South Dakota Politics

The FEC and Blogs

The FEC is getting involved with political blogs:

Web loggers, who pride themselves on freewheeling political activism, might face new federal rules on candidate endorsements, online fundraising and political ads, though bloggers who don't take money from political groups would not be affected.

Draft rules from the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, would require that paid political advertisements on the Internet declare who funded the ad, as television spots do.

Similar disclaimers would be placed on political Web sites, as well as on e-mails sent to people on purchased lists containing more than 500 addresses. The FEC also is considering whether to require Web loggers, called bloggers, to disclose whether they get money from a campaign committee or a candidate and to reveal whether they are being paid to write about certain candidates or solicit contributions on their behalf.

These rules would not affect citizens who don't take money from political action committees or parties.

The FEC long has been reluctant to craft rules for the Internet, and it has exempted the online world from many regulations that apply to other media such as television and radio. But a court ruling last fall required the agency to include the Internet in its definition of public communications and to begin regulating activities there.

I Love You Letter "Q"

Here's a video short story about someone who really likes Scrabble. I mean really likes Scrabble.  Hat tip, NRO. 

Fiddling While The World Starves

Evidently the Spice Girls will not be allowed to play at the Live Aid II concert coming up because their brand of music is too shallow for the enlightened pop stars.  But evidently Eminem, Outkast and Linkin Park are exactly what the starving kids of the world need.  I guess their music is what passes for deep thinking in pop music these days. 

After the original Live Aid concert (I was 14 and stupid, so I loved it) PJ O'Rourke wrote one of the funniest essays I have ever read, entitled "Fiddling While Africa Starves."  You owe it to yourself to find his book Give War A Chance and give this essay a read (as well as the essay on Jimmy Carter that is pee in your pants funny).  The idea that what the world's poor need is stupid and solipsistic rock stars to sing their crappy music in order enlighten the masses in the name of abstract goodness is an idea that only, well, a stupid solipsistic rock star could hold.  Does "Sir" Bob Geldof really think world leaders will change policy because Eminem "sings" another song about beating up his ex-wife?  What the poor of the world really need to do is get rid of the corrupt murderous leaders, stop killing each other, and try to enter into the world economy (that means free markets).  Interestingly, this is exactly what the United States is trying to help the nation of Iraq do.  You can read more about it in Thomas P.M. Barnett's brilliant (but flawed) The Pentagon's New Map. 

Daschle's Permanent Campaign Update

Over the weekend, the Argus Leader ran a story about the "eternal campaign" against Senator Thune run by former Daschle staffers which is spearheaded by Daschle's former campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, who is being paid from Daschle's campaign account AND Daschle's political action committee.  The Argus also quotes Todd Epp saying this campaign is based on "bitterness" is designed, with respect to Thune, to "'soften him up for a future election,' Epp says. 'And it's good sport, it's fun.'"  There are also more thoughts on the unprecedented nature of Daschle's continued funding of an anti-Thune campaign here.  In a well-researched blast from the past, Sibby notes that "David Kranz and Steve Hildebrand had a different take when it was Senator Daschle who was going to be held accountable." 

C'est What?

After the Bureaucrats in Brussels defined jelly as consisting of fruit preserves, they were informed that the French make a jelly out of carrots.  Instead of back tracking to change their original mistake, they officially redefined carrots as fruit.  This is the body that would govern Europe had the new constitution been ratified. 

After the crushing defeat of that Constitution in the French referendum (55% non to 45% oui, according to final count) the constitutional process in Europe is now like a chicken with its head cut off: too stupid to lay down and die. 

Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, said: "The outcome of the referendum is a setback for the process of ratifying the constitution, but not its end."

Many Eurocrats are urging Chirac to do something, perhaps announce a second referendum.  But a government this badly discredited scarcely has the strength to do such a thing, and it would only further convince French voters, even many who voted yes, that the instincts of their national establishment are profoundly undemocratic.

One of the few things that the proposed constitution is clear about is that every member state must ratify it before it comes into effect.  Nine, I believe, have already done so, but France was the first to submit  it to the voters in a binding election.  Moreover, the Dutch are set to vote tomorrow, and they too are expected to vote no.  Britain has scheduled a referendum, but two no votes in three days, effectively killing the ratification process, will leave Tony Blair  little choice but to cancel it.  The same will be true of the Czech Republic and Poland. The chicken is dead.

Why is the European Constitutional process collapsing?  To begin with, the document itself is a mess.  Consider by way of contrast the Constitution of the United States.  It consists of seven articles and can be printed on one page (though granted, its a big honkin page).  The European Constitution contains 448 articles and is two or three hundred pages long, depending on how it is printed. 

But the bigger problem is illustrated by the fact that voters in France and Britain are opposed to it for the opposite reasons.  The French thought it would expose them to "anglo-saxon values," which is French for having to work in order to get paid.  The British think it would take away much of the competitive advantage that the British economy has over its European rivals.  "But so what," says Mark Steyn.

Britain's naysayers don't have to reject the constitution for the same reason as France's commies, fascists, racists, eco-nutters, anachronistic unionists, featherbedded farmers, middle-aged "students", Trot professors and welfare queens, bless 'em all. If they want to go down the Eurinal of history clinging to their unaffordable welfare state, their 30-hour work weeks, 10-month work years and seven-year work decades, that's up to them. If Britain doesn't, that should be up to Britain.

That is the rub.  Neither people want to give up national independence to a body of unelected pinheads who think that carrots are fruit. 

Worse still, there is a bad idea at the bottom of the whole European project.  The French began it hoping that a United States of Europe would be able to compete on equal footing with the United States of America, and of course that France would dominate the former.  Steyn explains what is wrong with this Gallic reasoning.

I mentioned to a theatre chum the other day that the EU reminded me of Garth Drabinsky's Livent company. They were the big theatre producers in the Nineties: they revived Show Boat and produced Kiss of the Spider Woman and Ragtime and Sweet Smell of Success in Toronto and on Broadway and brought most of them to the West End. And they were all critically admired, yet didn't seem to make any money. But Livent took the view that somehow if you produced a big enough range of flops they would add up to one smash hit.

They're gone now. But their spirit lives on in the EU, critically admired (at least by the Guardian and Le Monde) but not making any money, and clinging to the theory that if you merge enough weak economies they add up to one global superpower. The big story of the past three decades is that the more it's mired itself in the creation of a centralised pseudo-state, the more "Europe" has fallen behind America in every important long-term indicator, from economic growth to demographics. "Europe" is an indulgence the real Europe can't afford. The followers recognise that, even if the leaders don't.

Herseth's Debacles

Stephanie Herseth has gotten into a pinch over highway funding legislation.  From Bob Mercer out of the Capitol Bureau in Pierre:

After two years of deadlock, Congress appears close to agreement on a new national highway and transit funding plan, a state Department of Transportation official said Thursday.

South Dakota would receive millions of dollars more in federal highway aid under either of the two competing approaches, but the Senate version treats South Dakota better over the long run, according to Leon Schochenmaier, DOT's director of planning and engineering. ...

The next step in the process calls for House and Senate negotiators to meet in conference. The House worked on appointing its conference members Thursday, but the Senate hasn't announced its team yet. ...

South Dakota currently gets about $200 million annually in federal highway funding.

The Senate version would increase that by an average of about $61 million per year, according to Republican U.S. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. [emphasis by the author]

The House plan calls for $35 million in one-time funding for various special projects and an annual increase averaging about $35 million per year, according to Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth, the state's lone member of the House. [emphasis by the author]

Thune said South Dakota would come out $134 million better under the Senate bill.

In another article by Mercer:

With 15 to 30 percent more federal funding at stake for the state's roads and bridges, South Dakota's two U.S. senators will be among the negotiators shaping the new national highway and transit program. ...

Johnson and Thune were among the sweeping majority when the Senate voted 89-11 for a $295 billion package two weeks ago that was $11 billion higher than the Bush administration said it was willing to accept. The House passed a $284 billion six-year package that the White House supports. ...

The leading Democrat in the House on the issue, Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, asked the House to instruct its negotiators to guarantee that each state receive funding equal to at least 92 percent of the taxes paid into the federal highway fund from that state, while no state would get less than what was already set in the House bill.

On a nearly perfect party-line vote the House Republican majority defeated the Oberstar motion, 223-189. South Dakota's one member of the House, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth, joined other Democrats and supported Oberstar.

In addition to potentially ruining the highway bill, Herseth also has voted against a law prohibiting taking minors across state lines for abortions, she couldn't get the BRAC bill through the House, she voted for the killing of frozen embryos for their scientific value (with your tax dollars, mind you), and suddenly she's beginning to look a lot weaker.  Also keep in mind that NSF letter debacle that even Kranz wrote about.

Tortured Logic

On of the local blogs (yawn) totally confuses issues regarding the Bush Administration's policy regarding torture and the Geneva Accords.  First of all, the administration has consistently held that the Geneva Accords do not apply to terrorists who fight for groups such as Al Qaeda. Why? Al Queda is a terrorist group, not a nation, and is thus not a signatory to the Geneva Accords.  Second, terrorists are not soldiers as they wear no uniform and attempt to blend into the civilian community in an attempt to do their murderous deeds.  Terrorists are not soldiers and they are not civilians.  They have no designation under Geneva.  Thus Geneva Accords would apply to Sadaam, who as a head of state has a legal definition under the Accords, but not to the terrorists who are being held by the US in Iraqi prisons (this is as distinct from Iraqi soldiers, who would have legal rights).  All this said, the United States has chosen to extend Geneva rights to terrorists  as matter of policy, but not as a matter of law.  The policy is to treat them like soldiers, even though they aren't.   I would point out that those who violated policy in Iraq are being prosecuted. 

Regarding the use of torture. The Bush administration never condoned torture.  It merely asked (in the infamous "torture memos") "what is torture?"  I think we all agree that between beating prisoners with fluffy pillows and hooking up battery cables to sensitive body parts there is an acceptable level of vigorous questioning that may involve making prisoners uncomfortable, either physically or psychologically.  The Bush administration followed previous policy by saying inflicting physical pain or injury is "torture" and unacceptable.  Again, those violating this policy are being prosecuted. 

As evidence that these are not easy questions, two of the most respected legal minds in American, and on opposite ends of the political spectrum, Alan Dershowitz and Richard Posner, have both written books suggesting that sometimes torture is acceptable in the name of national security.  That's something the Bush administration has never claimed.  One could seriously grapple with these difficult questions of what do we owe our enemies in times of war, but that would require thinking and it isn't as much fun as simply calling Bush names. 

For a serious discussion on this issue, see this discussion stream at The Volokh Conspiracy. 

Happy Memorial Day. 

Remember Our Fallen Heroes

The top picture is from the American military cemetery at Meuse-Argonne River in France.  It was such a major victory for allied forces during WWI that a small town in Miner County, South Dakota changed its name from St. Mary's to Argonne.  The second picture is of the American cemetary at St. Mihiel.  We forget how many South Dakotans perished in WWI.  For an idea of how many served, go see the memorial in front of the courthouse in Winner, SD in Tripp County.  Not to confuse wars, but Memorial Day is, of course, a product of the Civil War and the advocacy of the Grand Army of the Republic.  The Civil War and the GAR were extremely important in the world views of the early founders of South Dakota.  The GAR was very powerful and we ended up with counties such as Lincoln, Union, Grant, Meade, McPherson and towns such as Gettysburg, Appomattox, Shiloh...

Daschle's Perpetual Campaign

A former campaign official who worked on the 1980 McGovern-Abdnor race offers a comment in response to a Kevin Woster post on Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore:

Kevin, you raise some interesting points that deserve a little historical perspective. What Dick Wadhams did in the last campaign is not particularly new in South Dakota, but he may have just done it better and with more money. On the other hand, what the Daschlites are doing right now is, to the best of my knowledge, unprecedented in SD politics. Whether it is a good thing will, of course, be in the eye of the beholder.

When Jim Abdnor ran against George McGovern in 1980, our staff and consultants did the same thing Wadhams did in 2004. We analyzed years worth of McGovern statements and actions and used them in advertisements. When Tom Daschle ran against Abdnor in ‘86, he had film crews following Abdnor around to public events for at least two years prior to Election Day to seize upon any misstatement that could be used in a TV ad. There is nothing wrong with these tactics. An incumbent’s statements and actions are and should be fair game in a re-election campaign.

But no matter who has won a Senate race in the last three decades, be it Jim Abdnor, Tom Daschle, Larry Pressler or Tim Johnson, none of them were subject to a perpetual attack campaign that began immediately after Election Day. McGovern didn’t do it to us. We didn’t do it to Daschle. Pressler didn’t do it to Johnson.

Having said that, I would be surprised if this sore losers campaign has much of an impact. It’s preaching to a relatively small choir of people like a few on this blog who go all googly-eyed over left-wing websites.

That’s not to say that John Thune’s record shouldn’t be held up to public scrutiny. Of course it should. But, I don’t think that’s really the focus of groups that peddle “F— John Thune” t-shirts and simply condemn everything Senator Thune does without any regard to intellectual honesty.

May the Frist be with You

Mickey Kaus with his trademark humor:

There has been a lot of overhyped talk about how the new Star Wars movie, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, is an allegory for President Bush and the Iraq War. I've just seen the film, and can declare with some certainty that the idea that Episode III is a Bush/Iraq allegory is silly. Isn't it obvious the movie is really an allegory for the filibuster fight? The Sith are judicial activists who would use the Force to satisfy their passions. The Jedi are the believers in judicial restraint (hence their concern with rules and democracy, their quasi-Buddhist self-denial, etc.). The story initially promises a climactic showdown between these two factions, but the violent battle turns out to merely set up the later, definitive conflict in Episodes IV, V and VI. It kicks the can down the road! ... 12:06 A.M.

Hitchens as "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay"

If you don't read Christopher Hitchens, you should know it's worth it, as his latest report on UK MP George Galloway surely proves.  Excerpt:

His short, cocky frame was enveloped in a thicket of recording equipment, and he was holding forth almost uninterrupted until I asked him about his endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay." It takes a little more than this to wound your correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001 [according to Galloway]--but please note that the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell. His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."

Cowboys, The Decline of the Western, "Deadwood," Buffalo Bill, and Fascism

Larry McMurtry makes some odd comments in an interview in today's New York Times Magazine:

But cowboys aren't always popular. You can look at the rise and demise of the western movie. It's not like there are hundreds of westerns being made now, as there were in the 40's and 50's.

How do you explain their decline?

There's no money to be made in them anymore. It costs too much to deal with animals. If you want a bear in your movie, it costs you $60,000 for one day.

Still, there's ''Deadwood'' on HBO. And we now even have a White House West. You're a native Texan -- what do you think of the president's ranch in Crawford?

I find it hard to think of it as a ranch. Crawford is basically a suburb of Waco, and I have been through it a million times. The president has this obsession, which he inherited from Reagan, of brush clearing. I don't get it. What do you get when you clear brush? You get a photograph of yourself with a chain saw and a cowboy hat.

What, exactly, do you think cowboys represent, other than the triumph of alpha males?

Cowboys are a symbol of a freer time, when people could go all the way from Canada to Mexico without seeing a fence. They stand for good ol' American values, like self-reliance.

Maybe some American values, but you can't say that cowboys were ever interested in spreading democracy.

No, they were interested in spreading fascism.

If you put it that way, how do you explain your own fascination with Buffalo Bill?

I never thought about it.

You should probably come up with a better answer, because I'm sure you'll be asked the question many times on your book tour.

No, I won't. This is the only time I am talking about this book. Why write a book and then talk about it? It doesn't make any sense. I can get another book done in the time it takes to do a book tour. I don't want to sit around reliving last year's book in conversation.

Les Francais Say Nay

From the International Herald Tribune:

French voters dealt a crushing defeat to the European Constitution today, demonstrating their determination to punish the leaders of France and of Europe after a bitter campaign that split the country in two.

 

As the polls closed, the French Interior Ministry said the no camp had 57.26 percent, compared to 42.74 for yes, with nearly 83 percent of the votes counted.

Crazy Horse Monument

Fundraising has begun at the Crazy Horse monument.  This story was one of the most popular on Yahoo! today:

Nearly six decades have passed since work began on the Crazy Horse Memorial, a granite mountain being carved into a colossal sculpture of the Sioux warrior, arm outstretched toward his ancestral homeland, astride a stallion more than two football fields long.

When it's finished — and no one is predicting when that will be — the sculpture will be 563 feet high and 641 feet long. It will be taller than the Washington Monument, and so large that the four presidential heads on Mount Rushmore, 17 miles away, would fit inside the nine-story-high warrior's head.

But with $17 million spent so far, raised largely from visitors and others familiar with the project, only a portion of the monument is finished. Now, for the first time, a national fundraising drive is being quietly started in hopes of accelerating the pace.

To learn of the history of the project, check out the article.

NYT's Praises Bush Education Policy

No, really.  Kausfiles directs us to Eduwonk, who gives us some taste of the singularity of the event.

Eduwonk says: Stockpile canned goods and firearms! That guy by the subway station was right...the apocalypse is upon us! Key indicator? Pro-charter school NYT story here...front page NYT Sam Dillon pro-NCLB story here!

As Eduwonk says, make sure you are sitting down for this one.

BOSTON - Spurred by President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, educators across the nation are putting extraordinary effort into improving the achievement of minority students, who lag so sharply that by 12th grade, the average black or Hispanic student can read and do arithmetic only as well as the average eighth-grade white student.

In short, Bush's NCLB policy is doing exactly what it was designed to do: force educators to find ways to reach the least educable. 

Here in Boston, low-achieving students, most of them blacks and Hispanics, are seeing tutors during lunch hours for help with math. In a Sacramento junior high, low-achieving students are barred from orchestra and chorus to free up time for remedial English and math. And in Minnesota, where American Indian students, on average, score lower than whites on standardized tests, educators rearranged schedules so that Chippewa teenagers who once sewed beads onto native costumes during school now work on grammar and algebra.

"People all over the country are suddenly scrambling around trying to find ways to close this gap," said Ronald Ferguson, a Harvard professor who for more than a decade has been researching school practices that could help improve minority achievement. He said he recently has received many requests for advice. "Superintendents are calling and saying, 'Can you help us?' "

I draw your attention to the word suddenly in the last paragraph.  When the education industry  does anything at a pace that is visible without stop motion photography, that is indeed front page news. 

Of course this recognition by the NYT's is bound to be ignored by the paper itself as soon as its editors come back from vacation.  Kaus suggests that

Friday before a holiday is the classic time to bury good news! ...

But the article is astoundingly honest.  Consider the next paragraph.

No Child Left Behind requires schools to bring all students to grade level over the next decade. The law has aroused a backlash from teachers' unions and state lawmakers, who call some of its provisions unreasonable, like one that punishes schools where test scores of disabled students remain lower than other students'. But even critics acknowledge that the requirement that schools release scores categorized by students' race and ethnic group has obliged educators to work harder to narrow the achievement gap.

Isn't it precisely the fact that educators are obliged to work harder that explains the backlash? 

Presidential Art

Powerline:

Well, you know a painting is offensive when the guy who painted the Pope with swastikas thinks it's over the line.

Read the whole thing.

Argus on Daschle's Permanent Campaign

The Argus Leader has a story today on the "eternal campaign."  Excerpt:

The most notable Thune critic formerly associated with Daschle is Steve Hildebrand, who managed Daschle's Senate campaign. Hildebrand has opened a political consulting firm in Sioux Falls and still has financial ties to Daschle.

As the administrator of Daschle's leadership political action committee, Dedicated Americans for the Senate and House, Hildebrand receives $2,000 a month. He says he also will be paid by the campaign through the end of June.

"It was a $21 million campaign operation. It has taken a long time to wind down the expenses related to that," Hildebrand says.

He insists, though, that Daschle's money is not fueling his ongoing attack on Thune.

But Daschle's dollars are being spent on Hildebrand, who is orchestrating attacks on Thune, not "winding down" the campaign.  More on this later.  Also, Todd Epp explains how all of these attacks are designed to wound Thune politically:

Where Hildebrand insists his criticism is policy-driven, Epp acknowledges a component of revenge in his own.

"I think there was considerable bitterness about what happened to Tom," Epp says. "I think as Democratic activists have looked at ways to try to do something about it, this has been one of their outlets. I think it is for me."

Epp also says Thune should expect more of the same throughout his term in the Senate.

"To be frank with you, this is to hold John (Thune) accountable and to soften him up for a future election," Epp says. "And it's good sport, it's fun."

I wonder if he considers the "F--- John Thune" t-shirts which are sold by the former Daschle staffer/bloggers to be "fun."

Oui or Non on the European Constitution?

I must admit ambiguous feelings about the upcoming French referendum on the European Constitution, rather like the old joke about your mother in law driving off a cliff in your brand new sports car.  On the one hand, it will be a deep and perhaps fatally embarrassing blow to the career of Jacques Chirac, and what's not to like about that? 

Says the British Independent:

President Chirac, 71, has said that he has no plans to resign, but rejection of the constitution - originally his idea - would reduce him to the lamest of ducks for the last two years of his term and finally signal the end of his 38-year political career.

A "no" vote would mean that a majority of French voters had repudiated the leaders of all mainstream parties of the centre-rightand centre-left, and the mainstream print media. The basis of French politics and diplomacy for the past 50 years would have been overturned.

On the other hand, looks who's about to vote no:

The latest polls show that no fewer than 58 per cent of Socialist voters and 70 per cent of Greens will vote "non" tomorrow, against official party policy. Centre-left voters have been persuaded, during a rumbustious and muddling campaign, that the constitution would take the EU into anti-social, "ultra-liberal", hard-capitalist territory, destroying French public services and shipping French jobs to the new member states in eastern Europe. This argument has largely been based on language - "free and fair competition ... free movement of people, goods and services" - which has been in every European treaty since 1957.

Can anything that 70% of the Greens oppose really be bad?  But the real reason the French are voting against the EU Constitution is that it threatens the greatest dream of the working class: not to have to work so much.  From the UK Telegraph:

[The French] are convinced that it will bring in British and American working practices, longer working hours, free markets, cheap burgers and inferior bras. The French are worried that they will not be able to compete. 

Carole Myard, a beautician, explains: "Life is not worth living if you only get two weeks' holiday a year."  Serge Saugues, a mechanic, agrees. "The Americans and British work like dogs. We need our evenings and our holidays to drink wine, see our women, watch the world."

There you have it.  The French conceived the European project because they thought it would help isolate France from competition with the United States, the developing world, and most of the principles of modern physics.  Instead it threatens to reduce their ability to legislate against reality.  Maybe this will be a good thing, as William Kristol argues in the Weekly Standard, as it will force the Europeans to answer the hard questions about their future.  I wouldn't bet my beret on that one.

Hypocrisy Watch

Steve Hildebrand is Senator Daschle's former campaign manager who is still being paid by the Daschle campaign and Daschle's political action committee.  He and the other former Daschle staffers who are being paid to run anti-Thune blogs are complaining about the scrutiny they are receiving.  They just want "free speech," they say.  Remember, however, that when Senator Daschle was being criticized, Hildebrand did not maintain a tolerant attitude toward critics.  Hildebrand openly promised to "attack the attackers."  Sibby has a lot more (and he still wants to know who is paying the former Daschle staffers).

What's Unfair and Out of Bounds?

One of the local lefty blogs asks us to point out things he's posted that are unfair or out of bounds.  Here are some things that are at least unfair, if not out of bounds.
1. Thune "lied" about his ability to "save" Ellsworth.  There is no doubt Thune was wrong, and since he won the race and is now a Senator, I guess that means he has to take heat over it.  But "lied"?  If the weatherman says it will be sunny tomorrow but it rains, did he lie?  No, he was wrong.   There is no evidence that Thune said something that he knew to be false.  There are so many more charitable and more likely explanations of the Thune/Ellsworth situation, none of which, I might add, make Thune look good.  Maybe he was just wrong.  Maybe the White House promised more than it could deliver.  Maybe Thune promised more than he could deliver.  He wouldn't be the first politician to do that.  I could go on.  Any of these alternate scenarios would still open Thune up to criticism, but he is not a liar. 

2. John Thune wants to steal our Social Security money?  Really, that's just silly boilerplate, and not fair in the least.  Thune (and Bush) are interested in protecting the integrity of Social Security and making sure all retirees are taken care of.  They might be horribly wrong as to how they propose doing that (although I don't think so), but they don't want to steal anyone's Social Security.

3.  Linking to vulgar jokes about Thune is probably not the most high minded thing.

4.  Is there any evidence that Thune wants to silence those who disagree with him?  Or is this just another example of lefty blogs thinking they are above criticism? 

5. That whole "Bob Dylan is a poet" thing really got me going.  But perhaps that's a subject for a different day. 

6. I'll say no more, as I wouldn't want to be accused of whining.  The whole "I know you are but what am I" schoolyard spat between the conservative blogs and the lefty blogs grows tiresome (and yes, I am aware of my own role in the fight).  Maybe we could move on to a more enlightened argument.  Maybe we could spend a month arguing over who started it.  That might elevate the discussion (Irony alert). 

The Next Karl Rove

CNN's Inside Politics has detailed some political consultants to watch, dubbing them as the "next Karl Rove."  Dick Wadhams makes the list:

Dick Wadhams is one of the hottest hands in GOP politics. He managed South Dakota Republican John Thune's upset of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and is now captaining the ship for potential presidential candidate Sen. George Allen of Virginia. "The Hot Hand" has won major campaigns in three different states -- Colorado, Montana and South Dakota -- and is 6-1 in major races. The lifelong political junkie was a Republican Party county chairman at the tender age of 19.

Senator Who?

Here's a bit that's too good to pass up.  Russ Smith, writing in the New York Press, gives us a sampler of addled thinking at both ends of the political spectrum.  He focuses mainly on luminaries like Frank Rich of the New York Times, and Pat Buchanan.  But here is the richest passage:

A U.S. senator, in a meeting at the White House, spoke about the issue of gays in the military. He said: "It will lead to same-sex marriages and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts."

Sam Brownback? Rick Santorum? George Allen? You struck out. Actually, those comments were given by West Virginia's Robert Byrd—now the revered "conscience of the Senate," a man whom Democrats rely on to preserve the sanctity of that chamber—on Jan. 28, 1993 in a discussion with newly-elected Bill Clinton. This historical nugget is found in Washington Post reporter John Harris' new book about the former president, The Survivor. Harris writes about the reincarnation of Cicero and Socrates: "[Byrd] rose from his seat to give a florid lecture about how the Roman Empire fell when it began to allow moral decay."

I suppose this means that, were President Bush to appoint Senator Byrd to something, say Undersecretary of the Interior in charge of Pork, the Democrats would announce that this constituted an extraordinary circumstance and then filibuster.  Maybe they would even call it a filibuster. 

 

Look Out, Todd Epp!

I was at the supermarket today, and in the checkout line I saw the cover of one of those celebrity magazines.  The big headline, about the Jennifer Anniston and Angelina Jolie feud, was: "Jen Fights Back: Gets Sexy Make Over."  Nothing says, "And here's for ruining my marriage!" like getting a sexy make-over.  That's showing her Jen!  I'm sure she's shaking in her stiletto boots now.  I think pro-Thune bloggers should stop the kitty fights with the pro-Daschle bloggers.  Really show them who's boss.  Sexy make-overs for everyone!   

Johnson v. Bolton

Now Tim Johnson wants to deny John Bolton a vote for the UN ambassadorship.  This is an executive appointment, so I don't have the same objections to a filibuster here as I do with judicial nominees.  I think policy disagreement is a reason to vote against an executive nominee.  But what is the argument against Bolton?  Is it that he has a low opinion of the UN?  I've posted this before, and I will again.  From Jay Nordlinger:

And here's Sen. Barbara Boxer, on John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "He's been very contemptuous of the U.N." Well, no sh**, senator. And you haven't? You weren't contemptuous when Saddam Hussein's government chaired the nuclear-disarmament committee? You weren't contemptuous when Qaddafi's Libya and Assad's Syria chaired the human-rights committee? You're not contemptuous that China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and other beauts sit on that committee?

You weren't contemptuous when the U.N. stood by as thousands were slaughtered in the Balkans? You haven't been contemptuous at the U.N.'s performance in Rwanda, and Congo, and Sudan?

Liberalism used to mean something — e.g., opposition to tyranny and lies. And now? Opposition to George W. Bush seems most important.

The burden of proof is on those who still support the UN, not those who are highly skeptical. 

Is the opposition based on the fact that Bolton is tough on those who work for him?  Does that make him any different from half the US Senate?   See Mark Steyn's take on the matter here. 

Perhaps Sen. Johnson has a good explanation for his vote.  He's a generally decent fellow and I am sure he means well.  But recently it's been hard to tell his voting record from Ted Kennedy's.

By the way, sorry for the vulgarity in Nordlinger's quote. But at least he has the good taste to edit his expletives, unlike some local blogs. 

Bolton

Associated Press:

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota said Thursday that he would vote against the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, hinting his vote is a protest against the Pentagon's recommendation to close Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City.

Ryne McClaren has much more.  Also, see this press release noting that Thune's BRAC bill now has 17 co-sponsors:

Senator John Thune said his bill to delay the current BRAC round is gaining momentum at a press conference today with a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives and three military associations.

“There is momentum behind this legislation. We have broad bipartisan representation on the bill,” Thune said. “My view is we shouldn’t be closing a single domestic base while America is at war and the completion of the overseas BRAC and QDR are not final. Rushing this process could have grave consequences for America’s force structure as we move into the future.”

Representatives from the National Guard Association of the United States, Adjutants General Association of the United States, and Enlisted Association of the National Guard Association of the United States endorsed Thune’s legislation.

“I’m here today representing the 54 Adjutant Generals of the National Guard of the United States. We strongly endorse the legislation offered by Senator Thune and Congresswoman Herseth which would delay the BRAC process,” said Maj. Gen. Francis D. Vavala, adjutant general of Delaware, representing the Adjutants General Association of the United States. “We do this as a body to underscore flaws in the recommended decisions fueled by the exclusion of key information pertaining to the Air National Guard. It’s vitally important that those affected and those with institutional knowledge be made part of an undertaking as profound as BRAC. The BRAC recommendations are flawed and do not reflect what is best for a nation at war.”

Thune’s legislation now has 17 co-sponsors, including Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Christopher Dodd, and Tim Johnson and Republican Senators Trent Lott and Olympia Snowe. The legislation introduced last week would delay the process until most troops return from Iraq, a complete analysis is conducted on overseas facility requirements and several pending reports are released and their impact on BRAC is determined, including two Homeland Security related reports and the Pentagon’s long-term planning document, the Quadrennial Defense Review. The bipartisan bill would, in effect, nullify the base closings recommended by the Pentagon on May 13.

Well, Maybe Somebody Knows

S.D.Watch announces that

Just in case: I've reserved the domain names recallthune.com, recallthune.net, and recallthune.org. You never know!

I assume the "you never know" indicates the possibility that John Thune may subject to a recall movement.  Hope springs eternal, but I'm pretty sure there are two problems with the fantasy.

1. South Dakota is not identified by National Conference of State Legislatures as one of the states that has a general recall provision. 
2. No state has a recall provision for Federal Representatives or Senators.  I believe that Congressmen can be removed from office only by the collective action of their respective chambers. 

So its likely to be a long wait, Todd. 

"out of bounds"

Some of the former Daschle staffers who are now blogging and being paid with money from Daschle's campaign, Daschle's PAC, and the national Democratic interest groups are complaining about their work being scrutinized.  They ask what they've done that's "out of bounds."  Well, how about promoting "F--- John Thune" t-shirts on their websites?  Or how about discussing "ripping Thune's n--- off."  Are those "out of bounds"?  What about, as Roll Call reported last fall, Daschle supporters continually spreading the rumor that Thune is getting divorced when it's an absolute lie?  Is that "out of bounds"?  Would their boss consider their work, which he's subsidizing, an example "startling meanness"? 

The Good Old Days

George Will has this to say in today's latest round of "what are 'extraordinary circumstances?'"

By giving the filibuster sacramental status, Democrats have become, with the zeal characteristic of recent converts, devout communicants in the church of tradition, willing to die in the last ditch in defense of the Senate as the Framers of the Constitution supposedly wanted it. But of course that Senate was done away with in 1913.

The Framers' carefully considered requirement was that each state's senators would be "chosen by the legislature thereof" rather than by direct popular election. Do Democrats, in the purity of their newfound reverence for the Framers, now favor repealing the 17th Amendment?

Is George Will calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment?  Where do I sign up?  How's that for an unpopular opinion.

Standing on the Shoulders of Something

Regarding the "Gang of 14" who brokered the filibuster deal, Peggy Noonan calls them midgets pretending to be giants, while Debra Saunders calls them giants surrounded by midgets.  Which are they, giants or midgets?  Let's split the difference and just call them regular flawed human beings. 

Hildebrand Still Campaign Manager?

A New York Times article today discusses "Steve Hildebrand, Mr. Daschle's campaign manager."  It's interesting that he's not considered Daschle's former campaign manager.  But the Times' designation makes sense.  After all, Hildebrand is still paid regularly by the Daschle campaign, which still has a large chunk of money.  The election in November didn't end anything.  The permanent campaign goes on...

Also, see Sibby on how the former Daschle staffers are financing their efforts: "Show Us The Money."

Meanwhile...

...Stephanie Herseth has no clout in the House over BRAC.

An attempt to delay the latest round of proposed defense base closings and realignments was defeated by the House on a 317-111 vote Wednesday, before it passed its proposed FY06 defense authorization measure on a 390-39 vote.

Remember that Herseth co-sponsored this bill in an attempt to delay the process.  From Aberdeen American News:

Language sponsored by Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., and co-sponsored by Herseth was be offered as an amendment to legislation that would authorize fiscal 2006 funding for the Department of Defense. It was defeated 112-316.

The amendment would have postponed the base closing process until most American troops return from Iraq and several Pentagon studies, including the Quadrennial Defense Review, are completed.

It is similar to legislation introduced in the Senate by Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.

Thune Turns Up the Heat

Thune is making sure that his opposition to closing Ellsworth is taken seriously.  From the Rapid City Journal:

- Since Republican John Thune defeated the Senate's top Democrat last November, he has been one of the most loyal Republicans to President Bush. He has traveled around the country to fundraise and championed the party's priorities on countless news networks.

But now that the Pentagon has targeted South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base for closure, Thune is increasingly flirting with the opposition.  This week he threatened to vote against the nomination for John Bolton, Bush's embattled nominee to be United Nations ambassador. If he does vote against Bolton, he will be one of only a handful of Republicans to do so.  Thune also has declined to take a position on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, another Bush priority.

"Ellsworth will not go down without a fight," Thune said Wednesday. "I've made it clear that I am very disappointed with the Pentagon's decision."

Johnson to Qualified Judges: "Nyet!"

Tim Johnson has voted against Priscilla Owen for her appointment to the Fifth Circuit.  Given that she was unanimously declared "well qualified" by the ABA, their highest rating, one wonders what justification Johnson will give.  Probably some silliness about "temperament."  But Owen was endorsed (albeit cautiously) by the Washington Post.  Is it that she was called a "judicial activist" by Alberto Gonzalez when both were on the Texas Supreme Court?  Oopps.  That's not true (in addition to the hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about judicial activism).  Anxiously awaiting the explanation. 

And This Man Wants To Be My President?

I was looking at George Allen's Senate website.  I'd heard that his reputation is that he's a man of average intellect.  This is becoming something of a broken record with every Republican presidential hopeful, so I wanted to see where he went to school (B.A. with Distinction in History and J.D., both from University of Virginia).  It was in reading Allen's bio that I ran across the picture below.  In the name of all that is holy Senator, tell your son to put on a decent pair of shoes! 

More on Daschle's Permanent Campaign

Today's front page of the Washington, DC newspaper Roll Call features an article entitled "Daschle Loyalists Keep Heat on Thune."  Jason provided an excerpt below.  For the record, Daschle's former campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, is still being paid thousands of dollars per month by Daschle's campaign and Daschle's political action committee.  Hildebrand has also started another group to attack Thune on the Social Security front and hired long-time Daschle staffer Jeremy Funk, who promotes "F--- John Thune" t-shirts on his website, to help him (some believe that Hildebrand runs another one of the main anti-Thune websites but wants to remain "anonymous").  Chad Schuldt, another long-time Daschle staffer, also maintains an anti-Thune website and recently started "consulting," which many take to mean he's working for the anti-Thune project (but he won't reveal his "clients" so this can't be confirmed).  In short, the Daschle campaign is alive and well and being funded by Daschle's own dollars and routinely goes after Senator Thune.  They have every right to do so, but for Daschle to act like he has no idea what is going on is ridiculous.  From Roll Call:

“I think it’s kinda silly actually,” said Daschle, who now serves as a policy adviser to the Washington, D.C., law firm of Alston and Bird. “I haven’t asked anybody [to attack Thune] nor do I know of any coordinated effort ... what’s past is past.”

Apparently, it's not past or Daschle's staffers wouldn't be promoting "F--- John Thune" t-shirts on their websites.  Remember, a year ago Daschle was denouncing the "startling meanness" in American politics...now he's financing it.

Daschle Machine

Roll Call:

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) officially took over the seat of former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D) in January.

But apparently no one told the two men’s surrogates that the campaign ended half a year ago. They continue to spar as if another election is just around the corner.

When the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pounced on Thune within minutes of the release of the Pentagon’s base realignment and closure list, which included a recommendation to shutter South Dakota’s Ellsworth Air Force Base, Thune’s camp believed the attack had Daschle’s imprint all over it.

When it was followed by another critical e-mail on the base closings penned by Daschle’s 2004 campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, they felt sure of it. ...

Hildebrand dismissed the notion that Daschle’s campaign against Thune continues and noted that the Social Security group exists to push all lawmakers who support privatizing Social Security in any way to change their minds.

Hildebrand also stressed that no one asks him nor pays him to go after Thune.  [Please note this, this, and this.]

The Phantom Trip to NYC

The former and current Daschle staffers have been claiming Senator Thune went to NY City last week for a blogger conference, which is untrue.  One e-mail to the conference organizers makes clear that Thune turned down a request to speak:

Dear South Dakota Politics team:

My name is Elizabeth Caputo and I am the Marketing Director for the Personal Democracy Forum (www.personaldemocracy.com).

For our conference this year, we invited Senator Thune to speak, as well as several other elected officials, including Senator Jon Corzine, Senator Barack Obama, Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Congresswoman Katherine Harris.

We sent our invitation letters out in March and early April, and heard back from Senator Thune's office, via two conversations with Summer Pitlick, in late April that he would NOT be able to attend.

At no point did we at PDF include Senator Thune as a confirmed speaker in any of our promotional materials,press releases, or anywhere on our website.

We understand that one or more sponsoring organizations of our conference may have distributed press releases, and believe that this may be the source of the confusion. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me or PDF's Executive Editor, Micah Sifry (917----), or any of the companies who sent out the errant information.

Thank you for your understanding and again, we apologize for any confusion.

Elizabeth Caputo

Marketing Director

Personal Democracy Forum

www.personaldemocracy.com

Herseth Votes Against Life, Again

Well on her way to racking up a horrible record protecting human life, today Stephanie Herseth voted to use your tax dollars to kill frozen human embryos for their scientific value.  This is the same day President Bush appeared with 21 children who were once frozen embryos.  Recall that Herseth, by voting against a recent parental notification bill, thinks it is perfectly fine for someone to take an under-18 girl across state lines so she can obtain an abortion without her parents ever knowing.  Stephanie Herseth's biggest contributor by far to her two campaigns has been the  pro-abortion group Emily's List.  She has also received substantial funds from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League (or as they like to call themselves now, NARAL Pro-Choice America, to hide the fact that they are pro-abortion).  Herseth doesn't vote the way she does because they give her money; they give her money because they know that Herseth will support the killing of unborn life every chance she gets. 

By the way, the vast majority of Republicans voted to protect unborn human life while the vast majority of Democrats voted for public funding for the taking of unborn human life.  But enough Republicans broke ranks that the anti-life side won.  So much for Republicans ramming their agenda through the House. 

Senate Compromise Analysis

Most conservatives continue to regard yesterday's Senate compromise as a defeat for the Republicans.  The reason for this is that they were smelling blood.  If Senate rules had been changed to disallow filibusters on judicial nominations, Bush would have been free to replace the next Supreme Court vacancy with just about anyone he chose.  That's tempting indeed.  But it carries with it the serious risk that the Republicans would be perceived as radical, and that is something they can ill-afford.  The Democrats are just better at behaving radically and getting away with it, especially with a sympathetic press.

In addition to up and down votes on the most convservative of the blocked judges,  the Republicans got this clause:

Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

The Democrats got this one:

In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the rules of the Senate that would force a vote on judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

Some indication of how this shakes out is the way Democrats like Reid and Shumer are spinning the deal.  They say "the nuclear option is now off the table, for our lifetime."  This ignores the qualifying language: "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement." The Democrats want to interpret the document as binding only on Republicans, with Democrats free to reinterpret it with every nomination.  But if at least two of the seven Republicans who joined the agreement should conclude that the Democrats are acting in bad faith, the compromise would clearly be dissolved.  Bad faith will be evident if the Democrats return to using the filibuster as an ordinary instrument of opposition.

I think morever that the bar has been raised pretty high on what "extraordinary circumstances" are.  A judge would have to be more conservative that Owen, Brown, or Pryor, who have now been approved, or would have to have some serious dark mark against him or her.  More important, the first use of the filibuster against a judicial nomination will make it harder to use against the next judge, without seeming to break the agreement.  Lastly, it will make it harder for the Democrats to use the instrument against a Supreme Court nominee who is obviously well qualified and can show that most of his decisions fit squarely with the vote of a majority of the sitting court. 

If the Democrats are smart, they won't filibuster a single nominee until the first Supreme Court vacancy.  That would make them look honest, and make it harder for the Republicans to use the nuclear option.  But that will take more discipline, I think, than they have at their disposal.

And in Same Old News

The Washington Post has the roll call on cloture for Priscilla Owen.  Interesting.  Those voting for cloture include Tim Johnson (will he vote to confirm?) and North Dakota's own, Kent Conrad.  North Dakota's Byron Dorgan voted against cloture.  The difference between Conrad and Dorgan can be explained thusly: Dorgan just won re-election; Conrad is up for re-election.  Also voting against cloture was John "don't label me a liberal" Kerry. 

In Other News

The weather looks OK for Indianapolis on Sunday.  Rain is expected on Monday.  Let's hope it stays that way and we can have a rain free race for a change.

Update: I was just looking at the Indy 500 website and I see that there is a new time of 12:00 noon local time for the race.  Ahhhhh!  Must everything revolve around television?  Just once and a while isn't it enough to say, "We are going to keep doing this because it's the way it's always been done, damn the advertising revenue"?  Don't even get me started on World Series start times. 

Tim Johnson

An intrepid reader alerts us to this comment at Mt. Blogmore:

Grumpy Old Senator Tim is testifying now on the Senate floor. His testimony is absolutely, demonstrably false. He is saying the Republicans want to do away with a 200 year old, 60 vote rule. He has said about six times now in five minutes that the 60 vote rule is 200 years old. This is typical of Johnson - too lazy to bother getting his facts straight. The fact is the 60 vote rule is 30 years old. In 1975 the Democrats reduced the requirement to invoke cloture and end debate from 67 votes to 60 votes. The 67 vote rule to end debate isn’t half of 200 years old. There was no rule to end debate in the Senate until Rule 22 which allowed 67 members of the Senate to invoke cloture and end debate was instituted in 1917 and first used in 1919.

Further, if Tim were to do a little homework, he would understand that the filibuster was never invoked to block a judicial nominee who had majority support until that 225-plus year old tradition was violated under the leadership Senator Daschle.

Another reader, who happens to be one of our excellent NSU students, emailed me to suggest I had been unthoughtful in a post the other day where I referred to Tom Dacshle as "Tommy."  She thought it disrespectful.  I concede the point and have gone back and changed the post.  This is an interesting question, which this Mt. Blogmore post brings up.  We tend to feel very close to our elected leaders, and it is not uncommon to speak of "Tom" and "John" or "Tim" and "Stephanie."  This is informal, but I don't think disrespectful. But there is an informality meant to diminish respect for these folks, such as when Clean Cut Kid calls Thune "Johnny" or Gov. Rounds "Mikey."  My "Tommy" comment probably was of the same ilk and thus an error in judgment.  I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves what is appropriate and what is not. 

Roll Call on South Dakota's 2002 Senate Race

Today's Roll Call:

When Dino Rossi first narrowly won - and then narrowly lost - his race for
governor of Washington last fall, he had a choice to make.

Rossi, a Republican, could have smiled, congratulated the 129-vote winner,
Democrat Christine Gregoire, and quietly plotted his political comeback.

If Rossi had taken that path, he would have followed a trail blazed by
then-Reps. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) and then-Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). Each of them lost a painfully close Senate contest but decided against a potentially divisive court challenge. Instead, each found vindication: Ensign and Thune won Senate bids two years after their losses, and Ashcroft was named U.S. attorney general within months of his. ...

Voters Dislike Bad Sports

In South Dakota, Thune could have easily contested his 524-vote loss to Sen. Tim Johnson (D) in 2002 because it came amid allegations of vote fraud on Indian reservations, which traditionally support Democrats.

But "South Dakotans do not like poor losers," said Robert Miller, executive
director of the South Dakota Electric Utility Companies. "If Thune had
launched a court challenge, his South Dakota rating would have fallen way
off. And if he had won the court challenge, I believe he would have set
himself up for a defeat in the next election."

Todd Epp, an attorney and Democratic activist in Sioux Falls, agreed that
Thune's actions "put himself in the good graces of South Dakota voters." If
anything, Epp notes, then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) - the man Thune defeated in 2004 - may have squandered goodwill when he sought and won a minor court victory over election procedure on the eve of the 2004 election.

In his book about voter fraud, Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund has a chapter about the 2002 race in South Dakota.

Here We Go Again

 

Sen. Johnson says, regarding the filibuster deal last night:

Johnson said on the Senate floor Monday that the nation's founders understood the legislative body would take the longer view, be more deliberative and not march to any ideological drummer. The 60-vote margin rule has enforced that different character in the Senate and served Americans well, he said.

"Both parties know that in order to make much of anything happen here, they must reach across the aisle," Johnson said.

The Constitution, as I think I've pointed out before, defines with precision those cases in which a super-majority is necessary.  Overriding vetos, ratifying treaties, passing Constitutional amendments.  Unless otherwise indicated, simple majority rule is assumed.  A look at Federalist #51 suggests that the rights of the minority are protected by the mechanism of the separation of powers, not by some parchment rule thought up after the fact.  Right now the Democrat's passion for the rights of the minority is enough to make John Calhoun blush. 

Unity Via Bob Dylan

While Blanchard and Epp engage in a love fest over the both amazingly entertaining and gratuitously vulgar "Deadwood," Chad the Clean Cut Kid and I will cross our partisan divide over Bob Dylan.  While I reject the notion that Dylan is a poet (he's a song writer; for further reading on the concept I suggest Ira Gershwin's Lyrics on Several Occasions) Dylan is a lyrical master who, despite some artistic misjudgments (Dylan and the Dead?) has consistently made great music for 40 years.  A colleague and I happen to be discussing Dylan yesterday, and we both agreed that early 70s Dyaln is our favorite (doesn't get any better than Blood on the Tracks), although 1989s Oh Mercy is a great album, too, as is his best acoustic album, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan from 1963.  Dylan made the mistake at times of being pretentious (which is one of the problems with the "poet" label), but he is a master.  How about some lyrics from Blood on the Tracks:

I've seen love go by my door
It's never been this close before
Never been so easy or so slow.
Been shooting in the dark too long
When somethin's not right it's wrong
Yer gonna make me lonesome when you go.

Dragon clouds so high above
I've only known careless love,
It's always hit me from below.
This time around it's more correct
Right on target, so direct,
Yer gonna make me lonesome when you go.

Judge Deal

Senator Cornyn in today's NRO:

The agreement is thus an effective admission of guilt — an admission that these fine nominees should never have been filibustered in the first place. Moreover, by forbidding future filibusters of judicial nominations except under “extraordinary circumstances,” the agreement establishes a new benchmark for future conduct in the United States Senate — namely, that other qualified judges who are firmly committed to the law, like Owen, Brown, and Pryor, deserve an up-or-down vote, too.

Bloggers in China

Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times:

The Chinese Communist Party survived a brutal civil war with the Nationalists, battles with American forces in Korea and massive pro-democracy demonstrations at Tiananmen Square. But now it may finally have met its match - the Internet. . . .

High Court Tackling Abortion Again

New York Times:

The Supreme Court today accepted its first abortion case in five years, an unexpected development that, despite the rather technical questions the case presents, is likely to add even more heat to the already super-heated atmosphere surrounding the court and its immediate future.

The new case is an appeal by the state of New Hampshire of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down a parental-notification requirement for minors seeking abortions. ...

[I]t presents two questions that the court has not previously addressed in the context of parental-notice laws. One is whether such laws must explicitly provide an exception for minors whose continued pregnancy is a threat to their health. The other is what standard courts should use in evaluating a judicial challenge to abortion laws that like the New Hampshire law, enacted in 2003, have yet to take effect [Planned Parenthood v. Casey].

Text of the Senate Compromise

Provided by the ever helpful folks at the New York Times is the following transcript of the McCain accords (that's my highfalootin term for them).

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by majority leader Frist and Democratic leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

      

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to the subsequent individual nominations to be made by the president and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (District of Columbia Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit) and Priscilla Owen (Fifth Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (Ninth Circuit) and Henry Saad (Sixth Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the rules of the Senate that would force a vote on judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the president with regard to the use of the president's power to make nominations. We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as senators seek to uphold.

I have emphasized the controlling passages.  I note that the phrase

 In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement,"

means that nothing is binding except the committment to vote on the three aforementioned justices.  So Professor Schaff and I were right.  Imagine that.

Update: Senator Thune's statement on the compromise.

“I’m happy to see that three of the President’s judicial nominees will receive an up or down vote. However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor.”

That, I think, expresses what the Republicans have gained and what they have given up.

 

PAW is a bit Unhappy

The aforementioned People for the American Way has chimed in. They support the agreement on judicial nominations in so far as it protects the right of the minority to filibuster.  On the other hand:

Nonetheless, we cannot endorse every aspect of the deal that was announced today. We are deeply concerned that it could lead to confirmation of appeals court judges who would undermine Americans’ rights and freedoms. We will urge Senators to vote against confirmation of nominees who have not demonstrated a commitment to upholding individual liberties and the legal and social justice accomplishments of the past 70 years.

I find it interesting that PAW can only trace it's deepest commitments back seventy years.  I think the Constitution is older than that, isn't it?  I guess that's what happens when your most cherished beliefs are the inventions judges, not part of the Constitution.