South Dakota Politics

Intellectual Diversity

Here's a breaking news story from the Rapid City Journal:

Saying that they want to ensure that a wide range of views is heard and tolerated on college campuses, a group of state lawmakers is proposing legislation that would ask South Dakota’s six state universities to report periodically on their efforts to promote “intellectual diversity.”

Rep. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, chairwoman of the House Education Committee and the chief sponsor of HB1222, said Wednesday that the goal is to get ahead of situations in other states where students, speakers and faculty members have been harassed because of their views.

“This is not an indictment at all,” Heineman said. “For us, it is good governance.”

She said there have been no such incidents on South Dakota campuses that she is aware of and that she has heard only “anecdotal” reports.

“We are just trying to be proactive and not wait for any incidents, such as the Iraq war veteran who was harassed at Columbia University,” Heineman said.

Tad Perry, executive director of the South Dakota Board of Regents, said he discussed the idea with Heineman but he hasn’t yet read the bill. He said it could raise some concerns.

“If it is just about making a report, we could go along with that,” he said. “If it goes beyond that, I might have some questions.”

For the complete story, see Thursday's Rapid City Journal.

For a little background on intellectual diversity read this piece by the man who conceived it, David Horowitz.

UPDATE:  Here's a copy of the bill.  Here's the Rapid City Journal's full report on the bill.

For more background, see this:

According to Karl Zinsmeister's article, "The Shame of America's One-Party Campuses," The American Enterprise (September 2002), campus political, and hence ideological, diversity is all but absent. Mr. Zinsmeister sampled faculty political affiliation obtained from local voter registration records at several universities. He classified faculty who registered as Democratic, Green or Working Families Party as members of the party of the Left and those registered as Republicans or Libertarians as members of the party of the Right.

The results were: Brown University, 5 percent of faculty were members of the party of the Right; at Cornell it was 3 percent; Harvard, 4 percent; Penn State, 17 percent; Stanford University, 11 percent; UCLA, 6 percent; and at UC Santa Barbara, 1 percent. There are other universities in the survey; however, the pattern is the same - a faculty dominated by leftist ideology. In some departments, such as Women's Studies, African-American Studies, Political Science, Sociology, History and English, the entire faculty is leftist. When it came to the 2000 election, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty voted for Al Gore, 6 percent for Ralph Nader and 9 percent for George Bush. In the general electorate, the vote was split at 48 percent for Gore and Bush and 3 percent for Nader. Zinsmeister concludes that one would find much greater political diversity at a grocery store or on a city bus.

And this from the New York Times:

At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the 60's. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.

Conservatism is becoming more visible at the University of California here, where students put out a feisty magazine called The California Patriot and have made the Berkeley Republicans one of the largest groups on campus. But here, as at schools nationwide, the professors seem to be moving in the other direction, as evidenced by their campaign contributions and two studies being published on Nov. 18.

One of the studies, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That ratio is more than twice as lopsided as it was three decades ago, and it seems quite likely to keep increasing, because the younger faculty members are more consistently Democratic than the ones nearing retirement, said Daniel Klein, an associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University and a co-author of the study.

In a separate study of voter registration records, Professor Klein found a nine-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study, which included professors from the hard sciences, engineering and professional schools as well as the humanities and social sciences, also found the ratio especially lopsided among the younger professors of assistant or associate rank: 183 Democrats versus 6 Republicans.

The political imbalance on faculties has inspired a campaign to have state legislatures and Congress approve an "academic bill of rights" protecting students and faculty members from discrimination for their political beliefs. The campaign is being led by Students for Academic Freedom, a group with chapters at Berkeley and more than 135 other campuses. It was founded last year by the leftist-turned-conservative David Horowitz, who helped start the 1960's antiwar movement while a graduate student at Berkeley.

Is Dave Kranz Biased?

As long time South Dakota Politics readers know, some of our writers think there's a good deal of evidence of bias on the part of the Argus Leader's  political reporter, Dave Kranz. 

For more on this subject, see Mt. Blogmore, where Sibby and Rapid City Journal reporter Kevin Woster are jousting over the bias of Dave Kranz:

Kevin, atleast I have documented and provided a link to my opinion that is supported by scores of other links. And did Don read any of the stuff that Dave Kranz wrote while managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic from 1976 to 1983? I have.

BTW: I don’t mind it that Kranz is a partisan Democrat. I too enjoy reading his stuff. I just ask the Argus follow its own ethics policy on full disclosure and then put Kranz on the opinion page. And if they want to say they present both sides, then find a conservative that will give the other side.

Sibster: Any chance you could lighten up and give my buddy Kranz a break? K.W.

More Cuba

Building on Prof. Blanchard's post below, in fact at the New York Public library you can buy Che Guevara watches.  This is the man who started the Cuban prison camp system and who personally assassinated scores of political dissidents. 

American Library Association and Cuba

Poet and commentator Andrei Codrescu was the keynote speaker at the Midwinter Meeting of the American Library Association.  He went off-script. 

It was with a great deal of dismay that I learned that the American Library Association had taken no action to condemn the imprisonment of librarians, the banning of books, the repression of expression and the torture of dissidents only 90 miles away from our shores, in Cuba. In March 1988, two residents of Las Tunas, Roman Colas and Berta Mexidor, opened a private library in their home, dedicated to offering Cubans books not officially available. The Felix-Varela Library was the first of a network of private libraries that were established by the volunteers in Cuba to bring light to the oppressive darkness of Castro’s police state.

103 libraries and 182,000 registered patrons were affiliated with the expanding Independent Libraries Project by the end of 2002. From the very beginning of their existence, the private librarians were subject to threats, harassments, evictions, arrests, police raids, and the seizure of book collections, books that disappeared so quickly they could only have been burned. In November 1999 Ramon Colas was arrested. Amnesty International declared him a “prisoner of conscience.” Hundreds of other librarians were arrested not long afterward, and their libraries and collections were confiscated. The ALA’s International Rights Committee looked, rather late, into the dire situation of the Cuban librarians. On January 13, 2001, the Latin American subcommittee of the IRC conducted a hearing of the ALA Midwinter conference in Washington where reports on the worsening situation in Cuba were presented by witnesses. . . . Amazingly enough, the final report of the ALA declined to recognize the new Cuban libraries as “libraries” and the librarians themselves were referred to as “individuals associated with these collections.” Since then, those “individuals” have been subject to brutal imprisonment and their books have disappeared.

The ALA councilors have remained silent on the issue to this day. Am I hallucinating? Is this the same American Library Association that stands against censorship and for freedom of expression everywhere?

There seem to be two forces working here.  One is that the ALA guards the privledged status of degreed librarians with a tenacity that would make a Medieval guild look generous.  But that is not enough to explain what was said in the exchange after Codrescu's speech.  From Library Journal:

[ALA President Michael] Gorman said there was a dispute about whether the activity of lending books "is being a librarian" and that "there is some dispute about the funding of these people who claim to set up libraries."

People are being thrown in jail and the ALA is concerned that they aren't authentic.  The part about the funding of "these people" is a reference to a rumor that the Independent Library Movement is funded by the CIA.  In fact, the ALA has a soft spot for Castro. 

 

ABC Pulls A CBS?

An interesting story about ABC News ignoring facts in an attempt to disgrace Justice Scalia.  Hat tip to NRO. 

McGovern

Rapid City Journal:

CHADRON, Neb. -- Former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern will be the keynote speaker at the Mari Sandoz Heritage Society's annual meeting at Chadron State College on Thursday, March 30.

The announcement was made during a news conference at CSC to discuss the receipt of the gift of 3,700 acres of Dawes County ranchland from Esther Pilster and her late husband Raleigh to the Sandoz Society.

McGovern, 83, is a South Dakota native who fought as a pilot in World War II and later became involved in politics.

Ron Hull of Lincoln, president of the Sandoz Society, said McGovern was one of his professors at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell in the early 1950s and that they have kept in touch through the years.

McGovern served in the U.S. House of Representatives from South Dakota from 1957-61 and in the U.S. Senate from 1963-80. He was the Democratic Party's nominee for president in 1972. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000 and was appointed the United Nations global ambassador on world hunger in 2001.

Hull said McGovern recently has joined with Bob Dole, the former Kansas senator and Republican nominee for president in 1996, to fight starvation and world hunger.

Who Will Johnson Side With?

According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, January 9, 2006, Senator Tim Johnson only supports the President 45% of the time.  But his Democratic colleague from Nebraska, Ben Nelson, who has announced he's voting for Alito, supports the President 76% of the time.

Sense and Nonsense on Medicare

Interesting contrast yesterday between two United States Senators in the way they are approaching the current glitches with the Medicare prescription drug benefit.  A small percentage of beneficiaries have had difficulties at the pharmacy counter because a huge influx of enrollments on December 31 and the difficulty getting all of that data into computer systems.  States and pharmacies are having to front the money to make sure these seniors get their prescriptions filled.

Senator John Thune took a no-nonsense approach, asking Medicare to make prompt reimbursements to pharmacies and state treasuries.  From the Aberdeen American News:

"It is only right for CMS to facilitate reimbursements for the state and participating pharmacies," Thune said in a release.  "I'm hopeful my request today will help to speed the process along."

Then there was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, quoted in an AP story:

He (Reid) noted problems with the newly implemented Medicare prescription drug plan.  "The state of our union today is that we have seniors begging in the streets for the medicines they need."

One wonders if, in Reid's home state of Nevada, Las Vegas gamblers are having to step around downtrodden elderly Americans holding up signs saying "Will Work For Prescription Drugs".  There are legitimate discussions to be had about the role of the private sector in Medicare's long-term future, but over-the-top rhetoric suggesting that Medicare is turning U.S. cities into a caricature of Calcutta doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse.

A Penny for my Thoughts

Professor Schaff blogs below on the death of former Congressman Tim Penny's wife.  Some years ago I attended a meeting of local Democrats at the invitation of my colleague, Jerry Rosonke.  The speaker was Tim Penny.  He was short, and I admire that in a man.  He was also thin, and may have been one of the few members of Congress I could wrestle to the ground.  I also admired the fact that he was a fiscal conservative.  Indeed, he was much more so than the current Republican Congress and President.  He also seemed to be a genuinely decent person.  Having been married for almost 25 years, the thought of losing a wife is terrifying.  God bless Tim. 

Joel Stein: "I don't support our troops."

A columnist at the LA Times shows his true colors:

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
...
But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.
...

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

Some reader comments:

Joel Stein is an ivory tower dwelling Marxist punk. His use of the word "Imperialism" with a straight face alone shows his lack of any connection with reality. He should just go get a pedicure with Zsa Zsa and leave politics to the adults.
Submitted by: Matt Dedinas 3rd ID ('96-'99)
2:25 PM PST, Jan 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Joel Stein. Tell me again why the written opinions of an overeducated, underexperienced, snotty little prick are vital to the image and mission of a major US daily newspaper? Glenn Perry Colonel, US Air Force (Ret)
Submitted by: Glenn M. Perry
2:14 PM PST, Jan 24, 2006

Check out Hugh Hewitt's comments.

Argus Bias

Kevin Woster raises the question of whether the Argus Leader is biased and gets this response from a reader:

The Argus biased??? Say it ain’t so Kevin! What were you, born on Mars??? The Argus has repeatedly attempted to sway public opinion and the election process with their “unbiased reporting”. Ask any of the candidates it DIDN’T endorse…Do you think its it fair for the State’s largest paper to endorse one candidate over another??? Does that lead to a “more informed electorate”? And by the way, what collective knowledge well are the editors of the Argus drinking from that the voters of South Dakota aren’t given access? Its plain that the Thune camp just said what the other “victims” haven’t…The Argus doesn’t just give the facts, it gives its spin. If you don’t believe me, ask the Governor… the current and most favored whipping boy for the Argus. The Argus deserves this criticism and should take inventory of its policies. The Argus fast approaching Yellow Journalism, Mr. Kane. If the editor(s) of the Argus have an OPINION, let him/her write a letter like the rest of us and print it with the rest of the concerned citizens…otherwise, REPORT, not OPINE. I have enough bird cage liner, thank you very much.

P.S. Apparently the current “burning issue” of the Governor’s Hunt list isn’t gaining the traction the Argus thought it would, so its expanding its range of fire—otherwise that and the airplane rides would still be Front Page, Above the Fold. (By the way, did you see that the FAA gave the thumbs up to the Governor? HMMM, still think they are unbiased?)

Kos

Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding is noting that Daily Kos is comparing Republicans to the Taliban:

Let’s not forget that ultimately, Osama’s vision for the Arab world is far more akin to the Right’s vision of America…On homosexuality, on militarism, on women’s rights, on religion in school, on capital punishment, on free speech, on curtailment of civil liberties, and on a million different other issues Islamic fundamentalists don’t share many disagreements with the ideologues running our country.

The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we’re fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for.

Of course, Senator Tim Johnson is the one who first popularized the comparison between Republicans and the Taliban:

At a campaign rally for Democratic U.S. House candidate Stephanie Herseth on Sunday in Sioux Falls, Johnson delivered this statement to the crowd, according to The Associated Press: "When Stephanie Herseth fills this seat, we are going to have a rising star in the House of Representatives. And how sweet it's going to be on June 2 when the Taliban wing of the Republican Party finds out what's happened in South Dakota."

Header Contest

Just to remind everybody, we're still accepting submissions from anybody that has a new design to replace our SDP header logo.  Keep them coming!

Rendell Supports Alito

Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell has endorsed Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.   Here's part of the transcript from Fox News. 

ED RENDELL: I believe he's a qualified judge. He sits on the third circuit
court of appeals in Philadelphia. I don't know if you know this bill, 
my wife is a third circuit court judge. 
 
HEMMER: I'm aware of that. It should give you pretty good knowledge of him? 
 
RENDELL: Right. She has a high opinion of his integrity and his academic
standards. She deals agrees with him on a number of cases and agrees with
him on some. I disagree with a lot of his positions on cases, but I think
the tests should always be one party wins the election. As long as the
Supreme Court justice is appointed who has high academic qualifications,
significant integrity and judge Alito certainly does, we should confirm
him regardless of our disagreement on the way he may interpret one aspect
of the law. I think we've fallen into such partisanship in DC.  Not just
in this but in so many things, it's in some way ways tearing the country
apart. 

It's not secret that I find Gov. Rendell's logic impecable.  I am not sure that we give a president whatever he wants just because he won an election, but I do think that when a judge of high legal quality and of sound ethics comes before the Senate, that judge deserves confirmation.  No one disputes Judge Alito's excellence as a judge or his integrity.  The only reason to oppose him is for low political purposes.  I think Senator Kyl is right on the money (and welcome to our new colleague, Mr. Freeman).  One wonders what Tim Johnson will do?  If he opposes Samuel Alito, what reason could he give other than conservatives don't belong on the Supreme Court.

Eminent Domain

The South Dakota Legislature seems well on its way to passing sensible eminent domain reform in light of the unpopular Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case.  In this case Kelo is a person, not a TV station. 

Al-Qaida is Losing

From Christopher Hitchens at Slate:

I once hypothesized that Osama Bin Laden might be dead. The induction went like this: Proof of life is easy to furnish, but some of the tapes allegedly showing him could easily have been cobbled from earlier releases. Ergo, it mattered to al-Qaida to demonstrate that he was alive. Yet they lacked the ability to demonstrate it. Furthermore, Bin Laden used to be a highly loquacious man, pronouncing on everything from East Timor to Iraq, and seemed at a crucial juncture to have gone quiet.

This reasoning proved inadequate when he popped up during the last U.S. election and made a series of contemporary references, mainly (and ill-advisedly) drawn from Michael Moore's dreadful Fahrenheit 9/11. And we are now assured that the latest audiotape delivered to Al Jazeera has been authenticated also. If we suppose this to be true, then it nonetheless seems to be further evidence that al-Qaida is, as I argued last week, facing a very serious crisis.

Check out the whole thing.

Barb Penny, RIP

I see that Barb Penny, the wife of former congressman Tim Penny, has died of cancer at age 51.  Tim Penny was my representative when I lived in my hometown of Rochester in the First District of Minnesota.  He is exactly the kind of Democrat we need more of, i.e. moderate to conservative on most things.  In fact his moderation kept him from advancing within his party, which led to his relatively early retirement from Congress.  And yes, we need more liberal Republicans, too, as I explained here.  Tim Penny, besides being a good congressman, was and is a good man.  Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. 

State Senate

The resolution calling on Senator Tim Johnson to vote for Alito passed the Senate, 25 to 9. 

Greetings and the Alito Vote

At today's Senate Judiciary Committee vote, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) explained the significance of the party line vote on Joseph Alito and why future Democratic Presidents will have difficulty asking for bipartisanship on judiciary nominations.

I fear a very bad precedent is being set today, a precedent that a unanimous minority will oppose a nominee on political grounds, not because the nominee is in any way unqualified. Republicans did not apply that test to Justices Breyer or Ginsburg.

And I say precedent because it is simply unrealistic to think that one party will put itself at a disadvantage by eschewing political considerations while the other party almost unanimously applies such considerations.

So I say to my Democratic friends, think carefully about what is being done today. Its impact will be felt well beyond this particular nominee.

As this is my inaugural post on South Dakota Politics, I would like to thank the organizers of this site for inviting me to join as an occasional contributor and introduce myself with as little tedium as possible.  I'm Michael Freeman, a native of Freeman, SD, a 1980 South Dakota State University graduate, former communications director for U.S. Senator Jim Abdnor and formerly a press spokesperson for Larry Pressler's first successful U.S. Senate campaign in 1978.  Currently, I am executive vice president for a health care trade association and am occasionally called upon to write speeches for a number of corporations, associations and prominent individuals who shall not be named because I'm too lazy to ask for their permission.  Most importantly, I'm a long-time reader of this site and look forward to adding my voice periodically to the already-excellent mix here.

Senate Judiciary Committee Recommends Alito

From MSNBC:

The Judiciary Committee favorably recommended Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate on a party-line vote Tuesday, ensuring prospects the conservative jurist will join the high court bench.

All 10 Republicans voted for Alito, while all eight Democrats voted against him. The partisan vote was almost preordained, with 15 of the 18 senators announcing their votes even before the committee’s session began.

The full Senate expects to take a final vote on Alito’s nomination before the end of the week. That vote is also expected to follow along party lines, with only one Democrat — Ben Nelson of Nebraska — coming out so far in support of Alito. Republicans hold the balance of power in the Senate 55-44, with one independent.

NYT

The New York Times today notes that Bush-bashing didn't work for the Liberal candidate in Canada:

But as Mr. Martin fell behind in the opinion polls, his campaign came to rely on attack advertisements that were unusually caustic for Canada. He tried to depict Mr. Harper as a fanatical American-style conservative and an ally of President Bush, who is unpopular in Canada.

Senate Democrats

Someone tells David Newquist what they think.  David wrote:

The Democratic leadership in Pierre always appears to have a greater capacity for wetting its pants than in taking any leadership in asserting the basic values of democratic, honest government. It is no wonder Rounds flouts, flaunts, and flies that damned airplane in their faces. He gets away with it--and he would not in most states.

They are intimidated by the threats that they may appear unreasonable and acting against the will of the people if they get assertive on any issue. That is why South Dakota is ranked at the absolute bottom of the states for open, fair government.

The Democratic leadership and the Third-World government it allows is one of the major reasons for the brain-drain in this state. What does it matter if the crime rate is low when graft and abuses of power are, in effect, made legal by those too timid to enforce the standards of open, clean government?

To which someone replied:

Good grief, David, you rank SD right up there with the Third World gov'ts? If this state is so bad, go somewhere else; or if you are so much better (in your opinion) than the leaders of SD, run yourself and change something. My SD district has 3 Dem Congress people, so don't say it can't be done.

Abortion

From KELO, via Matt Drudge:

In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime.

A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days.

The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.

Canada

Michael Moore is in shock over Canada's choice of politicians:

"Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, ... but this is no longer funny," Moore complained in a commentary on his website.

"First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't," Moore moaned.

Conservatives led by Stephen Harper were ahead of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals by a comfortable 10 to 12 points, polls showed Saturday, two days before Canadians go to the polls.

In "Bowling for Columbine," his documentary on gun violence in the United States, Moore heads north to Canada to flee the rise of conservatism on US soil.

"A man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper, because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest?" Moore asked.

"Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do," he added. "I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive, but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing."

Alito

Excerpt from the National Journal Group:

Pro-Alito Group Puts Pressure On Dakota Dems

By Jennifer Koons

National Journal Group, Jan. 20, 2006

The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary puts Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., in its cross hairs this weekend with a targeted advertising campaign urging the moderate lawmakers to back Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

A CFJ spokesman characterized the buy as "the first phase of the campaign if [Democrats] continue to make this an election-year issue."

Both ads follow similar scripts and encourage constituents to tell their senators to "vote yes on Judge Alito and stand with mainstream America not Ted Kennedy."

On Thursday, Johnson said he had not yet decided how he will vote on Alito. "I think it's premature for me to be announcing a final position on Judge Alito while the Senate Judiciary Committee is still dealing with his nomination process," the senator told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

For his part, Conrad said this week he has agreed to a Bush administration request to meet a second time with the nominee before announcing his vote.

Meanwhile, the pro-Alito Committee For Justice began airing a series of radio ads Thursday aimed at influencing Democratic senators in Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as North and South Dakota.

Also, this from the mailbag:

Senator Johnson considering voting against Judge Alito. Your calls are needed today! ...
AFA has learned that Senator Johnson is seriously considering voting against the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Your calls asking Senator Johnson to vote FOR the confirmation of Judge Alito are needed today. Time is short. You can call his office directly.

SENATOR JOHNSON'S DIRECT NUMBER IS 202-224-5842

Please call today!

Conservatives Win in Canada

From CTV:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has won a minority government on Monday, putting an end to more than 12 years of Liberal rule.

Polls across the country are now closed and results are pouring in.

The Conservatives have taken a commanding lead with 123 seats, compared to 102 for the second place Liberals.

The Bloc Quebecois currently holds 50 seats, while the NDP has won 30.

Support for the Tories exploded when the polls closed west of Atlantic Canada.

Harper, Canada's next prime minister, has been re-elected in the Alberta riding of Calgary Southwest. The Conservatives dominated in the West, and took most seats in the Prairies, as expected.

But it was in battleground Ontario where the Conservatives made a big breakthrough, with most of the polls showing they're on track to take at least a dozen more seats than the 24 they won in 2004.

Preliminary Results:

National Last updated: 22:55 ET Party Party standing %   Popular vote %

AACEV Party of Canada	0	0.0		21	0.0
Bloc Québécois	50	16.3		652,258	9.5
Canadian Action	0	0.0		2,092	0.0
Christian Heritage Party	0	0.0		15,046	0.2
Communist	0	0.0		1,326	0.0
Conservative	124	40.5		2,513,393	36.5
FPNP	0	0.0		586	0.0
Green Party	0	0.0		289,832	4.2
Independent	1	0.3		33,085	0.5
Liberal	102	33.3		2,152,967	31.2
Libertarian	0	0.0		965	0.0
Marijuana Party	0	0.0		4,180	0.1
Marxist-Leninist	0	0.0		3,524	0.1
N.D.P.	29	9.5		1,217,484	17.7
No Affiliation	0	0.0		3,172	0.1
PC Party	0	0.0		6,224	0.1
WBP	0	0.0		262	0.0

Total number of valid votes:

6,895,918

Polls reporting: 34,598/65,649	Voter turnout: 6,895,918 of 22,636,409 registered electors (30.5%)
The number of registered electors shown in this table does not include electors who registered on election day.

I am sure we are all disappointed at the poor showing for the Marijuana Party. You might say that their political ambitions have gone up in smoke. 

 

Pres Primaries

There goes the lively debate among the SDP contributors.  From the Argus Leader:

A measure seeking to give South Dakota one of the nation’s earliest presidential primaries was killed Monday by a legislative committee after opponents said a special presidential primary would be a waste of time and money.

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 6-3 to reject SB93, which would have moved the presidential portion of South Dakota’s primary to the last Tuesday in January,

H. Clinton v. McCain

Here's an interesting poll from the Diago Hotline.

Its particularly interesting because the Republican weakness right now is among independents, but Independents prefer McCain to Clinton 57 to 32%.  I remind our readers that I predicted that McCain would be the next Republican candidate for President.  I am going to keep on riding that horse.  If I turn out to be right, I will look really wise by comparison.  If I am wrong, like Jim Phelp's boss in Mission Impossible, I will deny all knowledge of the affair. 

In Praise of Contemporary Politics

Professor Schaff blogs incitefully below about the contemporary decline of political rhetoric, and the deviseness that causes it.  Michael Barone has a rather cheery interpretation of the same phenomenon in Real Clear Politics, one with which I agree.  He begins by acknowledging that contemporary politics looks pretty ugly.

It is not a pretty season in our politics. Both our major parties seem to be busy disqualifying themselves. The Republicans are desperately trying to avoid getting caught up in the scandal of the disgraced and disgustingly greedy lobbyist Jack Abramoff (his clients contributed to Democrats as well as Republicans, they are quick to assert). The Democrats are fortifying their reputation for being unwilling to defend their country from its violent enemies, by attacking George W. Bush for ordering National Security Agency electronic surveillance of calls from al-Qaida suspects and by filibustering reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

But he refers us to Judge Richard Posner's book Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, which treats the subject with some perspective. 

"American democracy," writes Posner, "enables the adult population,  at very little cost in time, money or distraction from private  pursuits commercial or otherwise, to punish at least the flagrant mistakes and misfeasances of officialdom, to assure an orderly succession of at least minimally competent officials, to generate feedback to the officials concerning the consequences of their policies, to prevent officials from (or punish them for) entirely ignoring the interests of the governed, and to prevent serious misalignments between government action and public opinion."                

All of which is a little too astringent to me. I prefer the uplift of Jefferson and Lincoln, the Roosevelts and Ronald Reagan (who appointed Posner to the bench). I note that voter turnout rose 16 percent from 2000 to 2004 and Bush's popular vote rose 23 percent: Our polarized politics has increased participation, though not in the way most of the academy and mainstream media would prefer.

Well, there you have it.  If you want to increase voter turnout, ratchet up the passion on both sides.  File that one under 'be careful what you wish for.'  And then read Barone's last paragraph.  Its about as good as everyday political rhetoric gets.  It rises to the level of political philosophy.

A city on a hill is, after all, a city -- and cities are messy places. As are suburbs and farmlands. Americans are busy striving and risking their lives and making the world better, as they have for 60-plus years. There have been few if any pretty seasons in our politics over those years: Go back, and try to find them. Yet the result, pace Posner, is better than what Rome achieved. We'll get through this season, too.

 

Anti-Americanism Fades in Canada II

From the Washington Post:

BURLINGTON, Canada -- Rob Hlohinec, 58, doesn't see what's so bad about Americans. He even admits to knowing some.

"I've talked to Americans. They want the same things we want," Hlohinec said as he watched a Conservative Party campaign rally in this Ontario town last week.

At his side, Irene Heller, 82, agreed. She said that was one reason she would vote to replace the government headed by the Liberal Party's Paul Martin in Canadian national elections on Monday. Martin, she said, uses anti-Americanism to try to win votes.

"He gets votes when he knocks America, and I don't approve of that," said Heller, who braved a sleet storm to attend the rally.

The Liberal Party won by the skin of its teeth last time by playing on Anti-Americanism.  This time it isn't flying. 

The Conservative Party's lead in the polls hovers at about 10 percentage points, putting the party in position to lead a coalition government that would probably be more in tune with the Bush administration.

The Liberal Party's attack on Harper's American sympathies was mostly political posturing; Martin himself has sought good relations with the United States. But his party has a mixed history on the issue. The prime minister had to expel one member of Parliament who stomped on a Bush doll on television, and a spokeswoman for his Liberal Party predecessor, Jean Chretien, referred to the American president as a "moron."

The Liberals were resorting to a campaign tactic that had worked before; they successfully erased Harper's lead in the polls in the last election, in 2004, by painting him as too pro-American. But this time, some Canadians say they feel the anti-Americanism has gone too far.

"You would think that issue would be more fertile ground because there has been an erosion" in the relationship between Canadians and Americans since the last election, said Frank Graves, president of Ekos, an Ottawa polling company. "Both countries look at each other with less regard than before."

But surprisingly, Graves said, "the America card doesn't seem to have had much traction this time."

"We think it's wrong. We're not against Americans," said Linda Armstrong, 60, who attended the Burlington rally with her husband, Mike, 61, like her a retired schoolteacher.

Sibby

Sibby is taking on Kranz and the Argus:

Again we have Dave Kranz writing an Op-ed attacking John Thune that involves Judge Larry Piersol, but fails to disclose the longtime friendship of Piersol and Tom Daschle:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid teed off on a number of Republican colleagues last week in a memo, saying they were trying to "provide cover from their culture of corruption."

Reid likened Republicans reforming themselves to asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime.

But a day later, Reid did an about-face on his harsh memo that included Sen. John Thune.

The Washington Post reported that he sent a letter to the Republicans and apologized for his remarks.

In reference to Thune, Reid mentioned legal maneuverings by the Daschle campaign against the Thune campaign. They charged that Republican poll workers in Lake Andes were intimidating Native American voters.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol ruled that Republicans could not write down license plate numbers or follow Native Americans from polling places on Election Day.

...

What Kranz refused to provide his readers was the facts that show the scandal Reid used was not John Thune’s, but actually was on the part of Tom Daschle who abused the power of his longtime friend in a desperate attempt to win re-election. And Tom Daschle must of known that he could depend on Piersol, based on what he said at the American Trial Lawyers Association convention on July 20, 2003:

In 1978, I won my first election to the House by 14 votes. Don’t laugh, in South Dakota, that’s 60 percent of the vote. Apparently undaunted by that landslide of support, my opponent sued to contest the election. I was fortunate to be represented by a great lawyer and a dear friend, Larry Piersol.

And know you know the rest of the story. The part that the Argus Leader refuses to print.

Check out the whole thing.

Herseth

Joel Rosenthal of South Dakota Straight Talk doesn't think much of Stephanie Herseth:

Representative Herseth appears not to have a grounded political philosophy that she acts on. She is beginning to remind me of the young Larry Pressler. It is almost like she is taking her plays right out of his game book. Senator Pressler also did not seem to have an overriding political philosophy. In his early Congressional career (until about 1984) it was hard to understand where he was coming from. He was an unreliable vote for the party position and Congressional Quarterly (CQ) ranked him the lowest Republican Senator in his support of President Ronald Reagan. Herseth and Pressler also seem to share the same modus operandi in embracing coalitions with support by throwing lots of our cash at them and share an affinity for taking of photographs with constituents at every possible opportunity and never missing a photo or media opportunity.

Novak on the Filibuster

Robert Novak briefly mentions the potential filibuster of Alito without offering much insight.  While liberal organizations who oppose Alito may prefer a filibuster, Alito said nothing during his confirmation hearings that suggest he is the sort of "extremist" judge worthy of a filibuster in the eyes of the general public.  I think these public perceptions of Alito will be enough to overcome any pressure top Democrats are feeling from liberal activists to filibuster his nomination. 

Pressure from liberal activists to oppose confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court has been so intense that Democratic senators may be trapped into a filibuster that they do not want to wage.

Despite the consensus that Alito performed well in his confirmation hearings, leaders of liberal organizations opposing him -- Ralph Neas, Nan Aron and Wade Henderson -- demand that Democrats vote against him. Consequently, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only Democrat at this writing who has announced in Alito's favor.

That means the number of senators voting "no" will be well over the 41 needed to prevent cloture. Pressure groups then could ask why no filibuster had been launched. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid may not want to risk causing Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist to set a precedent by using the "nuclear" option: to end a filibuster by simple majority vote.

RMN

Jim Sheeler of the Rocky Mountain News has a story entitled "Wake for an Indian Warrior: Oglala Sioux bestow a lasting tribute - a name - to first tribal fatality in Iraq."  Excerpt:

Since arriving at the home of Cpl. [Brett] Lundstrom's mother in nearby Black Hawk to inform her of her son's death, Marines from Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora had spent two days helping with plans for a nonstop, 42-hour wake on the reservation - the beginning of nearly five full days of traditional honors.

As the procession advanced, residents poured from their homes. The hearse passed families sitting on the hoods of their cars, their children wrapped in colorful blankets. One couple stood at the side of the road, their heads bowed. A boy on horseback watched with his dog near a barbed-wire fence. A man in a rusty pickup stared from atop a grassy hill.

The procession continued to grow as cars from the side of the road pulled in, stretching the line for more than five miles.

On their car radios, the tribute continued.

"We mourn, but honor the warriors who have given of their lives in the field of battle. We embrace their spirit, for they are our very breath of life.

"Great Spirit, we ask of you to receive our warriors."

Check out the whole thing.  Has this been covered in any of our local papers?

Munson and the Argus Leader

Well, now that the Governor is somewhat off the hook, the Argus is shifting it's hysterical attacks back to Mayor Dave Munson. They've got an article in Sunday's edition of the paper, which you can check out here

Europe's Money Votes with its Feet

Powerline notes this piece from the British Telegraph:

Europe's most successful companies are turning their backs on EU markets because of red tape, a high-level report said yesterday.

The companies that Europe needed to survive were instead investing more money than ever in the United States and Asia, concluded the report, presented to the European Commission in Brussels.

The lack of investment was so dire that it threatened Europe's "comfortable" way of life. "Europe has to act before it's too late," said the report's author, Esko Aho, the former prime minister of Finland.

The findings made unsettling reading for the EU leaders, ripping into their pledges to build a "knowledge-based Europe" that would overtake America in 10 years.

The reality was the opposite. Not only were US, Chinese and Japanese firms outspending Europe on research and development, the gap with Europe was growing.

Perhaps most damagingly, Europe's most important countries were pouring more and more of their technology investment overseas, as they despaired of the European Union becoming "innovation friendly".

Unless EU governments took bold action to increase spending on research, freed labour markets so skilled workers could move more easily, and stopped pouring taxpayers' money into dying industries, Europe's post-war way of life was doomed.

Bork's Last Laugh

I do not often agree with Cass Sustein, but he gets this at least half right.  From the New Republic, hat tip to Real Clear Politics:

Is Robert Bork having the last laugh? There is good reason to think so. Over the last months, the nation has witnessed something genuinely new--a kind of un-Borking of the confirmation process, produced by exceptionally shrewd leaders in the Republican Party.

I am not accustomed to praising Republican leadership.  I think it was my Dad who told me that "the difference between the two parties is simple: the Democrats are stupid; the Republicans are just plain dumb."  That certainly seems to me to accurately describe the Republican leadership during much of the last decades.  But not on judicial confirmation politics. 

When Bork was rejected by the Senate in 1987, it was because his opponents successfully portrayed him as holding extreme views that would endanger civil rights and liberties. It is true that Bork was the victim of an effective (and unfair) public relations campaign, featuring an influential attack ad narrated by Gregory Peck. But Bork also lost the battle of ideas. He argued that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it meant when it was originally ratified. Repudiating the modern right to privacy, Bork insisted that his own approach, based on the document's "original meaning," was neutral--not at all political, but a simple matter of fidelity to law. Spurred by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate rejected that claim, concluding in the process that Bork's approach to the Constitution was unacceptable.  Republican politicians learned their lesson well, and subsequent Republican appointees pointedly failed to endorse Bork's approach.

Sustein sees the Roberts and Alito hearings as signs that a conservative approach to the Constitution is suddenly triumphant. 

Significantly, however, John Roberts did not follow the script set by his Republican predecessors. His overall message was much simpler: He would follow the law. At the same time, he announced, "I do not have an overarching judicial philosophy that I bring to every case." He explained, "I tend to look at the cases from the bottom up rather than the top down."

Samuel Alito largely followed Roberts's script, but at key points he was much more specific. Asked about his general approach, he said, "I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." He also said that "it is the job of a judge, the job of a Supreme Court justice, to interpret the Constitution, not distort the Constitution, not add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution." 

Although Alito offered various qualifications, this is Bork's view in a nutshell. . . .  [T]he most important point is the development of a new script for confirmation--one that emphasizes fidelity to law, an idea that might well include favorable references to Bork's approach to the Constitution.

This is a fundamental change, one that signals a huge victory by Republican politicians. To a remarkable extent, Republican leaders have convinced the nation that their goal is to ensure that judges follow the Constitution--and that Democratic politicians want judges to "add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution."

There is something to this.  Democrats insistence on the value of precedent, motivated by their desire to preserve the achievements of judicial activism, seem to have bound themselves to an operationally conservative view of the judiciary.  Don't do anything exciting seems to be the new rule.  But I am not at all sure about the next part.

[The confirmation] process has been successfully un-Borked. If President Bush is able to fill other vacancies on the Supreme Court, the right script is firmly in place. And if Democratic presidents are able to fill future vacancies, their nominees may well run into trouble, because it will be easy to characterize them as wanting to "add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution."

I think that misstates what has happened.  Its true that a more conservative approach to the Constitution has been vindicated, but that may be temporary.  What is liable to be more lasting is the idea that judges ought to be confirmed if they are highly qualified and not radicals.  I think Republicans will honor that rule when the next Democratic President sends up a name to the Senate. 

Iraq

Norman Podhoretz and "The Panic Over Iraq."  Excerpt:

Like, I am sure, many other believers in what this country has been trying to do in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq, I have found my thoughts returning in the past year to something that Tom Paine, writing at an especially dark moment of the American Revolution, said about such times. They are, he memorably wrote, “the times that try men’s souls,” the times in which “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” become so disheartened that they “shrink from the service of [their] country.”

But Paine did not limit his anguished derision to former supporters of the American War of Independence whose courage was failing because things had not been going as well on the battlefield as they had expected or hoped. In a less famous passage, he also let loose on another group:

’Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. . . . Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses . . . . [T]heir peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain for ever undiscovered.

Thus, he explained, “Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head,” emboldened by the circumstances of the moment to reveal an opposition to the break with Britain that it had previously seemed prudent to conceal.

The similarities to our situation today are uncanny. We, too, are in the midst of a rapidly spreading panic. We, too, have our sunshine patriots and summer soldiers, in the form of people who initially supported the invasion of Iraq—and the Bush Doctrine from which it followed—but who are now abandoning what they have decided is a sinking ship. And we, too, are seeing formerly disguised opponents of the war coming more and more out into the open, and in ever greater numbers.

It's a lengthy article, but worth the read.

Wisconsin

Another case of voter fraud:

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Four Democratic presidential campaign workers pleaded no contest Friday to charges that they punctured the tires of 25 vehicles Republicans had intended to use to get out the vote on Election Day 2004. A fifth defendant was acquitted.

Jurors were deliberating for a second day in the felony property damage case when the four agreed to enter the pleas on misdemeanor charges of criminal damage to property.

Those agreeing to the plea were Sowande A. Omokunde, the son of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore; Michael Pratt, the son of former acting Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt; and Lewis Caldwell and Lavelle Mohammad, both from Milwaukee.

The fifth defendant, Justin Howell, was acquitted soon after the others entered the pleas.

The four pleaded no contest to charges that carry a maximum nine-month jail term. The original counts carry a maximum 3 1/2-year prison sentence.

The state Republican Party had rented more than 100 vehicles that were parked in a lot next to a Bush-Cheney campaign office to give rides to voters and poll monitors on Nov. 2, 2004. The vandalism caused some delays in the GOP's Election Day work as party workers rounded up different vehicles.

Democrat John Kerry won Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes in a close race.

John Fund provides an excellent overview of voter fraud in his book Stealing Elections, which devotes a chapter to the case in South Dakota during the 2002 contest.

Iraq Election Results

From the Washington Post:

Official election results released Friday showed that an alliance of Shiite Muslim religious parties will remain the largest bloc in Iraq's parliament but will have to reach out to other factions to form a coalition government in the weeks ahead.

The uncertified results from parliamentary elections held Dec. 15 presented few surprises. The Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, won 128 of the legislature's 275 seats, more than twice as many as any other group but well short of the two-thirds needed to form a government single-handedly.

Argus Leader

Despite the Argus Leader's constant hysterical attacks on Republican Governor Mike Rounds regarding the use of state aircraft, a new report found he did nothing wrong.  Curiously, the Argus didn't write a story on the report today:

The controversy surrounding Governor Mike Rounds and his use of state aircraft appears to be over. The Federal Aviation Administration has released a report that shows the governor did nothing wrong.

It's an issue that has been stirring for months now. It started with a series of articles in the Argus Leader, Sioux Falls' daily newspaper. They investigated the governor's use of state aircraft and found he used the plane for some personal and political reasons. The governor admitted he did use the plane for those reasons, but said he paid the state back for the expenses. Still, some Democrats wanted the FAA to look into it; which they did. The federal agency says they found no regulatory violations as to the governor's use of state aircraft.

It's very odd that the Argus chose not to publish an article on this.  This is the closing chapter on the state airplane story, which the Argus devoted a lot of its time to cover.  This is obviously an important part of the story, but apparently the folks at the state's largest newspaper don't deem it necessary for its readers to know about it.

UPDATE:  The Argus has run the story in their Sunday edition. 

What's Happening With Alito

It seems increasing likely that Samuel Alito will get few if any Democratic votes in the US Senate.  To my knowledge only Ben Nelson of Nebraska has come out in favor of Alito.  What motivates the Democrats to oppose Alito?  It can't be his legal qualifications.  The man unanimously received the highest rating from the American Bar Association.  Its review board, which, if the confirmation hearings taught us anything, knows much more about Constitutional law than the U.S. Senate, rated Alito "well qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court.  Can it be Alito's character?  Even Senate Democrats, such as Joe Biden, say that the Vanguard issue means nothing.  The Concerned Alumni of Princeton seems a red herring.  All who know Alito, of various political stripes, testify that he is a good man of the highest integrity.  And integrity is part of the ABA's rating.  So those in the best position to judge Samuel Alito give him the highest marks on both professional competence and personal character. 

Here are, I think, the two reasons the Democrats are opposing Alito en masse. 
1. Politics.  They must play to their liberal base, and having essentially given John Roberts a pass, they must show the left-wing interest groups that the Democratic Party is on their side.  Also, Democrats perceive, with some accuracy, that Bush and the Republicans are weak, and so this is the time to take advantage.
2. Abortion.  The Democratic Party worships at the alter of Roe v. Wade.  There are pro-life Democrats, but they are a weak voice in a party that has yet to find an abortion it doesn't like.  While hiding behind the language of "pro-choice" and "a woman's right to chose," this is a party will do all it can to make sure there are as many abortions as humanly possible.  I am reminded of Lincoln's words at Alton in 1858 during his debates with Sen. Douglas:

And if there be among you any body who supposes that he, as a Democrat can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a wrong, do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with any body who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say so yourself you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say any thing about it in the free States, because it is not here. You must not say any thing about it in the slave States, because it is there. You must not say any thing about it in the pulpit, because that is religion and has nothing to do with it. You must not say any thing about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of "my place." There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong.

As Lincoln once put it regarding slavery, the supposed indifference of "pro-choice" is really a "covert zeal" for abortion.  Simply put, the Democrats oppose Samuel Alito because he threatens the abortion-on-demand regime.  That is enough to keep him off the Supreme Court.  Notice how the Democrats care not that the Supreme Court overturned precedent in Lawrence v. Texas and Atkins v. Virginia.  All the talk in the Alito hearings about precedent had to do with one case: Roe v. Wade.  The Democrats have no special love of precedent.  They have a special love of abortion, and thus they must defend the judicial imposition of Roe v. Wade, damn what the Constitution actually says or what the American people really want. 

What will Senator Johnson do?  Will he side with the dominant left-wing of his party, personified by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, or will he side with his neighbor to the south, the moderate Ben Nelson? 

NY Times: Reid Apologizes

Harry Reid, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, used a tax-payer funded government office to put together a 25-page smear document.  Hardly an adherent of ethics.  Reid, of course, is the same Minority Leader that has been preaching ethics to Republicans and going as far to compare the majority to "organized crime" and Senator Santorum to "John Gotti."  Excerpt from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate, apologized Thursday to 33 Republican colleagues for a document distributed by his office that listed contributions that some of them received from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff along with critical news reports on their past actions and statements.

"I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it," Mr. Reid said after the memorandum, headed "Republican Abuse of Power," drew criticism from some Republicans. "As you know, I myself have been the subject of similar personal attacks from Republican outlets. I understand the unfair picture they can paint and the pain they can cause."

Mr. Reid has been harsh in his attacks this week on what he describes as a Republican culture of corruption exposed by Mr. Abramoff's recent guilty plea to bribery charges - even drawing comparisons between Republicans and organized crime.

Daschle & Abramoff

Note this excerpt from The Shreveport Times:

WASHINGTON — Super lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s team of associates included eight former congressional staffers, including Stephanie Leger Short who worked for retired Sen. John Breaux and is now Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s lobbyist in Washington.
...
Several former congressional aides besides Leger Short were on the “Abramoff team.” They included Tony Rudy, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Neil Volz, a former aide to Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. Other members of the group were Edward Ayoob, a former aide to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Duane Gibson, who once worked for Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska; Gary Shiffman, a former adviser to Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla.; James Himi, a former aide to former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark.; and Brian Drapeaux, who was once an aide to former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Note that last staffer.  No wonder Daschle received so much Abramoff money!

Same Sex Marriage and Polygamy

File this one under A for "alarming."  By Debra Sanders, on Real Clear Politics. 

When social conservatives argue that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to legalized polygamy, same-sex marriage advocates either laugh or sneer. It's a scare tactic, they say. It'll never happen.

Last year, however, as Canada legalized same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Paul Martin commissioned a $150,000 study to debunk the polygamy argument. Big mistake: The study confirmed the scare tactic by recommending that Canada repeal it  anti-polygamy law.

             

It also suggested that a legal challenge to Canada's anti-polygamy laws would succeed. "Why criminalize behavior?" asked Martha Bailey, one of the study's three law-professor authors. "We don't criminalize adultery."

Here's some more information on that study, from CTV:

OTTAWA — A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

"Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women," says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. "The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed."

The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada.

The paper by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., argues that Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy serves no useful purpose and in any case is rarely prosecuted.

I am not necessarily opposed to legal gay marriage, but I am very opposed to the idea that someone has a fundamental right to same sex marriage.  If the latter is so, I see no way not to extend that same right to include marriages including multiple partners (however many).  In any case the person denied the privileges of matrimony can protest: who are you to deny me my choice! 

The Canadian Justice Department Report is pretty good evidence that polygamy is the next frontier. 

 

Hillary

The Daily Princetonian:

Repeatedly referring to a need for "new vision and leadership" in U.S. policy toward the Middle East, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called Wednesday for United Nations sanctions against Iran and further global advances in women's rights, and urged optimism for a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton said in a speech before a capacity crowd in Richardson Auditorium. (See full text.) "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

Though never mentioning President Bush by name, Clinton strongly criticized the current administration's policy toward Iran. "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said.

This is coming from the party that insisted before we enter Iraq we exhaust all of our diplomatic efforts and take everything we wanted to do before the United Nations.  Now that we are doing that with Iran, it's suddenly the wrong thing to do because the U.S. will lose "critical time."  I particularly like the word choice "outsource."

The Political Is Personal

Via Real Clear, we find this Charlie Cook piece on the decline of our political rhetoric.  Cook cites some usual suspects who commit the crime of turning our political discourse from one of honest disagreement to shrill attacks: cable news programs, talk radio, the rise of the Internet.  I suspect that these phenomena are only part of the problem.  Surely they have the characteristic of "preaching to the converted," and when one addresses only those with whom one agrees one is likely to focus on purity of thought rather than finding common ground with one's opponent.  And the Internet certainly allows people to attack each other anonymously.  The Internet also is virtual arguing.  You do combat with disembodied souls who aren't really people, just a collection of political opinions.  Thus it is easy to move from "your politics are bad" to "you are bad," since our opponent's politics are all we know about him or her.  Look at how quickly some in the virtual world go from "you are wrong" to "you are a liar." 

I think Cook neglects a few more essential reasons for our harsh political discourse.
1. The ideological polarization of the parties.  For whatever reason, most liberal Republicans are now Democrats and most conservative Democrats are now Republicans.  Some people approve of this occurrence because it allows voters to make clear distinctions between the parties and hold them responsible for their actions.  Certainly the ideologues like the idea of one liberal party and one conservative party.  But another result is that one can find no common ground with the opposing party.  The other party is in fact totally unacceptable.  Look at the 2004 election, for example.  The Democrats could not let Bush win, because there is no one in Bush's party that shares Democratic ideals.  And the opposite is true for Republicans and Kerry.  A Kerry victory would have meant a thoroughly liberal administration.  Thus the opposite party becomes totally unacceptable and anything that can be done to win is justifiable.  Our politics would be better if we had more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats.  Don't hold your breath. 

2.  As our politics has become more open it has gotten more harsh.  People don't like to hear it, but cameras in Congress has probably lowered the level of political discourse in the nation.  Legislators no longer merely legislate.  They are always "on."  Dan Rostenkowski and Bob Packwood (yes, flawed examples) always said that the only reason the historic 1986 Tax Reform occurred is because Rostinkowski and Packwood went behind closed doors and horse traded.  They didn't have to worry about publicly selling out important constituencies.  Cameras have turned the Congress from a place of legislation to just another political TV show.  The low level of debate on the Murtha proposal for withdrawal from Iraq probably doesn't occur if there are no cameras. People should realize that information can be public without being popular.  If we had no cameras in Congress, the Congressional Record would still be available to all, thus it would be public.  But the actions of Congress would no longer be "popular," meaning they would not be playing to a popular audience. 

It goes without saying that both of the problems I have illustrated are here to stay, as is our low level of political discourse. 

Mort Kondrake on the Warrantless Search Question

From Real Clear Politics:

To me, the  bottom line of the NSA spying case is this: Congress should investigate whether President Bush has authority to conduct anti-terrorist data mining. And, if he doesn't, Congress should give it to him-with legislative oversight.

Kondrake's common sense is compelling.  But my friend Chad Shuldte, at CCK, doesn't think so. 

It's pretty pathetic when those who defend the President's practice of spying on Americans without a warrant start using the "it's not as bad as J. Edgar Hoover" exuse.  It's wrong and it's against the law.  End of story.

That last was addressed to me, though Chad doesn't seem to be talking to me anymore.  Was it something I said?  My point was that Bush's transgressions, if such they are, are mild by historical standards, and that its absurd to think that the President will be impeached for trying too hard to stop terrorists.  Maybe he should be.  He won't be.  Unless Michael Chertoff turns out to be wrong.  Kondrake writes:

"I think it's important to point out," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told me in an interview, "that there's no evidence that this is a program designed to achieve political ends or do something nefarious."

He was talking about the National Security Agency's warrantless "domestic spying" program, and I couldn't agree with him more. Despite the alarms sounded by the American Civil Liberties Union, former Vice President Al Gore and various Members domestic dissidents or innocent bystanders, Chertoff said. It's designed to find and stop terrorists.

I doubt very much whether it was wrong to listen in when persons in the U.S. are talking to known terrorist abroad.  If it is against the law, Kondrake is right: the law should be changed. 

But I urge Democrats to listen to Chad.  Make this the central issue in the next election.  Introduce articles of impeachment.  I'm behind you!  And for heaven's sake don't worry about this kind of thing:

What about the assertion in The New York Times on Tuesday that virtually all of the thousands of NSA leads sent to the FBI in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks led to dead ends or innocent persons? . . .

Buried at the bottom of the Times story were a number of cases where actual terrorist operations had been disrupted, apparently as a result of NSA eavesdropping, including efforts to smuggle a missile launcher into the United States, to cut Brooklyn Bridge cables with a blowtorch and an attempt to blow up a fertilizer bomb in London.

That will only confuse you.  No doubt the voters will see the wisdom of your case. 

The Inaccuracies of the Argus

Some of our long-time readers will recall how the editor of the Argus Leader would just make up facts when attacking conservatives.  Apparently, the Thune office has gotten sick of the Argus making things up and released an open letter hitting back:

January 19, 2006

To: Mr. Patrick Lalley and Mr. Chuck Baldwin of the Argus Leader

Re: An open letter regarding Argus Leader inaccuracies and bias

Dear Mr. Lalley and Mr. Baldwin,

The Argus Leader editorial on January 15, 2006, relating to the selection of a U.S. Attorney for South Dakota, was factually incorrect, biased and left out relevant information.

After this office pointed out these mistakes, the Argus Leader ran an obscure correction that repeated the claims against Senator Thune. The Argus Leader also failed to follow through on its agreement to print my letter to the editor giving your readers Senator Thune’s side of the story.

It is troubling that the Argus Leader refuses to present both sides of the story to its readers.

The editorial first claims that Senator Thune has "made no public comments" and “never has commented about his efforts to nominate a U.S. Attorney.” However, your own paper, the day before, ran Senator Thune's comments in a story entitled "Hearing nixed for U.S. Attorney." In addition, I, as the Senator’s official spokesman, repeatedly spoke to Argus reporters over the course of the last few weeks on this very topic.

In the days leading up to the printing of this editorial, no one from the Argus Leader editorial staff contacted this office to discuss this matter. This action, or inaction, shows a severe bias on the part of the Argus Leader against Senator Thune.

Although your editorial claims that the "message" of recent events is that there "are no qualified lawyers to be our U.S. Attorney," the Argus Leader was in fact informed that South Dakota names have been advanced to the Department of Justice. It was not until today, January 19, that the Argus reported this fact.

Senator Thune and this office have repeatedly stated that for privacy reasons we cannot go into detail about who has, or has not been recommended by the Senator to the Department of Justice. The Argus Leader has a right to ask these questions, but the individuals involved in these recommendations also have a right to privacy.

Senator Thune has been discussing the matter with DOJ over the past year. Several Argus Leader reporters were clearly informed by our office of these facts, yet your editorial states that due to Senator Thune’s “inaction” this post has been vacant for a year and is now in the hands of a non-South Dakotan. In fact, Senator Thune first sent the names of qualified South Dakotans to the DOJ last spring after the position became open.

Your editorial failed to include relevant information about the judge who precipitated the current situation. Judge Piersol chose to recommend Mr. Meierhenry, a Sioux Falls lawyer, to serve as the temporary Acting U.S. Attorney rather than leave Michelle Tapken in that position. This action created a crisis because the Department of Justice would not have the time to conduct the necessary background check on Mr. Meierhenry before the position became vacant. By refusing to leave a South Dakotan in this position who already had the necessary background check, Judge Piersol forced the Department of Justice to put a non-South Dakota attorney in place on a temporary basis to avoid any disruption in the administration of justice in South Dakota.

The Judges involved in this dispute, who were active in the Democrat party and appointed by Senator Daschle and President Clinton, then took action to challenge the DOJ in court. If this information had been included in your editorial, your readers would have had a more complete understanding and could have decided on their own how to evaluate this situation rather than be told by you, the Argus Leader, how they should think.

Your editorial was filled with information that you knew to be inaccurate and it left out relevant facts that you knew existed, but yet was still presented to your readers as the full truth. You have also failed to give your readers both sides of the story by refusing to run my letter to the editor.

As an elected official, Senator Thune is not above scrutiny by the media, and despite your hostile coverage, he will continue to work with the Argus Leader in the hope that your readers will have better access to their elected representatives and the truth.

Thank you for your time,

Kyle Downey

Communications Director for Senator John Thune

Good for them.  It's about time.

Wilson Pickett Dies

I beat Schaff to this one!  From the Star Tribune:

Wilson Pickett, the soul pioneer best known for the fiery hits "Mustang Sally" and "In The Midnight Hour," died of a heart attack Thursday in a Reston, Va., hospital, according to his management company. He was 64.

What comes to mind most is a film that Pickett was not in, but that could not have been made without him.

Besides his induction into the Hall of Fame in 1991, he was also given the Pioneer award by the Rhythm and Blues Foundation two years later. He also cast a long shadow and served as a role model in "The Commitments" in 1991, without appearing in the film.

Its a very good movie.