Jon Lauck has provided a response to the CBS News attack on bloggers. He was right to point out their effort to stifle bloggers with government regulation is troubling. I would like to provide my readers with insight based on research I have conducted that shows the South Dakota Democrats have sided with the mainstream media. In fact, I will show evidence that there is collaboration between the newly formed left South Dakota blogosphere run by Democrat operatives and South Dakota’s mainstream media as represented by KELO-TV and the Argus Leader. I will also show the hypocrisy of the South Dakota Democrat’s bloggers.
In November Todd Epp started a web site to counter the Dakota Blog Alliance. More than a week before Steve Hemmingsen published his blogger opera column, Epp provided a preview:
Former KELO-TV anchor and current KELO-TV new analyst (and Sioux Empire TV Icon) Steve Hemmingsen has "weighed in" in his soon to be published take on our efforts on this blog. Here is an excerpt from his advanced copy:
There’s no question that the blogs, which the Democrats wrote off but which are cheap to start, were an adjunct to the Thune victory. It was mostly TV commercials and Bush coattails, but in a close one everything is in play.
For their part, the Democrats might try a little honesty with their candidates.
Most of them including Senators Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson run under a "don’t ask, don’t tell" banner. You hardly ever hear them mention their party except at party functions. It’s probably good politics in an inherently Republican state, but it didn’t work this time. At least the right wing bloggers did keep reminding us that Daschle is a Democrat. Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth concedes to being a "Blue Dog" Democrat, of which there are only 30 in congress. They’re Democrats who think like Republicans on money matters, supposedly. I’m not clear on where the name came from, but there is a Blue Dog lake up there near one of her hometowns.
Much of what Steve says, myself and several of you have also been preaching. He also makes some interesting comments about the brilliant but diabolical Jon Lauck. (Jon, my friend, you know, to kid is to love!) Check KELOLAND's site for Steve's full posting.
Oh yes Mr. Epp, I am quite sure Hemmingsen and you had some fun with the "diabolical Jon Lauck". You two make quite a team as the Democrat's blog is promoted while Republican bloggers are attacked by a South Dakota media newsman, who is presented to the public as "objective". I proved last week that Hemmingsen's friendship with a fellow media guy (David Kranz) is more important than disclosure.
I still remember Epp's statement on Straight Talk just after the August 9 Argus Leader front-page report on bloggers. (Note Jon Lauck's relationship with the Thune campaign is fully disclosed) I remember he pointed Lauck and myself out as those who are just preaching to the choir. Let’s hear Epp support the obvious...no one should have mistaken the Dakota Blog Alliance as an objective news organization, but as partisan Republicans that provided what the Democrats’ mainstream media refused to disclose to South Dakota. Also, what we presented was mostly supported with links to back up information. What we showed was that Tom Daschle and the Argus Leader were the ones manipulating the people of South Dakota.
The post prior to the above Todd Epp post said, "Please welcome Ben Hanten of Yankton as one of our contributors!" Yesterday Ben Hanten said this on his web site regarding Jason Van Beek's response to the CBS News blogger attack column:
"These guys are f'n nuts."
Remember the David Kranz report on those that referred to Herseth as a witch? Kranz quoted Hanten (more evidence of media and Democrat collaboration):
"Larry Diedrich needs to be responsible for the company he keeps. Calling an opponent a witch is ridiculous and sad. South Dakotans have said numerous times that they don't like dirty politics. This is very dirty," said Ben Hanten, a pre-law student at USD and chairman of the Yankton County Democrats.
So where on Hanten’s web site does he provide a disclaimer that he is the "chairman of the Yankton County Democrats"? Now I am NOT saying he should, I am just pointed out the hypocrisy of a guy who is one of the main whiners about John Lauck and Jason Van Beek not having disclaimers for being consultants for John Thune.
Speaking of consultants, another one of Epp’s cohorts Chad Schuldt has a web site that has defended Steve Hemmingsen from my exposure of his lack of objectivity. An 11/10/2002 David Kranz column boasted about the terrific job the Tim Johnson campaign did in the 2002 election. Excerpt:
Johnson's campaign began proclaiming the conclusion a week ago. Last Saturday, Steve Hildebrand put it bluntly: "We're going to win."
That's not a surprising proclamation from a campaign manager who is paid well to think positive.
The Mitchell native offered evidence from Chad Schuldt. As a teen-ager, Schuldt ran a baseball card store. Then he went through a phase with blue hair. He counts into double figures when listing Bob Dylan concerts he has attended.
Now this sports and music guy is a numbers wizard.
"It is mathematically impossible for Thune to win," he said.
Schuldt was so convincing that you started thinking he was either sure of himself or full of himself.
So, where on Schuldt’s web sites (he has more than one) does he disclose that he was an advisor to a Democrat’s campaign? Again, I am not saying he should. His partisan Democrat attitude is obvious. In both Hanten’s and Schuldt’s cases, a little research (Google works great) will provide readers of their blogs the truth about their partisan nature and David Kranz is only too happen to promote their propaganda. No need for government regulations. My point is the whiny Democrats are not practicing what they are preaching.
Now I predict these guys are going to counter my points with, "but we didn’t get paid". My argument is if they do start to receive compensation for their efforts, will they go from neutral to partisan? No…they are already partisan. Since I did not receive payment, is Sibby Online neutral? Of course not. If the mainstream media receives compensation for advertising services, can they remain neutral?
I believe their prime motivation is partisanship. They are only complaining about Lauck and Van Beek because they are Republicans. What’s sad is they are willing to destroy the First Amendment freedoms that we have found on the Internet today. They are siding with the CBS News notion that the Big Government should step in with regulations. That is not very liberal.
In addition, their fixation on the money reinforces their socialist’s nature. In fact I received this admission in a Jeremy Berg email:
A person would think that the liberal MSM would love the [r]evolution of the media-if only on principle. Although the point could be made that the new media is driven by capitalist/free market/supply-and-damand-what the consumer desires, the consumer gets- at its core, the new media is quasi-socialistic, in that all share in the creation and consumption of what is "news." At any rate, a highbred of social theory is plausible. But alas, the dynastic players in the MSM, the day later's of the daily's and their counterparts at the networks are showing a "conservative" bent. They see their information-consumption monopoly slipping away-where it is unacceptable, in their view, that an entity should control the marketplace of all goods but-they find it only too proper that they should maintain theirs...jb, Harrisburg
This barely coherent rant does provide us with some insight. Deep down inside the sub-conscious of the left, their problem with Lauck and Van Beek’s compensation is that they are not sharing it equally with other bloggers. The left is willing to invite Big Government to regulate and then transform the Internet into the same socialistic system that they are trying to transform America in general. I thank Jeremy for helping us learn that important revelation.
The South Dakota Democrats think they can gain back what they lost by emulating the Dakota Blog Alliance. The problem with their plan is that they don’t understand that the success of the Dakota Blog Alliance was not in our methods. Our successes is a result of our message, and the substance to that message. This was proven again yesterday. I received an email from a Sibby Online reader whose comment was deleted from Hanten’s web site. These guys cannot handle the truth.
Us so-called conservatives aim is to protect the system that provides us with the freedoms our Founding Fathers created . The left wants to destroy that system with what they misleadingly call progressive. There is nothing progressive about the lost of freedom. Let’s not allow the mainstream media, in concert with some partisan Democrat operatives, to take away the freedom we have enjoyed while living on today’s blogosphere. It's really sad to think the South Dakta Democrats will use the blogosphere, in concert with the mainstream media, to destroy the blogosphere. Just shows the parasitic nature of the far-left socialists who are destroying the Democrat Party hopefully before they destroy America’s freedom.