Hypocrisy Watch: Daschle Embraces Moore in DC, Denies It in South Dakota

Time magazine's cover story on Michael Moore reports that Senator Tom Daschle is embracing (literally, as in a "hug") Michael Moore and is expressing his regret (i.e. "felt bad") for not opposing the President on Iraq even more:

Two weeks ago, at the Washington premiere, Moore sat a few rows behind Daschle. Afterward, says Moore, "he gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good sport."

Now for the hypocrisy. See this post on the Daschle "blog" from his spokesman Dan Pfeiffer about Daschle's attendance at the Michael Moore film premiere:

Somehow, the Thune campaign incorrectly inferred that Daschle’s attendance at the film equated an endorsement of director Michael Moore’s political views.

Now see this in the July 5th Aberdeen American News:

Dan Pfeiffer, of Daschle's campaign, said the fact the the minority leader attended the movie's premiere is not an indication that he supports all of Moore's viewpoints.

So Pfeiffer is saying that Daschle doesn't agree with Moore. How else to read it? Moore says just the opposite. It's clear from Pfeiffer's spin that the Daschle campaign knows that it's damaging in South Dakota for Daschle to be embracing Michael Moore's absurd opinions. That's why they were distancing Daschle from Moore. But now we find out that Pfeiffer was misrepresenting Daschle's true feelings on the war, i.e. his "hug" of Moore after the movie and how he now "felt bad" about not undermining the President's war plans even more. Note to Michael Moore: when Daschle is in South Dakota, he also brags about supporting the President 75% of the time!

Remember, of course, that back in South Dakota a few months ago that Daschle was lauding the war effort:

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Also, remember how Daschle was speaking out of both sides of his mouth as the vote on the war approached. As noted by Peter Beinart in The New Republic (11-8-2) in the fall of 2002, Daschle had no real position on the war: "Daschle criticized the war endlessly, then voted for it on the flimsiest of pretexts, then went back to criticizing it." Beinart called it "moral abdication" from the "meek and cynical center" which made "Democratic support for the war with Iraq synonymous with cynical calcuation and ideological me-tooism."

Speaking of being on both sides of the issue, remember that Daschle, on March 17, 2003, literally on the eve of war, bashed the President's war plan and set off a national controversy. Daschle then said he had "no idea" the war was starting soon.* But as early as March 6, 2003 Daschle told reporters at a press conference that the nation was "on the verge of war." The President even said on March 16, 2003 that "Tomorrow is a moment of truth." On the same day, VP Cheney said on "Meet the Press" that the war decision would be made "in the next few days."

If Daschle had the moral integrity of former South Dakota Senator George McGovern, who consistently opposed the war in Vietnam despite the political risks, he would simply be clear about his opposition to the war instead of voting for the war and making pro-war statements in South Dakota while at the same time embracing Michael Moore in DC but denying it in South Dakota.

*Rapid City Journal, March 28, 2003.