South Dakota Politics

Cartoon Conflagration 2

Professor Schaff cites Hugh Hewitt on the tastelessness of the infamous Danish cartoons.

The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers. Of course each of them had the absolute right to publish their screed, and the Danish (and now Norwegian) governments must reply to demands that these papers be punished with a steely refusal to be dictated to as to their culture of free expression and the protection of the vulgar and the stupid.  But don't cheer the vulgar and the stupid.

Reprinting the cartoons, as many European publications have done (Europe grows a backbone!  Film at eleven), is not the same thing as cheering them.  I quoted the Stein piece in order to trash it, but I would willingly reproduce the whole if that were necessary to stand up to someone who wanted to shut him down.  Blogs that reproduce the cartoons are not thereby expressing opinions on their original propriety.   

But I also think that it is far from clear that these cartoons were "vulgar and stupid."  Consider this one:

This expresses the basic point of the article that the cartoons originally accompanied.  That a European artist has to fear for his life if he draws a picture of the Prophet.  Or consider this one:

The target here is not traditional Islam, but the contemporary suicide bomber.  I think its a fair shot.  I confess I do not understand all the cartoons.  The most objectionable seems to be this one:

That is an unambiguous insult to the Prophet.  It may be insensitive.  But the point it makes, that, as Bernard Lewis has observed, Islam has suppressed the rights and status of half its followers, is neither vulgar nor stupid. 

I think that many religious conservatives are concerned to express some solidarity with Muslims, as they think Christianity is frequently insulted in the modern media (which certainly it is).  But the question of what is in beyond the pale is not so easy to determine.  Suppose some cartoonist should draw a skinhead Jesus, muscular and tattooed, with metal in his face and a gun belt around his shoulders, leading a company of the Aryan Brotherhood to slaughter the lesser races.  Such a cartoon would doubtless be offensive to nearly all Christians.  But what would be its point?  That this is the real Christ?  Some would no doubt read it that way.  But it also might be pointing out the perfect absurdity of a racist, militant Jesus. 

Political cartoons are often vulgar.  Vulgar is not the same thing as stupid.  Whether the Mohammad cartoons were over the line is a judgment call.  But they present defensible arguments.

UPDATE:  The Volokh Conspiracy points out that the Boston Globe now insists that

As with the current consensus against publishing racist or violence-inciting material, newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance.

But the Globe vociferously defended such art as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ", which consisted of a cross submerged in urine.  I believe Serrano was funded by the NEA, which the Globe defended against

Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and a band of conservative congressmen and critics over the exhibitions of work by photographers Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano.

Conservatives should not fool themselves that any senstitivity the MSM should decide to extend to Muslims will be similarly extended to conservative Christians.  It won't be. 

Cartoon Conflagration

Whatever else may be true of the Religion of Peace, it is surely flammable.  Last year it was French automobiles.  Just right now it is Danish embassies.  Both times, one might argue, militant Muslims have had cause to be angry.  My colleague, Dr. Schaff, triangulates a bit on the problem. 

People who insult other people's religions are foolish.  People who then want to kill the first people are evil.  Christians don't like it when their religion is mocked, with good cause, and Muslims aren't happy with it either.

I emphatically agree with the distinction, and I agree that it is in bad taste to mock the religion of others.  I think that, for all the bad stuff that goes along with them, the several religions have been progressive influences in human history.  In that respect they are much like alcohol or fire.  And who knows, a handfull of them, more or less, may provide a true account of the Kosmos.  Moreover, respecting a people's religion is one way of respecting that people.  For such reasons, if I were an editor, I would kill a story or cartoon that I thought displayed a viseral dislike of, or prejudice toward someone's religion. 

However, religions are not for that reason immune to criticism.  The cartoons that have ignited such fury on the part of Muslims expressed not only sentiments but arguments.  This can be seen from the one I reproduced below.  Those arguments cannot be easily dismissed.  A portion of the world's Muslim population, small perhaps, but significant, seems much more prone to violence than are the followers of the other world religions.  When was the last time a militant Buddhist blew up anything?  Given that, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the militancy and thirst for blood evident in the anti-cartoonist protest signs are merely contemporary, or can be traced back to the warrior founders of Islam. 

I do not think that arguments should be suppressed because they offend people.  So I am unwilling to say that the cartoons should not have been printed or reprinted just because someone didn't like them.  But it has gone beyond that now.  The message of the protesters is clear: do what we want or we hurt you.  I think that leaves the West little choice.  We have to stand behind the cartoonist and behind the Danes.  Now there's a rare moment in history! 

If Muslims want respect, they are going to have to get it some other way.

First, Kill The Cartoonists

I stole my headline from Billy Shakespeare.  I think Hugh Hewitt has the wisest reaction to the Muslim-Danish Cartoonist imbroglio.  People who insult other people's religions are foolish.  People who then want to kill the first people are evil.  Christians don't like it when their religion is mocked, with good cause, and Muslims aren't happy with it either.  So let's not forget that even though it is right to condemn those who wish to use violence against those with whom they disagree, we should also condemn those who needlessly mock people's deepest beliefs.  Hewitt writes (internal links his):

The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers. Of course each of them had the absolute right to publish their screed, and the Danish (and now Norwegian) governments must reply to demands that these papers be punished with a steely refusal to be dictated to as to their culture of free expression and the protection of the vulgar and the stupid.

But don't cheer the vulgar and the stupid.

I for one am sorry that this cartoon is being disseminated online, not because I think we should give in to the intimidation of a few Muslim extremists (the spirited part of me actually enjoys tweaking the fascists), but out of respect for the many devout Muslims who find depictions of the Prophet to be an affront to their religion.

Update: There is this comment by John Hindraker over at Powerline regarding a particular depiction of the Prophet Muhammed as a terrorist:

[The cartoon] is not exactly complimentary, but hardly unfair, given the thousands of people who have been blown up by fervent Muslims purporting to act in Mohammed's name.

By Hindraker's logic it then is not unfair to depict Jesus as a murderer, because people kill in Jesus's name. Or how about Moses as a terrorist for the actions of the Jewish Defense League?   Or perhaps he'd support depictions of pro-lifers as deranged murderers because a very small number have been.  If Hinderaker wants to defend these cartoons, he's going to have to do better than this. 

 

First They Came for the Cartoonists

I'd like to take credit for that, but I stole it from a blog called Missing Link.  Below is one of the cartoons that has so deeply offend the Muslim World.  You can see the set at Human Events Online.

That's a pretty clever cartoon.  Below is the reaction of militant Muslims in London.  From Yahoo News. 

What we are dealing with here is fascism.  It is a welcome if unlooked for sign that many European countries have supported Denmark, which is under assault for allowing the cartoon above and others to be printed.  Michelle Malkin is listing blogs that show the cartoons in support of the Danish cartoonist.  SDP joins the blogburst.

Not Going Anywhere For Awhile?

Might I suggest that you run to the video store and pick up DVDs of the TV series Firefly and the film based on the series, Serenity.  The Firefly world comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who gave us Buffy The Vampire Slayer.  Firefly is essentially a western set in space.  If you like Westerns or Sci-Fi, you'll enjoy Firefly.  I suggest watching the series (it's only 14 episodes) before watching the film, but you can understand the film without seeing the TV show. 

Intellectual Diversity

The bill before the legislature regarding intellectual diversity at the state's public universities is laudable in its ends, while its methods leave something to be desired.  The bill could be strengthened by noting that nothing in the bill should be construed so as to require quotas.  This would mitigate the aspects of the bill that hint at "bean counting." How exactly does one "encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels"?  I am a bit leery of what such "encouragement" might entail.  Also, creation of an "ombudsman on intellectual diversity" strikes me as another reason to hire another bureaucrat whose job is to create paperwork.  Finally, I hope that the legislature recognizes that the filling out of yet another report further distracts the university from what it is supposed to be doing: teaching students and engaging in scholarship.  I hear yet another committee assignment calling.  With amendment this bill has considerable merit, but as it is written I would caution against it.  I should note that what I say here represents my opinion only and not that of my employer. 

Minimum Wage

The legislature declines another effort to raise the minimum wage.  While we may squabble over the correct amount, it seems some raise in the minimum wage is needed.  But evidently not this year. 

Too Funny To Pass Up

Brokenback To The Future.

Reid

Tony Batt of the Review Journal has an interesting article entitled "Tribes gave to Reid after hiring Abramoff."  Excerpt:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada began receiving campaign contributions from at least four American Indian tribes only after they hired Jack Abramoff, Republicans charged this week in an effort to tie the Senate Democratic leader to the disgraced lobbyist.

On Thursday, Reid shrugged off questions about money he received from tribal clients of Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last month to three felonies after being accused of exchanging meals, travel and gifts for political favors.

Check out the whole thing.

Conrad

John Mercurio of the National Journal Group had an article yesturday entitled "The Left Left, So What's Left?" where he discussed Senator Conrad of North Dakota.  Excerpt:

Another Democrat up for re-election this year, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, drew fire from local Democrats after voting for Alito's confirmation. On Wednesday, party activists in Mandan, N.D., took Conrad off their list of Democratic "heroes" and said he had "voted with the side of fascism."

Economy

Some good macroeconomic news:

Employers stepped up hiring in January, boosting payrolls by 193,000 and lowering the nation's unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, the lowest since July 2001.

The fresh snapshot of the jobs climate, released by the Labor Department on Friday, suggested that the economy started the new year on fairly good footing.

Although the 193,000 gain in payroll jobs in January fell short of the 250,000 new jobs that economists said to anticipate before the release of the report, it still marked a sturdy showing and was the biggest increase in jobs since November.

Moreover, job growth in December turned out to be stronger than previously thought. Revised figures showed payrolls expanded by 140,000 _ an improvement over the 108,000 new jobs first estimated a month ago. Employment was revised up for some previous months as well.

The unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent in January, from 4.9 percent in December.

Yale

The Federalist Society at the Yale Law School has taken note of the intellectual diveristy bill:

Experiments in Diversity

Both the South Dakota Senate and House have introduced a bill that would require public colleges to make periodic reports to the legislature on their efforts to ensure intellectual diversity. The bill, conceived by liberal-turned-conservative David Horowitz, would require reports on efforts to:

(1) Conduct a study to assess the current state of intellectual diversity on its campus.
(2) Incorporate intellectual diversity into institutional statements, grievance procedures and activities on diversity.
(3) Encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers and annually publish the names of panelists and speakers.
(4) Establish clear campus policies that ensure that hecklers or threats of violence do not prevent speakers from speaking.
(5) Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching.
(6) Include intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations.
(7) Develop hiring, tenure and promotion policies that protect individuals against political viewpoint discrimination and track any reported grievances.
(8) Establish clear campus policies to ensure freedom of the press for students and report any incidents of student newspaper thefts or destruction.
(9) Establish clear campus policies to prohibit political bias in student-funded organizations.
(10) Eliminate speech codes that restrict the freedom of speech.
(11) Create an institutional ombudsman on intellectual diversity.

At first glance, this is an incredibly compelling idea. Many of the issues should be non-controversial, including the reports regarding hiring policies and hecklers at speaker events. Free speech should be a right enjoyed by all viewpoints on campus, not just those favored by the liberal establishment.

More: Rapid City Journal, Power Line, and South Dakota Politics.

RELATED
Power Line:  South Dakotans Advocate Diversity
Instapundit:  Well, diversity is a good thing, right?
SDP: Intellectual Diversity; Liberal Academics; Intellectual Diversity; ACTA
RCJ: Bill seeks ‘intellectual diversity’
Liberty, Order, and Tradition:  Intellectual Diversity at Colleges in South Dakota

Funeral Protest Bill

The Rapid City Journal weighs in on the funeral protest bill:

Following incidents in the past year in which groups have picketed the funeral services for servicemen killed in Iraq, a bill has been introduced in the state Legislature that would make it illegal to protest during a funeral.

SB156 would prohibit picketing from one hour prior to a funeral service until one hour after the service is completed. The bill defines a funeral service as a "ceremony, procession, memorial, or burial at a church, private home, funeral parlor, mortuary, or cemetery."

Members of a Topeka, Kan., church have picketed at funeral services for servicemen, including the Oct. 26 funeral for Paul Pillen of Keystone, who was killed Oct. 17 in Iraq while serving with the South Dakota National Guard. The church members believe the deaths of U.S. soldiers are God's punishment for Americans' tolerance for homosexuals.

Free speech is an important right that is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and on which reasonable limits can be imposed. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech can be limited to a "reasonable time, place or manner."

Groups who protest at the funerals of U.S. servicemen are being intentionally hurtful to the families who are mourning their loss.

It is reasonable to restrict the protests to a specific time, place and manner. SB156 isn't specific enough - we would like it amended to withstand constitutional review. The bill prohibits protests immediately before, during and after a funeral service. It also should specify a place of protest. Why not keep them away from the vicinity of the funeral service - like, say, no closer than 500 feet or 1,500 feet? That way, they can still mount their protest somewhere but no family member would have endure their hateful presence.

When the Lévy Breaks

Jason has posted below on Bernard-Henri Lévy's American Vertigo, and on Garrison Keillor's review of that book.  Martin Peretz, publisher of the New Republic, reviews Keillor's review, to devastating effect.  Lévy is a French philosophe and admirer of America who recently traveled about between these shores and wrote about what he saw.  He was very self-consciously imitating Alexis de Tocqueville, who traversed America in the 1830s and produced Democracy in America, probably the most interesting book ever written about the United States or democracy.  I confess that I have not yet read American Vertigo, but I have read Tocqueville and Keillor's review, and I am inclined to think that Peretz's comment is dead on. 

What in the world possessed The New York Times Book Review to ask Garrison Keillor to review Lévy's book? It did put the review on the front page, signaling that Lévy is someone with whom one must grapple. But Keillor cannot fathom the intellectual weight of Lévy's transaction between Tocqueville and the present. He is out of his league. There is no philosophical argument in his hostile review, only a litany of ridicule. Keillor is an American mythographer, the nostalgic and reverse-snobbish creator of Lake Wobegon, his hugely successful line in middlebrow American sentimentality and a much greater assault on America's gray matter than Lévy's reflective visits to Las Vegas and Dealey Plaza in Dallas. What does the inventor of "A Prairie Home Companion" know about the tradition in which Lévy is working? Suppose Sartre had followed Tocqueville to the United States and written about his journey. To whom should the Times have assigned its review? To Thornton Wilder? Yes, that's it: the author of Our Town. There's the connection: Tocqueville was fixated on small-town America, and many of the classic community studies of the early decades of the last century were written about places called Middletown and Elmtown, Plainville and Hilltown, Yankeetown and Southern Town, false names for actual polities with a few thousand souls. So maybe Keillor was actually an inspired choice. Why shouldn't a bird review an ornithologist?

Keillor has a genius and a face made for radio.  His show is a fine piece of work most of the time, and he has promoted a love for reading which he obviously shares.  He is also a bit of a crank, and no deep thinker.  He was surely an uninspired choice for a reviewer.

More on Levy

Bill Harlan over at Mt. Blogmore mentions the new Levi book:

Anyone else read Garrison Keillor’s review in the NYT of Bernard Henri-Lévy’s new book about America. (The link is for a version of “On the Road Avec M. Lévy” that doesn’t require an NYT signup. I wonder if I’m violating something?)

Anyway, here’s an excerpt, with South Dakota references boldfaced:

“It is the classic Freaks, Fatties, Fanatics & Faux Culture Excursion beloved of European journalists for the past 50 years, with stops at Las Vegas to visit a lap-dancing club and a brothel; Beverly Hills; Dealey Plaza in Dallas; Bourbon Street in New Orleans; Graceland; a gun show in Fort Worth; a “partner-swapping club” in San Francisco with a drag queen with mammoth silicone breasts; the Iowa State Fair (”a festival of American kitsch”); Sun City (”gilded apartheid for the old”);a stock car race; the Mall of America; Mount Rushmore; a couple of evangelical megachurches; the Mormons of Salt Lake; some Amish; the 2004 national political conventions; Alcatraz - you get the idea. (For some reason he missed the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, the adult video awards, the grave site of Warren G. Harding and the World’s Largest Ball of Twine.)”

M. Lévy spent quite a bit of time describing his South Dakota encounters with Tom Daschle and Russell Means. See my own April 16 column about it.

Daschle, Pt. II

From today's edition of The Hotline:

DASCHLE: No Link At All, Trust Him

     "Lecturing about 200 people" 2/1 at IA State Univ, ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D) "said" IA "will play a key role in efforts to shape the campaign debate heading into the midterm elections." Daschle said that Dems "have a chance to shift the" nat'l "debate back to domestic issues because voters are tired of the status quo and the scare tactics over terrorism." But Dems "must reshape the agenda for voters willing to return to traditional issues."

     Daschle, on voters' "unease" with Iraq and the situation in the Middle East: "We are increasingly aware that this president's foreign policy is actually exacerbating the problem." Daschle, on his own future: "I have no plans to run for" pres. "It's great to be back here, but there isn't any presidential linkage" (Glover, AP, 2/2).

     At a stop in Des Moines, Daschle endorsed Sec/State Chet Culver (D) for Gov and said that "if he does run for" pres, "he would campaign in" IA, "even if" IA Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) "also runs" (Gearino, Sioux City Journal, 2/2). In Ames, Daschle said "that the state's voters could determine control of the U.S. House this year. Daschle pointed to IA 01, which "is viewed as a top" Dem "target" in which Rep. Jim Nussle (R) has passed on a re-election bid in order to run for Gov, and IA 03, where Rep. Leonard Boswell (D) faces a tough challenge from State Sen. Jeff Lamberti (R) (Beaumont, Des Moines Register, 2/2).

Republican Bashing

What does anyone expect to gain when they begin to compare political parties in these terms?  The head of the NAACP calls Republicans "Nazis" and black cabinet members "tokens."  Excerpt:

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.
...
In July 2001, Bond said, "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

Of course, our very own Tim Johnson started the popularity of comparing Republicans to the Taliban:

Democrat Sen. Tim Johnson, who barely "won" in South Dakota's fraud-plagued election of 2002, refuses to apologize for referring to Republicans as a Taliban.

Appearing Sunday with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle at an event in Sioux Falls for U.S. House candidate Stephanie Herseth, Johnson said: "When Stephanie Herseth fills this seat, we are going to have a rising star in the House of Representatives. And how sweet it's going to be on June 2 when the Taliban wing of the Republican Party finds out what's happened in South Dakota."

Mayor Munson

Breaking news from Dave Kranz, et. al.:

Munson drops out of race for Sioux Falls mayor
A friend calls the news "a shocker"

February 2, 2006, 6:12 pm

Mayor Dave Munson is quitting the race for mayor of Sioux Falls, one of his close friends confirmed late today.

Munson called friends this afternoon to tell them he would not seek re-election.

The dramatic turn of events ahead of the April 11 election comes after several weeks of scrutiny over Munson's campaign finances.

In his conversation with Ray Trankel, a member of his inner-circle, he told him not to try and talk him out of it.

“I think he’s just tired. It’s a no-win situation. He told me, ‘Regardless of what I do, people just continue to shoot at me,’ “ Trankel said.

“Everything he has done was always Sioux Falls first," Trankel added. "It’s a sad day."

Jim Woster, a close friend of Munson’s, called the news “a shocker.”

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

Thune and Seinfeld

Never figured John Thune for a Kramer Fan, but check this out.  From U.S. News and World Report:

He shocked former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle by beating him by just over 4,000 votes last year, repelled the administration's bid to shut down a key Air Force base back home in South Dakota, and is talked about as a possible 2008 vice presidential candidate for the GOP. But when he's got some free time, Sen. John Thune doesn't play big man on campus, hanging out with lobbyists and donors at Washington's Capital Grille. He watches TV-specifically Seinfeld reruns.

"I've watched a number of times," he says, "way more than I should." In fact, Thune's a Seinfeld junkie going back to the first season. And he's got it bad. He TiVo's 20 episodes a week at home in South Dakota, times his Senate gym workouts to the show's cable schedule, and kicks back in his office from 10:30 to 11:30 to catch nightly reruns. Thune's even got other members hooked on the show. "It's sort of mindless entertainment, " he tells us. "It's just a nice break from the heavy stuff ­you're doing all day." His faves: "The 'Soup Nazi' is great. That's my daughter's favorite." And he can practically recite the script from the episode where Kramer installs a garbage disposal in the bathtub. "I can anticipate almost all the lines," he brags. But don't ask him to compare the cast's quirky characters, like Newman , with his colleagues in the Senate. "Let's not go there," he says.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

Daschle

Former Senator Tom Daschle was in Iowa--"the epicenter for national politics"-- last night endorsing Secretary of State Chet Culver's bid to run for governor.  More excerpt from the American News:

AMES, Iowa - Democrats have a chance to shift the national debate back to domestic issues because voters are tired of the status quo and the scare tactics over terrorism, said former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said.

Lecturing about 200 people Wednesday night at Iowa State University, Daschle said Iowa will play a key role in efforts to shape the campaign debate heading into the midterm elections.

"Our nation entrusts Iowa with an extremely important role in choosing our nation's course," said Daschle, a former South Dakota U.S. Rep. who took a one-day swing across Iowa to meet with activists. "And so, in a very real sense, it does fall to you to decide if the status quo is acceptable."
...

Daschle said that Bush has been successful in attracting voters with terrorism fears and accusing Democrats of being weak on the issue.

"I think they have attempted to do that for the last five years, and to a certain extent successfully," said Daschle.

Daschle said he senses voters are no longer buying that tactic. With a deteriorating situation in Iraq and increasing unease throughout the Middle East, many voters are worried.

Just as a footnote, as far as Iraq goes Stephanie Herseth--who actually visited Iraq and Afghanistan--would beg to  disagree with Daschle's assertion of a "deteriorating situation." 

Postmortem on Alito Appointment

Steven Lubet is not happy that Samuel Alito is now on the Supreme Court.  But he thinks that most of the blame lies on the shoulders of Democrats.  From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

In 2001, when Democrats briefly took control of the Senate (following Sen. Jim Jeffords' defection from the Republicans), they began stalling President Bush's judicial nominations. At the time, that must have seemed only fair, given that Republicans had taken the same approach (and worse) to President Clinton's nominees. But in fact, it was a disastrous decision. Rather than restore fairness to the confirmation process, the Democrats instead set the stage for years of counterproductive acrimony.

When Republicans resumed control of the Senate, following the 2002 mid-term elections, Senate Democrats were not willing to concede defeat, at least on the matter of judicial appointments. Rather, they embarked on the unprecedented course of using the filibuster to block President Bush's nominations to federal appellate courts. Again, the tactic seemed reasonable, perhaps even necessary, at the time. Bush's nominations increasingly came from the far right, and the filibuster was the only way to defeat the most extreme among them. Eventually, Democrats blocked 10 nominees, bragging that the successful filibusters would demonstrate that they also could derail any non-moderate Supreme Court appointment.

In fact, the tactic backfired badly. Senate Democrats came across as petulant obstructionists, perhaps the cause of Minority Leader Tom Daschle losing his Senate seat in the 2004 election. Even worse, Republicans were so enraged by the repeated filibusters that they began to reconsider the sanctity of the filibuster rule itself. Eventually, they threatened the “nuclear option” of abolishing the filibuster through a simple majority vote. That would have thrown the Senate into chaos, repealing a century-old tradition of comity and cooperation. Republicans surely would never have contemplated such a drastic measure, but for the Democrats' seeming refusal to respect the prerogatives of the majority.

The filibuster, it turned out, was a scorched-earth technique that could not be employed and re-employed endlessly. But rather than hold it in reserve for the Supreme Court, Democrats squandered it on a series of ultimately insignificant lower court appointments.

I think Lubet is correct that the filibuster of appellate court nominees ended up costing the Democrats the use of that weapon against Alito, and hence assured his confirmation.  But I am not sure they would have been able to use it in any event.  I just don't think that a minority would be able to shut down the confirmation process on prime time news, against as affable a person as Alito, without losing their nerve or paying a heavy political price, or maybe both. 

 

Daschle to IA

From this morning's Hotline newsletter:

Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) heads to IA today to endorse Chet Culver for IA GOV. Later tonight, Daschle gives a speech in Ames at IA State U (Wake-Up Call! sources).

UPDATE:  From The Hotline's "Last Call":

In Iowa tonight, Tom Daschle will say: "Since leaving the Senate, I've been thinking about America's direction quite a bit" (Last Call! sources).

Thune

From the Washington Post blog:

The man who knocked off the most powerful Democratic senator in the 2004 elections appears to be well-positioned to run for chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee following this year's midterm elections.

Sen. John Thune (S.D.) has said several of his colleagues have approached him about seeking the job and it is something that interests him. "It's something I will give consideration to,"  Thune said in December. "I want to be helpful as much as I can."

Taking on leadership of the NRSC would be a boost into the party leadership that would further solidify Thune's credentials as a rising GOP star.

Much of Thune's strength comes from a solid fundraising performance over the past year. Thune raised $1.1 million in his Heartland Values political action committee, which he formed in January 2005.  The PAC retained $458,000 on hand as of the end of 2005, according to a Republican aide familiar with the campaign's FEC report. Thune also had nearly 10,000 individual donors to Heartland Values in its first year of existence.

During 2005, Thune donated to Sens. John Ensign (Nev.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Jim Talent (Mo.), George Allen (Va.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.). He also gave to GOP Senate candidates in New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota and Maryland. To top it off, Thune gave $15,000 to the NRSC.

Thune's fundraising success is not terribly surprising given the national profile he built during his 2004 contest against then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D).  In less than one year, Thune raised $15 million with a national fundraising network built around Republicans' distaste for Daschle -- an effective leader who helped win back a majority for Senate Democrats for the 17 months prior to the 2002 midterms.

Thune beat Daschle 51 percent to 49 percent, the first candidate to knock off a sitting Senate leader since Ernest McFarland fell to Barry Goldwater in 1952. Because of that victory, Thune is viewed as a hero within GOP Senate Conference. He also gets high marks from consultants and strategists who have worked with him either in the House or the Senate.

Thune also is likely to benefit from the fact that the other potential NRSC candidates cannot seek the post next cycle. North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), the current NRSC chairwoman, is up for reelection in 2008 and by conference rules is barred from standing for a second term at the committee. Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), who lost the NRSC chairmanship by one vote to Dole in Dec. 2004, is also running for reelection in 2008.

Should Thune ascend to the NRSC chairmanship next cycle, expect the talk of a potential presidential candidacy to begin in earnest.  Thune is already mentioned in some circles as a serious vice presidential pick depending on who ultimately wins the GOP nomination in 2008.

Daschle & Tribal Money

According to the 1/30/06 Roll Call, Tom Daschle was the fourth largest recipient in the country regarding tribal donations:

Tribes' Donations Since 1999 Top $25M

By John Bresnahan Roll Call Staff

January 30, 2006

American Indian tribes have donated nearly $26 million to the national parties and individual lawmakers since 1999, outpacing the defense industry ($21.9 million) and manufacturers ($18.9 million).

The data on tribal contributions was assembled by PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which tracked donations from more than 200 tribes.

Tribal donations have been recorded under a variety of names, making them difficult to track. For example, one tribe had 78 variations of its name under which donations were recorded. The tribes, which are recorded as individual donors unburdened by the aggregate limits faced by normal contributors, also are not required to report their donations to the Federal Election Commission as do political action committees.

As the scandal surrounding former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff has grown, so has the interest in the political activities of tribal leaders. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty on Jan. 3 to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials, admitted to defrauding tribes for which he lobbied, to the tune of millions of dollars.

Abramoff used political contributions from tribes to enhance his influence. He was able to steer hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from the tribes to certain Senators and House Members, a valuable asset for any lobbyist. Dozens of lawmakers from both parties have now disgorged these donations since Abramoff’s guilty plea.

The biggest recipient among lawmakers of tribal donations over the period that PoliticalMoneyLine.com analyzed was Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), with $510,400. Other leading recipients included: Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), $501,140; Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), $338,100; then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), $274,650; Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), $273,000; Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), $266,800; Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), $237,030; Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), $202,046; Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), $192,090; and Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), $169,550.

These totals include hard and soft money given to re-election campaigns and leadership PACs.

The biggest tribal donors were: Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, California, $2.3 million; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, $1.8 million; Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut, $1.54 million; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, $1.08 million; Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, California, $1.07 million; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina, $919,250; San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians, California, $828,842; Seminole Tribe of Florida, $822,352; Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California, $794,652; and Viejas (Baron Long) of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians, California, $764,525.

Get Along Home, Cindy, Cindy

I watched some of the SOTU address on NBC tonight, only because I can get it in high definition.  Once you see HDTV, old TV looks like a watercolor. I couldn't watch all of it because my daughter called, and frankly, I love her more than I love George W.   Tim Russert mentioned that Cindy Sheehan had been invited but had been arrested.  Big Brother Bush again, it sounded like.  Powerline had this:

The Democrats tried to distract from the substance of President Bush's speech by planting Cindy Sheehan in the House chamber tonight--she was reportedly the guest of a Democrat Congresswoman--but Justice Samuel Alito's presence in the chamber was much more significant. Plus, he lasted longer, as Sheehan was hauled out of the chamber when she tried to unfurl a banner. She is clinging tenaciously to her fifteen minutes.

Its a bit more revealing that Sheehan was removed because she violated the rules of the event.  I'm all for protest in any legitimate public forum.  But the State of the Union Address is devoted to some specific constitutional business.  I note the first clause of Article II, Section 3:

[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

This was the business of the moment.  When you see the President of the Senate (the VP) and the Speaker of the House behind the President of the United States as he speaks, you see the words of the Constitution made flesh.  This was not a forum for public debate.  MSNBC included more detail on their webpage:

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.  The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News.

Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.

“I’m proud that Cindy’s my guest tonight,” [Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif] said in an interview before the speech. “She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq.”

Maybe Sheehan should have appeared with Tim Kaine, who gave the Democrat's response to the SOTU.  But of course she might have brought along Hugo Chavez, demagogue-in-chief of Venezuela.  I'm sure he would have had some interesting things to say about Bush's speech. 

The Politics of the Alito Confirmation

Puzzle me this, oh spirits in the myst, what would good Senator Johnson have done if the confirmation of Samuel Alito today had come down to his vote?  The WSJ OpinionJournal has breakdown of Democratic votes, and notes that all four Democratic Senators who voted for Alito's confirmation came from states that Bush carried.  But notice that North Dakota's delegation split, with Conrad who is coming up to bat in this year's election voting yes.  The fact that the Republicans had a clean 54 vote majority made it relatively painless for Johnson to cross the floor on this one.  Of course Johnson may have genuinely believed that Alito should be confirmed.  But its harder to imagine him voting that way if Daschle were still leader of the Senate, and the Democrats had had a chance of defeating Alito in a floor vote.

There is good news and bad news in the two votes this week.  The 72/25 vote for cloture indicates that the filibuster has collapsed as a Democratic instrument for judges.  This may have something to do with the filibuster issue in the Thune/Daschle race, but more directly it is a result of the gang of 14 deal on the filibuster.  That deal is now confirmed to be what I said it was, a near term victory for Republicans.  But it is a long term victory for the Constitution.  If the filibuster had succeeded, the confirmation process might well have ground to a halt. 

Unfortunately, the fact that all but four Democrats voted against Alito today might mean the same thing the next time that a President has to send up a nominee to a Senate dominated by the opposite party.  I noted this very interesting chart from the Washington Post in an earlier blog.  It indicates that, on a number of issues, Republican and Democratic appointees dependably come down on opposite sides.  There were really no grounds for opposing Alito that would not apply to any Republican appointee.  Its difficult to see how a Republican President and a Democratic Senate could reach a compromise on a nominee.  The same would apply to a Democrat in the White House if the Republicans begin voting in the same partisan way as the Democrats just did.

The obvious solution to this problem is the sort of decorum that the Republicans observed when they largely supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer.  I had the chance to talk to Senator Orin Hatch about the Bryer nomination.  He knew of course that Bryer would be a vote to uphold Roe, and that Bryer would side with the liberals on the court on most issues.  But he thought that, absent something obviously disqualifying in a nominee, the President should get who he wants.  Given the Democrats partisanship on Alito, I think it will be hard for the Republicans to keep that same decorum in the future.  They would run the risk of endorsing the rule that any President is entitled to appointees that the Democrats approve of.  This does not bode well for the future of the appointment process.

"The DNA of Politics"

This is for the political junkies out there like myself.  I don't know how I missed this post back in November, but my good friend over at the tdaxp blog has a post entitled "The DNA of Politics."  Dr. John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln published a fascinating report entitled “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?”  Check out the full blog post here, and you can view Dr. Hibbing's full academic report here (PDF alert).  Comments (either via our email or through tdaxp's blog) are always welcome.

UPDATE:  Dan of tdaxp informs me of another interesting presentation by Dr. Robert Kurzban, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Levy

Regarding my previous post on the new book American Vertigo, Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line has more:

If you happen to surf over to C-SPAN when it is replaying the debate between Bernard-Henri Levy and Bill Kristol, you should keep the dial there. Levy is a leading French intellectual and he plays one to the hilt on tv. A reformed Marxist, Levy remains a man of the left in some ways, but he is also perhaps the leading French anti-anti-American. Most of all, he is an intellectual performance artist, if not a rock star.

Levy has written a book called American Vertigo in which he purports to follow in the footsteps of the great Alexis de Tocqueville in an attempt (in the words of his publisher) to "begin a new conversation about the meaning of America." Levy sampled a wide variety of Americana, ranging from an interview with Bill Kristol to a visit to a lap dance establishment. It is the former experience that led to his appearance with Kristol and Francis Fukuyama at Johns Hopkins University, where he presented his take on American neo-conservatism.

Check out the whole thing.

Intellectual Diversity

Another blog is noting the South Dakota legislature's efforts at intellectual diversity:

The South Dakota legislature is proposing that public universities there report regularly on the intellectual diversity present at each campus. Here's the story.

The most important diversity on a college campus, it seems to me, is diversity of ideas. After all, the entire justification of a university is that it is a place where people come to learn and exchange ideas. And that's something that most of the modern, hyper-p.c. academic institutions of higher learning just don't do very well. We need our universities to be more than an echo-chamber for the Left, we need them to be places where ideas (whether left/liberal or conservative) may be openly discussed and critiqued without fear of reprisal from politically correct zealots inhabiting privilged positions within the university hierarchy.

NSA

I also liked this from Bush:

BUSH:  It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to Al Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.

So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America.

Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.

The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaida, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

Competitiveness

I am with Mark Steyn:

I dunno, guys, an "American Competitiveness Initiative"? Isn't there something a little ridiculous about the government, which has no competition, running a competitiveness initiative? It's like the old gag about the British Government's equivalent to the anti-trust guys: Why is there only one Monopolies Commission? It also sounds a lot like Gerhard Schroder's "Year of Innovation" when he inaugurated a German "Innovation Council", even though the first sign of a genuinely innovative culture is that it's too busy innovating to sit around at meetings of a government innovation council.

SOTU

Some random thoughts on the State Of The Union speech delivered tonight by President Bush. 

• President Bush said, "As we make progress on the ground and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels. But those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C."  We still have a civilian run military, right?  Aren't these exactly the decisions politicians, not generals, should be making.  Clearly President Bush is not reading his Elliot Cohen. 
• When you look at John Roberts and Samuel Alito from behind, they both look like Franciscan Friars with their cute little bald spots.  That should stir discussion of the coming theocracy. 
• Iran is run by "a small clerical elite."  Who knew that those devils running Iran were actually very short and snobbish file clerks.  Kidding aside, Iran should have gotten more and firmer discussion. 
• The first half of this speech was excellent.  Bush once again articulated the Bush Doctrine: America has the duty to expand liberty, both for our own security and for the good of the world.  Both of those propositions can be questioned, but it is a powerful argument that speaks to our finest principles. 
• Now to the dreck.  The laundry list of domestic proposals.  Take me now Lord!  Bush proposes eliminating 140 "non-essential" programs, saving a whopping $14 billion.  Yes, that sounds like a lot, but for a government that spends $2.6 trillion a year, it's chump change.
• The real money is in entitlements.  Give Bush kudos for talking about it.  Since his Social Security proposal went nowhere, he is doing what we expect politicians to do: propose a commission.  I hate to tell you, but we already had an entitlement commission in the 90s.  It was headed by Senators Al Simpson of Wyoming and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.  It made very sane proposals.  Those proposals were eviscerated by the interest groups (i.e., the AARP), and nothing came of that commission.  Expect more of the same.
• What will Bush's oil buddies think of his energy proposals? 
• I think Americans can all rest easy knowing the American Competitiveness Initiative is on the horizon. 
• Blah, blah, blah.  More itty bitty proposals designed to make the President look good.  Come on. Does anyone oppose the Ryan White Act?
• And finally, did you ever notice that almost everytime Bush gives a big speech, he wears a blue tie? 

The second half of this speech was Clintonian in style, substance, and its interminable length.  It seems we have not elected a president, but a national governor who thinks it is his job to solve every problem we face.  I can't wait for the program to fight the ketchup crud that forms on the nozzle of my ketchup bottle.  That's a problem John Kerry was born (actually, married) to fight.  It is all enough to yearn for the days before Woodrow Wilson when presidents just sent Congress a letter on the State of the Union and did not burden us with tedious acts of political pandering masked as constitutional duty.  Yet another reason to hate Woodrow Wilson. 

Lessons of Alito

MSNBC has this article on why Bush won the Alito battle.  It is worth a read.  One slice from this piece:

Meanwhile, Democrats in states that Bush carried in the 2004 election, such as North Dakota, Nebraska and Tennessee, learned from what had happened to former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who lost his seat to Republican John Thune, partly on the filibuster issue.

Lesson: elections matter.  Also note this section about the halcyon days of Democratic obstructionism:

“Our campaign to stop Bush's extremist nominees has been extraordinarily successful so far,” boasted a Nov. 12, 2003 e-mail from Moveon.org, the left-leaning Democratic group. “Miguel Estrada, who was widely thought to be President Bush's top pick for the Supreme Court, withdrew his name from consideration after Senators filibustered his nomination, supported by more than 40,000 phone calls from MoveOn members.”

Faithful readers might remember that one of the ways that left-wing groups undermined Miguel Estrada was through the racial attack of questioning whether this Honduran immigrant was really Hispanic. 

Alito Bandito Confirmation Edition

Now that its too late to do anything about it, you might want to take a look at  how Alito's votes on the U.S. Court of Appeals measure against other Republican appointees and Democratic appointees.  The Washington Post has a very valuable chart.  In a nutshell, Republican and Democratic appointees have very different voting records.  For example, in prisoner rights cases, Republican appointees went against the prisoner 79% of the time.  Democrat appointees went for the prisoner 64% of the time.  Alito's record was against the prisoner 71% of the time.  He is in fact a pretty typical Republican appointee. 

Alito Confirmed

Former federal appellate judge Samuel Alito Jr. has become the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice in a 58-42 Senate vote to confirm him.  Senator Thune was the 51st senator to vote for Alito.

UPDATE:  Iowa Voice notes a few left-wing reactions ("yeah, we lost, BUT....").  My favorite quote comes from Kos:

So what are we going to do? I'm tempted to say "did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?", but that may be too glib for some in this serious moment. But I do like the sentiment. Are we going to lay down on our backs, or are we going to organize and take over the Democratic party?

Kos is so worked up that he got his facts wrong.  And how can Pearl Harbor compare to a court confirmation?

UPDATE II:  It turns out that the joke's on me.  The line about Germany comes from the movie Animal House.

Herseth

Here's a funny story from my hometown paper about Stephanie Herseth, which makes clear her ambitions to run for the Senate:

A panel of 600 fearless interviewers grilled Stephanie Herseth for nearly an hour Friday morning.

She stood exposed by the onslaught, fielding questions about her ideology, her political aspirations and even her personal life.

“How much money do you make?”

“Would you ever run for president?”

“What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans?”

They were the kind of blunt, plain-spoken queries that Herseth doesn’t usually expect, especially from an audience like the one she faced Friday: the student body at Mitchell Middle School.

“That’s the nice thing, that all their questions were very respectful, but perhaps missing the tone of subtlety or diplomacy that you get from the adult audiences,” she said afterward. “It’s actually very refreshing. They’re very direct, but very honest.”

Herseth, the 35-year-old Democrat who occupies South Dakota’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, never declined a question but appeared to struggle with a few answers. Seventh-grader Andrew Rozum put her on politically dangerous ground with his curiosity about the differences between the two major political parties.

Herseth, a former college instructor, responded with a cautious but revealing five-minute discourse on the politics of moderation.

She said the perceived differences between Democrats and Republicans are traditional ones that may not apply to the parties’ modern realities. Democrats have been derided for years as the party of big government, large spending and high taxes, she said, but she added that Republicans haven’t done much in recent years to earn their opposite reputation as the party of smaller government and lower spending.

After pausing to think several times during her carefully worded answer, she seemed to realize that she hadn’t matched the candor displayed by her audience.

“I’m making it sound like I’m maybe not answering the question correctly,” she said, “but I sort of feel like I can’t answer it fully without taking a lot more time, because Democrats and Republicans, even amongst themselves, differ a lot … it’s hard to pigeonhole each Democrat and each Republican.”

She rallied, though, with some standard-sounding rhetoric about the dangers of extreme partisanship. It’s her hope, she said, that members of both parties will “work together” and “put the politics aside” like she and other South Dakota leaders did when they helped save Ellsworth Air Force Base from the Pentagon’s closure list last year.

The next question came from eighth-grader Sarah Magnuson, who wanted to know if Herseth aspires to the nation’s highest political office. Herseth turned the question around, asking Magnuson if she herself would ever consider running for president. Magnuson said she would, and Herseth said “Great! Then I would, too.”

Actually, Herseth said, she does not foresee herself running for anything except “the Congress” until “2010, 2014 or 2020.” Interestingly, those last two dates are separated by the same number of years as a term in the U.S. Senate.

Another member of the audience, sixth-grader Casey Talaga, wanted to know about congressional salaries. Herseth, who stood with a handheld microphone on the floor of the school gymnasium, said she makes $155,000.

The statement sent a shiver through the mass of students, seated in the bleachers on one side of the gym.

Herseth acknowledged that her salary is far higher than that of most South Dakotans.

“But you know, I’ve got to tell you I’m really glad that I can put some of my extra earnings toward paying back my student loans,” said Herseth, referring to her Georgetown education.

Herseth delved further into her personal life when she responded to a question about her childhood goals, posed by seventh-grader Brooke Mathey.

Herseth said she took naturally to politics, having grown up in a family that included a grandmother who was secretary of state, a grandfather who was governor, and a father who was a legislator. As Herseth progressed through her junior year of college, she thought of returning to South Dakota to practice law and run for the Legislature or even attorney general.

“And then my parents got divorced, and I was not much into politics anymore, and I wanted to get fluent in Spanish,” she said. “So I went down to Ecuador for a summer, turned my back on politics and thought, ‘I’m just going to get my law degree, I’m going to practice law and I’m going to teach.’ ”

Later, her passion for politics was re-ignited when she was invited to a Democratic retreat in the Black Hills by former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle. It was there that people began encouraging her to run for the state’s open U.S. House seat, which she eventually lost to former Gov. Bill Janklow.

After Janklow resigned the seat following his involvement in a fatal traffic accident, Herseth won a special election and served the remainder of Janklow’s term. She won a full term in the next election and is seeking re-election this year.

After the assembly ended, Herseth took a tour of the school. In one of the two classrooms she visited, a student asked Herseth about her marital and family status.

Herseth, who has never married and has no children, said she is dating a man from Texas who has children from a previous marriage. She was apparently speaking of former U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Texas, with whom she has been linked in numerous Washington gossip articles and political Internet blogs.

Herseth’s appearance was the result of an invitation she received from Mitchell seventh-grader Marissa Tubbs. The school visit lasted almost two hours, until Herseth left for an appearance at the local hospital. She was on the last leg of a whirlwind travel schedule that took her recently to Iraq, the state capitol in Pierre and numerous other locations in South Dakota.

Her many travels and speeches have been contrasted by silence from the Republican Party, from which nobody has stepped forward as a November opponent.

“I’ll eventually have one,” she said as she left the school. “It may not be until after the state Legislature, but I hope that it’s taken them this long to recruit someone because many people, even Republicans, feel that I’m doing a good job representing South Dakota.”

Argus

State Senator Lee Schoenbeck, in an article on campaign finance reform, states that the Argus Leader is a politcal force and it should disclose how it is spending its money:

Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown disagreed.

"It would seem to me that the largest source of funds for political purposes in influencing politics these days would be the Argus Leader checkbook,'' Schoenbeck said.

"We don't get any report to see what they're expending on the Governor's Club litigation or pursuit of Mayor (Dave) Munson, so this isn't actually catching all the political funds out there and certainly not the most effective one in South Dakota.''

The Economist

From the great British weekly, The Economist (subscript. required):

On red alert

Jan 26th 2006 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition

How to prevent the warping of impressionable minds

FANCY being a student mercenary in the culture wars? Go to the University of California's giant Los Angeles campus and take notes—or, better still, tape recordings—of any professor who “just can't stop talking about President Bush, about Howard Dean, about the war in Iraq. If you can help UCLAProfs.com collect information about abusive, one-sided, or off-topic classroom behaviour, we'll pay you for your work.”

This offer—rates as high as $100 with a tape recorder supplied—was made earlier this month by Andrew Jones, a 24-year-old UCLA graduate who once headed the campus's student Republicans and who believes that far too many of UCLA's 3,300 teaching staff are left-wing radicals intent on warping the impressionable minds of their 35,600 students. This week, amid howls of protest from the university, Mr Jones abruptly withdrew the cash incentive, saying he wanted to protect his spies from possible legal action. But he still wants ammunition on Bolshie teachers, and his website, which names some 31 professors who deserve special scrutiny, accuses one of raging about “a Bush Reich” and others of being anti-Israel.

The professors point out that UCLA already lets its students give anonymous evaluations of their teachers. They say Mr Jones, the sole employee and founder of his Bruin Alumni Association, is the real zealot.

The cash-for-tapes ploy may be unsubtle, but it reflects the keenness on the right to tackle what many see as the American left's last redoubt. Mr Jones persuaded a score of well-known local conservatives to serve on his advisory group (though at least three have now resigned). Others on the right want state legislatures to pass “an academic bill of rights” forcing universities to have more politically diverse faculties. Given conservatives' success in changing Congress, the judiciary and the press, pinkish academics have every reason to be scared.

ACTA

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has released a new study entitled "Intellecutal Diversity: Time for Action" (PDF alert).  You can read the accompanying press release here, which reads in part:

In spite of a statement by 30 higher education organizations recognizing the importance of intellectual diversity, a recent survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni shows that not a single institution has taken concrete steps to further that goal.

On June 23, 2005, the American Council on Education and 29 other institutions of higher education issued a “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities” affirming support for “intellectual pluralism and academic freedom.”  The statement responded to growing national concern, underlined by a number of studies, about the one-sided political and ideological tilt of many college and university campuses.  The groups hoped to head off legislative intervention by pledging that the universities would fix the problem themselves.

Vote of Cloture on Alito Nominaton Passes Senate

MSNBC:

The Senate all but guaranteed Samuel Alito’s confirmation as the nation’s 110th Supreme Court justice Monday, shutting down a last-minute attempt by liberals to block the conservative judge’s nomination with a filibuster.

Republican and Democratic senators on a 72-25 vote agreed to end their debate, setting up a Tuesday morning vote on his confirmation to replace retiring moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The 75-25 vote is a very healthy sign for the Senate as a whole.  Lincoln Chafee became the first Republican to announce that he would vote against Alito.  But he voted for cloture. 

Chafee, a self-described “pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican,” was the only member of the Republican Party to announce he would vote against the conservative judge.  Chafee refused to support the Democrats’ filibuster attempt, however. “How are we going to get anything done if we can’t work together?” Chafee asked.

 

Wal-Mart Rules

Our girlfriday has picked up on our Wal-Mart posts (here and here) of some time ago.  Now we have this story about 25,000 residents in the Chicago area applying for 325 positions at the local Wal-Mart.  The irony is that Chicago would not let Wal-Mart build, so the store built just across the city line in an adjacent suburb.  While Prof. Blanchard may have little experience of inner-city poverty, I do, in that very same Windy City of Chicago.  For five years I lived in Chicago's Rogers Park neighborhood and for three of those years I coached 9-12 year-olds in baseball (league champs in year three, btw).  I saw boys with horrible home lives being recruited by gangs at the ages of eleven and twelve.  I saw drug deals go down and lived in a neighborhood with two dozen places to buy booze, but only two banks.  What that neighborhood needed, among other things, was hope, hope brought on by jobs.  Wal-Mart provides people who have few skills the opportunity to get a job and work their way up.  Wal-Mart is no different from any other business in that way.  I worked at a local Target one summer in Chicago, and I saw it happen there.  What's the difference between Wal-Mart and Target?  Wal-Mart is more successful.  Few of us were getting rich at Target and few of us got health insurance, but for some Target was a way out of a bad situation in the inner city.  I wish Wal-Mart of Evergreen Park all the success in the world. 

Paranoia On the Left

Some persons associated with SDP have recently been accused of paranoia because SDP went after David Kranz during the 2004 election.  This blog made a case that he was biased, and that may have been a factor when he was taken off the story.  Here is Chad at CCK.

The Kranz saga, in particular, is disheartening because I know firsthand the guy is committed to upholding high standards of journalism. The fact that the black helicoptors the right swears are closing in on them took him off the beat of the biggest race of his career is a travesty. He worked his ass off for 30+ years and earned the right to cover that race. If Jon Lauck, Jason Van Beek, the hillbilly, and John Thune are proud of that accomplishment, then I think that speaks volumes about their character.

Now, this story has never been part of my portfolio here at SDP, and I have no strong opinions on it.  Chad may be right that the Argus Leader panicked when they took Kranz off the story  But I don't think that accusing a reporter of bias amounts to paranoia.  Its the nature of blogs to exaggerate the one thing and ignore the other, but with so many of them out there, everything gets out eventually.  Kranz's 30+ years of hard work do not isolate him from criticism.

If you want to see what real paranoia looks like, try this piece by Peter Daou.  Tom Bevin, at Real Clear Politics has the scoop. 

THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media: What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.There's a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I'm describing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left.

Now this is a full-tilt conspiracy theory.  Yes, of course 98% of everyone who works in network news has never voted Republican in their lives.  But follow the common thread, oh you who grope in the darkness, and the invisible forces will be made visible to you.  And if you don't want to look for it yourself, there is a chart:

There's a good reason why Daou needs to believe in a conspiracy.  He "directed online rapid response and blog outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign."  It just can't be that he lost fair and square.  The contest must have been rigged!  Of course.  The scales fall from his eyes.

"Flip-flop" took hold as an anti-Kerry theme because it was repeated ad nauseum in the press. And mind you, reporters are far too sophisticated to simply deliver the meme as an accusation; they frame it as a question, they toss it in as an offhanded remark, they run a caption that says it for them, they use the language of Democratic duality and Republican unity, they use polls for cover, they play false equivalency games, they allow Republicans to repeat the narrative unhindered, and so on. This despite the fact that Bush contradicted himself on major policy issues and was a master ‘flip-flopper’ himself. Had the media fact-checked the assertion every time it popped up and had they called Bush a flip-flopper with the same brutal, methodical intensity, the race might have ended differently. One of the few chances Americans got to test the flip-flop meme was the debates, and we all know how those turned out.

Diabological reporters, those, careful crafting each word to favor the Bushies.  That, Chad, is paranoia.

Conrad is a "Yes" On Alito.

Kent Conrad of North Dakota will vote for Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.  Like Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson, two other Demcrats committed to voting Alito in, Conrad is up for re-election this year.  The fourth Democrat, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, is up for re-election in 2008. 

Hamas

Here's a cartoon which fits with this previous post on Hamas:

Intellectual Diversity

Our Intellectual Diversity bill is getting some national attention.  Both Power Line (who linked to us) and Instapundit have taken note, and both approve of the bill.

Cutting Off the Flow of Cash to Palestine

From the Washington Post:

Israeli officials sought support for an international boycott of a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, as leaders of the radical Islamic group said Sunday they did not expect the Bush administration to end funding once they form a cabinet in the coming weeks. Doing so would conflict with the democratic values the administration promotes in the region, they said.

"We don't have any fears," said Saed Siyam, a Hamas candidate elected to parliament last week who frequently serves as the group's emissary to the outside world. "The American and the Europeans have an interest in this also. They will be embarrassed in this part of the world if they punish a people simply for expressing their democratic wishes."

This is nonsense of course.  We wouldn't be cutting off aid because Hamas was elected.  We would be cutting off aid because of how Hamas speaks and acts once its status is official.  I have expressed skepticism that we, let alone Europe, would really do anything that might force Hamas to moderate its behavior.  But maybe I was wrong. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in Jerusalem with acting Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert, said the European Union would not fund the Palestinian Authority if Hamas does not renounce violence and recognize Israel.

If she sticks to that, and (big if) she can bring the rest of Europe with her, then progress might be possible. 

Why the Hamas Victory was a Good Thing

Lets call it the lean, green, mean machine, the Hamas party that has now assumed leadership of the Palestinian people.  I think the victory of Hamas in the recent elections was a good thing.  The Fatah party, on whom the Oslo Accords and the Road map to Peace depended, was the political version of a potato sorter in a french fry factory.  Only instead of sorting large potatoes from small ones, it sorted out large and small bundles of cash floating in from Europe and the U.S.  Small bundles went to buy loyalty from small fry.  If you knew someone who knew someone who was high enough in Fatah to get Arafat's ear, you could get your daughters cleft palate operated on.  Large bundles went to pay off bigger fry, and of course to pad nest eggs in foreign countries.  Whatever the virtues of that system, it had no mechanisms or culture suitable for building a Palestinian state with which one could actually negotiate.  Besides, Fatah is in fact no less committed to terror and the destruction of Israel than Hamas is. 

What about Hamas?  Mark Steyn, writing in the Chciago Sun-Times, has this delicious example:

Mariam Farahat, a mother of three, was elected in Gaza. She used to be a mother of six but three of her sons self-detonated on suicide missions against Israel. She's a household name to Palestinians, known as Um Nidal -- Mother of the Struggle -- and, at the rate she's getting through her kids, the Struggle's all she'll be Mother of. She's famous for a Hamas recruitment video in which she shows her 17-year-old son how to kill Israelis and then tells him not to come back. It's the Hamas version of 42nd Street: You're going out there a youngster but you've got to come back in small pieces.

Well, isn't that worse than mere corruption?  No.  Steyn explains why.

So what happens now? Either Hamas forms a government and decides that operating highway departments and sewer systems is what it really wants to do with itself. Or, like Arafat, it figures that it has no interest in government except as a useful front for terrorist operations. If it's the former, all well and good: Many first-rate terror organizations have managed to convert themselves to third-rate national-liberation governments. But, if it's the latter, that too is useful: Hamas is the honest expression of the will of the Palestinian electorate, and the cold hard truth of that is something Europeans and Americans will find hard to avoid.

In fact it might be both.  Hamas might be really effective in building a real government in Gaza, and still regard that government primarily as a vehicle for terrorism.  But at least one knows with whom one is dealing, or who one is lobbing missiles at.  States are easier to get at than shadowy factions.  And Hamas may suddenly discover that it has something to loose.  That's a basis for negotiations.

One small sign of promise, though I wouldn't put much stock in it, is that there is suddenly a lot of talk about cutting off the flow of money to the Palestinian leadership.  Up until now we have been paying the Palestinians to do exactly what we don't want them to do: make war.  The more bombers then sent into Israel, the more people said: we have got to cure the underlying poverty by sending them more cash.  But all we were buying was the pretense of partnership.  Maybe someone will seriously contemplate cutting off the milk of kindness until Hamas reciprocates.  But I wouldn't hold my breath for that.  If the Palestinians are caught up in a cycle of violence and corruption, the West is caught up in a cycle of cash payments for empty words.  Perhaps a twelve step program is in order.

Historical Musings

I wish I had discovered this earlier.  This year's annual meeting of the American Historical Association in Philadelphia had a round table session entitled "Were All the World a Blog: History Bloggers and History Blogging."  Blogging is still a very fresh medium that has a long way to go before any major readership develops.  However, it appears that academic history blogs (and, I would assume, many other academic disciplines) are embracing the new medium as a research tool (i.e., allowing the free flow of ideas and opinions, organizing information for books, etc.).  You can read an introduction to academic history blogs here, and an article on the virtues of blogging here by blogger Rebecca Goetz.

Keillor on the "New Tocqueville"

Garrison Keillor, host and writer of "A Prairie Home Companion," has a hilarious review of the book American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville by the so-called "new Tocqueville" Bernard-Henri Lévy in today's New York Times. 

Johnson & Alito

Dave Kranz states the obvious today when he notes in his Argus Leader column that some Democrats are not happy about Senator Johnson's vote in favor of Judge Alito:

When Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson said last week that he would vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Clark Butler of Sioux Falls, a World War II veteran and staunch Democrat, went to his computer and rifled off a brief e-mail message to his long list of contacts.

“For a very short time, South Dakota had three Democrats in D.C. We now have three Republicans.”

Johnson’s political army takes differing attitudes on his Alito vote.

It was either the safe way out, further cushioning himself from a tough re-election battle in 2008, or it was doing what he believed was the right thing.

Johnson explained his support this way: “... I must conclude that Judge Alito possesses a high level of legal skill, is a man of solid personal integrity, and that his views fall within the mainstream of contemporary conservative jurisprudential thinking. At the conclusion of Senate floor debate, I will oppose any effort to filibuster his nomination, and I will vote to confirm Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court.”

Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst with the Cook Political Report, says Johnson is smart – he understands the implications and risks that come with being a Democratic senator from South Dakota in this political environment.

“It’s hard to think of a reason for him not to vote for Alito. He is qualified. He did well in the hearings, and a vote against him simply looks partisan,” Duffy said.

Everything Johnson does is viewed through 2008 model glasses now.

“Every vote he makes is relevant. This is a high-stakes vote. Every vote plays into the re-election,” she said.