South Dakota Politics

Smoking Gun: Direct Daschle Payments to anti-Thune Blogger

See this for the whole story. Maybe Daschle should just start running an anti-Thune blog himself and avoid the middlemen.

Ryne on the "Hildebrand Boys" and "Erin"

The following sample is from a huge post by Ryne McClaren, who is weighing in the "Hildebrand Boys" and "Erin":

What to make of all of this? Well, I frankly have no idea. Erin sounds like she's being sincere, and it sounds as though she's received some support from Epp in this saga. A lot of the commenters over at Epp's site have bashed her around pretty good, but given what she's posted I don't think that should come as any surprise.

But there's something that's really been nagging at me since Novak published his column last week, and this is it (quoting from Big Bob's column):

Former Daschle staffers openly run two of the blogs, and two others are anonymous. [Not any more. -- Ryne] A fifth is run by Todd Epp, who did part-time legal work for Daschle's campaign. Epp told this column that Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's campaign manager, learned from Thune's use of paid bloggers in 2004 and now "is kind of behind some of this."

As I stated last week, and I have to say it again, It would be interesting to know what "is kind of behind some of this" means. Well, could it be that Erin is providing us a little insight into what "is kind of behind some of this" really does mean. It seems to me, if we can believe what Erin is saying, that this "perpetual campaign" is really quite the little operation. And is Steve Hildebrand still really in there taking his swings? I had been skeptical about that issue, but it appears that he is. After all, tell me how many bloggers you can talk to and then wind up visiting with a former deputy campaign manager a short while later.

So really, this whole saga just lines up a whole bunch more questions from me. A person with first hand insight into the Dan Nelson Auto "experience" reaches out to folks she thinks can help her (and other consumers like her). After a whirlwind courtship, she feels violated and put upon by the people who she thought were trying to help her. Why? After all of the phone calls, e-mails, requests for personal meetings, the exchanging of photographs? All of it seems a little irregular and strange, no matter which side you come down on.

And the contact with Hildebrand? Well, I guess we might as well remove the quotation marks from the words permanent campaign. It's sounding to me like these guys were looking to score some fast and furious points against John Thune in the Jalopygate "scandal" they've been tracking for a while now (and without much luck), and that at least at some point they thought Erin could provide what they needed to help them further their cause.

How much of this story is untold, do you think? Like I said before, it's time to remove any pretense that the permanent Daschle campaign is only hypothetical.

Ryne has a lot more to say, so read his whole post.

Stem Cell Debate

I respect Chad Schuldt's passion in advocating federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but I am afraid he slips slightly into the error I discussed below.  According to Chad, anyone who objects to this scientific research that potentially benefits mankind is a religious nut.  He cuts out of reasonable debate those who oppose destruction of human embryos in scientific experimentation.  According to Chad the only reasonable position is his, and all who take the opposing side do so for trivial reasons and/or are in the grips of an irrational religious fervor. 

Let's get some facts straight.  First, let's remember that the question is not whether stem cell research in general is morally just, but whether the destruction of embryos for their stem cells is morally just.  There are other ways to harvest stem cells other than from embryos, although there is disagreement as to which sources of stem cell lines produce the best results.  Next, George W. Bush is not against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  He is against funding the creation of new embryos for research purposes or killing existing embryos to harvest stem cells, but will fund research on existing stem cell lines.  Finally, there are tens of millions of dollars being spent privately on embryonic stem cell research.  Also, some states, such as California, have chosen to fund embryonic stem cell research with public dollars.  Just a couple weeks ago the governor of Illinois released $10 million for research.  It is not true that embryonic stem cell research is running out of funds.  For example this HHS document says:

Based on 2002 data, one study reports that private sector research and development  in stem cells was being conducted by approximately 1000 scientists in over 30 firms.  Aggregate spending was estimated at $208 million.  Geron Corporation alone reported that it spent more than $70 million on stem cell research by September 2003. [footnote deleted]

I find the arguments of this Charles Krauthammer piece compelling, although I would quibble here and there with his moral reasoning.  Krauthammer himself, as many know, is a paraplegic who could benefit from stem cell research.  He also is a former psychiatrist who is an MD.  I think Krauthammer gets the moral calculus correct.  The worry is creation of life purely to harvest it for parts.  That is morally dangerous.  But, perhaps funding research on embryos that are already in existence is reasonable.  I find Krauthammer compelling precisely because he is able to distance himself from his own self-interest and recognizes that embryonic stem-cell research presents a moral dilema that can't be reduced to "it takes a human life, so it's wrong" or "it could benefit mankind, so it's right."  At a minimum, Krauthammer develops an argument that cannot be easily dismissed. 

Chad treats the moral status of the human embryo cavalierly.  He seems to think it is an easily settled question or that the human embryo's moral status doesn't matter.   I think that's too flip.  I think that a human embryo is a human being possessing rights.  Krauthammer disagrees with reasons that I think are wrong, but reasonable.  There is no doubt that the embryo is life, but what kind of life?  As science gains more power over the building blocks of humanity, it seems responsible to think hard about the uses to which we put human material.  No one favors killing walking and talking human beings in the name of the progress of science.  Well, some people think that killing embryos is at least roughly equivalent, and while that may be an incorrect argument, it is not a trivial one or one you need be a religious nut to believe.  The fact it is a minority position also does not immediately discredit it.  For literary discussion of these issues, I recommend Walker Percy's Thanatos Syndrome and especially Love in the Ruins.  Of course Frankenstein isn't bad either. 

"Erin" v. "The Hildebrand Boys"

This Todd Epp post has sixty-some comments from "Erin" and the former/current Daschle staffer bloggers in which they go back and forth over how she was treated by them. It's getting rather heated and she asks to know who is paying for the Daschle staffers' current "consulting" and says "Those of us not sponging off of Tom Daschle will be viciously devoured for pointing that out." What seems clear is that the former/current Daschle staffers worked very hard to get information out of "Erin" about Senator Thune and the Nelson bankruptcy and that they even started an "Erin Fan Club" for a while. But now she's now making very clear she didn't appreciate their tactics. Read the thread and you'll get the idea.

Volokh: Right Again

I agree with Eugene Volokh once again, this time as he goes after a particular group of (apparently) conservative Christians:

Distinguishing fair criticisms of one's adversaries from unfair criticisms is not a technicality. I've seen lots of people, left, right, or elsewhere, make the same mistake: Just because they think their adversaries are wrong in one way (e.g., propose an unsound view of the Constitution), they feel free to just throw a barrage of epithets at them -- their arguments are criminal, frivolous, pro-terrorist, dishonest, corrupt, Nazi, or what have you. And then, when a third party defends the targets against the unfair criticisms, the critics seem upset. How can you defend these bad people? They're clearly wrong! [Emphasis in the original]

This was the point of my parody of left-wing cries of "Nazi" and "fuehrer" and other silliness.  It's possible the irony was lost on some.  Perhaps writing, "DUCK: IRONY COMING STRAIGHT FOR YOU!!" with two (count them, two!!) exclamation points and in all capitals wasn't clear enough.  Perhaps ending with (END IRONY) was too obscure for some.  Perhaps the fact that I borrowed arguments from Seinfeld and The Simpsons confused those who believe those shows to be political roundtable shows and Meet the Press to be sketch comedy.  Only a willfully careless reader could miss the fact that I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.  The intended irony was literally there in black and white. 

When one consistently insults rather than argues it betrays the weakness of one's positions.  Those on the right and left who always suspect bad motives on the part of their opponents need to take a deep breath. Those on the right and left who believe the political is personal need to get a life.  Those on the right and left who wish to disagree with honor would be best served by giving reasons for one's positions, rather than spewing angry invective.  I think Prof. Blanchard's post below on stem cells is a good example of disagreement with honor.   If you think someone has made a bad argument, make a counter argument.  Name calling and petulant pouting are not arguments. 

Energy Legislation

The Argus Leader today ran a Letter to the Editor by Nathan S. Peterson of the National Environmental Trust/South Dakota in Sioux Falls:

Recently, an advertisement from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ran in the Argus Leader criticizing climate-change legislation. It was designed to scare South Dakotans into believing that switching from coal to renewable energy will destroy our economy. This is just not true.

The Energy Information Administration found that efforts to cut emissions by switching to renewable energy would reduce the cost of natural gas and electricity, saving consumers billions of dollars. Another recent study found that generating 10 percent of America's energy from renewable sources would produce $41.5 billion in new capital investment, $2.8 billion in revenues to local communities and $755 million in lease payments to farmers and rural landowners from wind power development.

Consumers should embrace Sen. Tim Johnson's support of such legislation. Efforts to increase renewable energy have been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers Union.

In addition to its economic benefits, global warming legislation would help to preserve our environment. Johnson should be commended for standing up to the powerful coal and fossil fuel industries to represent the interests of South Dakotans. Sen. John Thune should be encouraged to do the same.

What's interesting about this is that Nathan Peterson (anti-Thune blogger) has received money from, you guessed it, Daschle's political coffers (e.g., A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle). 

Scorched earth is at work again.

The "Ginsburg Rule"

Mike Rosen:

Senate Democrats were . . . more than willing to subordinate their curiosity to principle and precedent in 1993 when Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the stonewalling nominee. Not that there was any doubt that Ginsburg would be a reliable liberal on the Supreme Court. ...

Ginsburg played her cards close to the vest during her confirmation hearings, yielding less useful information than a hard-core al-Qaida detainee at Gitmo. ... [see the link for some examples of the questions she was asked and refused to answer]

The flat-out refusal by nominees to answer questions of this kind has become known as the "Ginsburg Rule." Senate Republicans honored it in 1993, confirming Ginsburg 96-3. Democrats and liberal activist groups like People for the American Way, now demanding direct responses from Roberts, made not a peep about Ginsburg's silence back then. These are not people to be taken seriously.

Stealing from Children to Pay Al Franken

Now here is a story to warm the heart.  Air America was launched after the last election to present a liberal counter to conservative voices in the media.  It prominently features professional Bush hater Al Franken.  But who has been paying the salary of Franken and others?  Unfortunate boys and girls, it turns out.  From the Arizona Republic:

In early 2004, the directors of the nascent Air America network were scouring the nation for potential contributors to its start-up. One of the network's directors, Evan Montvel Cohen, appears to have partially solved the problem by arranging loans from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club that eventually totaled at least $480,000, and possibly more.  According to reports, Cohen was in an advantageous position to secure the loans: In addition to directing Air America, Cohen also served as development director of the Gloria Wise club.

It gets better.

Cohen also secured loans to himself. All told, he borrowed more than $800,000, according to club officials.  In this case, "borrow" seems to be a loose term. The club's president says Cohen made at least one of the Air America loans - $213,000 - without her approval. 

For the Boys & Girls Club, meanwhile, the results have been disastrous. The New York Department of Investigation announced in June that city grants and contracts to Gloria Wise - about $10 million worth - were to be suspended because its officials had approved "significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various city agencies." . . .

You don't have to be a Columbia School of Journalism grad to sense that this developing story might have legs.   A private media start-up with huge political pretensions and meager financial underpinnings uses taxpayer dollars from a Boys & Girls Club to help pay the salaries of high-profile hosts like comedian Al Franken. As a result of these dubious loans and other self-dealing, the Gloria Wise club will be sending no more poor kids from the Bronx to summer camp. It will be providing a lot fewer services, if any, to the Alzheimer's patients it helped.

The main stream media is so far ignoring the story.  It probably can't continue to ignore it for long.  Tip of the hat to Real Clear Politics.

CCK, Dobson, and Stem Cells

Chad Shuldt at CCK quotes James Dobson on stem cell research.  You can go to CCK for the source of the quote, which I cannot vouch for. 

DOBSON: You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.

Chad has this simple comment: "So much anger from a man of God."  Now I do not share the view-which I take to be Chad's implication-that anger is always inappropriate for a man of God.  Anyone who has ever read Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail will probably agree with me that anger is the only civilized response to some situations.

To be sure, James Dobson is no MLK.  Nor am I any Dobson fan.  But it does seem to me that his comment here is altogether reasonable.  He is merely arguing that the ends do not justify the means when it comes to some methods of stem cell research. 

Whether Dobson is right about that is a debatable point.  President Bush's position is a moderate one: he is in favor of stem cell research and is in fact the first President to propose public funding for it.  He is opposed to the creation of new cell lines because he believes it would lead to the creation and subsequent harvesting of new embryos for that purpose.  Maybe that's not the best place to draw the line.  I confess that I am still thinking this one through.

But Dobson is not calling anyone a Nazi in the passage above.  He is just saying that certain arguments that may be very tempting are nonetheless corrupting in the long run.  Its irresistible when making such arguments to appeal to the example of the Nazis because, like it or not, the evil of National Socialism is one of the few universally accepted principles in contemporary moral discourse. 

When the religious right is being unreasonable, its the job of CCK and others on that side of the aisle to call them on it.  But to be taken seriously you have to recognize reasonable speech when you see it.

Shameless Plugs

Have you been to Scott Waltman's Sturgis blog yet?  Why not?  He will be in Sturgis on Sunday and he needs you to give him interesting stories to cover. 

SD War College says it's getting 150 visitors a day.  Come on South Dakota, you can do better than that.  Go visit this awesome political site.  For one thing, he's got all the recent South Dakota blog postings right there for those interested in one-stop shopping.  I guess that makes the War College the Wal-Mart of South Dakota blogs.

The Human Encyclopedia of American Politics, aka Michael Barone, is now blogging.  Barone is the author of the bible of American politics, The Almanace of American Politics. 

I guess we'll know we have too many political blogs when Jessica Simpson joins in. 

Mil Blogging

This morning I recieved an email from my buddy who's currently serving in Iraq.  Along with his current conditions and news of his recent promotion (to Sergeant--hooah! [also see this]), he sent along this email:

BEST COMEBACK EVER

A Soldier tells about an incident in the grocery store he stopped at yesterday, on his way home from the base. He said that ahead of several people in front of him stood a woman dressed in a burkha. He said when  she got to the cashier she loudly remarked about the US flag lapel pin the cashier wore on her smock.

The cashier reached up and touched the pin, and said proudly, "Yes, I always wear it and I probably always will."

The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier when she was going to stop bombing her countrymen, explaining that she was Iraqi.

A gentleman standing behind the soldier stepped forward, putting his arm around his shoulders, and nodding towards the soldier, said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi woman: "Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like this young man have fought and died so that YOU could stand here, in MY country and accuse a check-out cashier of  bombing YOUR countrymen. It is my belief that had you been this  outspoken in YOUR own country, we wouldn't need to be there today. But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak out so loudly and clearly, I'll gladly buy you a ticket and pay your way back to Iraq so you can straighten out the mess in YOUR country that you are obviously here in MY country to avoid."

Everyone within hearing distance cheered.

Pass this on to all your proud Americans

Political Junkies

Power Line is noting "The Next Stop for Political Junkies:"

Now that the over-hyped Ohio congressional race is over, folks may pay more atention to this year's race for governor of Virginia between Republican Jerry Kilgore and Democrat Tim Kaine. The general view is that Kilgore would defeat Kaine handily in a two-way race. However, a third candidate, state senator Russell Potts, pulls his not inconsiderable support mostly from voters who otherwise would likely favor Kilgore.

The latest Rasmussen poll has Kilgore leading Kaine 44 percent to 39 percent, with 5 percent saying they will vote for another candidate. This has been the approximate margin in Rasmussen's polls for several months now.

Potts' name was not included in the survey; instead, voters were given the option of supporting "some other candidate." The Rasmussen outfit says it finds this approach to dealing with minor third candidates the most reliable way to poll in most situations. In three months, we'll find out whether this was one of them.

Roberts & the Liberal Media

Ryne:  What Liberal Media?

RedState:  Let's Attack His Children

Remember...

...when the Democrats once supported privitization of Social Security?  Jonathan Swanson at SSC is asking the same question and supplanting the answer:

Remember when Democrats used to favor Personal Retirement Accounts? Here are some of the Democrats’ greatest hits. You’ve got Howard Dean just last week, as well as recent comments by former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey. Then of course there are the late 90’s hits of Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and the DLC.  It turns out even Paul Krugman used favored personal accounts! Travel back a few more years and you have Senator Patrick Moynihan speaking for ownership. And then you have the classic hit, FDR himself saying Social Security should be supplanted.

Gun Legislation and the Stock Market

A bit of economics for everybody this evening.  Take a look at what happened to Smith & Wesson and Ruger stock as the gun bill passed.  From BusinessWeek:

Shares of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., the parent company of gun maker Smith & Wesson Corp., and Sturm Ruger & Co. shot through the roof on Friday with the expected passage of an industry-friendly gun-liability bill in the Senate.

Both gun makers hit new 52-week highs on the pending legislation, which was stripped of an amendment in a 62-37 vote Thursday that would have allowed lawsuits against gun makers for gross negligence.

Smith & Wesson shares surged $2.20, or 46.2 percent, to a new high of $6.96 in morning trading on the American Stock Exchange, with volume at more than 28 times the stock's average by afternoon. The company's shares have risen from a 52-week low of $1.15 in August, and have more than doubled in value so far this year.

Ruger shares jumped $1.70, or 16.9 percent, to $11.75 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and volume was at more than 30 times the stock's average in the afternoon session. In the past 52 weeks, the shares have dwindled from a previous high of $10.85 last July to bottom out at $6.41 in April. The stock is up about 30 percent on the calendar year so far.

Judges and the South Dakota Senate Race

WSJ Opinion Journal:

Democrats have reason to be afraid of heights. Since Mr. Schumer and lobbyists like Ms. Aron first sought to legitimize ideological litmus tests in the 107th Congress and judicial filibusters in the 108th, Democrats have lost Senate seats in eight states: Florida, Georgia (twice), Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina and South Dakota. In each contest, the judicial nominations issue gave Republicans the small margin of victory by which elections are won. (The GOP lost three seats, in Arkansas, Colorado and Illinois, for a net gain of six.)

"Erin" v. Lefty Blogs

There's a long string at Todd Epp's site where "Erin" takes the lefty blogs on and they respond. There's more back and forth breaking at Mt. Blogmore. Here's some from "Erin":

Marie, I’ve been told that some of these boys are actually employed as “consultants”. Who are they “consulting” for? We already know the answer to that question don’t we. They all remain just under the radar to avoid detection, and only surface for whatever particular “feeding frenzy” would further their Hate and Bitterness. Trust me, the Blog Master is none other than Steve Hildebrand who recruits these young, impressionable guys who then participate in sysytematic brainwashing. Part of the training involves techniques these boys can use to endear themselves to anyone they feel can further their Permanent Vulgar and Disgusting Hate Campaign.

Their alleged pristine agenda is just that, alleged, where upon further investigation reveals the true nature of the Vile and Evil agenda that they so vigorously accuse others as having. The indefensible actions of the Hildebrand Boys have been weakly dismissed as the immature actions of young, foolish kids. In fact, unless you have been directly involved with this element and been dismissed, would have no idea of how undercover they operate.

Best Baseball Game I Ever Saw

Live, that is.  I spent the last two days hauling furniture to my daughter in the Twin Cities, and Wednesday night House Blanchard went to see the Twins play Oakland.  We were sitting thiry rows behind home plate, and just a hair to right of the first base line.  That's my favorite spot because you can see the whole game very well, and still hear the ball hit the catcher's glove every time.  I am pretty sure it was the  best game I have ever watched at the Stadium (as opposed to on TV).  Aside from an error by Punto that cost the Twins a run, both teams were very sharp.  The A's went up by one in the second and the Twins caught up with Cuddyer's first homer in the third.  Another Oakland homer in the top of the 7th, and then Cuddyer's second homer, with Jones on base, gave the Twins their first lead in the bottom of the 7th.  In the 8th Nick Swisher doubled and the A's used a bunt and a sacrifice fly to turn that into a tie game.  Gardy brought out Joe Nathan to hold the A's and in the bottom of the ninth Lew Ford hit a deep ball off the right field wall, and Justin Morneau, taking off from first, never stopped running.  I knew he was out when he rounded third base, but he managed to dive and swipe home plate just under the tag.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is baseball. 

Permanent Campaign

I was just interviewed by South Dakota Public Radio on the "permanent campaign."  I don't know when the story will air, but keep your ear glued to the radio for pure brilliance.  And I might be on there too.  Oh, and "ear glued to the radio" is just a figure of speech.  Don't glue any body part to anything. 

Let me sum up what I said. (DUCK!!  IRONY COMING STRAIGHT FOR YOU!!).  The permanent campaign is the product of a malevolent strategy by the anti-democratic tyrannical left, headed by the despicable Tom Daschle.  They talk about fighting for the "people" against "the powerful", championing equality, and defending against the influence of religion in politics.  You know who else believed that?  Yep. Stalin.  Stalin hated corporations, just like Democrats do.  Stalin hated bourgeois business owners, just like Democrats do.  Stalin wanted state mandated secularism.  Sound familiar?  The Bolsheviks wanted to liberate man from bourgeois fantasies such as religion and monogamy, thus the state mandated secularism and encouragement to experiment sexually.  Thus those who are strict separationists regarding church-state issues and defenders of same-sex marriage are just like Stalin.  You know what else Stalin did? Killed people.  Lots of people.  The crazy left-wingers in America are just like Stalin.  Before long those who question their orthodoxy will be sent to re-education camps in such inhospitable places as the Artic National Wildlife Refuge or Vermillion, SD.  If the Daschle Democrats get power, you can count on business owners being shot, churches being closed, and state directed terror to keep everyone else in line.  All those who reject the Liberal Democrat/Stalinist orthodoxy will be named as "counter-revolutionaries" and be tortured in South Dakota's gulag-like prison system until they admit their crimes against the people and are summarily shot.  Those drunk on the opiate of religion will be sent to the First Circle, aka psychiatric hospitals, where they will be "cured" of their illness.  Yep.  Stalin and the American left-wingers.  I can't tell the difference. 

I know what you're thinking.  "That's crackpot," you say.  "You're taking Stalin and Liberal Democrats all out of context to make simple-minded connections that are asinine.  Liberal Democrats might be wrong, but they are good people and good Americans.  You're insane!" Am I?  Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind?  "That can't be!" Can't it?  Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you?  I know many Americans will read what I wrote above and will find themselves nodding in agreement.  I have to go now.  The Pope is on the phone and he's going to tell me whether I should use the springy clothespins or the other kind.  (END IRONY).

Update: For the confused or uninformed:

From Seinfeld:

Jerry: Oh you're crazy.

Kramer: Am I? Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind?

Jerry: It's impossible.

Kramer: Is it? Or is it so possible that your head is spinning like a top?

Jerry: It can't be.

Kramer: Can't it? Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you?

Jerry: Alright, that's enough.

From The Simpsons:

Brockman: Fire, Man's Oldest Foe.  Insatiable, remorseless, unquenchable.
Wiggum:   Hey, it's out!  [cheers]
Brockman: [brightly] Coming up next:  Which work better?  Spring clothespins
or the other kind?

 

Remember Where You Heard It First

I think Steve Chapman has been reading my blogs.  He makes much the same point about Roe v. Wade here, as I did here and here.  Chapman points out that many highly respected liberal legal scholars, including Lawrence Tribe and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, have attacked to shoddy legal reasoning behind Roe.  So it isn't just right-wing crazies.  Chapman asks the question, "Who is the real extemist on abortion?"

In a 2003 Gallup Poll, 68 percent of Americans said abortion "should be generally illegal" in the second trimester, and 84 percent said  it should be barred in the third trimester. Under Roe, however, the government has to permit almost all abortions, no matter when they occur.

There's no way to know if Roberts would vote to junk the 1973 decision. If the court were to do that, though, it would merely let the electorate put its conflicting feelings about abortion into law in a way they can live with. Allowing the American people to have their way on a subject that is not mentioned in the Constitution is not extremism. It's democracy.

            

Hildy

Erin appears to no longer be a fan of the Hildebrand Boys.  Sibby is noting these comments by Erin at Mount Blogmore:

Why does anyone care about 4 self important, unemployed, and bitter guys who have nothing better to do than travel to another state [Ohio] for a special election which is overshadowed by their narrow minded pathetic attempts at self promotion? Perhaps if they were employed and were actually contributing something positive to the communities they live in as opposed to juvenile publicity seeking activites where inject themselves as the story, someone might take them seriously.

I for one am sick of hearing about the shortcomings of Senator Thune. I think it’s time for the Hildebrand Boys to move on and grow up. I’m sure that will be somewhat difficult for these boys to do that, since their mentor/guru still hasn’t done so. These immature fraternity hi-jinx may be entertaining to some, but what have any of these boys done that has really made a positive difference?

Who can take anyone seriously whose biggest accomplishment for the day is typing a couple of sentences about how important they are because they’re in another state spreading more bitterness and hate. Time to move on boys, you’re looking more than a little ridiculous at this point. And really, nobody cares what you’re doing.

More:

I’d like to elaborate a little further on some of the behind the scenes blogging activities of the Hildebrand Boys. Blog Central is located at Steve Hildebrand’s office in the Crane building in Sioux Falls South Dakota. These boys may appear to be operating their own blogs, but all indications are that this is a tightly controlled system put together for the sole purpose of perpetuating a "Permanent Hateful, Vulgar, Profane, Manipulative, Predatory, Bitter and Extremely Secretive Campaign having nothing to do with any important issues. For anyone visiting these sites or posting comments, you should be cautioned that only hateful, ugly and bitter comments are welcome and only about Senator Thune.

Oh, if you happen to have some information that is related to some "friends" of Senator Thune that meets the criteria, but if you veer off of the subject(hate, vulgarity,bitterness) too much and get into issues that are important, but don’t focus on the hate and bitterness, the welcome mat will definitely be yanked out from under you. This is vital information for newcomers to the blogging world. Unless you want to fall victim to the Hildebrand Owned and Operated Bitterness Boys, I wouldn’t recommend providing your e-mail address or any other information required prior to posting on these sites.

This group’s slick set-up is an illusion. A group of young, ambitious, smart political types and a little humor thrown in to reel in those not attracted to the vile venom being spewed. If bitterness or humor aren’t for you, they offer their youth and charm with a certain amount of manipulation for good measure.

If the heat gets to be too much, they take the site down until it passes, put it back up as a new and improved version of bitterness and hate and start the cycle all over again. This entire process is the creation of this Darth Vader Wannabe himself, Steve Hildebrand who really needs to stop reading and believing his own publicity. He also needs to get a real job and stop sponging off of Tom Daschle, who seems to be embarassed by the Hildebrand Boys. If he isn’t he should be.

I find it interesting that these boys talk about the John Thune and his shortcomings, but if their many and obvious lapses in judgements are pointed out, there are accusations of homosexuality, which is also interesting coming from a group that would like us to think they are progressive thinkers. They have thrown these homosexual accusations out without regard to the feelings of someone who might actually be gay. This middle school mentality needs to be talked about outside of the political discourse. The results of their ugly and vicious actions don’t get addressed because we dismiss this as just part of the political process.

We have to stop not only participating in this bitterness and hate, it’s also important to recognize this group for what they are. Unemployed, bitter,narrow minded(not progressive thinkers),smarmy,disengenuous,spongers off of Tom Daschle that need to grow up and start contributing something positive to society.

Ouch.

 

More from the Insufferable Sisters of Moral Presumption

I got this off of The Corner at NRO:

From Justin Torres, Susan's brother in law (written before her daughter's birth and her death):

In this midst of this tragedy and the grief that lingers like a context, like a fog, over every conversation and meal and moment in the hospital, we have hope. Doctors believe that they may be able to save this baby, keeping Susan alive long enough to deliver the child prematurely. It is no more than a fighting chance, far less than a certainty, that the baby will live. But we have hope. Keeping this baby alive is Susan's last act of love, one that has been tremendously moving to watch even as it makes you question everything you thought you knew about the fundamental justice of the world.

But this is where abortion, and the utilitarian mindset that it engenders concerning the sanctity of human life, steals its way into this tragedy. I think of it as "the moment," the little whisper of hesitation, shared not just by the doctors but even by my family. It's the moment in which you think, is this right? Are we doing the right thing? Wouldn't it just be better to let go, start over, find closure?

Once the soothing clichés start, it is difficult to make them stop. You have to force yourself to remember: this is a child's life. And children are always a good thing, devoutly to be wished for and fiercely to be fought for.

For my family, the moment was no more than a hiccup. Still, it is clear that for some of the doctors involved in this case, the decisions my brother and Susan's parents have made are foolish. That is the effect of abortion: that it has in various, subtle ways sapped the intrinsic human impulse to fight for the good of children.

I don't wish to be too harsh, and I certainly do not wish to suggest that these doctors - many of whom have taken enormous and personal interest in Susan's case - are in any way agents of the culture of death. These doctors are trained to assess chances and deploy resources where they are most effective. I respect that. We are here to fight; it's their job to tell us the truth and give us their realistic assessment. And many of them are fighting alongside us, to my immense gratitude.

But I wonder. Fifty years ago, medicine could not have done what we are trying to do. But I suspect that if it could have been done, no one then would have hesitated. The answer would have been, Of course, we must try to save the child, because saving children is what medicine is meant to do.

Thirty years after Roe, we have not yet fully come to understand all the ways that abortion has distorted our culture, coarsened it, made it less loving and less noble. The moment of hesitation I describe is the culture of death whispering insinuations at us. It is important that we continue to shout truth from the rooftops to drown out its voice.

By the way  David, sisters aren't cloistered, nuns are (wink!), and yes, there is a difference.

Biker Dude

Scott Waltman of the Aberdeen American News has a Sturgis Rally blog up and running.  He'll be heading out to Sturgis in a few days.  Check out his site and if you have interesting Sturgis stories, let him know.  He'll make you famous. 

Pappy Boyington Would Be Proud

A couple of my numerous brothers were at the EAA air show in Oshkosh, WI.  How about a picture of a Corsair?  And yes, I had to ask what kind of plane this is.  They're the airplane nuts, not me.

Is Herseth In Trouble?

I tend to think not, but am ready to be proven wrong.  There some rumblings here and here.  Certainly the earlier you get to an incumbent the better, so if Republicans are interested in taking back that seat, I suggest they run a high quality candidate in 2006.  Herseth may have as much trouble within her party as without, since there is still bad blood between her camp and the Daschle camp, and Herseth dang near ran as a pro-choice Republican in 2004.  I would say we might as well have a real Republican instead of one who only sounds like one from time to time.  Personally I think we could do much worse than Herseth, and also much better. 

Did Herseth say oil was the reason for going to war in Iraq?  Here's the quote (and here's the story):

Cleo Johnston of Huron asked if the Iraq involvement was related to oil production.

“I think it was a factor,” [Herseth] said, “but not the primary rationale in going after Saddam Hussein.”

That seems like a reasonable position to me, especially because I happen to share it.  A war must be fought for the right intention (to right a wrong) but it does not have to be devoid of self-interest in order to be just.  As Thomas Barnett argues:

Whenever I field that "blood-for-oil" question from audiences, I typically respond, "Hell, yes, it's all about oil.  Thank God it's all about the oil.  Because I can show you parts of the world where there isn't any oil, and there's plenty of people dying, and no one seems to care whatsoever."

Barnett also makes this point: A show of hands of all of those who don't use any petroleum dependent or petroleum based products? Yep, that's what I thought.

BTW, my employer does not endorse what I say, and I don't necessarily endorse all who quote me. 

It Would Take A Miracle

A brain dead woman gives birth.  No, not Brittany Spears. 

Herseth: War for Oil?

Stephanie Herseth was in Huron and said that oil was a "factor" in going to war in Iraq. 

Historic Highway Bill for South Dakota

From the Aberdeen American News:

Thune: S.D. to get record-level funding

Senator visits Aberdeen, discusses highway bill

A record level of funding coming to South Dakota in the new highway bill will bring more money to the state than the congressional delegation could have expected before work on the legislation was finished, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Tuesday in Aberdeen.

Why did it take so long to get a highway bill?  Because of Senate/Daschle obstruction:

More Daschle Blame Game

This time on the federal highway bill:

"Now it's up to the Senate," [Congressman] Young said. "It's being held up by Tom Daschle. I don't think he can withstand that pressure over a long period of time because this is important to the nation."

Daschle, D-S.D., is the Senate's minority party leader. His spokeswoman, Sarah Feinberg, said Daschle is not holding up the bill and wants to see it passed. The main problem, she said, is that the Republican leaders and the White House can't agree on the right funding level.

"This is a Republican problem right now," she said.

More:

But Young said he is mystified by the opposition he perceives from Daschle.

"I've worked closely with my Democratic friends. This is a nonpartisan bill, and I don't understand it," Young said.

Young said the Senate can't appoint conferees unless Daschle agrees to a motion to do so. So far, Democrats have objected to such motions, raising the specter of a time-consuming filibuster on the floor.

Young noted that the Senate could shut down the filibuster. But that takes 60 votes to pass a "cloture" motion, a difficult hurdle with the Senate parties split 51-49.

Young said he thinks the 60 votes could be found, though.

"I think what will happen if we ever have a cloture vote again, you'll see some of the senators peeling off and (Daschle) won't be able to filibuster," Young said.

Daschle's spokeswoman, Feinberg, said her boss continued negotiations on the highway bill with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday.

It's good to have a Senator who is getting things done instead of blocking everything. 

War College on Never-Ending Politics

PP at South Dakota War College:

First off, the campaign against John Thune has yet to end. After Abdnor, and for the most part, up until Thune and Governor Janklow ran for open congressional seats on separate occasions, Republicans had taken it in the shorts on nearly every attempt to oust an incumbent in a federal office. Volk, Frankenfeld, Timmer, Haar, Berkhout, Schmidt, etc.

The list is long, and the string of losses year... after year... after year would really tend to dampen one's spirit. But, we'd suck it up and keep a stiff upper lip and move on to prepare for the next election.

But the former/current Daschle bloggers keep fighting the last campaign...

Wal-Mart: Good Economic Sense

A couple business administration nerds defend Wal-Mart on economic grounds in the NYT.  Wal-Mart is especially good for the poor.  Money quotes:

With two-thirds of Wal-Mart stores in rural areas, this means that Wal-Mart saves its consumers something like $16 billion a year. And because Wal-Mart's presence forces the store's competitors to charge lower prices as well, this $16 billion figure understates the company's real impact by at least half.

These kinds of savings to customers far exceed the costs that Wal-Mart supposedly imposes on society by securing subsidies, destroying jobs in competing stores, driving employees toward public welfare systems and creating urban sprawl. Even if these offenses could all be ascribed to Wal-Mart, their costs wouldn't add up to anything like $16 billion.

And then:

Is such pro-consumerism a good thing?  The answer depends on who these consumers are, and Wal-Mart's customers tend to be the Americans who need the most help. Our research shows that Wal-Mart operates two-and-a-half times as much selling space per inhabitant in the poorest third of states as in the richest third. And within that poorest third of states, 80 percent of Wal-Mart's square footage is in the 25 percent of ZIP codes with the greatest number of poor households. Without the much-maligned Wal-Mart, the rural poor, in particular, would pay several percentage points more for the food and other merchandise that after housing is their largest household expense.

Will Janklow Practice Law Again?

Twin Cities Pioneer:

The State Bar's Disciplinary Board recommended Tuesday that former South Dakota Gov. and U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow should regain his license to practice law next February.

If the state Supreme Court accepts that recommendation, it would mean Janklow would be reinstated to practice law about a year before his probation ends for second-degree manslaughter and other convictions related to an August 2003 crash that killed a motorcycle driver.

For Those Who Have No Life

It's like election night 2004 all over again.  I am watching results from Ohio's 2nd District.  You can find them both here and here.  The second site is Hamilton County, OH, and that is where Ohio's  Secretary of State sends you.  Right now it's very close, with the Republican with a lead of only a few hundred.  The biggest counties are in, and they have gone for the Republican.  The smaller counties are still reporting, but they are going for the Democrat.  At a minimum, it seems as though our left-wing blogger buddies have done their job getting the Democratic vote out. I should point out that they only have 22% turnout for this special election.  Heck, in Aberdeen we had better than twice that amount for a piddly little city election in June. 

Update: The latest numbers have all counties in but one.  The Republican, Jean Schmidt, is up 900 votes and the one county left to count appears to be a Republican county (it has 52% of precincts in and Schmidt has 56% of the vote).  It looks like it'll be tomorrow before we know, if even then.  A recount seems likely.   

Another update: The last county, which turns out to have been Jean Schmidt's home county, came in big for her, evidently giving her a narrow win. 

Last update: Polipundit has a brief analysis. 

More Anti-Catholicism From The Left

Ross Douthat has a fun and insightful parsing of an anti-Catholic screed by Christopher Hitchens. 

Epp, We Hardly Knew Ya

Todd Epp has approvingly linked to this article which compares conservative Christians to Nazis and claims that America is on its way to a Fascist regime.  He comments:

Really, really long and really, really good.  You'll be nodding in agreement throughout this post--and scared for our nation after reading this.  Today's must read "Must Read."

I think Todd has a good site.  The most impressive thing about him is his combination of zeal for his position and his moderation in tone.  That's why it is surprising that he approvingly posts this hate filled article.  Todd is right about one thing: it's really long.  I will post just a couple snippets. The article claims that Hitler was a dedicated Christian who sought to promote a vibrant public faith. To wit:

The prodigious work accomplished by Hitler was done in the name of positive Christianity with positive Christians at its helm. Hitler's Christianity was pro-active, committed to the needy (as long as they were Germans and were not mentally ill, communists, union leaders, "German Jews,” genetically deficient, and a host of other deviants). But, he sure knew how to put up a great show of it—and the vast majority of the German people utterly adored the man and, as the War wore on—followed him into the flames of Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and countless other cities where mayhem, death and destruction abounded.

And America, with the hands of proto-fascist Christians like Bush and company around its collective throat, is on the verge of its own encounter with Nazism:

It is my firm conviction that this is precisely what is happening in America today. The appeal to the Christian religion in the battle “against evil” within the West is NOT an historic first! Don't be so quick to terminate this reading—let me explain. Who are those who most clearly understand the language of THE AXIS OF EVIL? Who are those who clearly grasp the "spiritual reality" behind Islamic terrorism? The current President is no fool in appealing to the most religious in leading his charge against the forces of evil that assail the current drama. The appeal to religious unity in the face of extremity is manifested in Islamic Jihad—Holy War. But, this appeal is far more sinister and powerful when placed in the hands of a "Christian President" about to inspire the faithful—far more potent is its impress. There is a righteous finality connected with it—a more sure word—an unseen and unmistaken cause behind this necessary action whose appeal is Ultimate and Conclusive. God, and God alone, is my judge—and you are "either for us or against us"—there is no compromise, there is no wavering between two opinions—LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT—OUR CAUSE IS JUST!

It would take a post of monumental length to respond to this article, and I have neither the time nor the patience for such a post (you're welcome).  So let me try to be as brief as possible.  The idea that a Germany steeped in Nietzsche, Rilke, Wagner and Heidegger was captured in the throes of the Christian evangelist named Hitler is stupid beyond belief.  The author fails to note that Hitler was the master propagandist.  The effective propagandist wraps his absurdity in the truth, and so Hitler recognized the value of Christian language for a people who still wore the window dressing of Christianity.  The author repeats the libels against Pius XII, which I will leave unremarked upon except to direct you to this essay by South Dakota's own Joseph Bottum on the subject. 

The essence of this article is an unalloyed bigotry towards Christians, and Catholics in particular.  The idea that America is on the precipice of a fanatical Christian overthrow of its liberal democratic regime is the product of a deranged mind.   I spend an inordinate amount of time in orthodox/conservative Catholic circles and know my fair share of conservative Protestants.  I can say with total confidence that these are the most decent, loving, and charitable people I have ever known.  The idea that just beneath the surface lies a cruel hatred ready to destroy the American republic is a product of pure ignorance or pure bigotry.  I know first hand the gentleness and kindness of various priests in the Sioux Falls diocese and it is shameful to associate them and their Church with the evil of Hitler.  They and their parishioners and their Protestant brethren are not perfect, but they are a force for good in our country.  I point out that the leading arguments against eugenics and the manipulation of human life for our own selfish needs comes from the religious right, not the religious left.  Kreig says:

Hitler's depiction of Jesus as the FIGHTER, not as the sufferer, is a distortion of the Scriptural intent of this reading; however, without knowing the full contextual nature of the Word, one could (as Hitler did) surmise a MILITANT JESUS is in view, and not a suffering Jesus.

This view of Jesus as militant has more in common with the Marxist inspired liberation theology of Central and South American than it does with orthodox Catholicism (indeed it was denounced by John Paul II) or evangelical Protestantism.  I point out as a matter of fact it getting conservative Christians, especially evangelicals, politically involved in the 1970s was difficult precisely because of a religious distain for politics as being too "worldly."   

 

Just this morning I finished James Hitchcock's two volume The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (Vl 1 and VL 2).  This fearful commingling of religion and state that so worries this Doug Krieger is, in a certain manner, deep in the tradition of the nation.  Hitchcock writes:

Despite the Establishment Clause, the principle American tradition was one of alliance between religion and politics, since God, whose will was manifested through democratic processes, had anointed the nation as his agent in history. Church and state did not compete with each other, which allowed public officials to treat religion favorably and to draw inspiration from it.  The chief support for this civil religion came not from political institutions but from the religious community itself, which in turn influenced politics.  For most Americans of the nineteenth century, the distinction between "public" and "private" religion would have been unintelligible, since religion was assumed to influence social and political life.  What was originally called "public religion" has been characterized as Protestant in tone and congregationalist in form, inculcating virtue and republican principles. 

Hitchcock further notes (as does Philip Hamburger) that the separationist doctrine embraced by the Court post-WWII  had powerful antecedents in anti-Catholicism of such men as former Klansman Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas.  The motive of the article commented on here is to drive religion into the closet making it a matter of mere personal taste.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there has been nary an important social movement in American history, be it abolitionism, temperance, women's suffrage, the progressive economic justice movement of the early 20th century, and the civil rights movement of the 1950s, that was not motivated to a significant degree by Christians (mostly evangelical) who were motivated by a belief that their Christianity called them to work for greater justice in the world.   I direct you to this post where I pointed out that John Kerry himself defends the importance of faith in shaping his public policy views. 

The article Todd links to is filled with half-truths, downright falsehoods (the Pope is crowned?), and thinly veiled bigotry.  If Todd does not agree with this article he should repudiate it.  If he does agree, then I am sorry to say I have lost much respect for him and I believe he should be shamed out of legitimate political discourse. 

Bully for Imperialism!!

If you want to defend imperialism you could do worse than this bit from Monty Python's Life of Brian.  I actually read this scene in class this past Spring when we read Niall Ferguson's Colossus: The Price of America's Empire which is a defense of liberal empire.  Now it turns out someone has  updated Monty Python for the war on terrorism.  It's still funny. 

Have You Forgotten We're at War?

There is a nice reminder about the reality of terrorism here and one by Karl Zinmeister here.

Its Ok to be A Communist Spy

It occurs to me that leftists have to be a lot more psychologically complicated that conservatives.  They write glowing biographies of Fidel Castro, a man who, after all, imprisoned homosexuals and made them wear funny clothes.  Surely that requires some skilled compartmentalizing. 

This by Ruth Price from the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Agnes Smedley was one of the most significant American women of the 20th century, a flamboyant journalist, feminist, and political activist who made historic contributions to letters and politics on three continents.  . . .If Smedley is remembered at all, she is recalled by a circle of conservative scholars and journalists who passionately declaim that during her years in China in the 1930s, she was active in the Moscow-based Comintern, which provided leadership for the world revolution that she and many of her colleagues on the left believed would occur in their lifetime. Her conservative critics maintain that she also worked for Soviet military intelligence. With equal fervor, some leftists argue that Smedley, like other figures accused of Soviet espionage over the past 50 years, was a tragic victim of a McCarthyite smear.

Guess what?  The conservatives were right. 

The opening of the Comintern files in Moscow in the early 1990s, along with my own work with Project Mask Decriptions, a newly released set of declassified Comintern messages, has confirmed what I began unearthing in Year Seven of my research using less politically charged German, American, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese sources. Over 25 years and on three continents, Smedley not only worked for the Comintern and Soviet military intelligence, but circa World War I she also was in the employ of the German imperial government while aiding the Indian independence movement.

Now here is something new.  An American  communist who cut her teeth working for the Kaiser! But that shouldn't blacken the reputation of this "extraordinary" woman. 

Unlike most of the other Americans whose lives warrant further scrutiny in light of the documentary evidence now available, Smedley worked for the Soviet Union, but her activities were not directed against the United States. She was a spy, but not a traitor, although Smedley herself would not have cared for such distinctions. The work she was doing, she believed, ultimately transcended the boundaries of nationalism and ideology to embrace humanity's more universal struggles [my emphasis].

I suppose people who spied for their country's enemies probably do think they are above such vulgar distinctions as "spy" and "traitor."  But what about that spy for the Imperial German Government bit?  Was that transcending "the boundaries of nationalism and ideology to embrace humanity's more universal struggles"? 

You have to hand it to Ms. Price.  She has a complicated world view.

Postscript: I was being somewhat unfair to Ms. Price.  However strange her attempts to salvage Ms. Smedley's reputation, she was scrupulously honest about the record.  That is something to admire in any political writing.

The Energy Bill Blog Wars: An Update

CCK has remained silent after the latest rebuttal by Quentin. 

Also, Dennis Ross has corrected her statement.

Quentin 1, CCK 0, Ross 0.

New Drudgish Blog

See the new South Dakota blog the "Jim River Report."

Todd Epp: Hildebrand “is kind of behind some of this"

South Dakota liberal blogger Todd Epp conceded the obvious last weekend when he told Robert Novak that former/current Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand (who is still being paid by Daschle) was orchestrating the blog attacks on Senator Thune.  Novak said:

The 2004 Senate victory in South Dakota of Republican John Thune over then Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle did not end the bitter election campaign. Since the election, at least five South Dakota blogs have appeared with the only apparent purpose of attacking Thune.

Former Daschle staffers openly run two of the blogs, and two others are anonymous. A fifth is run by Todd Epp, who did part-time legal work for Daschle’s campaign. Epp told this column that Steve Hildebrand, Daschle’s campaign manager, learned from Thune’s use of paid bloggers in 2004 and now “is kind of behind some of this.”

A footnote: In its July quarterly report, the Daschle campaign reported more than $1 million in post-election spending, including a $2,000-a-month salary for Hildebrand and thousands more for his consulting firm.

Before Novak's column ran, the still anonymous former Daschle supporters outed themselves.  As Novak indicated, the group of former Daschle staffers working under Hildebrand work very closely together.  Professor Schaff said this morning that they all went out to Ohio to work in a Congressional election being held tomorrow. 

McGovern & the Legacy of Liberalism

tdaxp:

The Senator [George McGovern] recently surfaced in Missoula of all places, speaking just like the McGovernator all South Dakotans know and refuse to vote for

"I'm a Democrat and a liberal," McGovern said, adding, "I'm sure I wasn't just revealing a secret. And I'm the worst kind of liberal - a bleeding-heart liberal."

Yes, Senator, you are, and the American and South Dakotan people told you exactly what they think of that

McGovern painted the country Red

Though perhaps he's a bit more conspiracy minded than before:

The nation needs a strong conservative movement to balance the liberal force, he said. What [America] doesn't need, [McGovern] said, is people claiming to be either neo-conservative or neo-liberal. Such people are masking their true intentions, particularly with regards to U.S. involvement in the Iraq war.

South Dakotans Try to Influence Ohio

There is a special election in Ohio tomorrow to fill the seat of Republican Rob Portman who has become US Trade Representative.  By my count four of the left-wing blogs in South Dakota are silent because they are in Ohio working for the Democratic candidate.  The proprietors of Clean Cut Kid, ThuneWatch, Politics in a Dangerous World, and Don't Worry About the Government are all in Ohio as we speak.  I don't know who is going to win this election.  I understand that the Democrat is doing quite well in what is normally a strong Republican district.  But I would point out that many pundits chalked up John Kerry's loss in Ohio to the fact that he relied on outside people from MoveOn and Americans Coming Together to do his campaign's work rather than using local people like the Bush campaign did.  Looks like the Democrats are repeating the error. I wonder if the residents of Ohio's 2nd District would be interested in knowing that the Democratic candidate is importing his workers from out of state? 

The Achievement of John Thune

My SDP colleague Quentin Riggins has been struggling with CCK about the Energy Bill and whose fault it was that it didn't pass last time.  If Quentin is right, and it seems clear that he is, then it is largely Daschle's fault that the Bill didn't pass last year.  If CCK is right, the Republicans could have had a bill long before now.  What is really at stake here is how much credit to give the Thune win/Daschle defeat. 

But I submit that this piece by Charles Babington  and Justin Blum in Saturday's Washington Post is dispositive of the question. 

After years of partisan impasses and legislative failures, Congress in a matter of hours yesterday passed or advanced three far-reaching bills that will allocate billions of dollars and set new policies for guns, roads and energy.

The measures sent to President Bush for his signature will grant $14.5 billion in tax breaks for energy-related matters and devote $286 billion to transportation programs, including 6,000 local projects, often called "pork barrel" spending. The Senate also passed a bill to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from various lawsuits. The House is poised to pass it this fall.

Combined with the Central American Free Trade Agreement that Congress approved Thursday, the measures constitute significant victories for Bush and GOP congressional leaders, who have been frustrated by Democrats in some areas such as Social Security.

Apart from the question of what role Daschle and Thune personally played in this matter, consider two undeniable political facts:

First: Much of this legislation is very generous to South Dakota.

Second: None of it passed until Daschle had been replaced by Republicans.

The Republican's net gain of three other seats obviously helped, but neither friend nor foe of Daschle will deny that his influence and skill were extraordinary.  For better or worse the Daschle Democrats had an agenda that centered almost exclusively on obstruction.  By defeating Daschle, Thune did more than anyone else to break the logjam.  That's an achievement that our colleagues in the asinusphere (from equus asinus, or donkey), cannot argue away.

 

The New Senate

Washington Post:

Shackled for months by a familiar brand of Washington gridlock, President Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress last week suddenly found a key. A long-stalled energy bill, an international trade accord and a massive highway appropriations measure all moved to passage -- handing big victories to business interests and quieting talk that a second-term president was bereft of influence.

This surprising midsummer rush of legislating made clear that the reality of Washington's current balance of power is more complicated than surface appearances. On the most highly charged ideological issues -- the proposed restructuring of Social Security, chief among them -- a unified Democratic opposition has stymied Bush, creating an impression of GOP impotence. On less partisan measures backed by powerful economic interests, Republicans have benefited from enough Democratic support to advance their agenda in expensive and far-reaching ways.

Judicial Activism

Mike Rosen of the Rocky Mountain News:

At the heart of the battle is the growing movement of judicial activism by liberals on the bench. Lacking majority support and unable to implement their political agenda through the democratic process in federal and state legislatures, Democrats have turned to the courts, enlisting activist liberal judges to reinterpret the Constitution and statutes according to their personal preferences, legislating by judicial fiat. On the other side, are conservative judges who believe they should be guided by the original intent of the Constitution and the law. If times and circumstances have changed, the appropriate remedy is to pass new legislation or officially amend the Constitution by the prescribed process. The floodgates of judicial activism were opened in 1954 with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling, outlawing segregation in public schools. This may have been good and just public policy, but it was terrible jurisprudence, setting an activist precedent that has since accelerated. The appropriate means to end segregation should have been through legislation or a new constitutional amendment. It might have taken longer, but it would have maintained the integrity of the court. The ends don't justify the means. Rather than relying on any principles of constitutional law, the exceedingly liberal Earl Warren court cited social science theory as its justification. This is confirmed by the New York Times headline the next day heralding the Brown decision: "A Sociological Decision: Court Founded Its Segregation Ruling on Hearts and Minds Rather Than Laws."

As a footnote:  Alexander Hamilton remarked in The Fedrealist, No. 78, that the basic principle was that the Constitution should be seen as "fundamental law" and the role of the courts was to "ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body"  (it took the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison to give legal effect to this idea).  I would agree with Mr. Hamilton that the courts are to interpret the "fundamental law" and not, for instance, to assert their control in private affairs.

Clearing up the confusion on the energy bill

I continue to be awed by what can only be sheer disingenuousness or an incredible level of diminished capacity on the part of the embittered former Daschle staffers/bloggers regarding the efforts (or lack thereof) since November of 2003 to pass an energy bill.  Even Denise Ross at Mt. Blogmore can't seem to get her facts straight on the matter, as can be readily observed by her recent post.  (What's up with that nonsense about Delay blocking the bill in conference, Denise?  The conference report is what passed on Friday.  Get your facts straight.)

On November 21, 2003, the Senate failed by two votes to invoke cloture on the conference report to an energy bill.  This bill included a provision to protect MTBE manufacturers from liability, but DID NOT INCLUDE a provision for drilling in ANWR.  You can read the conference report yourself right here.  You can search high and low through it for a provision on ANWR, but you'll never find it.  Yet embittered former Daschle staffer Chad Schuldt keeps on saying ANWR was included in this bill, and won't issue a correction.

The embittered former Daschle staffers also keep on saying that the fact that the MTBE provision was included in the 2003 energy bill is why Daschle failed to use his clout to get two more Democratic votes to invoke cloture.  If the MTBE provision had not been included, they say, Daschle could have gotten the votes to invoke cloture.  That statement contradicts the following facts, which the embittered former Daschle staffers seem to have difficulty grasping (or worse, they are willfully ignoring the following facts in order to inflict another cheap shot on Senator Thune).

On April 29, 2004, the Senate was presented with the opportunity to vote on the energy bill again, this time without the MTBE provision or the ANWR provision.  And once again, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the energy bill, despite the fact that it DID NOT INCLUDE either the MTBE provision or the ANWR provision.  I strongly encourage readers to click on the following link to the roll call vote to see for themselves that this was most definitely NOT "just an ethanol amendment": Roll Call Vote #74.  The statement of purpose for the amendment is "To enhance energy conservation and research and development and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people."  Obviously, that's not just an ethanol amendment, as embittered former Daschle staffer Schuldt falsely states in yet another post on the matter.  Here's what he says:

The “bill” Thune’s supporters are pointing to was an ethanol amendment, and not the energy bill at all.

That's an utterly false, inaccurate statement, borne out of ignorance or a willful disregard of the facts.  Follow the links from Roll Call Vote #74.  Look in the pages of the April 28, 2004 Congressional Record at the text of the amendment (pp. S4506 to 4605).  This indeed was a vote on the energy bill.  Significantly, nowhere will you find a provision on MTBE liability protection or ANWR drilling in this bill.  The fact is, an energy bill without MTBE or ANWR was defeated on April 29, 2004, which completely contradicts the assertion that Daschle could have gotten the necessary votes to pass the energy bill had those provisions not been in the bill. 

Where does that leave us?  Since Daschle's ouster, an energy bill has now passed and will soon become the law of the land.  Before Daschle's ouster, an energy bill could not get passed, even one that did not contain the controversial MTBE and ANWR provisions.  Despite the tendentious claims and outright falsehoods by the embittered former Daschle staffers, the energy bill, with its ethanol provisions so important for South Dakota, could not have become law without the critical support, hard work, and effectiveness of Senator John Thune.

Wise Words

I have been meaning to get around to posting this column by my colleague Art Marmorstein, which is based on the thoughts of a former colleague, Jerry Rosonke.  The headline is "Face Life Decisions With Ethics, Morals" and it gets better from there.  I particularly like this part:

However, personal responsibility, as high a goal as it is - is not sufficient - it is not enough. In the Old Testament story of Cain and Abel, the culprit attempts to evade responsibility by answering a question with a question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" I think the framework of the parable makes the answer quite obvious.

An English statesman, Edmund Burke, said that all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to remain silent.

Today, the criminologist John Conklin states, "Show me a society were everyone minds their own business - and I will show you a society with a very high crime rate."

Just as we need personal responsibility, we also need social responsibility. Total individual freedom is an impossibility. Individual freedom cannot be maintained in social chaos. Thus the essence of society is the creation of rules whereby we live.

I don't know  how tthese ideas were intended by their author, but I take it to be a shot across the bow of the libertarian right and the libertine left.   Communitarians of the world unite! 

World Opinion On United States

While George Bush struggles in domestic public opinion, the US seems to be improving in its standing in the world. As they say, read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:

The public opinion poll was conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, hardly a bastion of neocon zealotry. (It's co-chaired by Madeleine Albright.) Over the last three years, Pew surveys have charted surging anti-Americanism in response to the invasion of Iraq and other actions of the Bush administration. But its most recent poll — conducted in May, with 17,000 respondents in 17 countries — also found evidence that widespread antipathy is abating.

The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.

What accounts for this shift? The answer varies by country, but analysts point to waning public anger over the invasion of Iraq, gratitude for the massive U.S. tsunami relief effort and growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy.

We'd all want the United States to be even more well liked in the world, but this is a good sign.  As Bernard Lewis has put it (and I paraphrase), "It's difficult to rich, powerful and successful, and be loved by those who are poor, weak, and unsuccessful."  But it all starts with baby steps I suppose.  I want to comment concerning "growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy."  For decades, particularly during the Cold War, the US supported many undemocratic regimes in the name of a larger global strategy.  I don't have a problem with this.  Sometimes you have to support rotten governments because the alternative is worse.  This is what the US concluded in such places as El Salvador, the Philippines, and (wrongly it turned out) South Africa.  But when you make such deals with the devil, it is incumbent on you to clean up the mess at the earliest possible moment.  This what the US did in Panama with Noriega (who used to be on the CIA payroll) and more recently with Sadaam Hussein.  But support for unsavory regimes, which is no doubt sometimes necessary (see our current support for Musharraf in Pakistan), means that the US can rightly be held by much of the world as having a double standard.  I think Bush is finally getting across to parts of the world that he is serious about promoting democracy around the globe, starting in the Middle East.  The Bush administration has concluded that the best way to keep American safe is to promote democracy and total inclusion into the global economy.  I think that policy is fraught with peril, but is the least bad of all options.  I was part of a panel at  my place of employment to watch and discuss the film Fahrenheit 9-11 (neither the film nor my opinions were endorsed by the university).  One of the left leaning panel members described the Bush policy I just outlined (promoting democracy) as "ethnocentric".  I found that an odd argument to be coming from an American.  Since when is the idea that "the yearning for freedom beats in every human heart", as Bush likes to say, an "ethnocentric" view?  Since when is the idea that all peoples deserve democracy "ethnocentric"?  Which peoples in the world don't deserve democracy?  It used to be right-wing racists who would claim that some people aren't fit for democracy.  Now, the idea that democracy is just for some and not for others might be true, but it does put one at war with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which claims to be true for all people for all times. And the one can claim that the self-evident truths of the Declaration are self-evident falsehoods, but I am not sure I'd want to run for office on that plank. 

A Book Review from a Devoted Reader

Essie Mae Washington-Williams was raised in Pennsylvania believing that her aunt and uncle were her parents. Imagine her shock when her aunt’s younger sister came to visit and announced she was actually Essie Mae’s mother. Imagine her shock several years later when she was introduced to her biological father, Strom Thurmond. Like Tiger Woods, who is half Chinese, quarter American Indian, and quarter black, Washington-Williams is what so many Americans are, products of the melting pot of America.  She is black and white and has come to embrace that fact, but it took a long time to reach that conclusion.

In Dear Senator: a Daughter’s Memoir co written by William Stadiem, Washington-Williams recalls how she wanted to hate her father after meeting him and learning about his ancestry. The grandson of a general who was with Robert E. Lee when he surrendered at Appomattox, and the son of a lawyer who was the point man for Ben “pitchfork” Tillman, a patrician segregationist who became a much feared governor of South Carolina, Strom Thurmond didn’t have the pedigree to impress his daughter. Later, when he ran as a Dixiecrat for states’ rights during the 1948 presidential election, Washington-Williams was appalled that her father defended segregation laws as “essential to the racial protection and purity of the white and Negro races alike.”

But Washington-Williams found her father to be very complicated. She was convinced her parents loved each other, but couldn’t express it in the segregationist South. He took care of both her mother and her in private. Thurmond paid for his daughter’s college education and later supplemented her income, especially after her husband died. Strom Thurmond had a paternal feeling for black South Carolinians and insisted they were not inferior, but “different.” They could not have the respect and admiration of their white counterparts until they were properly educated. And he believed education was the key to success, having started the first law school for blacks in South Carolina. Washington-Williams’ husband could never forgive Thurmond after his Dixiecrat candidacy, and Thurmond couldn’t understand why he was so hated by black Americans. He was a product of the old South, yet he wanted to improve the lives of all South Carolinians

After Thurmond became a Goldwater Republican in 1964, he never mentioned segregation again and turned his attention to the economy and the threat of Communism. He was one of the first southern senators to hire a black aide, who was a former union organizer and a NAACP voting drive leader. The press said it was tokenism, but Thurmond seemed to be changing along with the times, and Essie Mae Washington-Williams hoped she was influencing him. In 1974, Thurmond became the first southern senator to appoint a black to a federal judgeship. He was trying to right wrongs, but many Americans could never forget the wrongs.

Theirs was never a close father-daughter relationship. They both felt they had to “know their place.” But after Thurmond died and Washington-Williams came out publicly as his daughter, she came to know his family and her desire to know the history of blacks in America became insatiable. In Dear Senator: a Daughter’s Memoir the very confusing psychology of the South is at least partially explained and a lot of history that is not covered in school is presented. It is a satisfying read.