South Dakota Politics

Presidential Art

Powerline:

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

Read the whole thing.

Argus on Daschle's Permanent Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oui or Non on the European Constitution?

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

Says the British Independent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy Watch

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

What's Unfair and Out of Bounds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Karl Rove

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

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

Senator Who?

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

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

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

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

 

Look Out, Todd Epp!

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

Johnson v. Bolton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolton

Associated Press:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, Maybe Somebody Knows

S.D.Watch announces that

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

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

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

So its likely to be a long wait, Todd. 

"out of bounds"

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

The Good Old Days

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

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

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

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

Standing on the Shoulders of Something

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

Hildebrand Still Campaign Manager?

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

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

Meanwhile...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thune Turns Up the Heat

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

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

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

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

Johnson to Qualified Judges: "Nyet!"

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

And This Man Wants To Be My President?

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

More on Daschle's Permanent Campaign

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

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

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

Daschle Machine

Roll Call:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Phantom Trip to NYC

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

Dear South Dakota Politics team:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Caputo

Marketing Director

Personal Democracy Forum

www.personaldemocracy.com

Herseth Votes Against Life, Again

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

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

Senate Compromise Analysis

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

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

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

The Democrats got this one:

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

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

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

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

And in Same Old News

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

In Other News

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

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

Tim Johnson

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

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

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

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

Roll Call on South Dakota's 2002 Senate Race

Today's Roll Call:

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

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

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

Voters Dislike Bad Sports

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

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

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

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

Here We Go Again

 

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

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

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

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

Unity Via Bob Dylan

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

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

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

Judge Deal

Senator Cornyn in today's NRO:

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

Bloggers in China

Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times:

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

High Court Tackling Abortion Again

New York Times:

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

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

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

Text of the Senate Compromise

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

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

      

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

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

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

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

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Senator Thune's statement on the compromise.

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

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

 

PAW is a bit Unhappy

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

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

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

Judges

I see Prof. Blanchard and I are in agreement...again.  We really have to coordinate these things. 

What Will Tim Johnson Do?

Why are the Democrats so impassioned on the issue of judges in the first place?  Each party has its constituencies.  It just so happens that the interest groups supporting the Democrats on this are extremist groups, such as the National Abortion Rights Action League who see abortion as a positive good, and those like People For the American Way who have an active antipathy towards religious people who are socially conservative. See No Left Turns for an example of the rhetorical gymnastics the Left must engage in order to explain that they just plain don't like religious people. It's just that Democrats like Chuck Schumer call it "strongly held beliefs."  See they're OK with religious people, as long as those religious people aren't too serious about it.  As political scientist Geoffrey Layman has pointed out in his book The Great Divide, most activists in the Democratic Party don't just disagree with religious conservatives, they actively hate religious conservatives 

If Tom Daschle were still in the Senate he would be cheerleading these efforts to torpedo nominees on the basis of their religious views or because they are insufficiently enthusiastic about abortion on demand.  Now that these nominees rated as qualifed. and in Priscilla Owen's case well qualified, by the ABA are going to come to a vote, one wonders how Sen. Johnson will vote. If he votes "no" he can't claim they weren't qualified because the ABA says differently.  What other reasons might he come up with? 

Everyone sees disaster in the Senate Compromise

Powerline:

What a hideous deal! The Democrats have agreed to cloture on only three nominees, and they have made no commitment not to filibuster in the future, if there are "extraordinary circumstances." Of course, the Dems think any nominee who is a Republican is "extraordinary." The Dems have just wriggled off the hook on some of the nominees that, politically, some of them did not want to be seen voting against.

Talkleft:

The worst, the compromise is in. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor are in. Total capitulation by Democrats. Total victory for Frist. Let them spin it how they want, it's a loss for the Democrats. Henry Saad of Michigan is the fall guy. He won't get a vote. No one cared about him anyway. That's tossing the Dems a chicken bone.

I have to say I think Powerline is wrong.  This saves the filibuster but otherwise commits no one to anything, except for the first three judges mentioned above. The next time the Democrats are tempted to say that the circumstances are extraordinary, Republicans will say that's baloney, and were back where we started only with a few key appointments past he bar.   That's a clean win. 

Mixed Nuts

Conservatives seem to be apoplectic about the filibuster deal.  You can read NROs Bench Memos here, and John Hinderaker's effusive denunciation of Republicans here.  I see the point some of them are making.  If Republicans are in the majority, why not act like it?  If President Bush is nominating qualified people to the judiciary, and he is, then they should all be confirmed.  If it is wrong to filibuster qualified judicial nominees, then it is wrong to filibuster all of them, including Henry Saad and William Meyers.  Republicans gave up for dead two men who are qualified, and the principle that all nominees should get an up and down vote, while getting three wrongly assailed judges (Brown, Owen, and Pryor) that they likely would have gotten anyway.  So much for Republicans being able to ram their agenda through Congress. 

That said, Republicans gained the three judges they wanted most without having to resort to changing Senate rules.  The Democrats that were part of this deal agree not to filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances."  I would not doubt that for most Democrats "extraordinary circumstances" means anyone to the right of William Kunstler, but if Democrats do filibuster a nominee, Republicans can simply say that the deal has been broken and they are free to change Senate rules.  The fact that Democrats agreed to this at all tells me that they thought they had a losing hand agreed to allow the judges that their left-wing constituency disliked most.  Let's call this a victory with costs for the Republicans. 

I realize I am a broken record on this, but I continue to maintain that Republicans are mistaken in attempting to change the filibuster rules and should simply make the Democrats hold up the entire work of the U.S. Senate while they filibuster highly qualified judicial nominees.  Also, barring serious ethical questions, I think presidents of either party should be given the benefit of the doubt on all judicial nominees. 

Senate Compromise

Sounds like a compromise on the Senate filibuster issue. 

UPDATE:  Associated Press:

Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.

The agreement said future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

Filibuster

San Francisco Chronicle:

The Senate careened toward a historic showdown Monday on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and its own filibuster rules, the outcome in doubt as centrists from both parties struggled for a compromise.

"The moment draws closer when all 100 United States senators must decide a basic question of principle," Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said as the rap of the Senate's gavel opened a scheduled day-and-night session, prelude to Tuesday's climactic votes. "Whether to restore the precedent of an up-or-down vote ... or to enshrine a new tyranny of the minority." ...

At the Capitol, cots were brought in, available for senators to nap on as the late debate wore on.

Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court ruled today on the constitutionality of the federal beef checkoff program.  Some South Dakotans were plaintiffs.

UPDATE:  Here's more from The New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the government was within its rights to force beef producers to pay for a multimillion-dollar ''Beef: It's what's for dinner'' marketing program, even when individual cattle producers disagreed with the campaign.

The 6-3 decision is a defeat for farmers in several agricultural sectors who oppose paying mandatory fees for advertising they may later oppose. Currently, there are dozens of similar federal and state ad campaigns for products including milk, pork and cotton, many of which are being challenged on free speech grounds.

The beef campaign is a form of ''government speech'' immune to First Amendment challenge, the court said.

''The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the federal government,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was a 1985 law requiring producers to pay a $1-per-head fee on cattle sold in the United States. That fee, which generates more than $80 million per year, goes to an industry group appointed by the Agriculture Department to support advertising and research programs.

Anti-Americanism Fails in Germany

Gerhard Schroeder managed to become the poster child of Anti-Americanism in 2002 when he saved his Social Democratic party by running not against the Christian Democrats so much as against George Bush and the war in Iraq.  As it was Schroeder's extremely cynical campaign produced a very narrow victory. 

ELECTION RESULTS 2002
PARTIES	VOTE
Social Democrats	38.5%
CDU-CSU	38.5%
Greens	8.6%
Free Democrats	7.4%
PDS	4.0%
Others	2.6%
Source: Federal Electoral Commission

With the SDP and the CDU (the major left and centrist parties), the outcome was determined by their coalition partners.  The Greens gave Schroeder the edge in 2002 by coming in a little ahead of the Free Democrats.

But yesterday Schroeder's SDP suffered a calamitous defeat in local elections after having tried the same trick again.  This by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal.

Yesterday, facing a likely loss in elections in Germany's largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, his Social Democratic Party's union backers played another anti-American card, this time depicting U.S. investors as blood-sucking parasites. Social Democratic chairman Franz Muntefering compared hedge funds to "swarms of locusts." This time, the tactic failed. Mr. Schoeder's party went down to a stunning defeat, losing the largely working-class state, home to one out of five Germans, for the first time in nearly 40 years. Last night Mr. Schroeder announced he would hold national elections this fall, a year ahead of schedule. [my emphasis].

As an example of the campaign, consider the following cartoons from David's Medienkritik:

The caption above translates: U.S. Firms in Germany: Bloodsuckers.

Perhaps this kind of thing finally irritated the German electorate, or maybe Anti-Americanism is just loosing its venom. 

 

Explaining Democracy to Howard Dean

I don't know how it appeared on television, but the transcript of Howard Dean's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday reads like a man Hell bent on destroying his party.  There are many things one could comment on, but I will just chose one.  The Chair of the Democratic Party says:

Without extended debate, [Bush] can march marshal his party and just ram it right through.  They already ram things through the House.  We need more than one party in charge.  And the vote on Tuesday is going to be critical to decide whether American democracy still allows those of us who didn't vote for the president to have any say in running the country whatsoever.

"We need more than one party in charge"?  Well, we have a way to secure that reality, Mr. Dean.  They're called elections, and your party keeps losing them.  If the American public wanted "more than one party in power" then they'd vote that way, and often have.  Say what you will about the 2000 election, but Bush's success in 2004 is unqualified for all except the loony left.  Further, the Democrats have not won either of the chambers of Congress since 1992.  Let's not forget that the brief Democratic control of the Senate in 2001-2002 did not come as the result of an election, but of party switching.  At the first opportunity, the American people put the Republicans back in charge of the Senate.  One of the Democratic arguments in favor of their unprecedented efforts in filibustering judicial nominees is that due to the nature of the Senate (with equal representation of states) Senators representing a minority of the country could actually make up a majority of Senate votes and "ram through" a judicial nominee.  See, the Democrats can't decide if they like minority rights or hate them.  So they defend minority rights by making up phony constitutional arguments about the filibuster (which, of course, is not in the Constitution) and then whining about the very Constitutional nature of the Senate.  And if the Republicans have the ability to "ram through" their programs, I must say they are doing a pretty poor job of it so far.  My advice to Chairman Dean is, if you want the Democrats to have more of a say in what goes on in Washington you might want to consider winning an election sometime.  Less left-wing drivel, more vote getting. 

Why Did We Elect Sen. Thune?

In the squabbles over who is to blame for the Ellsworth situation, let us remind ourselves of one of the reasons many South Dakotans voted for John Thune over Tom Daschle.  I refer you to the latest piece by Robert Novak:

Indeed, the question of who shall sit on the Supreme Court is the reason for this crisis. It is the reason key Senate Democrats held an unprecedented meeting in Minority Leader Tom Daschle's office on Jan. 30, 2003. Thanks to Republican discovery of Democratic e-mails, an unprecedented documentary record reveals a pure political power play.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate's 73-year-old  liberal lion, has orchestrated a solid Democratic front that has succeeded beyond all expectations. It has kept 16 Bush nominees off the appellate bench, some permanently. But Kennedy went too  far. Had he blocked two or three judges, the reaction would have been modest. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, hardly a fire-eating Republican, told the Senate Friday that the nominees are being "held hostage as pawns in a convoluted chess game that is spinning out of control."

Daschle tried to sell himself as just good old moderate Tom Daschle who is one of us and shares "South Dakota values."  Remember, he was an alter boy here in Aberdeen, voters were reminded.  On the other hand, back in Washington, Daschle was at the core of an "unprecedented" effort by the leader of the far Left of the Democratic party to radically alter the course of the Senate in the name of destroying any potential Supreme Court nominee who might dissent from the Democratic orthodoxy that the US must have abortion on demand through nine months of pregnancy and that abortion on demand must be judicially imposed by the Supreme Court by perverting the language of the Constitution.  If Tom Daschle were still in the Senate he would be at the front of the Democratic effort to abuse the meaning of "advise and consent" and would be giving aid and comfort to those digging up dirt to destroy the reputation of any potential Supreme Court nominee who does not bow before the goddess of Roe v. Wade. 

More Decline of the West

Prof. Blanchard comments on the sickening of Europe.  Then today there is this piece in US News and World Report about Europe's "aggressive secularism."  The article references George Weigel's The Cube and the Cathedral which I read last week.    I recommend this slender volume to those interested in the confluence of religious thought and political thought and also for those interested in the subject of Europe's impending death.  As US News points out:

One consequence of this is the changing demographic character of the Continent. With Europe's native-born labor force declining since World War II, the need for more workers helped boost the Muslim population from about 1 million in 1945 to about 18 million today. By now, it is clear that many of the guest workers have come to stay--and the addition of Turkey to the EU would bring about 62 million more Muslims into the European fold. Islam scholar Bernard Lewis is not alone in saying that Europe will be Islamic by the end of the 21st century "at the very latest." To many who think that Europe is more a cultural than a geographic entity, this would alter the very core of European identity.

Weigel provides the following stunning facts: Eighteen European nations report "negative natural increase" (more deaths than live births); no western European Country has a replacement level birthrate; Europe's retired population will increase by 55% in the next twenty-five years while its working population will decline by 8%; Germany is on pace to lose the equivalent of the population of the former East Germany by 2050; and perhaps most stunning, by 2050 42% of Italians will be over 60, at which point almost 60% of Italians will have no brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, or uncles. 

I have noted before the economic disaster that awaits Europe.  They have a rapidly aging population with an enormous welfare state that promises to take care of them but they do not have the workforce or the productivity to support such a welfare state economically.  The consequences the future of civilization and for stability in the world are dire. 

Fun State Law of the Day

In 1883, the territorial legislature of Dakota passed a law stating that students and non-students who disrupted the "proper order" of public schools through "acts of violence, boisterous conduct or threatening language" could be fined $20 and put in the county jail for 10 days.

NASCAR Politics

In case you missed it, The New York Times Book Review looked at two new books about the rise of NASCAR and noted some political implications (there is, naturally, lots of coastie Times' sneering about "run-away Republicanism; anti-intellectualism: the corn-pone memes of God and guns and guts; crass corporatization; Toby Keith anthems...").

The Daschle Staffer Blogs' Trouble with the Facts

One of the several lefty/anti-Thune blogs run by former Daschle staffers is now bashing Thune for being in New York City last week.  Trouble is, Thune was NOT in NYC last week.  The lefty blog just made that up.  Of course, this comes from the blog run by the former Daschle staffer who writes about "ripping Thune's n--s off" and promotes "F-- John Thune" t-shirts and was detained by police in 2002 for stalking Thune.  Some real gems, those embittered former Daschle staffers.  To be completely accurate, of course, we could say they are still Daschle staffers.  Daschle's former campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, has been paid since the election by Daschle's campaign fund and by his political action committee and the fellow who just made up the fact that Thune was in NYC works for Hildebrand.  So Daschle is paying for all these attacks.  It's worth noting that this month is the one-year anniversary of Daschle's major address at Kansas State University opposing the "startling meanness" in American politics.  Yeah right.  Maybe the press should ask Senator Daschle, who many believe wants to run against Thune in 2010, if he's bought any of the "F--- John Thune" t-shirts that his staffers are promoting.

Newsweek

Newsweek has a new policy:

Newsweek Chairman Richard M. Smith, responding to a week of criticism over a retracted story about the desecration of the Koran, said yesterday that the magazine is restricting its use of anonymous sources.

"The cryptic phrase 'sources said' will never again be the sole attribution for a story in Newsweek," Smith wrote in a letter to readers.

The retracted item, which sparked violent protests in Afghanistan and elsewhere that killed 16 people, relied on one unnamed government official in saying that military investigators had confirmed that U.S. guards at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility had flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. The item was attributed to "sources," although there was only a single source, who Newsweek said later backed off his account.