Sibby Online

Johnson approves of spying on Americans

From the Rapid City Journal:

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., visited Camp Rapid on Monday for a briefing on how the South Dakota National Guard is helping to fight illegal drugs.

Johnson got a look at a helicopter the Guard uses to help find drug houses. The four-seat chopper has long-range surveillance capabilities and can take aerial photos of drug locations with its special cameras.

The Guard's security and support detachment is trained for making drug busts. Such efforts have taken $4 million worth of drugs off the streets in the past 18 months, Guard officials said.

Johnson said the drug-fighting tools are necessary in states such as South Dakota.

Democrats don’t have a problem spying on Americans when it is in regard to the war on drugs, but condemns President Bush for spying on possible suspects in regard to the war on terrorists. Again, another example of the Democrats having two sets of rules…one for Republicans and none for themselves.

Tim Johnson, soft on terrorism

Here is what Michelle Malkin had to say about last week’s Senate vote that prevented terrorists from challenging their detention:

Sen. Lindsay Graham has been irksome of late, but the amendment he sponsored to rein in the ridiculous panoply of legal rights granted to foreign enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay is a welcome dose of sanity. The Senate approved the amendment to a military budget bill, 49-42, last night:

If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court.

Nearly 200 of roughly 500 detainees there have already filed habeas corpus motions, which are making their way up through the federal court system. As written, the amendment would void any suits pending at the time the law was passed.

Take special note of these wayward Republicans and surprisingly reality-grounded Democrats and their votes on the measure:

In addition to [Sen. Arlen] Specter, Republicans voting against the bill were Senators John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. The five Democrats voting for the bill were Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Note that Tim Johnson was not among the 5 sane Democrats to vote for the amendment. Note the five Democrats included two from midwestern red states… Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Tim Johnson not only decided to go soft on the terrorists, he voted to grant them a victory in Iraq. Here are the details from the AP:

The Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday easily defeated a Democratic effort to pressure President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It then overwhelmingly endorsed a weaker statement calling on the administration to explain its Iraq policy.

Senators also overwhelmingly voted to endorse the Bush administration's military tribunals for prosecuting suspected foreign terrorists held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but to allow detainees to appeal their status and punishments to a federal court.

On the question of a timetable for troop withdrawal, senators rejected the Democrats' measure by 58-40. Democratic leaders had advanced the timetable measure in the wake of declining public support for a conflict that has claimed more than 2,000 U.S. lives and cost more than $200 billion.

Again, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota voted against the surrender. But Tim Johnson decided his anti-war Democrat colleagues were more important than the majority of his constituents back in South Dakota.

Johnson, from Taliban to arch-conservative

South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson has this quote in today’s Argus Leader:

"It's my hope that both groups on the left and the right will take a deep breath and back off," Johnson said. "Grenades from both the liberal and arch-conservative sides don't help all that much."

I wonder if Johnson knows any arch-liberals?

Tim Johnson and the mainstream

Earlier I posted on Tim Johnson’ remark on the upcoming judicial nominations in which he referred to the "mainstream". I received this email:

Steve I see Tim Johnson is using the word mainstream again, what does he mean. Is there anyone in South Dakota that has a clue on what he means. I have called is office several times, and he will not give me a answer. Will you ask your (friends) on the left if they know. Thanks

How about it? What does this mean:

We can all agree that the Supreme Court needs and deserves a respected jurist or scholar who falls within the broad mainstream of American jurisprudential thinking," Johnson said.

What exactly is Johnson talking about here when he uses the same word the secularist Republicans used when they named their organization the "Mainstream Coalition"?

Johnson takes undeserved credit

The Argus Leader has a report on a huge expansion of the Sioux Fgalls Morrell meat packing plant:

Local and state leaders on Friday lauded John Morrell & Co.'s $100 million expansion plans and emphasized the plant's importance to the city and state.

As in the delegation's recent victory to save Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota's senators united to celebrate a win for Sioux Falls' future. Past conflicts about the livestock production and ownership practices of Morrell's parent company, Smithfield Foods Inc., weren't evident Friday.

"Sioux Falls is on a roll," U.S. Sen. John Thune told the crowd gathered for the event. He credited a "progressive and steady" local leadership for Morrell's nearly centurylong existence in Sioux Falls.

"It's about jobs; it's about economic development; it's about building a better way of life," Thune said.

In 2002, Morrell threatened to leave Sioux Falls if a proposition to restrict packing companies' ability to own livestock was passed in Congress. The ban, pushed by U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, passed the Senate but was eliminated by the House in negotiations over the farm bill.

Thune, then a U.S. representative, introduced a different version of packer limits. It, too, failed.

On Friday, Johnson called Sioux Falls "an engine of economic development growth and expansion."

"It's a win for Sioux Falls, clearly, but also a win for pork producers in the region who will have a place for their product," Johnson said. "I look forward to another century of John Morrell."

If Johnson got his way, Morrell’s would not even be in Sioux Falls let alone expanding. So why is he taking credit? This morning he was taking credit for a small park in Alexandria, SD. Pork is OK when it is a park, but not when it is to eat? And the Democrats whine about fiscal responsibility?

Johnson the lefty

From Dakota Voice:

The United States Senate today voted 65-32 to invoke cloture on the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, thus allowing her nomination to go to the floor for a vote, which is scheduled for Wednesday. Senator Tim Johnson voted with 31 other Democrats to continue the 653-day filibuster.

"I hope Senator Johnson hasn’t given up on the spirit of bipartisanship he spoke so highly of just a couple weeks ago," said South Dakota Family Policy Council executive director Robert Regier. "When the 14 senators struck a deal that barred the use of the filibuster on Justices Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor, Senator Johnson hailed it as a ‘step in the right direction.’

\

"When that deal was put to its first test, Senator Johnson thankfully voted to allow a vote on Justice Owen. Unfortunately, he voted against the well-qualified nominee, but at the very least he did the right thing and upheld his part of the deal to allow a vote.

"Today, Senator Johnson refused to allow a vote on the second nomination of that deal. Has Senator Johnson soured on the deal that he said restored bipartisanship to the Senate," Regier asked. "While Senator Johnson has attacked Justice Brown as being out of the mainstream, in her last election 76% of the people of California voted for her, the highest vote percentage of all justices on the ballot. Does Senator Johnson really believe 76% of California voters are out of the mainstream? If anything, they’re to the left of the mainstream. Yet, they gave her their overwhelming approval.

Tim Johnson’s clout

A Sibby Online reader has noted that Tim Johnson does not have enough clout to get the two Democrat Senators from North Dakota to sign on with Thune’s bill to delay the base closing decision. The point came up on a talk radio program.

Tim Johnson in Mitchell

Senator Tim Johnson was in Mitchell tonight to provide a one sided view on the Social Security debate. Upon entering, I was handed an eight page handout that included a page with a heading that stated, " Bush Privatizaion Plan slashes Guaranteed Benefits…". We were allowed to submit questions via cards, so I paraphrased a question based on the following (via Social Security Choice):

The fact remains that benefits under Social Security are not guaranteed. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no ownership claim to their Social Security benefits (Flemming v. Nestor). Not only does this ruling clearly establish that Social Security benefits are not guaranteed, it also reminds us that Congress can cut benefits or even eliminate them altogether at any time. Moreover, as the Social Security Board of Trustee’s report clearly demonstrated this week, doing nothing is a benefit cut. If no changes are made this year, future retirees could face benefit cuts as steep as 27%.

Johnson handled the question by stating that there is not a stated Constitutional right to Social Security. He then argued that it is created through constitutional legislation. Then he reluctantly agreed that the benefits are not guaranteed. Perhaps Johnson should have his handouts updated.

George McGovern was also there offering a softball question.

The LaRouche folks were also there handing out this:

Tim Johnson will be presenting the Democrat talking points at:

YANKTON: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Avera Sacred Heart Majestic Bluffs 11:00 am to 12:30 pm CST

SIOUX FALLS: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Ramkota Hotel (Exhibit Hall) 3:30 to 5:00 pm CST

WATERTOWN: Thursday, March 31, 2005 Watertown Senior Citizens Center 10:00 to 11:30 am CST

ABERDEEN: Thursday, March 31, 2005 Strode Activity Center --Presentation College 3:30 to 5:00 pm CST

RAPID CITY: Friday, April 1, 2005 American Legion Post Home 1:00 to 2:30 pm MST

Tim Johnson did not get it

There is an AP report on judicial nominees that proves Tim Johnson did not get the message South Dakota sent to the Nation on November 2, 2004:

Using filibusters to block appellate court nominees is appropriate when those judges are controversial or out of the mainstream, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said Wednesday.

But Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said qualified nominees should at least get an up-or-down vote. "I think that most people see that as an issue of fairness," he said.

Democrats blocked 10 appeals court hopefuls during President Bush's first term, and party leaders again promise to prevent some nominees from getting hearings with the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.

Johnson said that there should be a reasonable level of bipartisan support for lifetime appointments. He said 204 of Bush's other first-term nominees were approved in overwhelming bipartisan votes.

"The president clearly has the option of having all of his judges approved by a very large margin," Johnson said. "But where they are highly controversial, I think a 60-vote margin is the proper approach to take."

When the litmus test on abortion fails, the judges are "highly controversial". Tim Johnson does not want South Dakota to obtain the right to pass legislation banning abortion without the threat of judicial tyranny. Speaking of "out of the mainstream", Tim Johnson is outside the mainstream of South Dakota on this one. November 2, 2004 proved that:

Thune said Democrats once again are "sounding a very defiant tone" on nominees. Voters made it clear in 2004 that they were fed up with stall tactics, he said.

"I think it's very fresh in the American people's minds what this last election was about," Thune said Wednesday. "It was about obstructionism. And it was about getting the Senate moving again. And it was about ensuring the Senate fulfills its constitutional responsibilities."