South Dakota Politics

Daschle's "F" rating from the NRA

It's interesting to note that while Senator Daschle says he "strongly supports the Second Amendment," the Republican Senate candidate in Louisiana is using trying to tie his Democratic opponent to Daschle's atrocious record on gun rights. The New Orleans Times-Picayune explains, in an article headlined "Senate hopefuls aim to bag hunters." Excerpt:

Even though John has received an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association to Vitter's A, Vitter said John's endorsement of Democrat John Kerry, a gun-control advocate, for president, suggests the issue isn't a high priority for him. Vitter said John, as a Democrat, would also have to support South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, who favors gun restrictions, as party leader in the Senate.

"Chris John wins the contest for being the good ol' boy," Vitter said. "What he doesn't win is the contest for being the best defender of Second Amendment rights. Someone supporting Kerry and Tom Daschle will never win that contest."

Has Tom Daschle ever really officially endorsed John Kerry in this race?

Daschle was against middle-class tax cut before he was for it

I noted with interest the skeptical tone in the following passage from today's Wall Street Journal profile of the South Dakota Senate race:

A radio spot suggests Mr. Daschle masterminded the $146 billion package of tax cuts the president signed on the campaign trail last week. “It was Sen. Daschle who used his clout to bring Republicans and Democrats together to pass new tax cuts for the middle class,” the announcer says. “That’s real leadership.”

(Emphasis added.) I've heard this radio spot multiple times today, and it begins with an announcer saying that John Thune "isn't telling the whole story" about tax cuts. Of course, Daschle's ad doesn't tell the whole story, either. While in South Dakota Daschle claims he "used his clout to bring Republicans and Democrats together to pass new tax cuts for the middle class,” in Washington he said he was "embarrassed" about passing yet another tax cut, according to The Hill. Relevant graf:

Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said on the floor that he was “very concerned” about the repercussions of passing yet another tax cut that would add to the deficit, adding that the deficit amounted to a “birth tax” on every American newborn.

“We ought to be embarrassed by the irresponsibility of doing things that are not properly offset and paid for,” Daschle said. Daschle, who is engaged in a fierce battle for reelection, also voted for last week’s tax cuts.

Once again, Daschle is caught saying one thing in South Dakota, and its 180 degree opposite in Washington.

Daschle weighs in on the viability of a draft

Yesterday's edition of the New York Times had an article headlined "Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House" containing the following quote from Senator Daschle:

Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest.

"I would expect you're going to continue to see debates about the viability of a draft as we move forward," Mr. Daschle said.

Daschle “very concerned” about the repercussions of passing yet another tax cut

From The Hill: "Tax vote splits centrist group." Excerpt:

Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said on the floor that he was “very concerned” about the repercussions of passing yet another tax cut that would add to the deficit, adding that the deficit amounted to a “birth tax” on every American newborn.

“We ought to be embarrassed by the irresponsibility of doing things that are not properly offset and paid for,” Daschle said. Daschle, who is engaged in a fierce battle for reelection, also voted for last week’s tax cuts.

Daschle was against middle-class tax relief before he was for it

Hugh Hewitt notes a recent article from the Washington Times headlined "Congress extends Bush tax cuts for middle class" and remarks that "Tom Daschle was against the tax relief before he was for it." Relevant excerpt from the Washington Times article:

With the election just around the corner, the pressure was on members of both chambers to support the tax relief.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat in a close re-election race, criticized the bill because its $146 billion value is not offset in any way, but in the end, he supported it.

Hugh Hewitt also makes the following observation about the Argus Leader:

The Argus Leader is to the Daschle-Thune race what CBS was to Bush-Kerry until the forged docs were exposed.

Well said.

The Senate Graveyard

Here's a photo of yesterday's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, which includes a handy chart of "Legislation that has passed the House in the 108th Congress but is dying in the world's greatest deliberative body."

Daschle takes questions on guns in DC

Here's an interesting excerpt of the transcript from a press conference Senator Daschle held in Washington, DC yesterday:

QUESTION: But Senator Daschle, yesterday, the assault weapons ban expired with barely a whimper, really. And then today in The Post, I see on the front page that the House Republicans are going to allow an up-or-down vote on repealing the D.C. gun ban.

What does this signal to you in terms of the direction the country's going in with the gun lobby? And what future in the Senate do you think repealing a ban in D.C. will have?

DASCHLE: I just can't believe with what limited there is remaining that the House or the Senate would see fit to take up legislation like that.

As I said, we have only passed, I think it's three of the appropriations bills -- three. Ten appropriations bills remain to be considered, virtually running the entire federal government. The whole country is dependent upon whether or not we can complete our work on appropriations and on so many other issues.

And so, again, it's another illustration of the extraordinary demonstration of poor judgment with regard to scheduling.

QUESTION: Senator, specifically on the gun lobby, on the gun ban, what does that say to you in terms of the grip that the gun lobby may have on the Republicans, which you've alluded to in the past?

DASCHLE: Well, I think that President Bush was right. Others have expressed the same view that I have, that the assault weapons ban should have been extended. And it's unfortunate that it was not.

(Emphasis added.)

WaPo reports Daschle's stance on flag amendment

The Washington Post has a report today headlined "Kerry, Edwards and Daschle May Face Vote on Flag." Excerpt:

For some Republicans it is the perfect political storm: a Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to protect the U.S. flag that would put Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, running mate John Edwards and Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle on the spot just a few weeks before the Nov. 2 elections....

As senators, Kerry (Mass.), Edwards (N.C.) and Daschle (S.D.) have voted against the amendment and are described by colleagues as still opposed to it.

FLASHBACK: Daschle more liberal than 80% of the Senate

The reader will find it very informative to sift through Project Vote Smart's list of various interest group ratings of Tom Daschle. One of the more interesting ratings listed is from the National Journal:

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2003, Senator Daschle voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

By comparison, moderate Democratic Senator John Breaux voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 55% of the Senators.

One of the more surprising ratings given to Tom Daschle is his rating from the American Legion. Given Daschle's constant touting of his record on veterans' issues, he only gets a 50% rating from the American Legion.

National Review on obstructionism in the Senate

The National Review has an excellent piece about the next few weeks in the Senate headlined "The Obstructionists on the Hill; Watch for September’s Senate subplot." Excerpt:

"The Senate is an institution that exemplifies 21st-century politics but operates under 18th-century rules," a former senior GOP leadership aide told me. And when lawmakers return after the August break, most expect the Democrats to use those rules to block just about everything Republicans try to bring up.

But playing in the Democrats' obstructionist orchestra is not without risk. Some voters find the legislative dissonance petty and partisan — and could decide to oust lawmakers who make that kind of music.

So here is an interesting Senate September subplot to watch. Republicans will raise the decibel level about obstructionism, while Democrats will try to find a balance between denying GOP victories while still appearing cooperative.

But who wins this battle depends in part on who really cares about obstructionism in the Senate. Recent polling data from the American Survey, gathered August 19-22 (800 registered voters, margin of error 3.5 percent), sheds some light on this issue — exposing expected, as well as surprising, vulnerabilities for the Democrats.

Overall, a slight majority (54 percent) believe "Democrats engage in obstructionism in the Senate," while 40 percent think they want to "work with Republicans." Voters in each party hold expected attitudes toward the current political environment in the Senate. For example, 79 percent of Republicans think Senate Democrats engaged in obstruction, while only 34 percent of Democrats held that view — not a particularly surprising result.

Independent voters' views are somewhere in the middle. Yet it should trouble Democrats that a majority of these swing voters believe Democrats are engaged in obstruction. 53 percent of independents take that view compared to only 40 percent who say Democrats want to "work with Republicans."

It will be up to Senator Daschle to "find a balance between denying GOP victories while still appearing cooperative." This "Senate subplot" will be on the front burner in South Dakota, and the Dakota Alliance blogs will be scrutinizing every development in this subplot.

A month of bear traps

Last March, Eric Ueland, deputy chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, noted that the Senate floor would be "full of bear traps" to put liberals on the record on a series of wedge issues. Today marks the end of the six-week congressional recess, and the beginning of a month's worth of posturing and positioning by Tom Daschle to avoid the bear traps. The Wall Street Journal has an article (subscription only) today headlined "Lawmakers Face Big Backlog; Both Parties Might Pay at the Polls For Unfinished Bills in Congress." Excerpt:

As lawmakers return today from their national conventions, the pile of unfinished bills -- and warnings from frustrated voters -- is mounting. No budget has been approved for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, and only one of 13 annual appropriations bills has been enacted. Amid high oil prices, energy legislation is stalled, and an entire construction season has passed without action on highway funding.

The punishing duties being paid by exporters such as Mr. Stollenwerk will only get higher until the tax changes are resolved -- probably not until a post-election lame-duck session. Hope is fading for immigration, welfare and tort-overhaul legislation.

Republican leaders are planning a pre-election push to extend middle-class tax breaks first enacted in 2001. But as new issues such as post-Sept. 11 intelligence overhauls demand attention, the sheer volume of unfinished business risks a backlash at the polls.

The Los Angeles Times also has a piece on this flurry of activity today headlined "Congress Gearing Up for a Legislative Sprint." Excerpt:

Some analysts say the session may end up being mostly politically charged window dressing, despite the importance of some of the pending bills.

The pace of legislative action is likely to quicken in the next several weeks, said Patrick Basham, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, but "most of it will be carefully packaged, focus-group-tested, window-dressing stuff designed to appeal to swing voters in closely contested congressional races, such as they exist."

He predicted that the Republican leadership would bring bills to the floor "for the sole purpose of embarrassing or flushing out the Democrats on emotive or wedge issues. Between now and election day, the action on Capitol Hill will be more symbolic than substantive."

Already, House Republicans are planning to bring up the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, according to Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). And one House Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the leadership planned to schedule a bill to keep the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Daschle to discuss tort reform with SD lawyers

The Pennington County Bar Association (Rapid City) is announcing that Senator Daschle will be meeting with lawyers tomorrow in Rapid City to discuss the ads being run by the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association. Below is the text of the press release from the Pennington County Bar Association:

Greetings:
Judge Kern will be updating us at the Wednesday Bar meeting regarding the ICWA review process. There will be a discussion regarding Constitutional Amendment A (judicial retention). If you now plan on attending, please let us know today.
Senator Daschle has indicated he would like to meet with lawyers at 4 on Wednesday at the Radisson. A topic of discussion will be the recent "tort reform" ads run by the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association. Anyone interested in joining the discussion is encouraged to attend.
Todd Brink
PCBA President

(Emphasis added.)

Daschle responds to WSJ "Daschle's Dead Zone" piece

A reader has forwarded Senator Daschle's response to the July 22, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "Daschle's Dead Zone." Below is the entire text of that response:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Wall Street Journal editorial expressing frustration and assigning blame for what they consider to be the lack of legislative progress in the Senate. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the Journal's less-than-full picture of events.

Right-wing pundits and the Republican congressional leadership have used the "obstructionist" label in an effort to both generate momentum for their policy agenda and explain where it has failed. However, there is another side to this story. Where some see Democratic obstructionism, others see an unwillingness on the part of the Republican leadership to negotiate with those senators with whom they disagree. Our Founding Fathers consciously structured the legislature as a place where opposing views are discussed and legislation is negotiated, not dictated. And that is what is happening here.

First, the editorial cites the failure to complete action on three specific bills - the corporate tax bill, welfare reuthorization legislation, and class action reform - as examples of Democratic "obstructionism." The facts belie that claim.

With regard to the corporate tax bill, the Senate passed the bill on May 11, and I called for its swift consideration in the House of Representatives. The House did not schedule action on the bill until June 16, more than a month later. As soon as the House did act, the Senate agreed to the appointment of a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House- and Senate-passed bills. However, to date, the House has still not appointed its members, or conferees, so the conference has not yet begun. The Senate has not delayed this bill; to the contrary, the Senate has done everything it could to expedite its passage. On this bill, the ball is clearly in the House of Representatives' court.

On welfare reauthorization, although I worked with Majority Leader Bill Frist to bring the bill to the Senate floor in March, he withdrew it after only one amendment had been considered. An August 8 Washington Post article may shed some additional perspective on this and similar bills. It reports, "Frist tends to shift to a different bill when he hits legislative roadblocks, rather than grind through tough negotiations that would
probably involve concessions to political opponents."

The Journal correctly asserts that over 60 senators were expected to support the class action reform. What they neglect to mention is that the Majority Leader refused to work with Democratic and Republican senators who wanted to offer amendments to the bill, which is their legislative right. Soon after the Senate turned to the bill, while a Republican amendment was pending, Majority Leader Frist filed cloture to cut off further debate. As a result, the bill received only 44 votes. And it is important to note the bill failed due to bipartisan opposition to the Majority Leader's attempts to silence legitimate debate. Conservative columnist Robert Novak's take on the vote: "Republicans pulled defeat from the jaws of victory."

The Journal editorial also uses a graphic containing a list of bills that have allegedly ended up in the "Senate Graveyard." When combined with the provocative title of the editorial - "Daschle's Dead Zone" - the clear,
but false implication is that I am responsible for blocking the items listed in the graphic. Again, a closer look at the record reveals the truth.

On energy legislation, I voted in favor of cutting off debate on the bill last fall, much to the distress of many of my Democratic colleagues. The reason the energy bill has not been passed this year is because the Republican leadership in the House insists on retaining a provision to protect polluters of ground water, without which the bill would easily have the support it needs to achieve passage. Every time the bill has been brought up in the Senate, I have voted for it.

With regard to extending middle-class tax cuts, on July 22, the White House killed a bipartisan plan to extend these tax cuts for two years, and further discussions have been postponed until September. That plan was agreed to by key Senate and House Republican leaders, but torpedoed by the White House.

And as for bankruptcy reform, the flag burning amendment, and pension security, the Republican leadership has not yet called any of these bills up for consideration in the Senate.

Finally, charges of "obstructionism" ignore the fact that I have worked with the President and the Republican-controlled Congress on many issues, from the slate of post-September 11 proposals Congress enacted, to corporate accountability legislation, to the forest health bill. In the last seven months alone, Senate Democrats have cooperated in moving forward on legislation that funds nearly every aspect of our government, pension funding equity, victims' rights legislation, and defense reauthorization and appropriations bills. We've reached an agreement on appointing conferees for the transportation bill and finalized an agreement with the White House on judicial nominations. In total, the Senate has confirmed over 95 percent of the President's judges.

I understand why the Wall Street Journal editorial frustrates you. I hope presenting a broader perspective on the Journal's charges will give you a fuller understanding of what actually happened in these instances. Thanks again for contacting me.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely,

Tom Daschle

United States Senate

TAD/spm

Buckley on Daschle and gay marriage

William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, has just published a new piece headlined "Circle-Squaring by Daschle; The South Dakota senator and marriage." Excerpt:

Now consider Senator Daschle's plight. Most of the leaders in his party who oppose the amendment do so on the grounds that it impairs gay rights. They aren't saying exactly that, but the essence of what moves them is what they'd call one more step in gay liberation. If non-gays can marry, so should gays be permitted to "marry."

But that by no means is the position being taken by Senator Daschle in his nervous fight to survive. He says the amendment is "unnecessary." Why? Because South Dakota law prohibits same-sex marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act means South Dakota does not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

If it were actually so, the movement to amend the Constitution would indeed be unnecessary. But it isn't so because there are judicial activists in the land who tend to edge the argument about marriage over not into what state legislatures have done, but into the great sunlight of rights that inhere in us at birth, endowments of nature/philosophy/the Bill of Rights/the Areopagitica, whatever.

IBD on Daschle and gay marriage

Investor's Business Daily has an interesting opinion piece today headlined "Courting Trouble." Excerpt:

We have to agree with Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle that, as he put it this week, there is no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution right now to defend traditional marriage.

Federal law is clear. It defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and it declares that no state can be forced to honor same-sex marriages established under another state's law.

This law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, strikes the right balance between state and federal powers. As long as it stands, states are free to make their own decisions on same-sex unions without imposing their choices on others.

But for a man who says he believes that "marriage is a sacred union between men and women," Daschle sounds remarkably serene about the less immediate future.

"In South Dakota," he declared, "we've never had a single same-sex marriage and we won't have any." How can he be so sure?

The truth is, he can't. The future of same-sex marriage is not just up to states, and it's not just up to Congress. It's also up to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. And whatever the people of South Dakota or any other state believe, they could wake up one morning to find marriage redefined with no regard for their opinions.

Fineman: Frist fumbled FMA

Newsweek's Howard Fineman has an interesting news analysis headlined "How Frist fumbled on gay marriage amendment; Procedural mistake lets Democrats avoid voting on hot-button issue." Excerpt:

Rather than seek an up-or-down vote on a toughly worded version of the amendment, Frist and his allies (led by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania) allowed discussion of a second, milder one. But since that one (which would leave latitude to the states) might actually pass, Democrats opted to mount a filibuster. As a result, the central (and only) vote turned out to be on a motion to shut off debate — a harder vote to use in an attack TV ad.

So apparently, Tom Daschle filibustered the FMA because alternative language to the amendment might actually have gotten 67 votes. On top of that, Daschle filibustered the FMA after promising not to.

Daschle filibusters amendment after promising not to

Today's Aberdeen American News has a piece headlined "Daschle against gay marriage amendment." Excerpt:

Linda Schauer of Leola, director of Concerned Women for America of South Dakota, had harsh words for Daschle. In a press release, she said he "has promised the homosexual lobby that he would ensure the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment."

She said she hopes Daschle doesn't attempt to filibuster the measure. Constituents have a right to know where Daschle stands on the issue, Schauer said.

A filibuster won't happen, according to Daschle's camp. Daschle said Tuesday that he will allow an up-or-down vote on the original amendment proposed by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.

But just an hour ago, Daschle successfully filibustered the FMA. The AP has a report headlined "Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment."

Daschle voted to support the filibuster of the FMA, and you can examine the roll call vote HERE.

Bloomberg: Daschle to block FMA

"Gay-Marriage Bill to Be Blocked in U.S. Senate, Daschle Says": Bloomberg has an article today that begins, "Democrats will prevent a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage from coming to a vote in the U.S. Senate, Minority Leader Tom Daschle said."

Meanwhile, Governor Rounds has sent a letter to Senators Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson asking them to support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

DVT has more.

"Energy week" postponed

For those of you wondering about what's happening on the House floor regarding "energy week," an effort by House Republicans to pressure Senate Democrats on the energy bill, it has been postponed due to the Reagan funeral this week. Meanwhile, Daschle says passing the energy bill would honor Reagan. DVT has more on that development.

Daschle also has a post regarding gas prices on his blog, an attempt to wring as much political capital from that issue as possible. For an interesting take on gas prices, see this piece in the New Republic. Excerpt:

[G]as prices aren't actually that big a problem. Mathematically illiterate local news programs hype the fact that gas prices have topped the $2 mark for the first time ever. But, of course, the nature of inflation is such that, over time, the nominal cost of nearly everything tends to rise. Indeed, the average price of gas in the 1950s--an era many Americans remember as one of abundant, cheap energy--was about $1.80 per gallon in today's money; the U.S. record price for gasoline occurred in 1981, when regular unleaded cost about $2.80 per gallon in 2004 dollars.

Daschle votes for Feinstein poison pill amendment

The Feinstein "single victim" substitute amendment, which would have killed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, has failed 50-49, no thanks to Tom Daschle. Tom Daschle voted FOR the poison pill Feinstein substitute. Tom Daschle is wrangling to kill the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and then will cynically vote for the UVVA when it comes up for a vote (just a prediction). If he truly supported the UVVA, he would have voted against the Feinstein poison pill amendment. He did the same thing on the gun manufacturer immunity bill. Note that he followed Feinstein's lead back then, too. It's a classic case of Tom Daschle having it both ways.

UPDATE: See Tom Daschle's letter to a constituent (pdf) last year regarding the UVVA.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The AP is reporting: "Fetus Protection Bill Nears Passage." Excerpt:

The Senate cleared the way for passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by defeating an amendment, backed by abortion rights lawmakers, that would have increased penalties but maintained that an attack on a pregnant victim was a single-victim crime.

(Emphasis added.) Daschle voted for the amendment, making him, as the AP asserts, an "abortion rights lawmaker."

Debate begins on Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Senate has begun debate on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. A vote is expected later today. The AP has a story headlined "Senate Takes Up Fetus Protection Bill." Excerpt:

On the other side, NARAL Pro-Choice America delivered more than 130,000 petitions to senators urging defeat of the bill because the group said it would allow judges to rule that humans at any stage of development deserve protection, even when that protection trumps a woman's interest in ending a pregnancy.

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said NARAL president Kate Michelman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade."

On October 29, 2002, shortly before the mid-term elections, Tom Daschle sent out a mass fundraising e-mail on behalf of NARAL. You can access the e-mail by clicking HERE and scrolling halfway down the page. The e-mail is headlined "Last Chance to Keep Pro-Choice Leadership in the Senate." Excerpt:

I’ve seen the difference NARAL can make, and I believe you and countless others can help Senator Carnahan and other pro-choice candidates facing tough races. If you make an urgent donation to NARAL’s Save the Senate Campaign today, it will make an important difference for these candidates....

As the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, I’ve stood up for a woman’s right to choose, and the pro-choice leadership of the Senate has made a difference by safeguarding women’s rights from the anti-choice agenda of the Bush administration. Please give to NARAL today, so NARAL can mobilize the resources to get out the pro-choice vote on Election Day.

To get a glimpse of how NARAL feels about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, click HERE.

Also, Michael Meehan, one of Tom Daschle's top advisers, is NARAL's vice president for politics, campaigns and strategy, essentially overseeing all of the organization's political operations, according to a report last year in Roll Call.

Stay tuned to C-Span 2 for developments as the debate progresses.

CORRECTION: It looks like Michael Meehan has moved from NARAL to become John Kerry's spokesman.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act debate begins

The Senate has scheduled the Unborn Victims of Violence Act for debate tomorrow. There are two poison pill amendments that will be introduced, the Feinstein "single victim" substitute, and an amendment by Senator Patty Murray that would effectively kill the bill. Watch Senator Daschle's voting behavior on these two amendments, as well as on the Act itself. Will he try to have it both ways, as he did on the gun manufacturer immunity bill a month ago?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act to be placed on Senate calendar

DVT is reporting that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act will be debated and voted on next week when the Senate reconvenes. Tom Daschle is facing pressure from his caucus to kill the bill, an act that would be unpopular with his constituents. Once again Daschle must keep his colleagues happy by assisting their efforts to kill the bill, and simultaneously appearing to be vigorously supporting the bill (a highwire act discussed at length HERE). And apparently, Daschle's Democratic caucus is already conspiring to slip two poison pill amendments into the bill in an attempt to kill it. The same thing happened to the gun manufacturer immunity bill a few weeks ago, courtesy of Tom Daschle, who voted for two poison pill amendments that made the immunity bill a raw deal.

So the question to ask Tom Daschle at his appearance in Rapid City tomorrow is whether he's going to pull the same stunt with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act as he did with the gun manufacturer immunity bill.

National Journal: Daschle more liberal than 80% of his colleagues

The February 28th issue of National Journal made headlines with its report that John Kerry was the most liberal Senator in the country.

The finding was the result of the annual rating of member of Congress, an exercise the publication has performed since 1981. This year, editors of the weekly magazine selected 62 votes in the Senate to rate, ranking each vote as conservative or liberal on a scale of one (lowest) to three (highest).

And what about South Dakota?

Despite facing a tough re-election, Sen. Tom Daschle actually became more liberal in 2003 than the year before!

In 2002, Daschle's composite liberal rating was 69.0; that is, he was more liberal than 69 percent of his fellow Senators. In 2003, his rating was 79.8, nearly an 11 percent jump.

Again, the score reveals that Daschle was more liberal than nearly 80 percent of his colleagues. South Dakota values?

Breaking the analysis down into three categories, Daschle is ranked:

- More liberal than 82 percent of his Senate colleagues on economic issues.
- More liberal than 68 percent of his Senate colleagues on social issues.
- More liberal than 79 percent of his Senate colleagues on foreign policy issues.

The magazine also lists Daschle and Sen. Tim Johnson as one of the "home-state twins" of the same party, that is, a pair of Senators whose votes were closely aligned. Johnson's composite liberal score in 2003 was 81.2.

This isn't a hard story to write. After all, the National Journal has done all the work. Why hasn't this analysis been reported in South Dakota?

Gun manufacturers in Sturgis

The Daschle v. Thune blog notes that Sturgis, South Dakota is a "mecca" for gun manufacturers, as a 1999 piece in the Wall Street Journal, headlined "High Plains Drifter: In the Besieged World Of Gun Manufacturers, Geography Is Destiny; Galena Inc. Found a Haven In Tiny Sturgis, S.D., 'A Place That Wanted Us'" reports. Excerpt from the WSJ piece:

David Small and James Keith like nothing better than gabbing about guns, browsing in gun stores, and blasting shooting-range targets.

Three years ago, the businessmen buddies decided to turn their hobby into a moneymaking enterprise. Though neither had any firearm-industry experience, they bought the remains of a dwindling California pistol manufacturer....

Their new company, Galena Industries Inc., got under way near Los Angeles in mid-1998. But it wasn't a propitious moment to enter the gun trade.

Within four months, cities and counties began a coordinated campaign of suing firearm manufacturers. Making matters worse, California enacted tough new gun-company regulations in 1998 that would apply to Galena....

But the pair decided to make a go of it. Even though the established company whose assets Galena bought has been named in some of the municipal lawsuits, Messrs. Small and Keith believe they have legally insulated themselves from liability. And in response to California's hostility to gun companies, the pair
decided to shop for a more hospitable locale.

To their delight, a posse of towns in Western and Plains states responded, jostling to offer financial incentives. The eventual winner was tiny Sturgis, which, it turns out, has become something of a gun-company haven here in South Dakota's rugged Black Hills. Galena's rebirth indicates both how determined
many people in the gun business are to survive in the face of legal peril and how drastically geography can shape attitudes toward those who produce firearms.

Of course, Tom Daschle's tap-dancing on the gun issue this week has done nothing to help these small South Dakota businesses, and everything to help the interests of the state of California, at the behest of Dianne Feinstein, the senior senator from California. And it was California that this small business was trying to escape. How is Tom Daschle "delivering for South Dakota" when Sturgis gun manufacturers continue to be exposed to liability because of Tom Daschle trying to have it both ways on the issue of gun control?

Daschle delivers -- for the trial lawyers

Senator Diane Feinstein recently was quoted as saying the following about Tom Daschle in The Hill:

“I don’t think Tom has ever let his responsibility to his state diminish his leadership position.”

Well, given today's debacle on the gun manufacturer immunity bill, a bill important to gun owners in South Dakota, we can observe how true it is that Tom Daschle has to tow the liberal line as Democratic leader, to the detriment of the interests of his constituents. The Hill has a report headlined "Riders sink the gun bill in 90-8 vote." Excerpt:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she had secured a “commitment” from Daschle not to go to conference unless he received assurance that the assault-weapons ban would remain in the final bill.

Now we understand what Feinstein meant when she said Daschle doesn't let his responsibility to his state diminish his leadership position. It turns out that he doesn't let his responsibility to his state diminish his position with trial lawyers, either. Because it is the trial lawyers who win from Daschle doing his little tap-dance of adding two gun control amendments to the gun manufacturer immunity bill. And, of course, trial lawyers are the top contributors to Tom Daschle.

Daschle and "Laci and Connor's Law"

NRO has a transcript of a press conference held today by Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson, a pregnant woman who was murdered over a year ago. Rocha is advocating a bill that would treat a crime on a fetus like a crime on any other person, dubbed "Laci and Connor's Law." Earlier today, the House passed "Laci and Connor's Law," and now it moves to the Senate. Excerpt from the statement made by Sharon Rocha:

In the summer of 2003, I wrote Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle a letter urging him to support the bill. Shortly after that, Senator Daschle said publicly that the Senate should consider this issue quickly. Since then, members of his party have been holding up a vote. I ask Senator Daschle, as their leader, to urge them to enact Laci and Conner’s Law as soon as possible.

Will Daschle use his vaunted clout to get the Senate to consider this issue quickly, and stop the members of his party from holding up a vote?

Daschle cool to new energy bill

It looks like Tom Daschle is once again not completely exercising his vaunted clout to get the new, slimmed down energy bill passed. This also happened last fall. According to a Washington Post report this past Sunday, Daschle spokesman Todd Webster had the following to say about the new Republican approach to slim down the energy bill (which was done at Daschle's demand!) among others:

The new approach "just means the special interests they are rewarding are fewer and more narrowly focused, and they'll look even more irrelevant to ordinary Americans who are concerned about jobs, health care and education," said Todd Webster, communications director for Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).

Daschle delivers -- for the special interests

Tom Daschle led his party in blocking a bill curbing medical malpractice lawsuits today, delivering another victory to his trial lawyer contributors. The AP has the story under the headline "Democrats Block GOP Bill on Malpractice." Trial lawyers are at the very top of the list of contributors to Tom Daschle's campaign.

Daschle takes credit for bill he opposed

Once again, another local newspaper publishes a Tom Daschle press release in which Daschle takes credit for a bill he voted against. This time it's the Lennox Independent.

Interesting dilemma

Bob Novak has an interesting blurb
in his column today on a dilemma that Tom Daschle faces on bankruptcy legislation:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has devised an agonizing dilemma for Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle that forces him to choose between his farm constituency and the feminist lobby.

In the House, DeLay has attached personal bankruptcy reform to a bill extending the availability of bankruptcy for farmers. In the Senate, that reform bill has been stalled by Sen. Charles Schumer's amendment excluding violent abortion protesters from bankruptcy rights.

The Senate has passed the farmer bankruptcy bill by itself, but final passage will be endangered if Senate Democrats insist on joining it with the Schumer amendment. Daschle, facing a serious challenge to his re-election this year, must decide whether to alienate the feminists by ditching the Schumer amendment or to alienate his farmer constituents by permitting the whole bill to die.

For more information, see this AP report. (Via Sibby Online). Excerpt from the AP article:

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who supports both the farm bankruptcy bill and the bankruptcy legislation with the Democratic abortion provision, would not commit to the House GOP bill Tuesday. He has enough votes to filibuster the bill.

And the Argus Leader, of course, has yet to even publish the AP article, despite the fact that there is an abundance of information in the article relevant to South Dakotans.

Blunt: 'Stand for Seniors, Not in the Way'

The House leadership is unhappy with Tom Daschle's demagoguery on the prescription drug benefit recently passed into law, as indicated by a press release headlined "Blunt: 'Stand for Seniors, Not in the Way'."