South Dakota Politics

Wayne Allard

Senator Wayne Allard responds in the Rocky Mountain News to those who assert Bush lied about Iraq.

GWOT

Great news in the Global War on Terror:

Al-Qaeda's third-ranking leader has been killed by a missile fired by an American drone in Pakistan, near the Afghan border, NBC television news reported yesterday.

Egyptian-born Abu Hamza Rabia, who is said to head al-Qaeda's international operations, was among five people killed in a blast at a house where they were hiding in North Waziristan on Thursday. President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan confirmed Rabia's death yesterday.

Selective Amnesia

Gerard Baker's column at Times Online:

[T]he “Bush lied to us” whine is much worse when it comes from the mouths of those who insisted only three years ago, in voting for the war, that they were taking a heroic stand in defence of national security. Half the Democratic members of the Senate — oddly enough, including all those with serious presidential aspirations — John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden — voted for the war in 2002. The awful truth about many of these people is that their cynicism in distancing themselves from their support for the war is only matched by their cynicism in originally supporting it.
...
These were the ambitious Democrats who thought they had learnt the lessons of 1991.  Then you may recall, the vast majority of the party’s senators voted against the first Iraq war. . . .  So, confronted with a similar choice in October 2002, they did not want to be on the losing side again.  If it was another cakewalk, and they had voted against it, the damage to their credibility as presidential candidates would be irreparable.
...
But it wasn’t a cakewalk. And now they’re trapped. So they resort to the defence of the coward throughout history: “He made me do it.” Most Americans have better memories.

Iraq

JCI:  Bush and Churchill's Mid-War Speeches

Leaning Tower of Sioux Falls

Despite all the excitement about blowing up the tallest building in Sioux Falls, the zip feed tower, it didn't go down.  Here's the KELO-Land report.

Day by Day

BSG Returns in January!

Contra Realism

Elliot Cohen today gives an insightful reading of a central clash in American foreign policy, that between realists and idealists.  I find this speaking to my own soul since I would consider myself a realist with strong idealistic leanings (in reality, I'd consider myself a democratic realist).  I think the best critique of the Bush foreign policy is the realist critique.  The left-wing critique smacks of insipient Marxism: the Bush administration went to war because of a clandestine arrangement with capitalists (e.g. the oil industry) to extend the reach of capitalism so as to enrich the entrenched capitalist elite.   The realist examination of Bush is more plausible and much more, dare I say it (I dare! I dare!), realistic.  The problem with the Bush Doctrine, the realist would say, is that it starts on a false assumption, that within every human heart beats the yearning for freedom.  No, they'd say, there is no natural yearning for freedom, only a natural yearning for power that can realize itself in many different forms of government, not just democracy.  And there might be some people who really believe, for example, it is more important to have a government that fits the will of God than to have a government that promotes human freedom  (this of course assumes God is agnostic about human freedom).   But the point is the Bush bases his foreign policy on a fundamental falsehood: that all humans long to be free and that American has both the duty and the ability to promote human freedom in the world.  Realists would call this a "pie in the sky" foreign policy doomed to failure.  It is best to make peace with corrupt human nature and the corrupt governments it inspires. 

Of course, the realist critique, as Cohen suggests, isn't very liberal.  Liberals (of the classical and contemporary kind) believe in universal human rights; we used to call them natural rights.  These rights are articulated in the Declaration of Independence.  We are all naturally equal.  Part of that equality is the equal possession of certain natural rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The purpose of government is to protect those rights.  All just government is by consent (although the DOI is silent on what "consent" means).  These aren't just the rights of British citizens living in America in 1776.  These are, the DOI proposes, the rights of all people in all places for all time.  If this is true, and American has the ability to protect the rights not just of her own citizens but for people the world over, does she not have the duty to do so?  As we learn in the recent Spiderman movies, with great power comes great responsibility. 

But how do we know when to protect the rights of other peoples and when to leave that up to that institution that is most directly responsible for protecting their rights, namely their own governments?  Since American can't really protect everybody's rights, when do we know when to use American power abroad in the name of protecting rights, and when is that a foolish or abusive use of American power?   There is no formula.  It takes judgment.  Cohen reminds us that the fact that America will necessarily have an inconsistent foreign policy does not mean that American foreign policy is fundamentally unjust, which is another claim one hears from some quarters of the Left.  Luckily, there are liberals (of the contemporary kind) such as Christopher Hitchens, Martin Peretz of The New Republic and Paul Berman who recognize that the cause of promoting human rights is benefited, not undermined, by an aggressive yet prudent use of American power. 

Attention Aberdeen Drivers

That little stick attached to the left side of your steering column is called a "turn signal" and it isn't there just for looks. 

The Left And Losing Iraq

I am taking some grief for the statement "The idea that we are winning in Iraq will make much of the Left angry." If I had a do-over I would have written "some of the Left" or "important factions of the Left."  I was attempting to say that parts, but not all, of the Left would like the US to lose in Iraq. But while I was attempting to paint with a narrow, rather than broad, brush, I should have been more careful in my language. 

That aside, do I have evidence that portions of the Left want America to lose in Iraq?  Here is Christopher Hitchens rhetorically (I think) asking "Losing the Iraq War: Can the left really want us to?"

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

Do we remember these words from Michael Moore?

First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not �contractors� in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.

Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

...I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

What do we say about a person who says that Americans attempting to rebuild Iraq are nothing but "war profiteers"?  What do you conclude about a man who thinks that those who kill American soldiers are not "the enemy" but in fact are morally equivalent to the American revolutionaries?  Does this sound like a guy roots for American success in Iraq?  Do we need to be reminded that this man was given a place of honor next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention?  I don't claim that Michael Moore speaks for the Left, no one could claim that mantle, but he obviously speaks for an influential portion of it.  (For a critique of Moore, especially Fahrenheit 911, see Hitchens here). 

How about International ANSWER, the sponsors of many of the anti-war protests?  Here's what Byron York reports regarding an ANSWER rally in 2003:

ANSWER is an outgrowth of another group called the International Action Center, a San Francisco-based organization that showcases the work of Ramsey Clark, the Johnson administration attorney general who has specialized in anti-American causes. Both ANSWER and the International Action Center are closely allied with a small but energetic Marxist-Leninist organization known as the Workers World Party, which in its turbulent history has supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Chinese government's crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Today, the WWP devotes much of its energy to supporting the regimes in Iraq and North Korea.

The WWP devotes much of its energy to supporting the regime in Iraq.  Is it foolish to suspect their anti-war motives?  Do I need to remind readers that aforementioned Ramsey Clark just flew to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussein at trial? 

Might there be portions of the Left, such as ANSWER and Michael Moore, that stand disappointed at American successes in Iraq?  I report; you decide. And if you are on the left and don't support these positions staked out by Moore and ANSWER then you are not part of the Left that wants America to lose. 

Hating the Military

Apparently the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center is attempting to obstruct military recruiters in schools:

Kaleb Kroger, a young cooperator with the Peace & Justice Center EYES WIDE OPEN! project will be interviewed [on Nov. 30 showing of KELO TV]. EYES WIDE OPEN! is the Center's effort to intervene in the military recruitment of young people in our schools.

On a related topic, Kieran Lalor, an Iraq war veteran and Pace University law student, has a column in the New York Post concerning the Solomon Amendment.  Power Line and the Volokh Conspiracy have more.

Dorgan

More on Senator Dorgan's connection to Abramoff.  A number of other prominent Democrats were also connected to Abramoff.

Congress and College Football

I like politics and I like sports even more but I'm getting tired of somebody in Congress pushing for a hearing on everything they dislike about sports.  This is absolutely ridiculous no matter which party you belong to. 

More Good News on Jobs

Our friends at CCK often chide us for not holding Bush responsible for this and that.  By way of making amends, let me hold Bush responsible for this, from Yahoo News:

The U.S. job market rebounded last month from a hurricane-induced slowdown as nonfarm employers added 215,000 workers, according to a government report on Friday that showed the economy on solid ground.  The closely watched Labor Department report also said the unemployment rate held steady in November at 5 percent, just off the four-year low of 4.9 percent hit in August.

"This fits with an economy which is just humming along here at close to potential," said Kathleen Stephansen, director of global economics at Credit Suisse First Boston in New York.  The report, which showed job growth widespread across industries, nearly matched expectations on Wall Street.

But of course no economic news is good news at the New York Times, or at least not during any Republican administration. 

Upbeat Signs Hold Cautions for the Future

Beat that for a sour grapes headline!  Now digest the first paragraph:

Gasoline is cheaper than it was before Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. Consumer confidence jumped last month and new- home sales hit a record. The stock market has been rising. Even the nation's beleaguered factories seem headed for a happy holiday season.  By most measures, the economy appears to be doing fine. No, scratch that, it appears to be booming.  But as always with the United States economy, it is not quite that simple.

Now check out the next paragraph:

For every encouraging sign, there is an explanation. Consumer confidence is bouncing back from what were arguably some of its worst readings in years. Gasoline prices - the national average is now $2.15, according to the Energy Information Administration - have fallen because higher prices held down demand and Gulf Coast supplies have been slowly restored.

The Kausfiles comment on this his hilarious:

It's indeed deeply disturbing to learn that higher gas prices have held down demand, causing those prices to fall back to a level at which demand begins to rise again! It's almost as if some insidious law was at work--as prices rise, demand declines! As supply increases, prices fall! You can't win! ... P.S.: The price drop might be alarming if the decline in demand for gas reflected a general economic downturn. But that doesn't seem to be the case. What the NYT's Vikak Bajaj ominously describes is the market working exactly as it's supposed to, coupled with successful rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. It appears to be "quite that simple." ... P.P.S.: Nor can I spot any "cautions for the future." ....

The NYT is, as always, a fundamentally dishonest enterprize.  It wants G.W.Bush to stay on the ropes, so the best possible news has to be soured. 

 

Ryne on Free Speech in Academia

Ryne is offering his take on the recent debate about free speech in academia.   Speaking of speech, Senator Tim Johnson was at the USD School of Law yesterday discussing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  I'll have more details tomorrow. 

Loggia

South Dakota Progressive is offering a virtual tour of the new governor's mansion and asks the question what is a loggia? 

Like Bill, I have no idea what a loggia is.  In fact, I would be that your average South Dakota doesn't know what a loggia is (much like how the average South Dakota doesn't live in a $3 million mansion).

For my own benefit and the benefit of our readers, I looked up the word loggia.  In this context, I believe the following definition would be most appropriate (courtesty of dictionary.com):   

An open-sided, roofed or vaulted gallery, either free-standing or along the front or side of a building, often at an upper level.

Since they say a picture is worth a thousand words, here is a picture of a loggia courtesy of the old DVT site. 

Substantial Bipartisan Agreement on Iraq Strategy

Or so says the Washington Post, a substantially liberal newspaper of record.  From their December 1st Editorial:

THOUGH YOU wouldn't know it from the partisan rhetoric, there is substantial agreement in Washington on the strategy for Iraq outlined yesterday by President Bush. The president denounced those who would "cut and run" from the country and in turn was lambasted by Democrats for inflexibly staying the course. In fact, many Democrats in Congress agree with the principal elements of Mr. Bush's "strategy for victory," which are to build up a representative Iraqi government and security forces to defend it in the next 12 months while gradually shrinking the numbers and duties of U.S. troops.

This is, of course, correct.  Bush has been trying to dig his approval ratings out of the hole by accusing Democrats of wanting to cut and run.  Democrats are jumping up and down on his head trying to keep him in the hole by accusing him of wanting nothing more than to "stay the course," as if Bush intended to stay indefinitely with no plan for wrapping up.  Both views are largely distortions. 

Mr. Bush rejected the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal, saying he would "settle for nothing less than complete victory." But such a timetable already exists, drawn up by the generals who report to Mr. Bush and supported by leading Democrats: It calls for the reduction of American forces from 160,000 to 100,000 during 2006. Such a "phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq" was endorsed by the Senate two weeks ago by a vote of 79 to 19. Notwithstanding the endorsement by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) yesterday of the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for withdrawal within six months, many senior Democrats oppose an immediate U.S. pullout. Democratic senators such as Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) agree with Mr. Bush's description of the dangers of allowing al Qaeda's forces in Iraq to claim a victory or permitting Iraq to collapse into a sectarian civil war.

Some Democrats clearly do want immediately withdrawal (6 months is immediate for all practical purposes), and there is a reasonable argument for this.  If the Iraqis have a clear idea that our departure is imminent, they will have a stronger motive for taking responsibility and doing the right thing.  And perhaps the presence of American troops is the only thing that keeps the war going.  So announcing that we are withdrawing as soon as possible is the best way to ensure victory in Iraq and get our boys home.

The trouble is that once you turn "immediate withdrawal" into a reasonable strategy, as I just did, it becomes almost indistinguishable from the strategy we are in fact pursuing.  The only difference is that the timetable is more realistic.  Even if we tried to get out "immediately," it will take a lot longer than six months.  So far the Iraqis have been meeting every target on the timetable.  I'm guessing we will stick to it.

As for what we have achieved, here are the words of Gerard Baker, writing in the London Times:

Success [in Iraq]  is articulated not in the indicative but in the subjunctive: potential threats removed; future wars that don’t have to be fought. It is numbered in the unenumerable: the slow awakening of human freedom; the steady, incremental spread of dignity it brings to people cowed and trampled for decades.

And yet it leaves its mark in tangible ways, even in the turmoil of Iraq. In a couple of weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls in their millions for the third time this year (the exercise of democracy can be habit-forming, can’t it?). This time they will choose a government that will have real power over the direction of the country. It will be a genuine first in the history of a region where medievalist tyranny has enjoyed five centuries of extra time.

One thing the English know how to do is speak English.

Herseth

Stephanie Herseth is entertaining the idea of a senate run in the future.  Excerpt (reg. required):

During the question-and-answer session, students asked a wide range of questions regarding issues such as the impact of the Patriot Act on civil liberties and whether she was considering a Senate run in 2008.

"I'm pretty sure (Sen. Tim Johnson) is running in 2008, so I'm focused on getting re-elected to the House," Herseth said. "I hope to build some seniority."

She added that she would be open to a different position if she felt she could better serve her constituents, but does not have a 10-year plan when it comes to her political career. She encouraged her teenage audience to not become too set on one goal, as well.

"Politics is a lot about timing," Herseth said. "Timing you can't predict. That's why I think you would all do yourselves a disservice, as would I, if in your public service pursuits you have a 10-year plan. There's so much that could happen that you could miss opportunities to serve your constituents as effectively as possible."

What's Your Favorite Book

John Thune comes off looking pretty good in this interesting story about Senatorial (and one congressman's) reading habits.  I find some responses inspiring (McCain likes Hemmingway, Brownback likes the writings of a British abolitionist).  On the hand, Lisa Murkowski was deeply moved by Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Others Don’t by Jim Collins.  Why?  It inspired her to fire her whole staff when she moved to DC.  That says something about her soul, and I am not sure it's good.  Still, she comes off better than Trent Lott, who can't think of any book besides his own.  I wonder if it has pictures?  And poor Jim Demint.  Captured by the siren song of Tom Friedman.  I guess Demint is beguiled by Freidman's omnipresent black crew neck shirt.  Here's what Thune said. Oh, and Senator, I recommend the Martin Gilbert biogrpahy of Churchill:

Some members of Congress struggled to come up with a book off the top of their heads. But Sen. John Thune (R.-S.C.) had no such problem.

“I really like William Manchester’s books on Winston Churchill,” he said. “I just read the one covering the period from 1932 to 1940.” [The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone 1932-1940.] His life is very inspiring to me. I think he had a profound courage when it comes to a politician who had to lead his nation during tumultuous times. I’ve loved and read a lot of Chuck Colson’s works over the years. I’m kind of a big fan of his. He had a book called How Now Shall We Live, and that one was very good. I enjoyed reading the book on John Adams by David McCullough. So those have been really good. Those are fascinating reads. Kind of an inside-the-locker-room look at the Founding Fathers and how the nation came into existence.”

“Those are just a couple off the top of my head I guess,” said Thune. “If I gave it some thought I might have a different answer.”

I guess, over all, what they used to say about scholarly Sen. Pat Moynihan was true: he had written more books than most Senators had read.  Hat tip on the whole thing to Joe K. 

Professor Schaff's Excellent Blog

So as not to upstage Professor Schaff's blog entry below, I post only to say that I enthusastically agree with everything he says. 

Free Speech, But With A Price?

To hear the arguments from some quarters, college professors, particularly those at public universities, should not blog if their opinions end up offending some, and indeed they should have their jobs threatened if they express unsettling opinions. 

So I started thinking about professors who blog.  Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, who actually has challenged the patriotism of those peddling the "Bush lied" argument, is a law professor at University of Tennessee.  Many of the authors at Volokh are college professors, including Eugene Volokh himself, who teaches at UCLA, as does Prof. Bainbridge.  At No Left Turns, the two most frequent bloggers are Peter Schramm and Joe Knippenberg, college professors both.  Dan Drezener is also a college professor. 

These blogs could be considered conservative or libertarian blogs.  Are there any left-wing professors who blog?  It didn't take me long to find some.  I already knew about Juan Cole, who teaches at University of Michigan.  I found Blog Left, which features an image of George W. Bush flipping the bird. It is run by another bunch of UCLA guys.  This guy Mark Foster teaches sociology at a community college in Kansas and says this: " Given the latest offensive comments by Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly, I have concluded that "America" is actually a name for a terminal disease, and the more one lives in the U.S., the more likely one is likely to contract it."  And William Dorman teaches at Cal State Sacramento and runs an anti-war blog.  And I found these sites without trying really hard, and I note that all these left leaning bloggers teach at public institutions. 

Should all these people be disciplined by their universities because they inevitably say things that make some people mad?  I bet the people of Kansas might be upset to know that they are paying the salary of a guy who calls America a disease. 

I have a very liberal colleague who writes for the Aberdeen American News.  I bet his opinions make plenty of people very mad.  And, given the circulation of the American News, I know that more people read his column than read this site, and he is more to the left of the average South Dakotan than I am to the right. So I suspect he is angering far more people than am I. By the Chad Schuldt logic, he should be disciplined by the university.  After all, I bet some people are mad that they pay the salary of a man who offends them with his, to them, obnoxious left-wing opinions. (I note that this is what some people might believe, not what I believe, as I think my colleague is a good and thoughtful man).  Or is it that when, say, Prof. Blanchard blogs here, that is an offense to the state of South Dakota, but when he writes in the American News, as he does regularly, then it is perfectly fine?  Does my left-wing colleague intimidate conservative students who must take his classes?  Lest there be any confusion, I think not. It is all how one runs the classroom, and I know my colleagues, left and right, and I run our classrooms as professionals, not as partisans. 

I think that academia exists so that learned people can freely exchange their ideas with their students and with the public.  It is the college professor's job to work in the realm of ideas, and not just ideas that make people happy or comfortable.  Professors of all stripes, even apparently anti-American ones like the fellow from Kansas, should be given free rein.  Indeed, on this site Prof. Blanchard has defended Ward Churchill's right to celebrate the 9-11 terrorists without losing his job, although the fact that Churchill misrepresented his credentials is another matter. 

Is blogging categorically different from writing books, articles, and newspaper editorials?  I would not call it scholarly work, but neither are the books and articles written by the scores of academics who write on sensative subjects and write for a broad, not scholarly, audience and are published by popular, not academic, presses. 

If Chad Schuldt had it his way, all of the blogs I listed above, right and left, would be shut down by the bloggers' universities.  I think the nation is a better place because these academics voice their opinions, just as I think the Aberdeen area is better for having both Prof. Blanchard and my liberal colleague duke it out on the editorial page.  Academics are paid, in part, to air their considered opinions, and when it comes to public universities I call that a wise use of public dollars.

Snow Blogging

And there's more snow expected tomorrow...

Abramoff

No Agenda:  A Web of Hypocrisy II