South Dakota Politics

South Dakota GOP

I took the plunge yesterday.  I renewed my driver's license and re-joined the Republican Party.  I do so holding my nose a bit, but one is better off working on the inside and getting dirty rather than trying to be pure and "above the fray."  Here's an example of why I hold my nose.  PP at the War College says that Tuesday's primary resaults show that the South Dakota Republican Party is dedicated to "less government, lower taxes, and good education for our kids." 

Take a look at this chart.  Could South Dakota's taxes get any lower?  Take a look at our roads.  Could we get any less government?  It is true that South Dakota's national rankings in education are respectable.  But is the South Dakota rallying cry "Hey, we're doing good enough!"?  As one of PP's commenters notes, compared to other states South Dakota does well in education.  Compared to where we should be we are doing dismally.  As a college professor I can tell you that a disturbing number of our high school graduates are unable to write, read, or do math at a college level.  And I know that is true everywhere, not just at my institution.  Our institution does have a fantastic teacher education program.  Guess where the best students go teach?  I can tell you it is not South Dakota, and certainly not to rural school districts (yes, with some exceptions).    I do not agree with liberals that more money for education will solve our problems.  Compared to 30 years ago we spend 3 times as much per pupil in inflation adjusted dollars while at best remaining stagnant in performance.  The biggest problem is with the curriculum, not with the funding.  But that does not mean that we shouldn't be paying our teachers more.  I don't see why we should be proud that we do "good enough" with government on the cheap.  Government on the cheap gets you cheap government. 

The South Dakota GOP labors under the belief that that Pierre is Washington, D.C.  On the national level we are taxed too much and our government is too big.  This is most decidedly not the case in our state.  It is too bad that state policy must be made with an eye towards the bloated mass in Washington (and nowhere is that more true than in education), but we can't let their bad policy and excessive taxation stop our government from doing what it should do for the people of South Dakota. It is too bad that we essentially elect national governors, not presidents, and the national government has stuck its nose into so many things that are rightly state priorities.  But state governments are here to provide for the "general welfare." The limits we conservatives would place on the national government are often inappropriate to state government.  Let's hope some Republicans see that.

A Gentle Correction

Mr. Schuldt attacks my colleague Prof. Blanchard, and since the good professor is on vacation I shall rise to a defense.  Chad has apparently misread a post by Prof. Blanchard on Prop 82 in California, which would have guaranteed access to pre-school to California's four-year-olds.  The initiative was defeated on Tuesday, and Prof. Blanchard blogged about it here.  He had previously blogged about it here.  Chad takes Prof. Blanchard to task for opposing guaranteed pre-school for the four-year-olds.  Actually, Prof. Blanchard never gave an opinion on pre-school access. 

He did come out in opposition to Prop 82, which is not the same thing as being against guaranteed pre-school.  Prof. Blanchard opposed Prop 82 on two grounds.  In the earlier post he mentioned that actor/director Rob Reiner was using public money to campaign for this proposition.  In doing so he seemed to be lining the pockets of his political friends with public money.  That is not an opposition to pre-school; it's opposition to graft. 

In the post that raised Chad's ire, Prof. Blanchard, to the extent he gave any opinion, argued that the initiative process was the wrong method for proposing such a large new program.  I don't want to re-fight our war with CCK over whether one can be opposed to the initiative process and still be a good democrat (we say yes, they say no), but I do want to point out that California's budget is in a shambles largely because of the initiative process.  In Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom he devotes a whole chapter to how direct democracy has straight-jacketed the California legislature and put them on the road to fiscal ruin (one might recall that only three years ago California had a $35 billion deficit, which is why you have Gov. Arnold instead of Gov. Davis. Its current annual deficit is around $6-$7.5 billion).  David Broder makes similar arguments in his Democracy Derailed book.  The problem has been that the voters pass initiatives willy-nilly, without having to consider how those initiatives work into a comprehensive budget.  The initiative process asks voters to consider bills in isolation, not as they relate with all the other state priorities.  Thus the lack of planning and "big-picture" thinking has led to a situation where California is almost ungovernable.  Opposition to Prop 82 is not opposition to guaranteed pre-school.  It may be that this particular method of starting and funding such a program represents unwise policy making. 

Mr. Schuldt is reading things into Prof. Blanchard's post that are not there.  I know Prof. Blanchard well, but I have no idea where he stands on guaranteed pre-school.  Based on his public comments, neither does anyone else.  We do know that he is opposed to Prop 82.  Perhaps Mr. Schuldt thinks that is an unjustifiable position.  Perhaps.  But it is one also held by the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sacramento Bee, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Diego Union Tribune, and so on.  In other words, the editorial boards of every single major newspaper in California opposed this proposition.  And so did 61% of Californians.  There certainly are a lot of people holding the same position as Prof. Blanchard. 

Update: Chad responds.  It is disappointing that Chad is so consistently angry.  It makes his site difficult to take seriously.  Again, I don't know where Ken Blanchard stands on pre-school.  Will Chad please point to the line where Ken opposed guaranteed pre-school.  He never did.  All he did was oppose Prop 82.  Apparently that makes Ken a "freak."  If so, then the editorial boards of every newspaper I listed above are dominated by freaks.  Most of these boards, in particular the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, are solidly liberal editorial boards.  In Chad's view, 61% of Californians are freaks.  Is it just possible that people might have good reasons to oppose a particular proposition on pre-school?  This doesn't mean they are right.  It just means that they are ruled by reason, not emotion. In Chad's world there are his views and then the views of very bad people.  Chad Schuldt is second to none in the South Dakota Blogosphere in demonizing people based simply on policy difference and measuring the decency, and even the sanity, of people based on their agreement with his politics. And if it makes Chad happy, I think Ann Coulter is a fool, and said so some time ago in this post and this post, while at the same time defending her right to speak. 

Murtha v. Hoyer

Michael Crowly of The New Republic writes of the coming battle for the Democratic leadership in the House:

Major news from the House: Pennyslvania Congressman John Murtha has begun delivering a letter to his Democratic House colleagues announcing plans, should Democrats retake the House this fall, to seek the number-two job of House Majority Leader. This would almost certainly entail a showdown with the current House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer. I just called Murtha's press secretary, who confirmed the letter and read me the following statement from Murtha:

Our goal is to win the House back and if there is an open seat I'm the candidate.

As readers will probably know, Murtha is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi who favors a fast withdrawal from Iraq. Hoyer is more inclined to tough it out in Iraq, and has a long history of friction with Pelosi. Update: Steny Hoyer's office has given me its own statement in response:

Mr. Hoyer has worked extraordinarily hard to unify the caucus and take back the House for Democrats and that is his first focus. As a result of that unity he is confident that we will be successful in November and intends to run for Majority Leader. He believes his work as whip, caucus chair, and with the DCCC has earned the support of the overwhelming majority of House Democrats.

Adds a senior Democratic aide: "A lot of members are very angry that Jack Murtha has decided to blow up the caucus and declare a leadership race when we are the most unified we've been in years. We're really focused on taking back the house and should not be distracted with a leadership race. It's going to be a huge diversion." This could get ugly. More soon.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey:  "We have seen a lot of pre-election hubris from the Democrats lately, talking about all of the investigations they want to pursue and the rules they want to change once they take control of the House. What we haven't seen is an election agenda that gives voters any reason to put them in charge."

POTUS Daschle Update

See this AP story in which Daschle vowes he would challenge Iowa governor Tom Vilsack if he ran for the 2008 Democratic nomination:

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Friday that he would challenge Gov. Tom Vilsack in Iowa should both decide to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Daschle toured Iowa a day after he visited New Hampshire, conceding he is looking at the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Vilsack also is considering a run, but Daschle said he wouldn't be deterred if Vilsack decides to seek the nomination.

"If you think you can give the country new leadership and new direction, that's what matters, not who else is running," Daschle said.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Friday that he would challenge Gov. Tom Vilsack in Iowa should both decide to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Daschle toured Iowa a day after he visited New Hampshire, conceding he is looking at the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Vilsack also is considering a run, but Daschle said he wouldn't be deterred if Vilsack decides to seek the nomination.

"If you think you can give the country new leadership and new direction, that's what matters, not who else is running," Daschle said.

Some strategists say a Vilsack decision to run would render Iowa leadoff precinct caucuses irrelevant because other candidates would stay away.

Daschle made it clear that wasn't his thinking, and said he would "absolutely" challenge Vilsack in Iowa.

Republicans dismissed a potential Daschle candidacy, saying he was defeated by voters in South Dakota when he sought another term in the Senate.

"It's hard to take him seriously as a potential presidential candidate," said Cullen Sheehan, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa.

Daschle dismissed that, citing his political success in his home state, which trends Republican.

"I'm 7-1 in a bright red state and I don't know of anyone else thinking about a race for the presidency who can talk about that kind of a record," he said. "I feel pretty good about my political past."

Ethanol and the Alt Energy Debate

Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal looks into ethanol as an alternative fuel:

President Bush announced in his State of the Union address in January that he backed funding for research into producing ethanol from corn and other farm products, with the goal of making a viable fuel alternative to gasoline for automobiles. Since then, Congress has wrangled over how to implement the idea.

Critics, meanwhile, have blasted the viability of ethanol. A central argument is that corn-based ethanol, the most-common form today, is literally a waste of energy. Detractors say that it takes more fuel to make ethanol -- growing the corn, bringing it to a processing plant and converting it to fuel -- than would be saved by using it.

Read the whole thing.

Daschle in NH

From today's edition of Congress Daily:

Daschle Tests Appeal In New Hampshire Visit

    Former Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., tested a possible appeal to New Hampshire voters Thursday as he considers a presidential bid in 2008, the Associated Press reported.
    Daschle blasted President Bush in a speech to local New Hampshire Democrats, arguing that Bush and his administration "have got to be the most arrogant crowd I ever worked with."
    Daschle criticized Bush for launching the war in Iraq, warrantless domestic wiretapping and the national debt. He said the administration is too cozy with oil companies and has ignored the threat of global warming.
    Daschle, who lost to now-Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., in 2004, spoke to a crowd of more than 100 Democrats, many state legislators and city officials, and received several standing ovations, hoots and hollers.

Meathead Defeated

Rob Reiner's proposition 82, about which I have blogged in the past, was soundly defeated in California.  E. J. Dionne does the weeping. 

When it comes to spending their tax money, voters can be wary even of very good causes.  While the political world was obsessed with the Republican victory in a special election for a California congressional seat, the truly sobering news for liberals was in the statewide voting. Proposition 82, the ballot measure that would have guaranteed access to preschool for all of California's 4-year-olds, went down to a resounding defeat, 61-39 percent.

     Not only that -- voters also rejected a $600 million bond measure for the state's libraries. A vote against libraries? Yes, the bonds went down 53-47 percent.

And bear in mind that these spending measures appeared on a primary ballot at a time when Democrats were holding a fierce contest for their gubernatorial nomination while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger faced only token Republican opposition. There were roughly 500,000 more Democratic than Republican primary votes -- meaning that a significant number of Democrats voted against both propositions.

Dionne presents a honest list of the reasons for the measure's defeat.

The preschool initiative seemed to have everything going for it. There is ample evidence that quality preschool really does improve the life chances of poor children. The measure had celebrity backing from Rob Reiner, the actor and director. The program was universal: it would have helped every child in California, not just the poor. And it was financed through substantial tax increases only on the very wealthiest Californians -- couples earning more than $800,000 a year and individuals earning over $400,000 a year. The vast majority of Californians would not have seen their taxes go up.

     Almost all these assets became liabilities.

Reiner, whose enthusiasm for preschooling is genuine and infectious, ran into controversy when it emerged that a state commission he chaired had spent $23 million promoting the value of early learning -- even as Reiner was organizing to put the initiative on the ballot. It sure looked like tax dollars were being used to promote an actor's favorite cause.

Because the measure covered everyone, including kids already in preschool, it was very expensive. The wealthy rebelled against the big income tax increase -- the top rate would have gone from 9.3 percent to 11 percent -- and bankrolled the opposition. Private preschool providers worried that the public provision of preschool would threaten their businesses.

There was also the good government point: Californians have grown sensibly weary of "ballot-box budgeting'' through which initiatives are used to mandate both programs and the tax increases to pay for them. That robs state officials of flexibility at times of budget turmoil, which Californians have seen a lot of lately.

The last is important.  California government has been almost paralyzed by the initiative process.  It is a very good sign if the voters now realize this. 

But Dionne puts his finger on the most worrisome aspect of this defeat for liberals.  It is hard to imagine a better location or better circumstances for progressive reform.  If you can't get big new social legislation here, you probably can't get it anywhere.  Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing: we report, you decide.

Black Hills

The New York Times has a big write-up today about the Black Hills entitled "A New Look at the Old West."

Daschle

PoliticsNH covers Daschle's visit to New Hampshire:

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) made his first trip ever to New Hampshire, besides fall leaf peeping, to campaign for the Democratic Senate Caucus and congressional candidate Jim Craig (D-Manchester).

Daschle, who told an audience in Manchester that he is “accessing” whether or not he should seek the Democratic presidential nomination, also left four hours on his schedule to simply drive around the area meet with ordinary citizens at unscheduled visits, his signature political tactic from his days in South Dakota.

His first line ever to a New Hampshire political audience did [sic] come off so well when he misspoke and said he was happy to be in Manhattan before quickly realizing the faux paz and saying “I mean Manchester”.

He then went on to say that America needs better leadership than the one President Bush is currently providing. In Iraq American forces must “strategically redeployed” and at home efforts must be made to provide universal health care and universal preschool, Daschle said. He also wanted the country to have a more comprehensive energy plan.

“We should be figuring out how to get more energy out of the Midwest not the Middle East,” Daschle said.

His visit comes just days after U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and former Gov. Mark Warner (D-Va.) visited the state an one day before U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh is scheduled to spend two days in the Granite State.

Primaries II

SD War College concludes this about Tuesday's primary elections:

Last night was about Republicans embracing being a Republican. The GOP faithful didn't want to hear about how Republicans should be more like Democrats.  They didn't want to hear about Mainstream Moderates trying to blend political parties akin to the metrosexual movement trying to blend stylishness with masculinity. Nope. In South Dakota the voters wanted old fashioned conservative grassroot leadership.

Primaries: What It Means for SD

From SDP's correspondent in Pierre:

WHY TUESDAY IN SD WAS A BIG DAY POLITICALLY:

To SDP: Thanks again for all you do, but i think you may missed how BIG last tuesday's voting was.  First of all, ALL the conservatives won when they were challenged.  And all the "mainstream" RINOs who were challenged in the primaries lost.  And Hildebrand had yet another horrible election.  The person he pushed to challenge Julie Bartling in the Democratic primary down in Winner area got hammered, as did his candidate in Montana.  And all that money that Hildebrand and Adelstein spread around through their nefarious little PAC pyramid schemes was a complete waste--everybody they infused with cash LOST.  Adelstein being exposed as a phony was big too--people now know the only reason he ran as a Republican was that he was in a Republican district.  The Daschle-Hildebrand-Adelstein alliance was also exposed (don't forget Daschle saying how he was praying that Adelstein would win).  So that bit of cynicism is over.  Also, some Democratic leaders finally got sick of Hildebrand's abuse and stood up to him.  I guess it doesn't matter because he'll be off to run Daschle's presidential campaign soon anyway.  Also, the Democrats foolishly picked the liberal, rich Sioux Falls surgeon as their candidate/sacrificial lamb for governor, when they should have listened to Healy and those guys and picked Wiese.  I know you're busy with stuff, but this election has really causing some buzzing in Pierre.  Keep up the work.

Daschle

From today's Roll Call:

Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) continues to test the 2008 presidential waters.

This weekend he travels to the early caucus and primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire to discuss the possibility of running, according to a news release from his leadership political action committee.

"I'm anxious to be in Iowa and New Hampshire to have these very important discussions about our country's future," Daschle said in the statement. "While we face many difficult problems as a nation, I know we can have a strong future with the right leadership."

Daschle assembled the pieces of a presidential campaign throughout 2002, but he put off his national ambitions to pursue re-election and the possibility of becoming Senate Majority Leader - a post he briefly held when Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) bolted the GOP in 2001, handing Democrats control of the Senate.

He ultimately lost his seat to former Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) in the most closely-watched and bitter Senate race of the 2004 cycle.

Daschle will lunch with New Hampshire Democrats in Manchester on Thursday and Iowa Democrats in Davenport on Friday, among other events.

Primaries

Mitchell Daily Republic:

Our View: Momentum for pro-life forces

The Daily Republic
Published Thursday, June 08, 2006

Two stories emerged during and after Tuesday's primary election.

The first wasn't all that newsy: Turnout was low, as predicted. More than two-thirds of the state's registered Democrats didn't bother to vote - even though it was their party that was selecting Jack Billion as its gubernatorial candidate.

The second story was the triumph of pro-life candidates over their opponents.

The marquee race on this issue was in District 22 in Rapid City where Elli Schwiesow defeated Stan Adelstein in a Republican race that was a rematch of two years ago. Then, Adelstein defeated Schwiesow, vice chairwoman of the state GOP, by 122 votes. It was billed as a one-issue campaign - Schwiesow as the pro-life candidate and Adelstein as pro-choice. But that was before this past legislative session when Adelstein voted against HB1215, which bans most abortions in South Dakota.

Abortion is the issue that has tested the Republican Party, not only in South Dakota, but across the nation. How well the GOP can unite in Rapid City after Tuesday's primary will be indicative of the party's resolve to overcome a divisive issue.

Tuesday's victories for pro-life candidates, including Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, suggest that the state Legislature's support of HB1215 wasn't done in a vacuum and instead was reflective of South Dakota voters. That remains to be seen, of course, when the entire state presumably will vote in November on HB1215, which has been referred pending certification of petitions. However, what Tuesday's vote provided, in our view, was additional momentum for those favoring that measure, as well as the marriage amendment, which also is on the ballot.

Until voters say differently, South Dakota continues to re-affirm it is a pro-life state, and has carved out a leadership position on that issue which other states are emulating.

Libertarian Democrats?

Yesterday Kos wrote an article entitled "The Libertarian Dem," which attempts to reconcile government regulation with personal liberty.  Perry de Havilland confronts the problems of the essay.  Excerpt:

And thus it shows that 'kos' truly does not understand what 'libertarian' really means and so his use of the word is simply a category error. You can coerce a society out from under tyranny (i.e. you can shoot tyrants and hang their retainers) but cannot coerce a society into liberty by just using the power of the state to impose it via state mandates (i.e. the roads and healthcare and all the rest that he advocates, showing that his notion of what 'libertarian' means involves large amounts of coercive taxation in no way different to what prevails right now).

In short, 'kos' can call himself a Libertarian Democrat if he wishes. He can also call himself a horse if he wishes. However saying it does not make it so.

Watching Returns

Greetings from Jonesboro, Arkansas.  Its humid but not as hot and usual for June.  There's a Barns and Noble open in the new Jonesboro mall, which makes me think I made some mistakes in life.  My parents don't have Internet in their home (my Dad didn't have electricity when he was a boy), so I am blogging from the Public library.  I won an IPod shuffle the other day, and Dad was suitably amazed.  Its the size of a Bic lighter, and holds 120 songs.  It is astounding to reflect on how much technological change he seen in his 80 plus years.   

I note the good news already noted on SDP: Zarqawi killed, Francine Busby (the would-be Stephanie Herseth of California's 50th Congressional District) defeated.  Jay Cost has a fine analysis of this at Real Clear Politics. 

The evidence is that demographics, candidate quality, campaign spending, and district partisanship are the main determinants of special elections; national forces have not historically been factors.  This, however, does not mean that Tuesday's results do not have discernible national implications. One thing we do know: historically speaking, special elections tend to be determined in the same way that open seat elections are determined. The similarities are not perfect (presidential job approval plays some role in open seats), but a model that predicts open seat elections would be very robust when predicting special elections.

In this way, then, I think CA 50 provides us with some clues to a subset of the contests in November's midterm. These are the other conservative-leaning open seats - specifically MN 06 and WI 08. Among the aforementioned variables, the Republicans are either as well or better positioned in both districts as they were in CA 50. Thus, the fact that Bilbray was able to hold on in a district like CA 50 is, I think, an indication that the GOP will likely retain MN 06 and WI 08.

Take that piece of cool analysis, and chase it with this, by Virginia Buckingham in the Boston Herald:

Stop measuring for drapes, Nancy.

    If Democrats can’t win a special election for a seat left open by the guilty plea of a senior Republican congressman for bribery in a political environment that can politely be described as more sour than milk left on the counter for a week, how can they expect to win back control of the House of Representatives, handing the speakership to Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)?

 

Progress in Iraq: Zarqawi Killed

Fox News:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader who led a brutal insurgency that included homicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings, was killed in an airstrike on a building north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials announced Thursday.

Officials said the terror leader's identity was confirmed by fingerprints, facial recognition, and known scars.     

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki said Al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening at around 6:15 p.m. local time in a bombing raid on a building in a remote area 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province.    

Loud applause broke out as Al-Maliki, flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, made the announcement at a news conference in Baghdad Thursday that al-Zarqawi was "terminated."

More from the New York Times.

UPDATE:  Iraqi blogger Omar at Iraq the Model rejoices.  And via Michelle Malkin, the Kos crazies are at it again.

UPDATE II:  Best headline so far goes to Powerline: "The Meeting Ended Early."

UPDATE III:  Donald Sensing: "I think that more and more Muslims will decide that Ashraf al-Akhras is right: Allah is in the game, but not on al Qaeda's side."  Ryan Sager is covering the left's spin on his death.  Michael Yon writes:

By his own account, al-Zarqawi is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and many Coalition forces and contractors. An acolyte of Osama Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi was, to many, the face of terrorism in Iraq. This was partly the result of Bin Laden’s annointment of him as chief deputy there, but more so because of his sophisticated manipulation of the media and internet. His slick campaign videos, widely distributed and broadcast by media outlets around the world, depicted al-Zarqawi as a hands-on, stealthy military leader; but clearly, he was not a tactical genius. His greatest victories were public relation coups that catapulted him into the role of figurehead for terrorists. Our courageous friends in Jordan, who have also suffered at the hands of al-Zarqawi, are said to have aided in his destruction.

The guys over at Powerline have photos of Iraqis celebrating Zarqawi's death.  IraqPundit has some thoughts on what this means for Iraq.  Jonah Goldberg: "Let us hope that Zarqawi is greeted in the after life with a giant, tasty, bowl of white raisins."

UPDATE IV:  Some bloggers have reacted to some of the media coverage.  Tim Graham wrote:

It's sad that within minutes of announcing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, the network morning shows were already carrying criticism of the Bush administration. Not only did NBC invite Sen. Joe Biden so he could attack Bush incompetence (funny day for that!), ABC's Bill Weir reminded the audience that Zarqawi beheaded American Nicholas Berg, and then replayed Berg's left-wing dad saying at the time that he had no desire for his son's killers to be killed. Weir then reported that he spoke to Berg's father this morning, and he condemned the Zarqawi killing as part of an endless cycle of retribution.

Glenn Reynolds notes this:

STILL MORE:  Bad news for the press, though.  Howard Kurtz goes out of his way to note that "Loud applause broke out among the reporters" when Zarqawi's death was announced. That should be a dog-bites-man story, but Howard seems to know better. (Would it have been news if reporters had cheered the death of Heinrich Himmler in 1943? I doubt it.)

Unfortunately, it appears that there's even less to this story, as NBC's Richard Engel reported that it was Iraqi reporters who were doing the cheering.  That really is a case of dog bites man.

UPDATE V:  William Arkin of the Washington Post:

What are we to make of the death of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

The hopeful view is that the death of this important commander and inspirational figure will deflate the terrorist influence in Iraq.

The cynical view is that this it is just another announcement of progress from the administration at a time when it is down and out.

Then there is the anti-everything view, the one that cannot recognize that Zarqawi was a real foreign terrorist in Iraq, there to foment chaos and death. The anti-everything view cannot see beyond loathing for the war and for all things Bush to recognize an achievement, even if it is only a little step.

...

There is no denying, nonetheless, that an Iraqi national military, government and people are slowly moving in the direction of some semblance of normalcy and security. This is good news, because it is imperative that the United States leave Iraq and leave its security to its own people -- and that can only happen when Baghdad has assumed enough responsibility to allow an exit.

...

Looking at the ages of the American special forces veterans who have died in the hunt, it is clear that these are not kids, nor amateurs. That should both tell us how difficult the fight has been and also the sacrifices others are making to fight a ruthless and anarchic foe. In a climate where Haditha suggests only American murder and lawlessness, even the cynical should be able to see that.

POTUS Daschle Watch

Argus Leader:

Former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle said the country's headed in the wrong direction and he will decide by the end of the year whether to run for president in an effort to change its course.

"I think we're on the wrong track in so many ways, and I believe the country is ready for change," he said. "I'm worried about the situation in Iraq. I'm troubled by our precipitous fall from stature and credibility internationally."

He contends health care, energy policy and government support for education all are inadequate under President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress.

Daschle said the political atmosphere is entirely different now from four years ago, when he also told supporters he wanted to run before changing his mind.

He said he will make his decision in November or December, sometime after this fall's congressional elections.

Offering his name now, 29 months before the next presidential election, is not a maneuver to raise money or be considered a possible running mate for some other candidate, he said.

Montana

Last night in Montana, Kos-supported Jon Tester defeated Democrat John Morrison to decide who would challenge the state's Republican Senator.  The Kos folks supported Tester, a more liberal state senator and organic rancher, to challenge Republican Senator Conrad Burns.  The Democratic establishment, on the other hand, supported John Morrison, the more moderate state auditor who was backed by D.C. Democratic consultants and was leading in early polls.  The sex scandal caused a dip in approval, but he still edged out Tester.  Last night Tester pulled off a 25 point landslide.  Anyways, it might be interesting to note that one of Morrison's political consultants was Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's former campaign manager.

SD Primaries

See this AP story regarding the fate of opponents of the abortion ban:

Four Republican state senators who voted against a bill to ban most abortions in South Dakota were defeated in Tuesday's primary election.

Just how much their opposition to the legislation led to their losses was not immediately clear, but abortion opponents in the state have long had a firm grasp on the Legislature.

Several lawmakers who supported the abortion ban were successful in the primary.

The most contentious race involved Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City and challenger Elli Schwiesow, vice chair of the state GOP and a staunch abortion foe. Schwiesow, who had lost in 2004 to Adelstein, won this time and advances to the November general election.

Ain't That A Kick In The Head

Happy Birthday Dean Martin! You owe it to yourself to buy this collection.  Dean is 89 today.  Of course he's dead.  You can't blame him though.  It could happen to anyone.  Dean is dead but his music lives on.  On the other hand, today is also Prince's birthday.  His music is dead, but he lives on. 

Schwiesow Wins It In 32

By 174 votes.

				   TOTAL   PERCENT   PRECINCTS      TOTAL
                                   VOTES   OF VOTE   REPORTING    PRECINCTS

DIST 32 REP STATE SENATE

   (R) ADELSTEIN      STANFORD        1971       48            7          7
   (R) SCHWIESOW      ELLI            2145       52            7          7

New From 32

Via Mt. Blogmore:

 

	Elli Schwiesow.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,616   51.48
        Stanford Adelstein  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,523   48.52 

It's gonna be a close one.   

Update: The Pennington County site has more recent totals for races in that region than does the Secretary of State site.

Another Update: We don't have a Bob Sahr ad.  We don't even ask for money.  But if you feel you must, you can make the check out to me.  Or just send cash. 

One More Update: I was just looking at our Site Meter.  We have a visitor from Chula Vista, CA.  Hey, do you know Buck Weaver?

Final Update: It is now 11:35 and I am am packing it in.  More tomorrow. 
 

In Real News

It is confirmed.  The upcoming season of Deadwood will be its last, with two 2 hour long movies serving to wrap up loose ends.  Then the series will be as dead as Bill Hickock. 

It Isn't Starting Well

I was listening to Jack Billion on SDPR, but then I got distracted by the grass growing.  Gonna have to liven it up a little bit, Jack. 

Come On!

Hey, Chris Nelson.  Can we get some updates on Senate District 32, for cryin' out loud.  This is taking so long my clothes are going out of style.  Oopps.  That already happened 50 years ago.   

Wal-Mart Wins Again

Mt. Blogmore says that Wal-Mart is winning in Rapid City. 

Ordinance No. 5083 would allow a rezoning for a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rapid City. Results at 8:34 p.m.
           YES  (to allow it)  .  .  .  .     1,857   69.32%
           NO.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       822   30.68%

As Michael Corlone would say, "It's the smart move." 

Looking Good For Adelstein

				   TOTAL   PERCENT   PRECINCTS      TOTAL
                                   VOTES   OF VOTE   REPORTING    PRECINCTS

DIST 32 REP STATE SENATE
   (R) ADELSTEIN      STANFORD         209       58            1          7
   (R) SCHWIESOW      ELLI             153       42            1          7

I think there is something we can all agree on: there aren't nearly enough 
people named Stanford.  

On The Abortion Front

South Dakota Right to Life's Brock Greenfield fends off his primary challenger.

				   TOTAL   PERCENT   PRECINCTS      TOTAL
                                   VOTES   OF VOTE   REPORTING    PRECINCTS

DIST 06 REP STATE SENATE

   (R) GREENFIELD     BROCK           1513       69           37       40
   (R) HOLBECK        JAMES            664       31           37       40

See The War College for some commentary on this one. 

Rapid Races

Just a few votes in, but it looks like Bill Napoli has nothing to worry about. 

  				   TOTAL   PERCENT   PRECINCTS      TOTAL
                                   VOTES   OF VOTE   REPORTING    PRECINCTS

DIST 35 REP STATE SENATE

   (R) MCCOY          ALICE            177       34            4      10
   (R) NAPOLI         WILLIAM "BI      342       66            4      10

Dang!

Just missed PP and Chad at SDPR.  I just caught Chad predicting gains for the Democrats in the Legislature this Fall.  Ok, let's make a bet.  If the Dems pick up...oh heck I actually agree with him. 

Look For A Billion Plays On His Name

As predicted, barring some major West River catastrophe, it's Billion vs. Rounds.

				   TOTAL   PERCENT   PRECINCTS      TOTAL
                                   VOTES   OF VOTE   REPORTING    PRECINCTS

DEM GOVERNOR

   (D) BILLION        JACK           16553       62          530       778
   (D) WIESE          DENNIS         10328       38          530       778

Congrats to Master Epp.  The next question is whether Billion can get over
40% against Mike Rounds.  I make the call right here: If Billion gets over
45% I owe Todd Epp a beer.  If he wins, I owe Epp a steak dinner at the 
restaurant of his choice.  Care to take me up, Todd?  

Update: AP has called the race for Billion.  

District 3

Has Isaac Latterel pulled the upset?  I attribute it to the strawberries (inside humor). 

				   TOTAL   PERCENT   PRECINCTS      TOTAL
                                   VOTES   OF VOTE   REPORTING    PRECINCTS

DIST 03 REP STATE SENATE

   (R) LATTERELL      ISAAC            613       52           13        13
   (R) SUTTON         DUANE            566       48           13        13

Importance of History

David Brion Davis, author of the new book Inhuman Bondage, writes about the "Importance of History."  Excerpt:

I’m concerned with the erosion of interest in history -- the view expressed by even some leading teachers and intellectuals that we should “let bygones be bygones,” “free” ourselves from the boring and oppressive past, and concentrate on a fresh and better future.

I’m passionately committed to the cause that distinguishes us from all other animals -- the ability to transcend an illusory sense of NOW, of an eternal present, and to strive for an understanding of the forces and events that made us what we are. Such an understanding is the prerequisite, I believe, for all human freedom. In one of my works on slavery I refer to “a profound transformation in moral perception” that led in the eighteenth century to a growing recognition of “the full horror of a social evil to which mankind had been blind for centuries.” Unfortunately, many American historians are only now beginning to grasp the true centrality of that social evil –- racial slavery --- throughout the decades and even centuries that first shaped our government and what America would become.

The goal of much of my work since 1994 and what led me to write my current book, Inhuman Bondage, is to “de-localize” the central AMERICAN, not Negro, problem; to find ways of envisioning and understanding what I term THE BIG PICTURE.

Read the whole thing.

Election Prediction

As faithful readers know, I am horrible at election predictions.  Here is one I think you can bank on.  The Democrat nominee for governor will be shorter than King Kong and taller than Ken Blanchard.  You can't necessarily say that about the Republican nominee.

Actual prediction: Happy Day for Todd Epp.  Jack Billion in a walk.  The activists are behind him.  Should work in a primary.  Personally I think the Democrats going for a Sioux Falls doctor over a farmer is a little odd, but they aren't asking me. 

6-6-06

If the world didn't end on 6-6-1906, why should it end today?  Why is this 6-6-06 different from any other one?  There is one of these every century, you know.  I shall never understand those Christians who obsess on figuring out when Christ will come. Christ himself said that he will come "like a thief in the night" and we "will not know the day or the hour."  Christ said that he would come when we least expect it.  If you are like me, the time you least expect it is right now.  This, I think, is the point.  Christ is not dead.  Indeed, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them."  Or if you are Catholic or certain strains of Protestant you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.  Paul says, "now is the accepted time; behold, today is the day of salvation."  Or as a high school teacher of mine opined, the entire Gospel can be summed up in ten words: "Reform your lives; the kingdom of God is at hand."  I do not know when the world will end, nor do I care.  I also know I don't know when my life here on Earth will end.  That's why it is best to be prepared.  The verses from Revelation on the "number of the beast" are well known.  How about a lesser known passage:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."  And he that sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new."

Like A Horse And Carriage

At the risk of being "all same-sex marriage, all the time" I offer this intriguing piece in favor of traditional marriage and opposed to same-sex marriage.  A reader will note that it is signed by a variety of leading intellectuals and scholars from such institutions as Univeristy of Chicago, Harvard, Pepperdine, Princeton, Baylor, and Notre Dame, just to name a few.  It is claimed from some quarters that only bigotry explains opposition to same-sex marriage.  One will then have to grapple with the fact that these diverse group of highly respected scholars have presented a learned defense of traditional marriage and an honest opposition to same-sex marriage.  For example, is this guy just another Christian bigot?  I have yet to read the entire document. I present for your reading pleasure, (cue dramatic music!) the Executive Summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, marriage has weakened, with serious negative consequences for society as a whole. Four developments are especially troubling: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage.

The purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage. Too often, the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. As scholars, we are persuaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason. Marriage protects children, men and women, and the common good. The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. The nation's retreat from marriage has been particularly consequential for our society's most vulnerable communities: minorities and the poor pay a disproportionately heavy price when marriage declines in their communities. Marriage also offers men and women as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete giving of the self. Thus, marriage understood as the enduring union of husband and wife is both a good in itself and also advances the public interest.

We affirm the following ten principles that summarize the value of marriage- a choice that most people want to make, and that society should endorse and support.

Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good

• Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
• Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature. 
• Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
• Marriage protects and promotes the wellbeing of children.
• Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
• Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
• When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
• A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
• The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
• "Civil marriage" and "religious marriage" cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.

This understanding of marriage is not narrowly religious, but the cross-cultural fruit of broad human experience and reflection, and supported by considerable social science evidence. But a marriage culture cannot flourish in a society whose primary institutions-universities, courts, legislatures, religions-not only fail to defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice.

Creating a marriage culture is not the job for government. Families, religious communities, and civic institutions-along with intellectual, moral, religious, and artistic leaders-point the way. But law and public policy will either reinforce and support these goals or undermine them. We call upon our nation's leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution including:

• Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife.
• Investigate divorce law reforms.
• End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
• Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
• Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.

Families, religious communities, community organizations, and public policymakers must work together towards a great goal: strengthening marriage so that each year more children are raised by their own mother and father in loving, lasting marital unions. The future of the American experiment depends on it. And our children deserve nothing less.

Update: I just noticed that the authors use the term "equality gap."  Don't they just mean "inequality"? 

District 3 Senate Primary, Part III

Yesterday I noted that if signs and letters to the editor were any indication, Isaac Latterell will do well in today's primary.  I did notice that Sen. Sutton had ads in today's Aberdeen American News.  Not being a subscriber (stone me!) I don't know if that has been going on for some time or not.  I just happen to see a copy today. 

D-Day

Never forget the brave American soldiers who stormed Hitler's Europe 62 years ago today.  Blackfive has a round-up.  And remember those men and women who are serving our country today around the world.

Primary Day

Tomorrow South Dakotans will go to the polls for primary voting for a number of local races (Adelstein-Schweiso, Bartling-Simpson, Abdullah-Alvine, etc.) and the Democrats will choose their candidate for governor.  Who will win?

Todd Epp, Jack Billion's press secretary, writes about Billion's embrace of McGovernism:

In a tip to history and Sen. George McGovern, the Jack Billion for Governor campaign is holding an “old school” luncheon of McGovern campaign favorite snacks—orange soda in glass bottles and egg salad sandwiches at noon Tuesday.

Tuesday is also the primary election for the Democratic race for South Dakota governor.

Stan Adelstein

Here's a small tidbit on Stan Adelstein, who Eric noted last night is running against Elli Schwiesow.  In the book Wounded Knee II by Rolland Dewing, he notes that "After the accord was reached [regarding Russell Means' arrest by the FBI at the Wounded Knee occupation in 1973], Means surrendered and was flown to Rapid City where he was released under $25,000 bond supplied by Stanford Adelstein, a wealthy Rapid City businessman" (p. 108).  It's fascinating how prominent individuals of today are interwoven with my research on AIM.

Specter

Paul Mirengoff:  "Arlen Specter or Tom Daschle, take your pick"

History

Michael Barone:

Two weeks ago, I pointed out that we live in something close to the best of times, with record worldwide economic growth and at a low point in armed conflict in the world. Yet Americans are in a sour mood, a mood that may be explained by the lack of a sense of history. The military struggle in Iraq (nearly 2,500 military deaths) is spoken of in as dire terms as Vietnam (58,219), Korea (54,246) or World War II (405,399). We bemoan the cruel injustice of $3 a gallon for gas in a country where three-quarters of people classified as poor have air conditioning and microwave ovens. We complain about a tide of immigration that is, per U.S. resident, running at one-third the rate of 99 years ago.

George W. Bush has a better sense of history.

District 3 Senate Primary, Part II

I have mentioned this race before, but I think the race between Isaac Latterell and incumbent Duane Sutton for District 3 Senate is getting short shrift.  Maybe because unlike some races, the candidates up here seem to have largely ignored one another's presence.  But the dynamics are similar.  Sutton is a member of the "Mainstream Coalition" of Republicans.  Latterell is positioning himself to Sutton's right, especially on cultural issues. 

Mr. Latterell has been busy.  If the race were decided based on lawn signs and letters to the Aberdeen American News, I'd say Latterell was the favorite, but of course signs and letters aren't votes and incumbents are tough to beat.  I also received a pamphlet from Latterell in the mail last week (sorry Isaac, I am registered Independent and can't vote anyway).  If I were PP over at the War College I'd post images and critique the mailer, but I don't own a scanner and my digital camera had an unfortunate meeting with a river over the weekend.  I do think Mr. Latterell has produced a slick and good looking mailing.  He touts his conservative credentials, and it is no accident that first in his list of "what you can expect if you elect Isaac Latterell" is a "consistently Pro-Life Senator." Also included in the mailing is the voter guide to the 3rd District by the South Dakota Family Policy Council.  Again, Latterell places himself squarely to Sutton's right on "family values" issues.  Someone even took the time to highlight the differences between Latterell and Sutton on abortion and same-sex marriage votes. 

In a low turnout race, a hand full of dedicated people can make a difference.  I do not predict a Latterell win (good news for him, as I couldn't predict from which direction the sun will come up), but he may give Sen. Sutton a run for his money. 

Keep An Eye Out

In the coming days the US Senate will debate two interesting cultural bills.  One would allow for a race based government in Hawaii (see John Fund here) and this week the Senate takes up the Marriage Protection Amendment.  Neither of these is a real priority for the nation, but nonetheless there they are.  It will be interesting to see how our Senators vote on these matters. 

$teve Hildebrand

More details regarding Jason's post about Steve Hildebrand's meddling in the state legislature races can be obtained by reading the "Candidate's or Committee's Report of Receipts and Expenditures" that he submitted to the South Dakota Secretary of State's office on May 24th.

The report for Common Sense South Dakota PAC lists $10,200 worth of itemized contributions for the reporting period as well as $5,009 in unitemized contributions under $100. Many of the itemized contributions came from South Dakotans, and almost all of the rest were given by people in the Washington, D.C. area. This includes $250 from Dan Pfeiffer, Daschle's 2004 campaign spokesman. Three individuals gave $1,000, the highest amount listed in the report. Hildebrand himself gave $500.

Common Sense SD gave most of this money to five candidates for state senate: Phil Seistra (District 10), Rebekah Cradduck (District 11), Sandy Jerstad (District 12), and Scott Heidepriem (District 13) each received $2,000 — John Simpson (District 26) was given $4,000.

The four candidates receiving $2,000 are all Democrats running against Republicans in districts in/near Sioux Falls.

John Simpson, however, is challenging incumbent State Sen. Julie Bartling in a West River primary battle. Bartling voted "Yes" on the abortion ban.

Common Sense SD held a fundraiser on April 18th, which was intended "to support Great New Leaders" according to an invitation on the Web site. Simpson, apparently, was not considered a "great new leader," and unlike the other four candidates, was not mentioned on the announcement.

The first news item posted on the Web site quotes Hildebrand in Roll Call:

Hildebrand noted that PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money on legislative campaigns. “You can count on me using this money judiciously — targeting the right races — spending it wisely,” he assured potential donors.

It would appear that State Sen. Gary Moore and Steve Hildebrand disagree on what "targeting the right races" means.

Daschle's Weight Rocks the Boat for SD Democrats

This article by Kevin Wooster, in the Rapid City Journal, cited below by Master Heppler, is indeed fascinating reading.  South Dakota Senate Leader Gary Moore charges that Steve Hildebrand and "his employee, Chad Schuldt, have been working to defeat pro-choice Democrats in South Dakota.  Hildebrand, of course, is a former campaign manager for Tom Daschle, and Daschle currently employs him to manage his political action committee. 

That there is a schism in the SD Democratic party is clear.  I can understand why Senator Moore sees this in personal terms, but the cause looks to be structural more than personal.  Daschle has been a national figure for some years now, and he is no longer a South Dakota politician in any meaningful sense.  Whether he runs for President (I think he will ultimately decide against that) or continues to work on national issues from other podiums, he is now heavily invested elsewhere.  There is of course nothing wrong with this.  It should be a matter of pride for South Dakotans in both parties that we produced such a player on the national scene, though Democrats will no doubt enjoy it more.  But Daschle continues to have a big presence in the Rushmore State, and his national interests have clearly caused some problems for the state Democratic party. 

I find this personally amusing, as Chad has recently accused SDP of being an organ of the Thune organization, which it manifestly is not.  Now I swear I remember Chad denying that he worked for Steve Hildebrand.  Maybe my memory is faulty.  Maybe the Rapid City Journal piece is wrong.  Maybe circumstances have changed, and Chad has subsequently begun working for Hildebrand.  But if Wooster and Senate Moore are right, then CCK looks a lot like an organ of Daschle Enterprises.  That's fine of course.  I do not think that they are under any real obligation to advertise the fact.  Readers of the blogosphere are always advised to beware.  I prefer to pay attention to what is being said rather than who is saying it.

But it does make me question their judgment on another matter.  Chad and his fellows have been very fond of shrill invective.  They like profanity, and are occasionally flamboyant about it.  They are fond of calling people idiots and despicable, in lieu of making any arguments of their own.  This is certainly their right.  The blogosphere is all about freedom of expression.  But given their obvious connections to Daschle, one wonders whether this tone is wisely chosen.  Perhaps Daschle hasn't been paying attention.  Or maybe CCK is Daschle's alter-ego: they talk the way Daschle would talk were he not under obligation to be politic.  Having met Daschle, I liked him and I think his respect for those who disagree with him is genuine.  I can't help thinking he must wince when he learns that CCK called the Senate Democratic leader an idiot.

Primary Updates

Chet Brokaw, writing for the AP, has two articles about the upcoming primary elections about touch-screen voting machines and the abortion debate's effects on the state legislature races:

One letter to the editor in a recent edition of the Rapid City Journal endorsed state Sen. Stan Adelstein for re-election because he has an "excellent character." Another backed his challenger in the Republic primary, Elli Schwiesow, because Adelstein is "unfit for office" after voting against a ban on abortions.

Welcome to South Dakota's political battlefield after the Legislature earlier this year passed the nation's most restrictive abortion measure, a law that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.

Don Dahlin, a political science professor at the University of South Dakota, said the abortion issue has not had much impact in the governor's race so far, but it seems to be playing a role in legislative races ahead of Tuesday's primary election.

Kevin Woster has an article in today's Rapid City Journal about an advertising controversy in the Adelstein / Schwiesow primary battle:

Rapid City businessman Bob Fischer and his wife, Rita, have stopped paying for newspaper advertisements for state Republican Senate candidate Elli Schwiesow after her opponent, incumbent Sen. Stan Adelstein, raised questions about their legality.

Adelstein contended that the Fischers had exceeded the state campaign donation limit by running four separate advertisements for several days in the Journal. The donation limit in a legislative race is $250 per person.

Ad Watch

Vernon Robinson, a former city council member from Winston-Salem, N.C., has been gathering attention for the ads he's been running during the race for the 13th district House seat in North Carolina. Robinson won the Republican primary and is now facing liberal Congressman Brad Miller in November.

Robinson's ads don't mince words or tiptoe around the issues:

Every night, 7,000 aliens rush into our country illegally and your ultra-liberal congressman, Brad Miller, refuses to guard the border. Instead of deporting them he votes for amnesty and throws them a party with your tax dollars. [mariachi music begins playing] Brad Miller gives these aliens welfare, driver’s licenses, Social Security, free healthcare, free lawyers, free public educations, even free school lunches. These aliens pay no income tax and send their money back to Mexico, then they take to the street waving the Mexican flag and demanding more. Unbelievably Brad Miller voted to allow these illegals to burn the American flag while waving the Mexican flag.

Robinson's messages are evidently very appealing; he lost the Republican primary for North Carolina's 5th District in 2004 but raised $3 million, a very large amount for a House primary. The striking thing about this number, though, is that 96 percent of his donations came from individuals.

This is certainly shaping up to be an interesting race.

Haditha

Michelle Malkin is reporting on yet another photo fakery by the MSM: "UK Times Smears Our Marines."

In related news, here's this from Instapundit:

DON SURBER IS FISKING THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL on Haditha.  Read the whole thing, and fire off a copy to Bill Keller.

The clearly evident Bush-bashing glee over this stuff is both pathetic and poisonous.

UPDATE:  Dan Riehl compares the amount of coverage of Haditha and the terror busts.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails: "So how long before Anderson Cooper reports that the mayor of Haditha has stated that there are rampant murders and rapes going on inside the Haditha Superdome?"

That hasn't happened yet?

Look, this is a serious matter. But the gleeful piling-on -- and there's a lot of that, as Surber demonstrates -- makes it seem less serious, not moreso. Those who would reduce war crimes to mere partisan footballs are not manning the bulwarks of moral seriousness, however much they might adopt that pose.

I recommend this column by Mark Steyn, too: "A superpower that wallows in paranoia and glorifies self-loathing cannot endure and doesn't deserve to." I could say the same thing for alleged "flagship" media operations.

Dems Disown Hildebrand and Schuldt

Rapid City Journal:

The Democratic leader in the South Dakota Senate says a Sioux Falls consultant under contract with the party is advancing a pro-choice philosophy on abortion at the expense of Democratic candidates for the state Legislature who oppose abortion.

Sen. Garry Moore of Yankton said consultant Steve Hildebrand, a former executive director for the state Democratic Party and past campaign manager for Tom Daschle, is working to defeat Democratic legislators who voted for HB1215, the controversial near-total ban on abortion approved by the Legislature this year.

Moore said Hildebrand has made it clear that electing pro-choice candidates is more important than electing Democratic candidates. Hildebrand and his employee Chad Schuldt have also issued critical and — in Shuldt’s case — profane statements about Democrats who supported HB1215.

During the past legislative session, Schuldt referred to some Democrats who voted for HB1215 as “(expletive) idiots” and “sickos” on an Internet political blog he maintains. Schuldt also called Moore “a joke” as a legislative leader and encouraged his defeat, along with others who voted for the abortion bill.

Moore said such behavior is unprofessional and inappropriate and cause for the Democratic Party to pull its contract with HildebrandTewes Consulting.

“But nobody in the state party has the courage to stand up to him,” Moore said of Hildebrand. “They haven’t been able to muzzle him. He owes each and everyone in the Democratic caucus an apology, not that we’ll get one.”

...

“I share his view that the new South Dakota law limiting abortions is extreme and unfortunate,” Daschle wrote in an e-mail to the Journal. “But outside of his consulting contract with my political action committee, he conducts his business without any involvement from me.”

When asked about Schuldt’s harsh comments about Democrats who voted for 1215, Daschle said: “While I don’t know Mr. Schuldt, I find his comments highly offensive and inappropriate. There is no room in politics for that kind of inexcusable language or department.”

Olson Duhamel said she didn’t condone or approve of Schuldt’s comments and was disappointed that the abortion issue had caused a division between some Democrats. But she also has confidence in Hildebrand, who assured her that he would operate the party voting list in a professional manner, helpful to all candidates, regardless of their position on 1215.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: SD War College has a counter-argument regarding the story.

UPDATE II:  Bill Harlan:  "And what’s up with Chad Schuldt? What’s the upside of  using the Internet to call a fellow Democrat an '(expletive) idiot'?"

UPDATE III:  Recall this from Kevin Woster:

Led by public statements from former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and the pointed and sometimes profane Internet sniping from other former staffers, the Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune.

...

It some cases, it can also be profane. Former Daschle staff member Jeremy Funk, who works with Hildebrand, uses a personal Web log, or blog, to promote "F... Thune" T-shirts.

...

Funk and another former Daschle staff member, Chad Schuldt, run personal Internet blogs critical of Thune. And some of that criticism is shaped in language that many South Dakotans would consider offensive.