South Dakota Politics

My favorite poll question (UK Edition)

We here at SDPolitics have argued that our public opinion polls are frequently marred by alarmingly jaundiced questions.  We had no idea.  Consider the following question from the Times of London.  The numbers across indicate all voters, conservative, labour, liberal democrat, male, female, 18-29, 30-50, and 50+.

When you see Tony Blair on television, do you think of him as: A grinning liar?
Yes, I do	46%	84%	5%	52%	47%	46%	42%	44%	50%
No, I do not	42%	11%	86%	35%	44%	40%	43%	45%	38%
Don't know	12%	6%	9%	14%	9%	15%	15%	11%	12%

According to this same poll, Blair will win the election.  Let there always be an England.

Old Guard Watch

This says it all (from Todd Epp):

Lunch today at Sanaa's 8th Street Gourmet in Sioux Falls included the following foursome: Sen. Jim Abourezk, Sen. George McGovern, Mayor Dave Munson, and Argus columnist Dave Kranz.

Remember that many of the bombshell memos (that you can find on the right of the blog) involved old memos found in the Arbourezk archives in which Kranz was described as a Democratic Party loyalist who wants to help Democrats and undermine Republicans using his newspaper platform.

Note the saying we use to have in my hometown of Mitchell (from a 1986 Argus Leader, written by former lieutenant governor Lowell Hansen):

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

 

Kranz

Tomorrow is Sunday, and that means another Kranz column!  What Democrat will he carry water for this week?  Let's recap recent history: (1) Kranz took "information" off a former Daschle staffer website and put it in his column as Gospel, even though it was untrue, and he refused to run a correction;  (2) Kranz refused to disclose that the new supposedly "grassroots" anti-Thune organization is really run by Daschle's former campaign manager and campaign staffer Jeremy I-sell-"F--- John Thune"-t-shirts Funk, who was also arrested for tailgating Thune and also said he'd like "rip Thune's n--- off";  (3) Kranz a story about Roger Andal's complaints about Thune, but didn't disclose that Andal is a former Daschle staffer, has run for state Democratic Party chair, has run as a Democrat for several legislative seats, and is generally a zealous partisan (much like Kranz).

 

Reid Wanted Out

From Social Security Choice:

From Brendan Miniter at the Wall Street Journal:

Here’s one detail most media outlets won’t report on the Social Security debate: At least one Democratic leader once supported moving all federal employees out of the system. That leader is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who as a House member in 1983 sponsored a bill to push all federal employees, including members of Congress, the president and vice president, out of Social Security. The bill ultimately failed to attract a single cosponsor and died an obscure death without ever even coming to a vote.

Mr. Reid offered his bill just a few months after President Reagan signed into law the Social Security compromise that raised taxes, raised the retirement age and, for the first time, subjected the country’s elected leaders to Social Security. Democrats now hold up that 1983 compromise as a model for President Bush. But Mr. Reid, in HR 3589, tried to undo a major tenet of that compromise, even while keeping the higher taxes and the reduced benefits for the rest of us working stiffs.

President Bush won’t mention any of this today as he stops in Galveston, Texas, to highlight a local government that has opted to stay out of the Social Security system. Almost half of the Lone Star State’s one million state and local government employees do not fall within the Social Security system. Nationwide, some five million out of 26.3 million state and local government employees still remain out of the system thanks to an option that existed before the 1983 reforms. If Mr. Reid had had his way, hundreds of elected federal officeholders would also have been off the hook for paying into the Social Security system and depending on it for their retirement benefits. That’s an option that millions of private-sector Americans don’t have, but perhaps they should.

How does Hildebrand make money?

Through DASHPAC, that's how!  They're still up and running, shelling out $40,000 in March according to April's FEC report.  Hildebrand was also making a salary in January and February, and is now paid as a consultant.  Here's the Hildebrand documents: 

Item 1:  Schedule B (FEC Form 3X) Itemized Disembursements
Item 2:  Schedule B (FEC Form 3X) Itemized Disembursements
Item 3:  Schedule B (FEC Form 3X) Itemized Disembursements

I'll also add this (from Roll Call):

Americans United to Protect Social Security, as the group will be known, is being spearheaded by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the AFL-CIO, and two liberal advocacy groups, the Campaign for America’s Future and USAction. Another 200-odd interest groups are also supporting the effort. ...

Longtime Democratic campaign operative Steve Hildebrand — who along with fellow operative Paul Tewes will lead the campaign’s strategic planning effort — said the new group is united by a concern that “seniors in this country and future retirees under the Bush plan would incur serious benefit cuts.” ...

Hildebrand and Tewes, both of whom specialize in field work, recently formed a new political consulting firm that will serve as the nerve center of Americans United to Protect Social Security. The firm will be known as Hildebrand Tewes [note Item 3 above].  ...

The coalition will register with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(4) group, meaning that it can accept soft-money checks in unlimited amounts without having to publicly disclose its donors. In exchange, the political activities of such groups are somewhat limited, though they can run issue ads and undertake grass-roots organizing efforts.

UPDATE:  Image links are repaired.

 

Social Security Details

It has come to my attention that some say my Tuesday post  (The Front) lacked details about what to do concerning Social Security and the debt caused by transitioning to personal accounts.  That detail was lacking because I provided much of it in an earlier post, this one (according to the Argus this morning...).  I simply ask this question: What person with anything even approaching a reasonable income would see Social Security as a better investment than an IRA or even a conservative mutual fund?  I think any broker worth his salt would say you will accumulate much more wealth in the private investment than in Social Security.  Of course you actually accumulate no wealth in Social Security because you don't own the money, the government does.  Another benefit of a personal account plan is that it will increase our nation's savings rate as well as giving people assets that they actually own. 

What Happened At St. Thomas

While I am no fan of Ann Coulter, Powerline has an interesting post on what really happened when she spoke at University of St. Thomas last week.  It is a bit different than the report from the Star Tribune. 

Filibuster

TBND:

A new Rasmussen poll shows that a majority of Americans actually do favor changing senate rules to allow for an up or down vote on President Bush's judicial nominations.

According to the poll...

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the President nominates to become a judge." A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 26% disagree.

Regressing to Third Grade

The latest argument from the Brown County Democrats website can be summed up thusly: "I know you are, but what am I?" Or it's alternate: "I am rubber and you are glue; what you say bounces off me and sticks to you."  It certainly takes a lot of chutzpah to call your opponents aliens, simpletons, haters, Taliban sympathizers, and promoters of pogroms, and then denounce those opponents for their alleged ad hominem attacks.  I guess what Charles Krauthammer says is true:

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

That seems to be about right for each side.  Although "adhominoids" is really funny.   

Northern State University Huron...

or would it be Central State University?  KELO is reporting that NSU, my Alma Mater, is looking into the possibility of bringing a campus to Huron. 

Northern State University administrators are working with city leaders in Huron to determine whether there's any interest in some sort of NSU campus there.

Huron Mayor Mary Pearson says the goal is to find out what kinds of programs people are interested in and then work with NSU to fill the need. She says a partnership with Northern would help the area's economy and allow for educational programs with a reputable state-run university.

It also fits into Northern's Margin of Excellence Initiative. NSU faculty, staff, students and community leaders created that effort to enhance the school's educational opportunities.

A reception set Tuesday night in Huron will launch the effort.

Even if an agreement can be reached, I have my doubts the state would be interested in spending  money to open a Huron campus.  We already have more state universities than many states with populations far larger than ours.  Also, I doubt the legislature would spend money to bring a publicly funded campus to an area where a private one has folded. 

From the Gov's Office

Release:

PIERRE, SD and FORT WORTH, TX, April 28, 2005 - Gov. Mike Rounds and officials from the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) today announced a settlement agreement that paves the way for the sale of the state-owned Core railroad line to BNSF, while providing enhanced transportation access to markets for South Dakota shippers and producers of agricultural products. The acquisition price is $41.64 million reduced by the value of the properties retained by the state.  The sales agreement is subject to approval by the Surface Transportation Board.

"This is great news for our farmers and shippers in South Dakota," said the Governor. "In 1986, the state of South Dakota and BNSF entered into a contract regarding the operation of the Core railroad line in South Dakota. This contract included a formula allowing the BNSF to purchase the Core line under specific conditions at a time of their choosing.  BNSF has exercised their option to purchase the Core line.  As a condition of the sale, we negotiated a settlement agreement protecting and expanding access to the Core line for our South Dakota shippers. This agreement also settles two pending law suits involving the Core line." 

The 368-mile Core line runs from Aberdeen to Mitchell, Mitchell to Canton, Canton to Sioux Falls and Mitchell to Sioux City.

Another Thune victory

Add this to Thune's growing list of achievements:

The Senate today approved an amendment introduced by Senator John Thune to the transportation bill currently being debated on the Senate floor to protect state and local governments’ rights to define their own community values. The amendment will prevent the U.S. Department of Transportation from deciding what South Dakota’s community values should be.

Thune’s amendment removes a provision in the Highway Bill that would effectively allow the Federal Highway Administration to dictate states’ respective “community values.”  The amendment protects local and state control of highway projects that involve federal dollars.

“Decisions about South Dakota values should be made by local and state officials – not federal bureaucrats,” Thune said. “My amendment will protect states’ rights and guarantee that Washington bureaucrats do not dictate our values.”

Reid on Dems Taking Senate: A "miracle" Needed

Washington Times:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.

"I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time," he said during a floor debate over the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. "I guess miracles never cease."

Republicans were delighted by what they called an "admission" from the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the country.

Kerry Sour Grapes

From The New Republic, Ap r i l  2 5, 2 0 0 5:

John Kerry seems to think that, despite what the electorate decided, it had been somehow, somewhere ordained that he be president. So he has spent the last five months looking desperately for one explanation after another for why he, in fact, is not. It has been a piteous display. Contrast this with the consummate dignity Al Gore demonstrated after his real victory was turned to defeat by a predictable five-to four majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Previously, when going around the country to rouse the Democratic diehards (there weren’t really many true Kerry faithful), the Massachusetts senator would evoke a phantom change of heart of some 60,000 people in a stadium in Ohio that might have made him president. As if a change of heart would have all gone his way. But, had it, George W. Bush would then have lost with what would still have been a two and-a-half-million-vote popular majority to his name.Those who disdain the present Bush mandate might wonder what kind of mandate a minority president would possess.This apparently does not trouble Kerry, who is off on a new, and even  tackier, gambit questioning the legitimacy of the 2004 election.

According to the Associated Press, Kerry told the League of Women Voters in Boston how trickery foiled many voters: “Leaflets [were] handed out, saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. . . . People are told in telephone calls that, if you’ve ever had a parking ticket, you’re not allowed to vote.” And we actually thought the Democratic base was made up of the smart elites, not fools who would fall for such moronic tricks. But it tells you something about Kerry that he thinks his supporters are also stupid.

Blow-up of the Week

Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado called Dr. James Dobson the "anti-Christ." 

Public Radio: Vietnam and Garrison

South Dakota Public Radio at noon today: "Vietnam: A High Plains Perspective
Friday, April 29, noon CT/ 11 a.m. MT; encore April 30, noon CT/ 11 a.m. MT The Vietnam War as told by those who lived it."

Also, several weeks ago I walked over to the SDSU ticket office.  A day or two earlier, the tickets for Garrison Keillor's show from the Mitchell Corn Palace had gone on sale.  They were sold out, in a matter of hours!  Anyway, you'll have to listen to Garrison live at the Corn Palace on the radio this Saturday night.  I certainly realize Garrison has gone off the political deep-end of late, but it's hard to deny all his talents.

What's flat, black, and glows in the dark?

This report from the New York Times is a bit troubling:

The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said Thursday that American intelligence agencies believed North Korea had mastered the technology for arming its missiles with nuclear warheads, an assessment that if correct, means the North could build weapons to threaten Japan and perhaps the western United States. ...

[Vice Adm. Lowell] Jacoby [,the Defense Intelligence Agency chief,] said North Korea's ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental United States remained "a theoretical capability" because its Taepo Dong 2 missile had not been flight tested. But he added that American intelligence agencies judged that a two-stage Taepo Dong could strike parts of the American West Coast and that a three-stage variant could probably reach all of North America.

I use to view a nuclear conflict at Korea as a fairly isolated incident.  North Korea is an obvious threat to South Korea, but I'd submit the threat is more in conventional forms than nuclear ones.   North Korea has confirmed its capabilities to fly a missile past Japan and, if the above is confirmed, could now reach the United States.  I would submit, though, that the greater problem (and of greater U.S. interest) is the proliferation of nuclear materials or warheads to a terrorist  state or group.  While a nuclear standoff would be a regional issue, it becomes elevated to a global scale when proliferation is taken into account.  This development, if true, presents a whole new scenario.

What makes this even worse is the unpredictability of  Kim Jong-Il.  Kim Il always denied having nuclear weapons, until recently, but sometimes seemed to elude to the posibility that he had them.  I had written a paper this semester in my international relations course about the events in Korea; this is one section of it:

In an effort to become equal and recognized by the rest of the world, yet suspicious of possible U.S. incursions, North Korea has purusued the development of nuclear capabilities.  It is important to keep in mind that North Korea does not necessarily need the end product--a nuclear bomb--but the appearance that it has the means to produce one.  This generates tremendous advantage, especially against the United States.  No country has been able to ascertain with certainty whether the "missing plutonium" from the Initial Report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency was an error, is just lying around somewhere, or has been used to make a nuclear device.

More recently, with the end of the Cold War, the warming of relations between South Korea and China/Russia, the North Korean famine, and the "axis of evil" statement by U.S. President George W. Bush, North Korea may believe it has no alternative but to ratchet up their advantage as a means of safeguarding its sovereignty [this is the classic security dilemma].   The nuclear threat (or qualms surrounding the existence of a nuclear device) is the only thing keeping North Korea relevant in the global order.  However, herein lies the paradox:  being a confirmed nuclear power could bring severe repercussions by the world; confirmation that there is no nuclear threat would render North Korea of little importance.

Irony Moment:  The very next day after I finished this, North Korea announced they had nuclear weapons.  Anywho, I would also submit that if Kim Il did try to attack the United States, the sitting president would react in equal measure.

What's flat, black, and glows in the dark?  North Korea fifteen minutes after launching a missile.

Dumber than a sack of hammers

Jack Miles, ex-Jesuit, pontificates in the Los Angeles Times about the "Unholy Alliance Against the Filibuster."

During the last election, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter to U.S. bishops while the campaign was in progress, instructing them to deny Communion to any Catholic candidate unwilling to criminalize abortion. Ratzinger's letter did not win anything close to unanimous agreement, even among the American bishops, yet he succeeded in creating a public question about John Kerry's status as a Roman Catholic.

The shift among Catholic voters in 2004 was small in absolute numbers — President Bush increased his support among Catholics by 6 points from 2000 to 2004 — yet, according to one analyst, it was large enough to turn the election in Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico. Arguably, then, Ratzinger won the election for Bush.

I have posted on these facts, and their connection with the Daschle/Thune race.  I did so not because I thought these stories discredit Kerry or Daschle, but because they were interesting in light of Ratzinger's election as Pope.  I do not think there is anything wrong with choosing political principles over Catholic teaching, but that's largely because I am not Catholic.  I was raised in a Methodist church, an institution that has become so diffuse it reminds me of a door unattached to walls: you can't really tell if you're in the Church or outside it.  A fellow can believe pretty much anything he wants and still call himself a Methodist.

But Catholicism, I suppose, strives to be a bit more definite than that, and that means that Catholics may occasionally have to make hard choices.  And not only Catholics.  If a Senator insists on opposing any Judge who personally is opposed to abortion, on the grounds that such a person cannot be trusted to uphold Roe V. Wade, then the Senator will in effect oppose any Catholics who accept the teaching of the Roman Church.  I think the Senator has every right to do so.  If the Church should decide that no politician can receive communion who is openly in favor of legalized abortion, that is the Church's prerogative.   Maybe one has to decide whether one is pro-choice or Catholic, and cannot have it both ways.  Miles probably got it right when he left the Jesuits and joined the Episcopalians. 

I am skeptical that  Ratzinger's letter had any substantial effect on the election.  Catholics have been drifting softly to the right for some time.  I happen to agree with Miles that removing the filibuster for judicial nominations is a bad idea, for reasons he states.

Once filibusters against judicial nominees can be eliminated, they can be easily eliminated for any other matter before the Senate

But he peppers his essay with number of really stupid calumnies. 

Today, the United States faces an unprecedented Bush administration effort to use religion to bring about one-party rule in the United States, and once again U.S. Catholics may provide the margin of victory.

What the Republicans are doing is what every political party does: it tries to increase its voting strength in elections and on the floors of Congress.  Democrats were all for diminishing the filibuster back when Senators were using it to frustrate their designs.  Over the last century the power of the filibuster has been steadily chipped away.  I'd like to see the chipping stopped, but to talk about one party rule is goofy.  And there is this, doubly dumb remark:

If the Republicans succeed, they will not just have crushed Democratic opposition in the Senate but will be en route to a dramatic weakening of the independent judiciary.

If the filibuster is further weakened it will make the Senate more like the House, which is to say, more responsive to the majority.  This is hardly crushing the opposition.  Likewise the independence of the judiciary is founded not on the nomination process but on life tenure.  How much power the minority has in the selection process has nothing to do with the freedom of a judge to decide, as Anthony Kennedy did, that he has changed his mind on abortion or other matters. 

No successful putsch ever announces itself as such. The putsch likely to be attempted soon will be presented as a simple change in the Senate rules.

A "putsch" means in German what coup d'etat means in French:  a quick, forceful overthrow of a government.  To confuse this with a change in ordinary Senate rules is the sign of a mind that has no room for distinctions and no patience with reality. 

 

An alternative to Lethal Weasels

Exploding Toads.  No, I'm not kidding.  From the Star Tribune

More than 1,000 toads have puffed up and exploded in a Hamburg pond in recent weeks, and German scientists have no explanation for what's causing the combustion.

Both the pond's water and body parts of the toads have been tested, but scientists have been unable to find a bacteria or virus that would cause the toads to swell up and pop, said Janne Kloepper, of the Hamburg-based Institute for Hygiene and the Environment.

Maybe the Greek Islanders [see below] can get the toads to hop on a rabbit before going off.  The residents of Hamburg are not amused.

The pond's water quality is no better or worse than other bodies of water in Hamburg, and the toads did not appear to have a disease, she said. A laboratory in Berlin has ruled out the possibility that it is a fungus that made its way from South America, Kloepper said.  In the meantime, city residents have been warned to stay away from the pond.

There's some joke here involving the French, but just now it eludes me. 

What Do You Train a Weasel to Do?

This article, noted by the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, raises further questions about the demographic survival of Europe.  From Duetsche Welle:

The inhabitants of the island of Lemnos, which has been under siege for some time, are considering sending out a distress call for the crack German troops in a bid to end the occupation which is threatening their livelihoods.

 

In an operation which could well be code-named "Kill Bugs", German weasels could be flown in to rid the island of a plague of wild rabbits.

Why not just shoot the rabbits?  Europe being a much more progressive place than America, they aren't allowed to.

The trouble is, government restrictions on hunting are preventing the farmers from fighting back. Local officials have pleaded for the ban to be lifted and for night-time hunts, which are banned in Greece, to be allowed. The cull would have to take place under cover of darkness as the rabbits stay hidden during daytime. As yet, there has been no change of law and the rabbit rabble continues to run riot.  The hunting solution has also come under fire from the Greek branch of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) which reacted cautiously to the plea, arguing that lifting the ban could encourage attacks on other types of game on the island.

So the locals are trying to weasel out of the restrictions with, well, weasels.

Enter the Weasel Squad…or at least this is where they would enter if they weren't just so expensive to hire. "I've heard that each one costs about 4,400 euros ($5706)," Baveas sighed. "We would need at least 10 weasels," he dejectedly added.  Unconfirmed rumors of shady deals involving less well-trained but equally ruthless Austrian mercenary weasels were allegedly circulating in some desperate corners of Lemnos.

I would have thought that weasels, especially German weasels, came with all the necessary software preloaded.  But I suppose with all the regulations that a Euro-Weenie government produces, even the predators have to be retrained. 

The Nomination Exclusion Factor

Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times points out that the list of disqualifications for officeholders has been growing steadily longer of late.

John Tower's failed bid to be Defense secretary in 1989 meant that public drunkenness was now a disqualification. The near-failure of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 added sexual harassment to the list. The withdrawal of Zoe Baird's name for attorney general in 1993 made failure to pay nanny taxes a no-no. (I'm tempted to add that Robert Bork's rejection for the Supreme Court in 1987 ruled out nominees with scraggly facial hair.)

Now, John Bolton's nomination to be United Nations ambassador is in serious jeopardy, according to the senators who oppose him, because he's not nice enough. But do we really want to add nastiness to the list of disqualifications?

This is a direct consequence of the gotcha politics that is now the weapon of choice in confirmation quarrels.  If you can't beat the nominee on the merits (either for lack of arguments or because popular opinion does not support you), dig through his garbage can.  Both Republicans and Democrats play at this game, but the Democrats are better at it. 

Will Daschle Run Again?

I think not.  But there is this from the Georgetown Voice:

As to your own political career, do you foresee a return to public office, perhaps a run for South Dakota governor?

I've always felt that it's important that you never close any doors, and I'm not going to be closing doors in my political life for the foreseeable future. I don't have any current plans to get back into elective political office, but I won't say, and I couldn't say, that that wouldn't happen. We'll have to wait and see what the future holds and what opportunities present themselves.

Hating Christians

In today's NRO Stanley Kurtz has a piece about the left's campaign of hatred against conservative Christians.  The irony, of course, is that the left preaches hate in the name of fighting hate.  That's the rhetorical brillance of the campaign to silence conservative Christians; the left's intolerance is pursued in the name of tolerance.  While wrapping themselves in the mantle of decency and tolerance, parts of the left attack conservative Christians in the most vile way.  A sample from Kurtz:

For a very long time now, secular liberals have treated conservative Christians as the modern embodiment of evil, the one group you’re allowed to openly hate. Although barely noticed by the rest of us, this poison has been floating through our political system for decades. Traditional Christians are tired of it, and I don’t blame them. That doesn’t justify rhetorical excess from either side. But the fact of the matter is that the Left’s rhetorical attacks on conservative Christians have long been more extreme, more widely disseminated, and more politically effective than whatever the Christians have been hurling back. And now that their long ostracism by the media has finally forced conservative Christians to demand redress, the Left has abandoned all rhetorical restraint.

Hersesth Votes Against Parents

Stephanie Herseth voted against a bill that would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines in order to avoid abortion parental constent or notitification laws.  Congressional Research Service sums up the bill thusly:

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion and thereby abridging the right of a parent under a law in force in the State where the minor resides requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.

Specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this Act.

So the upshot is Rep. Herseth thinks it's just fine for someone to transport a minor girl across state lines so she can get an abortion without her parents knowing it.  The amazing thing is that in many states minor girls cannot get their ears pierced without their parents permission, but they can get an abortion without permission and in some cases without the parents even being notified.  The roll call vote may be found here. 

Roger Andal and the SD MSM

UPDATE: Just like clock-work, Daschle Machine spokesman Dave Kranz of the Argus Leader is reporting on what Roger Andal, a long-time Daschle advisor, is saying like it's pure gospel from a neutral observer and failing to provide Andal's background.  Kranz also failed to explain that the Thune "protest" on Tuesday was run by Daschle's former campaign manager and also former staffer Jeremy Funk of "F--- John Thune" t-shirt and "I want to rip Thune's n--- off" fame.  First class Daschle shilling, Dave!  Anyway, note the details on Andal that Sibby provides below:

Sibby:

For some reason, Todd Epp removed the following Roger Andal message from his web site today:

Anyone interested and anyone you may know who would be interested, please be at the DAV (1519 W. 51st St., Sioux Falls) on Saturday the 30th of April (This Saturday) at 5:00 p.m. for a rally on VA Health Care Funding. Those who make it to the DAV will be given signs to hold and we will all go to the Ramkota Exhibit Hall (In front of the entry ways) by 5:45 p.m. We will hold the signs up so those attending the Lincoln Day Dinner (At which John Thune is the speaker) can see and pass on our message to Thune. The event at the Ramkota starts at 7:00, so we will be done at seven when they have all arrived.

Think up sign ideas of your own if you like. We will have plenty to hand out examples:

$500 billion for WAR $0 for war veterans

VA Funding vs Tax Cuts for the wealthy

Veterans are a cost of war

$10 billion for Star Wars $0 for Iraq veterans health care

Protect the flag by protecting veterans benefits

Prohibit burning of promises to veterans as well as the flag

Please RSVP Roger at 332-6866 as soon as possible if you plan on attending.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Roger Andal is more of a Democrat operative than he is a representative of the American Veteran. The Swift Boat Vets would attest to that based on what Andal said about John Kerry:

Kerry's stands on veterans issues are the reason for Roger Andal's enthusiasm about his candidacy.

"It is a given that he is strong for veterans. It is time we get serious and elect a smart person as president," said Andal, a Vietnam veteran from Brandon. "It is time America wakes up to that."

Andal also participated in an anti-war protest:

The South Dakota Peace and Justice Center sponsored rallies Saturday in Sioux Falls and Rapid City as part of an international protest for peace marking the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

In Sioux Falls, dozens of people lined one side of a busy street, held signs and waved at passing cars.

Jeanne Koster of the Peace and Justice Center says it was part of protests held in at least 50 countries and in 250 cities across the United States. The purpose, she says, was to say 'no' to war and, in her words, "let's get busy on the peace."

Roger Andal, a Vietnam veteran who took part in the event, said the demonstrators support the troops. He says they just want them to come home -- alive.

Koster said it's the United States that needs a regime change.

After my previous post about Andal I received this information:

Andal is a virulently partisan Democrat Party hack and fawning lickspittle for Tom Daschle. During the late 1970s, he worked as a field director for Congressman Daschle. In 1988, Andal ran for the SD Legislature in Senate District #14; he was defeated by Republican Randy Austad. In 1990, Andal ran for the SD Legislature in House District #14; he was defeated by Republicans Jan Nicolay and Roger Hunt.

In May of 1996, Andal resigned as chairman of the Minnehaha County Democrat Party, saying that Democrat congressional candidate Jim Abbott had both contributed money to the state Republican party and had accepted thousands of dollars from Republican sources for his congressional campaign. Twenty minutes after Andal released his resignation letter to the press, Democrat congressional candidate Rick Weiland issued a press release attacking Abbott's Republican connections.

In 1998, Andal ran against July Olson of Rapid City for chairman of the SD Democrat Party. Olson won.

It has been reported that Andal has been with Daschle from the start:

Roger Andal was a district manager for Daschle when he was elected [to] the House. Andal said he is not surprised by Daschle's rise through the political ranks, becoming one of the most powerful Democrats in the nation. Daschle was always able to bring people together and willing to work with anyone, even when they had different views, he said.

I also found this excerpt from an ABC News report:

David Kranz in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader assesses Tom Daschle, one year post-Jeffords switch. The better stuff focuses on state politics.

"Being targeted by the Bush administration as an obstructionist and ridiculed for his actions by groups such as Club for Growth and Rushmore Policy Council, Democrats have gotten up from their chairs to take the offense on Daschle's behalf. The Daschle Democrats group has formed nationally with the help of some former U.S. senators. Longtime supporter Roger Andal of Brandon is circulating a 'Thank You Tom Daschle' letter for signatures that will be published this week."

From this cached version of the Daschle Digest, we learn Andal worked for Daschle in the 2004 election as Chairman of Veterans for Daschle.

Like the Social Security protest, I suspect the South Dakota MSM, including David Kranz, will cover Roger Andal’s protest at the Ramkota on Saturday. Andal will be portrayed as a Vietnam Veteran and Coordinator of DAV. Nothing will be said of his many connections with Tom Daschle and his partisan Democratic background. The South Dakota MSM certainly wouldn’t want to give the impression that Andal is just another Dumped Daschle Disciple who is sore about Daschle’s loss to John Thune in the 2004 Senate race.

I am also sure the South Dakota MSM will not question Andal about fellow Vietnam Veteran and POW John McCain voting the same way Thune did on the Murray Amendment. As with John Kerry, not all Veterans agree with Andal.

UPDATE II:  More from Sibby:

But Kranz did not mention that Andal was district manager for Daschle when he was elected to the House or any of the many details I provided in my previous post. When the Argus Leader used me in their October 2004 propaganda piece on Linda Daschle, they described me this way:

Mitchell accountant Steve Sibson, a Thune supporter and constant critic of Sen. Daschle on an Internet log, is among those who question her connections.

Why didn’t Kranz describe Andal as a Daschle supporter and constant critic of Sen. Thune?

Because Kranz wants Andal to seem like he's "grassroots" and the Argus wants to undermine Sibby's standing.

CNN Interview with Thune and Obama

CNN – INSIDE POLITICS – Sens. Thune and Obama interview on judicial nominees and ss

CNN 4/27/2005 4:09:40 PM

http://mms.tveyes.com/ExpandGuest.asp?ln=99692

JUDY WOODRUFF: with me now to talk about a range of topics making headlines in the nation's capitol, two senators just begins their first terms in the upper chamber, republican john thune and democrat barack obama is from illinois. gentlemen, good to have you with us. senator obama, to you first, on this dispute over the president's judicial nominees. yesterday harry reid the democratic leader says he's willing to compromise but the republican leader, senator frist made it very clear that he wants an up or down vote on every single one of these. have the democrats waited too long to show a willingness to compromise here?

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: no, i don't think the democrats have waited too long. we've been willing to compromise all along. look, you have a situation here where the president has gotten 90 to 95% of his appointees. he basically wants 100%. we understand that he wants 100% but when you look at the judges that he has seeking to reappoint they aren't the kinds of judges that are well in the mainstream of american legal thinking. and so we've said that we're willing to give on a couple of these judges but it doesn't make sense for us to simply give away our prerogatives to advise and consent. that's the job of the senate. it always has been.  

WOODRUFF: senator thune, if the democrats are prepared to compromise, why wouldn't your party?

SENATOR JOHN THUNE: it shouldn't come as any surprise that barrack and i disagree. this president has the worst confirmation rate of any president in event history. the ten he submitted in the last congress he resubmitted seven of those names. these are people who are extremely well qualified for the bench. people who have gotten wide support from their states. priscilla owen got an 84% rating in texas. these are people who deserve an up and down vote in the united states. i think people across the country see this as an issue of fairness. these people but their good name forward. they deserve to be voted on. they are being held up in the senate.  

WOODRUFF: if it is that clear, senator obama, why can't this get straightened out?

SEN. OBAMA: i think this actually can get straightened out if there's a little give on the other side. look, everybody thinks that we should have a judicial confirmation process that is more civil than the one that existed right now. keep in mind president clinton had 60 of his judges bottled up under some of the same leadership that is now complaining about fairness or up and down votes. historically there has been an effort on the part of the president to come to the senate, and come to senators from both parties, and say, let's put together a list of people who admittedly are going to be conservative because we have a conservative president but also fit within the mainstream of judicial thinking. that's the kind of approach we should take this time out. if we do i think we can put some of these bitter judicial nomination issues aside and get to the business of healthcare and education and some of the things that both john's constituents and my constituents sent us here to work on.  

WOODRUFF: senator thune, i want to turn you both to the subject of social security. president bush has been talking about private accounts, personal account, for many days now. many weeks. and apparently right now there's not even agreement among your own party, among republicans, what does this mean for the president's initiative, for his proposal to reform?

SEN. THUNE: first of all, right now they are holding hearings up here in the senate finance committee, senator grassley has convened hearings on the subject. frankly i think what he's saying is the correct approach. everything ought to be on the table. the president has come forward with some concepts, some proposals he has put forward. right now what we're waiting for is for the democrats to come up with some alternatives. i think it's fair to say we have a problem. everybody acknowledges that. the question is what are we going to do to solve it? as of right now the only people who are leading with any solutions or any suggestions about how to address the long-term solvency of social security are folks on our side. and i think, frankly, that if we're going to have a spirited debate on this issue, i think we should it has to be a two-way debate. just suggesting not doing anything is not a solution. it's a choice but it's a bad choice. this is a problem that needs to be addressed. if we don't address it now we pile mountains and trillions of dollars of debt on future generations, on our children and grandchildren. that's why i think people in this country expect the country to lead on it. it is going to require some bipartisan cooperation to get it done.  

WOODRUFFF: is senator thune right the democrats are just saying no and not bearing their own responsibility in all this?  

SEN. OBAMA: actually it's not the democrats are saying no, it's the american people who are saying no. the president has been trying to sell this thing for 60 days now. and the support for it gets worse and worse. the reason is that the american people understand social security is that bedrock social security insurance that makes sure we don't have seniors in poverty. people in disabilities are not going to be impoverished. people who survive the loss of a spouse are not going to be impoverished and by the republicans own admission the president's plan doesn't solve the problem -- solve the solvency problem. the president's own officials have stated that privatization doesn't shore up the system. it, in fact, adds an extra two to five trillion worth of debt. john and i are both concerned about debt. i'm assuming john doesn't want to compound that debt with a privatization plan as has been put forward. what we said is let's take privatization, which is not going to solve solvency off the table. then let's come together in the spirit of bipartisanship the same way tip o'neill and ronald reagan came together in 1983 and solved the problem.

WOODRUFF: let me ask you both about the american people are looking at issue after issue in washington from the the judges to social security to john bolton, you name it, they are seeing disagreement. they are seeing gridlock. not seeing a lot of work getting done. senator thune are you worried that both parties, i mean including the leadership republican party, are going to be hurt by this lack of progress in washington?  

SEN. THUNE: i think that what we're doing and i think the american people realize this, whether or not they agree with the direction, is that we are providing leadership. we're providing solutions. and as barak mentioned we're both very interested in moving an agenda that includes highway bill, energy bill, solutions to social security, but right now inasmuch as the democrats are not in favor of what we put forward they are not offering alternatives. i think the american people want to see us work constructively in a bipartisan way to solve the issue. i do think the issue on judges is important. if we do away with 214 years of precedent of american history is now say we're going to require a 60 vote majority to approve any supreme court or appellate court nominee that will be breaking with 214 years of precedent. that's wrong.

SEN. OBAMA: i don't want to squabble on this. i want to make sure we get the history right on this. every president has not had up or down votes on judges. that's the 200 years of history we're talking about. the republicans are essentially saying they are going to change the rules midstream in a way that sun precedented. even the advocates of the so-called nuclear option has said this will be an unprecedented step where we're going to change the rules in midstream. but going back to the earlier point, which i think is right. let me give you an example of something.  

WOODRUFF: very quickly.

SEN. OBAMA: healthcare is an initial at every town hall meeting in south dakota or illinois people are talking about. we don't have a proposal on the table for that right now. i would love to work with john thune on that. we're going to need leadership on both side.  

SEN. THUNE: we put a proposal out there. we're waiting for the democrats to come out with something.

WOODRDUR i would love to ask you both if this is what you came to washington to do to fight with the other guys.  

SEN. THUNE: we came here to debate.

SEN. OBAMA: we're going to pass some bills together, no doubt about it.  

WOODRUFF: we hear you. senator thune, senator obama, very good to see both of you.

Iraqis Ready to form a government

Regardless of what one thinks about regime-change in Iraq, there is no doubt that the success of the new Iraqi government is an imperative for the United States.  It is all well and good to keep reminding us over and over that many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died.  But having broken Iraq we must now see it fixed. 

The New York Times reports that a new coalition government is now ready to assume power in Baghdad. 

Iraq's new prime minister announced today that he had submitted a full list of cabinet members, opening the way for a new coalition government to assume power and end a crippling three-month political stalemate that has appeared to fuel renewed violence here.

Lest we miss the references to how difficult things have been, the Times adds this:

The announcement came just hours after gunmen shot to death a member of the new national assembly at her home in eastern Baghdad, a stark reminder of the challenges the new government will face. The slain lawmaker, Sheika Lamea abed Khaddouri, was the first member of the 275-member National Assembly elected on Jan. 30 to be killed by insurgents.

The Iraqi government is being forged in the hottest kind of fire.  It may yet fail, and no doubt that would gratify some critics of the war.  But if it does succeed, it will be a well tempered instrument indeed.  We should all hope for that.

Phony Poll Watch

In his excellent blog, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto points out the phoniness of the Washington Post poll purporting to show that Americans strongly support the filibuster.

"Filibuster Rule Change Opposed" is the headline of the lead story   in today's Washington Post. The paper reports on a poll of 1,007 "randomly   selected adults." The results are here   (PDF), and the relevant questions are No. 34 and No. 36, which appear   on page 13 (both, for some reason, after No. 35):

34. The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by     Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right to block these nominations? Do you feel that way strongly  or somewhat?

Result: Right 48% (22% strongly, 26% somewhat), wrong 36% (17% strongly, 19%   somewhat). Here's the other question:

36. Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for     the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?

Results: Support 26%, oppose 66%.

Read these questions carefully and you'll see that the Post's headline is false.   The poll not only doesn't use the word filibuster; it doesn't even describe   the procedure.

We add that the last question is written in a terribly misleading way.  Limiting the filibuster on judicial nominees is not, in itself, a partisan change: it would benefit whatever party happened to be in the majority.  The way the poll puts it, it would as if the law were to say that you could only filibuster the nominees of  a Democratic President.

In Need of Head Shrinking?

The press noted after the election the post-traumatic stress of many Democrats had reached such a level that these Democrats had to seek therapy.  In fact a term was coined, Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST).  Perhaps some evidence of PEST is in the air in the recent craziness on the left noted by Prof. Lauck just below.  A  local blog mentions a report out of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that the president of University of St. Thomas denounced the "hate" of a recent performance by the inimitable Ann Coulter. (It behooves this St. John's grad to point out that we used to chant at football and basketball games that UST was where you "wanna go to college if you haven't got the knowledge.")  As Powerline noted, the Trib didn't bother reporting what was so hateful about what she said, and as of yet there is no indication that the UST president knows either.  I have no doubt Ann Coulter said many intemperate things, which is her standard tactic.  This is precisely why she is so dumb.  For all of her bluster, Ann Coulter is incapable of ever convincing anyone who disagrees with her or is on the fence that she is correct.  Her style is so angry and vituperative she can only alienate those with whom she disagrees.  Thus she is only good for preaching to the choir.  The irony is that the local blog that posted the Ann Coulter story from the Trib shares the same style, if not substance, of Ann Coulter.  The same can be said of the former Daschle aids who sell anti-Thune t-shirts rife with vulgarity.  Todd Bevan makes this point today:

From top to bottom, Democrats tend to frame political debate these days in the most alarmist, even apocalyptic terms; conservatives want to poison the water; bulldoze forests and let greedy corporations rape the environment; make granny choose between food and her pills; throw women who have abortions in jail; take away day care and shred the safety net of Social Security; pack the courts with people who want to take us back to the 16th century and tear down the wall between church and state to establish an evangelical theocracy. And that's just the GOP's domestic agenda.  Is it any wonder some on the left are ridden with such terrible anxiety?

Dean

More on the Democrats' leader, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, from the Washington Post:

Howard Dean may not be running for anything, but his elbows appear to be as sharp as ever.

Since taking over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year, the former presidential candidate has been quoted in newspapers making unusually caustic remarks about Republicans.

Dean has suggested that they are "evil." That they are "corrupt." He called them "brain-dead" during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a "liar." Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a "drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh" at an event there.

The Left

Powerline:

[S]ome actual hate speech has occurred on Air America, where--not for the first time--the program's liberal hosts have encouraged the assassination of President Bush. Matt Drudge has the story:

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.

"What is with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.

We have commented a number of times on the frequency with which liberals advocate the assassination of President Bush. Sometimes it's supposed to be funny. Sometimes it's supposed to be art. Sometimes it's just flat-out, unvarnished hate. But I'm not aware of a single Democratic official who has criticized those who advocate assassinating the President.

The SD MSM and Democrats

Sibby Online:  SD MSM promote Democrat's lies

Filibuster Flip Flop

I find the hypocrisy argument one of the lamest in politics.  Every politician, if he hangs around long enough, and certainly every political party will at various times find themselves taking the opposite sides of various issues either out of a sincere change of mind or out of political expediency.  A pox on all houses.  But the Democratic flip flop on something of such great importance as the federal judiciary is deeply cynical:

Sen. Barbara Boxer is a longtime opponent of judicial nomination filibusters. Or she was. Suddenly the light has dawned, and she realizes how wrong she was to oppose them: "I thought I knew everything. I didn't get it. . . . I am here to say I was totally wrong."

Other Democratic senators have had similar changes in belief: Joe Biden and Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer and their erstwhile colleagues Lloyd Bentsen, and Tom Daschle have all vigorously opposed the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations. Mr. Schumer was for voting judicial nominations "up or down" without delay. Mr. Leahy flatly opposed a filibuster against Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination: "The president and the nominee and all Americans deserve an up-or-down vote." Mr. Harkin believed "the filibuster rules are unconstitutional," Mr. Daschle declared that "democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock," and Mr. Kennedy that "senators who believe in fairness will not let the minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate." 

Another Fraudulent Hate Crime

For a bit there it looked like a hate crime had been committed at Trinity International University in Illinois. This from ABC:

Trinity College officials moved dozens of minority students off the suburban Deerfield campus Thursday night and into a hotel for safety after three minority students received racially motivated, threatening letters. The third letter threatened a black female student with physical violence with a weapon, Bannockburn Police Chief Kevin Tracz said.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson followed the flashing lights to that destination.  See the Chicago Sun Times:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson met Friday with Trinity President Gregory Waybright and the students who received the notes, and said the three expressed "reasonable fear.''

"There is some disbelief this happened at a Christian university, but there is no hiding place from the pervasiveness of racism in our country,'' Jackson said, praising the school's response.

But it turned out to be another hoax.  This from the Las Vegas Sun:

A student who was apparently homesick was arrested and confessed to sending threatening letters that frightened fellow blacks at a small private university, police said Tuesday.

There never was a serious threat at Trinity International University, police Lt. Ron Price said Tuesday.

He said the woman, who was arrested and was expected to be charged on Tuesday, was unhappy at the Christian school and wanted to convince her parents it was too dangerous for her to stay.

There is no doubt that racism persists in this and every other country.  There is plenty of doubt whether racism is pervasive, as the Reverend Jackson says.  The false atrocity has become a frequent feature of contemporary news.

Tip of the hat to Michelle Malkin. 

Social Security "Protest" Rally/Theater of the Absurd

The Daschle hate machine, led by Daschle's former campaign manager and former staffer Jeremy Funk (the one who promotes "F--k John Thune" t-shirts and writes about how he wants to "rip Thune's n--- off" on his website) was joined in protest today in Sioux Falls by members of the Lyndon LaRouche party (who were busy handing out flyers about how Jewish bankers were going to take over the world and are also fearful of black helicopters signaling the apocalypse).  Dave Kranz was, of course, dutifully reporting on the "protest"--37 years and still shilling for the Daschle machine.  It has to be some kind of record.  [UPDATE: in the story in the Argus on Wednesday morning, Kranz does not mention that this "protest" was coordinated by an organization run by former Daschle staffers (which he obviously knows) and where they are getting their money, i.e. Kranz makes it look like this is some sort of "grassroots" organization, when it's simply a front for embittered former Daschle staffers--some "reporting"]

Here's a snippet from the AP:

As Congress took up President Bush's request to draft Social Security legislation Tuesday, people against the proposed changes protested in front of Sen. John Thune's downtown Sioux Falls office.

They carried yellow printed signs that said, "Hands Off My Social Security," and handmade signs such as, "Don't Piratize Social Security."

The group wants Thune, a Republican freshman, to sign a pledge opposing any plan that allows young people to invest retirement money in private accounts.

The most recent government forecast predicts that in 12 years, Social Security trust funds will begin paying out more in benefits than it takes in. In 2041, the trust funds will be empty, and benefits will have to be cut.

The protesters said it's not that bad.

Instead, they'd rather wait for the next generation to confront the problem.

These guys still aren't listening to the wisdom of their former President Clinton, who Thune even cited when he commented on the privatization plan.

"President Clinton rightly said in 1998 that Social Security is a looming crisis that needs to be addressed," Thune said. "The situation hasn't gotten better. It's only gotten worse."

On April 7, 1998, Clinton spoke at a national forum on Social Security in Kansas City, Mo.

"Today, the system is sound, but the demographic crisis looming is clear," Clinton said. "The baby boomers--76 million of us--are now looking ahead to their retirement, and people clearly are living longer, so that by 2030 there will be twice as many elderly as there are today. All these trends will impose heavy strains on the system."

Randy Frederick, chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party, nails it:

"This group is not really interested in improving the Social Security system because it is more interested in politicizing the issue than helping to come up with real answers."

All in all, a nice coalition of the bitter and absurd.  Keep an eye out for the next Daschle machine/LaRouche rally.  

No Deal

Frist responds to Senator Reid's statements in the following Associated Press story: "Frist Rejects Deals in Filibuster Fight."  Excerpt:

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Tuesday rejected compromise offers that would allow minority Democrats to continue to block judicial nominees, saying all of President Bush's past and future court choices deserve confirmation votes from the GOP-controlled Senate.

"At the end of the day, one will be left standing ... the Constitution, which allows up-or-down votes, or the filibuster," Frist said.

Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's appellate court choices through filibuster threats, which means those nominees would have to get 60 votes before they could be confirmed to lifetime seats on the nation's second highest court. They have threatened to block again the seven that Bush renominated this year, as well as future ones they consider outside of the mainstream.

The Front

Folks should be aware as the efforts of South Dakotans United To Protect Social Security make some news that this group is little more than a front group for the Daschle operation.  Daschle's former campaign manager and a former campaign worker are behind this effort.  Of course it is not unusual for a partisan effort to cloak itself in the garb of neutrality by picking a generic name like South Dakotans United to Protect Social Security while in fact acting like a partisan group.  People can make what they will of this group's claims, but they should be aware that this is not a non-partisan effort but a vehicle for those who wish to undermine John Thune. 

Remember, the Democrats are not in principle opposed to investing Social Security in the stock market.  What they are opposed to is you investing.  What they have been for is the government investing.  I quote from this CATO piece:

As bad as this proposal to inflict an enormous tax burden on tomorrow's workers is, the other element of President Clinton's Social Security reform proposal is far worse. President Clinton recommends that the federal government invest a portion of the trust fund in the stock market. If his plan becomes law, in 2030 Generation Y will live in a country where the federal government owns almost 4 percent of the market. The president assures us that we need not worry, now or in the future, about corruption or cronyism influencing government investment choices...

In fact, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has characterized proposals to allow the government to invest in the markets as "dangerous."

William Voegeli has an impressive piece on Social Security in the Wall Street Journal today.  He points out that the left has defined community as "dependent on a government program," and only through government intervention in our lives can we build an authentic community.  Is there no place carved out for the individual?  Are people capable of forming vibrant and efficacious communities without government coercion?  Never mind that big government ends up weakening community (see Mr. Tocqueville). Voegeli also writes:

The marketing campaign worked brilliantly. The author of a letter to The Wall Street Journal in 1994 spoke for millions of citizens who had absorbed its lessons: "Social Security is not an entitlement program, but a savings system. When the government sends a Social Security check to an individual, it is not giving him anything; it is paying him back a portion of the money he has saved for his retirement through a special retirement plan. The money belongs to the individual, money owed to him, money systematically and forcibly taken from his paycheck as security against a time when he will be too old to work." Every one of those assertions (except the "forcibly") is wrong.

This writer was wrong on many counts.  First of all, unlike the personal accounts suggested by President Bush, once you pay your Social Security tax it is not legally your money.  It is the government's money. We also live under the impression that we contribute to Social Security and then when we retire the government gives us our money back.  This is false.  This is how it really works.  We pay Social Security taxes.  The government gives it to current beneficiaries and spends it on programs.  Most people who collect Social Security receive far more in benefits than they ever put in.  This ponzi scheme only works if we keep raising enough from current taxpayers to pay the current beneficiaries and the money Congress takes to mask the deficit.  We have been able to do this over the last 70 years, but demographics suggest that this scheme is not so slowly but oh so surely coming a cropper.  Once again, the Democratic solution?  Scorched earth campaign against anyone who suggest that things might be rotten in the Social Security Trust Fund. 

The Hate Machine rolls on

More from the Daschle Hate Machine (i.e., the boys affiliated with Jeremy "F--k John Thune" Funk):

On the same day the U.S. Senate Finance Committee began holding hearings on Social Security reform, a coalition of concerned South Dakotans called on Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to sign a pledge opposing President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.  After making brief remarks, former State Senator John McIntyre (District 12) delivered a pledge to Senator Thune's office promising to protect Social Security and oppose the President's risky investment scheme. ...

Under the umbrella of Americans United to Protect Social Security, South Dakotans United are among 35 states across the nation holding events today on what has been named the "National Day of Unity to Protect Social Security and Stop Privatization," coinciding with a major rally in Washington, D.C. expected to draw thousands of people and more than 100 members of Congress.

Here's the pledge they asked Thune to sign:

P L E D G E T O

Strengthen

Social Security

I, U.S. Senator John Thune, pledge to the people of South Dakota and to the American people that I will work to strengthen retirement security, including Social Security.

I will oppose Social Security privatization proposals that would:

1. Require cuts in guaranteed benefits to pay for private accounts.

2. Weaken the system by diverting money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for private accounts.

3. Increase the federal deficit to pay for private accounts.

4. Increase the retirement age.

There was a time when Democrats supported the idea of privatizing Social Security, including former Senator Tom Daschle.

Rocky Mountain News

Instapundit is noting another newspaper blog out West:

JOHN TEMPLE, the editor and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News, has started a blog, and he's not afraid to expose his paper's internal debates.

That's excellent, and I hope we'll see more of this kind of thing.

Daschle & 527s

This is unbelieveable.  Daschle spent years complaining about "big money" in politics, but now he's defending 527s (which spent $200 million to defeat President Bush) and even defending the archliberal MoveOn.org (which opposed the war in Afghanistan).  From Roll Call:

Congress should resist the temptation now, as it considers regulation of 527 organizations, to impose restrictions on independent political speech and voter mobilization. ... Sadly, I fear that [political purposes] may be the motivation for some supporters of this new 527 legislation. ...

It is simply no accident that this administration and its allies in the Congressional majority, furious over the attacks on its record by ACT, MoveOn.org and other groups, have abandoned their resistance to reform and energetically support this bill. The Republican National Committee has filed suit against these same organizations, seeking to punish them for these same political sins, after having intervened at the Federal Election Commission to stop them altogether. So, as they have in other high-consequence contexts, it seems that those unhappy with expressions of dissent have donned the mantle of “reform” and seized on the tactic of changing the rules to stifle it.

There may be too much money in our politics and, as a result, too little public confidence in our government. McCain and Feingold are right to be concerned about that trend. But attacking 527s in this fashion is not the way to address that concern.

 

Is Reid Buckling?

The New York Times:

ASHINGTON, April 25 - Maneuvering in advance of a Senate floor showdown on judicial nominees intensified Monday as Senate Democrats prepared a compromise offer to Republicans that would allow votes on some judges and showcased new tactics for confronting Republicans should filibusters be barred.

Congressional officials said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, could make a proposal as early as Tuesday to allow votes on two of three Michigan nominees for a single appeals court. It could be coupled with other guarantees to Republicans, potentially including a vote on one of four candidates drawing the deepest opposition. ... At the same time, Democrats, fearing a backlash, suddenly abandoned talk of using the chamber's arcane rules to bring the Senate to a standstill in the fight over judges. Instead, they said they intended to call up their measures on health care, education and veterans' benefits with the hope of making Republicans take what could be politically awkward votes.

Burning School and Reservation Law

Four students were rescued, just barely, from a burning Crow Creek High School dormitory. 

"The last girl, she was frantic and couldn't breathe, and she was almost ready to throw herself out the window," Sazue said. The two girls eventually jumped into the arms of a staff member who was perched on the ladder, Raue said.

See the Rapid City Journal.  The last line is particularly interesting.

[Crow Creek Tribal Schools chief executive Scott Raue] said the state Fire Marshal's Office condemned the entire Stephan campus last year but had no authority to shut down an American Indian school.

Captain Insano Shows No Mercy

The Washington Post has an article detailing many of the disparaging remarks made by Howard Dean about Republicans in recent weeks. 

Howard Dean may not be running for anything, but his elbows appear to be as sharp as ever.

Since taking over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year, the former presidential candidate has been quoted in newspapers making unusually caustic remarks about Republicans.

Dean has suggested that they are "evil." That they are "corrupt." He called them "brain-dead" during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a "liar." Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a "drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh" at an event there.

Dean was noted for his candid and often unpredictable comments during his campaign last year. Then, as now, many Democrats said they don't mind the former Vermont governor's bluntness.

"You don't want a wallflower for a party chairman," one Senate Democratic aide said. Dean's remarks have not attracted much attention in the national media, in part because he has focused largely on local and regional news outlets since taking the party's helm in February.

But his counterparts in the Republican National Committee have noticed. "It's odd that Howard Dean says he wants to earn the respect of those who live in the red states, but chooses to not only attack their views but attack them personally," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said. "Americans want to hear an agenda, rather than name calling."

I'm just glad the Republican Party doesn't  have a chairman who thinks the way to advance our party's position is to find creative ways to "hurl venom" at the opposition.  The "startling meanness" of it all. 

The Revolving Door

The paper of record for Olympia, WA has some interesting thoughts about politicians who leave office and become lobbyists. I am not one to overly worry about the sway of money and corporate influence over our politics, but others care about it a great deal.  The Olympian says:

In a report this month, the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics estimated that "special interests and the lobbyists they employ" spent more than $13 billion lobbying Congress from 1998 to 2003. The center released a list of 250 "top revolvers" that included 32 former U.S. senators. More than 250 ex-members of Congress now lobby Congress, according to the center's analysis.

Among the latest to walk through the revolving door is former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who was defeated in a bitter re-election fight last year by up-and-coming Republican John Thune. Daschle has joined a well-connected Atlanta-based law and lobbying firm, Alston & Bird, whose other notables include former Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas; the former chief of the government's Medicaid program; and a longtime adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

The author continues:

Daschle is barred from lobbying his old colleagues for a year, but in announcing his hiring, his new employer said he would give "policy advice" to clients. Translation: He'll provide an insider's roadmap on how clients can get their interests stoked and stroked in Congress. Daschle's new firm said he might not become a registered lobbyist per se, but he will if he follows the Dole model.

No one in this town ever expected retiring public servants such as Dole or Daschle to return to the Kansas and South Dakota plains of their homes. Both are married to accomplished Washington, D.C., insiders. Elizabeth Dole is a senator from North Carolina and veteran of several Republican administrations. Linda Daschle is a high-powered lobbyist.

Of course many people, including John Thune, leave office and do some lobbying, although I will note that Thune never moved out of state.  One would hope, though, that those on the left who get the vapors over the influence of corporate money on policy decisions might spare a few angry words for Sen. Daschle.  I won't hold my breath.

Religion

Michael Barone:

But whether the United States is on its way to becoming a theocracy is actually a silly question. No religion is going to impose laws on an unwilling Congress or the people of this country. And we have long lived comfortably with a few trappings of religion in the public space, such as "In God We Trust" or "God save this honorable court."

The real question is whether strong religious belief is on the rise in America and the world. Fifty years ago, secular liberals were confident that education, urbanization and science would lead people to renounce religion. That seems to have happened, if you confine your gaze to Europe, Canada and American university faculty clubs.

But this movement has not been as benign as expected: The secular faiths of fascism and communism destroyed millions of lives before they were extinguished.

America has not moved in the expected direction. In fact, just the opposite. Economist Robert Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening" argues that we've been in the midst of a religious revival since the 1950s, in which, as in previous revivals, "the evangelical churches represented the leading edge of an ideological and political response to accumulated technological and social changes that undermined the received culture."

In the 2004 presidential exit poll, 74 percent of voters described themselves as churchgoers, 23 percent as said they were evangelical or born-again Protestants and 10 percent said they had no religion.

This is in line with longer trends. Roger Finke and Rodney Stark in "The Churching of America 1776-1990" used careful quantitative analysis to show that in America's free marketplace of ideas, the religions and sects that have grown are those that make serious demands on members. Those that accommodate to secular critics and make few demands decline in numbers. The Roman Catholic Church continues to grow in America; the Assemblies of God and the Mormon Church grow even faster. But mainline Protestant denominations, which spend much effort ordaining gay bishops or urging disinvestment in Israel, lose members.

What Kind of Dog Is The Pope

The very smart George Weigel has a piece in Newsweek about Benedict XVI.  He writes: 

As I said to a colleague after John Paul's funeral, "Next month, Ratzinger will either be back in Bavaria, happily retired and working in his library, or he'll be pope." I haven't the slightest doubt which future he would have preferred. Neither should anyone else. Still, his acceptance of the humanly crushing burden of the See of Peter tells us something important about the man: like John Paul II, this is a Christian radical who long ago handed his life over to the will of God, manifest through the call of the church. Which is another reason why the conventional "liberal/conservative" taxonomy doesn't apply here.

Weigel notes that the man once known as Cardinal Ratzinger has been called "God's Rottweiler."  I guess now he is a German Shepherd. 

History

As you know from a post last week, the State Historical Society is taking some heat for a KKK exhibit in Pierre.  South Dakota Magazine now has more on this matter.  SDM, unlike the Argus Leader, notes that the SD KKK was primarily anti-Catholic since there were few blacks or Jews in SD. 

The Republican Senatorial Position on Filibusters

One of the most important functions of the U.S. Senate is make legislation more difficult.  The Founding Fathers were more concerned to prevent bad legislation from passing than to make sure that every idea that excited the popular imagination might be tried out.  The Senate gives every state, however small in population, an equal chance to throw a wrench into the legislative cog wheel.  The filibuster has been one way of empowering a small number of states to stop legislation prejudicial to their interests.

They also gave the Senate the responsibility for approving Presidential nominations.  Here, the filibuster is not so obviously a good idea.  While we might want to give a minority in the Senate a last chance to stop a bad Supreme Court nomination, the filibuster potentially allows that same minority a chance to bring the process of nomination to a halt.  If nominations to the Courts or the Executive bureaucracy become common, it may be difficult for the government to function. 

This is the claim put forth by Senator Thune in today's Argus Leader.  It is also the focus of this piece in the San Antonio Express News. 

      Although mystifying to many, the filibuster is constitutionally sound when applied to legislation. Congress is the active agent in lawmaking, and if it wants to make that process more difficult, it can.    

   

      The president's constitutional role in lawmaking does not kick in until Congress has completed its task, but at that point he has no choice — he must act on what Congress sends him. His job in this arena is to check Congress — to sign the bill or guard against what Alexander Hamilton called "the enaction of improper laws" through the veto. He cannot halt the process. That is as it should be, for lawmaking is at heart a legislative function.    

   

      Article II spells out executive functions. The Framers gave the       president the responsibility to staff the nonelective positions in the federal government — Cabinet officials, ambassadors and judges. The president is the active agent in the staffing process — the originator and prime mover. If he wants to make the process more burdensome, perhaps through lengthy interviews or extraordinary background checks, he can. He has near-total power in this area.    

   

      The Senate's job is to check the president — in Hamilton's words, "to       prevent the appointment of unfit characters" through the advice and consent process. Some argue the Senate should be able to use the same tools in nominations that it does in legislation. However, a presidential nomination is not legislation. It is part of the president's function of providing steady administration of the law.    

   

      It is inappropriate for the Senate to employ a delaying tactic normally       used in internal business — the construction of legislation — in a       nonlegislative procedure that originates in a coequal branch of       government.

I am opposed to ending the filibuster in cases of judicial nominations  because I suspect that, once that step is taken, it will lead to the end of the filibuster altogether.  But I concede that judicial nominations are not the proper venue for that device. 

Judicial Filibuster Poker

Below, John Lauck notes David Broder's sober advice to the Democrats over the filibuster.  Jon Schaff and I are both skeptical of the Republican intention to limit the filibuster.  I think Broder's recommendation is one that the Democrats would be wise to accept.  But wisdom is not what a shrewd observer would expect.

Consider this from Steven Lubet in the Chicago Tribune, courtesy of RealClearPolitics:

When it comes to poker, however, the Republicans have thoroughly outmaneuvered their opponents. You would expect the Bush administration to be good at Texas Hold 'Em, but it is surprising how bad the Democrats, led by Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, have played their hand.

First, the Democrats' bluff has been too transparent. Faced with the prospect of the nuclear option, they have responded with threats of their own. "Abolish the filibuster," they warned the Republicans, "and we will respond by exploiting arcane procedural rules that will bring the Senate grinding to a halt." You can imagine what would happen in the Senate if Democrats refused "unanimous consent" on routine measures, or demanded roll-call votes on every amendment and bill. Sure, they could throw the place into chaos, but they obviously don't mean it, as the Republicans surely understand.

The Democrats' threat is hollow because they have no intention of fulfilling it until after the Republicans have changed the filibuster rules. But at that point it will be too late. Once the filibuster is gone it's gone, and snarling the Senate won't bring it back. The Republicans could go ahead and confirm even the most outrageous judge or justice, and all the Democrats could do, at that point, is fume. Tying up the Senate might feel good for awhile, but revenge quickly grows tiresome and things would sooner or later (probably sooner) return to normal.

In other words, the Democrats are playing to punish the Republicans for changing the rules, and hope to reap partisan advantage.  I think they may well succeed in this, as Dick Morris argues.  But the peril will be great, and if the Republicans play their hand well, the Democrats will look like obstructionists, who "shut down the government" because they are sore losers. 

If the Democrats really want to keep the filibuster in their hand for possible use in all important Supreme Court nominations, they would do well to heed Broder and Lubet's advice.

Jeffords and Daschle

From CNN comes this transcript from a discussion on Saturday about Jim Jeffords' resignation.  I remind you that, in 2001, Tom Daschle helped convince Jeffords to leave the Republican party and end the 50-50 partisan split in the Senate (and, hence, making Daschle the Senate Majority Leader). Commentator Kate O'Beirne had this to say: 

His change may have cost Tom Daschle his Senate seat. It put Tom Daschle front and center as an obstructionist to the president's agenda. He paid a heavy price.

And, boy was Margaret wrong back on that classic. I should have been there to straighten her out. It was totally unprincipled and opportunistic. The Republican Party had been conservative since Jim Jeffords was in the House in 1981 and, what, 20 years later he all of a sudden looks up and figures out he doesn't belong there?