South Dakota Politics

Pakistan Strike Nets Major Al Qaeda figures

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal notes left-wing reactions last week when it was announced that the U.S. missile strike in Eastern Pakistan had missed its original target, Ayman Al-Zawahri.   

AmericaBlog:     "At least when Clinton 'lobbed cruise missiles at tents' he wasn't blowing up entire innocent families in small villages who had no idea what was about to happen to them."

"mcjoan,"     DailyKos.com: "What this strike has achieved is the further alienation     of Pakistan, and provided further proof of the Bush administration's utter ineptitude. It's a reminder that the disastrous Iraq debacle diverted resources from the critical effort to contain al-Qaeda and calls into question exactly what it is that our intelligence agencies are doing."

We note a similar reaction from a local blog that is no fan of ours.  Under the title "It just keeps getting dumb and dumber," we get this:

Last night CNN carried news complete with expert palaver that the second-in-command of Al Qaeda, Ayman Al-Zawahri, was targeted in a house in Pakistan and taken out by an air strike. Today, Pakistan officials are reporting that 18 people, including women and children, were killed and that Al Zawahri was no where in the vicinity. Last night's CNN coverage was replete with claims of precise intelligence on the part of CIA and the U.S. ability to make "surgical" strikes.

Now it appears that the air strike found some valuable targets indeed.   From Reuters:

Pakistani intelligence sources said al-Zawahri was not at the scene of the attack. One of the dead was thought to be his son-in-law, Abdul Rehman Al-Misri al Maghribi, who was responsible for al Qaeda's media department.

Another was Midhat Mursi al-Sayid 'Umar, an expert in explosives and poisons. The U.S. government has posted a $5 million reward for him.

Pakistani officials gave a slightly different spelling for the name, but the FBI says 'Umar ran a training camp at Derunta in Afghanistan and since 1999 had proliferated training manuals containing crude recipes for chemical and biological weapons.

ABC News and the New York Times, citing Pakistani officials, also reported that the 52-year-old Egyptian had been killed.

"If this person is gone, it is significant. His loss, and the loss of people like him, would certainly be a blow to al Qaeda in the region," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official, who asked not to be identified.

The third man identified by Pakistani intelligence officers was Abu Obaidah al Misri, al Qaeda's chief of operations in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, where U.S. and Afghan forces regularly come under militant attack.

"This appears to have been a meeting of the military committee of al Qaeda," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of "Inside al Qaeda" and security analyst at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.

"Almost all the key Egyptian leaders were present, and it would most likely have been chaired by Zawahri, except it seems he didn't show up for some reason," Gunaratna said.

If these facts pan out, it looks like a very successful military strike.  Perhaps the critics of Bush's policy mentioned above will be just as interested in this story now that it looks like a success as they were when it looked like further evidence of Bush's ineptitude.  I wouldn't hold my breath for that. 

Where Will Johnson Stand?

That's what the National Republican Committee is asking.  Also, the Washington Post is reporting that the Democratic Senators from Montana and Colorado are opposing Alito:

Leahy, Salazar and Max Baucus of Montana _ who announced his opposition to Alito on Wednesday _ were three of the 22 Democrats who voted for Roberts' confirmation as the replacement for the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a conservative.

Alito is not expected to get that much support from the Senate's 44-member Democratic caucus. He was picked by Bush as the replacement for retiring moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the swing vote on contentious issues such as abortion and affirmative action during her career on the court.

Several other Democrats are opposing Alito, including Tom Harkin of Iowa, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

Chris Cillizza is reporting that another group is running ads calling on Senator Johnson (and our neighbor to the north, Senator Conrad) to vote for Alito:

Seeking to capitalize on what they believe was Democrats' poor performance during last week's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative soft-money group is launching television ads against South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson and North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad this week designed to sway the two lawmakers' votes on the nominee and also soften them up for their future reelection races.

The ads, which are being funded by Coalition for Fair Judiciary, will run statewide in both Dakotas and cost the group "six figures" combined, according to Keith Appell, a spokesman for the group.  The coalition is a 501(c)(4) group, meaning that it does not need to disclose either its sources of funding or disbursements. Appell's firm -- Creative Response Concepts -- handled the public relations for the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads against John Kerry in 2004.

What will Johnson do?

Warrentless Searches

Max Boot in the LA Times has this reply to those who call Bush a fascist or totalitarian: what Bush is accused of pales in comparison to what was routine among Presidents only a few decades ago. 

I CAN CERTAINLY understand the uproar over President Bush's flagrant abuses of civil liberties. This is America. What right does that fascist in the White House have to imprison Michael Moore, wiretap Nancy Pelosi and blackmail Howard Dean?

Wait. You mean he hasn't done those things? All he's done is intercept communications between terrorists abroad and their contacts in the U.S. without a court order? Talk about defining impeachable offenses downward.

If you want to see real abuses of civil liberties, read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his "continual grasp for power." How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.

You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate's Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left.

Hat Tip to Real Clear Politics. 

An Addition to the Staff

SDP would like to welcome our newest contributor, Mike Freeman.  Watch for him to introduce himself later on.

Daschle '08

Justin Ready is speculating on the Argus Leader's recent article about Tom Daschle's presidential aspirations in a post entitled "P2008: The return of 'Puff' Daschle."  Excerpt:

This has been a percolating story for the last few months. I expect him to decide the field is too crowded but Daschle still has pretty good name id, particularly in the Democratic Party. However, won't he be old news by 2007, when the campaign would begin? He will have to keep a pretty aggressive schedule to keep his name out there.

Meanwhile, Raje's Rants notes some of the suspects that may be encouraging Daschle to run:

1. Republicans.
2. John Kerry, so there's no way he can finish last in the Democrat primaries.
3. Hillary Clinton, so she can point out one more Democrat that she's better than.
4. Al Sharpton, since he can argue that he's not the only who doesn't hold elected office and is running.
5. Dick Gephardt, so he can claim that he looked better than Daschle did as a Presidential candidate.

Daschle v. Paige

Dascule will be debating the Secretary of Education soon, according to Mt. Blogmore:

Daschle will continue his streak of public appearances — keep ‘em comin’, I say — in a debate with former (Bush) education secretary Rod Paige in April at the Paul Simon Institute of Public Policy in Illinois. The two will debate the No Child Left Behind Act, which, according to an article in the local college paper, Daschle has always opposed.

Here’s the story.

I do not recall Daschle voicing his concern over this bill when it passed in 2001. I certainly don’t remember it as in issue in the ‘04 race. Am I forgetting something?

Presidential Primaries

From the Argus Leader editorial blog:

Two bills have been introduced that would give us a presidential primary on the last Tuesday in January and also give counties money for the expense of holding the election.

There have been rumblings about this for some time  even since 2000, in fact, when the Legislature moved the primary to June.

The problem with the late date is that by then, presidential nominees almost certainly have been selected by their parties on the basis of earlier primaries in other states.

As a result, South Dakota has almost no voice in the nomination process and we also get shut out of a good many visits from candidates.

Moving our primary to January could change that.

But let's be realistic. We don't have that many voters, and we don't have that many electoral votes. While moving the primary might help, we still won't get the attention from candidates that some other states do.

Talking To Himself

Here's a neat little story on one of the best men I know, NSU Men's Basketball coach Don Meyer, who happens to be the sixth winningest coach in men's college basketball history.  The team is currently ranked #5 in the nation and #1 in the region. 

More on Daschle

From this morning's Roll Call, who quotes fellow SD blogger Todd Epp:

Roll Call, January 18, 2006

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota. Buzz about a Daschle presidential run seems to be stronger in South Dakota than it is in Washington, D.C., right now. But Democrats and Republicans alike expect that a presidential bid by Daschle, if it materialized, would follow that of one of his predecessors, Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.), a liberal who lost his home state to Richard Nixon in 1972.

“Some of his recent speeches to pro-choice groups and against the war have not been real popular here,” said Todd Epp, a Sioux Falls activist who has worked for Democrats in recent elections. “For whatever reason, we South Dakotans don’t seem to like our politicians when they get too powerful or have higher aspirations.”

Still, Daschle maintains enough residual popularity among South Dakotans to pull more votes in the state than any other Democrat would. In a state that gave Bush almost 60 percent of the vote in 2004, Daschle could win 47 percent of the vote in a presidential election, Epp estimated. And a Republican lobbyist in the state suggested that Daschle might have a shot at flipping the state into the Democratic column if he were a vice presidential candidate running with someone acceptable to South Dakotans.

POTUS Daschle

Expanding on yesterday's article, Nester Ramos of the Argus Leader has the story on Daschle's '08 consideration:

Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, who considered running for president in 2004 before dropping the idea in favor of another try for Senate, is again thinking about a run for the White House in 2008.

The National Journal quoted Daschle in its Jan. 14 edition saying he was “taking a look at” entering the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

His comment is a shift from past remarks when he answered the same question by saying only that he would never rule out the possibility.

“I have received a lot of encouragement,” Daschle said in an e-mail to the Argus Leader, though he also said he has “no plans at this time to run for national office.”

Daschle, 58, originally from Aberdeen, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1979 to 1987 and in the Senate from 1987 to 2005, where in later years he alternated between minority and majority leader.

Today, Daschle lives in Washington, D.C.

He said the primary factors in his decision “would be my family and our mutual decision to consider the rigors of a campaign and re-entry into public life.”

Daschle’s Senate career ended when, as his party’s highest-ranking elected office holder in the country, he lost a close election to John Thune in the 2004 Senate race.

Shortly after the loss, Daschle said he probably would never again run for office.

Read the whole thing.

Neo-Nazi

Now this is interesting: Dismissed Neo-Nazi Professor Claims Just Doing Research

Kennedy quits all-male Harvard Club!

Out of shame, perhaps, that he is still qualified for membership, the Washington Times reports that

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, has quit his more than 50-year membership in the Owl Club, an all-male group that he joined as a student at Harvard University, his office said yesterday.

This story breaks at a very inconvenient moment for the large-jowled Massachusetts liberal.

The Massachusetts Democrat made the decision after several days of sharp criticism from conservatives accusing Mr. Kennedy of hypocrisy for grilling Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. over his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
    Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said last week.
    Mr. Kennedy's club -- the Owl -- was kicked off the Harvard campus in 1984 because university officials said it violated Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, a Kennedy-championed law against sex-discrimination on college campuses.

Kennedy is a devoted practitioner of such strategies as guilt by association.  The word for that is McCarthyism.  In an especially humorous exchange, Kennedy had to admit that he would be unfit for the High Court. 

    Asked why he would be in a club that refuses to allow women, Mr. Kennedy replied, "I shouldn't be and I'm going to get out of it as fast as I can."
    Television reporter Andy Hiller then inquired whether Mr. Kennedy thought that he could get approved by the Judiciary Committee.
    "Probably not," he responded. "Probably not."

Suicide Club II

We now have the first interesting and important case in which the new Chief Justice weighs in.  Roberts joined with Scalia and Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon to make it 6 to 3 in favor of Oregon's assisted suicide law.  O'Connor voted with the majority, so if Alito had been on the court it would have been 5 to 4 (assuming he votes with the conservatives).  Same difference, as we used to say down south. 

Says Justice  Kennedy, writing for the majority:

The question before us is whether the Controlled Substances Act allows the United States Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, notwithstanding a state law permitting the procedure.

I haven't had a chance to read through the opinions, but the rub seems to be this: under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, can the Attorney General decide whether the prescription of drugs to a patient in order to enable that person to end his life is a "legitimate medical purpose".  If he can decide what is such and what is not, then the CSA allows the Att. Gen. to control the Oregon law, in effect, nullifying it.  If he can't, I gather, the state is free to define "legitimate medical purpose" for itself.  This would enable it to pass such a law. 

Scalia argues for the three dissenters that the Attorney General's actions were clearly authorized under the CSA and prior precedent.  My experience has been that Scalia is almost always right in this kind of reading.  On the other hand, the Federalist in me finds himself divided.  I think the Federal Government has the power to decide such matters, but I would prefer to leave them to the states.  Its fascinating that, in this first example of Judge Robert's jurisprudence, the liberals have sided with state's rights and the conservatives with federal power.  This is going to be an interesting court. 

Farming & Energy Costs

Excerpt from the Rapid City Journal:

Rising energy costs will have many implications for farmers this year, Mark Rosenberg, Spink County Extension educator for agronomy, said.

Rosenberg said it'll cost more to plant and harvest crops. South Dakota State University expects production costs for corn to increase by $20 to $22 per acre because of the energy issue, he said.

Fuel costs and costs being passed along for products such as fertilizer are causing farmers to re-evaluate parts of their operations, such as soil fertility and rental agreements.

"Energy costs can influence discussions on rents and leasing agreements," Rosenberg said.

"It's triggered a trend of upward movement in rents."

He said farmers will be looking at their soil tests and, perhaps, doing extra tests to see if they really need additional fertilizer.

A number of energy products, such as nitrogen, go into fertilizer.

"It gets pretty deep into the operations," Rosenberg said.

Roger Krueger, director of grain marketing at South Dakota Wheat Growers in Aberdeen, said high production costs and low market prices for grain will present farmers with a challenging year.

UPDATE:  From the mailbag:

Since farmers' costs are going up because of energy prices, maybe Senator Johnson shouldn't have voted to filibuster the bill opening ANWR.

Daschle '08 Cont.

Nestor Ramos of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader has an article online entitled "Tom Daschle considers bid for president."  Here's the story in  full:

Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle is weighing the possibility of running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

"I have recieved a lot of encouragement," Daschle said in an email today to the Argus Leader.

Daschle didn't rule out the possibility of an official announcement in the near future. But for now, he said, he has no plans to run for national office.

In his email, Daschle said the primary factors in his decision "would be my family and our mutual decision to consider the rigors of a campaign and reentry into public life."

Daschle made similar comments over the weekend to another publication. In a Saturday story in the National Journal, Daschle said he was "taking a look at" entering the race.

Analysts see the 2008 race beginning to take shape, with candidates and possible candidates from both parties hinting more openly about their plans.

Larry Sabato, a political expert at the University of Virginia, said Daschle was not in his latest rankings of likely Democratic candidates because he wasn't convinced Daschle would run.

"I wouldn’t call him the favorite, or even second or third. But it’s early," Sabato said.

For more on this story, see Wednesday's Argus Leader.

CQ

From the 1/16/05 edition of the Congressional Quarterly, entitled "The Game’s the Thing: Reid Has Been a Ready Ally to Abramoff-Linked Interests."  Excerpt:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., has been touring the country calling Jack Abramoff ’s spectacular downfall a “Republican scandal” — as, in many ways, it is. But Reid’s own actions demonstrate that Abramoff’s associates and his client base were pretty thick with both major parties.

Reid’s legislative counsel, Edward Ayoob, left to join Abramoff's law firm, Greenberg Traurig, in March 2002. Senate records show that Ayoob has represented nine Indian tribes since then — some of them for his new employers, Barnes & Thornburg, which also took on Abramoff's former partners Kevin Ring, former aide to Rep. John T. Doolittle , R-Calif., and Neil Volz, former chief of staff to Rep. Bob Ney , R-Ohio. Volz was recently fired by the firm.

Democrats have taken a special interest in Ayoob’s clients. Of the eight tribes Ayoob represented when he was with Greenberg Traurig, Reid acted in behalf of or moved legislation benefiting six.

In 2002, Ayoob and his colleagues represented the Yankton Sioux in South Dakota, the home state of then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The tribe sought more than $23 million in compensation for land lost when the federal government built dams along the Missouri River in 1944. Reid got the bill passed without objection in a floor vote. Reid also lent his support to a Senate bill that favorably settled a $3 million land dispute with the Pueblo of Sandia, but the tribe’s home-state senator, Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., was the bill’s sponsor. Another Ayoob client, the Saginaw of Michigan, won $3 million at the request of its home-state Democratic senators within a year of contributing $4,000 to Sen. Debbie Stabenow , D-Mich. And Reid steered $100,000 to the Chitimacha, a Louisiana tribe represented by Ayoob, in an earmark to study soil erosion.

Daschle '08

From the National Journal:

"Daschle Still Eyes '08," National Journal, January 14, 2006.

Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle still has the political bug.  The South Dakotan, who narrowly lost his bid in 2004 for a fourth term, is seriously contemplating a presidential run.  "I'm taking a look at it," Daschle told National Journal recently.  Looking dapper and relaxed in his office at the Alston & Bird law firm, just a quick hop from Capitol Hill, Daschle stressed that it was not a done deal.  Before taking that big step, he'd have to make certain that his family is on board for the rigors of national campaign and the attendant loss of privacy.

Suicide Club

I spent much of the morning helping my wife install new fixtures in our upstairs bathroom, and moving around stereo equipment in our living room.  To unwind I watched one of the latest editions to my collection of Asian Horror movies, a Japanese film called Suicide Club.  See Mandi Apple for a fine review.  I do not recommend this film to most of our readers.  It opens with a mass suicide of 54 school girls (average age 14.5, we are later told), who link hands on a Tokyo subway platform and, with a one, and a two, jump in front of an arriving train.  The scene is appallingly graphic, as are several others.

Why do I watch this stuff?  First, I am incurably fond of spooky stories in film and print, and this one is plenty spooky.  Second, such films offer a lot of clues to cultural differences between Christendom and Buddha World, as well as much subtle commentary on the state of Asian societies.

Suicide Club incorporates a lot of anxieties haunting modern Japan.  Police investigating waves of youth suicides discover a website that seems to predict the numbers involved in each incident by adding red and white dots (boys and girls) to its screen just before the thing happens. The film becomes more impressionistic and incoherent as it approaches the end, but the general idea seems to be this: a group of children is orchestrating the mass suicides.  Their main instrument is a cheery singing group of young girls called Dessart (depicted below).  Exactly what their motive is, beyond some freakish will to power, is unclear.  But this much is clear.  The adult world is self-involved and totally clueless.  The kids are on their own, and the implications of that are horrific.

I was wondering about the roots of this angst as I did my pre-blog survey of the world press.  I found this piece in the British Guardian. 

Sunrise in Tokyo heralds the start of yet another hellish day at the office for Terumasa Yoshida. The married father of two has just spent the night sleeping in a single bed in a tiny room rented by his employer, away from the creature comforts of home and the company of his family in nearby Yokohama.

"On a busy day, I turn up for work at about 5am and don't finish until 2am the next morning," he says. "It's not that we don't want to go home - we just can't. We have to think about the people around us at work. I know that's a very Japanese way of thinking, but that's the way it is."

I don't know how much attention Mrs. Yoshida is giving to the two kids, but she is doing most of it without her hubby.  This is bad.  Worse is the fact that so many Japanese couples don't bother to have children at all. 

The health ministry estimates that the birthrate will drop this year from 1.28 to 1.26 per couple or even lower, said the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper. If the trend continues, Japan's workforce will become too small to support its greying population, the tax base will shrink and the pensions system will come under increasing strain.

Overwork is one of the most commonly cited reasons why young Japanese couples shy away from having children. Last month, the government said that Japan's population had shrunk by 19,000 - the first decline since 1945.

This has prompted Kuniko Inoguchi, the minister charged with boosting the birthrate, to insist that companies must allow men to spend more time at home and help women return to work after giving birth. "The next five years are crucial," Ms Inoguchi said in an interview. "We have the second baby boomers who will remain in their 30s for only another five years, so I am up against the clock."

That's 19,000 new dots added to the display of all the children that were never born.  What's most disturbing, though, is the bottom line of the government's thinking.  They have a minister in charge of increasing the birthrate.  Think about that.  Why do they care about the birthrate?  Is it because they feel some obligation to the next generation?  No.  Children are here valued only as potential workers to support Japan's growing population of retired persons.  Future generations exist (in so far as they do) only to support the comfort of the existing one. 

Suicide Club got it right.  The adults are clueless.  The children are on their own.

Anti-Bushism Fading in Canada

Anti-Americanism in general, and anti-Bushism in particular is obviously a significant force in Latin American elections.  It seems to be running out of steam on the Continent, and now in Canada.  Its not for lack of trying.  The British Daily Telegraph has this to say about the Liberal Party in next week's Canadian elections.

Amid growing signals of panic in the Liberal ranks, the party has launched a series of crudely anti-American commercials. One stated that victory for the 47-year-old Tory leader, Stephen Harper, would "bring a smile to George W Bush's face".  Another described Mr Harper as "pro-Iraqi war, anti-Kyoto, socially conservative... Bush's new best friend."

Well, its worth a try.  It worked for Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, until it didn't work.  But Canada's Liberals are in too deep for George W. Bush to dig them out. 

Canada's Conservatives appear to be steaming towards a historic general election victory, opinion polls have predicted.  With less than a week until polling day on Jan 23, yesterday every survey showed that the party that has been out of power for more than a decade is poised to crush the ruling Liberals headed by Paul Martin, the prime minister.

The latest polls give the Conservatives a 10-point lead over the Liberals, with some showing a widening gap between the two parties.  

Judge Opposition

The Sunday New York Times explained in detail how Senator Daschle first started organizing the opposition to Bush's judges in 2001:

The developments were particularly frustrating, Democrats said, because Mr. Bush has never made a secret of what he wanted to do with the judiciary, and Democrats had devoted much energy to trying to stop it.

The Democratic push began in earnest on the last weekend of April 2001, when 42 of the 50 Democratic senators attended a retreat in Farmington, Pa., to hear from experts and discuss ways they could fight a Bush effort to remake the judiciary.

"There were very few principles on which we could all agree," said Mr. Daschle, who was Senate minority leader at the time of the meeting. "But one was that we anticipated that the administration would test the envelope. They were going to go as far as the envelope would allow in appointing conservative judges."

At the retreat, Democrats listened to a panel composed of Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School and Marcia D. Greenberger, the co-president of the National Women's Law Center. The panelists told them that the court was at a historic juncture and that the Bush White House was prepared to fill the courts with conservatives who deserved particularly strong scrutiny, participants said.

The panel also advised them, participants said, that Democratic senators could oppose even nominees with strong credentials on the grounds that the White House was trying to push the courts in a conservative direction, a strategy that now seems to have failed the party.

Mr. Tribe said Friday that Democrats were increasingly discouraged in their efforts to mount opposition campaigns. "When it comes down to it, the numbers of Democrats means that it begins to feel to some like tilting at windmills," he said.

I have a dream . . .

I endorse what Jason says below about Martin Luther King.  I am glad he used this blog to post the "I have a dream" speech, one of the greatest in the American record.  But there is nothing like listening to it.  SpiritSite.com has the most quoted portion of the speech in real audio. American Rhetoric has the whole thing  in Apple Quicktime, and I'm pretty sure you can download it for your ipods. 

The Decline of a Very Blue State

Slow growth has always been a problem for the Rushmore State, but so far we haven't actually been shrinking.  The same cannot be said for the proud founding state of Massachusetts.  Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has the bad news. 

FOR THE second year in a row, the Census Bureau reports, the population of Massachusetts has shrunk. During the 12 months ending July 1, 2005, the Bay State experienced a net loss of more than 8,600 residents, or 0.1 percent of its population. It was one of only three states to end the year with fewer people than it had at the start -- New York and Rhode Island were the others -- and the only one to do so for the second year running.

We note that all three states are about as blue as a member of the body politic can get without then turning black and falling off.  Maybe that's what's happening.  Jacoby has his ideas. 

Maybe fewer and fewer people want to call Massachusetts home not because of its oppressive winters but because of its oppressive and demoralizing political culture. In the state that produced Michael S. Dukakis and Sen. Kerry, the concerns of ordinary citizens are so often met with disdain, while the political class lets nothing get in the way of its own appetites and priorities. A state legislature that stays in session year-round? A supreme court that turns same-sex marriage into a constitutional right? Public ''authorities" that answer to no one? In most of America, no way. In Massachusetts, no problem.

On Beacon Hill last week, the big issue for Massachusetts lawmakers was whether tuition should be reduced for illegal aliens at the state's public colleges. On Capitol Hill, the senior senator from Massachusetts was busy implying that Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. is a racist and a liar. Is it such a stretch to imagine that an awful lot of Americans look at Massachusetts and think: How can people stand to live there? Or that a fair number of Massachusetts residents eventually decide that they can't stand to live here?

This is a state in which a tax cut can be decisively approved by the voters yet never go into effect. In which grocers can be prosecuted for pricing milk too low. In which archaic blue laws decree when shops may and may not open for business. In which a $2 billion Big Dig ends up costing $14 billion.  Is it really any wonder so many people are fleeing Massachusetts? Maybe the real mystery is why so many of us stay.

We note that this demographic trend does not favor the next John Kerry.  As folk move from blue states to red ones, and that is where the traffic is flowing, they tend to shift their political allegiance to the folks who make their new home different from the one they left.

Washington Post Endorses Alito Confirmation

I suppose I have to take back everything I said in last nights post about conservative and liberal judicial philosophies.  At least with regards to the Washington Post.  The paper that brought down Richard Nixon urged the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

THE SENATE'S decision concerning the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito Jr. is harder than the case last year of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Judge Alito's record raises concerns across a range of areas. His replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could alter -- for the worse, from our point of view -- the Supreme Court's delicate balance in important areas of constitutional law. He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.

The WaPo is not drifting to the right.  It is a mainline liberal publication. 

Though some attacks on him by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups have misrepresented his jurisprudence, Judge Alito's record is troubling in areas. His generally laudable tendency to defer to elected representatives at the state and federal levels sometimes goes too far -- giving rise to concerns that he will prove too tolerant of claims of executive power in the war on terror. He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason to worry that he would curtail abortion rights. And his approach to the balance of power between the federal government and the states, while murky, seems unpromising.

But in spite of the fact that the WaPo would certainly have nominated a different sort of judge if its editorial board were President,  the editors seem to think that there are some institutional principles that are more important than short term political victory. 

Judge Alito's record is complicated, and one can therefore argue against imputing to him any of these tendencies. Yet he is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see.  Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference -- the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.

This is the approach that I endorsed back when John Roberts was taking flack.  If a President's nominee is obviously well-qualified, then the President ought to get his way.  The WaPo doesn't explain why this the right approach, but I will quote what I said back when WaPo urged the confirmation of John Roberts.  .

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.

UPDATE:  I note that the Chicago Tbribune also endorses Alito.  The LATimes does not go quite so far, but it does explicit oppose any attempt to filibuster. 

 

MLK

Tomorrow is the day of remembrance for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who I regard as one of the greatest heroes in American history, so take the time to remember him and his achievements.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

History Carnival

Rob MacDougall is hosting the History Carnival.  Go check it out!

Senatorial-Dumbness Contest

HT to Instapundit.  Daniel Drezner has announced the dumbest thing said by a senator.  The winner:  Senator Diane Feinstein of California in her exchange with Alito:

FEINSTEIN: So if I understand this, you essentially said that you wanted to follow precedent, newly established law in this area. And you left a little hedge that if Congress made findings in that law, then that might be a different situation.

If Congress did make findings, would you have agreed that that statute would been constitutional?

ALITO: What I said in the opinion and what I will reiterate this afternoon is that it would have been a very different case for me. I don't think I can express an opinion on how I would have decided a hypothetical case.

FEINSTEIN: It's not hypothetical. I'm just asking you, if there were findings as you said, you might have sustained the law.

ALITO: And I reiterate that...

FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law...

ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me.

Feinstein had some tough competition -- The Kennedy/Specter exchange over mail delivery, Tom Coburn's auto accident metaphor, anything that came out of Chuck Schumer's mouth, and what I can only figure was Joe Biden's attempt to win a bet in which he could use the word "Princeton" in every sentence he used for an hour. And I confess I might be biased in favor of Feinstein because of her runner-up status during the Roberts confirmation. Let me stress that dumber things might have been said this week -- but the folks here at danieldrezner.com could only judge the submissions we received.

In the end, Feinstein's ability to deny the existence of a hypothetical in her question about... a hypothetical was what swayed the judges. To be fair, Feinstein was talking about a counterfactual, but I think it's safe to say that counterfactuals were included in Altio's definition of hypotheticals.

We're Ready for Football

A couple of Sunday morning posts below.  The Broncos beat the Patriots yesturday, so I'll be watching the Colts/Steelers game closely this afternoon.  I'll see everybody after church once I get up to Brookings.

AI News

A couple of items on American Indians in the Rapid City Journal today.  First:

A Minnesota tribe has contributed $8,500 to several South Dakota organizations that served and honored American Indian veterans.

In South Dakota, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community contributed $500 to the American Legion Auxiliary at Cherry Creek on Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation; $1,500 to the VFW Blacksmith Post 1353 and American Legion McBride Post 257 at Wagner; $5,000 to Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Veterans Services Office/Disabled American Veterans in Fort Thompson; and $1,500 for Eagle Nest District’s Veterans Day Celebration at Wanblee on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

And second:

Two South Dakota men are moving ahead with their restoration of the gravesite of American Indian leader Sitting Bull near Mobridge.

Bryan Defender of McLaughlin and Rhett Albers of Mobridge bought the property last year from an Oregon man.

They eventually want to develop a visitor or cultural center but are cleaning up the property and making repairs. The effort has been approved as a nonprofit foundation.

A South African sculptor has asked to create a bronze bust of Sitting Bull that could be marketed worldwide to raise money for the project.

Sitting Bull rose to prominence as a leader of Indian resistance against the U.S. Army in the 1870s, which culminated in the 1876 Battle of Little Bighorn.

He was killed in 1890 on Standing Rock Indian Reservation while being arrested by Indian police. Officials disagree on the location of his grave. Since 1953, a dispute has raged between North Dakota and South Dakota. South Dakotans insist Sitting Bull’s remains were reburied at the request of Sitting Bull’s descendants. North Dakotans say his remains lie in Fort Yates, N.D.

Alito & the Filibuster

Just as I reported yesturday, the Rapid City Journal has an article today entitled "Senator won't rule out use of filibuster on Alito."  Excerpt:

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said he doesn’t believe there is enough Senate opposition to mount a filibuster against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, Johnson said he would not rule out taking part in a filibuster if one develops. “As a matter of principle, I’m not taking any position, parliamentary or otherwise, off the table,” Johnson said Friday. He would not say how he will vote.

Democratic leaders are urging party members to wait for a caucus on Wednesday.

The CCK on Alito

Chad at Clean Cut Kid has a good piece on the Alito confirmation hearings.  Naturally, I disagree with some of what he has said.  But the following is dead spot on:

I think if there is a lesson that Democrats need to take seriously from the results of the hearings the past few months is that we need to win elections to have a significant say in these issues. The appointments and confirmation of Roberts and Alito are the culmination of losing elections (albeit close losses) the past three election cycles.

And I don't mean to sound all defeatist, because these things are certainly an ongoing battle. We'll win some in the near future, I am confident. But we shouldn't move forward without contemplating what we have lost with our inability to influence the results of two vacancies on the nation's highest court.

Yes.  That's how democracy works.  Of course, I will feel as lousy as Chad will feel elated if the Republicans loose control of one or both Houses of Congress in the next election.  But rules is rules.  The Courts are the least responsive branch of the Federal Government, but they are not unresponsive.  If a party controls the White House and Senate long enough, it will get a court more to its liking.

The comments that follow Chad's post are also good.  I respond on a few issues.  First, talking about "a woman's control over her own body" begs the question.  Pro-life folk see the unborn as a separate, morally equal person, and abortion therefore as a civil rights issue.  That is the fundamental question.  Second, even if Alito and Roberts would vote to overturn Roe, that will still be 5 to 4 in favor of Roe.  If Roe were overturned, I think it very unlikely that national legislation to ban abortion could pass.  At most, some procedures like partial birth abortion would be banned.  Some states might outlaw abortion altogether, but I am not even sure about that. 

What would really occur would be a lot of public arguments about the basic principles involved.  And they would be fought out in broad daylight, in legislative chambers and ballot initiative elections.  I am not at all sure that Republicans would benefit from this.  Perhaps a little courage is needed on your part, if you really want to reverse the balance of power in Washington.

 

Canadian Elections

With North Dakota serving as an effective buffer state, we here in the more southern rectangle do not have to think much about Canada.  But our sister democracy (Canada, not North Dakota), an ally almost as reliable as Australia, is about to hold elections.  It looks like the ruling liberal party is about to go down, after 12 years of champagne and success.  Most interestingly of all, from these parts south, is that the Canadian Press has crossed the isle and is now tearing the PM's party a new, well, exit. 
From Peaktalk:

One of the key factors in this ongoing federal election campaign has been the extraordinary about-face of the Canadian mainstream media.

This week seemed to be the worst in the backlash. We have been treated to the extraordinary sight of the Toronto Star, the Liberal bastion for as long as I've been alive, treating Martin with pure venom. The CBC, the voice of the government, is not letting up either. They openly question Liberal claims in nearly all their stories, and we were treated this week to the vision of Peter Mansbridge (host of the National) absolutely grilling Martin on the military ad. And of course we have the Globe and Mail endorsing Harper - unthinkable even six months ago.

The Globe and Mail, which I occasionally consult, opens with this:

Canada has been well served by 12-plus years of Liberal rule. Despite what the opposition parties would have us believe, it has not been all scandal and nest-feathering.

Not all scandal and nest-feathering, mind you.  File that one under faint praise.  While Republicans in the US sit back and listen to Abramoffgate bubbling in its fermentation tank,  its pleasant to contemplate a liberal government that makes Tom Delay look like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. 

Meanwhile consider this from the Globe and Mail:

Mr. Martin himself has shifted all over the map in recent years — on ballistic missile defence, on same-sex marriage, on the Clarity Act. In the run-up to the election in June of 2004, we wrote: “We wish Mr. Martin had afforded himself the opportunity of an 18-month tryout before going to the polls. Now the voters have the opportunity to impose a probationary period themselves.”

So this is what a Kerry Presidency would have looked like.

Roe v. Wade Collapsing?

From the Boston Globe, dateline Sioux Falls:

TO KNOW what's at stake in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, it's best to travel 1,200 miles west from the paneled Senate room to a small nondescript clinic in a Great Plains state.

It's best to turn from the blue-and-white charts brandished by senators to the parking lot filled with cars from places as far away as Rapid City or even Wyoming. It's best to turn from the buzz about precedents and privacy to the quiet of a waiting room.

Here, late in the afternoon, the clinic is still full. There's a soldier who will make a 700-mile round trip from the western part of the state. There's a teenager slouching beside a tense mother. There's a rancher, a mother of two high-schoolers and pregnant after having an IUD removed.

This is the only clinic in the state and this is the only day in the week when a woman can get an abortion in South Dakota. Today, they'll be treated by one of four doctors flown in from Minneapolis because it's impossible to recruit locally. Today's doctor is Miriam McCreary, a mother of four and grandmother of nine, who graduated from medical school in 1958. At 70, she still knows ''how desperate women are to end their pregnancies."

Read the whole thing.

Herseth

Joel Rosenthal of South Dakota Straight Talk has an article entitled "It's In the Mail - Let the Campaign Begin" where he rips on Stephanie Herseth's new mailer, in which she claims credit for saving Ellsworth Air Force Base.  Joel thinks the mailer cost a ton:

While our Congressional Representatives both Democrats and Republicans have been sending these name recognition and “I am fighting for folks like you” out for years this is not your reflex blue on white single page tri fold newsletter. I do not know the cost but from my limited experience buying print, it cost a bundle of cash more that the GPO or Congressional print shop variety. Also it arrived just after the new postage rates went into effect but I suspect it probably was mailed before last Sunday when the new rates went into effect.

Since it really is our money – someone should ask Ms. Herseth’s office how many pieces were mailed and what it cost us to tell us all the great things she is doing for us. All it would cost is a 39-cent stamp (citizens don’t get free mail privileges like Congress persons) on a letter for an interested Citizen to make a FOI (Freedom of Information) request.
...

The contents are amazing. Besides the pretty warplane on the cover reminding us again of her bi partisanship and heavy lifting in saving Ellsworth. The inside is devoted to telling us how hard she is spending our money on the many projects she is delivering for South Dakota and it’s communities. A Big Map of South Dakota with little bursts telling us about everything from the Lewis & Clark Pipeline Project to small local water and sewer projects.

Just as a sidebar don’t forget that in the Transportation Bill each member of the House of Representatives was allotted 14 million dollars to earmark for projects that they designate. No work required you just had to be a member of Congress. This is in addition of the Billions of dollars of expenditures that were made in the mammoth pork barrel bill.

Even this mailing cost us a ton. The mailing was not really necessary because she has neither opposition nor the likelihood of any. She is ahead by a mile. She did not need to spend more of our money telling us how she is delivering for us by sending us this mailing.

Then again it’s an election year, consider this mailing the official kickoff of her reelection campaign.

Read the whole thing.  Also, the Mitchell Daily Republic had an article today on Herseth and the lack of GOP challengers:

Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth has rolled into 2006 without a Republican challenger for the November election, and some Republicans are beginning to worry.

Larry Diedrich, who lost two elections to Herseth, said the eventual Republican nominee - whoever it is - needs time to organize this winter before rallying supporters face-to-face at social events in the spring and summer.

“Every day that you’re not utilizing right now is a day that’s lost forever in the campaign,” he said.

Judicial Review: the Left vs. the Right

Just because it is impossible for judicial nominees to openly discuss the principles of jurisprudence doesn't mean that an argument about those principles isn't going on before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Liberals often criticize conservative thinkers on and off the bench for being insensitive to the rights of women, minorities, etc.  Conservatives are likely to respond that judges ought to read and interpret the law as it is, and not make it up as they go along.  In both cases the boilerplate is misleading. 

Conservatives are just as capable of compassion and concern as their liberal colleagues, and it is unavoidable that judges make up a lot of constitutional law as they go along.  The Constitution is the DNA of the Republic, and all three branches must construct and reconstruct the flesh and bones. 

The real difference between the two sides today concerns the role of politics in jurisprudence.  Conservatives recognize that politics plays a role, and would like the bench to be stocked with folk from their side.  But they think that there is something more than ordinary politics at play.  The Constitution contains principles that ought to be respected, regardless of whether those principles stand in the way their political agenda.  A conservative might well vote for a law that put limits on abortions (say, by requiring spousal notification).  But he or she would object if any judge declared that spousal notification was constitutionally required, for there is no such principle in or derivable from the Constitution. 

Liberals, guided by the idea of a "living," which is to say evolving Constitution, have to come to believe that Constitutional interpretation is nothing but politics.  The right decision in any case is the one that produces the right political outcome: protecting abortion rights, preserving the right to die with dignity, etc.  There are no principles or institutions that trump these political outcomes.  This is indicated by the following observations in the Wall Street Journal.  Alito's critics made a big deal out of the idea of precedent.  You do respect precedent, they kept asking.  But do they?

As Judge Alito noted, some rulings deserved to be overturned, such as Plessy v. Ferguson, which sanctioned the separate-but-equal doctrine in 1896 and was superseded by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Dred Scott was also deservedly overturned, though it took a Civil War to do it.

No liberal would argue that those precedents ought not to be overturned.  Nor would any conservative that I am aware of.  But consider more current issues.

Certainly, liberals don't mind overturning precedents they don't like. In Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 ruling that banned state sodomy laws, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority eagerly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, a 5-4 decision from 1986 that had declared such laws to be the prerogative of the states.

And in Roper v. Simmons, last year's decision banning the death penalty for juveniles, the Court's liberal bloc (assisted by the protean Anthony Kennedy) was only too happy to overturn Stanford v. Kentucky, which was decided in 1989. In justifying this reversal, moreover, the Court put less reliance on American case law than on foreign legal precedent.

For conservatives, precedents are something to be taken seriously.  They should be overturned only when there are very strong reasons for doing so, and not willy nilly a few years later, because the Court is feeling more senstitive.  One can imagine Alito preserving a rule that he found to be politically repugnant and judicially unsound.  One cannot imagine a Judge Schumer doing so.  Precedent for Schumer is merely a weapon to be deployed when convenient, and ignored when not.  Of course, Senator Schumer may have the right idea about the Constitution, but that is his idea. 

More on The New Senate

In tomorrow's edition of the New York Times, Senator Chuck Schumer basically says the New Senate without Tom Daschle is confirming conservative judges that were blocked when Daschle was in power:

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said it was now hard to imagine a legislative strategy that could significantly slow Mr. Bush's judicial campaign, assuming vacancies continue to emerge, at least through the end of this year.

"To stop a president on judicial nominations, you either need a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate or moderate Republicans who will break ranks when it's a conservative nominee," Mr. Schumer said. "We don't have any of those three. The only tool we have is the filibuster, which is a very difficult tool to use, and with only 45 Democrats, it's harder than it was last term."

Alito and The New Senate

According to today's New York Times, Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter says the vote on Judge Samuel Alito will be determined in part by "what happened to Senator Daschle."  This is another example of how Thune's victory has made a difference:

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, declared his support for Judge Alito on Friday and said he expected a party-line vote of the committee's 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. But after the committee votes, Mr. Specter predicted, the politics of the final vote will be messier.

"They will get out that big map with red and blue, and where President Reagan did well, and who is up for election, and what happened to Senator Daschle," Mr. Specter said, referring to Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former Democratic majority leader who led fights against Republican judicial nominees and was defeated in 2004 by a conservative Republican who made that an issue.

Johnson & Alito

According to the Argus Leader, Tim Johnson is still open to filibustering Samuel Alito:

Johnson said it's doubtful that there is sufficient Senate opposition to mount a filibuster against Alito's confirmation. But he refused to rule out his participation in one if a filibuster develops.

"As a matter of principle, I'm not taking any position, parliamentary or otherwise, off the table," Johnson said.

One More Bloodsucking Politician

While I'm on the subject of disturbing parallels, think about Governor Jesse Ventura (10,000 Lakes.  One Navy Seal.), and then consider this story.  From the Star Tribune:

Looking for something really, really different in a political candidate this year?  Take a gander at Jonathon (The Impaler) Sharkey, who will launch his gubernatorial campaign in Princeton, Minn., on Friday the 13th as a "satanic dark priest" and the leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party."

Since there's nothing but a $300 filing fee to stop anyone from running for statewide office, campaigns in Minnesota typically attract colorful and eccentric characters looking for attention. And of course, former Gov. Jesse Ventura broke the mold and got elected. But Minnesota may never have seen a more outside-the-box politician than the Impaler, also a former pro wrestler.

Pro-wrestler running for Governor in Minnesota?  Checks out so far.  And he describes himself as a veteran, so maybe he can pick up some of the Kerry vote.  Of course, as a vampyre, he will probably have to be sworn in at night.  He will only be an "outside the box politician" between sunset and sunrise.  But its hard to take his prospects seriously.  Surely during a televised debate, his opponents could reduce him to silence merely by waving a cross.  And come to think of it, would he show up on camera anyway? 

But he does have some innovative proposals. 

Quite some distance from the mainstream, however, is his pledge to execute -- by impalement in front of the State Capitol -- terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, child abusers, repeat drunken drivers and anybody who preys on the elderly.

Now there's a proposal with legs.  Or maybe bat wings. But I do have some concerns.  Vampyres are more or less immortal, so unless some political opponent manages to stake him when the staff is not looking, we will end up paying him social security benefits forever.  Hat tip to James Tarranto's Best of the Web.

Another Arkansan Looks Down Pennsylvania Avenue

Well, not directly down it.  Arkanasas governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican, is making his third trip to Iowa.  He's been Governor since 1996, four years after Bill Clinton moved on to that big chick magnet, the White House.  Huckabee is obviously considering a run himself, but perhaps trolling for babes is not one of his top ten motives.  He is prohibited from running again by term limits, and well, he has to look for a new job. 

Arkansas is my native state, and I have a lot of family still there.  By all accounts I have heard, Huckabee has been a pretty good governor, and seems to be an all around stand up guy.  But I don't know that he has anything in his resume that gives him standing in the national Republican Party.  Clinton at this point had a national presence that allowed him to be taken seriously. 

Beyond simply being from Arkansas, there are some parallels with Clinton that are a little disturbing, in a Twilight Zone sort of way.  Clinton was "the man from a place called Hope," that place being Hope, Arkansas.  Governor Huckabee went to high school in Hope.  Another point is their willingness, unusual for politicians, to be photographed playing musical instruments.  Here's Clinton, with his famous sax.  President.  Peacemaker.  Band Pansy.   

And now here's Huckabee again, this time playing bass with a band called "Capital Offense," at the King Biscuit Blues Festival in 2004.  The band apparently consists of Arkansas state employees.  Not bad, but I was hoping for a picture of him next to Koko Taylor.  At any rate we have our second Arkansas governor and amateur bluesman eying the White House.  Be afraid.

Economic Predictions

Nariman Behravesh, Chief Economist of Global Insight, offers these top 10 economic predictions for 2006.

Alito Support

John Thune will support Judge Samuel Alito; Tim Johnson won't say where he stands:

South Dakota Sen. John Thune said Friday that he plans to vote in support of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

"My assessment is, this is someone who is qualified for the bench, and I intend to support him," he told The Associated Press in an interview on Friday.

Thune, a Republican, did not get to see Senate confirmation hearings because he has been on a trip to South America, but has kept up with developments. The senator had a personal meeting with Alito in Washington last November.
...
The state's other senator, Democrat Tim Johnson, has not yet announced whether he will vote in support of Alito. Johnson also met with Alito last year.

More Primary History

Doing what I do best (looking at history), I continue to report news concerning past South Dakota presidential primaries (see my two previous posts here and here.  Also see Dr. Blanchard's proposal, a reader's counter-proposal, and Dr. Schaff's disagreement).  The results of the 1980 Democratic Presidential Primary in South Dakota was as follows:

100 percent of 1,324 precincts:

Kennedy 32,625 (48%)

Carter 31,065 (46%)

Here's an Associated Press story from June 4, 1980, entitled "Carter Clinches Majority, Kennedy Persists":

President Carter emerged today from the long presidential primary campaign with the Democratic delegate majority he needed for his renomination, but his moment of triumph was clouded by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's refusal to abandon his challenge.

Carter claimed a "wondrous victory" as the last eight Democratic primaries boosted him over the top in delegate commitments. He offered "the hand of friendship" to Kennedy in an effort to unite Democrats for the campaign against Republican Ronald Reagan.

But while Carter claimed victory in the overall race for delegates, Kennedy had his biggest night of the primary campaign.

The senator won five of the final eight Democratic primaries, including the largest state, California.

Kennedy also carried New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico and South Dakota.

Carter won Ohio, Montana and West Virginia.

Making clear his determination to carry his campaign to the Democratic convention, Kennedy told supporters Tuesday night that "today, Democrats from coast to coast were unwilling to concede the nomination to Jimmy Carter and neither am I."

Daschle

I'm back from "The Centennial State."  There's lots of debate going on out there between Democrats (who control the state legislature) and Republicans over Referendum C.  Check out this Denver Post article for more info on it.  In our own political news, see this from the 13 Jan. 2006 edition of The Hotline:

DASCHLE: Once A Winner, Always A Candidate

Ex-Senate Maj. Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) recently told National Journal's "Inside Washington" that he is still contemplating a bid for WH '08, saying that he is "taking a look at it." He also stressed that is was not a done deal and his family would have to be in agreement. Daschle on Pres. Bush's secret surveillance: "It ought to be thoroughly investigated, and I hope it will be soon." On whether it is an impeachable offense: "The whole reason for a good investigation is to determine questions like that."

Guilty After All

Its one of the passion plays one never gets tired of.  Some poor guy becomes a left wing hero because he was executed for a crime that he did not commit.  That proves the death penalty is heinous!  Then it turns out that, well, he did in fact commit the crime.  This year's Julius Rosenberg award goes to Roger Coleman.

Modern DNA tests have confirmed the guilt of a Virginia man who had proclaimed he was innocent of murder and rape even as he was strapped into the electric chair and executed more than a decade ago, the governor announced yesterday.

The results stunned and disappointed those who have fought a 25-year crusade to prove that Roger K. Coleman was innocent. They also dashed hopes among death penalty foes that the case would catalyze opposition to capital punishment across the country.

I am not a big supporter of the death penalty.  Its just too expensive, given the extraordinary course that a case must go through.  But it obviously has one big advantage.  Juries very rarely convict in death penalty cases unless the evidence is overwhelming.  A lot of innocent folk who have been cooling their heels in prison would have been pronounced not guilty if the prosecutor had made it a capital case.  The proof of this is that it has been so hard to find any case where an innocent party was executed. 

If Coleman had been innocent that would have proved the death penalty is wrong.  He was guilty.  What does that prove?

"The opportunity to bring new people into the abolitionist movement has been lost," said Phyllis Goldfarb, a professor at Boston College's law school.

But Goldfarb said that though the exoneration of an executed inmate could have profoundly eroded support for the death penalty, confirmation of Coleman's guilt won't change many opinions. "Supporters of the death penalty will be confirmed in their skepticism of claims of innocence," she said. "Opponents still have reason to oppose. The risk of executing innocents still exists."

Alito Confirmation Hearings

The Rapid City Journal has an amazing editorial in this morning's paper about the Alito confirmation hearings:

Senate Judiciary Committee member Joseph Biden, D-Del., declared the judicial nomination process "broken" in an appearance Thursday morning on NBC's "Today Show."

Who's fault is that?

On the first day of the committee's hearing on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sen. Biden used 26 minutes of his allotted 30 minutes to grandstand before the cameras, leaving Alito little time to respond. Biden now complains that Alito's not answering the questions. Well.

The article then goes on to explain about how Senate Dem's are trying to "bork" Alito, but can not remember that the Senate GOP tried to do this when President Clinton nominated Justice's Ginsberg and Souter.

We'd say that Republicans are just as bad, but we don't recall that when President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court that Republican members of the committee made such a public display of hostility.

Right now it's looking like Alito will be confirmed, but we'll have to wait and see.

Looking Back at the Filibuster Compromise

Last May, most conservatives (my favorite blog, Powerline, is a good example) argued that the filibuster compromise brokered by the "Gang of 12," a bipartisan group of Senators, was a defeat for Republicans.  Under that compromise, Democrats promised not to filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances."  The Republicans in turn agreed to surrender their threat to end filibusters in confirmation votes. 

I argued to the contrary in a May 24th post.  I note also this post, and this one.  I thought that actually ending the filibuster would have painted the Republicans as radicals, and that's never good in American politics.  Instead, by using the threat of ending the filibuster, they secured the "extraordinary circumstances" standard, and I thought that standard clearly protected most otherwise viable conservative nominees. 

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

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

Looking back, we see that Bush replaced Rehnquist with a new chief justice who looks to be as reliably conservative.  And it appears that Sandra Day O'Connor's squishy swing vote is about to be replaced with an even more solid conservative.  Given the tone of the hearings, I don't believe the Democrats ever had any intention of deploying the filibuster.  If Alito is indeed confirmed, then I was right.  What were the odds of that?

UPDATE: James Taranto, at Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, confirms my analysis. 

[The Democrat's weakness during the Alito Hearings] helps illuminate how last May's filibuster compromise has turned out   to be extremely beneficial for the Republicans. As a practical matter, it ensures   that the Democrats cannot filibuster Alito's nomination, because doing so would   require at least three of the seven compromising Democrats to violate the agreement   and at least six of the seven compromising Republicans to abjure the nuclear   option nonetheless.

But by averting the nuclear option, the compromise kept open the option of   a filibuster in theory. The Democrats, however, must act as if the possibility   is more than theoretical, because to do otherwise would be to admit that they   suffered a total defeat back in May. (The seven compromising Democrats have   a slightly different incentive: As long as they keep alive the notion that a   filibuster is a real possibility, they get to pretend to be power brokers.)

The Angry Left, believing that the Democrats actually could stop Alito's nomination   through a filibuster, increases the pressure on Kennedy, Biden, et al., prompting   them to behave like jerks, revealing their extremism and obnoxiousness to all   the voters of America. We liked the filibuster compromise from   the start, but even we didn't imagine it would be this good.

Alito Bandito IV-the Endgame

Kausfiles has a very interesting observation (that's what Kausfiles is for) about the spin that Adam Nagourney in the New York Times put on the Alito hearings just before they started.

Chief Cocoon-Spinner Back On Job: If you read Adam "Caterpillar" Nagourney in the NYT on Tuesday, you'd think Alito was in big trouble due to mounting GOP political difficulties and a galvanized Dem minority:

The different tone on display on Capitol Hill on Monday - and what it suggests for the hearings that are expected to dominate Washington this week - stood as evidence to just how much the political atmosphere has changed since the Judiciary Committee approved Chief Justice Roberts's nomination 13 to 5.  . . .

Even in the course of Monday's swift-paced hearings, Democrats were ticking off at a dizzying pace issues they intended to press, suggesting that they expected to have a much easier time pinning down Judge Alito than they did Chief Justice Roberts. [Emph. added]

Look out, Sam! ... Two days later, does this passage seem eerily prescient or embarrassingly, cocooningly, wrong? ... 

Cocooning is a Kausism for using reason and evidence to isolate oneself and one's readers from reality.  I have noted that Nagourney quickly changed his tune as the hearings were under way.  Now this from Tom Curry at MSNBC:

As the interrogation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ended Thursday he was not just four days closer to confirmation than he’d been at the start of this week, but the momentum had shifted markedly in his favor.

Groups working to defeat Alito were naturally not agreeing with the notion that he is likely to win confirmation.

But during his hours of testimony, the nominee had not given his foes one damning sound bite to use in the anti-Alito TV ads that will run next week.

Curry sums up the situation:

Over the past 35 years, Senate Democrats  — sometimes aided by liberal and centrist Republicans — have mounted massive campaigns to try to defeat seven Supreme Court nominees appointed by four different Republican presidents.

The Democrats have defeated three of those seven: Clement Haynesworth in 1969, Harrold Carswell, in 1970,  and Bork in 1987. They came close to defeating Clarence Thomas in 1991.

At this moment it looks as if they will fall short on Alito.

Some galvanized Democratic minority.  It is significant that Alito, much more than Roberts, was a movement conservative with a clear paper trail.  If Democrats do not attempt to filibuster, and I predict they will not, then the filibuster has been defanged. 

Unconstitutional Act II

Reader Casey McEnelly replies to my post on H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005,"  a portion of which I argued was unconstitutional. 

Prof. Blanchard’s reading of that clause is a bit wider than I think most judges or law enforcement would use. It is obviously to make sure that individuals do not receive anonymous calls, emails, faxes, telegraphs, etc. of a threatening nature. I believe the “annoyance” provision is to keep an anonymous harasser from calling at 4:00am and then hanging up and calling every 5 minutes after that. This is NOT a protected form of speech.

Blogs and websites are a public forum where the communication takes place between the writer and the blog. The sticking point is the communication is not to a specific individual, it is to the general public. Even “open letters” are really for the public, not just the person to whom the letter is written. I think this is a welcome protection for those who wish to avoid harassment while at the same time allowing for full freedom of speech in the public square.

I am inclined to agree with Casey that this is how the provision will be interpreted.  But we have lots of experience with this sort of act being interpreted in creative ways to get at folks who are annoying.  Consider the use of the RICO act to go after Operation Rescue.  So I think it is proper to put up a bit of protest at the outset. 

I certainly agree that the forms of abuse he describes should be illegal.  I expect and hope that the court will treat the blogosphere as a public forum for the purposes of free speech. 

Blanchard On Public Radio

Just in case you missed it and are still interested, you can hear me on Wednesday's Noon Forum, South Dakota Public Radio, at this address:

http://www.sdpb.org/Archives/ProgramDetail.asp?ProgID=4581

Dem Leaders Under Investigation

Gateway Pundit:  Abramoff Scandal- Democratic Leaders Under Investigation