Sibby Online

Letters in the Argus Leader

Today there were two letters to the Argus Leader regarding its bias. One charges "liberal" and the other charged “right-wing”. Randell Beck has often argued that he gets both charges, and therefore the Argus Leader is not biased. I wonder how many of each he gets?

Today, I will question...which argument is valid and which is not? If you look at both letters, you will see the one charging a liberal bias has facts to back it up…the other does not have any facts.

From the liberal bias side, titled “Liberal media”:

The Argus Leader June 20 story, "9-11 commission invites evidence of ties," does not mention that the commission report details a series of contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden or that commission co-chairmen Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean both publicly stated the commission's findings confirmed what the administration said.

Also ignored was Russian President Vladimir Putin's report on June 18 that between Sept. 11, 2001, and the Iraq War he warned President Bush that Russian intelligence service "received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests."

In the Argus Leader June 23 story, "Bush: Torture laws didn't apply," the president is quoted as saying, "still prisoners must be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Convention."

Leaving out significant parts of the news and printing headlines that depict an inaccurate picture of the facts are just two of the more subtle methods used to bias news coverage.

Read newspapers and news magazines and listen to network news reports very critically with the liberal bias of the presenters in mind.

Now the other sided, titled “Right-wing media”:

In response to the Aug. 8 column by editorial page editor Chuck Baldwin, the message comes through loud and clear. You will select only what you want printed and claim it is a representative sample of your correspondence.

You only cover what you want in the Argus Leader.

We are fast approaching total control of the media by the right-wing branch of the Republican party.

President George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court. He was not elected in 2000. How can he be re-elected?

So in the mode of being fair and balanced, which argument holds water…you decide.

Daschle chicken about live debates?

DVT has a post regarding changing the format of the debates and used the Lincoln–Douglas debates as an example. Noel Hamiel, publisher of the Mitchell Daily Republic, provided another idea in his column today:

The Corn Palace will rock on Oct. 18 - if some wrinkles can be ironed out.

That was the date set for the final debate between Tom Daschle and John Thune and it was scheduled in Sioux Falls, hosted by KSFY Television.

A few days ago, I suggested to KSFY News Director Mitch Krebs and the two campaigns that the event be moved to the Corn Palace. Krebs liked the idea, and so did the Thune organization. Daschle’s camp was less enthusiastic, but said it would play along. Late last night, however, the some cracks started to appear in the deal and at press time the agreement had yet to be cemented.

It was a good idea a few days ago, and remains so today.

Hamiel also uses the Lincoln-Douglas debates as an example:

The Rapid City Journal, who is also a debate sponsor, along with the Watertown Public Opinion and KOTA-TV, recently made a good suggestion when it asked Daschle and Thune to hold a series of debates in the best Lincoln/Douglas tradition. Back in 1858 - during August, September and October - Lincoln and Douglas sparred in all seven of Illinois’s congressional districts. Some thought Lincoln won the debates, but Douglas won the election. However, Lincoln rebounded two years later to win the presidency.

One of the problems with politics these days is that the candidates are too slickly packaged, too carefully managed. They let their multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns do their talking for them. I know that Thune and Daschle both make plenty of public appearances and speak to countless organizations and media events. But for pure spontaneity of thought, where citizens can get a glimpse of the person and not just the candidate, there’s nothing like a debate before a live audience.

Looks like most are in favor of a more open political environment regarding the biggest Senate race of 2004. The few that are not is Tom Daschle and those that run his campaign’s newsletter…the Argus Leader.

Daschle, lawyers & deceit…round two

I have previously posted on Tom Daschle’s use of lawyers to intimidate the media out of running ads that voice various citizens' dissent toward the positions Daschle has taken in Washington DC.

The latest voice of dissent is from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regarding Daschle’s filibusters against Senate votes on tort reform. Now that the ads are hitting the money belt of trial lawyers, Daschle has altered an older ad regarding negative ads with a new version. As SDP has pointed out, the new ad has added Don Frankenfeld who happens to be in the business of offering expert witness services to trial lawyers.

The ad also includes Susan Heidepriem. It just so happens she is married to trial lawyer Scott Heidepriem. If you look into Heidepriems’ campaign contributions, you will find Heidepriem has contributed $1,000 to Edwards for President. John Edwards made his millions as a trial lawyer. Heidepriem also contributed $2,250 to the Herseth for Congress campaign.

It seems like the trial lawyers, who support Daschle, are one big happy family. But their claims to be part of the Republican family seem to be intellectually dishonest. Trial lawyers are Daschle’s biggest contributors. Now their interests are under attack by the Chamber of Commerce. Instead of discussing the issue of tort reform, the Daschle campaign is attacking the messenger with ads by those who represent themselves as Republicans, but do not disclose that they are the special interests that Daschle represents in DC.

They are not only calling third parties liars, they are the third party special interests that are falsely accusing John Thune to be the one running the so-called negative ads. This is not true and therefore it is the Daschle campaign that is guilty of running a negative campaign. It is the Daschle campaign that is using third party special interests to run ads that are false. The media needs to expose this misrepresentation and hold the Daschle campaign accountable.

Also SDP has noted the Daschle campaign's questionable tactics as they work to intimidate business leaders into sending a letter to the US Chamber that falsely charge the organization with running negative ads. Thus far the media has not covered Steve Erpenbach’s involvement in this negative campaign maneuver and whether that flies in the face of Senate ethics.

Again, I am arguing that the Daschle campaign is using the dirty Democrat tactic of deploying the “negative campaign” card as a sword and a shield (the same as what John Kerry is doing to the Swift Boat Vets). The media has yet to expose this folly. It is only the blogosphere who has exposed this negative attack on the democratic process which is intended to stifle those who desire to represent their position on the issues. Its long past the time to dump Daschle, but better late than never.

Daschle not a 2nd Amendment supporter

Here is an email I received from David Conway of the South Dakota Shooting Sports Association. Conway is the South Dakota Election Volunteer Coordinator for the NRA. I have spent time with Conway during the past three legislative sessions. He has always been sensitive to the positions of law enforcement while engaged in lobbying gun issues in Pierre. Here is Conway’s comments regarding Tom Daschle and the assault weapon issue:

"I had a lot of chiefs of police and sheriffs in South Dakota who sent me letters encouraging me to support the ban". --- "I must have heard from close to a dozen chiefs of police and sheriffs. They noted in some of their letters that, as a result of the enactment in 1994, it would seem the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped about 65 percent. They argued that even in South Dakota, it was a helpful thing.'' (SF Argus Leader 8-8-04)

The above is a quote from our "gun banning" Senator Daschle. How do you get 65 percent of nothing? Assault weapons are not used for crime in South Dakota. I would be willing to bet that we will never get the names of those "close to a dozen" chiefs or sheriffs. Chances are, they are the figment of another anti-gun imagination conjured up by Tom Daschle, to help cover his allegiance to the likes of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control Inc. (Who incidentally, are very generous cash supporters to his campaign). Tom Daschle also has an 80% rating from the Brady Campaign. (www.bradycampaign.org)

My hat is off to Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead who has no problem with telling the truth.

"It really isn't that big a deal,'' he said. "The assault-weapon ban just doesn't seem to get a lot of attention around here. We have an awful lot of hunters, and South Dakotans are pretty responsible gun owners. I'm not sure I can think of a specific crime here that involved a banned gun.'' (SF Argus Leader 8-8-04)

Daschle is the only supporter of the Assault Weapons ban among South Dakota's congressional delegation and candidates. On guns, Daschle says one thing in South Dakota and does just the opposite in Washington. For example, in South Dakota, Daschle played up his false pro-gun credentials by supporting gun manufacturing limited liability legislation, and then when the legislation was heard, Daschle pushed to add two "poison pill" amendments: one mandating background checks on all gun show purchases and the other extending the assault weapons ban for 10 more years. In Washington, Daschle supported the gun control amendments aimed to kill this much needed piece of pro-gun legislation. He used a legitimate piece of legislation as a Trojan Horse in an attempt to further encumber America's law-abiding firearms owners.

This was not the first time Senator Daschle tried to force these unpopular pieces of legislation on gun owners. Daschle voted for the Lautenberg proposal to require background checks on all guns sold at gun shows and for the government to keep that information for ninety days.
(CQ Vote #134: May 20, 1999.)

Tom Daschle has a long anti-gun voting record. The WHY? is very simple. All the progun campaign rhetoric he throws at us cannot disguise the truth. While in the Senate he cast votes against gun owners best interests 39 times out of 46. (Daschle's complete voting record is posted at; "http://www.blackhills.com/sdssa/Daschle%20Senate%20Record.pdf". This is not how a "protector of the Second Amendment" defends our rights. Better stated, this is how he shows his loyalty to Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein and Schumer, as they lead the charge against our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The reauthorization of the Clinton gun ban remains the top priority for anti-gun activists and politicians such as these and Senator Daschle.

For months, Daschle has been working overtime in an attempt to convince gun-owning South Dakotans that he has changed his position on gun rights issues. This is a bold lie. He has only changed his message, not his agenda, which is to support additional restrictions on shooters, hunters and firearms collectors. In the past, Daschle issued a statement telling South Dakotans that "as a hunter and gun owner, I am against gun control, period." (Associated Press, 6/8/90) He has obviously forgotten his own statement. He now continues to work at every turn to further accomplish his anti-gun agenda.

Tom Daschle voted against the legislation "affirming that the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed". (S. 2521, May 17, 2000)

Daschle voted for 10 versions of the Brady Bill which required excessive waiting periods and background checks for the law abiding South Dakota resident. He also voted against implementing NICS (National Instant Check System), which was the preferred option to Brady and which would have allowed Brady to sunset away. Which it eventually did, without his support.

Daschle supported legislation to buy back guns from gun owners. (CQ Vote #267, August 2, 2001.) This would have been a big first step towards gun confiscation.

Daschle voted 3 times to limit magazine capacity to ten rounds. (S 1970 - S 254 - S 2312.) Limiting the number of bullets allowed in a pistol or rifle magazine makes no sense when applied to the law abiding.

Daschle voted to abolish the Civilian Marksmanship Program (S 1745), and voted to commend the Million Mom March (S 2521), Tom Daschle voted 13 times to impose mandatory waiting periods on law-abiding citizens. (Daschle's complete voting record is posted at; http://www.blackhills.com/sdssa/Daschle%20Senate%20Record.pdf

I think we have all heard the ad, "Mr. Daschle, you are fired"! This needs to become his reality. Otherwise, his incremental gun prohibition will become our reality. His voting record goes opposite the majority of South Dakotans but follows lock step with the DC gun prohibitionists. We have a big hunting and shooting tradition in this state which should not be eroded by Senator Daschle.

In elections, every vote matters. And once again, as this year's elections are expected to be extremely close, it is critical that every pro-Second Amendment supporter exercises their right to vote in order to remove Senator Daschle and to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We can not take even a single pro-gun vote for granted this year.

Even if you can`t vote in person on November 2, your voice can still be heard! Instructions for absentee voting can be found at: http://www.sdsos.gov/absentee.htm . It is every firearm owners responsibility to get out and vote and to encourage as many new voters as possible, to do the same.

Hewitt on bloggers vs the mainstream media

Hugh Hewitt has a WorldNetDaily column on the advantage bloggers has gained over the mainstream media. He quotes John Hinderaker of Powerline:

But what qualifications, exactly, does it take to be a journalist? What can they do that we can't? Nothing. Generally speaking, they don't know any more about primary data and raw sources of information than we do – often less. Their general knowledge is often inadequate. Their superior resources should allow them to carry out investigations far beyond what we amateurs can do. But the reality is that the mainstream media rarely use those resources.

Too many journalists are bored, biased and lazy. And we bloggers are not dependent on our own resources or those of a few amateurs. We can get information from tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom have exactly the knowledge that journalists could (but usually don't) expend great effort to track down – to take just one recent example, the passability of the Mekong River at the Vietnam-Cambodian border during the late 1960s.

Mitchell…the land of the free

Just got in from California. I did not even have the opportunity to get caught up when I received a phone call from a stranger ecstatic about what I wrote in today’s Mitchell Daily Republic. Before I post it, I would like to point out that it is 384 words and it ran unedited (except for some very minor style changes). I turned the editorial into the MDR on Monday before I left for California...it prints two days later. This is in stark contrast to the editorial freedom I am granted by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. I spend a lot of time researching the issues, and it is nice that my hometown paper allows me to share what I learn. Here is my letter:

I would like to thank Mel Olson for keeping the barn door open regarding the drought issue with his August 16 letter. President Bush did react favorably to the drought problem after his 2002 visits. He signed into law the 2003 Omnibus bill that contained over $3 billion in new aid for drought stricken farmers and ranchers.

Surprisingly Tom Daschle was among only 20 Senators, all Democrats except for so-called Independent Jim Jeffords, to vote against the bill. Both Democrats from North Dakota voted Yea and both Senators from Iowa and Nebraska voted Yea. Even Tim Johnson voted Yea. More Democrats (26) voted Yea than the 20 partisans who did not.

It is more than hypocritical for Daschle and his supporters to continue to falsely attack those who have provided actual relief, while Daschle has only used the issue to play partisan politics. The 2003 record was a question at the Dakotafest forum and Daschle would not address it, instead he continued to misrepresent 2002. It is sad a past leader of the South Dakota Farmers Union would write a letter to this paper spreading the same Daschle propaganda. Those South Dakota farm leaders who want to represent farmers ought to have better knowledge of what’s going on in Washington DC.

Farmers and ranchers are not the only South Dakotans that should take notice of what Daschle has done while in Washington. The same 2003 Omnibus bill contained $900,000 in funding for the distance learning program at Dakota State. Daschle is running ads taking credit for that funding…he voted against it. The bill contained $271,512 in funding on a new nursing home for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Daschle is taking credit, but he voted against it. The bill contained $1 million for a SDSU study on aviation grade ethanol…Daschle voted against it. How embarrassing it must be for the partisan Daschle supporters to write letters congratulating Daschle for funding he voted against.

But we should not be surprised that Daschle would mislead us. After all he supported a President who looked America in the eyes and said I did not have sex with that women. The DNA test on the stained dress was a major embarrassment. But that did not stop Tom Daschle from being a lap dog for the Clinton White House.

The sword and the shield

DVT has a post on the Daschle campaign falsely accusing third parties of spreading lies about his record with a new ad. I saw an old ad the Daschle’s campaign dusted off from April accusing third parties of lies without proof. Remember…the one with tall corn in the background. Tall corn in April? Right! This shows the strategy of today’s Daschle campaign was in formulation a long time ago.

In fact, SDP has an outstanding post on Daschle’s “word of honor” being a myth going back to 1978. Read the whole thing including the links and the PDFs.

Clearly the Daschle campaign is using the “negative campaign” card as a sword by calling his opposition liars. The purpose is to shield himself from his own record on the issues. He does not want us to hear about his filibusters on tort reform. He does not want us to hear about his filibusters on qualified judges. He does not want us to here about his failures to obtain the votes needed to pass ethanol legislation. He doesn’t want us to here about his votes against our gun rights. He doesn’t want us to hear about his votes against our tax cuts.

All he wants us to hear about is his bragging about the funding that South Dakota has or is soon to receive, but without us finding out about his votes against that funding. So whom is the one lying and running a negative campaign…Tom Daschle. It's time to "Dump Daschle" to restore trust, dignity and integrity to South Dakota. Buy a T-shirt and spread the word.

Fox News quotes David Kranz

Sibby Online readers have emailed this link to Fox News where they quote David Kranz:

It’s a tough race to bet on," said David Kranz, political editor and writer for the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota.

"What you got now is a kind of partisan view from both sides," he said. "They’re flying by the seat of their pants because there are no new polls."

Kranz said while "it was considered a major victory," for Herseth, a 33-year-old lawyer who lost to Janklow 53 to 46 percent, Diedrich also pulled off a near-coup by closing a 30-percent gap that he faced at the start of this spring's race.

But, Kranz added, power runs to the incumbent. While Diedrich is hoping that the nearly 80,000 registered voters who did not turn out at the June polls will vote Republican, Kranz warns that the supercharged Senate race between Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (search) and former GOP Rep. John Thune (search) will set into motion a whole new Democratic "get-out-the-vote" effort, particularly on the heavily Democratic Native American reservations, which did not come out in full force for the special election.

"While Diedrich will benefit from the fact that most of the new voters will be Republican, when you consider that only half of the Native American voters voted in the June election … and the Daschle machine wasn’t oiled up, what that adds up to is another close race," he said.

Lets hear a lefty argue that Fox News is not fair and balanced. This is about as far to the left as it gets…it’s just like reading the Argus Leader.

Here is one response I got from a reader:

The on-line version of FNC is posting a story about the close race for Congress in SD. Krantz is quoted liberally (pun intended) throughout the story. I got so dizzy from the spin that I had to stop reading it before I got sick.

I don't have enough data to convince FNC that their "local expert" for background information is severely contaminated. Might I suggest that you (or SDP, or DVT) could do a better job of educating Fox on the actual credentials of their "local expert"?

I think the Fox News team could use some SDP Bombshells.

Farmers and ranchers verses environmentalists?

SDP has a post from yesterday’s Tim Russert Meet the Press. Here is an excerpt from Sen. Jon Corzine, D-NJ:

In fact, often I think some of the actions or the votes and the leadership that he [Daschle] shows on farm issues, which are certainly South Dakota's interests, are not in New Jersey's interests.

If you run through my Tony Dean index, you will learn that the environmentalists are at odds with South Dakota’s Ag interests. Recently Dean provided a post that was unfavorable to South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Larry Gabriel, who wrote a column about environmentalism from a landowner point of view. Excerpt:

However, when Congress tells me to watch my step because my boot (or my cow or my horse) might step on a bug or plant that is important to someone's constituents (The federal agencies now lovingly call them "clients".), then I think they are getting out of hand.

Tony Dean does not like John Thune because he has stood up to environmentalists, as he stood in support of landowners rights and the interests of agriculture in South Dakota. Tony Dean is proof that the above statement made by Senator Corzine is false. Daschle should not be allowed to have it both ways on such a polarizing issue as environmentalists verses property rights of South Dakota landowners.

Argus Leader blogging…not

As DVT pointed out, the Argus Leader so-called blog has been silent for nearly three weeks. Since Jim Abdnor has denied in The Bird (via DVT), the quote Kranz used in one of his columns is accurate, I bet the Argus Leader uses the blog to spin that. I doubt they will report the denial in their print edition, even though they printed Daschle's denial regarding the Michael Moore hug.