South Dakota Politics

"We Are The Change We've Been Waiting For"

I too noted that David Brooks piece addressed by Ken Blanchard.  Let me start in the same place but go somewhere else. 

Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.

A cursory look at some of the central documents of our founding show this theory to be at best foolish and at worst deeply dangerous.  In the famous Federalist #10 and again in Federalist #51 James Madison argues that self-interest can't be overcome, so instead it must be channeled to the public good. (A separate question is whether a republic can survive on mere self-interest.)

In Federalist #10 he argues that the seeds of faction have been "sown into human nature."  The solution to faction, i.e., self-interested politics, lies in multiplying the interests in society so that no one interest can attain a majority.  In the clash of interests something approximating justice will derive. 

In #51 he argues not that we should seek to rid politics of ambition, but that we should make "ambition counteract ambition."  At the end of #51 Madison worries about the impatience the public might have with democracy.  Legislation, it has been said, is like sausage: you like the outcome by you don't want to see it made.  Madison worries that the unbecoming nature of the clash of interests that produces legislation will try the people's patience and desire for purity.  They may seek a "will independent of society," a will independent of the clash of interests, to govern them. 

Barack Obama addresses that impatience with self-interest with a demagogic appeal to the people.  What does the solipsism "We are the change we've been waiting for" mean if not that we should indulge ourselves in the notion that what the collective "we" want is good and pure and "we" are only thwarted by the self-interested "they"?  This is similar to the awful "We Are The World" tripe of the 1980s.  What presents itself as a victory over self-interest is really just an appeal to self-indulgence.  Obama's message is a mere palliative, soothing the patient without curing the disease.  Contrast Obama's rhetoric with John McCain's appeal to patriotism and self-sacrifice as a way to over come self-interest.  While McCain has problems of his own on this matter, his is a much more ennobling appeal.  McCain wants you to go beyond your self-interest through service to others; Obama wants you to overcome your self-interest by losing yourself in the mob. 

One may look to the latest hip video produced to bolster Obama's campaign as evidence.  It is almost purely an appeal to passion, particularly with the chanting of "Obama! Obama!" to set the rhythm. Topped off with the Che Guevara-like iconography, the video has the feel of a worship service with Barack Obama as God.  The video puts one to mind of the Fordson Community Singery in Huxley's Brave New World.  Group recitation of bad poetry culminates in the chanting of "Ford! Ford!" and then...Orgy Porgy.  All in the name of building community and breaking down individualism.

The President reached   out his hand; and suddenly a Voice, a deep strong Voice, more musical than any   merely human voice, richer, warmer, more vibrant with love and yearning and   compassion, a wonderful, mysterious, supernatural Voice spoke from above their   heads. Very slowly, "Oh, Ford, Ford, Ford," it said diminishingly and on a   descending scale. A sensation of warmth radiated thrillingly out from the   solar plexus to every extremity of the bodies of those who listened; tears   came into their eyes; their hearts, their bowels seemed to move within them,   as though with an independent life. "Ford!" they were melting, "Ford!"   dissolved, dissolved. Then, in another tone, suddenly, startlingly. "Listen!"   trumpeted the voice. "Listen!" They listened. After a pause, sunk to a   whisper, but a whisper, somehow, more penetrating than the loudest cry. "The   feet of the Greater Being," it went on, and repeated the words: "The feet of   the Greater Being." The whisper almost expired. "The feet of the Greater Being   are on the stairs." And once more there was silence; and the expectancy,   momentarily relaxed, was stretched again, tauter, tauter, almost to the   tearing point. The feet of the Greater Being–oh, they heard them, they heard   them, coming softly down the stairs, coming nearer and nearer down the   invisible stairs. The feet of the Greater Being. And suddenly the tearing   point was reached. Her eyes staring, her lips parted. Morgana Rothschild   sprang to her feet.      

"I hear him," she cried. "I hear him."

One flatters, indulges, and impassions the mob at great peril.  It isn't clear what is more disturbing, if Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing or if he has no clue.   

Emperor Obama's Clothes Becomes Transparent

David Brooks does the best job of showing the problem that Barack Obama now faces. 

Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.

Obama has built his entire campaign on this theory. He’s run against negativity and cheap-shot campaigning. He’s claimed that there’s an “awakening” in this country — people “hungry for a different kind of politics.”

This message has made him the front-runner. It has brought millions of new voters into politics. It has given him grounds to fend off attacks. In debate after debate, he has accused Hillary Clinton and others of practicing the old kind of politics. When he was under assault in South Carolina, he rose above the barrage and made the Clintons look sleazy.

Brooks notes that a lot of voices are urging Obama to get mean against Senator Clinton.  See here, here, and here.  But Obama has based his entire campaign on being "above politics."  Getting down and dirty is what we expect from a Clinton, but it undermines Obama's basic argument.  To the degree that he does it, we realize that he is just one more politician. 

The trouble is, the cat is already out of the bag.  Obama has been campaigning as if he were four square opposed to NAFTA.  But then his senior economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, told the Canadians that it was all just for show.  It was mere "political positioning," and had nothing to do with the policies that Obama would really pursue.  That looks a lot like politics as usual.  The Obama campaign resolutely denied this story.  Then a document surfaced that confirmed the story.  That looks a lot like lying. 

Then there is the Samatha Powers story.  Professor Powers, another "senior Obama adviser", was forced to resign after she called Hillary Clinton a monster in an interview.  Less attention has been paid to what she said about her candidate and Iraq.  She said that President Obama wouldn't withdraw from Iraq "in 16 months" if the circumstances didn't warrant it.  But of course that means that Obama doesn't have a position on Iraq, or at least, none that differs from Senators Clinton or McCain. 

The Obama Campaign, like the Seinfeld show, is about nothing.  Maybe it will get four or even eight seasons.  But if it ever becomes about something, it will be long after the voters have made their choice.  Just right now, the would-be emperor's clothes are looking rather threadbare.   

Argus Editorial Scolds Johnson's Negative Campaign

From this morning's Argus Leader:

As much as we might have hoped that the days of negative campaigning were behind us, that clearly is not the case. Every election cycle, it seems, is earlier and dirtier than the last.

And while we would have hoped Sen. Tim Johnson would swim against that rising tide of negativity, his campaign for re-election already has been part of problem.

...

It also bears mentioning that at the time the site went up, Kirby was not a candidate for anything - still isn’t, in fact. There will be plenty of time, in the months to come, for Johnson and others to make his case for re-election. Should our campaigns really involve attacking private citizens even before they’re in the race? As if there weren’t already enough disincentives to getting involved in the political process.

Johnson deserves credit for asking that the site be taken down, at least until Kirby actually is a candidate for office. But that doesn't get him - or the group that was behind the site - off the hook.

UPDATE:  SD Moderate is adding to the blogosphere criticism of Tim Johnson and has some additional thoughts about Badlands Blue.

Jim Jordan

Note that Badlands Blue, the blog of the South Dakota Democratic Party, is trumpeting this news about Jim Jordan.  Now note this very famous South Dakota episode involving Jordan:

Sen. Larry Pressler Friday accused Rep. Tim Johnson’s campaign of orchestrating the gay issue to damage Pressler’s re-election bid and said Johnson’s press secretary had boasted about that strategy weeks ago.

During a conference call Thursday morning, Pressler told reporters that Johnson’s press secretary, Jim Jordan, had bragged that the Johnson forces “were going to cut my liver out with this smear.”

When contacted about the charge immediately after the conference call, Jordan declined to comment, saying he would release a prepared statement.

He later faxed a denial of Pressler’s charge, calling the allegations “silly.”

Jordan said “no such conversation ever took place.  Congressman Johnson has condemned this attack on Senator Pressler and said those responsible should apologize.”

Johnson said Friday afternoon that he supports his press secretary and dismissed Pressler’s charges as a desperate act.

However, Pressler said KELO-TV reporter Vernon Brown had heard Jordan’s remarks, as did one of Pressler’s aides.  Pressler also cited a letter to him from a Rapid City woman, Jane Rogers, that said she was told months ago by a member of Johnson’s staff that “some bad stuff was going to come out about you later in the campaign.”

The letter continued: “Johnson’s staff member went on to say that a book had been written which accused you of being gay.”

Latest Johnson News

While Virginia Lowell gloats over his efforts to stalk and intimidate the Kirby family, Cory Heidelberger represents yet another Democrat denouncing the sliming of Steve Kirby by the Johnson campaign. 

One question yet to be asked is what is Tim Johnson's culpability in this unseemly episode.  Steve Jarding is Johnson's campaign manager.  Virginia Lowell Feld works for Steve Jarding.  If Virginia Lowell has people stalking the Kirby family, and he admits that he does, did Tim Johnson know about it?  Did he approve of this tactic of attacking Steve Kirby and spying on his family? 

Steve Kirby represents a great threat to the Johnson campaign.  While Johnson looks tough to beat, surely his campaign is hoping for a weak opponent so Tim Johnson has to do a minimum amount of campaigning.  Steve Kirby's personal wealth virtually guarantees his ability to mount a credible campaign.  By credible I mean a campaign that can garner over 40% of the vote.  That being the case, Johnson cannot pull a Herseth on Steve Kirby.  Stephanie Herseth could ignore Bruce Whalen because Whalen was so far behind it didn't matter.  But when an opponent is within reasonable striking distance it becomes an embarrassment for the incumbent to duck debates and avoid probing questions.  The Johnson solution appears to be to intimidate Steve Kirby into not even running by stalking him and family and by trashing his reputation.  Apparently we'll know next week if this strategy is a success.

Update: The Argus presents its own criticisms of the Johnson campaign. 

Update II: Meanwhile, the Johnson campaign's favorite website, Daily Kos, is attacking Steve Kirby once again. 

Give Me A Higher Ed

From Inside Higher Ed.  Congress appears to be squelching the federal Department of Education's attempts to do to higher education what they have done to k-12, namely micromanage it and make standardization and quantification the heart and soul of "assessment." 

Which has made it all the more frustrating to Secretary Margaret Spellings and her aides that Congress is poised to shut them down. Bills that both the House and Senate have passed to renew the Higher Education Act would bar the Education Department from promulgating federal rules to guide accrediting agencies on what and how they should assess colleges’ efforts to measure student learning. The measures would also make clear that colleges, rather than accreditors, have primary responsibility for setting standards for student learning.

College leaders, who last spring fought tooth and nail against the department’s efforts to impose a set of new regulations governing accreditation, lobbied Congress hard to limit the department’s work on accreditation.

A fight between the Department of Education and the accrediting bodies is to me a little like Florida versus Florida State in college football: I root for injuries.  Both are sets of education bureaucrats who have odd notions of what true education entails.  If Congress really wanted to do higher ed a favor it would remove accreditation as a requirement for receipt of federal funds, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. 

The threat of a higher education version of No Child Left Behind has intimidated schools across the nation to impose on themselves the same silly rules that the federal government would impose.  This story indicates that those fears are unfounded.  A colleague told me the other day that Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin recently told my colleague that there was no chance that any No Child Left Behind regime would ever be extended to higher education.  So efforts on the part of university systems to preempt such an occurrence are a disservice to liberal education. 

Terrorist Attack In Israel

Eight students were killed by a gunman at a seminary in Israel.  The terrorist group Hamas, also known in some quarters as a "partner in peace," praised the attack as "heroic." 

The Race Card & the Super Delegates

Our friend Victor U. sends me this note, by Michael Graham in the Boston Herald:

I had a series of fascinating conversations with local supers yesterday, asking them about what I call Barack Obama’s “one-delegate firewall.”

When the primary process is over, if Obama has even just one more pledged (read “elected”) delegate than Clinton, he absolutely will be the Democratic nominee. Because the Democratic Party in 2008 is never going to say to a viable black candidate, “Oh, I’m so sorry. I know you won the primary, but we’re giving the nomination to the white lady.”

Not gonna happen. Period.  If I’m right, then the primary is essentially over.

Now Graham does properly emphasize and heretofore under-emphasized point: that if Obama is denied the nomination when it looks like he won it fair and square, African-American voters will feel betrayed.  And the problem right now is that the super delegates are going to have to make the decision, and it is not at all clear what standards they ought to use.

But Graham clearly over-emphasizes the significance of winning a plurality of the pledged delegates.  The rules to do not say that this entitles you to the nomination.  The rules say that 2,025 delegate votes entitles you to the nomination.  Nor do the rules provide any guidance for the super delegates.  And that is a problem, because it is going to be very hard for the lot of them to come to some agreement on criteria, let alone on one of the two candidates. 

It may well be true that a lot of Democrats are going to feel betrayed if Obama doesn't get the nomination.   But that will happen no matter who has more delegates or a greater share of the poplar vote.  And a lot of Democrats will feel betrayed if Hillary doesn't get it.  I think the super delegates have to try to arrange a joint ticket.  The hard part will be deciding who gets second chair.  But there is a distinct possibility that a lot of Democrats have been voting against one of the two rather than for anybody.  In that case,  joint ticket might unite both sides against the middle. 

Epp: Johnson Attacks "unprecedented in South Dakota politics"

Our friend and Democratic blogosphere colleague Todd Epp writes: "The ferocity of the Johnson campaign’s preemptive strike on Kirby, in my recollection, is unprecedented in South Dakota politics. We normally have to get into the bowels of a campaign before such personal attack crops up.  The attacks are unseemly and nonsubstantive. They are the politics of personal destruction. It is 'politics as usual.' . . . I typically expect hope and class to die at some point in a major political campaign. I just never figured it would be my side wielding the knife so early in the process."  Read it all.

Super Delegate Sweepstakes: Who Gets First Chair?

The Democrats have come around to seeing things my way.  I suggested weeks ago that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be very hard to beat.  But I found it much easier to imagine a ticket in that order, than one in reverse.  The Democrats are clearly thinking about this, but the outcome depends on the remaining contests, and especially on Pennsylvania. 

Neither Ms. Clinton nor Mr. Obama are likely to get enough pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses to secure nomination.  Each will then have to make an argument to swing over enough super delegates, those unpledged free radicals who are there precisely for this sort of emergency.  What arguments will the candidates use?

1. I won the most popular votes.  It looks like this one will be available to Obama. Clinton cut his lead in popular votes from a million to about 700,000.  She will pick up votes in Penn., but lose them in Mississippi and North Carolina.  She will try to get Florida's vote included in the total, which it shouldn't be.  But its a judgment call, which each Super Delegate will make for his or herself.  There is a chance that Michigan and Florida will have a second primary, but that will probably be a wash.  The popular vote has no legitimate claim in the process, but it will be very hard to ignore.
2. I won the most delegates.  That is a strong claim, but "most pledged delegates" has no force in the rules.  What matters is getting to the magic number.  Under the rules, the super delegates can do what they  want.  They could just as well go for Kucinich. 
3. I won the big states.  This clearly favors Hillary, who won California, New York, and Massachusetts.  But that doesn't help much.  Those three are not going to go Republican, short of disaster, and Texas ain't goin' Democrat. 
4. I won the battleground states.  That matters. Did Hillary win Ohio or did Obama lose it?  If the latter, can he win it in November?  It is here that the primary schedule debacle is a real problem.  Obama was on the ballot in Florida, but didn't campaign there out of respect for the DNC rules.  Clinton did campaign.  So we don't know if he could do well in this battleground state.

This is what the Democrats should do.  All super delegates should let go any previous commitments.  Things have changed.  They should coordinate as much as possible and come to a consensus.  They should ignore both the popular vote and the delegate totals: nothing in the rules says they have to consider them.  They should consider only which candidate has the best chance to win in November.  Once that decision is made, the party as a whole should use all its influence to make sure that both candidates are on the ticket. 

In this year of surprises, no one can be sure of anything.  But a Clinton/Obama or even an Obama/Clinton ticket looks very strong. 

A South Dakotan At Iwo Jima

A longtime reader of SDP alerts me to an article in South Dakota Magazine entitled "Unknown No More: Jack Thurman Takes His Place in Iwo Jima History."  The story is about Sgt. Jack Thurman, one of the men who is in Joe Rosenthal's famous Iwo Jima photographs.  He grew up on a dairy farm outside Mitchell, South Dakota, and enrolled at the Notre Dame School in Mitchell before volunteering for the Marines as soon as he turned eighteen-years-old (his father refused to sign the necessary paperwork when he was seventeen, saying he needed him on the farm).  Last year during the University of Colorado's game against the Missouri Tigers, Thurman served as the honorary captain for the coin toss.  Thurman, an architect by trade after his time in the service, helped design several of the buildings on the CU campus.

The South Dakota Magazine articles notes that every man in the photograph below was identified by Rosenthal except Thurman, who simply remained the "unknown" -- and remained unknown for fifty-five years.  Thurman served with the Marine Corps 5th Division, 27th Regiment, but volunteered to help the 28th Regiment secure Mount Suribachi in 1945.  He's currently working on a memoir of his military career, which I will anxiously keep an eye out for.  Since I don't think I can legally reprint or redistribute a copy of the article, be sure to check out the March/April 2008 edition of South Dakota Magazine.   

Thurman is on the far left of the photograph, waving his cap.  Just in front of Thurman sits Ira Hayes.  John Bradley, Franklin Sousey, and Mike Strank -- three others who appeared in the Iwo Jima flag-raising photo -- are also pictured here.  Check out James Bradley's Flags of our Fathers for a personal look at the men involved in the flag raising.  Bradley's book was later adopted for screenplay by Clint Eastwood, which I'm sure many of your saw.

Explaining Hillary's Comeback

After Super Tuesday I argued down in Atlanta that Clinton still had a chance because the demographics of states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio favored her.  But after the Wisconsin loss, I largely counted her out.  As I argued here, my rationale was that her loss in Wisconsin showed that Obama's momentum had won over those demographic groups.  I looked up Ohio and Wisconsin in the Almanac of American Politics.  They are very similar states demographically.  While Wisconsin is slightly more rural, both states are fairly white and German with large Catholic populations.  They have the almost same percentage of white collar and blue collar workers and have roughly the same percentages of racial minorities. 

Obama has had a tough week or so.  The indictment of Obama pal Tony Rezko and the obfuscation over trade with Canada made him look like a typical politician: a corrupt trimmer.  Perhaps he has shown the political equivalent of a glass jaw.  He seemed easily frustrated about having to answer questions over the Rezko affair. 

Perhaps this explains why Clinton did so well in Ohio. Obama's momentum has been halted.  That causes the voters to go back to voting their interests as opposed to voting with the bandwagon.  As Jay Cost shows, Clinton not only won back her key constituencies (white women, union members, self-identified Democrats, etc.), she actually improved over her previous victories.  Meanwhile Obama's support slipped among core constituencies, especially among white Protestants, where he got creamed (I shiny new donkey to anyone who can explain that). 

If one looks ahead to upcoming contests, Clinton looks strong in places such as Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia.  Obama should win Mississippi, Oregon and North Carolina, perhaps even Kentucky.  Other states don't seem to have a clear favorite. 

It also seems that defying all prediction, the South Dakota primary now is important.  It will not decide the nomination, but it helps each candidate make their argument.  Obama, who is almost certain to win the delegate count, needs to win that count by as big a margin as possible to bolster his claim.  Clinton, by contrast, needs that margin to be small so her potential popular vote victory becomes a more credible claim to victory.  I must go back on my previous declaration that South Dakota's primary is unlikely to be important. 

Clinton V. Obama: Candidate Death Match!

One hates to comment on how much fun the Democratic nomination contest is for fear of jinxing it.  It is clear after last night that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will gain enough pledged delegates to secure their party's nomination.  Despite Nancy Pelosi's claim that the voters will select the nominee, the numbers just don't add up.  Clinton needs to win over 94% of all remaining delegates to get to the magic number 2025, while Obama needs 77%.   Clinton can't get a sufficient number of delegates and Obama won't. 

This sets up a contest over who can best argue they are the legitimate choice of the Democratic Party.  As Jay Cost argued the other day, Clinton must move ahead in the popular vote to have any claim to the nomination.  Right now, looking at RCP, Clinton is about 600,000 votes behind Obama, not counting Florida.  If she can win the popular vote, she can then argue that she best represents the party.  Obama will argue that his lead in the delegate count and the fact that he won more states bolsters his claim to legitimacy. 

Interestingly, this will in some sense be a replay of the Bush-Gore argument over Florida in 2000. Obama is in the Bush role, arguing that we should be governed by rules set before the contest (those rules include excluding Florida and Michigan).  Also, substituting the delegate count for the electoral college, Obama will argue that it is not the popular vote that grants authority, but the delegate count and his wins in more states.  Obama also is acting like the inevitable victor (see here and here) in an attempt to portray Clinton as desperate and pathetic.  We might look to see if Obama ignores Clinton, making her seem irrelevant.  Clinton will argue that the will of the people cannot be ignored, including the wills of Michigan and Floridan voters.  We cannot disenfranchise those voters, she will claim.

How people will respond to these competing arguments I wouldn't want to guess.  But we now have, essentially, an argument about democratic theory facing the Democratic party. 

Argus Bias

SDWC notes a case of Argus Leader bias in favor of Tim Johnson.

The Conflagellation Of Democrats

Mareen Dowd, in the New York Times:

With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.

People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?

Twenty First Century Schizoid Party

Well ...  Here are the numbers from yesterday's Democratic session on the couch, courtesy of the CNN Election Center.  Clinton wins:

Ohio Primary    Clinton 54-Obama 44%
Texas Primary    Clinton 51-Obama 47%

That is the really big news.  Of course, this is New Hampshire II: she loses a big lead and makes it look like a big victory.  But 10% in Ohio is impressive.  On the other hand, it looks like Obama is winning the Texas Democratic caucuses.  If so, he will probably walk away from the Lone Star State with more delegates. 

Elsewhere, the results indicate a general schizophrenia in the Democratic Party.  Clinton wins Rhode Island by 18%.  Obama wins Vermont by 22%. Those are pretty wild swings for two states that close together.  In Ohio, Obama won the cities and Clinton won everything else.  Obama won the Black vote, as expected by wide margins: 5 or 6 to 1.  In both Ohio and Texas, about a third of Senator Obama's vote came from African Americans.  In Ohio, Ms. Clinton's vote was almost solidly white, with about 56% being white women. In Texas, about 38% of  Senator Clinton's vote was Latino. 

What is clear at this point is that the Democratic electorate can't make up its collective mind.  Wild swings for one or the other in the various states indicates a party that is fragmented.  USA Today has a good summary of why Ms. Clinton can't win the nomination without super delegates.  But in light of yesterday's results, it seems almost as likely that Obama can't do so either.  It really will be down to super delegates, and as I have said Hillary is going to have a hard time making that case if she trails Obama in both the popular vote and the delegate count. 

Dems Stalked Kirby

SDWC:  "Dem’s admit stalking Kirby. All in good clean 'fun?'."  The Democrats are really screwing up Johnson's campaign.  Instead of being the victim, he's the smear campaigner.

Hillary Surges! She's Still A Long Shot

Democratic Delegates (2,025 needed to win nomination)

Candidate	Delegates
Hillary Clinton	1,276
John Edwards	26
Mike Gravel	0
Barack Obama	1,386
Total (5:50 this afternoon)	2,688

Ms. Clinton looks poised to win at two of the three important contests tonight: the Ohio Primary, the Texas Primary, and the Texas Caucus.  Exit polls suggest that some of her key support groups have come back to her in these states, including Hispanics.  She seems to have convinced a lot of people that she is indeed the more qualified candidate for the job.  That's a lot of good news for a candidate that looked dead in the water a week ago. 

On the other hand, only big wins in all three contests would give her an appreciable gain toward nomination.  As it looks too close to call at this hour, I am guessing that big wins are not in the cards.  With South Carolina and Mississippi coming up, it just doesn't look like Ms. Clinton can win enough pledged delegates to put her over the edge. 

Now it seem to be the case that, if Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she will make it impossible for Obama to win the nomination outright, though he will probably come out ahead. That means the super delegates will indeed decide the nomination, and Hillary then has at least a chance to win enough of them over. 

But that is going to be a hard case to make.  So far, Obama has nearly a million more popular votes than she does, and will probably have a substantial lead in pledged delegates.  Will the super delegates really over-ride the process and the popular vote to crown Ms. Clinton?  That happens only if there is a massive turn of Democratic opinion nationally away from Obama and toward her.  In this year of comebacks, it is hardly impossible.  But it is a very tall order.

More on Johnson/Kirby

Seth Tupper reports in my hometown paper, the Mitchell Daily Republic, that "whether Kirby's in or out, the campaign against him is on."  Excerpt:

Technically, U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., will not know his November re-election opponent until the June 3 Republican primary.

In practice, though, a vigorous campaign already is raging between Democrats and Republicans over the potential candidacy of former South Dakota Lt. Gov. Steve Kirby.

Kirby, a Republican, has said he will decide this week whether to run for his party’s nomination. A call to Kirby’s Sioux Falls office went unreturned Monday afternoon, but a Johnson spokesman said an announcement from Kirby is anticipated today.

The mere possibility of a Kirby candidacy was enough for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last week to post an anti-Kirby Web site devoted to what the DSCC called Kirby’s “mudslinging politics and disturbing business ventures.”

The Web site address, www.10thchoice.com, is a reference to Kirby’s supposed status as the Republican Party’s 10th choice to run against Johnson.

The DSCC did not stop there, though. The posting of the Web site was followed by announcements that the DSCC had contributed $125,000 to the South Dakota Democratic Party and that Johnson led Kirby 70 percent to 19 percent in a DSCC-commissioned poll.

Two days prior to the DSCC’s opening shot against Kirby, nationally known liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas wrote a column labeling Kirby the “GOP’s flesh-eating zombie candidate” — a reference to a past controversy over investments by Kirby’s Bluestem Capital into a company that used cadaver skin in cosmetic surgery products.

Check out the rest of the story.  Tupper has a few other observations on the Johnson/Kirby shenanigans at his blog.  Also, more criticism from the South Dakota GOP.

McCain Wins! Hucakebee Out

John McCain won enough delegates today to assure him the nomination, and Mike Huckabee gracefully bowed out.  McCain gave a speech just a short while ago.  On Iraq, he said he would continue to defend the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, but stressed that we are in Iraq and we have to succeed there.  He repeatedly challenged the Democratic contenders on their defeatism, protectionism and anti-business rhetoric.  His best line may have been: "if you want to keep jobs from going abroad, maybe you shouldn't make it hard to do business at home."  That was followed by challenges on issues of taxation and regulation.  It is a pretty solidly conservative program. 

McCain has some big obstacles to overcome: public disapproval of the war, concern over the state of the economy, lackluster fund raising.  But he is starting out with more courage than we have seen from any Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.  He is definitely not telling people everything they want to hear.  It should be a good race.

Down To Zero Hit Points

Gary Gygax has died.  If you need an explanation it's probably because you had a life in high school.  HT, John Moser.

More Johnson News

Pat Powers notes that Congress.org has ranked Tim Johnson as the 90th most influential senator.  To put this in perspective, the only Democrats rated as less influential are freshmen Robert Casey, Jon Tester, Amy Klobuchar.  John Thune is ranked #77. 

Steve Kirby's Mom Wears Army Boots

That's about the only insult left to throw at Steve Kirby.  The South Dakota Democratic Party is at it again, this time with a "Top 10 List" as to why Steve Kirby is a poopy pants.  This further reveals the cynicism behind their attacks on Steve Kirby.  Recall the just the other day they were arguing that all their attacks on Kirby are "totally factual."  Is this non-funny top ten list "totally factual" or is it just an attempt to breed a dislike for Steve Kirby as a human being by hurling insults?  That is a dumb question as the answer is obviously the latter. 

And look at the silliness of the list.  The #1 reason Steve Kirby has yet to announce is, "Someone actually in/from South Dakota to ask him to run." That is a funny argument to make against Steve Kirby since Lowell, the guy making the attack for the South Dakota Democratic Party, blogs from Virginia and his email address is left over from the Tim Kaine gubernatorial campaign in Virginia. 

Another item makes fun of Kirby for being way behind in polls to Sen. Johnson.  If he is such a bad candidate, why are you paying attention to him?  Why not turn your guns on Joel Dykstra or Sam Kephart? No need to respond.  We know the answer. 

Another item says that Kirby is waiting for "Mike Rounds and Mark Barnett to announce they're running, so Kirby has someone to attack in the primary."  Lowell, are you arguing that negative campaigning is bad? If so, explain how your post is anything other than what you are condemning? 

Lowell reminds of the original incarnation of the Northern Valley Beacon under Dave Newquist.  When that blog first began it claimed to speak for the Brown County Democratic Party.  Say what you will about Prof. Newquist, but he does take extreme positions delivered in rather colorful prose.  At a certain point the website went dark only to be reborn without the Brown Country Democratic Party's imprimatur.  It is reasonable to conclude that they became embarrassed by Prof. Newquist's tirades and wished to distance themselves.  At a certain point, Lowell's constant puerile attacks on Steve Kirby only embarrass the South Dakota Democratic Party and Tim Johnson.  His use of Daily Kos, a leftist website, and his linking to "Lefty blogs" run counter to Tim Johnson's reputation as a reasonable moderate liberal who can work with Republicans.  Is Sen. Johnson happy to be linked to the "Kossaks" at Kos and does he wish to be described as a "lefty"?   I doubt it.  If I was Steve Kirby I'd keep track of every silly think Lowell does and use it to paint Tim Johnson as out of touch with South Dakota. 

BTW, I don't disagree with Cory.   The odds of Steve Kirby beating Tim Johnson are long.  But right now Johnson's campaign and its supporters are running the kind of campaign that could lose. 

 

How Texas System Works (Under construction)

It is ridiculously hard to find this stuff out on the net.  But here goes for Texas, as far as I gather:

 

Texas sends a total of 228 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.  Here is how they are selected:

The Primary (March 4th): 126 Senatorial District Level Delegates and 21
Alternates.  These are elected in the 31 state senate districts. 

The Caucus: 25 Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official Delegates and 5 Alternates; 42 Pledged At-Large  Delegates and 6 Alternates; and 3 Unpledged Delegates (Add-Ons) are elected through a three-tier, post primary convention process.

Finally: the Super delegates: 32 additional Unpledged Delegates are automatically elected by virtue of
their status.

Now here is the fun thing: there is a real possibility that Ms. Clinton will win the popular vote in Texas, but lose further ground in the delegate count.  Because of proportional representation, even a significant win will not get her more than a little over half of the 126 primary-awarded delegates.  But Obama does much better in caucuses than she does.  He might sweep the caucus and thus come out way ahead.  This system was designed by a scorpion on mescaline. 

Hillary's Choice

Jay Cost has some cogent insights on how Hillary Clinton can make a moral claim to the Democratic nomination.  To be sure, Jay's scenario depends on her winning Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.  But if she does pull this trifecta, she will likely be ahead of Obama in overall votes during the primary season if not necessarily ahead in delegates. 

If Clinton pulls ahead of Obama in this count, she could make a compelling moral claim. I think her argument would consist of a positive and a negative component. First, she can assert that, as the popular vote winner, she is the rightful nominee of the party. She can remind super delegates that the last Democrat who won the nomination without a popular mandate was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. The debacle that followed convinced Democrats to open their process to the public. Nominating Obama would thus be inconsistent with the party's forty-year commitment to openness and inclusiveness.

Second, she can run against the nomination process itself. As I noted last week, this is a procedure that few politicos have paid attention to. So, there is little emotional investment in it, which makes it easier to attack. Imagine a split in the popular vote and the Electoral College - only this time the Electoral College does not have the Constitution conferring upon it moral legitimacy. Which count will people prefer? Similarly, Clinton can argue that Obama indeed won a plurality of pledged delegates - but that is merely a testament to the fact that the party's process is not as open as they thought. They shouldn't let the vagaries of the party's antiquated, undemocratic system determine the nominee.

As an American I have no dog in this fight.  But I must say, as a political scientist I am now rooting for Hillary Clinton because it would be lovely to see this argument play out in the public square. 

Cognitive Dissonance In The Johnson Camp

The more the Johnson campaign tries to justify its harsh treatment of Steve Kirby the more desperate it appears.  The latest justifications for trashing Kirby are a) we have to be aggressive lest we suffer the fate of Tom Daschle, and b) this is just boob bait for fund raising. 

To the first, here is the analysis from the South Dakota Democratic Party:

One of the main reasons Tom Daschle lost in 2004 was because he wasn't aggressive enough against John Thune. 

Next, the Badlands Blue question of the day is this: Should Democrats repeat the same mistake in 2008?

Finally, the Badlands Blue answer of the day is this: It's a lot better to err a bit on the aggressive side than repeat what we saw happen in 2004.

First, this is the kind of analysis one gets when one hires Virginians to comment on South Dakota Politics.  This assumes that Tom Daschle lost not because of his own weaknesses, i.e., what he did to himself, but because of what John Thune did to him.  Let me suggest that sitting congressional party leaders who have easily won re-election in the past don't lose simply because they aren't aggressive enough.  There must be something there for an opponent to latch on to.  Be that as it may, this analysis represents cognitive dissonance in the Johnson camp.  We are to believe that Tim Johnson is super popular and will easily trounce Steve Kirby (see here and here) but also that Johnson is so vulnerable that he must engage in negative politics early and often lest he suffer the fate of Tom Daschle.  These can't both be true. 

The kinds of attacks directed at Kirby, an unannounced candidate, including perhaps spying on his house, are tactics we did not see in Johnson's last race against an opponent, John Thune, who on paper was a stronger candidate than Kirby.  One of Schaff's Rules of Politics is that politicians tend to be the best judges of their own interests. The actions of the Johnson campaign speak louder than their words: they think Steve Kirby is a strong candidate who can beat their man.  There is no other reason to let this level of negativity set the tone for the campaign. 

We now have Sen. Johnson himself on record as supporting most of these attacks.  What are his justifications?

Johnson defended a fundraising e-mail that his campaign manager, Steve Jarding, sent out last week that highlighted Kirby's millionaire status and accused him of caring little about the nation's problems.

"It's fair game to mention a millionaire might be running against me," Johnson said. "It's typical. It's a way to get donors all fired up."

Johnson's argument is essentially that demagogic appeals to class envy are justified because a) he says they are and b) it helps him raise money.  I will not repeat my arguments about whether rich Democrats are out touch with the people, or if it is just rich Republicans.  The effectiveness of such class based demagoguery cannot be denied, but one must question whether this kind of politics is consistent with how Tim Johnson has acted in the past and his image as a decent, moderate "nice guy." 

Like many South Dakotans I have met Tim Johnson and like him.  In fact I ate lunch with him and introduced him at a gathering on campus shortly before his brain hemorrhage.  I suspect he is getting lots of bad advice from campaign operatives who are nervous about the upcoming election. The Tim Johnson I and my fellow South Dakotans know is better than his campaign.   

The Obama Campaign

Two things about Obama's recent campaigning stand out.  The first is that he has grounded his case for himself on his opposition to the war.  The strategic advantages of this are obvious.  The war is unpopular, and his opposition from the get go allows him to distinguish himself both from Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.  The problem is that it is unlikely to translate into policy.  He seems to be saying now that he will put out of Iraq immediately, and then go back in if Al Qaeda "returns."  Now that is one of three available policies.  The other two are: stay a little longer, until it is safe to leave (Clinton), or stay in until the enemy has been defeated and Iraq is a stable state (McCain).  The latter two are probably the same for all practical purposes.  If the success of the recent surge strategy holds, such a policy will be sustainable for a while. 

Get out and then go back in is a recipe for disaster.  Going back in after the place goes to Hell again would be much more expensive in lives and treasure.  In fact, President Obama wouldn't be able to go back in.  He would let Al Qaeda or Iran get a third of the world's crude oil supply, and make futile efforts to contain the damage from outside.    For that reason, he won't get out in the first place.  He will be forced to stick it out.  Obama is standing on no policy. 

And then there is NAFTA.  Obama is denouncing it.  No wonder, as it gives him a wedge in Ohio against Ms. Clinton.  But it's a stupid position, if you care about economic realities.  NAFTA has obviously been a success.  Creating a free trade zone in North America to compete with the European Union, China, and India, is exactly good economic strategy.  Is President Obama really going to say to Mexico and Canada, sorry, but we are not longer interested in doing business with you?  He talks about renegotiating the treaty, but everyone knows what that means.  It means protecting ailing American shops.  Mexico would respond in turn, as would Canada, and that would hurt all three economies.  What he will actually do is nothing.  Any substantial change in the treaty would hurt more American businesses, and more states, than it would help. 

Obama is all about change.  So far he hasn't offered any real alternatives. 

Blog Resurrection Project Update

In my attempt to reawaken two sleeping blogs, I got a robust ping from Anna, but so far nothing from David Newquist.  Perhaps David is recovering from surgery, and I hope that went well.  He can scold me later. 

Anna scolds me now, telling me she doesn't like being bated.  I say: why the heck not?  I always thought it was the sincerest form of flattery. Todd Epp bates me frequently, and it gives me a warm fuzzy.  I posted on a topic I knew that Anna would reply to, and I knew I would get a solid and interesting response from her on a topic she and I both care about.  I genuinely enjoy reading DakotaWomen, and I was a little worried by the long stretch of silence.  That's pretty friendly bating, isn't it?  And if I drew her away from work she needed to be doing, well, what are friends for? 

But Anna was obviously writing in a hurry when she entered this:

While Ken and Heather MacDonald see this as evidence that rape just never occurs on campus, I can think of a bunch of reasons why rape survivors might want to convince themselves that what they'd just experienced wasn't rape.

I am sure that rape occurs on college campuses.  Neither Ms. Mac Donald nor I suggested otherwise.  Given the number of students nation-wide, it would be very surprising if it did not.  Rape is a terrible crime, not the least for being terribly common.  The question is how frequently it occurs.  The one in four figure (25% of college women have been raped) is wacky, altogether out of sync with any established statistics for other crimes.  This is a very common problem in the modern intellectual climate.  In order to make a story about some social evil sell, you have to inflate the numbers.  The same thing has happened with autism. Is the rate of autism increasing? Well, no. What has happened is that the definition of autism has been enlarged, and this has happened largely because there is a lot of money to be scooped up from pharmaceutical companies if autism can be connected to vaccines.  Probably it can't, at least, scientifically.  But the legal system errs on the side of fantasy on behalf of victimhood.  So we end up punishing firms for developing vaccines that save millions of lives. 

So yes, Anna, I am inclined to side with Heather Mac Donald on the politics on the "campus rape crisis."  I think she is exposing junk science.    

Johnson Campaign Denies Kirby Smear Allegations

Argus Leader:

WASHINGTON - Sioux Falls businessman Steve Kirby is fair game for all the political attacks that Democrats have lobbed his way, even if he hasn't announced his candidacy, South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson said today.

However, Johnson said he instructed his chief of staff to ask the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to take down a Web site that criticizes Kirby. The site, www.10thchoice.com, depicts Kirby as a would-be, third-rate candidate for a desperate Republican Party.

Johnson defended a fundraising e-mail that his campaign manager, Steve Jarding, sent out last week that highlighted Kirby's millionaire status and accused him of caring little about the nation's problems.

"It's fair game to mention a millionaire might be running against me," Johnson said. "It's typical. It's a way to get donors all fired up."

Johnson said the e-mail does not amount to a smear campaign.

The South Dakota Republican Party did not agree.

"For Tim Johnson to smear a South Dakotan who has not even entered a political race is disgraceful, especially since South Dakotans have been so kind and generous during Johnson's long convalescence," South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Karl Adam said in a statement, referring to Johnson's long recovery from a brain hemorrhage.

Read more in Tuesday's Argus Leader.

The Rezko Trial and Chicago Politics

John Fund:

On Tuesday, Barack Obama may well wrap up the Democratic nomination. Yet how he rose so quickly in Chicago's famously suspect politics -- and who his associates were there -- has received little scrutiny.

That may change today as the trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Mr. Obama's friend of two decades and his campaign fund-raiser, gets under way in federal court in Chicago. Mr. Rezko, a master fixer in Illinois politics, is charged with money laundering, attempted extortion, fraud and aiding bribery in an alleged multimillion dollar scheme shaking down companies seeking state contracts.

John McCain's dealings with lobbyists have properly come under a microscope; why not Mr. Obama's? Partly, says Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, because the national media establishment has decided that Chicago's grubby politics interferes with the story line of hope they've set out for Mr. Obama. Former Washington Post reporter Tom Edsall, who now teaches journalism at Columbia University, told Canada's Globe & Mail that "reporters have sometimes allowed themselves to get too much caught up in [Obama] excitement." Then there are Chicago Republicans, loath to encourage the national party to pounce because some of their own leaders are caught in the Rezko mess.

For its part, the Democratic Party may once again nominate a first-time candidate they haven't fully vetted politically. Democrats flocked to Michael Dukakis in 1988, ignoring Al Gore's warnings about Willie Horton; later they were blindsided by revelations about Bill Clinton after he was elected president.

Plus, seven things to know about the Rezko trial.

SD GOP Responds to Kirby Attack

The South Dakota GOP has responded to the Steve Kirby hoopla:

South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Karl Adam today called for an end to the attacks that Tim Johnson's political campaign has launched against South Dakota businessman Steve Kirby. "For Tim Johnson to smear a South Dakotan who has not even entered a political race is disgraceful, especially since South Dakotans have been so kind and generous during Johnson's long convalescence," Adam said.

"If Johnson is aware of this smear campaign, he needs to be a leader and end it. If Johnson is not aware of these attacks, then South Dakotans need to know that he is not in control," Adam said.

Last week, the National Democratic Senatorial Committee attacked Kirby in various ways and on Friday Tim Johnson's campaign directly attacked Kirby. Johnson campaign manager Steve Jarding has vowed to continue the attacks.

La Vie En Rose

If you're in a mood to spend two and half hours listening to someone singing through her nose, have I got a film for you, mon frere.  Marion Cotillard won best actress for her portrayal of singer Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose, which is apparently French for "Walk the Line".  Come to think of it, Piaf preferred the same color scheme as Johnny Cash, only she was a lot cuter.  That is true even though, near the end of her life, she apparently transformed into something resembling an orangutan.  But that is still cuter than Johnny Cash.

I am being too hard on the movie.  Cotillard's performance was very strong, providing equally convincing glimpses of the abused street singer, the super-star, and the has-been in rehab.  Moreover, there are fine supporting performances, including especially Sylvie Testud as Piaf's life long friend, Mômone; and Pascal Greggory as her agent.  The only problem I had with the film is that, as I indicate above, it's the same movie we keep getting over and over again.  Great talent overcomes childhood neglect and abuse (my daddy didn't love me!) to reach stardom, only to begin abusing his or herself with alcohol and drugs.  Except for the star part, with the glow of fame and fortune, it's an utterly pedestrian story. 

In the case of Johnny Cash, the fact that his music is still so much a part of the culture added a lot of lift to the tale.  Edith Piaf's music, which can be heard on the movie's web site, is interesting but only distantly familiar.  The one thing that might have made the story historically interesting, Piaf's collaboration (or not) with the Nazi's in occupied Paris, was ignored. 

Johnson Campaign's Lame Response

As we have noted, Tim Johnson's campaign has gone a bit overboard in smearing potential opponent Steve Kirby.  Even faithful Democrat Todd Epp has raised the yellow card (soccer reference!) on the Johnson campaign.  Now the South Dakota Democratic Party gives this response to critics.  It can only be described as lame. 

Their argument is as follows:
1. "The stuff we put out is factually accurate": Really?  Pray, how do you know that Steve Kirby is "out of touch" with the average South Dakotan because of his wealth?  Have you read the minds of all South Dakotans, or just Steve Kirby's?  And what is the factual basis for repeating the description of Steve Kirby as a "flesh eating zombie"?  Really, if you guys know something about Kirby's zombie status, it's time to let the rest of us know. 
2. "We got most of this stuff from Republicans": Would those be Republicans like Mark Barnett?  The Johnson campaign might want to recall the result when Mark Barnett and Steve Kirby went at each other in the 2002 governor's race.  The result was Gov. Mike Rounds.  Perhaps Steve Kirby learned a lesson from that campaign; the Johnson team certainly hasn't.
3. "Sen. Johnson won't back down from a tough campaign":  I guess this is advertising that they have gone negative early and are going to stay negative.  I don't know how successful that will be as a strategy (see point #2).  Sen. Johnson is quite popular and will be tough to beat.  But even if it does work, I guess we can kiss Tim Johnson's nice guy image goodbye. Even while bragging about how popular he is and how far ahead of Steve Kirby he is, Sen. Johnson still feels compelled to go negative against Kirby through his surrogates. 

I repeat my charge from the other day: are Herb Kohl, John Kerrry, Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton out of touch with their constituents because of their wealth?  What the Johnson campaign is trying to do is tarnish Kirby as an elite snob who can't relate to the average person.  I suspect Kirby's politics are no different from John Thune's.  But John Thune has about the same personal wealth as Tim Johnson.  So apparently money has nothing to do with it.  It's about ideas.  But the the Johnson campaign and the South Dakota Democratic party would rather not talk about those ideas.  They just want you to hate Steve Kirby.

Update: I originally put "see point #1" in #3.  I obviously meant "see point #2."  My bad. 

Stumping for Hillary

Don Surber:  "Stumping for Clinton in Austin, [Gloria] Steinem, 73, unleashed the vile, anti-military bile that she has carried for 50 years — at least. . . . I notice it took McCain about 20 seconds to cut that DJ in Cincinnati off for calling Obama by his middle name.  Hell will freeze over before Hillary takes Steinem to task."  More thoughts from Patterico.

MSM: Damaged Beyond Repair?

The recent scandal involving 60 Minutes II once again falling for a hoax, this time regarding phony accusations that Karl Rove engineered the downfall of a former Alabama Democratic governor, got me thinking about all the news stories over the last few years where even minimal standards of professionalism would have gotten the story right. 

Remember when John Ashcroft was Attorney General and he had a semi-nude statue of Justice covered up because Ashcroft is such a prude?  Whoops.  It turns out that one wasn't true.  Remember when the Israeli army slaughtered Palestinians in the West Bank town of Jenin?  That wasn't true either, and neither were all the doctored photos spread by major news sources when the Israelis invaded Lebanon to fight Hezbollah. 

Let's not forget the mother of all false media reports, when Dan Rather offered up forged papers as evidence that George W. Bush had gotten favorable treatment as a member of the Air National Guard.  Of course, even as it became obvious that he'd been duped, Rather famously insisted the forged documents were "fake, but accurate."  Those are the high standards that have gotten CBS where it is today. 

Iraq has produced some made up stories.  Last summer The New Republic published fabricated pieces by serviceman Scott Beauchamp.  After months of obfuscating and ducking the issue, TNR finally had to admit what was apparent to everyone: Scott Beauchamp was a liar.  Recently the esteemed British medical journal The Lancet fell under scrutiny for publishing a study on civilian deaths in Iraq that likely used falsified numbers to exaggerate the number of deaths.

The New York Times has its own little sub-category of fraudulent/politicized reporting.  Stuart Taylor has ripped the Times for its shoddy reporting on the so-called Duke rape case, clearly letting reporter bias get in the way of the facts.  Also, recall that earlier this year the Times reported with much fanfare that Iraqi vets were coming home and committing an excessive amount of murders.  Oops! It turns out Iraqi vets actually murder at a lower rate than the general public. Of course in the last week the Times impugned John McCain's reputation by clearly suggesting McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist in the late 1990s even though all those who were willing to talk on record disputed the Times' version of the facts.  The Times then pondered whether McCain is a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency, a matter brought into question by McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone.  If the Times had merely asked anyone roughly familiar with the law they would have quickly found out that this is a non-issue.

What do all these stories have in common?  These stories all got into the mainstream media even though the slightest bit of fact checking or editorial scrutiny would have revealed the phony nature of the reports.  Reporters and editors alike let their biases get in the way of professional judgment, the desire for the juicy story that fed their prejudices get in the way of good reporting. 

The casual observer also notes that all of these stories, to one extent or another, either advocated a left-wing cause (e.g., Palestinians are victims of Israeli oppression or rich white college students rape poor black women) or embarrassed some Republican official (John Ashcroft, George Bush, John McCain).  I am sure there are right-wing equivalents, although I have a hard time thinking of them. It is certainly hard to think of a false story that deeply penetrated the public conscience that was started by a mainstream media outlet and helped a Republican politician or conservative cause. 

The National Review got busted with some sloppy reporting from Lebanon, but unlike other outlets, they were upfront about it, immediately corrected the stories, and disciplining the reporter.  One could present the "swift boating" of John Kerry as evidence, but one must remember that the "Swifties" were clearly a political group, not a major media outlet, and even John Kerry admitted some of their accusations were true (for example, even though Kerry had once claimed that spending Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia was an experience "seared" in his memory, under scrutiny he admitted it wasn't true).

So we can say media sloppiness tends to be in one direction, i.e., biased toward the left.  This is how prejudices of reporters make for bad news.  Conservatives, and increasingly your common American, distrust major media outlets.  It looks like they have good reason. 

Epp on the Kirby Attack

Our friend and blogosphere colleague Todd Epp remarks on the recent attack on Steve Kirby:

Though I am a strong Tim Johnson supporter and hope he wins re-election, I am also disappointed by the personal attacks on Steve Kirby. Like many other Democrats, I have issues with Steve’s views on abortion, the role of government, and his conservative values.

But that does not mean he is a bad person; If the Johnson campaign wants to criticize Steve for his stands on the issues or even legitimate complaints about the businesses he’s helped to fund, then do so.

But to merely attack Steve for being Steve belittles not just Steve Kirby, but Sen. Johnson and the good will he has earned through his works as a Senator and because of his illness.

By taking the gloves off on a person who is not even a candidate yet, the Johnson campaign is playing with a “take no prisoners” approach.

That’s fine. Politics is a rough and tumble game.

But just remember, what goes around comes around. If the Johnson campaign wants people to cut it and Tim slack because of his illness, it is going to be hard to gain such sympathy because of their ferocity of the attacks on non-candidate Steve Kirby.

Indeed.  Todd also makes a great point that in this election cycle voters are looking for candidates who have ideas and espouse great leadership qualities.   That's why, he says, Barack Obama and John McCain are doing well among voters, while Hillary Clinton, who has been associated with the politics of personal destruction, isn't gaining traction.  I don't expect the realm of politics to be without its gutter tactics, but it is dismaying that the Johnson campaign has gone after a man to this extent when Kirby hasn't even officially declared his candidacy.

UPDATE:  Alert to Profs. Blanchard and Schaff, apparently Markos Moulitsas has identified the latest zombie threat in South Dakota who is none other than Steve Kirby:  "GOP’s flesh-eating zombie candidate."  How's that for personal politics?

Dissecting the 60 Minutes Scandal

Yesterday, Prof. Schaff and I both briefly noted the 60 Minutes scandal about a supposed plot by Karl Rove to take down Don Siegelman.  John Hinderaker over at Power Line, the blog that four years ago helped expose CBS's George Bush-TANG fraud, has an in-depth look at the story that's a must-read.  Once again, bloggers doing the work the mainstream media fails to do.

Global Warming

John Tierney:

If only the masses could understand the science of global warming, they’d be alarmed, right? Wrong, according to the surprising results of a survey of Americans published in the journal Risk Analysis by researchers at Texas A&M University.

After asking a national sample of more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it, the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming “both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.” Another unexpected result: “Respondents who showed a great deal of confidence that scientists understand global warming and climate change showed significantly less concern for the risks of global warming than did those who have lower trust in scientists.”

Plus, this seems like good news for the environment to me:  "Thirty-one reactors, representing 17 power companies and consortia, are somewhere in the application process—though NEI predicts only four to eight of those will be in commercial operation by 2016. By that time, pressure for an affordable, clean source of energy could inspire a second wave of applications. . . . The latest designs for proposed plants are smaller, cheaper and more efficient than reactors of the past." Read the whole thing.  HT to The Blogfather.

A Bit More on Buckley

Sheri Levisay writes a nice column on William F. Buckley, Jr., in the Argus Leader.  A few of my words make it into that piece.  I will add a few more. 

I did manage to meet Mr. Buckley when he was the keynote speaker at a celebration for my teacher Harry Jaffa.  I introduced myself and shook his hand as he was trying to rush off to yet some other engagement.  In spite of his obvious haste, he was very gracious, and took a moment to tell me how much he admired Professor Jaffa. To a young graduate student, that was a moment.  The warmth of his smile is still in me, all these years later. 

It was Buckley's personality that made the mark on history.  Almost any over-educated conservative can tell you the title of Buckley's most famous work: God and Man at Yale.  Almost none of them have read it.  It was not what he wrote, but that the fact that he stood up and declared it, that mattered.  He wrote scores of books, and many of them were very good.  I was particularly fond of his spy novels, especially Saving the Queen.  That would have made a rocking good movie.  But you will look in vain among his published works for the key to his influence.  Nor will you find it among his columns, exactly.  They were always worth reading, but as columns (and blog posts!) tend to be, they were creatures of the moment.  Thinking back on them, one remembers not this argument nor that issue, but Buckley.

His TV show, Firing Line, (1,504 shows) was his most important venue, because it presented him, his curious accent, his spectacular vocabulary, and above all his profound sense of intellectual responsibility.  You got your chance to state your case, but you were held to account for it.  Christopher Hitchens has this in the Weekly Standard:

Ahh, Firing Line! If I leave a TV studio these days with what Diderot termed l'esprit de l'escalier, I don't always blame myself. If I wish that I had remembered to make a telling point, or wish that I had phrased something better than I actually did, it's very often because a "break" was just coming up, or the "segment" had been shortened at the last minute, or because the host was obnoxious, or because the panel had been over-booked in case of cancellations but at the last minute every egomaniac invited had managed to say "yes" and make himself available. But on Buckley's imperishable show, if you failed to make your best case it was your own damn fault. Once the signature Bach chords had died away, and once he'd opened with that curiously seductive intro ("I should like to begin .  .  . "), you were given every opportunity to develop and pursue your argument. And if you misspoke or said anything fatuous, it was unlikely to escape comment.

I can't remember much of what went on in Firing Line.  I can't forget the way Buckley leaned back in his chair, his voice, the way his eyes moved into space as he assembling his sentences. 

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote only one book, wrote his own personality into the DNA of the United States.  William F. Buckley may not have penetrated to that depth, but the power of his person left an indelible mark on the American Republic in its second century. 

I Attempt to resurrect the South Dakota Blogosphere Dead

At least two regional blogs have gone silent of late.  As I pass for the region's expert in zombie lore, I will try to use my powers and arcane knowledge to reanimate them.  Professor Newquist warned us on Feb. 13th that we might have to do without him for a bit. 

[First, a note about the absence of blog posts: severe carpal tunnel aggravated by getting rear-ended on I-76.  Relief is spelled S-T-E-R-0-I-D-S. Surgery scheduled.]

Now I know that David thinks the worst of me, and maybe I deserve it.  But I sincerely wish him well and hope for his speedy recovery and return to this venue.  I fancy that there is no more loyal reader of his blog than I, and I really do miss him. 

So in hopes that he will leap up from his sick bed, like the Irish elder in A Quiet Man when he hears the sound of a good fight in the street outside his window, I issue a challenge.  You have frequently claimed, if I got it right, that the Thune campaign committed grave sins against Tom Daschle.  Remind us of exactly what those sins were, and show us that Todd Epp is wrong about the Tim Johnson campaign. Explain exactly why  Tim's loyal supporters can still take pride in their man, while Thune's people  should hide their heads in shame.   Rise up!  Michaeleen O'Flynn is already making book on the fight. 

Meanwhile, DakotaWomen seems to have tunneled into itself and died. Their last post was on February 18th, one day after Newquist's last Beacon.  Is some sinister force at work?  One by one they dropped off ...  There are fourteen comments on that last post, so the conversation went on for a while below the surface.  But for a week now there has been nothing.  This must be what it is like to stand outside a mine after a cave in. 

Well, in the hope that there is still someone alive down there, I offer this incentive to rise to the surface. 

It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.

That's Heather Mac Donald, writing in the City Journal.  According to Ms. Mac Donald, the "campus rape crisis" is a myth, perpetuated by left-wing academics.  I am at loss as to what to think here.  Rescue me Anna!  Show me that my mere mention of this article is a sign of my own bias.  I need correction, because I have to admit that it looks to me like Ms. Mac Donald is onto something.

The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.”

Rape is a very terrible crime.  As Ms. Mac Donald puts it, it may be the most terrible thing that can happen to a person short of murder.  But an enormous, nation-wide movement against an imaginary crisis, how, exactly, does that help anyone? 

If that doesn't bring Anna back, nothing will.