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:
Recent Comments