South Dakota Politics

Daschle the historian

In the post immediately below, I questioned Tom Daschle's expertise as an historian. More evidence of Daschle's tenuous grasp of the subject can be gleaned from his recent book, Like No Other Time. Excerpt from page 13 of the book:

The Roosevelts--both Theodore and Franklin--had drawn their own lines in the sand back in the 1920s and 1930s, aggressively creating government programs and institutions to respond in an unprecedented way to the needs of the American people.

Though it may seem pedantic, it's worth pointing out that Theodore Rooselvelt was president from 1901 to 1909, NOT "back in the 1920s and 1930s" as Daschle so glibly claims. This is not the only relatively minor error in the book. There are several others, almost all relating to historical dates and figures. It's amusing that on page 27 of his book, Daschle says that he has "always had a fascination with history[.]" You wouldn't know it from reading his book.

The current Amazon sales rank of Daschle's book is 56,743, while his colleague Zell Miller's book, released at the same time, ranks at 310.

Daschle's grasp of history tenuous

In today's "Dateline DASHPAC," Tom Daschle states the following regarding the recess appointment of William H. Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

“I have not found an occasion in all of history that the President has made an appointment during a recess of a judge that had actually been rejected by a vote of the Senate.”

What is he talking about? Pryor and Pickering were never "rejected by a vote of the Senate." Neither nominee ever received a vote. The nominations of Pryor and Pickering couldn't be voted on in the Senate because Tom Daschle filibustered them.

Daschle opposes constitutional amendments

The AP is reporting that Tom Daschle opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, under the headline "South Dakota political leaders split on gay marriage ban." Interestingly, last week, the AP reported Tom Daschle's incoherent position on a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning under the headline "Daschle: Flag amendment not necessary." Apparently, Daschle believes that a constitutional amendment prohibiting desecration of the flag would "interfere" with the First Amendment, but somehow a mere law prohibiting the desecration of the flag would not:

Sen. Tom Daschle says he would support a law prohibiting desecration of the American flag, but he doesn't think a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it....

Daschle, a Democrat, told the group of mostly veterans he has two concerns: An amendment would interfere with freedom of speech allowed in the First Amendment, and desecration of the flag could be hard to define.

Huh?

Daschle on Tavis Smiley show

Tom Daschle appeared on Tavis Smiley's late night television show on PBS last night. You can read the transcript HERE. During the show, Tom Daschle brought up the issue of President Bush's National Guard service in a typically partisan effort to impugn President Bush's military record:

"We also don't know the circumstances involving his time in the National Guard, and I think that has to be clarified as well."

Daschle on "imminent threats"

Glenn Reynolds notes a quote by Tom Daschle in 2002 regarding the "imminent threat" of Saddam Hussein, and asks the Bush-bashers where the beef is in the "Bush lied" argument. Perhaps the professor should ask John Mellencamp that question when Mellencamp headlines a fundraiser for Tom Daschle on Monday.