South Dakota Politics

Report from the Road

I am in Sioux Falls tonight, on my way to Bloomington Iowa for the annual meeting of the Association of Politics and Life Sciences (Apples, as we call it).  I am presenting a paper on Platonism and Darwinism.  I am trying to persuade my grad school buddies that Darwinism is in fact on the side of classical philosophy, and a lot of other folks in lab coats that classical philosophy ought to be taken seriously.  I am going to fail on both counts. 

I note my colleague's posts on ballot questions and I agree with his recommendations.  I would only add to his No on #2 post that if it passes, we should propose a tax on ugly people.  Granted Professor Schaff and I would end up paying it.  But having shed a few pounds recently, I guess I will escape the coming tax on fat people.  Moreover I am thinking that tall people consume altogether too much headroom and resources.  Think how much energy we can save if ceilings were a couple of feet lower?  I am safe when we pass a tax on tall people. 

Dow Continues to Surge

From the Associated Press:

Wall Street extended its October rally Monday as investors grew more optimistic about upcoming earnings reports and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it will cut capital spending to drive overall returns. The Dow Jones industrials shot up more than 110 points and crossed 12,100 for the first time.

Generally upbeat reports have instilled a new confidence about the future in investors, and allowed them to lay down some bets about the future just half-way through third-quarter earnings season.

...

Blue chips resumed a three-month rally after stalling Friday; the Dow briefly surpassed 12,100 and reached a new trading high of 12,117.95, eclipsing the old mark of 12,049.51 set last week. Broader market indexes also gained, shrugging off concerns about the Federal Reserve's decision on interest rates later this week.

"The picture being painted is pretty easy to suggest that the pressure on the economy from higher oil prices is easing," said Richard E. Cripps, chief market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus. The price of oil, which fell to lows for the year Friday from its mid-July highs, is making investors more bullish on sectors like retail, which stand to benefit if consumers have more spending money.

In midday trading, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 110.22, or 0.92 percent, to 12,112.59. Blue chips passed 12,000 for the first time last week.

Broader stock indicators also surged. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 8.71, or 0.64 percent, to 1,377.71, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 17.71, or 0.76 percent, to 2,360.01.

This seems appropriate:

Daschle Backs Off Run for President

Argus Leader: 

He also demurred on a possible run for president.

“I haven’t made any decisions, any announcements,” he said. “I think there’s a big field out there ... and it’s going to be exciting to see what’s going to happen.”

I think it's too bad we won't see Daschle making a presidential run.  Thought I don't always agree with him politically, it would still be exciting to watch his campaign unfold.  But I also think that Obama's announcement that he's considering a presidential run pretty much means the end of the Daschle-for-president gambit.

UPDATE:  Our former Senator also has some thoughts on candidates for the 2008 presidential race [UPDATE: Here's the link]:

Daschle: Democrats will pick up seven U.S. Senate seats
MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press

...

He also demurred on a possible run for president.

"I haven't made any decisions, any announcements," he said. "I think there's a big field out there ... and it's going to be exciting to see what's going to happen."

Daschle visited the politically pivotal states of New Hampshire and Iowa earlier this year to discuss a possible run with voters there.

In the interview Monday, Daschle downplayed the prospects of some potential Democratic opponents.

On Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who said Sunday he is considering seeking the nomination, Daschle said it's "appropriate" he's thinking about a run.

"I think because of the tremendous amount of enthusiasm and support that Sen. Obama has around the country, you'd be foolish not to give it some very careful thought ... And I hope he does make a very thoughtful evaluation of whether a race at this point makes sense or not."

He said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is not a lock for the nomination.

"I think even Sen. Clinton would tell you that she is not, she is not a candidate yet, and it's hard to say," Daschle said. "I don't think anyone has a lock on it."

No On #7

Initiated Measure #7 would repeal the state's video lottery.  I wish that we did not have video lottery.  Were in not already in existence I would not vote to introduce it.  But it is here and it generates a great deal of revenue ($112 million, according to the Attorney General's ballot explanation).  To remove this level of revenue without any plan to replace it is irresponsible.  Removal of video lottery should be part of comprehensive tax reform.  Both the video lottery and the sales tax on food and clothing are taxes that take far more from the poor than the rich and middle class.  These should be repealed and replaced with a progressive income tax.  This way the state could raise adequate revenue in a more just manner.  While I agree with the goals of Initiative #7, it deserves to lose.

Update: An emailer inspires me to make it clear that I oppose video lottery, but I do not think #7 is the way to get rid of it. 

No On #2

Why vote no on Initiated Measure #2, aka the tobacco tax?  First, it is a regressive tax that falls heavily on the poor.  Second, one of the defenses of the measure, that it will reduce smoking, is an argument in bad faith.  If supporters of this initiative really wanted to stop smoking they would propose a $50 per pack tax.  The truth is they want some people to smoke; how else do they plan on raising the millions of dollars they claim this law will generate?  This is not about reducing smoking.  If that was the case the ideal revenue from the tax would be zero.  This is about taxing an unpopular (and relatively poor) minority.  Finally, if we take the health argument seriously, this is the kind of moral imposition that many of our citizens on the left usually denigrate.  Who is the state to tell us that we must maintain healthy habits?  Smoking is a vice that we are all better off not developing, but it is a private vice.  Contrary to anti-tobacco claims, smokers are a net benefit to the public coffers.  Because of our punitive taxation on tobacco, smokers pay more in taxes and they also have the good graces to die earlier than others so they are not recipients of public dollars (e.g., Social Security) as long.  This is nanny state politics. 

In Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America he discusses the various punitive laws of the Puritains of early America.  He thinks many of these laws are quite silly, and this is the capper: "Sometimes, indeed, the zeal for regulation induces him to descend to the most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same code which prohibits the use of tobacco."

Update: Chad responds.  I will just note that if saving lives is so important, why don't we ban smoking?  It is nanny state when the government punishes us for doing things that are personally unhealthy but have minimal public costs.  Also, I have no doubt that many people who so support #2 are well intentioned, but I still say they are misguided.  I guess when it comes to smoking, Chad is anti-choice. 

Know Your Ballot Questions

Some thoughts are in order regarding the many ballot questions that South Dakotans will encounter on Nov. 7.  First of all, voters should take the time to read the Ballot Question pamphlet put together by the Secretary of State's office.  I have found it a valuable resource.  I have been surprised how many people have asked me where they can get information on ballot questions.  The link above is excellent.  The paper copy should be available at your county courthouse. 

I predict virtually all these ballot questions fail, with notable exceptions.  The default for most people is to vote "no" in ballot questions.  They find the language confusing, so they vote for the status quo.  I suspect the tobacco tax (Initiated Measure 2) will pass as smokers are an unpopular minority and everyone likes raising taxes on someone else.  I doubt any other measures will pass although some have a better chance than others.  If Referred Law 6 passes then one presumes Constitutional Amendment C also will.  I think Amendments C and F have merit as does Referred Law 6 (although none of the three is problem free).  Everything else on the ballot deserves to lose, in my opinion.  Contrary opinions welcome. 

CNN

Cliff May: "What would Ernie Pyle of any other great, war correspondent of the past think of CNN’s decision to air video showing snipers targeting U.S. troops in Iraq?"

If you're wondering what the outrage is about, here's the story:

CNN's decision to air a video showing snipers targeting U.S. troops in Iraq provoked both rage and praise yesterday, with some calling it a brave move by the cable network and others labeling it a propaganda coup for terrorists.

...

CNN said it obtained the video through contacts with the Islamic Army of Iraq, a Sunni-led insurgent group that has carried out numerous suicide bombings and kidnappings.

The tape provides a sniper's-eye view of the protracted war. During one portion, an enemy sniper and a spotter target a U.S. soldier standing atop a parked Humvee along a crowded street.

A crack is heard and the televised image goes black.

A second later, the soldier is shown slumping in the Humvee's turret, apparently taken down by a single bullet from a rifle. The footage is so murky that it's unclear who the soldier is or which branch of the armed forces he is with.

CNN said it did not know exactly when or where the gruesome tape was made, but that its experts had determined it was not a fake.

The video's airing comes at a time of growing concern over enemy snipers in Baghdad. U.S. military officials say snipers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their tactics.

On the video, male Arabic voices can be heard as the sniper and spotter talk off-camera.

“Allahu Akbar (God is Great)!” one of the voices exclaims after the soldier in the Humvee is shot. A vehicle carrying the sniper then slips away.

NYT Flip Flop

The New York Times flip-flops regarding the report of the SWIFT program:

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

...

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program.

Michelle Malkin wonder's why this isn't on the front page.  Ed Morrissey has some more observations, including this nugget:

Instead of acting as Chief Apologist, Calame should take his job a little more seriously in the future. The Times blew an important national-security program just to pump up its anti-Bush credentials, regardless of the fact that the program operated within the law and never abused the information it gathered. Calame dislikes the administration as much as the rest of the people at the New York Times, and in the guise of detached analysis endorsed the publication of a non-story in his zeal to undermine the White House using any means at their disposal. Everyone else knew that this story had no merit; it took the Times and its public editor four months to figure it out.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the New York Times.

Indeed.

UPDATE:  More from Watertown native John Hinderacker.

UPDATE II:  More on the New York Times' SWIFT flip flop from Tom McGuire.  Bill Quick also writes: "This is an especially telling admission from the Times 'ombudsman,' who, in theory at least, is supposed to be the most objective journalist in the Times organization. But a 'vicious criticism' (what? did GWB forget to call you the world's greatest newspaper?) is enough to warp your objectivity enough to print a story that did major damage to the safety and security of the United States?"  Meanwhile, Eugene Volokh is trying to figure out what was so "vicious."

The Real Scandal

From an SDP reader in Renner:

I see that SDP has been discussing how quick the Argus Leader was to report and undermine Bob Sahr, a Republican, and how the blogs have exposed how the Argus Leader had all the information about "rumors" about Dan Sutton the Democrat and hid them.  That's the real scandal.  The Sutton thing will be resolved after an investigation, but who will hold the Argus Leader accountable for deliberately tanking Republicans while trying to let Democrats off the hook (until the Argus was exposed by the blogs)?  Probably nobody will hold them accountable, and the whole group of liberal leaders at the Argus like Chuck Baldwin-Pat Lalley-Dave Kranz-Pete Harriman will continue to run the paper like they are the agitprop coordinators of the SD Democratic Party.  Does anyone take the Argus that seriously?  Especially after their laughable transition to a "new Argus," which almost everyone agrees stinks.  People who work at the Argus say privately that the response has been uniformly negative to the new format.  Will the Argus Leader report that?  Or will they just run a letter opposing the format and one praising the format here and there and pass that off as "objective"?  If the Argus really reported reality they'd have to concede that the "new Argus" format was a flop and that they tanked Bob Sahr while trying to let Sutton off the hook.

Alcee Hastings

Instapundit:

CLARICE FELDMAN HAS MORE on the goings-on at the House Intelligence Committee.

And a reader notes this bit from Michael Barone about Jane Harman:

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is said to be determined to replace her with Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who was impeached by the House for bribery and convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

Call me crazy, but is someone who was impeached and removed for bribery a good choice for leadership on the Intelligence Committee? And is somebody who thinks so a good choice to head the House Democrats?

UPDATE:  Eugene Volokh comments:

In 1989 the Senate removed then-federal judge Hastings, convicting him of conspiracy to take a bribe and perjury; the Senate vote was 69-25, and on one of the counts the vote was 34-21 even among Democratic senators alone. Hastings had been acquitted at his criminal trial some years before, which is to say that he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But shouldn't the standard for deciding who'll be head of the Intelligence Committee be more than just seniority plus he hasn't been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

He seems like a poor choice to me, and if I were the Democrats, who have to be worried about national security as an election issue, I wouldn't be thinking about him for the position.

SDSU v. Cal Poly, and Other Sports

Argus Leader:

The sun setting in shades of pink over the mountains behind them, the South Dakota State Jackrabbits rallied from a 22-point deficit in the final eight minutes to earn a shocking 29-28 victory against No. 4-ranked Cal Poly in Great West Football Conference play Saturday at Alex G. Spanos Stadium.

Like the sunset, the victory was a thing of beauty.

"I thank God we won this game," said SDSU coach John Stiegelmeier, his club's fourth consecutive victory ending the Mustangs 10-game home win streak.

Divine intervention was perhaps the only explanation for how the Jackrabbits (4-3, 1-0) scored 23 points in 6 minutes, 50 seconds of the fourth quarter against Cal Poly (5-2, 2-1), which entered the game leading the NCAA Division I-AA in overall defense and scoring defense.

All three touchdowns in that span were thrown by quarterback Andy Kardoes and caught by JaRon Harris, the last coming with 1:05 to play. The Mustangs, fading away in front of 9,042 fans, called a timeout after the score, giving Kardoes enough time to sell Stiegelmeier on a change of plans on the point-after attempt.

Unfortunately, the Iowa Hawkeyes didn't have the same success yesterday.  Denver, coming off their win against the Oakland Raiders last week, go up against the Cleveland Browns today.  Jimmy Johnson starts ninth in today's race at Martinsville, and hopefully he can perform well there.

Russian Despotism

Washington Post: 

IT HAS NOW been 14 days since Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered in Moscow. No one has been arrested for the crime, which is hardly surprising: None of the dozen other killings of journalists since Vladimir Putin became Russia's president has been solved. This one eliminated one of the fiercest and bravest critics of his government, a reporter who had tenaciously documented the depravity of Mr. Putin's war against Chechnya. We don't have any evidence implicating the Kremlin, but it's revealing to examine how Mr. Putin and his regime have behaved over the past few days.

The president's first reaction was a strange silence. While politicians, media outlets and statesmen in Russia and around the world condemned Ms. Politkovskaya's murder, no word came from Mr. Putin for three days. When finally compelled to speak, at a joint news conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Putin offered a rote condemnation of the attack. He then disparaged Ms. Politkovskaya, saying that "the level of her influence on political life in Russia was utterly insignificant." He made the ugly suggestion that foreign-based enemies of his government were somehow behind the killing -- a claim echoed in the state-controlled press. "We have information, and it is reliable, that many people hiding from Russian justice have long been nurturing the idea of sacrificing somebody in order to create a wave of anti-Russia feeling in the world," he said.

Really? If so, Mr. Putin's enemies also must have found a way to manipulate his own security forces.

Check it out.  It details some interesting facts.

A Thousand Points of Light in France

That thousand points takes about ten days, if you are talking about cars.  The London Times tells the story:

An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France so far this year and there have been 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services. Nearly 3,000 police officers have been injured in clashes this year. Officers have been badly injured in four ambushes in the Paris outskirts since September. Some police talk of open war with youths who are bent on more than vandalism.

“The thing that has changed over the past month is that they now want to kill us,” said Bruno Beschizza, the leader of Synergie, a union to which 40 per cent of officers belong. Action Police, a hardline union, said: “We are in a civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.”

Car-burning has become so routine on the estates that it has been eclipsed in news coverage by the violence against police. Sebastian Roche, a sociologist who has published a book on the riots, said that torching a vehicle had become a standard amusement. “There is an apprenticeship of destruction. Kids learn where the petrol tank is, how to make a petrol bomb,” he told The Times.

That is what passes for normal among the Gauls.  There are two problems facing the developed world: how to assimilate immigrants, and how to deal with radical Islam.  Don't ask the French for advice on either problem. 

An Admirable Eppisode

I second my SDP colleague Master Heppler with regard to Todd Epp's post on South Dakota's very own Pagegate.  Master Epp locks horns with Professor David Newquist ( I know what that is like), and defends the South Dakota War College coverage of the accusations against State Senator Dan Sutton.  I was particularly fond of these Eppic paragraphs:

As to David and any other critics out there, you're welcome to your opinion and it might even be right.  But you can't have it both ways: do you want to know what goes on in Pierre with our legislators or don't you?  Do you have a right to know if there are investigations of our public officials or don't you?  You choose.   

But one thing is certain.  If you wait for the SD MSM to do the coverage, sometimes you may be waiting a very long time.

A lot of folks who complain about the media and secrecy in government don't really want the media to be more honest or the government to be more open.  They just the media to to say what they want to hear, and for government to release all the information and only the information that pads their own perspective. 

The blogosphere has indeed revolutionized political reporting.  It has done so by democratizing it, in the Greek sense of that word.  Anyone blogging from his basement (as I am in fact doing right now) can challenge the MSM.  And the MSM is frequently compelled to take notice and get its butt in gear.  Of course you are not going to always get from bloggers

the basic ingredients of verfication, meticulous citation of the facts, or statements from people involved that would be required in a legitimate news story.

In fact, you will often get

vague charges inflated by prurient innuendo and implication, and, of course, downright mean and trivial-nasty partisanship.

As someone working for a respectable newspaper might say, there goes the neighborhood.  Real democracy lets a lot of people speak up whose mud-stained overalls and coarse speech might displease your average English Professor.  And course your well-mannered professor, careful and moderate in his own writing, is right to want a more finished product in the end.  But maybe we want to get all the ingredients into the stew before we start trying to boil it down. 

South Dakota War College did an admirable job on this story, and Todd Epp is to be praised for pointing that out. 

Pagegate

Todd Epp has an excellent and thoughtful piece regarding Pagegate.  Apparently some bloggers and reporters took issue with other bloggers--namely SDWC, but I assume this includes anyone who spoke against the South Dakota MSM, including SDP, Chad Schult, and Epp--criticizing the coverage and for sitting on the information.  Behold, once again, the power of the blogosphere.  It was a blogger, SDWC, that broke the story regarding Dan Sutton and the Argus Leader was left to play catch-up.

UPDATE:  This is especially damning:

A high school age page made a serious charge against a sitting state senator.  The press knew about it but sat on it.  Meanwhile, the same newspaper that sat on the Dan Sutton charge had no problem breaking the Bill Sahr "scandal" without any evidence of a formal investigation or even a hint of what the charges were or who was making them.

Recall again that Epp noted earlier in the week the Argus had no problem tanking Republican Bob Sahr, but sat on the information about Democrat Dan Sutton.

Adelstein Organizing Democratic Campaigns

From Judy Peres of the Chicago Tribune:

"This is all the candidates are talking about, instead of worrying about education and other pressing problems," said state Sen. Stan Adelstein, a long-time legislator who — like three other moderate Republicans who voted against the ban — was beaten in the June primaries by a conservative Christian.

Adelstein, who co-chairs the Campaign for Healthy Families, is organizing four Democratic Senate campaigns.

"My party needs to get back to focusing on true Republican issues — keeping
government out of people's lives, economic growth, education of gifted children and diversity of lifestyle and faith," said Adelstein, who is Jewish. "The only way to get people like me back in power is to throw the scoundrels out."

HT to Sibby.  More thoughts at SDWC.

October Surprises

NRO:  October Surprise Fatigue

What Media Bias?

Via Instapundit comes this report from Daily Mail:

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

More thoughts over at Power Line.  If only the Argus Leader were brave enough to admit this.

Dakota Roots

The Argus Leader reports today that the state government has initiated a new program entitled Dakota Roots, to try and lure people into South Dakota.  This seems like a pretty good idea, which is to link people to South Dakota jobs through a central website.  Jack Billion argues that it's essentially too little, too late, and that the only fix is to raise wages.  I agree that raising wages will fix part of our problem, but how will we do that?  Billion doesn't offer an answer.  This certainly isn't the solve-all for our state's economic woes, but I think it's a good step in the right direction.

Opening Weekend

Associated Press:

More than 100,000 out-of-state residents are expected this fall during South Dakota's pheasant hunting season, and that means good things for the economy.

Last year, hunters spent $108 million in the state, according to the Game, Fish and Parks Department.

Brown County is a hot spot for hunters and their wallets, and Aberdeen civic leaders say many businesses thrive on the hunting season because it helps carry them through the year.

Billboards and signs are up all over Aberdeen, welcoming hunters. At one Aberdeen motel, the manager says business goes up 50 percent or more during the hunting season.

The state is also reporting that, despite the drought, the pheasant population has only fallen about six percent from 2005, which was the biggest in forty years.

The Left University

A new study (pdf alert) reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education says that university faculty are overwhelmingly liberal:

Professors, says the report, are at the "forefront of the political divide" over U.S. foreign policy that has developed since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Faculty members have "aligned themselves in direct opposition to the political philosophy of the conservative base voting for the prevailing political power" in America, it says. Unlike most Americans, it adds, faculty members "blame America for world problems" and regard U.S. policies as "suspect."

The report labels the faculty's overall stance as liberal "groupthink," and says it is dangerous because faculty members "are supposed to provide a broad range of ... approaches to addressing problems in American society and around the world." Professors are role models for students and frequently are called upon to act as "pundits" by the media and as experts on foreign policy, it adds.

For an account of the rise of the liberal political culture within universities, see "The Left University" by James Piereson.

Billion: "I'm an old McGovernite."

SDWC:

In an AP article by Chet Brokaw, Jack Billion recently pronounced where he stands philosopically within the spectrum of the Democratic Party. And, while I'm sure some of the commenters will form their own opinions, I'm pegging them a good way towards the left:

But long before he entered politics himself, Billion was inspired by George McGovern, a fellow Democrat who served three terms as a U.S. senator from South
Dakota and lost the 1972 presidential race to President Nixon.

"I'm an old McGovernite," Billion said.

"I think probably I became inspired with George McGovern when he spoke out against the Vietnam War," Billion said.

"Although I'm a veteran, I saw the war perhaps from the side of a physician. It was a tremendous loss of young people," Billion said. "You have an undying admiration for the young men and women who went over there and fought and suffered. They were a remarkable generation."

Billion also said he admired former President Clinton because he had "some pretty remarkable ideas" and managed the economy well.

Read it all here. No Harry Truman or FDR? Nope. McGovern and Clinton.

That leaves a bad taste in this conservative's mouth. Which reminds me of a couple of jokes....

House Intel Leaker Found?

The Associated Press reports that the House Intelligence Committee may have found the New York Times' source for their national-security scoops:

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra has suspended a Democratic staff member because of concerns he may have leaked a high-level intelligence assessment to The New York Times last month.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press Thursday night, Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., a committee member, said that an unidentified staffer requested the document from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte three days before the Sept. 23 story about its conclusions.

The staffer received the National Intelligence Estimate on global terror trends on Sept. 21.

"I have no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee's minority staff, but the implications of such would be dramatic," LaHood wrote Hoekstra, R-Mich., late last month. "This may, in fact, be only coincidence, and simply 'look bad.' But coincidence, in this town, is rare."

A spokesman to Hoekstra, Jamal Ware, confirmed that a committee staff member was suspended this week. He said the staff member is being denied access to classified information pending the outcome of a review.

Halloween Movie Post

Allow me to take a moment away from gut-wrenching political issues for a moment of unbridled frivolity.  The U.S. has five holidays that are really celebrated: Christmas, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Easter, and Valentine's Day.  Halloween comes second in terms of store displays and yard ornaments, and, after Christmas, it is my favorite holiday.  This is due to the simple fact that I am incurably fond of the spooky story.  In case you are looking for a good Halloween movie, I have some suggestions.

The best single Halloween movie is, well, Halloween, John Carpenter's 1978 masterpiece, if only on account of its title.  It builds on the plausible and provocative idea that real monsters lurk in the subconscious mind, and is carried by master performances: Donald Pleasance and Jamie Lee Curtis.  If you want something more suitable for children, try The Adams Family.  This superbly crafted homage to the old TV show is perfect for watching while munching on popcorn and distributing candy to miniature ghouls at the door. 

If you want something classic, go back to the 1930's, when our four basic Halloween monsters saw their first moonlight.  Frankenstein (1931) ranks as the undisputed father of the modern monster story, with a number of scenes that have become cultural motifs.  And you gotta love Boris Karloff as the monster.  But Bela Lugosi as Dracula (also filmed in 1931) is an almost perfect horror film.  There is a collection out now that includes a Spanish version, filmed at night using the same script and sets, for Mexican audiences.  My kids got it for me for Christmas.  Karloff appeared a year after Frankenstein in The Mummy.  The plot serves as a template for later versions of Dracula: resurrected man/demon pursues a woman who reminds him of his long lost love.  I think it's Karloff's best role.  Ten years after Frankenstein came Lon Chaney Jr. as The Wolf Man.  Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolf bane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright.  The inescapable and undeserved curse sets this one apart from all the others.  For a few more laughs, try Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein, in my view, Brook's best movie. 

If you are looking for undiscovered but sinister gems, rent Bubba HoTep.  This happens to be my favorite movie.  A geriatric Elvis (Bruce Campbell) and a Black man who thinks he is JFK (Ozzie Davis) battle a mummy in a nursing home.  In the climax, when Ozzie Davis starts his motorized wheel chair in motion to challenge the mummy, well, I still get tears in my eyes.  If you want something with more bite, try Cat People, with marvelous work by Natassja Kinski and Malcom McDowell.  The movie is transformed into a masterpiece by Giorgio Moroder's dense, electronic score, which is every bit as good as the soundtrack from Chariots of Fire.  Another good bet is Demon Knight, a tale that pushes all my buttons.  A lone warrior who carries what amounts to the blood of Christ battles to keep a legion of demons from invading the world.  Mortally wounded, he passes his mission to a teenage girl who, like Barabbas, was a thief.  That, I submit, is a story. 

Happy Halloween. 

On abortion 2

I received this note from Doug B in reply to last nights post.

I personally would have preferred an exception for R, I, LOM.  I think if those had been included, there would be no question of the ban passing.  Listen to the opponents.  They do not say abortion should be allowed.  They say it goes too far, implying they would support it if there were exceptions.  This is not to say I believe there should be those exceptions, only I think it could pass if they were included. 

However to back off as far as you are willing to defeats much of the purpose of the law.  Part of the purpose is to confront Roe v Wade.  What you propose does very little towards that end.  If this law is voted down, it is my hope it will be brought forth with those exceptions in the next legislature.  Then, after the vote is upheld in an election, it could go on to the SCOTUS.

There is obviously a range of positions with regard to abortion.  If I recall correctly, Ronald Reagan was opposed to all abortions except in cases of rape and where necessary to save the life of the mother.  I also seem to recall that the Church in Rome opposes all abortions except in cases where the unborn cannot be saved but the mother's life can.  The latter seems to me to be the only position that makes no compromise on the issue.  Reagan justified abortions in the case of rape on grounds of self-defense, but I never thought that was a convincing argument.  I suspect that the real reason for that exception among many abolitionists is tactical rather than principled.

Once you admit the necessity of some compromise, the question becomes not how far to "back off", as Doug puts it, but what compromise offers some promise of passing and being sustained in court.  Here was my proposal:

Allow abortions in the first trimester and forbid all abortions in the third trimester.  In the second trimester, abortion would be allowed only if the life of the mother were at stake.

This proposal, compromised though it is, offers some hope in so far as it is clearly a moderate position between the extremes (total abolition and, what we have now, abortion on demand), and would thus allow proponents to cast the other side as extremists, and it builds on the trimester system of Roe.  Thus it is designed to have a chance in the political and the judicial arenas.  I argued that this would save thousands of lives each year, and would, for the first time, allow the unborn recognition under the Constitution.  That seems to me to be gaining quite a lot.

I would note that my reasoning here is not meant to indicate a preference regarding Referred Law 6.  Even if this referendum succeeds, I predict that it will be overturned in Federal Court, and that the U.S. Supreme Court will never even hear the case.  But that is not to say its a wasted effort.  An act containing only the minimum exceptions would suffer the same fate.  And this at least sets out the extreme on one side, so that compromise measures will look moderate in comparison.

On a final note, my colleague notes that Yes on 6 yard signs are ubiquitous in Aberdeen neighborhoods.  My wife noted shrewdly that No on 6 yard signs seem to be non-existent.  This does not indicate any relative political strength, but only the fact that all the Herseth and Billion voters do not seem interested in advertising their position on 6. 

Judge Under Fire

A judge who lobbied for Harriet Miers is under fire for dabbing in politics, according to the New York Times:

A year after the Bush administration enlisted a Texas Supreme Court justice in its unsuccessful bid to put Harriet E. Miers on the United States Supreme Court, a special state court is to announce Friday whether the judge was guilty of “willful and persistent” violations of judicial ethics for his role in that effort.

The justice, Nathan L. Hecht, 57, the longest-serving member of the Texas high court and a friend of Ms. Miers for 30 years, testified before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that he had given about 120 interviews to reporters in which he promoted her nomination.

Justice Hecht, a Republican who is running for re-election, also said he had reported back to the White House on questions he was asked about Ms. Miers, President Bush’s longtime counsel.

Justice Hecht was widely portrayed in news reports as Ms. Miers’s “spokesman.” Defending himself before commission members, he said he had been swept up in a “tsunami” of news coverage. “I felt I was drawn kicking and screaming into the process,” he testified.

But under questioning, he acknowledged, “Nobody forced me.”

Justice Hecht also told the commission that he had been advancing a public interest in Ms. Miers’s nomination, that she was not a candidate for elective office and that he was entitled to free speech.

...

The commission decided in May that the justice’s actions on behalf of the White House and Ms. Miers merited a public admonition, the lightest form of reprimand, which carries no criminal or civil consequences.

But Justice Hecht sought to overturn the sanction by appealing to a Special Court of Review, which is randomly selected by the Texas Supreme Court, the nine-member bench on which Justice Hecht has served since 1989. The Texas Supreme Court has final authority over civil and juvenile delinquency cases; the Court of Criminal Appeals has ultimate jurisdiction over criminal cases.

In an unusual move, the special court — two state appellate judges from Dallas and one from El Paso — had announced this month that it would release its ruling at a court hearing and news conference in Fort Worth on Oct. 23. But this week it said instead that it would notify the parties by e-mail and fax on Friday. No explanation was given for the change.

...

Charles L. Babcock, a lawyer representing Justice Hecht, said the judge had an unblemished record and was set on vindication. “He’s a candidate for re-election,” Mr. Babcock said. Even the admonition, he said, “has a very nasty effect.”

The justice’s appeal was supported in friend of the court briefs submitted by the Republican Party of Texas and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas.

Herseth

Stephanie Herseth is giving a speech about "girl power," but some people aren't impressed:

Stephanie and other liberals get away with the affirmative action/discrimination/"girl power" baloney WAY TOO much. What if the Republicans promoted "man power" or "white power" or whatever? They'd be crucified. But somehow when Princess Stephanie does it it's "cute." What is "girl power" anyway? Don't all these studies show that boys are the one falling behind because of decades of feminization of the classroom and favoritism toward girls and trying to take and "manliness" or "toughness" out of the curriculum. Phony liberal quota queens like Stephanie "The Princess" Herseth are exactly what is wrong with America today. By the way, even though Herseth demanded Speaker Hastert resign over "page-gate" she completely looks the other way when a "page-gate" impacts a South Dakota Democrat.

On abortion

My recent post on the Rally for Life in Aberdeen disturbed several persons whose opinions I take very seriously.  The part that got me into trouble was this:

I regard myself as moderately pro-life.  I think abortion should certainly be prohibited in the last trimester of pregnancy, but allowed in the first trimester (we can quibble about the middle).

One reader from California,  a former student of mine, sent me this:

I just finished reading your blog on the pro-life rally. It needs a sequel!

Why would you allow abortion in the first, but not the last trimester?

Viability? Evidence found in emanations from a penumbra?

Okay, that hurts.  I beg our readers to forgive me for the silly way that I wrote those sentences.  I apologize for such flippant language.   Allow me to express my views more carefully. 

On such matters, my great teacher is Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln believed that slavery was everywhere and always wrong, because it violates the principle of our "ancient faith."  That principle is that all human beings are created equal, in so far as they enjoy certain inalienable rights.  Among these is the right to life.  For the same reason that Lincoln hated slavery, I hate abortion.  My reasoning is this: the embryo, at every stage of development, is a distinct, living being.  This is simple biology.  And it is not a bovine being, or a canine being, but a human being.  So if all human beings are indeed created equal in being endowed with a right to life, then the unborn human being has as much right to life as I do.  That is simple logic.  It follows that abortion is everywhere and always wrong. 

To that argument, which I have believed for a long time, I would add this bit of experience.  When my daughter was about twenty weeks into the adventure of life, I was privileged to see her by means of a sonogram.  She bounced around her enclosure like someone playing racket ball.  That was my little girl, as vulnerable and alive as when she first began asking single word questions like "doing?" and "happen?".  To have ended her life at that point would have been infanticide.  Anyone who disagrees, I suppose, is suffering from a terrible moral confusion.  I concede that at very early stages of development, the first few weeks, the truth is harder to see.  But I believe the logic is inescapable: a human being is a human being, and all human beings are created equal.

I return to Lincoln.  Much as he hated slavery, he was willing to accept that institution in half of the existing states, so long as slavery was contained there.  He did so for two reasons.  First, he believed, rightly, that the Constitution protected slavery in the Southern states, and he could not move against it (prior to secession) without acting in a lawless manner.  Second, if he had not taken that moderate position, he could not have been elected.  Instead, Stephen Douglas would have been President, and the country would have officially adopted a position of indifference to slavery.  That would have meant the end to the republic based on the principles of the Declaration.  So Lincoln accepted a hateful compromise.  Fortunately for us, the South refused to accept it, and so slavery came to an end.

Just right now, the abolition of abortion in America is not a possibility.  I hope, and fervently pray, that it one day will be.  For thirty years the Pro-Life movement has insisted on an end to all abortions, but has made only the most incremental progress. Only when they were willing to settle for less, say a one day waiting period, have they actually saved any unborn children. 

I believe that a compromise might be possible that would gather majority support and might pass Supreme Court review.  Such a compromise would allow abortions in the first trimester and forbid all abortions in the third trimester.  In the second trimester, abortion would be allowed only if the life of the mother were at stake.  Such a compromise falls far short of what justice demands.  But it would save thousands or tens of thousands of lives.  I am not optimistic about the chances of such a proposal.  But if the Pro life movement put its weight behind this, it would have a ghost of a chance.  More importantly, it would build on the Roe framework, and would allow the Supreme Court to accept it without confessing that the Court had changed its mind.  It would also make it possible for the backers to cast their opponents as extremists, and that is a winning card in American politics. 

Best of all, it would establish the constitutional person-hood of at least some of the unborn.  That would represent great progress on this issue, and it could be expanded to cover more of the unborn in the future.  These are the reasons, and the only reasons, I advocate such a compromise.

Economic Hypochondria

George Will has an article in the Washington Post entitled "Prosperity Amid the Gloom."  Excerpt:

"Worst economy since Herbert Hoover," John Kerry said in 2004, while that year's growth (3.9 percent) was adding to America's gross domestic product the equivalent of the GDP of Taiwan (the 19th-largest economy). Nancy Pelosi vows that if Democrats capture Congress they will "jump-start our economy." A "jump-start " is administered to a stalled vehicle. But since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the past 40 years (6.0). Some stall.

Economic hypochondria, a derangement associated with affluence, is a byproduct of the welfare state: An entitlement mentality gives Americans a low pain threshold -- witness their recurring hysteria about nominal rather than real gasoline prices -- and a sense of being entitled to economic dynamism without the frictions and "creative destruction" that must accompany dynamism. Economic hypochondria is also bred by news media that consider the phrase "good news" an oxymoron, even as the U.S. economy, which has performed better than any other major industrial economy since 2001, drives the Dow to record highs. ...

President Bush's tax cuts were supposed to cause a cataract of red ink. In fiscal 2006, however, federal revenue as a share of GDP was 18.4 percent, slightly above the post-1962 average of 18.2. And the federal budget deficit was $247.7 billion, just 1.9 percent of the $13.1 trillion GDP. That is below the average for the 1970s (2.1), 1980s (3.0) and 1990s (2.2).

Speaking of economics, Glenn Reynolds has discovered the root of MSM discontent with the economy.

South Dakota Divided

Financial Times:

Abortion-rights activists in South Dakota took many by surprise a few months ago when they said voters should decide the fate of the state’s new abortion law, the most restrictive in the US.

Now, with a referendum on the November 7 ballot, their campaign has become the frontline in the long-running national debate on abortion.

A victory here would show that even in a conservative Midwestern state, the public will not tolerate a near-total ban on abortion. But a defeat would signal just how difficult a challenge campaigners face in trying to protect a woman’s right to abortion.

...

South Dakota voters drew national attention two years ago when they surprised the political pundits and voted out Tom Daschle, Democratic leader in the US Senate. This year, voters’ positions on the abortion question are difficult to predict, frequently crossing gender and party lines.

Sharon Rons, a Democrat who owns her own small business, said she would vote to keep the law. “I don’t think abortion should be a form of birth control,” she says, adding that the decision to end a pregnancy “could haunt women for the rest of their lives”.

But some Republicans say they will oppose it, perhaps a reflection of a libertarian strain that runs through the sparsely populated state. “I just don’t feel that somebody else should make this decision for a woman,” said one Republican pensioner.

“We are responsible people,” said Mrs Nicolay, a Rep­ublican and former member of the state legislature. “We can make our own decisions.”

A Severe Mercy

Here is a snippet from Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy, at this point writing as an atheist learning about Christianity:

The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness.  But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians--when they are sombre and joyless, when they are self-righteous and smug in complacent consecration, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths.  But, though it is just to condemn some Christians for these things, perhaps, after all, it is not just, though very easy, to condemn Christianity for them.  Indeed, they are impressive indications that the positive quality of joy is in Christianity--and possibly nowhere else.  If that were certain, it would be proof of a very high order. 

One Thought On Scandal

If Dan Sutton is innocent, there will be hell to pay.  I don't know whether he is guilty or innocent.  And neither, dear reader, do you.  But he is political dead meat, so let the vultures swarm. 

KSFY Naming Names in Pagegate

I'm surprised to see this information out already.  From KSFY:

On Thursday afternoon Mike Butler, the lawyer for state Senator Dan Sutton, said his client has done nothing wrong. He says it all started during this year's lesgisaltive session when rumors circulated about Sutton. But nothing came from the rumors until this month when former Democratic candidate for governor Dennis Wiese sent a letter to Senate leadership.

"Now Mr. Wiese has decided that he would apparently contact Senator Schoenbeck," Butler says, "and attempt to accomplish by public accusation what he couldn't get accomplished by a criminal investigation."

In that letter Wiese says his son, who was a page at the time, was groped by Senator Sutton. Butler says he doesn't know who made that those letters public, but the timing is political according to the attorney, as Washington, D.C. Reacts to the Congressman Mark Foley page scandal.

Keep the Wiese family in your thoughts and prayers.

More on the Scandal

From Plains Politics:

But, another big question is why has the Attorney General been investigating this since April, why has it not been resolved by now, or made public? The death penalty case and this one give some evidence to the Attorney General's office being a little lax on getting these things done in a timely fashion.

The investigation(s) will spell out the facts though. And I am sure whoever finds out the details will let us know. It is unfortunate that the Argus has sat on this story for so long, not a surprise though. I thought they were supposed to be the Watchdogs for the state? You know, they change the paper around, change some titles, and what do you know, the paper is still the same it was before, weird how that works.

UPDATE:  Kristi Golden writes:

I remember when it was said the SD was 5 years behind the coasts in trends. Unfortunately, when it comes to allegations of misconduct with legislative pages, we're keeping up with the coasts.

This is a very serious matter and it looks like the leaders in the SD Senate on both sides of the aisle are working hard to treat it as it should be and not treat it politically. I hope it can remain that way.

Bad behavior transcends party affiliation and should not be tolerated in our political officials or frankly among any of our fellow human beings.

Indeed.

Epp on the Press Coverage of the Legislative Scandal

Todd Epp wonders why the Argus buried the Dan Sutton/Democrat story but blew the Bob Sahr/Republican story open:

These are serious allegations.  Should they have been brought forward sooner to the people and the press?  Yes.  I think it is not out of line to ask why did the "real press" sit on the story.  I'm not wild about serious allegations being made against a state senator from my party who I think has done a pretty good job and as far as I know is a decent person.   My dealings with Dan have always been very positive.   But the press has an obligation to report what it knows and can support via the facts (the Argus' pre-GOP convention hatchet job on Bill Sahr notwithstanding.)

As a former working journalist, I know that sometimes you get part of a really good, juicy story but can't run with it because you can't completely confirm important details.  But to deliberately sit on a story--to "spike it" as it's called in the business--is just wrong.

Legislative Scandal Story Breaking

What did the Argus Leader know and when did they know it?

Argus Leader:

The South Dakota Attorney General's Office and Senate leaders are investigating allegations of wrongdoing involving a state lawmaker and an 18-year-old legislative page, officials confirmed Tuesday.

The father of a former page has accused Sen. Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau, of misconduct during the last legislative session, according to state Sen. Garry Moore.

...

Schoenbeck, who wouldn't talk about his letter, did say the parent of a page complained to him last week about the inappropriate behavior of a state senator.

"Under Senate rules, it's my job to be the first one to deal with that," he said.

"I would not express an opinion about the truthfulness of the allegation," he added. "That's why we have a hearing process in the Senate."

In his letter addressed to Sutton, Moore indicated that Sutton may have violated legislative rules by failing to notify Senate leaders of the accusation.

"I know you can understand that since these allegations involve misconduct relating to pages, it is a serious matter," the letter states.

The letter also said, "I am proposing to the Executive Board that the rules surrounding pages and their associations with legislators be studied and revamped."

And the letter indicated that "the Attorney General's Office has opened an investigation into these allegations."

When asked about Moore's letter, Attorney General Larry Long said, "There is a criminal investigation, and I'm not going to talk."

Schoenbeck said he was aware of a criminal investigation, but he didn't know its status.

Both Schoenbeck and Moore say they are making proposals to revamp South Dakota's page program.

Also, via SDWC, Bob Mercer in the Pierre Capitol Journal is reporting that Sutton was asked to resign:

The South Dakota Legislature has it's own page scandal brewing.

The state Senate's highest-ranking member confirmed Tuesday that he had received a complaint from the father of a high school student involving allegations about another senator's behavior.

The alleged incidents took place over the course of several nights during the 2006 legislative session last winter, when the 18-year-old male student served as a Senate page.

The sutdent allegedly was in the company of the senator, without anyone else present, at the senator's motel room.

The senator in question has been sent a letter giving him the choice of resigning or facing a Senate special investigation that could lead to his expulsion.

...

"Now that allegations have been made, we have to take them seriously," (Sen. Garry) Moore said. "It's a he- said, he-said thing right now."

Remember that this is "alleged" to have happened.  Information is still pretty scarce.  Though it is suspicious that it took so long for this story to surface, because it seems to be more widespread and deeper than the Argus or any bloggers are letting on.  But we'll have to wait and see what happens.

UPDATE:  Our left-of-center colleague Chad Schult writes that "the worst kept secret in South Dakota politics finally hits the paper":

Why in the world Dan Sutton thought he could stay on the ballot with an investigation hanging over his head is beyond me.

Granted, it is a state legislative race, but this is why people hate politicians.

The Argus has the story.

One really has to wonder how in the world Lee Schoenbeck and Garry Moore -- the Senate leaders -- can claim they didn't know about this investigation months ago. Everyone -- and I mean everyone tied into the political parties' operations has known about this for months. For them to claim they just became aware of it is highly suspsect.

UPDATE:  SD Progressive says he knew about the investigations back before the primaries last June:

KSFY last night and the Argus Leader this morning ran a story about an investigation into alleged wrong doing by a Flandreau Legislator.

I was a bit surprised by the Argus Leader story for making this sound like a recent revelation. Perhaps the story is written that way because Sen. Garry Moore and Lee Schoenbeck said they just learned of the allegations.

I hate to have to say that this is the best, worst kept secret investigation in South Dakota for the past 6 months. I first heard rumblings of the investigation before the primary this past June. In fact, I first learned of the rumor of investigation from an Argus Leader reporter. However, there was never anyone who could confirm the rumors. No one seemed to have a source willing to go on record and provide key facts.

Shortly before the primary, the father of the former page confirmed that he had reported the alleged misconduct to the authorities. This included the Attorney General’s office.

The important facts are as follows : allegations were made. People reported the allegations to the authorities and an investigation ensued. It sounds to me like the criminal justice system was working.

This was all well known by folks inside the press and Republicans and Democrats alike. The fact that Republicans knew is clear by how PP at Dakota War College has been dribbling out innuendo for the past several weeks that he had at least heard of the rumors.

SD Progressive's comment about the Argus begs the question: what did the Argus know and when did they know it?  They're the largest paper in the state, and really the only one that does political news.  Where were they on this one?

UPDATE:  Remember that Stephanie Herseth has been calling for the resignation of Speaker Hastert.  Will she do the same with Sutton?

Rally, again

Here's the American News on last night's rally. 

Rally for Life: Theological-Political Oratory on Display

I joined Professor Schaff at the Rally for Life at First Baptist Church this evening, traveling with an observer's passport and a flag of truce.  I regard myself as moderately pro-life.  I think abortion should certainly be prohibited in the last trimester of pregnancy, but allowed in the first trimester (we can quibble about the middle).  There would be no sympathy for such a compromise in that sanctuary tonight.  But boy was it a hoot! 

Keyes and his fellow speakers have been making the rounds in South Dakota, in support of Referred Law 6 and Amendment C.  A peculiarly American style of theological-political rhetoric was on flamboyant display, and it's one of the greatest shows on earth.

I thought more of the three keynote speakers than Professor Schaff did.  It is quite true that their fervent sermons would not persuade anyone who was sitting on the fence, unless of course that person was looking for a good reason to swing his other leg over.  But as my colleague notes, this was a rally, not a debate.  The purpose was to inspire the troops, which at this point is the strategy I would recommend if they asked me for advice. 

Dr. Laurence White, Senior Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Houston, opened by observing that he was following a passionate Catholic and a passionate Baptist.  You might suppose, he said, that a passionate Lutheran is a oxymoron.  It ain't.  Pastor White based his remarks on a reading from Martin Luther, which I found irresistibly fascinating read out in his rough Texan voice.  Dr. Rick Scarborough practiced that style of preaching that consists of a constant scream, and that got a bit old.  Or at least it did for me, though the percussion provided by his foot thumping the floor behind him as he poured it out carried the congregation.  Call it cracker rap. 

But Alan Keyes was clearly the main show.  He has been described by someone whose opinions I respect as brilliant, eloquent, and a bit crazy.  I would certainly say that his pitches are too often high and outside for political life, and that's too bad.  He might be the most gifted orator I ever had the privilege of listening to.  He reminded me in many ways of Martin Luther King Jr. on the stump. But more than MLK or anyone else who spoke tonight, he was scrupulously rational.  He laid out complex constitutional arguments and interpretations in a way that anyone could understand.  I do not agree with all of his reasoning, but he said nothing that was not plausible.

One argument in particular was noteworthy.  He pointed out that the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibits Congress (the Federal legislature, that is), from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and that the Tenth Amendment says this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Putting the two together, it follows that Congress has no power to interfere with religious legislation in the states.  Now Keyes is in fact right about this, as a matter of historical interpretation.  The First Amendment was designed primarily to prevent Congress from establishing a national church, or from interfering with any religious establishment in any of the states.  This is known as the Rehnquist Doctrine, after the late chief justice who made the same case.  But I think the argument is irrelevant.  That ship has sailed long ago.   But it is wonderful to see such a sophisticated argument in the body of a sermon. Keyes forcefully reminded the audience of the religious roots of the anti-slavery movement, thus planting himself squarely in an old American tradition.

Two final, unrelated notes.  I don't care for the frequent comparisons that were made between abortion and the Holocaust.  I understand the rhetorical intent, but the comparison is for many reasons wrong headed and counterproductive.  Second, the introductions of most of the speakers included mention of their many children: three here, four or five there.  Prochoice folk should take note.  The evangelicals may be a small minority of Americans at present, but they are breeding like very pious rabbits.  That will have consequences, by and by. 

 

Rally For Life

I just returned from the Rally for Life here in Aberdeen.  It was held at the First Baptist Church.  This was an event sure to rally the troops but unlikely to convince any undecided voters.  The event clearly was designed to get the committed pro-lifers fired up about voting and getting their friends to vote.  Let's just say there was not a Jack Billion vote in the house.  The event was sponsored by the South Dakota Family Policy Council, which as you may know is affiliated with Focus on the Family and James Dobson.  I am not totally enamored with Focus on the Family.  I tend to support their policy views while finding their rhetoric to be overheated.  My motivation for going to the event was to get a feel for the energy on the pro-life side and to hear the keynote speaker, Alan Keyes. 

Let me say something about the speakers.  I rather enjoyed the opening prayer of Harold Salem, pastor of First Baptist.  "Lord God, we're here to do battle.  Give us the backbone to do it."  Short and to the point.  Dr. Don Oliver from Rapid City gave compelling medical testimony about fetal care and the image of the unborn as a patient.  He also argued that incidence where one has to chose between the mother and the baby are extremely rare.  The most compelling talk was by NSU student Megan Barnett who spoke of her conceiving a child after being raped, yet making the choice for life.  Referring to herself and her now 18 month old daughter, I thought her best line was (and I paraphrase), "We hear about campaigns for healthy families.  Who are they kidding?  We are a healthy family." 

I found the people brought in by SDFPC, Dr. Laurence White, Dr. Rick Scarborough, and Keyes less captivating, although Keyes is clearly a gifted orator.  I found their "us versus them" rhetoric off putting.  Scarborough lost me when he attacked Bart Simpson (that's a joke, kind of).  Of course this is the problem with the Focus on the Family types: they engage in rhetoric sure to appeal only to those who already agree with them. 

I have a very scientific way of predicting local elections: I look at yard signs.  If the yard signs in Aberdeen and this rally are any indication, the Vote Yes For Life side has the momentum.  I would still be surprised if Referred Law 6 passes.  It has staked out a pro-life position that may go further than public opinion.  Also, the default position on ballot initiatives is for voters to vote "no" since they often find the ballot measures too long and confusing, so they figure it's best just to reject it.  But as compared to two months ago, I would be less surprised today to see the measure pass.  This will be a low turnout election and the passion of the pro-life voters may yet win out.

Hillary Clinton in Iowa

From the New York Times:

Three years have passed since Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last set foot in Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton has zigzagged through much of the country in that time, bouncing among Ohio and California, New Jersey and Colorado, Pennsylvania and Michigan, raising tens of millions of dollars and meeting with legions of Democrats. But she has conspicuously bypassed Iowa, whose caucuses will be the first presidential nominating contest, and New Hampshire, the state with the earliest primary, where her last visit was even longer ago.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategy is a tacit recognition that crossing the border into a state that will matter early in 2008 would set off a cascade of attention and be tantamount to an official announcement that she is running for president. At every opportunity, her advisers say she is doing nothing more than focusing on being re-elected in New York next month. For now, at least, she can point to her itinerary as evidence that she has not made up her mind about 2008.

Yet depending on how long she waits, her absence from Iowa also risks giving her Democratic rivals an opening to curry favor with voters here. Other candidates are already in a nearly constant march through the state, hiring operatives and seeking commitments from grass-roots organizers. Even Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic national chairman and a close Clinton adviser, acknowledges that “the other candidates are there rounding up donors.”

"Life As You've Never Seen It"

Check out this news story about new in utero photos taken by famed photographer Lennart Nilsson. At the bottom of the story you can click on a link and see a series of the photos. Then remember that according to the Supreme Court there is a constitutional right to kill every single baby you see photographed.  Sorry, did I say baby?  I meant potential human life form, of course. 

Give Us Dirty Laundry

My colleague Mr. Heppler links to this story at the War College about some impending scandal set to hit a South Dakota state senator.  Let's work through some logic.  Something bad allegedly happened, but we don't what it is or who did it.  Why not?  I can think of four possible reasons:
1. Legislative leadership is pressuring the individual involved to simply resign and possibly salvage some of  his/her reputation.  Until such time the leadership does not want to reveal the specifics of the allegations. 
2. There is a criminal investigation and the authorities are not ready to go public with their evidence.
3. This is all being timed for maximum political advantage.
4. Nothing important actually happened and this is all just rumor mongering.

Numbers 1-3 are not mutually exclusive.  Any or all of them could be true.  Whatever the case, it seems the public will know when it needs to know.  If indeed people at the Argus were withholding information for political purposes, then they are both fools and failures because it looks like it is coming out anyway (unless #4 above is true).  Still, what service is rendered by spreading rumors which may or may not be true?  What harm is there in waiting until we can confirm all facts?  Yes, I know, the public's right to know.  The excuse of every tabloid.  As Don Henley sang some time ago, "It's interesting when people die/Give us dirty laundry."

Update: For giggles, here's the full lyrics to Don Henley's hit "Dirty Laundry."  It all seems timely.
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em all around

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
Its interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry

You dont really need to find out whats going on
You dont really want to know just how far its gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry

Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre stiff
Kick em all around

Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybodys pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo
We can dance and sing
When its said and done we havent told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
 

Mailbag: Did the Argus Know?

A reader from Pierre sends this along regarding the legislative scandal:

I see the blogs are catching on to the big story about a certain South Dakota State Senator.  Let me tell you the real scandal here:  the Argus Leader and Dave Kranz have known about this months and deliberately chose to sweep it under the carpet because it involved a Democratic Senator.  Unless it involves a topic which they can use to bash Governor Rounds and all the things he's accomplishing, the Argus Leader has no interest in the story.  The Argus has no credibility.

RCJ's Denise Ross Leaving

Rapid City Journal editor at Mt. Blogmore contributor Denise Ross is on the outs and heading into a new job.  SDP wishes our SD blogosphere colleague the best of luck!

History Blogging

The latest History Carnival can be found over at ClioWeb.   Be sure to check it out!

More Reid

Ed Morrissey:

Let's get this straight. Reid's failure to follow the Senate rules on disclosure in 2001, when he sat on the Ethics Committee, somehow got set up by the Republicans. Reid's connection to an attorney involved in a bribery case that directly related to zoning decisions in Clark County, where they both owned property, was a Rovian plot set in motion in 1998. And now Reid's new disclosures of property in an area where he has taken an intense legislative interest somehow relates to Republicans, when no one even mentioned the parcels in question -- because Reid failed to disclose them during his entire time as Senate Minority Leader, while he has castigated Republicans for alleged ethical lapses.

The only reason he's coming clean is because the AP caught him breaking the rules earlier, and it pointed out the extensive connections between Reid, Nevada land developers, and the legislation he has championed that has benefitted all of them.

. . .

Besides, the man made $700,000 in profits in 2004 on that one sale of land that, according to his disclosure statements, he didn't even own at the time. He couldn't even part with $1200 of it from his own pocket in bonuses, gifts, and a Christmas party for his staff? He had to stick his contributors with the bill? Perhaps he figured it all came from the same source and didn't make much difference.

Breaking News from War College

UPDATE:  SDWC has an update after anonymously receiving the Gary Moore letter.  PP is holding onto information pretty tightly, and rightfully so I think.  Keep a close eye on his blog; we'll also update here as developments occur.

SDWC is following a big pot-boiler:

I've been piecing this puzzle together over the past few days. As I turned over one rock to look for a nugget of information, I'd find two in my quest to get the story.

I've been thinking how to do the set-up to preface this article, and most of my ideas have fallen flat, or they go into more detail than I care to give. There is rumor and innuendo surrounding this story without many of the facts being in the public domain at the moment. Given the magnitude of the tale, I'd prefer to keep it to the facts I have had verified.

So, what do I know?

The rumbling in the sky started last week. GOP campaigns were busy with the usual and frequent responses to press releases issued by the Democratic Party. And then the Democratic releases supposedly stopped, or at least took a significant dip in frequency. This coincided with a letter which went out from Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoebeck to a Democratic State Senator, which was copied to Senate Democratic Leadership.

The letter which seemingly stopped the political world for a day or so alleges violations of Senate rules of conduct on the part of a Democratic Senator. As it was put to me, the allegations were stated in a manner that was rather "stark" for lack of a better word.

This letter from President Pro Tempore Schoenbeck in turn set off a letter in support of Schoenbeck's position from Senate Minority Leader Garry Moore. I'm told he sent this to other members of the Democratic Party.

The whole situation also resulted in a Democratic Leadership conference call with others, including South Dakota Democratic Party Chairwoman Judy Olson Duhamel.

Why are these letters from Schoenbeck and Garry Moore, worth noting and why are they creating such a buzz in political circles? The Senate has few mechanisms available to address allegations of member misconduct. The Legislature's Executive Board has no disciplinary authority over members, so this leaves allegations of misconduct to be heard by the legislature itself.

The legislature would have two options. Not seating the member if they ran for election again and won, or going to the extraordinary step of calling a special session. As far as I understand it, the allegations contained in the letter from Schoenbeck are serious enough that the Senate would not let them lay there unanswered until next January.

Where do things sit at this point? I'm told that the letter contains a deadline of October 18th - this Wednesday - for a response from the Senator who allegedly committed the acts. By the 19th, we may be hearing of a withdrawal from the campaign, or angry refutations coinciding with a request for a special legislative session to address the allegations.

While I don't have either of the letters myself, I've had their existence and the contents of the first letter confirmed several times over from multiple sources. Even though noone would share them directly with me.

This is weighty business. And everyone is all business about it. Sources whom I can usually coax a comment from are pretty tight lipped. And it would seem that the Democrats are circling their wagons. Except surprisingly, not around the member in question.

The cynics among us would think that if a State Senator was accused of misconduct a few short weeks before the election, the party of the accused would write it off as a political charge. Not this time. It seems like they are as serious as a heart attack, and leaving the politics out of everything, with the letter from Moore supporting what Schoenbeck's letter said.

If someone out there has one (or preferably both) of these fabled letters, e-mail me at [email protected]. I'd like to look at them myself.

In the meantime, continue to watch the skies for the political storm clouds. I predict that they'll continue to form until Wednesday. We'll leave it to the elected officials to determine whether they'll break, or the storm will intensify.

Todd Epp comments:

SDWC Says Send Lawyers, Guns & Money, S*** May Hit the Fan

My good friend P.P. at S.D. War College is reporting that some big doings (or do-dos) could be hitting the proverbial fan (just try and find one of those next time you are in Target) for a Democrat member of the S.D. Senate.

Rumor has it that the story South Dakota War College is working on has a Foleygate angle to it.  Stephanie Herseth, remember, has called for Speaker Hastert to resign over Foleygate.  Are we about to have our own here in South Dakota?

Reid Scandal

First Senator Harry Reid has issues with a land deal that exposed his connections to Nevada developers and the legislation that he sponsored to benefit them.  Now we have this from the Associated Press:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday he was personally reimbursing his campaign for $3,300 in donations he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

So we have two questionable finance issues by the man who tried to pioneer the Republican "culture of corruption."  Oops.

China Backing Coup Against Kim?

The Australian: "THE Chinese are openly debating 'regime change' in Pyongyang after last week's nuclear test by their confrontational neighbour."

Election Watch: Republican Panic Edition

A sense of impending doom is quietly settling in among Republicans.  See Fred Barnes, at the Weekly Standard:

REPUBLICANS and conservatives, brace yourselves! Strategists and consultants of both parties now believe the House is lost and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi will become speaker. At best, Republicans will cling to control of the Senate by a single seat, two at most.

Barnes is not one known to easily inflate bad news.  John Hinderaker shifted into panic mode on Saturday.

Last night, I wrote a relatively optimistic post about the fundamental strength of the Republicans' position going into the election. Take a look, though, at the poll results from yesterday and the day before, compiled at Real Clear Politics. It's a sea of blue, with the Democratic candidate leading in just about every race for every office, nationwide. The polls can't all be screwy, and if this batch are anywhere near right, they foretell a rout of astonishing proportions.

Of course when Republicans see defeat looming, they respond the way reasonable and courageous people always have: by arguing a) that it isn't really happening; and b) that it isn't our fault.  Powerline's Paul Mirengoff gives us an example of the latter. 

To quote Malachi "Buck" Mulligan, it seems history is to blame. As far as I can tell, it is virtually unheard of for a president to go 4-0. To accomplish this, a president must be elected twice in a row and his party must avoid defeat in both off-year congressional elections. I don't know whether Andrew Jackson did it, but I don't believe it's been done since. Even 3-0 is rare. If a president is fortunate enough to be re-elected, odds are that the voters will punish him (and his party) in an off-year election.

That's fair, and it does put the current situation into perspective.  It is also comforting.  Mirengoff also quotes RNC chair Ken Mehlman to this effect:

Mehlman believes that four factors will help his party avoid a "tsunami" in three weeks. First, he and other Republican leaders "expected this" and planned for it. The RNC got people into the key states early and is well positioned to run its "ground game." Second, the Republicans have a major advantage when it comes to resources. According to Mehlman, it has a $55.8 million cash advantage now, which will translate into very aggressive ad campaigns in the final three weeks. Third, the party and its candidates should be able to frame this election as a choice election, not a referendum. In other words, Mehlman expects the election not to be just an up-or-down vote on the president and the Congress, but also an election about key issues as to which Republicans have an advantage. He cited taxes, aggressive prosecution of the war on terror, and judges. Mehlman said these issues had been working well for Republicans until Foley pushed them to the side, and he expects them to return to the fore during the final three weeks.

Again, this is reasonable hope and it may work.  Or not.  Jay North at RealClearPolitics does the best job of making black skies look bluer by analyzing the polls that everyone is projecting from.  He translates the categories such as "leaning Democrat" into a probability that that district will indeed be won by a Democrat.  For example: "Safe Democratic District" = % 100.  Safe Republican = %0.  Toss-up = 50%.  The leaning category is harder to peg, and he gives us various alternatives.  Here is the result:

It is just a matter of "plugging and chugging" - as my 9th grade geometry teacher used to say. Each ranking category satisfies the assumptions of the binomial distribution. Accordingly we can derive the expected number of Democratic or Republican seats in each one by taking the number of seats in each category and multiplying that number by the probability we have assigned. We can then get a gross of how many seats the Republicans get and a gross of how many seats the Democrats will get.  A simple matter of subtraction and we get the following estimates of net Democratic pickups:                                                                                                    

	Cook Political Report	Rothenberg Political Report	CQ Politics
Model 1	18.00	18.10	17.50
Model 2	17.20	17.30	16.00
Model 3	16.75	16.50	15.00
Model 4	17.10	17.00	15.65

As we can see, the results are somewhat contrary to the conventional wisdom. The range here is between 15 and 18 seats switching - which is more consistent with the House still being a toss-up, with a slight lean toward the Democrats. This does not smack of a blow-out [my emphasis]. 

My guess is (which is three parts judgment and two parts wishful thinking) is that North is right.  It will come out about even in the House, with Speaker Pelosi being a distinct but not certain outcome.  That will justly be regarded as a victory if it does happen, but given all the things going for the Dems right now, it would have to be a bit of a disappointment.  And I suppose that Bush would leave office with a better record of maintaining party control in Congress than most Presidents.  Contrast that with Bill Clinton.  But a lot of North's analysis depends on what is lost in translation.  For now I am sticking to my guns: Democratic control of either house of Congress won't happen, and it won't be our fault.