Sibby Online

Obama defends Daschle

The Argus Leader provides Obama’s respond to the Daschle controversy, with a report title, "In the end, he'll be confirmed":

Obama is essentially making the same argument in defense of Daschle, portraying him as the best person to tackle health insurance problems.

"Nobody is perfect," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "It was a serious mistake, one that he caught and remedied. We think that he is still the best person to do health care reform and shepherd that very complicated process through Congress to achieve savings and cut costs for the American people."

But you have to go to another AL report to find this:

On another matter, a financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago showed that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the health care industry that Obama wants him to reform.

The speaking fees were just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former senator earned over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.

Among the health care interest groups paying Daschle for speeches were America's Health Insurance Plans, $40,000 for two speeches; CSL Behring, $30,000; the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, $16,000; and the Principal Life Insurance Co., $15,000.

So why isn’t the Argus Leader pointing out the conflict of interest and the possible "Pay to Play"? Why are they not holding Obama accountable for his pledge to clean up Washington DC?

Argus Leader defends Daschle

Needles to say, if this done by a Republican, the Argus Leader would be going down the corruption road. But when it is Tom Daschle, they provide excuses and support:

Daschle's mistake should not disqualify him from the Cabinet post because it probably was an honest mistake, said Gary Aguilar, a political science professor at South Dakota State University.

"IRS rules are very complex, and having gone through (tax problems) myself as a Fulbright Scholar, even if you have an accountant, you don't know what you need to report," Aguilar said. "To ordinary citizens, it's a pretty big deal, but in the grand scheme of things this is a minor infraction."

Daschle left the Senate after losing to Republican John Thune in the 2004 election. Daschle probably intended to return to public service, if given an opportunity, and would not intentionally avoid taxes, said Cheryl Chapman, the acting chairman of the South Dakota Democratic Party.

"Knowing what an ethical person he is, I don't think anything was done with bad intent," Chapman said.

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D. agreed.

"I've known Tom Daschle for more than 30 years and know that he is a man of honor and integrity," Johnson said. "I believe once Tom has had the opportunity to answer (the committee's) questions, they will move his nomination forward."

Thune declined to take sides.

"This recent development was surprising to all of us," Thune said. "At this point, I think it is in everyone's best interest to wait and see what comes out of the Finance Committee and proceed from there."

Daschle is popular with senators from both sides of the aisle and, unless the situation worsens, the Senate likely will confirm him, said Ken Blanchard, a political science professor at Northern State University.

"People in Congress are very hesitant to set a precedent that might haunt them later on," Blanchard said. "There are an awful lot of people in the Senate ... who would like to be in the Obama administration one day and they're thinking about all the times they have played fast and loose with the rules. With the Republicans, they're thinking 'What goes around, comes around.'"

Daschle filed amended tax returns after Obama announced he intended to nominate him as secretary of health and human services.

"I disclosed this information to the committee voluntarily and paid the taxes and any interest owed promptly," Daschle wrote. "My mistakes were unintentional."

Jarding issues Marxist attack on Kirby

From the Argus Leader:

In the e-mail from Johnson's campaign manager, Steve Jarding, supporters were told to donate money in order to fight off "multi-millionaire" Kirby.

Republicans "believe a multi-million dollar campaign to throw mud on Tim is their only chance of winning South Dakota's Senate seat.

"Steve Kirby cares little that home foreclosures are growing, while incomes are not; that health care costs are skyrocketing while 47 million Americans lack health insurance; that jobs are being outsourced even though American workers are more productive than ever; that we are mired in a war without end that is mortgaging our children's future."

Jarding said Friday that Kirby's wealth insulates him from issues that many people are facing.

"Anybody worth $200 million is not sitting there worrying about, 'Is my home going to get foreclosed on,' " he said.

The onslaught against Kirby includes video on the Internet and commentary from left-wing blogs. Democratic officials say they're not coordinated attacks.

To Democrats, an American who has been successful is the oppressor, and is therefore the reason that the oppressed have become victims. What most don’t understand is that the far-left are responsible for the problems they are blaming on Kirby. For example, they blame Kirby for sending jobs overseas while he is involved in the ethanol industry that is creating jobs here in America, including South Dakota, that lessens America's reliance on Middle Eastern, Latin American, and Canadian oil supplies. One reason jobs are going overseas is due to the oppressive tax system that the far-left promotes which targets the rich. (Another reason is that people overseas are willing to work for less than Americans becuase they have less money. Funny how capitalism is solving what the Marxists consider the problem.) It is the far-left Marxism that is creating the problem that they are blaming on Kirby. This is typical of the lying left.

The Argus Leader’s report promoted the lies of the far-left without providing the truth that exposes the lies contained in the fundraising email. It is the Democrats who care more about money that they care about the truth. And the Republicans are too timid to aggressively counter the lies with the truth, and will probably do nothing or play defense.

Republicans can send out press releases that get thrown into the Drive-by media's trash cans, while the Drive-by media will use the lies from Democrat fundraisers and present it as news. Another textbook example of media bias.

Kranz still defending his college buddy

Dave Kranz ends his column yesterday with this:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called Karl Rove's accusation that Congress rushed President Bush into the Iraq war "a joke."

During a Saturday appearance on the Bill Press Show, Daschle mocked the idea that it was he, not the Bush administration, who deliberately accelerated the time frame for Congress to vote on the Iraq war resolution in the fall of 2002.

"Well, I was called last week a couple of times, and I literally thought it was a joke," he said. "I thought somebody was trying to pull my leg. I can't believe that anybody would make such an outrageous statement."

News of the Daschle comments was reported Saturday by the HuffingtonPost.com.

Well if Kranz wants to use the far-left HuffingtonPostcom, I will use theconservativevoice.com:

And that's simply not true. Tom Daschle in June said there's broad support for regime change in Iraq.

WALLACE: That's in June of 2002.

ROVE: June of 2002. The question is how do we do — and when do we do it.

On July 31st, in a news conference, by which time he'd (Daschle) already signaled he wanted a vote in the fall, he said, "I would also say that I think it would be a big mistake for the administration to act without Congress' involvement."

On September 16th, he (Daschle) goes on CNN and says, quote, "I think there will be a vote well before the election, and I think it's important that we work together to achieve it."

Clearly Rove was right. Many congressional Democrats were demanding they be given a chance to vote on the war--and the president took them up on the offer, which probably wasn't sincerely made anyway. They got their chance to vote, and vote they did.

And large numbers voted FOR THE WAR. It's only in hindsight they claim to have been misled. Haven't there been several movies titled "Men of Honor?" They were not discussing the Democrats in congress, obviously.

Nice try Dave.

Argus Leader reviews Daschle vs. Thune

On Saturday the Argus Leader published a Brent Lerseth book review on Jon Lauck’s, "Daschle vs. Thune". Here is the introduction:

This book review is not intended to evaluate the substantive claims made by Jon Lauck in his book, "Daschle vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-plains Senate Race," especially regarding the Argus Leader, which would require a verification of the claims. The intent is to evaluate the merits of the work as a contribution to the study of senatorial elections and the role of the media and is not intended to either challenge or affirm the substantive claims made by the author.

The last thing the Argus Leader would want is for someone to actually look into the claims of bias adn reprot on it in their paper. And as far as "a verification of the claims" goes, Lauck provides almost 60 pages of footnotes. I don’t there is much in dispute here. Lerseth does hit the mail on the head with this:

Lauck primarily focuses on the role that bloggers played in drawing attention to Daschle's inconsistencies and national party policies while local media (especially the Argus Leader) often did not. The importance of political blogging was nationally evident when bloggers broke the story that CBS had used fraudulent documents in their story criticizing Bush's National Guard service and has more recently been instrumental in pressuring congressional Democrats to support the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Lauck's role as a blogger during the 2004 campaign supporting Thune put him in a position to counteract what he saw as the partisan influence of the Argus Leader in support of Daschle. His book details a long association between Daschle and Dave Kranz and describes how the Argus often neglected to report on national stories critical of Daschle, while being quick to report on stories critical of Republicans Pressler and Thune. For Lauck, his and other bloggers', partisan support for Thune provided an opportunity for South Dakotans to be exposed to information critical to understanding Daschle's and Thune's positions during the 2004 campaign and to not be "duped" into a "distortion" of the facts by one partisan media source.

So Lauck 1). Focues on the role that bloggers played, in 2). drawing attention to Daschle’s inconsistences, something that the local media did not do. As 3). a long association between Daschle and Dave Kranz and describes how the Argus often neglected to report on national stories critical of Daschle.

Since Pat Powers falsely claims that I havn’t "accomplished dick", let me show my role in those 3 points by using some content from Lauck’s book.

Lauck’s role of bloggers (point 1) included the formation of the "Dakota Blog Alliance". This is from page 114:

In South Dakota, the blogging phenomenon originated with a law students at the University of South Dakota (USD) named Jason Van Beek, who started South Dakota Politics after the 2002 midterm elections. In keeping with Andrew Sullivan’s "Raines Watch" feature about the embattled editor of the New York Times, Van Beek started "Kranz Watch" to track the reporting of the dominant political journalist in South Dakota. In early 2003, Steve Sibson of Mitchell started Sibby Online. Sibson was perturbed with Kranz’s reporting on the gun control issue during the 2002 Senate campaign and worked up a thick dossier critiquing Kranz’s reporting. In January 2004, I started Daschle v. Thune to track the daily happenings in the Senate race. At some point during the srping of 2004, the blogs collectively became known as the "Dakota Blog Alliance," in keeping with other blog clusters, including the "Northern Alliance," primarily based in Minnesota, and the "Rocky Mountain Alliance" primarily based in Colorado.

In regard to point 3 and Kranz’s relationship with Tom Daschle, page 115 describes how I found the smoking gun:

The Dakota Blog Alliance frequently criticized Kranz and the Argus Leader, but the first major confrontation cam in May 2003. Steve Sibson of Sibby Online in Mitchell decided to visit the Mitchell Daily Republic Archives and reviewed some old issues of the newspaper where Kranz had worked prior to joining the Argus. Sibson discovered that when Kranz left the Mitchell paper for the Argus in 1983, he wrote in his final column that he had :heard the disatisfaction [sic] and the allegation of bias. Yet I do not apologize for any one position I have stood for." In addition to finding evidence of bias complaints in Kranz’s past, Sibson also found a direct link between Kranz and Daschle that had never been reported. When Daschle returned to the state from Washington in 1976, Kranz fondly recalled that he and Daschle had attended college together at South Dakota State University and discussed their efforts to organize a mock Democratic convention in 1968: "I remember our tireless search to find a renowned public speaker to addres the convention such as McGovern, McCarthy, Humphrey or some other prominent Democrat."

The blogs revealed that at the time Daschle and Kranz organized the 1968 convention, Daschle served as the president of the Political Science Club, which sponsored the convention, and Kranz served as his publicity chairman. Kranz also wrote an article about the convention for the college newspaper entitled "Daschle Was Workhorse for Political Convention," which explained that Daschle had "worked continuously" and spent "countless hours organizing." Kranz did not disclose his service as Daschle’s publicity chairman for the convention, which he both participated in and reported on, which some bloggers interpreted as an eerie precedent for his later reporting.

On page 73, Lauck covered my role in holding the Daschle campaign accountable for its advertising miscue and his inconsistency in taking credit for funding for South Daktoa institutions that he voted against in Washington DC:

By April, the Daschle campaign had run eleven different television commercials focusing on Daschle’s clout in Washington and what it yielded for the state. In late April, the Daschle campaign also started running local radio and newspaper ads touting the appropiations the senator had secured for local institutions such as Dakota State University (DSU) in Madison and Mitchell Technical Institute (MTI) in Mitchell. Mitchell blogger Steve Sibson of Sibby Online began questioning the ads that were running in Mitchell, which sounded like an MTI endorsement of the Daschle campaign. The Mitchell paper reported, "Though much of the ad’s message is attributed to MTI, the ad was paid for by A Log of People Supporting Tom Daschle." Bloggers then disclosed that Daschle had voted against the appropriations package that included the funding for DSU and MTI.

On April 26, 2004 I did a post on the newspaper version of the MTI ad. Excerpt:

On page 10 of today’s Mitchell Daily Republic is an approximately three fourth page ad by "A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle" and referred to web site www.tomdaschle.com. The add included this statement:

The Mitchell Technical Institute is expanding. Our local technology center received over a half a million dollars to improve its satellite communications network. Money made possible because Tom Daschle went to bat for us.

I believe this is what the Daschle campaign refers to as a positive ad. A Daschle press release from 4/22/2004 also gave credit to Tim Johnson:

U.S. Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) announced today the release of $477,168 to Mitchell School District. The funding will support the Mitchell Technical Institute and was included in the FY 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill at the request of the two senators.

"Providing students with high-quality technology and services is critical to preparing students for the challenges they will confront in the future," said Senator Daschle. "These funds will give students at the Mitchell Technical Institute access to important technological resources."

"These are important improvements to MTI's facilities. I will continue to work for vital education funding," said Senator Johnson, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This funding will allow Mitchell Technical Institute to use its new Technology Center to house MTI's industry training facilities, the terrestrial and satellite telecommunications programs, MTI's Teleport and Information Systems, and core electronics for Digital Dakota Network, South Dakota's statewide educational network.

The FY 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill was passed as part of a FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations bill (H.R. 2673). It passed on 1/22/2004 65 to 28. Amazingly both Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson voted "nay".

Shouldn’t an ad that takes credit on funding you voted against be considered a "negative ad"?

I called the Daschle Campaign office and was referred to his Senate office. When I called the Senate office, I was referred to the Campaign office, so I brought up the 4/22/2004 press release. I asked if that was in reference to H.R. 2673. After checking with someone else, the staffer returned with an affirmative response. I told the staffer that Daschle had voted against that bill and she should tell the campaign office that fact.

Then the Mitchell paper covered this aspect:

I reported on an ad in the Mitchell Daily Republic ran by the Daschle campaign that took credit for funding that Daschle voted against. There is a front-page story in today’s Mitchell Daily Republic that questioned the wording of the ad:

The Mitchell Technical Institute is expanding. Our local technology center received over a half a million dollars to improve its satellite communications network. Money made possible because Tom Daschle went to bat for us.

The buzz around Mitchell was the wording of the ad that made it sound like it was coming from MTI as an endorsement of Tom Daschle. MTI marketing coordinator, Julie Brookbank, denied the ad was an MTI endorsement and was quoted:

"I wasn’t personally involved in preparation of the ad, so I can’t comment further."

The report made this statement regarding the school board president:

Tony Sieler, president of the Mitchell school board, which oversees MTI, said he knew nothing about the ad.

I attended the school board meeting last night. During public input, I brought up the ad and then distributed the congressional record that details Daschle’s vote against the funding. All of Mitchell’s local media was there, including a MDR reporter. I also spoke with a MDR editor and the reporter who wrote today’s report. Daschle’s voting record has not been fully reported on yet. I will be following up on this and I will also be looking for an AP report concerning this issue.

And then there was the aggressive statement from Dick Wadhams:

The Mitchell Daily Republic has posted the front-page story I mentioned earlier today regarding funding for a Mitchell school that Daschle voted against. Here's the ending:

However, some state Republican and Thune campaign leaders called the ad "typical" of the Daschle campaign.

"Part of Daschle’s campaign is to take credit for practically any federal money that comes into South Dakota," Dick Wadhams, Thune’s campaign manager, said.

"He says one thing in South Dakota and votes another way in Washington. I think his voting record will be the center of discussion once the campaign starts in earnest."

The controversy prompted a response from the Daschle campaign:

The Mitchell Daily Republic has another front-page report on the MTI ad that I first covered on Monday. Dan Pfeiffer admits that Daschle did not vote for the funding:

Randy Frederick, state Republican Party chairman, called the recent Daschle ad "questionable" and said Daschle was taking credit for a bill he voted against.

Although Daschle put funding for MTI in the omnibus bill passed in January, he voted against the final bill because it delayed country-of-origin legislation on meats, Pfeiffer said.

"He could not vote for the final bill because it did not contain important provisions he supported," Pfeiffer said.

The controversy continues and now goes from the print ad to the radio version:

As a Sibby Online reader has pointed out to me, the Mitchell Daily Republic report from yesterday was not correct regarding comments from Bill Richardson, chairman of the USD political science department, who referred to the MTI ad as a third party ad. Today the MDR ran a report that corrected this:

Dan Pfeiffer, Daschle spokesman, said the ad came from A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle, which has been the name of Daschle’s campaign committee for the past 25 years. The group, he said, is not a third party group, as stated in Wednesday’s story by a USD professor.

The professor may have been confused by the deceptive wording that the Daschle campaign used in the ad. Click on the image above to see for yourself the verbage from the bottom of the ad. You can barely see the 'Paid for by A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle'. Here is a link to the sources of the funding that paid for the ad. You will find A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle are outside South Dakota.

Tuesday’s MDR report also stated a similar ad ran on a local radio station. I heard the ad myself. There was a lady who seemed to represent MTI on the ad praising Tom Daschle. That person was Kristin Wisnowski. Amazingly she just happens to be a Democratic candidate for South Dakota District 20 House seat (Scroll down to District 20). Democratic candidate Wisnowski must have been on her own as she portrayed herself has a MTI representative based on statements made in today’s MDR by MTI’s director:

"MTI isn’t making an endorsement in the ad," Chris Paustian, MTI director, said Wednesday. "We had nothing to do with the ad. We didn’t write it."

Paustian said the local technical school neither permits nor denies permission to use the school in advertisements.

"It was their right to do it," he said. "We’re not going to get caught in the middle of a political squabble."

The ad, which ran most recently in Wednesday’s Daily Republic and has been broadcast over the past week on KORN Radio, credits Daschle for helping bring in nearly $500,000 to help the local technical school’s satellite technology program.

The fact that Daschle voted against this funding has been covered by myself and admitted to by the Daschle campaign:

Randy Frederick, state Republican Party chairman, called the recent Daschle ad "questionable" and said Daschle was taking credit for a bill he voted against.

Although Daschle put funding for MTI in the omnibus bill passed in January, he voted against the final bill because it delayed country-of-origin legislation on meats, Pfeiffer said.

"He could not vote for the final bill because it did not contain important provisions he supported," Pfeiffer said.

So…we have the Daschle campaign running ads that are wrongly portrayed as MTI’s appreciation for funding…and funding that Daschle voted against. Now that is truly a negative ad. DVT has found similar tactics in Madison, SD.

Let’s not forget Jason Van Beek’s post that gave me the knowledge necessary to question and research this con job perpetrated by the Daschle campaign. As you look through the millions of funding in Jason’s post…one has to wonder how many more deceptive ads are currently running statewide and how many more are being planned. Especially note all the funding that went to Native Americans.

And in early May 2004, the Mitchell paper ran this op-ed that I authored:

Sally Martin’s 5/1/2004 letter regarding MTI’s federal funding on it’s satellite network was so sad as it demonstrated how much impact the Daschle Campaign’s propaganda can have on the citizens of this State. The Daschle campaign’s ads that ran in this paper and on local radio that took credit for the $477,168 the Mitchell Technical Institute received due to the passage of H.R. 2673. A bill that Tom Daschle opposed.

On 12/8/2003 the bill passed the House of Representatives 242 to 176 without the vote of Bill Janklow, but with the blessings of 58 Democrats. On 12/9/2003 Bill Frist, the Majority Leader of the Senate, attempted to move the funding on with a unanimous consent motion. But Tom Daschle objected and attacked Republicans:

"At the beginning of the year we were told that the White House and Senate Republican leadership would make sure the appropriations process ran more smoothly than ever before. In fact, the process broke down to an extent never seen before, opening the door to the worst kind of legislative abuses and special interest giveaways."

Hypocritically, Daschle then implemented his all too typical obstruction, as reported by Roll Call magazine:

"Daschle (D-S.D.) acknowledged on Dec. 9, the last day the Senate met before its recess, that he would be calling colleagues over the holidays to potentially build support for a filibuster." (Emily Pierce, "Get On The Omnibus," Roll Call, January 20, 2004)

On 1/20/2004, the first day after the recess, Daschle successfully implemented a filibuster. The vote to stop the filibuster needed 60 votes but only received 48. That night the President gave his State of the Union Address. After Daschle successfully prevented the President from taking credit for the funding, the filibuster ended two days later with eleven Democrats changing their vote. Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson where not among the 61 Senators who voted to end the obstruction.

One half-hour later 65 Senators voted to approve H.R. 2673, with significant bipartisan support that included 21 Democrats. Again, Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson were not among them. They said no to over $100 million in funding for South Dakota projects including over $9 million for Native Americans, and $477,168 for the satellite network for the Mitchell Technical Institute. How could the Daschle campaign, in good conscience, run ads taking credit for that funding.

Also, Sally Martin wants to debate what is or isn’t pork. She should be aware of what Senator Daschle said about H.R. 2673 on the floor of the Senate 12/9/2003:

"This brand of legislating opens the door to the most ludicrous examples of pork spending, which has contributed to citizens' loss of faith in the process itself.

Even the conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense said:

This bill includes thousands of frivolous, bizarre, and special interest earmarks for every congressional district in the nation."

In an effort to gain re-election, the Daschle campaign is taking credit for the funding that was provided by legislation that he protested as being pork spending, filibustered, and then at the end of the day…voted against.

As Daschle’s campaign runs ads charging others for ‘negative ads’, they run ads that are misleading on more than one count. The ad in this paper was also deceptively worded to look like it was an ad written by MTI.

The radio version of the ad included statements by Kristin Wisnowsky who said was from MTI as see praised Daschle. Her status at MTI is one of a student. The ad did not disclose that she is currently a Democratic candidate for a South Dakota House seat for District 20. Candidates do not represent others until after and if they are elected. This did not stop the Daschle campaign to use a Democratic candidate to make it appear that a representative of MTI was pledging that institutions support for Tom Daschle.

We should not be surprised that Daschle would resort to such deception to gain re-election. After all he has been credited with being Bill Clinton’s biggest supporter during his impeachment trial. Remember how Clinton looked his constituents in the eyes and lied to us.

And so on October 27, 2007, Jon Lauck wrote this to me at his book signing in Sioux Falls:

Oh those evil Republicans

Patrick Lalley continues to defend the indefensible with this:

Every reasonable thought I have tells me not to respond to Sibby but I’m going to do it anyway because, as I recall, he has raised this point before and it needs to be straightened out. In his response to my post on Lauck’s book — here’s the post, you’ll see it down there about six or so — he claims there is "one less GOP PUC member now versus 2006″ because of our use of anonymous sources. That’s just flat out wrong. What Sir Sibby is referring to, I believe, was the decision of Bob Sahr not to run for re-election last year. Let me remind everyone that what triggered that whole story was the announcement that other Republicans were running against Mr. Sahr at the convention. It wasn’t the Argus Leader pressing this issue, it was Republicans.

Here’s the key quote from Rep. John Koskan that started it all:

"I am running for the nomination because I believe I have the background necessary to do that job," Koskan said. "I would not run … if I thought he (Sahr) was running for re-election."

When a Republican legislator says that about a sitting PUC commissioner, it’s not to tough to figure out that something’s up.

So Lalley says, "It wasn’t the Argus Leader pressing this issue, it was Republicans." Republicans? Which ones? Lalley thinks they are all evil…remember? So, Lalley wants to use anonymous sources to defend his argument that the Argus Leader does not use anonymous sources? Wow!

Lalley then provides the entire Kranz story that includes this excerpt:

Sahr did not return several phone calls or respond to e-mails. But some convention delegates said they received an e-mail from his campaign at 3 p.m. Friday asking for their support at the convention.

It read: "Dear Friend, Getting things done for South Dakota is my theme as I run for re-election."

Also attached were favorable clippings about his PUC career.

So who was the source of that detailed piece of information? Again Kranz uses his typical "some" without naming his sources of convention delegates. Mr. Lalley, that is use of anonymous sources. And note it was from what you call a Kranz news report.

And Lalley does provide the exact statement that was later written by Kranz [but Lalley did not identfy Kranz] and published by the Argus Leader:

They all identified themselves. Most were Republicans. Some were wondering what was going on. Others offered the version they heard. Some presented "absolute facts" about what was going on with Sahr. Yet no one really seemed to know for sure, and it quickly became difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Common was the belief that Sahr would not run for renomination at this week’s Republican convention in Watertown. Others speculated that his resignation from the PUC was imminent.

Even though there were differing ideas about what supposedly brought Sahr to this situation, Sahr continues to dig in and stay in the race, even with news of a possible investigation.

About what is uncertain?

Sahr supporters immediately charged he was the target of an unfair blindside attack, subject of opportunism by people who wanted to see him out of the political picture. Republican doubters offered the "where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire" defense for asking the questions.

They all identified themselves and "most" were Republicans. Not all…most. But all remained anonymous. So who were the ones that were not Republicans?

The Rapid City Journal gives the reason why Sahr dropped out of the race:

State Public Utilities Commission chairman Bob Sahr announced Tuesday he will not seek re-election to the commission that regulates telephone service, electricity and other utilities in South Dakota. In an e-mail message confirmed by the PUC, Sahr said untrue rumors about him prompted his decision.

"The rumors are untrue. I look forward to the legal opportunity to prove that these rumors are untrue, but it would be very difficult to be a candidate for public office while doing so," Sahr said in his written statement.

"In light of this reality, and to give the Republican Party an opportunity to pick another candidate, I am announcing that I will not seek the Public Utilities Commission nomination at the Republican Party Convention this week," Sahr said.

So Sahr's decision was based on rumors that were mentioned by the Argus Leader via anonymous sources. At this point, I would like to point out that when a Democrat and baseball card buddy of Dave Kranz is being investigated, the Argus Leader policy is to not report the name of the subject of the investigation unless charges have been filed, even though the allegations were not made in an anonymous fashion. I have yet to hear of any charges being filed against Bob Sahr, but that did not stop Kranz from reporting he [Sahr] was being investigated based on anonymous sources. This is getting to be a very big hole. Keep digging Mr. Lalley. We all know that you will help the Democrats keep the dirty secrets secret, but not those evil Republicans. These two situation show just how far you will go in opposite directions.

So if Mr. Lalley wants to blame the Sahr situation on Republicans, well then he better start naming names. After all, Sahr was thought to be a rising star for the South Dakota GOP. Who in the GOP would want to torpedo him? Certainly not all Republican are that evil. Perhaps just a very few who think like Democrats. But, we do know who in the media will help in getting the torpedo job done. And there was only one media report (that I know of) on the allegations of an investigation against Sahr himself prior to the announcement by Sahr that he was not running for re-election. And now Lalley wants to say:

Just because other newspapers, for example, use anonymous sources with great regularity, doesn’t mean we will do it. You can count on one hand the times anonymous sources have been used in news stories in the nearly 10 years I’ve been here.

And if Mr. Lalley’s only defense is that what Dave Kranz writes is not really news, then I may have to agree. He is a smear merchant for the South Dakota Democrat Party. But that should not discount the premise that the Argus Leader frequently uses anonymous sources.

So let Kranz do his thing on the opinion page, but it wasn’t until recently that Kranz’s column were moved from the news section to the opinion section of the Argus Leader. And I when I say recent, I mean far less than 10 years. So now what will Lalley's excuse will be for not letting the light be shown on the truth from Jon Lauck's book?

Kranz uses anonymous source

[UPDATE: Note to those coming over from the Voices blog, see this post for more]

Yesterday I posted a Patrick Lalley comment that says the Argus Leader hardly ever uses anonymous sources. I gave an example of Dave Kranz using an anonymous source. And Kranz does it again today with this:

Pennington County politics is always intriguing, and this year is no exception. Factor in the increasing shift toward libertarian thinking in the western part of the state, and you're only adding to the political mystery.

A bit of controversy swirls again this year around former Republican state Sen. Stan Adelstein as he weighs a possible bid get back his old state Senate seat.

Try to follow this scenario: Adelstein lost his job in a 2006 GOP primary with Elli Schwiesow. Then Democrat Tom Katus won the Senate seat, defeating Schwiesow. Keep in mind that Adelstein was supportive of Katus in a lot of ways, helping him win the seat in the general election.

But now, if Adelstein wants his Senate seat back, he might have to go up against the guy he helped get elected. Some Democrats would rather see Katus seek a House seat and let Adelstein, who kept his Republican registration, run to restore his title next year.

Why didn’t Kranz name "Some Democrats"? ANother example of anonymous sources at the Argus Leader. So Lalley is running out of excuses regarding review of Jon Lauck’s book. On October 13, 2007 the Argus Leader ran a book review on one written by Sioux Falls locals Mark Meierhenry and David Volk and illustrated by Jason Folkerts.

Buy Jon Lauck’s book and find out what the Argus does not want you to know.

Lalley clarifies position on Lauck’s book

Patrick Lalley clarifies his "we are in the book" excuse for not reviewing Jon Lauck’s book:

I’m not going to comment directly on what other reporters have done. I will say, we make decisions based on our circumstances, not those of others. Just because other newspapers, for example, use anonymous sources with great regularity, doesn’t mean we will do it. You can count on one hand the times anonymous sources have been used in news stories in the nearly 10 years I’ve been here. Also, it should be noted that Jon didn’t spend all that energy attacking the Rapid City Journal or the Mitchell Daily Republic. The target was the Argus Leader. I would argue the circumstances are different.

I responded with this comment:

Isn’t there one less GOP PUC member now versus 2006 thanks to Dave Kranz using anonymous sources?

And second, part of the history disclosed by Lauck is that Dave Kranz was managing Editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic. It was in that paper that I found the Dave Kranz column that bragged about his college days with Tom Daschle. Was it your idea that Kranz not brag about it in 2003 and 2004…or now?

I do have to agree with Lalley’s assertion that the "circumstances are different". That is because the coverage of those newspapers is more open than the Argus Leader.

Argus responds to Lauck’s book

The Argus Leader responds to its not reporting on Jon Lauck’s book via the Voices blog with a Patrick Lalley post. Excerpt:

There’s a few reasons why Jon’s book hasn’t been publicized in the paper as of yet. First of all, some of us, including me, David Kranz and other Argus Leader folks, are in the book. I have a copy, signed and personalized by Mr. Lauck by the way, but I haven’t read the whole thing. So I can’t say for certain, but I’m fairly confident that most other media outlets don’t have the issue that we have.

It would be unethical — and probably not fair to Jon — if I or Kranz or anybody involved in the coverage of that campaign were to write about the book. Given that attacking this newspaper specifically — and many days me personally — was part of Thune campaign manager Dick Wadham’s strategy, it’s questionable whether we should write about the book at all.

Let me just say that again, WE ARE IN THE BOOK. That’s the key issue. I’ve told Jon this.

I really hate to break the suspense for those who have yet to read the book, but the Rapid City Journal is in the book, and I believe they covered the book. The Mitchell Daily Republic is in the book, and I know for a fact that they covered the book on their front page.

Got any more excuses Lalley? Try...the truth hurts.

Secularists are moderates?

David Kranz analysis of District 20 included this:

One of the more interesting races to be affected by the limitations in 2008 is District 20, where state Sen. Ed Olson of Mitchell, a four-term Republican, will leave the Senate.

Olson will not commit one of the sins made common by the ridiculous term-limit legislation by moving over to a House race. He will leave politics behind.

Olson gained prominence by spearheading the formation of the Mainstream Coalition, a group made up of moderate lawmakers.

And he said this about me:

Another Republican interested in Ed Olson's job is Steve Sibson, a Mitchell Toshiba worker who also runs a conservative blog.

So why does Dave Kranz call the secular humanist movement "moderate", and those such as myself who are working to restore traditional American principles "conservatives"? Is it to paint those he disagrees with as extremists? Is it to avoid the understanding that the 30% of Republicans who agree with the Democrats’ anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-family agenda of the far-left secular humanists are a bunch of radicals?

Comments are open. Come on Todd Epp, lets have a constructive discussion of worldviews and drop the distraction of Republican versus Democrat.