South Dakota Politics

Daschle meets Clinton

This picture from today's New York Times (click on it to enlarge for a better glimpse of Tom Daschle's gauche apparel) appears under the headline "Senate Democrats Summon Clinton as Political Adviser." The most interesting information from the piece is that Clinton is having a fundraiser for Daschle next month:

Mr. Daschle, who is in a re-election fight of his own, has a major fund-raising dinner with Mr. Clinton next month[.]

Will the Argus Leader report?

Where's the clout?

Once again, Tom Daschle sends along a press release taking credit for a bill he voted against, which is reprinted verbatim in a local newspaper: "Senate approves $50,000 for Hand County Memorial Hospital." He blames the delay of country of origin labeling (COOL) as the reason he voted against the bill, which only leads one to ask what kind of clout Tom Daschle has when he is steamrolled by those opposed to COOL.

It's also relevant to know that Tom Daschle voted against the Medicare Reform bill, which appropriated millions of dollars to help rural hospitals.

Boeing's image problem

Reuters has a story today headlined "Boeing fights image as 'bunch of crooks.'" As most readers of this blog know, Boeing is one of lobbyist Linda Daschle's biggest clients. Excerpt from the Reuters story:

Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher, who took over for scandal-plagued Phil Condit last month, has been roaming the halls of the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill to buff up Boeing's tarnished image.

"Telling them fundamentally that if they have a problem with us, I want to know what it is and ... trying to deal with this perception that we're a bunch of crooks," Stonecipher told reporters on a teleconference on Thursday.

It is very likely that Harry Stonecipher met with the Senate leadership while "roaming the halls on Capitol Hill," and it would be interesting to know in particular whether he has met with Tom Daschle.

According to lobbying disclosure forms available on the U.S. Senate website, Linda Daschle earned $40,000 for her firm by lobbying for Boeing during the first half of 2003. Among the items she lobbied for on behalf of Boeing was H.R. 1559, The Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-11). This bill is laced with appropriations to the military, which contradicts the claim by Tom Daschle that his wife does not work on military-related issues. This bill also includes the $2.4 billion bailout of the airline industry last spring, a bailout that, according the LA Times, was "pushed by the Democratic leadership," which, of course, includes Tom Daschle.

Daschle has a "liberal quotient" of 83%

Do you recall Steve Hildebrand, Tom Daschle's campaign manager, bragging in a letter to the Rapid City Journal about a study that has Daschle voting with President Bush 75 percent of the time? That letter got Tom Daschle in trouble with liberals like those at the Buzzflash website, who called for Daschle to step down as minority leader.

What's interesting is that Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) gives Tom Daschle an 83 percent lifetime "liberal quotient." According to ADA, Tom Daschle is even more liberal than George McGovern, who only has a 75 percent lifetime liberal quotient.

Read Sibby

Steve Sibson has been blogging furiously lately. Check out his blog, Sibby Online.

Blunt: 'Stand for Seniors, Not in the Way'

The House leadership is unhappy with Tom Daschle's demagoguery on the prescription drug benefit recently passed into law, as indicated by a press release headlined "Blunt: 'Stand for Seniors, Not in the Way'."

The Herseth propaganda machine, a.k.a. the Argus Leader

A reader observes:

Monday Larry Diedrich announced his resignation from the state senate. A pretty big announcement worth an article in the Argus Leader?

Sure. Did he get an article noting his resignation?

Sure. It was titled, "Herseth holds 10-1 advantage in money." Give me a break.

This is yet another example of the biased headline technique that the AL often engages in, a technique I discussed at length in an earlier post. As the author of Journalistic Fraud writes: "To influence the headlines is to influence public opinion."

To underscore the point that the AL is nothing but an instrument of the Herseth campaign, see this comment posted today on a blog that solicits campaign donations for Stephanie Herseth:

wouldnt want you to make enemies with the folks at the Argus-Leader... we need em on our side :)

Apparently even liberals in this state, in guarded moments, concede that the AL has a liberal bias.

Family lobbying

Roll Call has a report today headlined "Ban on Family Lobbying Eyed." As readers of this blog know, Tom Daschle's wife is one of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in Washington. The Roll Call piece is an indication that the practice of senators having family members as lobbyists is a legitimate issue for discussion, despite the fact that Tom Daschle labels it "an attack on his family." Excerpt from the Roll Call piece:

According to the 2003 edition of the Senate Ethics Manual, "The decision on whether a spouse may lobby the Senate is generally a decision for the Senator and his or her spouse, giving due regard to the potential reflection upon the Senate."

The manual also notes that any compensated lobbying employment by a spouse would be required to be reported on the Senator's annual financial disclosure form - although that amount would only have to indicate if the spouse earned $1,000 or more, not the specific salary for the given year.

"Given the heightened public interest in the professional activities of spouses of Members, the Committee hopes that spouses, as well as Members, will conduct their professional and business activities so as not to reflect adversely upon the Senate as an institution," the manual notes.

Even the Senate Ethics Manual infers the legitimacy of "heightened public interest in the professional activities of spouses of Members[.]" To view the Senate Ethics Manual's statements on the employment of spouses click HERE(pdf) and go to page 93. Someone has even written a book entitled "Politicians and Their Spouses' Careers," which is cited in the Ethics Manual, and is yet another indication that scrutiny of the lobbying activities of Tom Daschle's wife is legitimate.

The Daschle v. Thune blog has more excerpts from the Roll Call piece.

Daschle begs Clinton for help

Reuters reports that Tom Daschle has asked for Bill Clinton's advice on how to win elections, under the headline "Democrats Reach Out to Former President Clinton."

The Daschle v. Thune blog contains a piece published on OpinionJournal.com by John Fund about the lobbying activities of Linda Daschle and John Thune, which you can access HERE.

Thune's lobbying

I want to begin by saying that South Dakotans deserve to know about John Thune's lobbying activities on behalf of companies that create jobs for South Dakota, and decide if they have a problem with that. Today, the editors and reporters of the Argus Leader nimbly follow up a story about John Thune reported in yesterday's edition of Roll Call. The AL story appears on the front page, above the fold, under the headline "Candidate Thune plans to continue lobbyist job; Work helps state, he says." The story stems from a report in Roll Call yesterday headlined "Thune Will Keep Lobbying." You can find excerpts from the Roll Call story, along with analysis, at the Daschle v. Thune blog.

Isn't it interesting how quickly the turnaround time is at the Argus Leader when there's a story in a DC publication that reflects negatively on a conservative political figure in South Dakota? By the same token, a story that appears in today's edition of The Hill reflecting negatively on Tom Daschle is unlikely to be followed up by the AL tomorrow, or ever. The story in The Hill today includes a quote from a Democratic colleague to the effect that Senator Daschle doesn't let his responsibilities to South Dakota get in the way of his leadership responsibilities, as well as an indication that the Democrats are likely to pick new leaders after the election this fall. But naturally, the AL would rather not follow up a story in a DC publication that places Tom Daschle in an unfavorable light.

One can see the bias of the AL article by observing how it ends:

Hildebrand also points out that Thune is not running against Linda Daschle.

"It is certainly fair and expected that John Thune will attack Tom Daschle regularly. What will have to be asked is whether it is fair for John Thune and his friends to attack Tom Daschle's family if his family is not on the ballot."

Bob Kohn, in his book Journalistic Fraud, discusses the technique of slanting a story by giving the final word to the newspaper's political allies, under the heading "At the End of the Article--The Last Word" (pg 227):

Another common technique of slanting a story by the strategic placement of important elements is giving the final word to someone who or some fact which puts the paper's editorial views in the most favorable light. It also provides the reader with the slant that the paper would like the reader to take away after reading the story. The best place to provide the take-away is in the last word, or kicker, the last few lines of the article.

Thus, the lay reader of the AL's article comes away with the impression that criticism of Linda Daschle's lobbying is an "attack on Tom Daschle's family" by "John Thune and his friends." Even though the article is about John Thune's lobbying, John Thune's comments are not the last word. Instead, the last word is given to John Thune's opponents. And not surprisingly, we discover that David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, "contributed" to the story.

Finally, when Steve Hildebrand talks about attacks on Linda Daschle by John Thune and his friends, is Hildebrand saying that liberal reporter Stephanie Mencimer is a friend of John Thune, in light of the fact that she wrote an article critical of Linda Daschle for the liberal Washington Monthly? Or that Slate's Timothy Noah is a friend of John Thune in light of the fact that he wrote an article critical of Linda Daschle? Or that liberal columnist and longtime Nation contributor Doug Ireland is a friend of John Thune because he wrote an article critical of Linda Daschle? Give me a break. If even liberal columnists smell something fishy, it's certainly legitimate for the Thune campaign to point it out.

South Dakotans deserve to know about Thune's lobbying activities on behalf of companies that create jobs for South Dakota, and decide if they have a problem with that. South Dakotans also deserve to know about Linda Daschle's lobbying activities on behalf of the airline industry, particularly in light of the fact that Tom Daschle pushed the airline bailout last spring (according to ABC and the LA Times), giving billions of dollars to the airline industry, and decide whether they have a problem with that.

I'm surprised that Tom Daschle's campaign wants to talk about lobbying so early in the race. But it's a good thing, because it's obvious who comes out smelling like a rose in that debate, and who doesn't.

Daschle leadership in jeopardy?

The house of cards is beginning to collapse around Tom Daschle's ears as he tries to portray himself as a Bush supporter at home and as Bush's chief nemesis in Washington, as seen by a story in The Hill headlined "String of losses stirs Dem grumbling as talk of Dorgan challenge subsides." Excerpt:

“There’s no question that it can be very difficult for someone from a very small state,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), referring to Daschle in particular. “I don’t think Tom has ever let his responsibility to his state diminish his leadership position.”

Is this what Tom Daschle tells his Democratic colleagues? Not to worry because he won't let his responsibility to his state diminish his leadership position? If so, what's all that talk about putting South Dakota's agenda on the national agenda? I guess in Tom Daschle's world, the DC liberal agenda trumps the interests of South Dakota.

UPDATE: Another thought: There have been rumblings about Tom Daschle's leadership in various publications for some time now. Articles in Roll Call, the National Journal, The New Republic, The American Prospect, The Nation, and the liberal website Buzzflash all have addressed this. Typically, the only publication that has NOT addressed this is the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, South Dakota's newspaper of record.

Contribute to Larry Diedrich's campaign

Larry Diedrich, the GOP nominee for the special election to fill South Dakota's empty House seat, has begun his campaign. The special election will be held June 1, and you can contribute to Larry's campaign by clicking HERE and scrolling to the bottom of the page. Though I'm a starving student, I've already made a small donation. If you're reading this blog, you're a motivated reader who cares about the issues, and if I can spare at least $10, you can too. Larry is a good man and deserves as much support as possible.

Diedrich opposes Stephanie Herseth, one of Emily's List's "recommended candidates." Herseth is trying to raise $3 million for her campaign. Emily's List is a political action committee that supports candidates with radical pro-abortion views. They oppose the partial birth abortion ban. Despite what David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, tried to tell us in his column yesterday, Herseth is not a moderate. The most compelling evidence of Herseth's extremism is that Herseth's picture is right next to Senator Barbara Boxer's picture on the "list." Even establishment Democrats think that Emily's List is too extremist for their tastes, as recorded in a story in the American Prospect, a liberal publication.

And isn't it interesting that Tom Daschle is the very first person quoted on the "About Emily's List" page?

WaPo editorial on Janklow

The Washington Post has an editorial discussing Congressman Janklow's sentence in today's edition under the headline "What a Life is Worth"

Princess Stephanie from the Democratic Duchy Of Herseth

Keloland TV's Steve Hemmingsen has some great commentary on the selection of Larry Diedrich by the GOP to run for South Dakota's sole House seat. You can access yesterday's commentary HERE (best line: "Princess Stephanie from the Democratic Duchy Of Herseth in Northeastern South Dakota"), and today's commentary HERE (best line: "I want to write this before I'm tainted by my old friend Dave Kranz's thoughts in the Argus Leader").

UPDATE: An out-of-state reader e-mailed wondering who Steve Hemingsen is. You can access Hemingsen's bio HERE.

The U.S. News and World Report labels the U.S. Senate race in South Dakota "the most compelling Senate race of the year" in a piece headlined "Great Plains Politics." For scintillating insights and analysis of this race, be sure to read the Daschle v. Thune blog.

Kranz Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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