South Dakota Politics

More Mindless Ideology

In this post about Ellsworth I argued, amongst other things, that in the name of economic development conservatives must not fall into a "reflexive anti-government stance".  Here's an example of a conservative Republican foolishly willing to drive the anti-government bandwagon off the cliff.  After bashing Chad Schuldt tonight, now I give him a hat tip. 

Vegi Tales

I continue to argue that it is beneath the dignity of a political party to make someone's eating habits a political issue.  I disassociate myself from any attack on Elesha Peterson Carr based on the fact that she is a vegetarian. Here in the much noted article she does seem to favorably cite PETA.  If she is a PETA member maybe that's an issue, although I still think it to be so minor as to warrant little to no discussion.   Is this the best the South Dakota GOP can do?  Petty.  Simply petty. 

Now It's Basic History

Done teaching Chad Schuldt entry level public policy, how about we work on recent history.  Chad asks some questions about Bosnia and Clinton.  I will take them in reverse order.

Q: How many international allies did we alienate going into Bosnia?
A: Russia and all its close allies and also China when we accidentally bombed its embassy in the Kosovo campaign.  I point out that the UN would not support the bombing of Kosovo, which is why Clinton had to claim NATO sanction (and not Congressional sanction, by the way).  A related point: is Chad claiming that there should be a "global test" for the just use of force?  The "alienated allies", namely French, Germans, Russians and Chinese, were for removing all sanctions on Iraq and accepting Iraq into the decent society of nations whether Hussein allowed in weapons inspectors or not.  Is this Chad's position?  If not, what should we have done?  Did the experience of the previous 12 years and 16 UN resolutions convince him that just a few more sanctions and one more UN resolution would do the trick? 

Let's take two related questions together.
Q1: How many times did Clinton mislead America into that conflict?
Q2: How many times was Clinton less than forthright with the public about our presence there?
A: Remember after the signing of the Dayton Accords when Bill Clinton claimed we'd only be in Bosnia a year?  That was ten years ago.  If Clinton believed that claim he was dumb beyond belief.  If he didn't believe it he was "misleading" and being "less than forthright."  I dealt with whether Bush "mislead" the public several times, most recently in point #1 of this long post.  By the way, does accepting sexual favors from an intern while discussing Bosnia policy with members of Congress count for anything here?  How's that for taking foreign policy seriously? 

Last question.
Q: How many American lives did it take to bring Slobodan Milosevic to justice?
A: The answer of course is "next to none."  But what is Chad's point?  Does America support democracy only when it's easy?  Is the justice of the cause dependent solely on the number of lost lives?  What does Chad think of the Civil War?  Granted, that was an internal problem (although the South would have disagreed), but 600,000 Americans died in a war to bring a slaveholding yet otherwise democratic South back into the Union (here I sacrifice nuance for brevity).  Was it worth it?  What Chad has to do (and has done in the past) is pretend that Hussein wasn't really that bad, mock Iraqi attempts to found democracy, and hurl all sorts of unsubstantiated charges at the Bush administration.  Chad thinks the whole Iraq policy is a mistake.  So why is one drop of American blood worth it for Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia, but not for Iraq?  Why was it ok for Clinton launch missile attacks against Iraq, but wrong for Bush to actually execute the Clinton era American policy of removing Hussein from power?  Chad apparently thinks it's ok to attack Iraq as long as it is entails no risk and is entirely feckless, but wrong if entails risk and actually attempts to create democracy in Iraq.  In reality I suspect that the real Schuldt theory, since Chad is apparently incapable of doing anything but shilling for his side, is that when it's Bill Clinton it's good; when it's George W. Bush it's bad. 

If someone wants to read an anti-war piece, read someone who actually thinks rather than shills.  It's Francis Fukuyama and it's in today's New York Times.  I disagree with almost everything Fukuyama says, and you'll notice he shares many of Chad's arguments.  The difference is that I still respect Fukuyama because he is known to be a very thoughtful man who is not merely interested in advancing a partisan agenda.  Chad, on the other hand, may have a very lucid mind, but it unfortunately seems to have slammed completely shut some time ago.  The blogosphere is full of unthinking hacks, right and left, and one would weary of debunking their bogus arguments it wasn't so much fun. 

On The Other Hand

Instead of mindlessly attacking Bush, maybe left-wing bloggers could direct readers to sites where they can contribute to help care for the suffering and aid in reconstruction. The libertarian Instapundit does so here.  I encourage SDP readers to follow this link and then contribute to one of the listed organizations.  It is our duty. 

Politicizing Tragedy

The left sinks to new depths.  The reaction of the left on the hurricane on the Gulf coast is to bash George Bush.  Chad Schuldt does it twice, here and here.  The first link compares Bush to Nero, which reveals an historical ignorance on Chad's part that is stunning in its proportions.  I suppose before long Chad will be calling Bush the Anti-Christ, as St. John does Nero in Revelations.  On the matter of whether Bush was playing guitar while he knew people were dying, see this note by Andrew Breitbart at Huffington Post (scroll down):

I tend to not go to this Kos site for source material, but that's your call. A simple look in Yahoo's news pic bin showed that the photo op happened BEFORE New Orleans began to submerge. As you can see, the photo was filed at 10:30 eastern daylight time. The levee breaks which caused "a major city being overtaken by the Gulf of Mexico" started to happen at least an hour and a half later. No one that I know of in media or government, or even this specialty site, Kos, is on record that the disaster you blame him for ignoring was actually happening at the time (or predicting it). At the time, NPR and the Huffpo included, were going along, business as usual. Things, of course, changed soon thereafter. The president cut short his vacation in Texas and headed straight to DC. For you to distort the timeline in order to bash the president puts you into the category of human you were trying to appropriate the president.

The second Schuldt claim is that because of the war in Iraq we are taking money away from other necessary spending.  There are two claims here.  First, one only has to check CBO numbers to show that's false.  If you scroll down to the section on non-defense discretionary spending, which is where infrastructure spending such as levees would fall, you see the spending is projected to go up.  This chart shows that non-defense discretionary spending has gone up at a steep rate for at least seven years, the Bush years included.  Second, I don't want to take time to teach elementary public policy, but policy is generally divided into three categories: distributive, regulatory, and redistributive.  The executive's role is greatest with redistributive and lowest with distributive, with regulatory policy being in the middle.  Levees and roads are classic distributive policy.  The level at which these decisions are decided is the congressional committee or sub-committee level. It is in distributive policy that one sees the classic "iron triangle" relationship between a government bureaucracy, an interest group, and a congressional committee.  There is little doubt that a Bush appointed official had little or nothing to do with the amount of money spent on levees. That dollar figure was most certainly arrived at by a career bureaucrat (perhaps in the Dept of Transportation), an interest group (local areas with flood issues) and a sub-committee chair.  If Chad wants to bash a Republican, find the chair of the relevant sub-committee and attack him.  Sorry Chad, hate might be on your side, but the facts and rudimentary political science are not. 

Hotline on Vegetarian Front

From The Hotline today:

IN THE STATES: Is Meat What's For Dinner?

Conservative South Dakota Politics highlights a minor controversy about how the SD Dems' comm. dir. is a vegetarian, considering the state is heavily agriculture-based: "Everyone can eat whatever they want, there should be no debate on that issue. The issue is whether this is smart in terms of politics given the facts of our state." Both parties have issued statements about the flap. From the Rapid City Journal's Mount Blogmore sorts it out: "Some GOP bloggers learned that one of the new hires might be a practicing vegetarian -- one who questioned an anti-animal-activist billboard -- and devoted some space to that, er, situation. Then the official SD Repub Party joined the act, although they could only muster that the new Dem staffer 'implied' a position."

How To Win Iraq

Professor Blanchard discussed a few days back a column by David Brooks of the NY Times in which Brooks argues in favor Andrew Krepinevich's Iraq strategy.  Brooks suggests that Krepinevich makes a devastating critique of the Bush team's Iraq game plan. 

Now many are arguing both that Brooks got Krepinevich wrong and that Krepinevich and Rumsfeld are not that far apart.  NROs "The Corner" has brief discussion here, here, and here.  Also, Thomas Barnett chimes in here. The impression one gets from this discussion is that American foreign policy in general and Iraqi policy in the specific is very hard.  This is why giving responsibility to the Democratic Party is ill advised.  If the South Dakota left-wing blogosphere and the Cindy Sheehan anti-Israel parade are any indication, the Democratic Party cannot be trusted to make sound judgments regarding American security.  They just aren't serious about what it takes to defend America.  They would much rather bash George W. Bush over the head than engage in any real thinking.  Thirty years ago Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that the Republicans were the party of ideas while the Democrats were the party of special interests.  I think this still holds roughly true (although less true now than then).  Individual Democrats may have sound ideas, but as an institution the party is intellectually bankrupt. 

Sheehan

Washington Post:

Sheehan Glad Bush Didn't Meet With Her

"I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."

...

"When I first started here, I was sitting in the ditch thinking, `What the heck did I do? Texas in August, the chiggers, fire ants, rattlesnakes, uncomfortable accommodations' _ but I'm going to be sad leaving here," Sheehan said. "I hope people will say that the Camp Casey movement sparked a peace movement that ended the war in Iraq."

Power Line has a letter from Curt Loftis, a reader of theirs, who spent two days in Crawford "carrying out a first-hand reconnaissance of the anti-American forces assembled there."  It is definitely worth reading.

Rounds and Hurricane

Governor Rounds is calling for people to help hurricane victims:

Gov. Mike Rounds is asking South Dakotans to help victims of Hurricane Katrina with prayers and donations.  The American Red Cross needs money for its relief efforts in areas hit by Monday's storm, the governor said.

Amazing Video

Via Volokh, this Mississippi television station has some amazing helicopter video from the Katrina disaster. 

The Vegetarian Issue

I guess Dave Kranz wrote about the news in recent weeks about the Democrats' vegetarian spokesperson:

It started when Randy Frederick, state Republican chairman, suggested that his Democratic counterparts at the national level are "out of touch with most South Dakotans."

Frederick said Howard Dean, national Democratic Party chairman, is spouting "extremist views that many South Dakotans would find offensive."

He cited a comment Dean made awhile ago: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for," Dean is quoted as saying.

Now, Frederick has extended that to state Democrats for their recent hiring of three staffers to work for the state Democratic Party and be paid by the national party. He takes aim at one of those three hires, Elesha Peterson Carr, communications director for the state party, and questions her eating preference.

"In addition to these outlandish comments (by Dean), it makes one wonder what message will be sent when the new communications director for the South Dakota Democratic Party implies she is an animal activist," Frederick said, referring to an Internet writing by Carr, "How to Be a South Dakota Vegetarian."

By contrast, Republican Gov. Mike Rounds is "pushing a pro-agriculture initiative - the South Dakota Certified Beef Program - which has garnered support from Republicans and Democrats," Frederick said.

Enter Judy Olson Duhamel, seldom-heard-from South Dakota Democratic Party chairwoman. She takes issue with the criticism of Carr, saying Frederick's remarks "hardly deserve a reply."

"But because the (state Democratic Party) is honored to have hired such a bright, competent woman, I will respond in order to correct and clarify," she said.

"Why would anyone in any party judge the dietary choice of another? I think South Dakotans call such judgments inappropriate and infringing on personal lifestyle," Duhamel said. "Furthermore, if Mr. Frederick had not jumped to conclusions regarding our new hire, he would have discovered the article in question ... was a promotional piece for tourism."

Denise Ross also posted on this issue at the Rapid City Journal's blog and it generated this response:

No wonder why the democrats the minority party! They just keep putting the card-carrying crazies in leadership positions. They must not have very much intellectual depth to their bench. I hope my democrat friends stay in denial and really get behind the leadership of Dean and Peterson-Carr. They certainly can’t go wrong with that combination!

Everyone can eat whatever they want, there should be no debate on that issue.  The issue is whether this is smart in terms of politics given the facts of our state: "Agriculture is the number one industry in South Dakota providing a $16.3 billion economic impact to the state." Elesha Peterson Carr seems to be on to this when she writes:

Vegetarians are tolerated in South Dakota but let's face it, there is not a lot of love for us bunny lovers.

Washington Times

Here is another article from the Washington Times entitled "Thune wins big in base's survival."

What's the Deal With Poverty?

If I were a left-wing ideologue who reads all news through the prism partisanship, I might try to make some hay out of today's report on the rise in poverty.  But luckily I am not an ideologue and I also know where to find poverty statistics from the US Census Bureau.  The rise in the annual poverty rate is a minuscule .2%, from 12.5 to 12.7.  If one looks at historical averages 12.7% is pretty good.  If one looks at the last 20 years of data the average annual poverty rate is 13.23.  If one takes the years of Bush budgets (2002-2004) the average yearly rate is 12.73.  If one looks at the eight years of Clinton budgets (1994-2001) the average annual rate is 12.86.  Considering there was a recession that the analysts now agree started before Bush even became president, and it certainly occurred in 2001 before any Bush policy was in place, the Bush numbers look even better.  As Prof. Blanchard noted a while back, the nation's employment numbers are strong.  Overall the economy is growing at a strong pace, creating a flood of revenues that have caused the Congressional Budget Office to readjust the FY 2005 (our present fiscal year) budget deficit down by $100 billion.  The CBO says that we are well on our way to achieving Bush's goal of halving the deficit by FY 2009.  Yes there are structural deficit problems.  See the chart below.  Entitlements are going to start swallowing up huge chunks of the budget.  The Democratic solution?  Do nothing and then try to demagogue for advantage in 2006 elections.  There were once Democrats like John Breaux and Daniel Patrick Moynihan whom one could reason with on these matters.  But the statesmen are gone while those who rule simply worry about the next election. 

Air Force General on Thune and Ellsworth

See what retired Air Force Gen. John Michael Loh said in the Rapid City Journal:

Loh said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., arranged for him to meet with or speak by telephone with seven of the nine BRAC commissioners. Loh said Skinner and BRAC chairman Anthony Principi were among the commissioners he and Thune met with together. ...

Loh said Thune had his letter to the BRAC commissioners on hand the day of the vote, just in case they hadn't seen it.

"He called me when I was on the road, driving from Kentucky, to tell me about the vote," Loh said.

Thune, in recounting his own version of the conversation, joked that Loh's face should be added to those at Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

"But I said, ‘If anybody should go up there, it should be you, Sen. Thune,'" Loh said. "I am not saying this in a political way, because I am not a voter in South Dakota. But he had tenacity, persuasiveness and savvy."

National Journal: "liberal bloggers overjoyed that South Dakota was set to lose Ellsworth Air Force Base"

From National Journal:

Senator's Star Dims, Glows

By K. Daniel Glover, NationalJournal.com

Politics is a lot like football, and holding elective office, a lot like coaching. One day you're the goat who blew the big game with that final play call; the next day, you're the hero who led the team to a championship win. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., knows the feeling well after this week.

First Thune was the whipping boy for liberal bloggers overjoyed that South Dakota was set to lose Ellsworth Air Force Base in the latest round of base closings.

They were thrilled by the prospect not because they loathe Ellsworth AFB or South Dakota but because they despise Thune, the man who ousted Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. And they were thrilled because Thune had said during last year's campaign that he would be in a better position than Daschle to save the B-1 bomber's home base because of his ties to President Bush.

The fact that conservative columnist Robert Novak cited the news as evidence of Thune's dimming star made the episode more delicious. The setup was just too perfect. How could the bloggers not gloat?

So gloat they did, starting with the ever-popular Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, who took joy in seeing Novak, a target of the left all summer long, "cry over Thune's diminished star."

"He's been made a fool by his own president, has proven his impotence to the [South Dakota] voters, and has likely lost 6,000 mostly GOP-leaning jobs in western South Dakota," Moulitsas wrote of Thune. "Not bad for a first-year senator."

Proud Liberal noted how quickly Thune's fate had changed: "The main theme of the Thune campaign ... was that Thune would be a more effective voice for South Dakota since he is in the majority party and he has/had a close relationship with Bush. Now, a mere 8-1/2 months into a SIX-YEAR term, that all seems like ancient history."

Fortunately for Thune, the story line changed just as quickly in his favor, when the commission that picked the bases for closing reversed course on Ellsworth. The joyful jabs from liberals became ancient history, and conservative praise for Thune punctuated the blogosphere.

"The Democrats gloated when it looked like Ellsworth would be closed," Paul Mirengoff wrote at Power Line, "but now Thune gets the last laugh." GOP Bloggers added: "During his campaign against Tom Daschle, Thune said his relationship with Bush would help keep Ellsworth open. Well guess what? John Thune was right."

And in an allusion to Daily Kos' dismal record of endorsing political candidates, Little Green Footballs said mockingly: "Big oops, Kos! So what does that make -- 0-for-17?"

Moulitsas also addressed the issue after Ellsworth's salvation. Rather than give Thune any credit, though, he said someone "took pity" on the senator, and then Moulitsas took a poke at Bush for not protecting other bases dear to the hearts of Republican lawmakers. "That's what happens when you have an incompetent running the joint," Moulitsas wrote.

The takeaway for folks in the political game: The blogosphere is full of armchair quarterbacks, and their specialty is taking the lemonade you make from lemons and dumping that bittersweet concoction right square in your eyes.

Oh, Yeah

In the post below I didn't answer the "if made illegal" question. I believe in the past the criminal codes on abortion punished the doctors, not the women.  I'd prefer that strongly.  I think having states differ on abortion in preferable to the current abortion-on-demand regime.  Because I am uncertain as to the status of the unborn as it relates to the word "persons" in the 14th Amendment, I think I would favor a Human Life Amendment.  Unlike the left I don't read my own "deeply held beliefs" into the constitution.  Such an amendment would not be without its problems. My main qualm is that all things being equal I'd prefer not to substitute a constitutional amendment for what should simply be criminal law.  But my thoughts on that matter are ambivalant for reasons far too complex to go into here.  I would note that such an amendment would have to be approved by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states.  That's far more democratic than when seven unelected judges invented a right to abortion on the flimsiest legal grounds in Roe v. Wade and struck every democratically passed abortion law in the nation. 

Slaving Away

A few days ago I posted an email from a reader questioning me on abortion.  I wrote a response to this reader's views.  That reader, Mark Anderson (who gives me permission to use his name), now has a rejoinder.  I'll post this reply and then have a few words to say. 

Mr. Schaff,
Thank you for saying my response to your post "Who's Imposing" was respectful.
I must say I found most of your response to be trivial.  When I made the
statement that very few conservative authors referred to the woman who has to carry the fetus to term, I should have added that when they do refer to them it's in a way that trivializes both the woman and her decision.  It's much more complex than "wanting to be free of dirty diapers" and I believe you know it. If you refer to books such as "The Choices We Made", in which women and men talk about the abortions that they were involved in both before and after abortion was legal, you see that's it's never a trite decision.  Anecdotally I'm sure you can find a woman somewhere who may fit your description but like the infamous "welfare queen", it's more a politically expedient myth than fact. A woman's right to choose, is the law of the land.  To make abortion illegal is to take that right away from women.  The state would thus be in control of that woman's body in a way that to me still seems analogous to slavery. If abortion were made illegal, they would still be performed and at nearly the same levels.  The procedures would be less safe and would endanger women's health
and lives. If made illegal how would you sentence the women, doctors, boyfriends, parents?  Would you have a war on abortion like the drug war or would the moral position of illegality be enough for you?  Would you push for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide?  Several states had made abortion legal
before "Roe vs. Wade".  Legal in blue states, illegal in red?  These are serious
questions that rarely see the light of discourse.  The reason I wrote your site is that it seems much more, shall I say reasonable and serious than most political
blogging sites that hardly ever rise above "gottcha politics". 
Sincerely,
Mark Anderson

A quick word on slavery.  Mr. Anderson and I simply have a disagreement on the status of the unborn.  He apparently gives it no status, while I call it rights bearing humanity.  I don't think it is slavery when the state says, "Don't kill that human," any more than it was slavery yesterday when the Aberdeen police force told me to quit driving so fast.  They have taken $100 from me for breaking the law.  Is that slavery?  No, it's enforcing public order.  Is is slavery if the state says, "Don't kill your unborn child"?  No, it's respecting natural human rights.  What I meant to trivialize was not the abortion decision but the slavery analogy. Mr. Anderson also seems to subscribe to legal positivism.  If the law says it, it must be just. I think one should have a decent respect for the law (more than my lead foot would suggest), but I recognize that the law and morality are not always the same.  The law once allowed real slavery: one human could legally own another.  That didn't make it just.  The law presently allows abortion, but that doesn't make it just.  Besides, in this post I linked to a Stuart Taylor article about the shoddy legal thinking of Roe. Finally, I have no doubt that many, and probably  most, women (and men) seeking abortion experience serious emotional strain.  In fact there has been much documentation of post-traumatic stress associated with abortion and post-abortion counseling if offered by the Catholic Church through Project Rachel.  Yet this experience confounds the pro-choice argument.  Why is it such a difficult decision?  If this is nothing but a mass of cells with no moral standing, why is an abortion any different from, say, getting a mole removed?  It too is a mass of cells with no moral standing.  But that's just it.  The human moral conscience revolts at abortion because even the most pro-abortion extremist understands that left to its own designs that "mass of cells" will be a bouncing baby in a short while.  There is a recognition that separate life is ended in an abortion.  It is a very small step to understand that it is human life.  I'll say it again: precisely because abortion is an awesome moral decision that implicates the natural right to life it is justly a public, not a purely private, question.  I think to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right is an abuse of the language of the Constitution and the natural rights theory of the Declaration of Independence. 

I won't be blogging for a few days.

Somehow, unimaginable as this is, my fellow bloggers will have to get along without me.

Mark Shields: Thune "the biggest man in American politics today"

Long-running liberal columnist Mark Shields is really promoting Senator Thune:

MARK SHIELDS: No, the commission turned it around, and the biggest man in American politics today whether you want to admit it or not is John Thune, freshman Republican candidate - senator from South Dakota. He not only defeated Tom Daschle, the Democratic Senate leader, last November, but he pledged to keep open the -- what's the Air Force base there?

JIM LEHRER: Ellsworth.

Of course in his column the day after the decision and then again in his Sunday column Dave Kranz, Daschle's long-time buddy, couldn't bring himself to admit that this is obviously a big win for Thune.  Maybe tomorrow he'll finally be forced to admit the obvious no matter how much he doesn't want to. 

Looking Good

SD War College has a new design.  Check it out. 

Morrisey on Thune and Ellsworth

Weekly Standard writer and blogger Ed Morrisey:

Ellsworth Saved, Thune Ascendant

Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. That proverb sounded particularly inapt in South Dakota yesterday when the Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission announced that Ellsworth Air Force Base would be removed from the list of military facilities facing closure or significant reductions. Everyone knew that in this case, success and failure only had one father -- the man who unseated the Senate's Democratic leader on the promise to keep it open:

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) sat tense, crouched and glowering as the base-closing commission delivered its verdict about Ellsworth Air Force Base in the ballroom of a Crystal City hotel yesterday, then leapt up gleefully when the bomber base's death sentence was commuted.

The 44-year-old's political career may have been spared as well.

Last fall, Thune unseated Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in part by claiming that a Republican tight with the White House would have a better chance of saving the perennially impaired Ellsworth, a Cold War arsenal in the middle of the prairie. So it was potentially calamitous for Thune back home in May when the Pentagon put Ellsworth on the list of closure recommendations for the independent Base Realignment and Closure commission.

Thune, a former House member whose status as the Daschle slayer has made him a popular speaker before GOP groups, had long told the White House that losing Ellsworth -- South Dakota's largest employer after the state government -- was the one issue that could make him a one-term senator.

Part of the political issue facing Thune came from the efforts by both men in the Senate campaign to cast themselves as the Savior of Ellsworth. Certainly some politics have gone into these BRAC decisions, but not to the extent that most people feared. To the extent politics plays, both men would have had influence, Thune as a politician close to Bush, and Daschle as a politician with plenty of clout in his role as Minority Leader. The final vote, however, provided a bit of irony for both men -- at 8-1, the decision had less to do with partisanship than with the objective facts regarding the value of Ellsworth, both to the nation and to South Dakota.

The result for this exercise, however, will be nothing less than a political bonanza for Thune. He barely edged Daschle in a state that saw Bush thump Kerry by 21 points. That reflected South Dakota's reluctance to change horses at any time, midstream or on either bank, especially given Daschle's considerable influence on behalf of their state. Now that he has delivered on Ellsworth, he will command a much higher standing in future elections; in fact, he should bury the next challenger the Democrats put up against him. The GOP may also now blow out Tim Johnson in 2008, who barely squeaked by Thune in 2002 with Daschle's help.

Thune may well have cut himself some national chops as well. He went toe-to-toe with the White House over Ellsworth, positioning himself to the right on other issues to threaten the White House agenda if Ellsworth closed. Most notoriously, he withdrew his support of John Bolton, but considering his staunch support of judicial nominees and his reliable conservativism, his independence might get him some thought for a national role in 2012 if he wins re-election in the preceding cycle.

The Democrats in South Dakota, however, have to know that they just lost their last fulcrum on statewide power. The Ellsworth closing would have provided their only rescue in the deeply conservative Plains state. That 21-point Bush win will begin to show up in House and Senate races for the foreseeable future. Does Thune get the credit for all of that as well? Perhaps he shouldn't, but half of politics is just being there when good things happen.

Party of No Policy II

This piece by David Ignatius supports the argument in my last post.

This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.

So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.

Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.  [My emphasis].

Iraqi Constitution

The New York Times has a translated copy of the new draft Iraqi Constitution.  I haven't read the whole thing yet, but so far it looks pretty good.

HT to Power Line.

UPDATE:  Earlier I mentioned the initial draft.  A reader was kind enough to point out a few mistakes in my timeline for our own Constitution:

While I agree with your statement that the media is overly critical of the speed with which the Iraqis are proceeding with the drafting of their constitution, I do have have some nits to pick with your timeline of our own Constitution. Being a history major you should know that while 5 years did pass between the end of the Revolutionary War and the final draft of the Constitution, not all that time was spent in the drafting. Actually only 116 days were taken to draft our constitution starting May 25, 1787 and ending Sept 17, 1787.  I believe the Iraqis started in March and are just wrapping up the final draft for about 150 days, not much longer than it took us.

Your statement that the Constituion was accepted in 1787 is wrong if you mean ratified. The Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788 with the ninth state New Hampshire ratifying.  Virginia followed closely with it's ratification coming on June 25, 1788. Congress announced that the Constitution had been ratified on July 2, 1788, 12 years to the day that they had passed the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution took effect on March 4, 1789.

He added a few more tidbits:

I don't know if you heard Bush's remarks concerning the Iraqi Constitutional process. I found a transcript of it at http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/005203.html under"Bush to Make Remarks on Hurricane Katrina and The Iraq Constitution" on 8/28/05. My jaw hit the floor when I heard Bush say, "I want our folks to remember our own constitution was not unanimously received. Some delegates at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 refused to sign it, and the draft was vigorously debated in every state, and the outcome was not assured until all the votes were counted." Glad to hear the Prez state proper historical fact.

I'm always reading and hearing that there were 55 signatories to the Constitution, but if you count them there are only 39. Rhode Island didn't even attend and was the last state to ratify. Non-signatories included George Mason,"Father of the Bill of Rights" and author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Elbridge Gerry, one of Madison's vps, and Edmund Randolph, 1st Attorney General and 2nd Secretary of State.

Thune in New York Times

Senator Thune is in the New York Times this morning in a story about the war.

The Party of No Policy

President Bush's low opinion poll numbers, much celebrated by our Democratic friends in the blogosphere, are surely something for Republicans to worry about.  But to capitalize on Bush's problems, Democrats have to do more than heap scorn and criticism on Bush; they have to offer alternative policies.  This is what Peter Charles Choharis "the executive director of the 2004 Democratic Platform Committee" says in the Los Angeles Times: 

To regain voters' trust on national security, Democrats must adopt a different strategy: winning the war. To prevail in the 2006 congressional elections and beyond, Democrats must establish a clear and realistic definition of success in Iraq — and a strategy to achieve it. . . .

In 2004, Democrats agreed that, even if the war was a mistake, the U.S. must do what it takes to win. Today, the party shows signs of a split. Fifty House members recently formed the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, calling for a troop withdrawal, as has Democratic Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. If Democrats divide over Iraq the way they did over Vietnam in 1968, with some favoring pulling out and others opposing it as dangerous to national security, a more united Republican base will again prevail in elections.

Politically, a Republican strategy of declaring victory and withdrawing troops could be popular. But a Democratic strategy of declaring defeat and removing troops will never be, as the 1972 election showed. And fairly or not, the 2004 race demonstrated that American voters will choose wrong but strong over right but unclear.

That, I think, is a pretty good analysis of why John Kerry lost the race in 2004, in spite of public misgivings about Bush's Iraq policy.  But the problem is deeper than Coharis lets on.  Since Bill Clinton lost interest in Iraq early in his first term, the Democratic party has never had a coherent policy.  Those who are now advocating withdrawal, like Gary Hart, almost completely ignore the question of what happens if the U.S. does pull out, handing the insurgents a victory.  They just aren't interested.

The most effective criticism of Bush's policy I have seen comes from a Foreign Affairs article by Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. (tip to RealClearPolitics).  David Brooks sums up the argument nicely in the New York Times. 

Krepinevich has now published an essay in the new issue of Foreign Affairs, "How to Win in Iraq," in which he proposes a strategy.  . . .

Krepinevich calls the approach the oil-spot strategy. The core insight is that you can't win a war like this by going off on search and destroy missions trying to kill insurgents. There are always more enemy fighters waiting. You end up going back to the same towns again and again, because the insurgents just pop up after you've left and kill anybody who helped you. You alienate civilians, who are the key to success, with your heavy-handed raids.

Instead of trying to kill insurgents, Krepinevich argues, it's more important to protect civilians. You set up safe havens where you can establish good security. Because you don't have enough manpower to do this everywhere at once, you select a few key cities and take control. Then you slowly expand the size of your safe havens, like an oil spot spreading across the pavement.

Once you've secured a town or city, you throw in all the economic and political resources you have to make that place grow. The locals see the benefits of working with you. Your own troops and the folks back home watching on TV can see concrete signs of progress in these newly regenerated neighborhoods. You mix your troops in with indigenous security forces, and through intimate contact with the locals you begin to even out the intelligence advantage that otherwise goes to the insurgents.

If you ask U.S. officials why they haven't adopted this strategy, they say they have. But if that were true the road to the airport in Baghdad wouldn't be a death trap. It would be within the primary oil spot.

Now that is both a hopeful suggestion and a devastating criticism of Bush's policy.  Why is it that Krepinevich can come up with something like this but the Democrats cannot?  The answer is that he takes the alternative outcomes seriously, and is really interested in winning.  He says in his last paragraph:

Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq. Are the American people and American soldiers willing to pay that price? Only by presenting them with a clear strategy for victory and a full understanding of the sacrifices required can the administration find out. And if Americans are not up to the task, Washington should accept that it must settle for a much more modest goal: leveraging its waning influence to outmaneuver the Iranians and the Syrians in creating an ally out of Iraq's next despot.

For better or worse this kind of think points the way or ways out of Iraq.  But you will look in vain for it among the pundits and politicos of the left.

Thune on "This Week"

RedState is writing about Senator Thune's appearance today on "This Week with George Stephanopolous":

THUNE ON TW. Steph talked to Senator John Thune of South Dakota, and the senator indicated that "Joe Biden speaks with great passion." He agreed with Biden that we don't know what is happening on the ground, it changes by the minute, and "birthing a democracy is a painful process." (Which comment struck me as neatly appropriate this weekend.)

Steph insisted that we were not making progress and that the new constitution would deepen the divisions and cause civil war.

Steph asked Thune if his constituents "had the stomach" to "stay the course," to be in Iraq "10, 15, 20-years." Thune indicated that the people in South Dakota to whom he talks are concerned, but "at the same time they realize" that we don't have any other options.

Steph asked if Rumsfeld had become a "liability to the President." Thune said it was the President's call, and that his problem with Rumsfeld was "over the BRAC process." Steph said that Thune must be hoping that the President did not have complete confidence in Rumsfeld, because Rumsfeld said that it was dangerous to tinker with the Pentagon's recommendations for closure and the President could listen to Rumsfeld not the BRAC on Ellsworth.

Steph was clearly stretching, pretending to know what Rumsfeld would tell the President, in order to get Thune on board his OUST RUMSFELD! love train. Thune had introduced legislation to hold base closures until our troops were home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Steph asked if he now was going to withdraw the legislation now that Ellsworth had been saved. Thune indicated that his cosponsors might have changed their minds after the thoughtful way in which the BRAC had acted.
-----

One has to wonder if Steph sees a Cindy-spawned opening to blatantly smear the President yet still appear "mainstream." It was something of a meltdown, however, and it makes me question his current fitness for his job; by that, I mean that we can detect bias, or think we do, in Russert or Schieffer, in Wallace or Blitzer, but it's never that bold.

Thune impressed me.

New York Times editors on Thune

This is from the main editorial in today's New York Times:

Ellsworth had become a symbol of political manhood for Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who spent most of the summer personally lobbying the commission. During the cold war, this heartland redoubt housed nuclear bombers and missiles targeted on the Soviet Union. More recently, it has been home to about half of America's B-1B long-range bombers.

Sibby Writing About Hildebrand and Daschle

Sibby is noting how Steve Hildebrand, who is still be paid by Tom Daschle to attack Senator Thune, was enjoying how "Ellsworth Air Force Base [was] biting John Thune in the butt":

In my earlier post I showed how Tom Daschle is the poster child for partisan politics. Remember Daschle’s phone interveiw saying he didn’t have a phone access to call and congratulate john Thune. And we have Steve Hildebrand’s statement from the Washington Post report titled, Thune Delivers on Campaign Vow:

Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's campaign manager, said Thune, who won by two percentage points after losing a Senate race two years before, is likely to have a strong challenger when he seeks reelection in 2010. "He's still going to have to watch his back every step of the way," Hildebrand said.

And in a August 4, 2005 email titled, SD Politics Progressive Style, Hildebrand admitted to making Ellsworth a political issue:

With the future of Ellsworth Air Force Base biting John Thune in the butt, he is working hard to quiet progressive voices (like mine) who have been critical of his leadership flaws since taking office in January.

…

Like seeing Thune sweat it out? Keep the pressure on!

It was Hildebrand and his blogging boys who wanted to turn Ellsworth into a political circus, and they still do. And now they want to shut me up when it is the teamwork and nonpartisan efforts that is the story of the day. This is just another example of how they blame others for crap that they themselves are guilty of. The Daschle Democrats are still playing politics, and I am still standing up to their crap. This doesn't mean that I want them silenced and it never did.

Denise Ross on Daschle

Denise Ross notes Daschle's trouble finding a phone in Montana and Hildebrand's bitterness:

Of course, what [Daschle] said to the AP Friday was silly, and no doubt it’s an interview he wishes he could get a do-over on. (During a phone interview with a reporter in DC - I think - he said since he was in western Montana, he wasn’t in a position to telephone John Thune and congratulate him. Err, OK.)

And then there’s Hildebrand’s quote to the Washington Post (running in Sunday’s RCJ), in which the Daschle campaign manager says Thune will still have to watch his back. Gracious.

LA Times on Thune

LA Times:

Thune lobbied panel to save S.D. air base

Commission's changes would cut billions from Pentagon's savings figures

By John Hendren

Los Angeles Times

Originally published August 27, 2005

ARLINGTON, Va. - The military base closing commission continued to defy the Pentagon's wishes yesterday, voting to spare South Dakota's politically charged B-1 bomber base and averting the shutdown of a major Air Force base in New Mexico.

Ellsworth Air Force Base was kept open after feverish lobbying by lawmakers from South Dakota, while New Mexico officials claimed a "partial victory" from a compromise that keeps Cannon Air Force Base open through 2009 and urges Defense officials to find new missions to keep it open thereafter.

Conservative Reform in Germany

German elections are approaching.  The question facing the electorate is not whether to reform Germany's welfare state, but how and how fast.  Whatever happens, Germany will remain far to the left of the U.S. in its institutions; but it will surely move in a direction that conservatives in this country would recommend.  There is no other way to solve the enormous problems that European economies are facing.  This from The Financial Times  (tip to RealClearPolitics):

Gerhard Schröder, the present chancellor, earns respect for having started the reform process. His welfare reforms have made it harder for the long-term unemployed to claim permanent benefits. His reforms have often been criticised as being non-transparent, incoherent and insufficient. But at least they were a start.

Ms Merkel is more ambitious. She has promised to modernise Germany's obscure income tax system and to cut company contributions to unemployment insurance. If she wins, she will be in a position to implement her agenda because her party enjoys a majority in the Bundesrat, the upper chamber of parliament. She will maintain that majority for at least two years. If Mr Schröder wins, he will need at least tacit support from the opposition for any of his reforms to pass.

An example of Ms Merkel's determination to embrace audacious reform came last week when she appointed as her finance spokesman Paul Kirchhof, a former Constitutional Court justice.

Mr Kirchhof has campaigned for a flat income tax rate of 25 per cent and for the total abolition of Germany's 418 categories of tax subsidies. His plan stands few chances of being implemented, even if he were to become finance minister in a Merkel cabinet. But the appointment has demonstrated that Ms Merkel intends to think boldly about a comprehensive tax reform.

Bi-Partisanship

Joel at South Dakota Straight Talk has a post on the bi-partisanship displayed by our delegation, in particular Sen. Thune and Sen. Johnson. 

Hat tip SD Blogwatchman

More on Industry

Professor Schaff mentioned comments made by Talmage and Chad that the state shouldn't be depending on government jobs .  Yesterday Don Frankenfeld made similar comments on Mt. Blogmore.

Now, right now, South Dakota should turn its attention to the question of how to thrive without depending on Ellsworth. Ellsworth WILL close, just not right away. I repeat my call to re-incarnate Peter Norbeck. Yesterday, we needed vision and leadership to control our own destiny. We need it today as well.

I Told You It Was Sweeping The Nation (or at least South Dakota)

Mt. Blogmore has a funny string on "the picture".  I have no comment on anything in this string having to do with Sibby, although it is unclear why anyone would want to put Tim Johnson in a ringer. 

More Industry

Talmage, seconded by Chad, points out that one lesson from the Ellsworth adventure is that the state shouldn't be depending on government jobs to bring progress to our state.  As a public employee I have profound respect for the good done by government spending, but government spending is generally not productive spending.  What I mean by that is the government, as a rule, does not create new things, market new things, and produce profit.  The government is generally a redistributive force, not a creative force.  That said, government can often grant seed money that leads to productive enterprise.  For example, Gov. Rounds is keen on using state money for research and development at our universities.  While SDSU, USD, and SDSMT will see the lion's share of this money, all the schools will benefit and the state will in the long run.  I also think that we should be welcoming to employers like Wal-Mart and Lowes.  While these businesses do not represent the kind of creative industry just discussed, welcoming them with open arms creates an employer friendly environment that can hopefully attract other business.  And hey, these businesses do create wealth by making us more efficient in the use of our shopping dollars.  I think our state should accept employers when they want to locate here.  One thing about employers, they do tend to have employees.  And that's good for South Dakota. I would be interested in hearing solid ideas from Talmage, Chad or anyone else on how we can get more and better industry/productive business in South Dakota.  I will say that state Republicans have to get over their reflexive anti-government stance since government aid can help lure and create productive industry.  Let's not turn support for limited government into a fetish that stops the state from doing sensible things.  Also, conservatives must remember that spending that might be inappropiate for the federal government might be entirely appropriate for state and local government.  Conversely,  Democrats need to stop being antagonistic to businesses like Wal-Mart. 

Just a note on the Brookings/Lowes thing. It is only my gut instinct that Brookings will be better off with Lowes, and offering incentives to lure businesses is quite typical.  That said, like PP over at the War College, I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion.  I'm not interested in arguments against Lowes as a company, but if someone has a good argument against this particular deal I'd be willing to hear it. 

Washington Post on Thune

In today's Washington Post:

washingtonpost.com

Thune Delivers on Campaign Vow
Senator's Future Brightens as S.D. Base Survives the Cut

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 27, 2005; A06

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) sat tense, crouched and glowering as the base-closing commission delivered its verdict about Ellsworth Air Force Base in the ballroom of a Crystal City hotel yesterday, then leapt up gleefully when the bomber base's death sentence was commuted.

The 44-year-old's political career may have been spared as well.

Last fall, Thune unseated Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in part by claiming that a Republican tight with the White House would have a better chance of saving the perennially impaired Ellsworth, a Cold War arsenal in the middle of the prairie. So it was potentially calamitous for Thune back home in May when the Pentagon put Ellsworth on the list of closure recommendations for the independent Base Realignment and Closure commission.

Thune, a former House member whose status as the Daschle slayer has made him a popular speaker before GOP groups, had long told the White House that losing Ellsworth -- South Dakota's largest employer after the state government -- was the one issue that could make him a one-term senator.

"There's something about my Scandinavian heritage that knows that life shouldn't be easy -- life's got to be hard," a relieved Thune said by telephone shortly after the commission's 8 to 1 vote to discard the Pentagon recommendation to close Ellsworth and move the base's B-1B bombers to Texas.

Picture from Washington Post:

Hildebrand Vows to Fight On

Washington Post reports:

Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's campaign manager, said Thune, who won by two percentage points after losing a Senate race two years before, is likely to have a strong challenger when he seeks reelection in 2010. "He's still going to have to watch his back every step of the way," Hildebrand said.

Give it up Hildebrand!

New York Times on Thune

The New York Times has a story this morning about Thune and Ellsworth:

He pulled out all the stops and virtually camped out at the commission hearings being held at a hotel just outside Washington, buttonholing anyone he could to make the case for Ellsworth. "I've spent more time with this BRAC commission than I've spent with my wife and my family in the last three months," he said.

Mr. Thune noted that in his 2004 run for the Senate, he had never run advertisements or made statements promising to keep the base open. But the idea that a Republican lawmaker could be more useful to the state given the party's hold on Washington - more influential than even the Senate's top Democrat - was a persistent undercurrent of the campaign.

But Daschle ran lots of ads and made statements about Ellsworth during 2004.  Then the New York Times put a call in to Daschle:

Reached Friday, Mr. Daschle politely sidestepped inquiries about the political implications of the decision. "I'm very happy for South Dakota," he said in an e-mail message.

Anyone wonder if he's been able to get to a phone to call Thune and congratulate him?

More Bias from Kranz

Dave Kranz, Tom Daschle's long-time college buddy, has an article in today's Argus in which he's whining about the Republican Senate Committee's press release about Thune's victory.  The problem is that when the Democratic Senate Committee wrote a release in May gloating over the closure of Ellsworth KRANZ SAID NOTHING.  You see, it's only bad when Republicans do something according to Kranz.  What Kranz doesn't mention is that the GOP release yesterday was just reprinting the Democratic release from May to make the point about the Democrats gloating over closure. 

Sibby has more on Kranz's long-time college buddy:

Then yesterday Tom Daschle downplays the importance of the Ellsworth issue. Excerpt from a Rapid City Journal report:

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Friday that the debate over the future of Ellsworth Air Force Base during last year's Senate race was "overblown."

In downplaying the significance in last year's campaign, he said Friday: "I think that part of it was overblown from the very beginning."

But the report goes on to disclose what Daschle did during the 2004 campaign:

In the months leading up to the 2004 election, Daschle used radio, television and full-page newspaper ads to emphasize his leadership post, his past efforts to support Ellsworth and the power he would have in the coming BRAC round.

In a debate a few weeks before the election, Daschle revealed that he had convinced President Bill Clinton to personally intervene during the 1995 BRAC round and have Ellsworth removed from the closure list. ...

Daschle’s selfishness was again evident with this quote from the RCJ report:

He said he would not be able to call Thune to congratulate him.

"I am in Western Montana, so I'm not in a very good position to make calls," he said in a telephone interview. He said he would be "contacting the delegation and giving them my best wishes."

Wow…in a phone interview Daschle was "not in a very good position to make calls". Or should we say calls to John Thune.

More Funny Caption Entries

If you are anware of what this is about, see here and here.  Here are two more entries in the funny caption contest.  I must say I never thought anyone would respond.  Thanks to all of those willing to engage is this silliness. 
New entry #1:
The cartoon bubble above John's head says.  " Karl Rove sure did know what he was doing!"

And what might be the winner:

"Senator Johnson reacts to Senator Thune's announcement that he saved a
bunch of money on his car insurance by switching to Geico."

Iraq Blog, etc.

This blog by Michael Yon has received much attention in the last couple days, including stories from the Star Tribune and Powerline.  If you want real Ernie Pyle type war reporting, Yon seems to be the only game in town. 

In war related news, it seems Cindy Sheehan thinks those trying to kill Americans are the real freedom fighters.  You can read about it here and here.  This opinion ought to remove her from respectable debate, but I suppose it won't.  Michael Moore once compared the terrorists who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to the Minutemen of the American Revolution.  And then he was given a place of honor at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Last night I watched Michael Moore Hates America, a film by Michael Wilson from Minnesota.  What an amazing documentary.  The title is misleading.  The film is partially about Wilson's attempt to both show the dishonest way in which Michael Moore makes "documentaries" and also to get an interview with Moore himself (which never happens).  But something funny happened on the way to bashing Michael Moore.  Wilson starts to question himself, even the title of his movie.  By saying "Michael Moore Hates America" is he poisoning the nation's rhetoric with the same kind of vitriol that Moore spews?  There are two points where he does serious on camera soul searching about his own documentary methods.  The film ends up being a celebration of American freedom and the opportunity it represents and attacks the cynics and conspiracy theorists of the left (Michael Moore) and right (David Horowitz, in a disturbing on camera appearance).  As Wilson travels around America to talk to many of the subjects of Moore's own films, Wilson discovers an essential goodness and optimism in the American soul.  This film turns out to be an antidote to cynicism.  And hey, it got two thumbs up from Ebert and Roper.  Warning:  Wilson spends considerable time talking to Penn Gillette of Penn and Teller, and Mr. Gillette has a very foul mouth.  So the downside is that this very hopeful film about America can't be shown to children. 

Now The Important News

Pheasant numbers are at a 40 year high.  Giddy up! 

Local Ellsworth Reaction

The American News has a story on local reaction to the resurrection of Ellsworth.  Yours truly, wearing my political science hat, is quoted saying much the same thing as I have said here.  Thune received more grief than he deserved when the base was put on this list and perhaps will receive too much attention now that it has been taken off.  Still, Thune will no doubt benefit politically from this event. 

Credit where Credit is Due

Our Democratic colleagues in the regional blogsophere are being rather more generous in sharing the credit for today's good news than they were when Ellsworth was put on the BRAC list, which is probably what we at SDPolitics would have done if, say, Daschle had been reelected and this thing had played out the same way.

Trent Dlugosh at Proud Liberal  has a very honest and insightful comments on this.  He must be right, because he supports what I and my colleague Jon Schaff have written.

[W]e on the left were set to blame Thune if Ellsworth had closed, even though there obviously would have been additional factors at work had that come to pass.  Now that Ellsworth has been saved, the perception is going to be that Thune saved it, which is the chance we took by laying all the blame at his feet.  Of course Sen. Johnson and Rep Herseth played large roles in this process as well, and to his credit Thune has said as much, but the perception is going to be both locally and nationally that Thune saved the base, and as we all know, perception is reality.

That strikes me as right on every count.  Thune probably gets more credit than he deserves because his critics overplayed their hand.  I can't help but wonder if this was some kind Rovean strategy.  What a story that would make. 

At the other end of the scale is Don't Worry About the Government.

Ellsworth should have never made it on the list May 13th. It did, despite John’s campaign promises. Yes, Ellsworth was saved today -- not because of John Thune’s influence, but because the arguments for saving Ellsworth were strongly in our favor. The ‘eggs in one basket’ argument in particular was a solid one -- one made not just by Thune, but by our entire delegation. Remember that.  That said, I would be a complete ass if I didn't at least say, "You did good today, John.  Real good."

That's Jer Bear being somewhat less than a complete ass.  Still, that counts for graciousness in some quarters.

Probably more representative of South Dakota's Democrats are these comments by CCK:

Johnson, Thune, Herseth, Rounds, and the Ellsworth Task Force deserve equal credit in making this happen. They built a very strong case over the last 15 weeks or so and the Commission listened.

and this by Thunewatch:

This is great news for South Dakota and we would like to thank Senator Tim Johnson, Senator John Thune, Representative Stephanie Herseth, Governor Mike Rounds, the Ellsworth Task Force and all those involved in the process. Everyone worked together well to get the best possible outcome for South Dakota and it worked. Ellsworth, against all odds, was given a stay of execution. 

That's as fair as one could ask for. Right now we can sit back and enjoy an era of good feeling that should last, well, at least until I read Chad Schuldt's next blog.  Well done all.

More on KOS and Ellsworth

Quentin mentions just below the Daily Kos and some comments on Ellsworth posted Tuesday.  KOS's comment on today's news is priceless.

Someone took pity on poor Sen. Thune and spared SD's base from closure.

The commission is voting on which bases to close and which to spare in a marathon session today. Google news is a good resource to catch the latest news.

Regardless of what gets cut and what doesn't, Republican lawmakers are feeling betrayed the Bush Administration even put their bases on the chopping block.

Of course it was "bush league". That's what happens when you have an incompetent running the joint.

Well, yeah they are.  Almost everyone agrees that the military keeps too many bases open.  No one at all (at least no one in Congress) wants bases cut in his or her own districts.  So what exactly would the non-Bush league, competent policy have been?  I suppose Bush could have cut bases only in districts controlled by Democrats.  That would not have left any Republicans feeling betrayed.  But he did it in a more fair and square way. 

I confess I find this whole affair deliciously ironic.  The Democratic regional blogosphere spent months blasting Thune because he did not have the power to corrupt the process in our favor.  Now we Republican bloggers are beating our chests because it looks like he did have such power.  This is not to say that the arguments in favor of saving Ellsworth were not sound.  But that wasn't the issue in the blog wars.  It was whether Thune or Daschle would have had more power to "influence" the process, and I take influence to be a euphemism for corruption. 

Alexander Hamilton once observed that the British government was corrupt, but that that was a good thing.  Otherwise, it would not work.  The same is no doubt true for any political system operated by modified chimpanzees.  I'm just glad my group of chimps got what we wanted. 

 

Write That Caption!

It's the fastest growing game sensation that's sweeping the nation. More entries in the contest to write a caption for the funny picture in the New York Times.  The original post is here, and other entries are here and here.  I will repost the picture below.  Here are some new entries:

Sen. Johnson:     "John, "Stop the Negative Attack!" on my spine!"

Sen. Thune:  "It's all happening exactly the way Dick and I planned it two years ago."
Sen. Johnson:     "What just happened? And why is John hurting my neck?"
Gov. Rounds:       "It's all happening exactly the way Stan and I planned it
two years ago."
Rep. Herseth:     "I'm here too!"

Rep. Herseth:     "Um, excuse me, anyone want to see the new
necklace I got in Sturgis?"

Sen. Johnson: "This sucks, at least I could look down on Tom
when he didn't have his stool."

Ryne McClaren and Daily Kos

Ryne is talking about how Daily Kos viewed the Thune/Ellsworth situation and of course has many important things to say:

Ellsworth Saved

Note to our friends on the left: John Thune refused to take any sort of sole credit for the committee's decision. He referred to it many times as being a "joint" effort by all of South Dakota's concerned delegation. In short, your talking points are no longer operative. See this laugher from one of the Kos Kidz earlier this week:

Daschle would've likely saved Ellisworth (like he had done in the past), just like ND's two Dems did their part to protect their local economy (whether BRAC is truly justified or not). But Thune argued in 2004 that he would be best positioned to save Ellsworth as a Republican in a GOP-trifecta-led D.C.

Now, he's been made a fool by his own president, has proven his impotence to the SD voters, and has likely lost 6,000 mostly GOP-leaning jobs in western South Dakota.

Not bad for a first-year Senator.

And how does it make you feel that your Sugar Daddy refuses to give Sen. Johnson or Rep. Herseth any credit for the base being kept open, preferring instead to say that "someone" (oh, please) took "pity" on John Thune? I know that if I were a left-winger, and I woke up to that turd floating in my Cheerios, I'd be pissed.

Oh, and Bob Novak? You can shut the hell up, too.

Note to our friends on the left: John Thune refused to take any sort of sole credit for the committee's decision. He referred to it many times as being a "joint" effort by all of South Dakota's concerned delegation. In short, your talking points are no longer operative. See this laugher from one of the Kos Kidz earlier this week:

Daschle would've likely saved Ellisworth (like he had done in the past), just like ND's two Dems did their part to protect their local economy (whether BRAC is truly justified or not). But Thune argued in 2004 that he would be best positioned to save Ellsworth as a Republican in a GOP-trifecta-led D.C.

Now, he's been made a fool by his own president, has proven his impotence to the SD voters, and has likely lost 6,000 mostly GOP-leaning jobs in western South Dakota.

Not bad for a first-year Senator.

And how does it make you feel that your Sugar Daddy refuses to give Sen. Johnson or Rep. Herseth any credit for the base being kept open, preferring instead to say that "someone" (oh, please) took "pity" on John Thune? I know that if I were a left-winger, and I woke up to that turd floating in my Cheerios, I'd be pissed.

Oh, and Bob Novak? You can shut the hell up, too.

Assoc. Press

Here's a part of a long story on Ellsworth from Associated Press:

When the Pentagon announced that it wanted to shut down Ellsworth Air Force Base, it was an enormous setback for Sen. John Thune. The Republican got elected in part by repeatedly telling voters he could save the base because of his close ties to President Bush.

Thune responded to the Ellsworth news by going on the offensive: He and fellow South Dakota leaders from both parties launched an intense lobbying effort. He also stopped fund-raising for the Republican Party and opposed the Bush administration on a few important Senate votes.

On Friday, Thune's political future got a big boost when a federal commission decided to save Ellsworth, home to B-1B bombers and a major player in the Cold War. He and other South Dakota politicians hailed the decision as the result of an extraordinary bipartisan campaign that convinced the commission that the military and nation need Ellsworth.

Daschle and the Boys on Ellsworth

After Daschle paid his former staffers all year to bash Thune about Ellsworth, which they claimed to be the biggest campaign issue last year (it wasn't that big a deal of you followed the race), now Daschle finally admits it wasn't a big deal.  Sibby is also talking about Daschle's sudden change of heart.  But let's remember how the Rapid City Journal reported on the Daschle-financed "war" against Thune using Ellsworth:

But it didn't really end the 2004 campaign — at least, not for some former members of Daschle's staff.  Led by public statements from former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and the pointed and sometimes profane Internet sniping from other former staffers, the Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune.

The former Daschle staff members have hammered on Thune for his failure to keep Ellsworth Air Force Base off a military closure list and compared him unfavorably to Daschle in the levels of funding he has been able to secure for state water projects and highways. ... And in some cases, they receive leftover Daschle campaign funds while they do it. ...  It some cases, it can also be profane. Former Daschle staff member Jeremy Funk, who works with Hildebrand, uses a personal Web log, or blog, to promote "F... Thune" T-shirts. 

[Daschle campaign manager Steve] Hildebrand has commented to reporters and issued news releases critical of Thune, including what Hildebrand considered to be the senator's inability to protect Ellsworth Air Force Base. ... Hildebrand said he does not get any direction from Daschle in making those statements. He does, however, get money each month from both the 2004 campaign fund and Daschle's political action commission — DASHPAC.  HildebrandTewes Consulting — the "Tewes" is Paul Tewes, Hildebrand's partner — receives $2,000 a month from Daschle's campaign fund and another $4,000 a month from DASHPAC. Hildebrand, who manages both funds for Daschle, said the payments his firm receives were to maintain and manage the political action committee and to wrap things up from the campaign.

Also, the comment of the day comes from the Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore:

I just drove by Daschle’s house, I could swear I heard Taps.

Daschle on Ellsworth: It was no big deal

Of course the former Senator his happy and whatever efforts he did make are appreciated. And he also says the issue was not that big of a deal in the 2004 election.

[Daschle] said Friday that he has helped the delegation make calls to commissioners to make the case for Ellsworth.

He also downplayed the significance in last year's campaign.

"I think that part of it was overblown from the very beginning," he said.

He said he would not be able to call Thune to congratulate him Friday.