South Dakota Politics

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.