Today's Roll Call carries a story about one of the subtexts of the upcoming Senate campaign (sorry, no link). The trigger for the story is John Thune's lobbying. Here's the basic issue:
“Questions should be raised about how proper it is for [Thune] to be lobbying Congress at the same time he is seeking a job in Congress,” said Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand.
Thune campaign manager Dick Wadhams quickly struck back, alleging that the Minority Leader serves as “chairman of the board of Daschle Inc.” When asked to explain, Wadhams replied: “Lobbying seems to be the [Daschle] family business, based out of Washington, D.C.”
The back and forth between the campaigns is the first major skirmish since Thune formally entered what is expected to be the most high-profile — and contentious — Senate race on the 2004 docket.
...
This initial dustup over the lobbying ties of both Thune and Daschle serves as a preview for what is likely to become one of the major points of contention in the race.
The debate centers on whether Thune’s decision to lobby nullifies potential Republican attacks against Linda Daschle, a lobbyist at Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell. National and state GOPers have long maintained that Linda Daschle’s occupation represents a blatant conflict of interest for the Senator. In an attempt to avoid the appearance of impropriety she has voluntarily refused to lobby the Senate.
Wadhams dismissed the idea that Thune’s work as a lobbyist removes Linda Daschle’s work as a potential campaign issue.
“I don’t think there is any comparison,” said Wadhams. “John Thune is not an elected official, Tom Daschle is. That is a big, huge difference.” Hildebrand warned that any attempt to make Linda Daschle’s career a matter of public debate would be fought strongly by the campaign and could backfire on Thune.
“If [Thune] begins to attack Tom’s family we will certainly raise the question of fairness,” Hildebrand said.
This is an odd story. It appears that the Daschle campaign has made an issue out of Thune's lobbying and thereby triggered a debate about the propriety of Linda Daschle lobbying the Congress in which Tom Daschle serves as leader. This seems like a discussion the Daschle campaign would want to avoid. See this long story in the liberal leaning Washington Monthly entitled "Tom Daschle's Hillary Problem." Here's a snippet:
The landmines in Linda Daschle's professional portfolio will make Hillary Clinton's pork futures and law-firm billings look like mousetraps. For instance, among Linda Daschle's clients is American Airlines, which has had six fatal crashes since 1994 (not even including the World Trade Center flights). The airline has incurred thousands of dollars in federal fines for a host of safety violations, and its employees have been caught in embarrassing drug smuggling stings. Even as its planes have crashed, American has lobbied for years to water down safety and security regulations that might have helped foil the World Trade Center attacks. Yet thanks in part to lobbying efforts by Daschle---and support from her husband---American Airlines got a free pass in the recent airline bailout bill, escaping most legal liability for the hijackings and getting $583 million in cash grants---taxpayer money it will never have to repay.
Is this a discussion the Democrats want to have? Seems like stumble. Also, the talk of "attack[ing] Tom's family" seems very, as Daschle likes to say, "paranoid" (see NY Times for quote). Especially after this story in the Washington Post, summarized here by Dave Kranz of the Argus Leader, about the Daschle campaign's decision to "assemble[] embarrassing information on several conservatives who are considering more attack ads against Daschle. The information includes videotape of a conservative activist discussing how he paid for his girlfriend's abortion." Are Daschle's troops marching this race into the gutter already? One hopes not. This race could be a showcase for deliberative debate. US News has already called it the "most compelling Senate race of the year." Let's hope it plays out that way.