South Dakota Politics

Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin

Another case of voter fraud:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq Election Results

From the Washington Post:

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

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

Argus Leader

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

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

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

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

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

What's Happening With Alito

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

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

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

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

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

NY Times: Reid Apologizes

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

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

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

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

Daschle & Abramoff

Note this excerpt from The Shreveport Times:

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

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

Same Sex Marriage and Polygamy

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

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

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

             

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Hillary

The Daily Princetonian:

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

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

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

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

The Political Is Personal

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

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

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

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

Mort Kondrake on the Warrantless Search Question

From Real Clear Politics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inaccuracies of the Argus

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

January 19, 2006

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

Re: An open letter regarding Argus Leader inaccuracies and bias

Dear Mr. Lalley and Mr. Baldwin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Kyle Downey

Communications Director for Senator John Thune

Good for them.  It's about time.

Wilson Pickett Dies

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

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

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

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

Its a very good movie. 

Pakistan Strike Nets Major Al Qaeda figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Will Johnson Stand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will Johnson do?

Warrentless Searches

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tip to Real Clear Politics. 

An Addition to the Staff

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

Daschle '08

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

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

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

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

Daschle v. Paige

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

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

Here’s the story.

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

Presidential Primaries

From the Argus Leader editorial blog:

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

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

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

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

Moving our primary to January could change that.

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

Talking To Himself

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

More on Daschle

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

Roll Call, January 18, 2006

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

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

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

POTUS Daschle

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, Daschle lives in Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

Read the whole thing.

Neo-Nazi

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

Kennedy quits all-male Harvard Club!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suicide Club II

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

Says Justice  Kennedy, writing for the majority:

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

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

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

Farming & Energy Costs

Excerpt from the Rapid City Journal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:  From the mailbag:

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

Daschle '08 Cont.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CQ

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

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

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

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

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

Daschle '08

From the National Journal:

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

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

Suicide Club

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Bushism Fading in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Opposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a dream . . .

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

The Decline of a Very Blue State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post Endorses Alito Confirmation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

MLK

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

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

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

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

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

I have a dream today!

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

I have a dream today!

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

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

History Carnival

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

Senatorial-Dumbness Contest

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

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

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

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

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

ALITO: And I reiterate that...

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

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

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

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

We're Ready for Football

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

AI News

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

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

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

And second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alito & the Filibuster

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

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

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

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

The CCK on Alito

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Canadian Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile consider this from the Globe and Mail:

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

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