my perspective will be welcomed. I intend to be fair, unbiased, truthful and tenacious.

As everyone knows, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think it's reasonable to believe that Lalley's "perspective" and his sense of "obligation to work from the inside" have outweighed his intentions to be impartial. One only need see this pattern of AL bias to come to this conclusion. As observed only a few days ago, the pattern continues.

Via Drudge: Daschle decries "startling meanness" in politics

The AP has a report on a speech Senator Tom Daschle gave in Manhattan, Kansas today. You can hear Daschle's entire speech HERE.

Tom Daschle has frequently engaged in "Sopranos-style intimidation tactics" here in South Dakota, as Jeff Gannon, resident DC expert on South Dakota politics, has reported.

Stuart Rothenberg on Herseth: "I had an uneasy feeling about her"

Stuart Rothenberg, a contributing writer to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill publication, has a piece in today's edition of Roll Call headlined "Will Herseth Benefit From Buyer’s Remorse?" Excerpt:

[Larry Diedrich's] first TV ad tries to draw a distinction with Herseth on taxes. After noting that he and Herseth have “promised no personal attacks,” Diedrich argues that, “To make an informed decision, you also deserve a respectful debate about issues. About where we agree, and yes, where we disagree. For example, we both strongly support country-of-origin labeling. But on tax cuts, I think they should be made permanent. Stephanie does not.”
Compared to other “comparative” spots, this one isn’t merely restrained. It’s downright wimpy. The Republican not only indicates an issue of agreement with his Democratic opponent, he states the alleged difference of opinion in a straightforward, unemotional way.
In turn, Herseth responded as if Diedrich just accused her of strangling kittens. She badly overreacted, making herself the one guilty of directing a “negative attack.” In her response spot, Herseth asserts that the Republican “tries to mislead you about my position on taxes,” a far more loaded phrase than any her opponent used.
Then, she lowers the boom on him, closing her ad with, “I approved this message because I’m committed to a truthful campaign. It’s clear that Larry Diedrich is not.”
On one hand, I can admire the Herseth ad, since she has smartly played the “negative attacks” card in her efforts to make it impossible for her opponent to draw any comparisons in the future. The state’s voters have shown their fatigue with negative attacks, and any candidate who is widely viewed as being too negative will be punished.
But on the other hand, Herseth is like the little boy who cries “wolf” when no threatening animal is in sight. And little boys (or girls) who cry wolf shouldn’t be rewarded for their supposed cleverness.
Herseth’s response is a classic effort at inoculation. She is trying to make it impossible for Diedrich to identify differences with her, even if they exist.
If Diedrich were merely misstating her position, she could simply say so and assert her support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. But things aren’t always as clear as that with Herseth, or at least so say Republicans. They complain that her positions are fuzzy and that she adds caveats and modifiers in an effort to avoid taking a clear-cut position.
I’m certainly not going to attempt to referee this argument. It’s up to Diedrich to make his case and Herseth to fend off his charges. But I must admit that, while I was impressed with Herseth when I interviewed her, I also had an uneasy feeling about her.
Although Herseth has never held elective office, she talks like a politician (in my interviews with her, not in her TV commercials, which are very well done). She appears very cautious in selecting her words, giving the impression that she is trying to answer questions without revealing much.

(Emphases added.)

Another lawyer is unleashed

I received my doctoral hood last Friday night at the law school's traditional private hooding ceremony. Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Col. Bud Day, a USD Law alum (Class of '49), and the most decorated officer since General Douglas MacArthur, gave the keynote address, titled "Law in a Time of War." Col. Day reminisced about his law school days, and also made it clear that he supported the Iraq war, as well as President Bush. I don't think that's something you hear at most law school commencement exercises around the country.

Anyway, now it's time to prepare for the bar exam.

On a completely unrelated note, this weekend I happened to read this interesting article on blogging, published in Mother Jones, that's worth a read. I thought I'd recommend it to SDP readers.

Diedrich advertisement on Instapundit

The National Republican Campaign Committee is now advertising for Larry Diedrich on Instapundit.

Argus Leader skips Daschle corporate money story in Roll Call

A few months ago, I noted a troubling pattern developing at the Argus Leader, where negative stories about John Thune that appeared in Roll Call were covered the following day by the AL, while negative stories about Tom Daschle that appeared in Roll Call were never reported at all by the AL. Unfortunately, that pattern seems to be continuing.

Yesterday, Roll Call had a lengthy story headlined "PAC Dollars Favor Daschle" which reported that Tom Daschle had raised three times more corporate money than John Thune. This is a story that reflects negatively on Tom Daschle, as it deflates his "taking on the special interests in Washington" meme. And, of course, the Argus Leader did not follow up that Roll Call story in today's edition. It's remarkable how quickly they follow up negative Roll Call pieces on John Thune, and completely ignore negative Roll Call pieces on Tom Daschle. Once again, we are observing institutional bias at the Argus Leader. I'm currently investigating what I think may be behind this institutional bias, and will report my findings very soon. Stay tuned.

Daschle finally releases tax returns

The Rapid City Journal's Denise Ross has a report today headlined "Candidates release tax returns." Excerpt:

South Dakota's two major candidates for the U.S. Senate both owe the bulk of their wealth to lobbying.

The $157,626 salary paid to Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is about one-fifth of the $749,558 his wife, Linda, is paid to lobby for Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Daschle's opponent, former Republican congressman John Thune, earned $452,675 from a spate of lobbying work. His wife, Kimberley, does not work outside the home.

A year ago, the Daschles refused to release their tax returns, as the New York Post's Deborah Orin reported at the time.

Daschle raises more corporate money than Thune

A Roll Call story today headlined "PAC Dollars Favor Daschle" reports Tom Daschle has raised three times more money from corporations than has John Thune. Excerpt:

In a sign that incumbency sometimes trumps majority, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) raised more than three times as much money for his re-election bid from U.S. corporations as former Rep. John Thune (R), his pro-business opponent....

Among Daschle’s business backers are a number of big GOP supporters, including ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline and ChevronTexaco. Even News Corp., the owner of the same Fox News shows that profit from bashing Daschle and other Democrats, sent Daschle a $2,000 check in early February.

Among other companies that gave generously to Daschle during the first three months of the year were such telecommunications companies as AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon Communications; such financial services firms as Bank of America, Lehman Brothers and American Express; and such air carriers as
American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Southwest Airlines.

Daschle also received campaign checks from several business groups run by prominent Republicans. The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, for example, gave Daschle $1,000 even though the president of the wireless phone industry’s trade association is former Rep. Steve Largent (R-Okla.).

Daschle also received $4,000 from Major League Baseball, even though many of the league’s owners are top givers to President Bush, a one-time baseball owner....

So much for Daschle "taking on the special interests." Deeper into the story we find the following interesting fact:

[Thune campaign manager Dick] Wadhams added that Thune has done a better job of raising money from South Dakota residents than Daschle.

In the last five years, Wadhams said, Daschle has raised about $400,000 from individuals in South Dakota. During Thune’s first three months in the race, he took in $600,000 from state residents.

It's interesting to contrast the Dan Pfeiffer quote in today's Roll Call piece with a quote of his when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced its support for John Thune in February. Here's the quote from Pfeiffer in today's Roll Call piece:

“Despite the bravado from the Republican Party, our success in the [business] community is a sign that a victory by Thune is still a very, very long shot,” Pfeiffer said. “People are very aware that at the end of the day it is very likely that Senator Daschle will be re-elected.”

Now see the following Pfeiffer quote from the February 2, 2004 edition of Roll Call headlined "Chamber Targets Daschle; Business Group Takes More Aggressive Approach in Elections":

Bill Miller, the head of the chamber's political arm, charged that Daschle has "on occasion been supportive of the business community, but for the most part, he has been more of an obstacle than an ally."

Miller said Daschle's Republican opponent, former Rep. John Thune (S.D.), is a "great friend of the business community and we will do everything we can to be supportive of him."

Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle, said Democrats hope to turn the chamber's endorsement of Thune against him.

"Tom Daschle has taken on special interests for years, so we are not shocked when they target him for defeat," Pfeiffer said.

(Emphasis added.) Yes, Daschle has taken on the special interests so vigorously that they give him three times more money than they give to John Thune.

UPDATE: Also note this quote from Pfeiffer during the 2002 Senate campaign, when the Chamber of Commerce announced its endorsement of John Thune:

"It should come as no surprise that big, Washington-based national groups that are well-known for lobbying for big business endorsed Congressman Thune today," said Dan Pfeiffer, campaign communication's director.

"John Thune is big business's best friend in Washington, and the fact that John Thune is so proud of this endorsement shows that he has picked the side of powerful special interests over average South Dakotans," he said.

So by Pfeiffer's own logic, Tom Daschle has picked the side of powerful special interests over average South Dakotans.

This quote appeared in an October 1, 2002 story in the Argus Leader, written by David Kranz, headlined "Chamber group gives its endorsement to Thune."

Daschle's latest ad

I guess everyone in the state except me, until now, has seen Tom Daschle's latest ad, in which various Daschle Republicans complain about "negative ads." You can view the Daschle ad in question HERE. One reader notes that Steve Grubbrud of Huron, one of the people in the Daschle ad, is standing in front of a cornfield in which the corn plants have tasseled, and saying "I hate these negative ads, Tom Daschle's a good man, he's done a lot of good things for South Dakota. I'm a Republican and there's a lot of Republicans in South Dakota that feel the same way as I do."

Corn plants don't tassel until late summer, meaning that this Daschle ad, or at least the segment with Steve Grubbrud, was in the can almost a year ago. It leads one to ask exactly what negative ad Steve Grubbrud was upset about at the time. It also says something about the singlemindedness with which Tom Daschle approaches re-election, busily taping ads and running them over a year before election day. What's interesting is that this singleminded attitude isn't getting results for Daschle in the polls. Daschle can't break 50%, and his challenger, who has yet to run a single ad, only trails him by a few points.

Fred Barnes on Senate Dems

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes has written a piece headlined "A Democratic Senate?" Excerpt:

START WITH SOUTH DAKOTA. Bush is certain to win the state overwhelmingly. Daschle is more vulnerable than Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, who was reelected in 2002. Johnson narrowly defeated John Thune, now Daschle's foe and by far the best candidate Republicans could field. Daschle can't credibly argue he's cooperated with Bush, as Johnson did, and he's more visibly liberal. The race is a tossup.

If David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, cites this Weekly Standard piece in next Sunday's column, as he is almost certain to do, watch whether he quotes what I've excerpted above, particularly the sentence "Daschle can't credibly argue he's cooperated with Bush, as Johnson did, and he's more visibly liberal." Daschle likes to tell people here in South Dakota that he supports President Bush 75% of the time, although Americans for Democratic Action gives Daschle an 83% lifetime average Liberal Quotient, higher even than George McGovern, an icon of the Left.

More Hemmingsen

South Dakota television icon Steve Hemmingsen has a new "Weighing In" post that's another great read: "First Monday."

Kaus slams Daschle's self-serving "outrage"

Mickey Kaus weighs in on Tom Daschle's misplaced outrage regarding the misconduct of U.S. troops at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison: "Daschle's Outrage." Excerpt:

Leave it to a U.S. Senator to confront shameful acts of inhumanity that endanger the nation and get all outraged over ... a disregard of Congressional prerogatives! "Why were we not told in a classified briefing why this happened, and that it happened at all?" asked Senator Daschle, in a complaint echoed by Senators McCain and Warner. "That is inexcusable; it's an outrage." (Why, they had to hear it on CBS! They were unprepared!) Leave it to our get-a-new-angle media culture to play up these self-serving institutional complaints as if they were in the same universe as the abuse itself. No wonder politicians succeed by running against Washington. ....

How, exactly, would briefing senators have helped the situation? It wouldn't have stopped the abuse, which had already transpired. Mainly, it would have multiplied the number of potentially talkative people who knew, increasing the chance that the news would get out and do the damage to America's reputation that it has done, no?

Dems beside themselves on Frist visit to SD

The WaPo has a few paragraphs on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plans to come to South Dakota to campaign for Thune. The Dems are really working the "tradition" angle to pressure Frist not to come to South Dakota. But wasn't it a "tradition" not to filibuster judicial nominees too? Daschle certainly didn't hesitate to break that tradition when it suited him.

Herseth-Diedrich debate on SDPB

Don't forget to listen in or watch Wednesday's Herseth-Diedrich debate to be broadcast by South Dakota Public Broadcasting. Hopefully, Larry Diedrich will get a clear answer from Stephanie Herseth on the issue of making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, rather than the dissembling we're starting to see Herseth engage in. Does she support making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent or doesn't she? If the forum allows it, Larry needs to ask her the question in a leading manner, and keep repeating the question until she answers it: "Stephanie, you don't support making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, do you?" The more she dissembles on the question, the more opportunities Larry has to ask the question again, reminding the audience that Herseth doesn't support making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent. When you ask leading questions, the audience is listening to you, not to the one being questioned. At least that's what they taught me in my trial techniques class. They say it works.

Hemmingsen 'weighs in'

South Dakota television icon Steve Hemmingsen has a new post headlined "The Steph and Larry Show" that's laced with the colorful similes that are his trademark. As usual, it's an entertaining read.

Charlie Cook analyzes SD special election

Charlie Cook has a column in the National Journal today headlined "South Dakota's Monumental Election." Excerpt:

The Diedrich campaign had a big decision to make about the direction it was going to take over the next few weeks, and it chose to go on the offensive. In the newest ad, Diedrich tells voters he and Herseth "have
promised no personal attacks." But he continues that while they agree on certain issues, like country-of-origin labeling, they disagree on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Diedrich says he thinks the cuts should be permanent, while Herseth does not. Not surprisingly, Herseth immediately took to the airwaves with a spot charging Diedrich with misleading voters about her position on
taxes. She ends with the tag line: "I approved this message, because I'm committed to a truthful campaign. It's clear that Larry Diedrich is not." It is also unclear if the NRCC will begin to weigh in with its own contrast ads -- and if so, what impact those would have on the contest.

Here is the bottom line: South Dakota's at-large district could have a tighter contest than the public polls have shown. After all, this is a state President Bush won with 60 percent of the vote.

Herseth started the race in a strong position and -- like any front-runner -- tried to dictate the race on her terms. With such a strong start, it was hard to see how Diedrich could catch up with Herseth simply by trusting the Republican lean of the state to carry him through. And with recent polling in South Dakota showing Bush ahead of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, by
just 10 points, it would not do Diedrich much good to try to nationalize this contest. Whether his decision to go on the offensive will help him close the gap remains to be seen. What we do know is that this is going
to be an exciting race to watch for the next few weeks.

Back in the saddle

I'm emerging from a weekend in the law school library with my head buried in the Uniform Commercial Code, trying to to figure out the intricacies of a purchase money security interest. I had the last test of my law school experience this morning and I must say it feels good to be done.

Lots of stuff to talk about, so check in frequently.

First, the Diedrich v. Herseth special election is starting to heat up. A Roll Call story today by Chris Cillizza reveals allegations from the Herseth campaign that Republicans have tested some hard-hitting ads. The piece is headlined "NRCC, DCCC Squaring Off; Battle for Edge Heads to S.D." Excerpt:

The Herseth campaign alleged late Monday that Republicans conducted focus groups as recently as two weeks ago that tested negative commercials for use against her.

The four potential ads tested included mentions of the fact that Herseth traveled to New York City to raise money for the race; that she advertised on a Democratic Web blog; an attempt to tie her to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D); and a final ad making clear that she favors abortion rights, according to Herseth spokesman Russ Levsen.

The "advertising on a Democratic Web blog" phrase is a reference to this story. A reader imagines the following script for a commercial:

"Four Americans, shot, dragged from their vehicle, burned and mutilated by an Iraqi mob.

"And Stephanie Herseth's friend said, 'Screw them.'

"Yes, a top Democrat website where Herseth raises tens of thousands of dollars sees brave Americans, who died to fight a war for freedom and says, 'Screw them.'

And Stephanie keeps taking their money.

You get the idea.

Back tomorrow

Sorry about the sparse blogging of late. It's finals time here at the law school, and I have my last exam tomorrow morning. Then I'll be graduating this Saturday. I'll be blogging again tomorrow afternoon.

Meanwhile, be sure to follow the implosion of Tom Daschle's latest ethanol ploy over at DVT. It turns out that even the most influential ethanol lobbyists, the National Corn Grower's Association, didn't fully support Daschle's ethanol amendment last week.

Shattered Glass

I watched "Shattered Glass" last night, the movie about The New Republic's version of Jayson Blair. I learned a thing or two about the behavior of journalists, such as how they immediately begin taking notes when a source tells them what they are about to say is "off the record." My legal training led me to believe that "off the record" means that no written record can be made of the conversation. Silly me.

Anyway, here's Andrew Sullivan's review of "Shattered Glass." I highly recommend watching the movie.