Kranz and "Obstructionism"

Democratic shill Argus Leader political reporter Dave Kranz writes today in the Argus Leader that Senator John Thune has become an "obstructionist," thus hitting a hypocritical note after Daschle was marked as an obstructionist.  Where to begin?  The point here is to shed light on what sort of institution the Argus Leader is, offered because people have a right to know.  Unfortunately, the Argus Leader elite takes issue with the public's right to know.

For one, the vote was not to end debate but to continue it.  The reason for the vote against cloture is because the Democrats would not allow the Republicans to offer an amendment.  Harry Reid refused to let the Republicans engage in open debate, but Kranz conveniently ignored that.  See Power Line and Captain's Quarters for more.  Therefore, Thune's actions do not represent "obstructionism."  The same couldn't be said for Daschle in 2004.  Long-time readers will recall the Wall Street Journal article entitled "Daschle's Dead Zone," remarking that "the filibuster has become a tool to block an entire legislative program that had won a mandate from the voters. All of this has been part of a deliberate political strategy by Minority Leader Tom Daschle" who made the Senate into a "reform graveyard."  Let's remember that the Argus Leader did nothing to chronicle the long list of bills supported by many South Dakotas that Tom Daschle blocked in Congress.  But when the Democrats block the Republicans from offering an amendment on the Senate floor, Kranz rushes to his computer to label Senator Thune an obstructionist.

Kranz tries to be "objective" by quoting Michael Barone, who concludes that Thune doesn't deserve the criticism.  But Kranz ends up concluding that Thune's actions are "[at odds with] the country's pride in free speech."  Not hardly.  It's clear that Kranz is simply taking talking points from those who have been raising the "obstructionism" point for weeks.  His national reputation as a Democratic hatchet man is well deserved. 

Can we trust the reporting of someone who, as this blog has long pointed out, cannot remain objective when covering Republican politicians?  Or, for that matter, a newspaper who has an editor, one Patrick Lalley, that thinks Republicans are "evil," despises Reaganism, and who once ran an alternative leftist newspaper in Sioux Falls?  Given Lalley's track record, along with Kranz's, given how very few sources of political information there is in this state besides the monopoly control the Argus has, given that editors on the Argus board are predisposed to see Republicans as "evil," given the boosterism often afforded to Daschle and other Democrats, and given the long past of complains about liberal bias at the Argus, can we trust this information?  Now I don't know Kranz or Lalley personally and I'm sure they're both fine guys.  I admire their passion for what they believe in and their interest in politics.  But the ultimate question is whether or not you can trust political reporting from the Argus when it involves Republicans.  Obviously, I think Thune is a great guy and I'll help him in any way I can.  Since I have a preference, I shouldn't be expected to make similar editorial calls on what constitutes political news.  Given what we know about the institutional bias within the Argus, I believe a reasonable case can be made that some folks in their newsroom shouldn't be making such calls either.  The blogs never claim to be objective, as the Argus does.  I make no attempt to hide my pro-Thune point-of-view, so the public is not deceived as it is routinely by journalistic agendas.  The Argus Leader, the paragon of of truth and crusader of openness and transparency can't see past its own biases to report the facts honestly.

UPDATE:  Patrick Lalley responds to my post, so head over and read it.  Lalley does make the point that it's unfair and wrong to call Kranz a Democratic shill when compared to the article he wrote last week about Stephanie Herseth's shifting war position.  He doesn't, however, address that Kranz never took issue with Herseth changing her stance, but took a major issue with Thune's vote to "end debate," which is a myth the media continues to perpetuate.   And no, I don't demand that Kranz write columns that only show Senator Thune in a positive light, I only wish they would get the facts straight.  There's a huge difference between "ending debate" and voting against cloture and then insinuating that he's an obstructionist.

As for Lalley's charge that I'm misrepresenting him when I quote him as saying Republicans are "evil," check out Jason Van Beeks' post and Lalley's post and read the old writings and make your own decision.