South Dakota Politics

The Blanchard Doctrine On Judicial Confirmation

It has now rather suddenly become the official position on, well, at least part of the liberal wing of American politics.  In a post on September 20, I argued that, within reason, Presidents are entitled to get the nominees they choose onto the court.  This ensures that the court will, at least to some degree, reflect the choices of Americans in Presidential elections, and that is the primary way that democracy influences the courts.  It also keeps the nomination process from breaking down, as it surely would if each side used all its powers to block nominees who did not explicitly endorse their favorite positions.  So long as a nominee is not a radical on either side, and has no skeletons in his or her closet, the Senate out to confirm.  This is now the editorial position of the Washington Post.  [HT to Real Clear Politics].

IT SHOULDN'T BE necessary to write in praise of the three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who this week voted in committee to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States. Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold took guts. Their votes ensure that Judge Roberts will not take the helm of the judiciary perceived as the representative of only one party, and they guarantee that at least some Democrats -- albeit sadly few -- will have the moral authority to demand Republican support for qualified liberal nominees in the future.

The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice. Of the current members of the court, only Justice Clarence Thomas had substantial opposition. The other seven, including Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia, received among them only one no vote in committee; six of them, in other words, received unanimous committee endorsement. The seven received, again among all of them, only 21 negative votes on the floor. In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging -- something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject.

"Apolitical" might be asking a bit much.  But the idea of judiciary independence is surely on the mark.  The Post sets a rather high bar.  In the case of a demonstrably qualified candidate, the vote on the Judiciary Committee ought to be unanimously  in favor.  That's probably right, and the post shows that not very long ago it was the norm.  As is a majority of Democrats on the committee voted no.  I'm guessing that a little over half the Democratic caucus will vote no on the floor.  That's not terrible, but it does represent a serious breakdown in decorum. 

It also represents the difficulty the Democrats have had in finding a coherent strategy.  Mark Reynolds of the LATimes notes that:

Among those who said they would oppose Roberts, four — Barbara Boxer of California, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts — are from states that in recent years have regularly elected Democratic senators. Roberts' Democratic supporters include Sens. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana — states that are Republican-dominated or that have closely divided electorates.  [My italics].

Someone else, I lost track of whom, noted that many of the Democrats who will vote yes are in red states and have elections coming up.  For those Senators, doing the reasonable thing coincides with their political interest.  Hillary Clinton is voting no because she is already in trouble with the emphatically unreasonable crowd at the Daily KOS.  She cannot afford to do the reasonable thing.

We note that the Washington Post's standard will make it harder for Democrats to form an effective opposition to Bush's next nominee.

Voter Fraud

From a Wall Street Journal editorial on 9/22/2005 about the new Carter/Baker voting reform commission's suggested reforms:

The voter-ID recommendations are particularly noteworthy, however, because for decades the left has maintained that voter fraud isn't a problem.  In fact, it's increased in recent years.  Former New York Congresswoman Susan Molinari, who served on the commission, notes bluntly in the report that, 'In 2004, elections in Washington state and Wisconsin were decided by illegal votes.'  She continues, 'In other states, notably the states of Ohio and New York, voter rolls are filled with fictional voters like Elmer Fudd and Mary Poppins.'  Just three of the 21 commissioners dissented over this recommendation, and one was former Senate Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle.  He likened the ID requirements to a 'poll tax,' perhaps because it would stop Democrats from winning elections with last-minute turnout on Indian reservations in South Dakota.  Just a guess.

For a great look at voter fraud, read Stealing Elections by John Fund, which includes a chapter on South Dakota.

The Big Scary Patriot Act

A reader chides us for not discussing the Patriot Act.  Well, there are a lot of issues we don't address because, after all, we are only one blog.  We can't write about everything.  To my knowledge no one on this blog has ever taken a position on CAFTA either.  That does mean it isn't important.  But, enquiring minds want to know about the Patriot Act.  I think the Patriot Act has been the subject of more disinformation and fear mongering than any piece of legislation in recent memory.  What the Patriot Act does, by and large, is take law enforcement techniques that have long been used in organized crime investigations and apply them to FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) investigations.  There is little that is ground breaking in the Patriot Act.  In addition, everything under the Patriot Act is subject to judicial review.  Often the subjects of detention of "enemy combatants" and torture are dragged into Patriot Act discussions, but those are separate issues.  The Justice Department has a "Fact vs. Myth" website up for those who would like to know more.  Count me as one vote in favor of the Patriot Act. 

Captain's Quarters on Daschle's Ambitions

"Just When South Dakota Looked Safe" appears on the very prominent blog, Captain's Quarters.  It covers the story that SDP has been following closely. 

It seems clear that Daschle wants to be a player in politics, and he may well be thinking of running for President.  I skeptical regarding any intention on his part to return to South Dakota and run again for the Senate or anything else.  If that were his intention, he would surely move back here.  I think he understands that his isolation from home turf was the Achilles heal of his last campaign.  I am not sure he really expects to run for President, either.  If he can't win South Dakota, he has to build a national political base from scratch.  But that doesn't mean he can't be an important force in the national Democratic party.  Says Captain's Quarters:

So far, it looks more like Daschle will swing towards the center.  Today he endorsed the confirmation of John Roberts for the Supreme Court, according to the Argus Leader and South Dakota Politics, undermining Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate and the obstructionism Daschle once promoted.

As I have said, I think too much has been read into his departure from Harry Reid's vote.  Its pretty clear that the Democrats are prepared to disagree about Roberts. 

As a side note, some critics of this blog seem to assume that every time we mention Daschle it means we are trying to trash him.  This is simply not true.  Daschle's opinions are not ours, for the most part, and we are hardly shy about expressing disagreements.  More important is the fact that Daschle is nationally important and locally important in a unique way.  We think our readers in South Dakota will be interested in what Daschle is doing, and so we report on it.

Daschle v. Reid

The Washington Times:

Daschle and Reid
   Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid opposes Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination, but his predecessor — former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle — sees things differently.
   "President Bush has produced a nominee that probably qualifies, and I would support him," Mr. Daschle was quoted as saying in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader yesterday.
   The comments by the South Dakota Democrat, who lost his Senate re-election bid last year, were made during an interview on Randy McDaniel's KSOO Radio talk show.

Sabato's Crystal Ball

Larry Sabato handicaps next year's Senate and gubernatorial races.  I sniff a good Democratic year coming, but I still put the Democrat's chanced of reclaiming the Senate below 50%.  Hat Tip to No Left Turns. 

Hillary Takes Aim At Foot; Scores Direct Hit

Hillary Clinton has decided to vote against John Roberts.  Earlier I had suggested that she was the real bellwether of the Democrats.  I had predicted she would vote for Roberts because, as Michael Corleone would say, "It's the smart move."  This all but says that Hillary Clinton, the heart and soul of the Democratic Party perhaps, will not vote for a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court short of that nominee jumping up and down and shouting, "I love abortion!"  Politically, I think this is a dumb move for Hillary.  She has alot at stake in moderating her image and this does not help. 

Guess Again.

I just saw this on Powerline, and its way too good to pass up.  Speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington, President Bush told this joke. 

Rabbi Stanton Zamek of the Temple Beth Shalom Synagogue in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, helped an African American couple displaced by the storm track down their daughter in Maryland. When Rabbi Zamek called the daughter, he told her, "We have your parents." She screamed out, "Thank you, Jesus!" (Laughter.) He didn't have the heart to tell her she was thanking the wrong rabbi. (Laughter and applause.)

Its Time to Start Thinking about John McCain

With a courage based on the proposition that, if I get it wrong no one will remember, and if I get it right, I can remind everyone that I'm brilliant," I confidently predict that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President in 2008.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it, until it turns out to be false or I chicken out, whichever comes first. 

I wish it to be clear that this is not a endorsment.  SDP is of course a nonpartisan blog which just happens to have a lot of partisan manpower at its disposal.  So I don't expect we will make any endorsments.  Besides, I have long had a lot of reservations about McCain.  He seemed too certain of his own positions and too intolerant of Senate colleages who disagreed with him.  Moreover the key piece of legislation that bears his name is one of the worst in a long line of campaign finance reforms.  I could go on. 

But McCain has gone a long way toward showing the kind of political discipline that is needed in a President.  He suppressed whatever anger he felt toward the Bush administration after the 2000 election and has been a vital team player for Bush.  He was an archetect of the Senate compromise that saved the filibuster.  So far, as I brilliantly predicted, that compromise has been a big win for Republicans.  He is now leading the charge to cut billions in pork out of the budget to pay for Katrina rebuilding.  Michael Baronne has a feature article in U.S. News. 

On spending, he said that to offset the spending of Hurricane Katrina and to prevent what "may be the largest deficit in history," Congress should revisit the highway bill—the big transportation bill passed earlier this year—and should consider delaying or repealing the Medicare prescription drug bill. On both of these issues his positions are to the right of the Bush administration's: After all, Bush signed both bills.

I see little chance for that, but it sure won't make McCain look any worse for trying.  Given the current weakness of the Republican bench (anyone want to run Bill Frist against Hilliary Clinton?), I think McCain is in the best position. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Roberts

By a vote of 13 to 5.   From the Washington Post:

Voting No were:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.),
Joseph Biden (Del.),
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) ,
Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and
Dick Durbin (Ill.)

Democrats voting Yes:

Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) ,
Herb Kohl (Wis.) and
Russ Feingold (Wis.)

All the Republicans voted in favor of Judge Roberts.  The interesting question is whether the Democratic vote represents genuine individual differences, some kind of strategy, or simple disarray. As SDP has noted, the current Democratic leader, Harry Reid, had announced his intention to vote against Roberts on the floor, whereas former leader Tom Daschle has said he would have supported Roberts.  I'm not so inclined to be hard on Daschle for that.  Obviously the question has divided current and former Senate Democrats.  But I suspect that Reid would have liked a more coherent party position.

The main grounds for voting against Roberts is his refusal to answer questions about hot button issues, coupled with a fear that the nominee will not vote the way they want him to on future cases.  This represents an about face from the Ginsburg hearings, when Democrats were insisting that she not answer certain questions, and the New York Times was insisting that she be judged "as a judge, not as an advocate." 

One Democrat who has not flipped and flopped is Russ Feingold.  Here is the key quote from his comments today.

History has shown that control of the White House -- and, with it, the power to shape courts -- never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democrat John Roberts nominated to the court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience through service on the progressive side on the ideological spectrum. Now, when that day comes -- and it will -- that will be the test for this committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last chief justice of the United States in my lifetime. The position of chief justice demands the very highest scrutiny from the Senate. And the qualifications and abilities of the nominee for this position must shine through. Judge Roberts has the legal skills, the intellect and the character to be a good chief justice. And I hope that he fulfills that promise. I wish him well. May his service be a credit not only to the rule of law, but also to the principles of equality and freedom and justice that make this country so great.  [My italics]

That looks suspiciously like statesmanship.  One wonders how the Republicans will do on the test, when that inevitable day comes.

 

Daschle Gets QUOTE OF THE DAY in Hotline

From today's Hotline:

"President Bush has produced a nominee that probably qualifies, and I would support him."
-- Tom Daschle on Roberts, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 9/22

Hildebrand Group Could Be Fading

As SDP has reported before, Daschle's former/current campaign manager and several former/current Daschle staffers are being paid by Americans United, which has been big in their permanent campaign against Senator Thune.  According to today's Roll Call, they could be closing up shop.  There's a big meeting about the group going on in DC today:

On another front, the Democrats’ main outside ally in the fight against Bush’s Social Security proposal, Americans United to Protect Social Security, announced in an internal memo that they would be declaring victory over Bush.

In a conference call and meeting with its staff in Washington, D.C., and its field directors scheduled for today, the group said it was now planning its “final phase” of the fight.

“We must declare victory in this fight and make it clear that privatization has lost because it is a bad idea and because Americans United and our allies have run a model national issue campaign of nearly unprecedented scale and intensity,” wrote Ann Widger, an aide for the group.

With the Social Security battle nearing the victory stage for liberals, discussions are under way in regard to what to do with Americans United.

Financially, the group always has been on shaky ground with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees as its main financial backer. Today’s meeting of Americans United and its coalition partners is being held at AFSCME headquarters here in D.C.

This week, Americans United began laying off some staff, said several sources in the Democratic activist community.

AFSCME officials hope to reach an agreement with other labor leaders and individual donors to keep Americans United around with a broader mission to tackle other issue items beyond just Social Security. But that issue has not been decided.

One Democrat familiar with those talks said the group always has been somewhat bloated in staff size, so shedding some staff might improve its longer-term survival prospects.

“By running a more streamlined organization, it will also make it more attractive to donors, particularly those outside of labor,” the Democratic source said.

DASCHLE THROWS REID UNDER THE BUS!

As the confirmation of John Roberts draws near, we're beginning to see how Democrats and Republicans will vote for him.  Most of us figured that the Dems would play nice with Roberts and stifle the next nominee, all the while touting how fair they were with Roberts.  With that in mind, it came as a shock when Senate Leader Harry Reid announced that he would NOT vote for Judge Roberts.

And then we have this:

"President Bush has produced a nominee that probably qualifies, and I would support him."

No, this isn't a sudden change of heart for Reid.  That quote comes from Tom Daschle in today's Argus Leader, the man who HAND PICKED Reid as his successor.  Although this should be a major story, the Argus only gives it one sentence in paragraph 14 of a story.

The political implications are huge.  Reid is Daschle's direct successor as Senate Leader, but not even the guy who hand-picked him is supporting his position.   It's also quite obvious that Reid is a prisoner of leftist interest groups:

"The Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid Of Nevada, Said ... That He Would Oppose The Confirmation Of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. As Chief Justice, Surprising Both The White House And Fellow Democrats Still Conflicted About How To Vote." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick, "Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No On Roberts," The New York Times, 9/21/05)

"'He Got The Message Loud And Clear, Didn't He?' Kim Gandy, President Of The National Organization For Women, Said Of Mr. Reid On Tuesday." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick, "Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No On Roberts," The New York Times, 9/21/05)

"[R]eid Moved [To Oppose Roberts] Under Pressure From Liberal Activists, Who Were Demanding The Democratic Leadership Take A Strong Stand Against Roberts." ("Reid Says He Will Vote Against Roberts On Senate Floor," The Frontrunner, 9/21/05)

UPDATE I:  Captain's Quarters has picked up the story:

So far, it looks more like Daschle will swing towards the center.  Today he endorsed the confirmation of John Roberts for the Supreme Court, according to the Argus Leader and South Dakota Politics, undermining Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate and the obstructionism Daschle once promoted.

UPDATE II:  Daschle's endorsement isn't only undercutting Reid:

John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential nominee, on Wednesday joined his collegue from Massachusetts, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in saying he would vote no. Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, said he would vote no, as did Senator Barbara Boxer, . . .

UPDATE III:  More Daschle talk here, here, and SDP is quoted here.

UPDATE IV:  Wizbang blog is noting our story.

Dissent on the Right

George W. Bush may have met his Waterloo with conservatives over the Katrina relief proposal.  It's not just the proposal itself, but coupled with an unwillingness to reign in any government spending (such as on the highway bill), Bush is being attacked on the right for his big spending ways.  You can read Peggy Noonan on the subject here, and see Instapundit's comments here.  Contrary to the claims of the left that conservatives are lap dogs for Bush, I have been reading just this kind of criticism of "big government conservatism" since Bush entered the White House.  Politically this means Republicans must spend the next year simply trying to rally their most loyal troops, something the Democrats seems to have accomplished already.  This portends a tough election next year for the GOP.

This said, I don't have the problems with Bush's Katrina bill that other conservatives do.  For one thing, he is using the federal government to promote conservative ends, such as advocating enterprise zones and school vouchers for New Orleans.   And while conservatives carp about "pork barrel spending," which there is certainly too much of, everyone should know that the real government money is not in "pork" but in entitlements.  On this issue Saint John McCain is a hero, as he suggests revisiting the prescription drug plan.  McCain is right that this plan was a boondoggle to begin with.  Attaching it to Medicare guaranteed it would be unwieldy and expensive. Instead of paying for drugs for those who need the help, this program pays for the drugs of danged near everybody on Medicare, whether they needed the help or not.  This is why the plan is already scheduled to cost $300 billion more than originally suggested. 

I propose the Republicans offer a comprehensive plan of government spending reductions along with dropping their foolish plan to dismantle the inheritance tax.  And Bush should be out front on this.  And it might be time to dust off the old Balanced Budget Amendment.  

Film Blogging

Stephen Vittoria is producing a movie about South Dakota's most famous son.

Kranz on Daschle Presidential Run

Daschle's old college "publicity chairman" Dave Kranz is writing about Daschle's possible run for President today:

Daschle for president?

Speaking at Iowa dinner

DAVID KRANZ

Former Sen. Tom Daschle set off speculation Tuesday that he might be interested in running for president in 2008.

Talk immediately began after his office released a statement saying he will keynote the Nov. 5 Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner in Des Moines.

"Many will speculate that this signifies that Tom is thinking about running for president, when in fact, that is not what this invitation is all about," said Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's spokesman.

Daschle has a long-standing working relationship with Sally Peterson, Iowa's lieutenant governor and state Democratic party leader, Hildebrand said.

"She wanted a powerful voice at the podium, and so she asked Tom to do that," he said.

Daschle is not ruling out a presidential bid, though, Hildebrand said.

"But he is very clear about it that chances for him doing that are very low," he said.

Daschle, a three-term senator and former Democratic majority and minority leader, entertained the idea of running for the nomination in 2004 but decided against it and instead sought re-election to the Senate. He was defeated by former Rep. John Thune, ending his 26 consecutive years of service in public office.

Politicos generally keep an eye on such visits by politicians to Iowa at this time of year because that is the home of the first presidential test, a political caucus.

Even if Daschle isn't thinking about running, he has to know what message it sends, says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia School of Politics.

"The announcement sent tongues wagging out here that the Democrats may have another presidential candidate," he said.

The idea of a Daschle candidacy is unlikely, but possible, Sabato said.

"His whole adult life has been in politics. He has nearly 100 percent name ID among Democrats, and many Democrats are sad about his re-election defeat. So why not?"

Speaking at a high-profile Iowa event will make it hard to deny interest in a presidential bid, Sabato said.

"He knows very well that is an important signal. If you are not interested, you don't accept invitations like that," Sabato said.

More on North Dakota Race

From TBND blog:

This has to make Senator Conrad's collar a bit tight. Survey USA has released a new survey out on the approval rating of all 49 governor's and the one governator.

John Hoeven is NOW tied for the most popular governor with a ranking of 75% approval.

TBND also reports on a new Roll Call report:

North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven’s (R) continued silence on whether he will challenge Sen. Kent Conrad (D) next year is leading many in the state to believe the popular chief executive will in fact run.

“I think the pressure on [Hoeven] is pretty intense, and that he’s going to be convinced that this is what he needs to do, both by the [Bush] administration and Republican folks in the state,” said Eric Aasmundstad, president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. “I’d be kind of surprised if he didn’t run.”

Hoeven, with approval ratings near 70 percent, has declined to squelch the speculation. And with his popularity and incredible statewide name identification, he has the luxury of waiting until as late as the March 2006 Republican nominating convention to announce his candidacy.

This is Great

Michelle Malkin:  Don't Get Stuck on Stupid
Radio Blogger has the transcript.

Hat tip to California Conservative.

The Grassroots Come to Mitchell

Mitchell Daily Republic:

A new billboard in Mitchell is raising debates as well as eyebrows.

The billboard, located on North Sanborn, reads: “Jesus cares for the poor - So Do We.” At the bottom, the billboard states, “Democrats Make America Stronger.”

...

The Grassroot Democrats South Dakota was formally established in June 2004. While the group shares many of the values and tenets of the Democratic Party, it is not affiliated with it. The billboard campaign began in May 2005 in Sioux Falls.

But one local Republican, state Rep. Lou Sebert, of Mitchell, said he thought Democrats wanted to keep religion out of politics.

“I haven’t seen the billboard, but if it says ‘Jesus cares for the poor’ … I don’t see how Jesus ties to the Democratic or Republican Party,” Sebert said.

“Jesus is not a party builder,” he added. “I’m a religious person and I have sympathy for the poor. All people are created equal, but we don’t have all the same opportunities. I don’t think it’s a party issue. It’s a public issue. As a legislature we deal with it as a state as best we can.”

...

Grassroot Democrats, according to Roger Berggren of Sioux Falls, executive director of the group, is addressing what he said the last election left out in the cold: a Democratic moral position.

“(The billboard is) there for the hundreds of moderate and liberal Christians that see Pat Robertson on the news and Bill Frist in front of churches preaching and who don’t understand how their values fit into Jesus’ life,” said Berggren. “To try to say that Democrats are just going to ignore religion is ignoring part of what makes us, us.”

Read the whole article.

UPDATE:  SD War College--Jesus is just alright with the dems.

Are you sure its not the Daily KOS?

From USA Today:

An Idaho weatherman says Japan's Yakuza mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge itself for the Hiroshima atom bomb attack — and that this technology will soon be wielded again to hit another U.S. city.

Meteorologist Scott Stevens, a nine-year veteran of KPVI-TV in Pocatello, said he was struggling to forecast weather patterns starting in 1998 when he discovered the theory on the Internet. It's now detailed on Stevens' website, www.weatherwars.info, the Idaho Falls Post Register reported.

Stevens, who is among several people to offer alternative and generally discounted theories for the storm that flooded New Orleans, says a little-known oversight in physical laws makes it possible to create and control storms — especially if you're armed with the Cold War-era weapon said to have been made by the Russians in 1976. Stevens became convinced of the existence of the Russian device when he observed an unusual Montana cold front in 2004.

Of course we here at SDP would never take such a story seriously.  The Yakuza, after all, are a criminal and not a political organization.  The Nation Magazine, or the Daily KOS, now that would make some sense.

But you have admit, the folks in Idaho Falls don't have a boring weatherman. 

 

Fear and Loathing at the KOS

According to our friends at Clean Cut Kid, Republicans are too ridgid to tolerate any dissent in their ranks.  Well, this is how the Daily KOS, an extraordinarily popular blog, deals with a heratic among the Democrats.

On a day that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) showed great leadership by announcing his opposition to John Roberts' confirmation to the SCOTUS, Max Baucus, Senator from Montana, demonstrated his wonderful backstabbing skills, undercutting his Leader by supporting Roberts:

I have found that Max Baucus meets my criteria for a gutless son of a bitch. Baucus demonstrates a healthy disrespect for his Leader in the Senate and for the values and principles that define the Democratic Party.

Throughout his career, Max Baucus has been kissing Republican rings and can not seem to break that habit, even with George Bush at the nadir of his Presidency.

Well, now.  Baucus " demonstrates a healthy disrespect for his Leader."  Imagine what CCK would be saying about us if we used such language about the President?  Better yet imagine what that blog we used to tangle with so often would say: "Republicans Openly Fascist!"  "Stalinist Show Trial Language in Republican Memos!"

Does the left wing blogosphere really believe that respect for capital L Leaders requires obedience?  That individual party members are not free to case their votes in what ways they think right?  Or is every question a simple matter of loyalty to the side of the righteous?

Startling Meanness Watch

Washington Post:

FBI Investigates Democrats on Steele's Credit Report

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two Democratic Party researchers in Washington illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as they conducted opposition research on the likely Republican Senate candidate.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged yesterday that two of his organization's employees had resigned as a result of the episode, which he said was subsequently referred to the U.S. attorney's office by the Democratic committee.

Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia confirmed last night that an investigation by its fraud and public corruption section is proceeding with the assistance of the FBI.

Does Kos Think Senator Johnson is a Traitor?

Last night, when Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus said he'd vote to confirm Judge Roberts, the people at Daily Kos attacked him as a traitor.  Now Senator Johnson has announced he's voting for Roberts:

Johnson Announces Position on Judge Roberts

Washington, DC—U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) today issued the following statement of his position on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:

After careful and diligent review of the testimony provided by Judge John Roberts during hearings recently conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is my belief that Judge Roberts should be confirmed by the Senate as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I will cast my vote accordingly.

There are few decisions of greater consequence that I will ever be asked to make than whether to approve an individual for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice to our nation’s highest court.   While it is impossible for any Senator to know with absolute certainty how a nominee will conduct himself in this high office, it appears to me that Judge Roberts is a thoughtful and respected jurist who possesses integrity and great legal skills.  I see no reason to believe that the nominee is an ideologue or otherwise outside the broad mainstream of contemporary conservative legal thinking.

While I have voted against President Bush’s nominees to the lower federal courts a modest number of times, I have voted over 200 times to confirm judicial nominees who I believed were conservative Republicans of great legal skill and who deserved bipartisan respect.  By my vote for Judge Roberts, I signal to President Bush my hope that his nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will similarly be a distinguished jurist or scholar who can win broad bipartisan support. 

Our nation is in need of healing and coming together, and choices for our highest court ought to further that goal rather than serving to polarize a country that is at war and still struggling with an immense natural disaster.

The proper legal foundation for

America

is found in the broad mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence and not in the extreme agendas of the political far left or far right.

Proof is in the Quotes

I have discussed in two recent posts (here and here) the disturbing consequences of taking the abstract principles of "autonomy" and "reproductive freedom" to certain logical conclusions.  It turns out that some of my theoretical musings that I intended to be shocking (such as advocating for legalized prostitution and wondering why children can't consent to sex) were previously advocated by now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  You can read all about it at NROs Bench Memos.  Here are some samples of things Ginsburg advocated in 1974:

“Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”

A statutory restriction on political rights of bigamists “is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships.”

“The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes.”

Other nuggets abound. For example, Ginsburg recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12.

Is there anything advocated by John Roberts, to say nothing of the most extreme Bush judicial nominee, that compares with these far out arguments by Ginsburg?  Yet, as Prof. Blanchard notes, Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court was supported by the Senate on a 96-3 vote.  If Republicans can support this woman, why can't Democrats like Harry Reid support John Roberts, who has been called by the dean of Washington reporters, David Broder, "so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation"?

DASCHLE BACK IN POLITICS; OPEN TO PRESIDENTIAL OR VP BID

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D, is returning to political life with a new political action committee and an upcoming appearance in Iowa.

Daschle has quietly eschewed most publicity since his defeat to Republican John Thune last November. But Steve Hildebrand, director of the new committee and Daschle's former campaign manager, said Daschle "is not going to rule out opportunities to play important roles in public service."

"It could be president, it could be vice president, it could be something else," Hildebrand said. "It could be nothing."

He said Daschle's Iowa speech, scheduled for the state party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Nov. 5, will probably be his most political since last year's election.

But Hildebrand insisted Daschle's appearance is not about running for the presidency. It is about supporting his Democratic friends in Iowa, he said.

"He is not today looking at his options for higher office," Hildebrand said.

Daschle has transferred $500,000 into the new committee, New Leadership for America PAC. Hildebrand says the committee will give money to endangered incumbents, support younger candidates looking to run for office and "provide a forum for him to continue to speak out on issues that are important."

As part of the new effort, Daschle held a fundraiser last week for West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat. He is also planning to appear at an event for Fernando Ferrer, a Democrat running against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Daschle's new PAC, which will give to both federal and state candidates, was registered with the IRS Tuesday, according to the PoliticalMoneyLine Web site.

In July, Daschle said he was not planning a rematch against Thune in 2010.

He made the statement in a letter to the Federal Election Commission, which had asked him to clarify his candidate status. Since Daschle's candidate fundraising committee had spent more than $5,000, he officially qualified as a candidate.

North Dakota Senate Race Heating Up

Just like Daschle began running tv ads in July 2003 long before his November 2004 election, Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is doing the same thing this time around.  From the great blog "Taking Back North Dakota":

Senator Conrad has already started running TV ads. Senator Conrad's press secretary says that it's not a campaign ad... but we know better. He knows that he is vulnerable and has started his TV ad campaign more than a year before the election! I wonder what their internal polls are showing.

Daschle Attacks Use of Voter ID

South Dakota requires voters to show an ID before voting, but Tom Daschle is against it and compares it to the days of segregation, according to a story on a voting commission's suggestions in today's Washington Post:

The most controversial recommendation calls for all voters to produce a standard photo identification card before being allowed to vote. The commission proposes that, by 2010, voters be required to use either the Real ID card, which Congress this spring mandated as the driver's license of the future in all states. For about 12 percent of eligible voters who do not have a driver's license, the commission says states should provide at no cost an identification card that contains the same key information.

Critics of voter ID cards say the requirement could raise privacy issues and intimidate or discourage some Americans, particularly the elderly, the poor and minorities, from participating in elections. To alleviate those concerns, the Carter-Baker commission urges states to make it easy for non-drivers to obtain such cards and seeks measures to ensure privacy and security for all voters. The commission report states that by adopting a uniform voter ID card, minorities would be better protected from shifting identification standards at individual polling places.

Still, the proposed ID card drew sharp dissent from some commissioners, among them former Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.). In a dissent joined by two other commissioners, Daschle likened the ID to a "modern day poll tax."

Voting On Roberts

I addition to the liberal newspapers Ken Blanchard mentioned, add the LA Times as endorsing john Roberts for Chief Justice. 

I would argue that the bellwether for the Senate Democrats is not their leader, Harry Reid, but Hillary Clinton.  Clinton has much more at stake politically than does Reid.  She must cultivate an image of moderation and good sense.  If she can't vote for John Roberts, as Prof. Blanchard suggests, there is no one to the right of Steven Breyer for whom she could vote.  The moderate thing to do is to vote for Roberts and then hope Bush does not appoint a racial minority to fill the O'Connor seat.  I suspect this is what Clinton will do: vote for Roberts and then vote against the next nominee to show she is in touch with the party's base.  But given my track record on predictions, this makes it likely she will do the exact opposite of what I have just said.

Anyone have any clue how Tim Johnson is going to vote?  I bet Kent Conrad votes for Roberts, as he is already running for his life in NoDak. 

Daschle Mentioned

Todays Hotline:

The FEC charged the Club for Growth for violating campaign-finance laws, specifically for raising and spending at least $4M more than the soft-money limits for 527s allow (Dinan, Washington Times, 9/10). From the suit: "The Club itself has repeatedly asserted that its purpose is to 'elect pro-growth congressmen' and 'defeat status quo incumbents' (but) has never registered as a political committee with the Commission and has failed to report to the Commission its receipts and disbursements" (Whittington, Roll Call, 9/20). FEC Vice-Chair Michael Toner: "This litigation is an important test case on when 527 groups are required to register with the FEC and follow hard-dollar restrictions in federal law" (Washington Times, 9/10).

CFG pres. Pat Toomey called the suit "outrageous" and "a bizarre interpretation of the club's mission, the Constitution and the laws adopted by Congress. ... We have consulted with counsel every step of the way and have followed the law and regulations that govern our work."

FEC investigated CFG as a result of a DSCC complaint about an ad that ran against ex-Sen. Min. leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) "over his opposition to a tax-cut proposal." Center for Responsive Politics head/ex-FEC counsel Larry Noble said the lawsuit focuses on spending that urged voters to elect or defeat candidates. Noble said the suit would leave questions for the FEC on partisan groups which aim to influence voters, but "didn't go quite as far as the club did" (Theimer, AP/Lexington Herald-Leader, 9/20).

Party of Obstructionists

Up until today I was guessing, along with many others, that a substantial number of Democrats would vote to confirm John Roberts.  This would have made the Democrats look less obstructionist and more reasonable.  That, I supposed, would have positioned them better for the next fight.  But it appears that this is not to be the strategy after all.  The Senate's designated Daschle, Harry Reid, as announced that he will oppose Roberts.  This announcement comes just before the Judiciary Committee issues its report.  That's surely a breach of decorum.  It amounts to a vote of no confidence on the committee.  The Democrats would have some excuse if there were an attendant scandal of the sort that Clarence Thomas had to face.  But considering that three liberal metropolitan papers-the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, have endorsed Roberts, it suggests that most Democrats will oppose any nominee sent up by a Republican. 

Democrats did not always behave like this.  Consider the following confirmation votes:

Sandra Day O'Connor 99-0.
Antonin Scalia 98-0.
Anthony Kennedy 98-0.
David Souter 90-9.

We note that Senate Republicans showed the same decorum.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96-3.
Stephen Bryer 87-9.

These votes all make sense.  The nominees were all well-qualified, modest in their behavior, and none were known to take radical positions on fundamental questions.  Within those bounds it is reasonable to give the President the nominees he chooses.  That is what keeps the process Democratic.  Americans get the Court they want when they get the Presidents they want.  Roberts is clearly one of the best nominees a President has ever sent up.  If more than a small portion of Democrats vote against him it will suggest that they no longer respect the traditional constitutional processes.  That is not a good thing for either party.

Does Daschle Have Presidential Bug Again?

Daschle to Headline Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

Des Moines, September 20th, 2005 -- Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle will help rally Iowa Democrats this fall. He'll be the main speaker at the state party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on November fifth in Des Moines.

Daschle served 26 years in the House and Senate, and was both majority and minority leader in the Senate. He lost to Republican John Thune last year. The Jefferson-Jackson dinner will also include speeches from the Democratic candidates for Iowa governor.

Covering Up The Stink

The Vikings release the plans for a new stadium.  I suggest the name "The Vomitorium."  At least that would be truth in advertising.  Now the Vikings can stink in style. 

Thune Responds to USA Today

John Thune has responded to the Gannett/USA Today editorial that advocated the closing of Ellsworth:

'Common sense' to maintain South Dakota base

by Senator John Thune

USA TODAY's editorial "Cold War drags on — forever" ignored facts for fiction. When the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) voted 8-to-1 to remove Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., from the Pentagon's closure list, it wasn't sparing a "costly" base. BRAC members neither defied "common sense" nor were "absurd." This decision, if signed into law, would save tax dollars (Our view, Military needs debate, Wednesday).

The BRAC staff presented overwhelming data from the commission, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and even the Pentagon that proved closing Ellsworth would not result in a single penny saved.

What defied common sense was USA TODAY's omission of the facts. The Defense Department claimed that closing Ellsworth would save $1.8 billion over 20 years. This was flat wrong. A GAO report proved that 60% of the projected savings simply did not exist. The Pentagon also failed to calculate enormous costs associated with consolidated training flights and cleanup and construction, which further reduced savings by hundreds of millions of dollars. The end result: Closing Ellsworth would cost almost $19 million.

The editorial went on to suggest that politics must have "played a role." If so, how does USA TODAY explain that two Democrat appointees on the commission voted to save Ellsworth while the one dissenting commissioner was appointed by the Senate Republican leader?

Ellsworth is a premier Air Force base with exceptional military personnel who are aiding our effort to win the war on terror. Common sense would suggest that closure would have been absurd.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., Washington

Denise Ross: "Is Hilde getting some revenge?"

From the Rapid City Journal blog Mt. Blogmore:

By Denise Ross

The FEC has sued the Club for Growth, and it’s all over that nonsensical anti-Daschle ad the group ran in the midst of all the other campaign ad clutter. Something about tax cuts and Daschle being an obstructionist. I barely remember. (You guys really got your money’s worth, in other words.)

Here’s the AP report. The suit is about broader issues — the new campaign finance laws and who has to follow them. But the activity that leads to these broader issues being raised is the Daschle ad, according to this story.

One note: Stephen Moore of Club for Growth said in my former RCJ column that John Thune ran a “feckless” campaign in 2002, so these guys are warm and fuzzy to everyone.

This lawsuit makes me ask: Is Hilde getting some revenge? And also, whatever happened with that letter the FEC sent to Daschle about his ongoing campaign spending?

Right to Privacy

Joe Knippenberg at No Left Turns directs us to this fine piece by Robert George on the so-called right to privacy.  There is no doubt that the Constitution protects kinds of privacy rights, but it is another thing altogether to say that there is a generalizable privacy right.

Another thought today about the "right to privacy," "autonomy " of women, and their "ability to control their reproductive lives."  If women have autonomy, a right to privacy, and have the right to control their reproductive lives, can the state make it illegal to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman?  Can a woman who is refused service demand her constitutional right?  If she wanted to abort her unborn child, the Supreme Court would protect that choice.  So why not let her affect the prenatal development of that child by drinking alcohol?  After all, it's her body and her rights.  Or so some would say. 

Daschle

A lot of Daschle talk today.  First off, from today's edition of Hotline:

DASCHLE: What's Tom Up To? Should We Start Wondering About IA And NH?

     Ex-Senate Dem leader Tom Daschle's new PAC, New Leadership for America, will help him maintain his post-Hill influence in politics, according to advisers. Through DASHPAC and on his own, Daschle has donated/helped to raise more than $500K for Dems across the country, including large donations to the WV and ND Dem parties. But Daschle has no plans to run for office anytime soon. DASHPAC is being shuttered; the new PAC is being built on top of Daschle's old campaign committee, but it's being given a new coat of a paint, a new name, and a new, multi-candidate purpose and FEC designation. Daschle political adviser/ex-manager Steve Hildebrand: "The first and primary purpose for this new PAC is to aggressively help progressive candidates run for public office. To contribute to them, to foster their candidacy, to encourage support from others" (Hotline reporting). Daschle is "in the process of lining up a series of political travel on behalf of Democratic candidates around the country." Last week, Daschle helped WV Sen. Robert Byrd with a $100k fundraiser and "a direct mail pitch." Because Daschle is "no longer a federal officeholder, Daschle is incorporating a nonfederal account within the PAC" (i.e. a 527). That account will be allowed to accept unlimited donations, although Daschle plans on capping such donations at $25,000 a year per individual" (Kane, Roll Call, 9/19).

Today's Roll Call is noting him too:

Seeking to re-establish himself as a political force, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) is forming a new political action committee, raising money for his former colleagues and trying to pump new life into his state’s Democratic Party.

Daschle transferred more than $500,000 in leftover funds from his unsuccessful 2004 re-election bid into the new committee and launched the New Leadership for America PAC at a retreat for potential new Democratic candidates in the Black Hills of South Dakota held Sept. 9-11.

The PAC will become Daschle’s primary political vehicle as he seeks to maintain a level of political relevancy beyond that of other Congressional leaders who have left office in recent years.

...

Earlier this summer Daschle penned a direct-mail piece for Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who may face one of the toughest re-elections in 2006. The piece yielded $190,000 for Conrad’s campaign.

And Daschle is in the process of lining up a series of political travel on behalf of Democratic candidates around the country.

The new political activity is not being viewed as any sort of a potential springboard for Daschle to return to electoral politics, as his friends and former aides say he has settled fairly happily into a post-Senate career combining a mix of private-sector jobs as well an academic component. Daschle is working with a longtime supporter, Leo Hindery, in a New York investment outfit focusing on mid-size media companies. In addition, he has set up shop in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Alston and Bird, where he is not lobbying but instead advising clients.

...

New Leadership for America is taking over where Daschle’s old committee, DASHPAC, is leaving off. DASHPAC, with just $11,000 in its coffers on July 31, will officially terminate in the next few weeks, leaving Daschle just with New Leadership.

Afghanistan Holds Legislative Elections

The weekend featured two key elections: Germany and Afghanistan.  Both involved millions of people confronting new worlds.  Of the two, Germany was clearly the more backward.  The Germans faced a choice between a demonstrably failed policy and a lukewarm prospect of reform.  They straddled the fence.

Afghanistan is the real story. 

From USA Today:

By Paul Wiseman

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan voters by the millions braved Taliban threats and contended with bewildering ballots Sunday to pick a new parliament for the first time in three decades.  . . . Ed Morgan, chief of a delegation from the non--—profit International Foundation for Election Systems, estimated a turnout of 7 million of the 12.4 million registered voters. Eight million voted in November.

What is astounding is that the left has virtually no interest in such events.   

My View Triumphs

The Moderate Liberal Punditocracy has swung around to my view so fast that I am not sure they really had time to read my blogs in order to know what to say.  But that's the nature of the blogosphere: thoughts travel with the speed of your cable connection.  David Broder now accepts the general principle that Judge Roberts ought to be confirmed for the simple reason that he is extraordinarily qualified for the job.

The question of whether Judge John Roberts is qualified to be chief justice of the United States has been rendered moot by his performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. He is so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

With the Washington Post on board, the only interesting question is how all this will affect the next nomination struggle.  I argued that Democrats were now in the business of appearing reasonable, if grossly verbose, so that their cries and laments would seem more credible one Bush sends up his next nominee.  Mark Steyn, whose prose has the most deliciously wicked edge of any knife in the journalistic drawer, cuts it the same way.

We're now told that most Dems will vote for Roberts in order to give themselves some bipartisan cred before they Bork the president's next nominee. That sounds like feeble spin to avoid getting flayed by the Moveon.org types.

Yeah, it does.  And anyway it has been seriously compromised by Broder and the Washington Post.  If the standard for confirming Roberts is that a judge be reasonable, not a radical, and well-qualified, then that is the standard for the next nominee as well.  I imagine that the Bush Administration can drive another conservative through that gate.

Clinton v. Bush

Power Line:  Uncharted Territory, Once Again

Drudge:  Clinton Turns on Bush

Dred Roberts the Pirate III

Within hours of my last post the Washington Post has adopted my position: that a Supreme Court nominee who is well qualified and not a radical should be confirmed by the Senate, regardless of whether that nominee leans to the conservative or liberal side of the judicial spectrum.  Like the Star Tribune, they urge the Senate to confirm Roberts.

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

This is not to say we expect that as chief justice, Judge Roberts will always rule as we would like. Reading the tea leaves of any justice's future votes is a dicey business. But on a number of important issues, Judge Roberts seems likely to take positions that we will not support. His backing of presidential powers, and willingness to limit civil liberties, appear worrisomely large, while his deference to congressional authority relative to the states may be too small. He appears more suspicious of affirmative action than we think the court should be, and his view of certain civil rights protections has been narrow. Given his comments about precedent and the right to privacy, we do not believe a Chief Justice Roberts will be eager to overturn federal abortion rights. But we recognize that he might end up supporting that unfortunate step, as the late chief justice William H. Rehnquist did unsuccessfully. These are all risks, but they are risks the public incurred in reelecting President Bush.  [My italics]

This is the reasonable position.  I note that it clearly strengthens Bush's hand in the next nomination struggle. 

 

Democracy

New York Times:

Afghans turned out eagerly to vote today in their first democratic parliamentary elections in 35 years, expressing hope for a better future and for a government that will be answerable to the people, despite a number of scattered attacks around the country.

...

"I came for my country and for a better future," said Alem, 25, a fruit seller, one of scores of men and women lined up under flags and colored bunting in the main mosque of Kabul's old city, in a district known as Chindawol. Like many Afghans he uses only one name. "We will have a good future with a Parliament. They should serve us well and bring some prosperity and security," he said.

Afghans have now voted for the lower house of the National Assembly and for provincial councils.   This progress was accomplished only because of our actions in that country.  The Afghan elections, plus the Iraqi elections and the Iraqi draft Constitution are all a result of our intervention.  How can you not have pride for what is transpiring in the Middle East?

The State Department's South Asian Affairs desk provides this guide for the elections.

The Bush Bathroom Break Note

Was it faked?

HT to LGF.