South Dakota Politics

The NARAL Diaster

The extent of the damage done by NARAL's slanderous ad against John Roberts is much greater than I would have predicted at the outset.  It has undermined one of the Democrat's most cherished conceits: that the other side is the dirty one. 

This is evident from Dana Milbank's piece in the Washington Post.  On the one hand, some Democratic power brokers clearly believe the line that the Democrats are the more honest party, and take the Machiavellian view that this is a character flaw.

"Republicans don't mind running an ad that's entirely false, but Democrats have never learned, and I'm not sure many of them want to learn, how to play that kind of politics," said Robert Shrum, an adviser to several Democratic presidential campaigns. NARAL had to pull the ad, he said, because "they weren't getting support from any substantial quarter."

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that "we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome." Lehane said the NARAL ad "was great, and exactly the type of offensive that breaks through in the modern age."

Shrum is disappointed that the Dems did not stand up behind the lies the add told.  Lehane positively admires the bald faced lying that NARAL engaged in.  Someone ought to point out to them that lies are rather less persuasive coming from someone who openly admires liars. 

The problem is that Democrats really want to believe that they have always taken the "high road" and that the other side is the nasty one.  Milbank points out the difficulty in this belief.

Few who remember the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or Newt Gingrich would assert that Democrats have trouble being mean. Nor are Democrats always inclined to eat their own: When Clinton was impeached, Democrats were almost unfailingly loyal, while Republicans have turned on party leaders such as Gingrich, Trent Lott and Bob Livingston.

It is hardly the case the Republican campaigns have been scrupulously honest.  But Stephen Bryer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were never subject to the treatment that is now routine for Republican nominees to the Courts.  Nor, as Milbank points out, have Republicans been as partisan when their own were found guilty of misbehavior.  Oddly enough, Republicans would never have had the courage to defend a President guilty of Bill Clinton's transgressions.

One line of defense that has emerged among Democrats is this: "Well, what about those swiftboat ads, huh?"  Milbank unwittingly points out the flaw in the argument.

Republicans, attacking the NARAL ad, trumpeted the finding of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org that the abortion group's ad was "false" and "misleading." But that same organization had labeled the Swift boat ads "dubious" and found "a serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers," which was at odds with military records.

You see that dubious is one thing; false is another.  Dubious implies suspect interpretation of facts.  False implies making up facts.  If this is the best that Democrats can come up with, Republicans must be a lot more scrupulous than I supposed. 

 

SDPR On "Permanent Campaign"

If you care to hear South Dakota Public Radio's story on the "permanent campaign" you need to get a life.  You can also go to this site and listen to it.  I think the most important information to come out of this story is that Todd Epp and I are both smarter than Larry Sabato. 

I will be on SDPR Forum over the noon hour this coming Thursday to talk about politics and religion.  I will evidently be on in the last segment, but before me they are planning on talking to John Green, who is one of the smarter guys on this subject.  Between now and then I will be in constant contact with the Vatican so they can tell me what I think. 

Nothing But Bells and Whistles

A reader passes on this very informative article about the success, or lack thereof, of technology in the classroom.  Read the whole thing, as they say.  There are some highlights:

These lackluster findings were consistent with middle school test results obtained after Maine gave laptops to every seventh and eighth grader in the state. Two years and $34 million dollars later, math scores improved slightly, while writing, reading, and science either dropped or didn't change. A University of Chicago study of the Internet's effect on California classrooms similarly found "no evidence" that Internet access had "any measurable effect on student achievement."

The problem isn't merely that we're wasting millions on excessive heaps of technology without any detectable academic benefit. A recent University of Munich study of 175,000 students in 31 countries concluded that students who use computers at school several times a week actually perform "sizably and statistically worse" as a result. Instead of furthering learning, computers appear more often to distract students from it, while simultaneously crowding out "traditional learning methods."

The last couple days I have been trying to find the appropriate gift for a friend's daughter who turns four tomorrow.  It is amazing how hard it is to find games that teach basic reading/writing skills that don't involve noise and flashing lights.  I mean, don't they make alphabet blocks anymore?  I settled for alphabet, phonics, and colors flash cards.  And can someone please explain what sicko buys this for a little girl? 

John Roberts and Voting Rights

As the NARAL slander plays itself out, there is a more subtle distortion being peddled about Roberts: that he opposed the Voting Rights Act.  See Richard Hansen in the LATimes, for the basic argument.  See Abigail Thernstrom for a reply.  What Roberts in fact opposed was a change in the VRA that required the creation of majority-minority districts, in which Black or Hispanic voters would be pooled to ensure them the power to choose their own candidates, in protection from the voting power of their fellow citizens.  It is fair of civil rights organizations and such to criticize Robert's view on this.  But it distorts the record to say that he opposed the Voting Rights Act.

That About Says It

I think Jonah Goldberg gets it about right on this Cindy Sheehan stuff:

Without getting into all the sub-arguments about Cindy Sheehan, I think she's a great example of the opportunism of partisanship. There's simply no way that establishment liberals would take the same tone if Bill Clinton were president under remotely similar circumstances. It is flatly inconceivable. Sure some of the Huffington Post types might make similar bleatings, but Juan Williams? No way. A lot of smart (and a lot of dumb) people who are striking a self-righteous pose when it comes to Sheehan, would undoubtedly be singing a different tune if a mother, adopted by ideological enemies of the president, were camping out outside of his vacation home (in Martha's Vineyard or the like) under similar circumstances. Her previously friendly statements about the president would be used to damn her and that would be the end of it. The nightly news wouldn't make her a hero and the lefty bloggers would write her off as a "Clinton hater," a Freeper, a Buchananite or some other example of the "paranoid style" in American politics.

Meanwhile, I am sure it's true that a lot of folks on the right would be taking up a "rightwing" Cindy Sheehan's cause. But the key difference is that the Washington Post, New York Times and nightly news shows wouldn't be volunteering as press agents.

Even giving Sheehan every benefit of the doubt, is it so impossible to understand that caving-in to publicity stunts of this sort is something presidents, Republican and Democrat, are naturally reluctant to do?

Some Graphs

Here are some graphs I found on eduction spending and performance.  These graphs took me about five minutes to find.  I love the Internet.

What Kind of Education?

I find Gov. Rounds' comments yesterday about education at once edifying and disturbing.  You can read about them here and here.  Clearly we need to do a better job of educating young people in math and science.  So on that the governor is correct.  I worry, though, that he puts too much emphasis on technology.  The only report I have seen on this came out of Israel and they found no relation to technology in the classroom and educational attainment.  The governor suggests that we set a goal of easing access to laptops for high school students. I respectfully submit as someone who has some knowledge about education in South Dakota that the computer skills of our students are the least of our worries.  The worrisome thing is that they cannot write well.  A colleague in the English department tells me that the vocabulary of a high school graduate is about half of what it was 40 years ago.  How do we expect our students to learn when they cannot understand many of the words they are supposed to read?  Their historical ignorance is disturbing.  All too many lack a basic idea about the institutions of our government.  All this is true not only for South Dakota but around the country.  The governor starts, I fear, from a false premise.  The purpose of education is not to make us competitive in a global market place.  We are not developing employees; we are trying to develop human beings and citizens.  There is almost no reason for specialized training in K-12 education.  I would submit that there is no reason for a student to touch a computer in the classroom until at least the ninth grade.  There is a myth out there that if it is technology it must be good.  But there is no evidence that I am aware of that computer programs for five-year-olds are any better at teaching the alphabet and basic reading than good old fashioned blocks.  Let the kids use their imagination and physically touch something, not just stare at a screen and let the computer do all the creativity for them. 

The governor seems to have fallen under the sway of Thomas Friedman.  This is dangerous.  For tough reviews of Friedman's latest book on globalism see here and here, but I warn you that there is harsh language in both reviews.  By harsh I mean "f-bombs" and the like.  I will point out that the second and more temperate review is by Thomas Barnett, who has become my lodestar on many questions of foreign policy and globalism. 

If we give our kids a solid education in fundamentals of writing, reading, math, science, history, and citizenship the competition with the world will take care of itself.  I also believe in funding the arts so as to give young people the experience of beautiful things and athletics to teach them the value of sacrifice and team work.  Finally, although I understand the 2010 E-Initiative is looking into increasing foreign language offerings across the state, the lack of foreign language education in our schools is nothing short of criminal.  One of the best ways to improve in English is to gain even a basic understanding of another language.  Most everything outside of these strictures is a distraction from the goal of developing good people and good citizens (to the extent those are different things).  It's bad enough that our universities are turning into professional schools, let's not do the same in elementary and secondary education.  I mentioned a Book TV interview coming up with Prof. Harvey Mansfield of Harvard.  Here are his thoughts on university curricula, which I think can inform our thoughts on K-12.  There is also the invaluable E.D. Hirsch and his emphasis on Core Knowledge.  Finally, I give hearty support to this initiative to get states to direct at least 65% of all education spending to the classroom.  The idea that we under fund education is another myth.  Compared to 50 years ago in real dollars we are spending about five times more per pupil in education.  The problem is that almost all that extra money goes towards bureaucracy.  South Dakota currently ranks 39th in the amount of education spending that makes it to the classroom.  Let's see if our legislators are willing to do something about that. 

NARAL Backs Down

The NARAL ad slandering John Roberts was taken off their website sometime yesterday, and NARAL has announced that it is withdrawing the ad altogether as soon as "the substitute ad is produced and made available." 

The reason is that the ad has been universally denounced as false.  If NARAL loses E.J.Dionne, Jonathan Chait, and David Newquist, who shall they keep?  Tip to Real Clear Politics.

Sore Loser Watch

The worst thing that the Party of the Second Part can come to believe about an election is that the Party of the First Part won because it cheated.  This is true even when the winner did cheat, and even in those very rare cases where the cheating may have made the difference.  It is true for both political and moral reasons.  The most effective cheating can work only if the margin of victory is very narrow, and in such cases the outcome is largely in the hands of chance anyway.  The voters have every right to be indignant over cheating, whether or not it affects the outcome, and they ought to demand that such cheating be prevented or punished. The candidate by contrast should acknowledge that his strategy has been ineffective if the suppression of few votes denies him the victory dance; whether those votes were depressed by fraud or an outbreak of influenza in a key district is a secondary matter.  If he allows himself or herself to sulk, he will ignore the real elements of victory. 

The moral effects are probably worse.  It leaves a spiritual ulcer that only grows worse with the years.  And so we have the case of one Jimmy Carter, rabbit fighter and failed President.  George Will tells it well.  From the Washington Post:

A quarter of a century has passed since 44 states said "No, thanks" to Jimmy Carter's offer to serve a second term, yet he still evidently thinks his loss is explained not by foreign policy debacles, such as invading Iran with eight helicopters, and a misery index -- inflation plus unemployment -- of 22, almost triple today's index. Rather, he seems to think approximately this:

Ronald Reagan won because he won the only debate. He won it not because of Carter's debate performance ("I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weaponry . . .") but only because Reagan had Carter's briefing book. And Reagan had it because this columnist gave it to him.

The psychological importance of this story to Carter is illustrated by the fact that he persists in lying about it, at least according to Will. 

Last Oct. 21, on National Public Radio, [Carter] said: "We found out later that one of Ronald Reagan's supporters inside the White House had stolen my briefing book, my top-secret briefing book that prepared me for the debate. And a very prominent news reporter was the one who took the briefing book to Ronald Reagan and helped drill him on the things that I might say if he said certain things." Asked who that reporter was, Carter replied, "It was George Will, and it was later known that he did that."

But one cannot know what isn't so, and "top secret" is a government classification inapplicable to campaign fodder. Still, Carter continues to retail -- and to embroider -- his fable. Recently in a Plains, Ga., church, he illustrated his aptitude for the virtue of forgiveness by saying that once, after columnist Will read a report of his telling his briefing book tale, Will wrote to him "asking for forgiveness."

How exactly George Will might have stolen Carter's briefing book is a question that might trouble a mind that was less troubled already.  I admit being intrigued by the thought of Will, dangling above the floor of Democratic headquarters like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, his bow tie only inches above the file cabinet.  The thought of Will begging Carter for forgiveness is only a little less plausible. 

 

What Is In A Name?

I don't know what I think of the recent NCAA ruling saying teams with Native American mascots are to be banned from post-season play.  On the one hand naming your team after any kind of ethnic or racial group is, as a rule, bad form.  A nickname like "Redskin" really must go (and can you believe there is an Oklahoma school nicknamed the "Savages"?).  But it is possible to honor a group with a nickname.  I think of nicknames like "Aggies," "Fighting Irish,"  "Tar Heel" and countless others that pay a kind of homage to a people who have added to our cultural identity or history.  I don't think names such as "Braves" or names of tribes (Chippewa, Illini, Seminole, Utes) should automatically be ruled out.  I am willing to entertain counter arguments, but I think North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" is as likely a compliment as an insult.  These are sensitive issues, so I am happy to entertain arguments as to why my thinking is wrong.  FSU is considering suing to keep the Seminole nickname. Back in grad school a buddy of mine and I stayed up into the wee hours ranking every Division I-A football team based on its mascot.  At a minimum it will be hard for Florida State to get a tougher mascot than a Seminole. For the record, the most powerful mascot in Division I-A football is the Arizona State Sun Devil. 

Letter from Chambliss Office

I got this note, and reprint it with permission.  It refers to the column reproduced below.

Mr. Blanchard,

Hello- I serve as press secretary to Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
We read your editorial and the Senator asked me to get in touch with you
and thank you for taking the time to actually watch the commercial and
deliver an accurate report.

Many have come to remember this commercial as one of the 2002 famous
urban legends of politics.  We have read too many inaccurate reports
relative to this commercial and it was refreshing to all of us to see an
accurate editorial appear in the press.

Kudos to you.  Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

AnnieLaurie Walters
Press Secretary
Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

The Best Movie You've Never Seen

To End All Wars.  It is based on the same story as Bridge on the River Kwai, but I understand that the more recent film is much more true to the real story.  Here's the official movie site although I am having some difficulties getting it to load.  Here is an article about the film.  This movie will especially appeal to those who like Presbyterians with Scottish accents.  Warning:  The movie is rated "R" for a reason. This movie might be hard to find, but that's why they invented Netflix.

Democrats in Red States

Here is the Democracy Corps (pdf alert) report I mentioned yesterday.  I think it is an honest accounting of the opportunities and obstacles facing the Democratic Party. 

I Agree with David Newquist

Yes, you read that right.  The Northern Valley Beacon has a very good and very honest post about the NARAL commercial that slanders Judge John Roberts.  He does suggest that Republicans started it and Democrats are only imitating what they see to be successful scams.  But he urges them not to do this, and that's as much honesty and reasonableness as either side can expect from the other.

Contrary to the NVB I do not think that Democrats are any less inclined to deceitful advertising than Republicans.  They used the same tactics against Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  But I agree with the NVB that such tactics ultimately weaken those that use them. 

The NVB has links to the NARAL site where one can view the original commercial, and factcheck.org, where one can see an independent critique of the commercial.  This is good and honest blogging.

Daschle Raising Kaine

I have written dozens of columns over the last year for the Aberdeen American News, a few of which have been posted here.  I am not very good at predicting which of them will inspire a reaction from readers.  After the following column was published I have received e-mails from the Kaine for Governor Campaign, the Press Secretary for Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, one of my fellow columnists at the American News, and other local voices.  As I noted in my previous blog on this topic, I was guilty of a technical error.  The website in which Tom Daschle's letter (It Stops in Virginia!) was posted is officially very unaffiliated with the Kaine campaign.  So Kaine is, officially off the hook for any criticisms that would otherwise apply to him.  Instead the parties that have to take responsibility are those independent citizens that produce the Raising Kaine website.  This does not affect the primary point of my column, since Daschle sent his letter to the unofficial site that is the general focus.  I have left the column as originally written so that anyone who wishes can hold me responsible for any errors.  I have, however, given it my own title.

Daschle Raising Kaine!

In this sleepy double off-year in American politics, when neither the President nor most of Congress has to face the voters, Virginia will choose a governor. That’s pretty slim pickings for a political junky, but back in June I first visited the Democratic contender’s website, Raising Kaine!

It looked at that time as if Tim Kaine were running on the basis of a single complaint. Republican Jerry Kilgore, he complained, has been saying nasty things about him. This rather narrow and negative theme piqued my interest. Well, that and the fact that Tom Daschle wrote a letter in support of the Kaine-raising project. Like the website, Senator Daschle’s letter was resolutely on-message. We Democrats have been losing, he declared, because the Republicans resort to dishonest attacks and character assassination. But, Daschle exclaims, “It stops in Virginia!”

As evidence of Republican misbehavior, Daschle presents his own defeat and that of former Georgia Senator, Max Cleland. Cleland, everyone acknowledges, is an impeccable war hero. He lost three limbs defending comrades and country in Vietnam. But he became the national poster child for Democratic indignation when he was defeated by Saxby Chambliss in 2002. It is one of the most cherished myths of contemporary Democrats that Chambliss won by attacking Cleland’s patriotism.

That charge rests, however, on a single campaign commercial. You can see a quick rerun on Daschle’s letter. It opens with a screen split into four frames. One of them is occupied by Osama bin Laden, and another by Saddam Hussein. The other two reveal American soldiers on patrol, and U.S. warplanes ready for take-off. This is the text:

“As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television adds claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that’s not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland has voted against the President’s vital homeland security efforts eleven times. Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead, but the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading.” As the audio script reaches its first comma, Cleland’s face appears, followed by a Star Wars like scroll listing his eleven votes. 

Now a sensible person may regard this add as over the top. But it is absurd to claim that it attacks Cleland’s patriotism. What it attacks is his voting record, and his honesty about that record. Likewise, one could surely defend Cleland’s votes. He opposed the Homeland Security Act because of limits on the unionization of security personnel, and public unions are an important part of the Democratic coalition. But Chambliss was entitled to argue that his opponent didn’t have his priorities straight. Should we make it harder to fire incompetent airport guards? Either way, this is what campaigns are supposed to be about. The charge of wounded patriotism is a canard. Cleland got beat fair and square.

If you wonder whether Tim Kaine holds to a higher standard than those nasty Republicans, you might notice the page on his web site entitled “Jerry Kilgore is a Bad, Bad Man!” “Jerry “Killmore” actually likes executing people,” we are informed. “Not personally, of course (at least we HOPE not!), but Kilgore is death-penalty crazy. What is the basis for this bit of character assassination? Kilgore is in favor of the death penalty in cases where Kaine, presumably, would oppose it. That, Senator Daschle, is a personal attack. 

It is surely reprehensible to attack someone’s patriotism because you disagree with his policies.  It is just as reprehensible to use false allegations of wounded patriotism to tar your political opponents. Both cut against civility in the same measure. But even if Chambliss were the rogue that Daschle makes him out to be, the prominence of this theme among Democrats ought to be disturbing. Poor, poor, pitiful me is an unpromising foundation for a national party.

Have You Had Your Wal-Mart Lovin'?

Lone Prairie on the virtues and vices of Wal-Mart.  Money line:

Surviving doesn't include crying about the state of the local business climate because of Wal-Mart. That's prolonging death, not surviving.

 

Right Again

First it was Michael Lind.  Now a Washington Post report is supporting my view that the Democratic Party will continue to lose as long as it is perceived as culturally out of touch with a large segment of Americans:

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

What's The Deal With Dobson?

David Gelernter both attacks and defends James Dobson on stem-cells.  So Chad can feel both vindicated and accused, although it is true that Gelernter is more on Chad's side than on Prof. Blanchard's and my side in giving a qualified defense to Dobson.  I still think Prof. Blanchard is correct that the Nazi analogy was used in this particular situation because National Socialism is one of the very few commonly accepted examples of evil, and Gelernter seems to understand this.  Thus Nazism serves as a kind of opposite pole to, say, Mother Teresa.  Still, it must be said that as a rule analogies to Nazis are a bad idea.  I do point out that Gelernter expresses his opposition to the expansion of government funding for stem cell research.  When you get to the end of the page and see his credentials you'll see he's just another irrational Christian nut case.  By the way, one of Mr. Gelernter's claims to fame, if you will, is that he was attacked by the Unabomber. 

It goes so much better when they don't trip over their kilts

From the Guardian:

Scottish exam results continue to improve.

What Liberal Media?

The mud-slinging continues for John Roberts.  From Drudge:

CABLE CONTROVERSY:  CNN AGREES TO AIR BLOODY ABORTION AD ON JUDGE ROBERTS
Tue Aug 09 2005 19:41:54 ET

CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group’s that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted abortion clinic bomber, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic. The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing.

  The linking of Roberts to "violent fringe groups" is the sharpest attack against the nominee thus far. 


However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be “false.”

Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false."

The Republican National Committee is preparing to send a letter to television stations asking them to pull the spot, according to sources.

The RNC’s letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people."

I wonder if Tom Daschle condones the actions of his former campaign contributer, NARAL?

Let a Thousand Icons Bloom

Chad at CCK makes a very good argument against public religious displays.  A religious group hitherto unknown to me (and perhaps existing only for political purposes) insists that it be allowed "to erect a monument enumerating the Seven Aphorisms, principles they say underlie creation and nature, [along side] a public memorial that includes the Ten Commandments."  The problem here is not the one so often insisted on by liberals-that a city cannot endorse a specific religion.  The problem is that government entities must be even handed when dispensing privileges and access, so if one Christian sect or alliance of sects can erect the Decalogue, any other sect would have to be allowed to share the public space.

Because I agree with Chad that this is a problem, I think it is a good idea to keep religion out of public schools.  If that Satanist who danced on President Reagan's grave should turn out to be a public school teacher, I would have him keep his religious opinions to himself when in the classroom. 

But I think that public displays are another matter.  America is a place of enormous religious diversity.  Why not celebrate it by allowing public space for any and all comers?  Provided that any display be privately financed, let them erect what they want to erect.  Maybe I should rephrase that. 

Of course some religious displays may include things that are offensive for reasons of public morality.  By this I mean not sex, but anti-semitism or the endorsement of terrorism.  Fine.  Let folks see whats on the minds of their fellows.  If Catholics or Jews think they have the right religion, then they should have faith that their site will ultimately draw the larger crowd.  That way no one could argue that religion has been chased out of the public arena. 

One of my favorite spiritual authorities, the Zen priest Suzuki Roshi, said that the best way to manage a spirited animal is to give it a large pasture to roam in.  I'm not sure if this is a sound principle of livestock management, but I'm pretty sure its what liberal democracy is all about. 

The Left & the Iraq War

Christopher Hitchens in "Losing the Iraq War - Can the left really want us to?":

Question: Why have several large American cities not already announced that they are going to become sister cities with Baghdad and help raise money and awareness to aid Dr. Tamimi? When I put this question to a number of serious anti-war friends, their answer was to the effect that it's the job of the administration to allocate the money, so that there's little room or need for civic action. I find this difficult to credit: For day after day last month I could not escape the news of the gigantic "Live 8" enterprise, which urged governments to do more along existing lines by way of debt relief and aid for Africa. Isn't there a single drop of solidarity and compassion left over for the people of Iraq, after three decades of tyranny, war, and sanctions and now an assault from the vilest movement on the face of the planet?  Unless someone gives me a persuasive reason to think otherwise, my provisional conclusion is that the human rights and charitable "communities" have taken a pass on Iraq for political reasons that are not very creditable.

Footnote:  To let everyone know, I'll be leaving tomorrow morning at 4 for Knoxville, Iowa and won't be returning until Sunday sometime.  I won't have any connection to the Internet during this time so I'll see you all on Sunday.  Have a great week!

 

Get Out Your Barf Bags

Michael Lind agrees with me that the Democratic Party should remain economically liberal while becoming socially more conservative.  That's coming from a man of the left.  I don't know that I want Lind on my side as his recent Lincoln book is not good at all. 

Shut Up And Sing, If You Can

I guess the Rolling Stones have gone from aged rock stars to political commentators.  I wonder if Mick Jaggar even knows what a "neo-conservative" is?  To most people on the left, "neo-conservative" has come to mean "a conservative with a Jewish last name" or "a conservative I don't like," which might be why they use the term so promiscuously.  By the way, I recently saw a Gram Parsons tribute DVD in which Keith Richards sings the lovely Hickory Wind.  His voice made a sound akin to a cat choking on a broken kazoo.  The rest of the concert is not much better. 

The Voice Of Tolerance

If you go to the website of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (i.e., San Francisco) look to the left and you'll see a video called "Meet PPGG's Superhero For CHOICE."  Here you will see a pro-abortion superhero drown an abstinence advocate, kill pro-life protesters, and hand out contraceptives to kids on the street without asking about parental approval.  There is much more craziness in this short film.  I actually found myself laughing.  My favorites?  When the superhero says we have lots of choices, "I choose to eat organic vegetables, or I choose to stop at a red light..."  Next time I don't stop at a red light, I will just explain to the police that I was exercising my right to choose.  Or how about the kids who look like they are about twelve talking about how they practice safe sex (safe is sexy!). Or how about pro-life protesters have rights, as long as they exercise their rights "in accordance with the law." Meaning, we get to define their First Amendment rights.  What a triumph for free speech.  This is right before she says that sometimes she wishes the protesters "would just disappear."  That's when she kills them with her condom gun.  The dehumanization of pro-lifers by drawing them as ugly freaks is quite interesting. And the left wonders why they can't win the parental or religious vote? 

Update: The offending film has disappeared from the PPGG site.  But, if you Google "PPGG Superhero For Choice" and then click on the cached hit you can still see it. 

Another Update:  I cannot get this video to load. I don't know if PPGG has disabled the video or if my Quicktime has some kind of a hiccup.  The buffer gets down to .2 or .3 seconds and then Quicktime locks up.  I'd be interested if other people can get the movie to play.  Just an FYI, I learned about this video because someone passed on to me this news story.  World Net Daily has more than its share of right-wing kookery, so I link to the article for its factual content, not because I am a faithful reader of WND or endorse their site. 

And yet another update!!:  I was just here reading about what an ass Harry Belafonte is, and I had the Quicktime viewer up and suddenly the video came on.  Don't know what the science is here.  Maybe just be patient and you can get the video to load. 

What Is Human Life?

Chad, you keep ignoring the hard questions.  For those interested in the question of when does human life begin, I direct you to Robert George's posts at National Review's The Corner here, here, and here.  Wow what a religious nut.  For the past four days or so a constant argument has been going on at The Corner between John Podhoretz in favor of embryonic stem cell research and Ramesh Ponnuru and Robert George against.  By the way, Robert George is one of the nation's foremost natural law scholars and hardly qualifies as an ignorant ranting religious nut. 

George points out these facts.  Yes, facts.  First, a blastocyst is life.  It is organic material.  So I ask Mr. Schuldt a question:  What genus and what species is this particular life?  All life can be classified (you remember: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species).  How is this life classified?  Prof. Blanchard is our resident expert on genetics, but George argues that genetically this life is homo sapiens.  That's human.  It's another question whether this is a human that bears rights (although that gets us into the slippery situation of what other humans have no rights).  These are questions Chad must answer.  If it is life (which is clearly is) what kind of life is it?  If it is not human life, what is it?  What defines "humanity"?  If it is human life, does it have rights?  If it does not have rights, why not?  If it does not have rights, what other human beings have no rights, and why?  You see, Chad, these are philosophically difficult questions, and to dismiss those who raise them as being merely religious nuts bent advancing a narrow political agenda suggests a particular level of intellectual obtuseness on your part. 

Johnson To Seek Re-election?

From today's Argus Leader:

Sen. Tim Johnson is now telling people privately that he will seek re-election in 2008.

Career moves for a lot of ambitious young South Dakota Republicans and Democrats hinge on what Johnson decides. If he runs, it ties up Democrats wanting to make a jump into politics. Rep. Stephanie Herseth would also seek to stay where she is, so there would be no room for movement.

Republicans wanting to make a leap ahead in their careers also might be reluctant to challenge the incumbent senator, even though it will again be a presidential election year.

But as far as South Dakota politics goes, who knows?

Raising Questions about Raising Kaine

Some time ago I posted concerning the Tim Kaine for Governor campaign in Virginia, and a letter (It Stops in Virginia!) written by Tom Daschle in support of that campaign.  Sunday the Aberdeen American News, God bless 'em, printed a column of mine focusing largely on that same letter. 

Today I received a cordial e-mail from Mo Elleithee, the Kaine campaign Communications director. The note advised me that Raising Kaine! is not in any way affiliated with the Kaine campaign.  The official campaign website is Tim Kaine for Governor.  Now I am as respectful of plausible deniability as the next Republican, but I can't resist pointing out a few things. 

One is that the design of the two websites is rather similar.  The navigation bar at the top of each homepage has roughly the same set of links.  The exceptions are interesting: Issues in the official site is replaced by Bad Kilgore in the unofficial one.  My hunch, and it's just a hunch, is that the same folks designed both. 

My point here is not to accuse the Kaine campaign of any dishonesty.  Stupid campaign finance laws virtually force all sorts of bizarre and misleading disassociations, and that's John McCain's, not Tim Kaine's fault.  But I do not think that the Kaine campaign can easily escape some responsibility for the unofficial website, until and unless they explicitly disassociate themselves with the latter.

And regardless of the connection, Tom Daschle allowed his letter to be prominently featured on the Raising Kaine site.  Its a bit absurd of Senator Daschle to complain about character assassination and personal attacks by Republicans on a site which has a page entitled "Jerry Kilgore is a bad, bad man."  On that same page we learn that Jerry "Killmore" likes executing people. 

The truth of the matter is that Democrats are every bit as given to negative campaigning, personal attacks, and below the belt innuendo as Republicans.  Perhaps both sides should be ashamed of themselves.  I say not.  Let a thousand points of mud be flung.  Democracy has always worked this way when it has worked at all.  And besides, its the greatest show on earth.

Friendly Advice

The War College comments on Todd Epp's laments about the South Dakota Democratic Party.  Here's some free advice, and you can take it for what it's worth.  Last November, a week after the election, I was at a gathering at Dakota Wesleyan celebrating the life of George McGovern. It was in conjunction with this book, which really is a good book people, in spite of  my involvement.  Obviously this was a largely progressive Democratic crowd, including Sen. McGovern himself, and in the wake of the election they were not happy.  My subject for the day and for the book was the 1972 presidential election (they want to do a book celebrating George McGovern and I get the 1972 election. Talk about silk purses!).  In the Q&A period there were alot of questions about "what went wrong" in the week before.  There were many explanations about the senatorial and presidential races, such as the Christian loonies, including Bishop Carlson, took over the state and country, John Kerry was a terrible candidate, John Thune is a dirty liar, the people of South Dakota are stupid,  Jon Lauck is the devil, the Argus Leader sucks, there was voter fraud, Republicans are evil and dumb, blah blah blah.  At a certain point I said something to the effect of, "The reason the Republicans won is they got more votes.  The reason they got more votes might be because people find their ideas more attractive.  It might not just be the packaging or the clever manipulation.  Most people, even the non-stupid ones, might actually believe that the Republican party is better for the country.  If the Democrats want to win elections, they had better get on with the work of convincing people their ideas are better instead of complaining about how unfair everything is.  If you want to win elections, you must go to work."  These words were then uttered by George McGovern: "I think Professor Schaff is exactly right."  Yeah. I about fell off my chair too. 

If Democrats want to win in South Dakota, some intrepid Democrat, or a bunch of them, had better get to doing what George McGovern did in the 1950s: build a damn party.  Go around the state and convince people you are right.  Let's look at some national numbers that I suspect roughly hold true for our state.  In the 2004 election George Bush won weekly church attendees by 22 points.  He won married people by 15 points, and married people with children by 19 points.  Bush barely lost the women's vote (3 point loss) but won the married woman vote.  Bush won the once tried-and-true Democratic Catholic vote by 5%, and by even more when you count just observant Catholics.  These number were roughly the same in 2000 versus Gore.  What does this mean?  If one can generalize, religious married people with children vote overwhelmingly Republican while secular single people with no children vote Democratic (Kerry won the "never attend church" folks by 26% and unmarried people by 18%).  If Democrats want to win elections, this must end.  They must think very hard about why parents, and even more so religious parents, reject the Democratic party.  I have a very unoriginal theory of elections.  People vote their interests and people are pretty good at deciphering what those interests are. People generally know what they are doing when they are voting.  So Democrats have to think about why families and religious people think that voting Democratic is against their interests, while voting Republican is in their interests.  It isn't because these people are stupid, ignorant, greedy, irrational, under they sway of the pope or some crazed minister, full of hate, war happy, or what have you.  If you can't appeal to married folk who are trying to raise a family, the problem is with you, not them. There are alot of parents who are worried about a vulgar culture.  Telling them they are Nazis isn't going to win them over. There are alot of religious people out there whose who think that being a Christian (to cite the majority) doesn't just happen for an hour or so each Sunday.  So they think about their faith when they think about their role as citizens.  And if you call them fascists, they won't vote for you.   There are a lot of decent people who are made uneasy by the left's cheerleading in favor of abortion, and calling them "theocrats" isn't gonna get you their votes.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: If a teacher has contempt for his students he cannot teach; if a political party has contempt for its opponent, it cannot win.

 

What Good Are Blogs?

I caught the end of a re-run of the C-SPAN "In Depth" book show with Tom Wolfe over the weekend.  Wolfe, as many know, got his start as a journalist and all of his books, even his fiction, are the product of a journalist's mindset.  A caller asked Wolfe about the state of modern journalism.  Wolfe indicated that the state of journalism is not good.  One of the primary reasons, he argued, is that so few newspapers face any competition.  As he put it, when as a young journalist he would cover a sanitation commission meeting he had to make sure he got everything correct, because if he didn't there were seven other newspapers covering the meeting that would hold him accountable.  He said that a journalist without competition is a lazy journalist.  I wonder if blogs aren't starting to serve as the competition to newspapers, and thus television news (Wolfe contends that 95% of what TV "reporters" say is just cribbed from newspapers).  Certainly on the Dan Rather "fake but accurate" memo scandal and the Eason Jordan story it was bloggers who held mainstream media accountable.  Blogging has its own shortcomings, but one wonders if blogs will not ultimately improve the level of reporting across the nation. You can watch all three hours (yes, three hours) of Wolfe online at the Book TV site.  I also note that on Sunday Sept. 4 at noon, Harvard professor of Government Harvey Mansfield will be on "In Depth." Don't worry, the NFL doesn't start until the next weekend.

Update: Not that many care, I'm sure, but the Harvey Mansfield program is noon Eastern.  So I should have said 11:00am Central and 10:00am Mountain.  I assume they will replay at some point.  They usually do. 

Permanent Wave

Last week I read the revised 6th edition of The Politics of the Presidency by Joseph Pika and John Anthony Maltese.  At the end of their chapter on "The Presidency and The Public" they write about the "permanent campaign."  They say:

The problem with such tactics is that campaigning--by its very nature--is adversarial, while governing is--or at lest should be--largely collaborative.  As [Hugh] Heclo puts it, "campaigning is self-centered, and governing is group-centered."  When the permanent campaign becomes the predominant governing style, however, collaboration becomes difficult.  Not surprisingly, recent years have seen a breakdown of the elite bargaining community that used to collaborate to produce policy. 

New Chapter in Daschle's Permanent Campaign

While it is a little hard to keep track of all the words flying around this weekend, here's a summary of what happened. On Friday or so, Erin started hammering on the "Hildebrand Boys" (the former/current Daschle bloggers who are aided by Daschle's campaign manager Steve Hildebrand) for how much they work together and for using her in the Nelson/MetaBank deal. Erin explained in detail how each of the anti-Thune former/current Daschle staffer bloggers kept calling her, emailing her, and trying to meet with her to gather anti-Thune information and how Hildebrand coordinated the effort. Remember that Hildebrand is being paid directly from Senator Daschle's campaign account and his political action committee. Also, Democratic blogger Todd Epp also said that Hildebrand was behind the anti-Thune blogs. After Robert Novak started looking into all this, two of the former Daschle staffers who are writing anti-Thune blogs outed themselves, ending their anonymous stage. One of the recently outed bloggers who is attacking Thune using his blog was just found to be on the Daschle campaign payroll, making another direct link between Daschle and the anti-Thune blogs. Two of the four former/current Daschle staffer anti-Thune bloggers work for Hildebrand or the Daschle campaign committee (which pays Hildebrand) and the other two won't say where their money is coming from.

Russian Submariners Rescued!

A British unmanned submersible cut the trapped Russian minisub loose, allowing it to surface.  The crew members were obviously exhausted, but all were unharmed.  A team of American divers assisted on the surface. 

I once toured a submarine, the Guardfish, in San Diego, and the sailors who manned that vessel earned my admiration.  I followed with interest the trajedy of the Kursk, which sank after a defective torpedo exploded on board, with the eventual loss of all the crew.  I didn't expect to see the above picture. 

The British submersible - known as a Scorpio 45 - is maintained by a civilian company on contract to the British Navy and is supposed to be ready to deploy within 12 hours. It had, fortuitously, been readied for a training exercise when the order came, shaving at least four hours off its response time, the commodore said.

Even so, after landing in Kamchatka on Saturday, the Russians were unable to unload much of the equipment. Only when the American C-5 arrived, carrying the Navy's own rescue vessel, as well as special loading equipment, could the British effort begin in earnest, Commodore Metcalfe said. He described it as evidence of the necessity of international cooperation in undersea rescue.

Well done.  God bless all of those involved.

The central figure above is Lt. Vyacheslav Milashevsky, the minisub commander.  Below is his family, waiting for news.

Thune v. Frist on Stem Cells

This piece by David Kranz in the Argus Leader is notable:

It is said in Washington, D.C., that Sen. John Thune owes colleagues who stumped for him in South Dakota during the 2004 election.  But he won't be paying Bill Frist by backing the Senate majority leader's new position supporting embryonic stem cell research funding.  . . .

Analysts expect Frist's shift might bring other Republicans over to that position, but not Thune.

"I think what you are going to see in the Senate is a pretty wide variation of legislation," Thune said. "I support adult stem cell research and cord blood research. Currently, in the real world practice, adult stem cell and cord research are yielding results, and embryonic is unproven."

Erin to Hildebrand Boys: Move On

Ryne McClaren has another huge roundup on the Erin v. Hildebrand bloggers war. Here's part of what Erin says:

while it's clear to me that the Hildebrand Boys blogging and other activities are part and parcel of a tightly controlled system , one of the variables that came into play here is their involvement with me(Erin) outside of their circle. ...

The problem here is that they saw an opportunity to make some quick "slam dunk" points to discredit Senator Thune and since I was not politically savvy, it didn't appear that I would be difficult to get "rid" of theoretically. In other words, they were "reasonably sure" that I wasn't the enemy, and wouldn't be that interested in their activities. ...

This is like the campaign all over again for them. If they had real jobs and a sense of reality, they could move on. It will never be over for them. They have lost sight of Tom Daschle and what's truly important. They have lost sight of why they wanted to be involved in the first place and are in a place right now that doesn't allow any reason.

The Whirwind Courtship is over now boys, do everyone a favor and move on. I'm sure that Mr. Daschle would appreciate it and so would everyone else. So, you feel stupid,angry,bitter and many other things, take your cue from one of your own when he talked about the fact that this is "modern politics".

As Ryne says, "Zing!"