Daschle v. Thune

Gays and Guns

As previously noted, Daschle is opposed to gay marriage but also opposed to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Stephanie Herseth, the Democrat who is running in the South Dakota special election in June, however, is for the constitutional amendment. Atrios doesn't like her position ("offensive and legal gibberish") and thinks her and Daschle need to work out a consistent position. The Daily Kos and his readers don't like her position either and are considering revoking their support. Herseth's position in favor of the Constitutional amendment, just like Senator Johnson's vote against gun locks on Friday (which Daschle favored), again highlights a problem for Daschle, i.e. there's a reason Herseth and Johnson are taking positions in South Dakota that are contrary to Daschle. It's what's called "electability" this campaign season. And it's why Daschle's DC v. SD balancing act is so complicated, as this Roll Call article notes.

The Two Daschles

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has a rather devastating analysis in today's paper about the infighting that hobbled the Dean campaign. The key division was between the Vermont crowd and the DC crowd, especially over the outsider v. special interests theme, which the Vermonters found absurd:

The warfare continued over Dean's message, the outsider-against-Washington-special-interests pitch that Trippi [DC faction] had developed in a PowerPoint presentation, tested in polls and, despite O'Connor's [Vermont faction] concerns, used to sell the candidate to major labor unions.

Dean's policy director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, declared in an e-mail: "The message of the campaign is simply no longer our campaign vs. the special interests. This is not what the governor wants to be saying -- or frankly what he ever really wanted to be saying."

Joe Drymala, the chief speechwriter who received the e-mail, resigned in protest. "I refused to believe it because I didn't want to," he said. "To believe that was to believe that Howard Dean was a fraud."

The lesson: a candidate can't be something he's not, which is a problem that keeps surfacing for Daschle. One can't be the leader of the liberal Democratic caucus in the Senate, constantly blocking the President's agenda, and run as a pro-war conservative who supports the President at home. A former Daschle staffer says it best: "[A]s both his Senate race and the presidential contest heat up, Tom Daschle may need to decide whether he can defend his seat and work to defeat Bush at the same time." Adding to Daschle's problems is the rate at which he's bleeding cash with very little to show for it, which seems to indicate that South Dakota voters aren't buying it (Daschle actually seems to be slipping in the polls).

Daschle Hearing Footsteps

"[Sen. Tom Daschle] doesn’t have [Sen. Tim] Johnson’s votes or credentials to run right, has lost clout when he lost the majority, and will be feeling pressure above ballot. All this has to leave Tom Daschle feeling as edgy as an underweight wide receiver going over the middle. He’s got to be hearing footsteps.” (from National Journal, February 23, 2004).

Iraq/Abortion

Christopher Adamo at American Daily wonders about the two sides of Daschle and the voters' response:

Surprisingly, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D. SD), a key player among the President's not-so-loyal opposition, is singing a completely different tune these days, at least when speaking to his constituents back home. Recently, in a speech to the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, he publicly applauded President Bush’s efforts in the war on terror. But Daschle’s words should not be interpreted as anything other than a transparent attempt to pander to South Dakota’s overwhelmingly conservative population.

One really has to wonder just what the people of South Dakota are thinking. They elect a state legislature with the courage and principle to enact a law recognizing and protecting the inherent right to life of the unborn, yet they send a Senator to Washington who, in service to the liberal agenda, leads the fight to fill the courts with activist judges who will work diligently to undermine those very things. Do south Dakotans really believe the fallout from Daschle’s rank partisanship won’t return to haunt them, merely because he is pragmatic enough as a politician to know better than to voice his true feelings in their midst?

Gun Control Vote Revealing

The Associated Press is reporting on the gun control vote last night--apparently Senator Daschle voted yes, and Senator Johnson voted no, which is revealing:

The roll call by which the Senate voted 70-27 on Thursday to require safety locks on all handguns sold in the United States. The requirement is part of a bill that protects gun makers and distributors from lawsuits arising from gun crimes.

On this vote, a yes vote was a vote to include the gun lock measure and a no vote was a vote against adding the proposal.

Voting yes were 44 Democrats, 25 Republicans and one independent.

Voting no were 2 Democrats and 25 Republicans.

Johnson always runs as a conservative Democrat in South Dakota because he feels he needs to in order to prevail (he voted for the Bush tax cuts for example, while Daschle voted against). It's revealing that he believes his vote represents where his constituents are. That means Daschle doesn't know, chooses not to know, or Johnson is all wet. This looks like more trouble for Daschle. Charlie Cook noted last week how much different the Daschle v. Thune race is from the Johnson v. Thune race. This vote makes the point: Daschle is weighed down by his liberal voting record and his obligation to lead the liberal charge in DC.

Daschle's Two Masters IV

Some Democratic activists at Buzzflash.com (the liberal Drudge) are arguing that Daschle cannot be Minority Leader AND run for re-election in a Red State. This time they point to Senate passage of the liability waiver for gun manufacturers:

Once Again, BuzzFlash Says Daschle Cannot be a Red State Bush-Lite Dem Senator and ALSO Minority Leader: In This Case, He is CO-SPONSORING An NRA Bill to Give the Gun Industry Unprecedented Immunity from Lawsuits to Please the NRA Guys in South Dakota.

A former Daschle staffer said the same this week. The online editor of The Hill thinks the Democratic embrace of the bill is all politics:

Yet in their haste to score a few extra political points this fall, Democrats are ignoring their own political beliefs as well as the advice of experts, such the Major Cities Chiefs Association. In an ad this week in The Washington Post funded by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with the Million Mom March, Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Bratton pleaded with senators to oppose the bill.

Daschle and Gay Marriage

Daschle said last fall that the federal statute banning gay marriage is all that is needed to prohibit gay marriages:

Reading from the federal code, Daschle told a news conference: "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

"You can't get any clearer than that," he said, adding that he supports the current law. "No changes necessary, in my view. You've got it in law today," Daschle said.

Daschle still says he's opposed to gay marriage. David Frum makes a good point, however:

What is the Democratic position on the amendment? As near as I can tell it amounts to this. They say they oppose same-sex marriage – but then they also oppose the constitutional amendment necessary to prevent same-sex marriage.

Daschle's Spending "Spree"

Today's Roll Call has a piece on how fast the Daschle campaign is going through cash entitled "Daschle’s Five-Year, $9.5M Spending Spree" (note: Daschle has spent more than any of the incumbents up this year):

In the five years leading up to his re-election bid this year, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) spent $9.5 million on his political activities, roughly 40 percent of which was disbursed in 2003 alone, according to an analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

From Jan. 1, 1999, to Dec. 31, 2003, Daschle spent $4.6 million from his personal campaign account, the highest total of any of the 34 incumbents up for re-election in November.

He also disbursed roughly $4.9 million during that time period — $870,000 in 2003 — through Dedicated Americans for the Senate and House, his leadership committee.

...

Dick Wadhams, campaign manager for former House Member and current Daschle challenger John Thune (R), however, questioned whether the Senator’s spending has yielded any tangible results.

“It must be embarrassing to have spent $4.6 million even before we got into election year 2004,” said Wadhams. “The poll numbers remain remarkably the same as they have for a couple of years.”

According this poll, Daschle is ahead 48% to 45%. Daschle's ads may have hurt him. Last summer, 86% of residents said they opposed Daschle's ads in an Argus poll.

Daschle's Twin Masters III

Today's New York Times notes more cross-fire for Daschle on the gun bill:

"Daschle is in a very, very untenable position here," said Richard Aborn, a former president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an advocacy group. "The Daschle amendment doesn't do anything to soften the negative impact of this bill. It's a disaster."

Another issue splits the candidates which will probably get complicated: Daschle opposes a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage while Thune supports it.

Adding to Daschle's heartburn, the Wednesday edition of Roll Call also notes that Daschle won't even be able to adjourn the Senate in March because he wants to make sure no judicial nominees sneak through (since Daschle desperately needs to be back in South Dakota, however, this tactic seems unlikely):

Setting up a potential showdown over the chamber’s mid-March recess, Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) threatened Tuesday to use parliamentary maneuvers to prevent the Senate from adjourning for any period of time that would open the door to presidential recess appointments.

“We may look differently on recesses in the future as to whether or not we ever vote to recess again,” Daschle said, angrily reacting to two recess appointments in January and February of judicial nominees previously blocked by Democratic filibusters.

Republican leaders dismissed the idea that Daschle would follow through with the parliamentary tactics needed to prevent a formal recess from happening, mostly because his own caucus would want the opportunity to get home to their states. “I’d find it hard to believe,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who noted he held 62 meetings over the Presidents Day recess.

To block a recess, Senate Democrats would have to object to a unanimous consent request to adjourn for recess, which would then force Frist’s hand.

Frist could then force a vote to try to defeat Daschle’s objection, but Democrats would likely respond by filibustering Frist’s motion, which would require Frist to gain 60 votes to move to a recess.

Daschle's Twin Masters II

According to a 2002 poll, 50% of South Dakotans think that Daschle puts the interests of the national Democratic Party ahead of the interests of South Dakota. Ouch! In the current issue of The Weekly Standard (March 1, 2004 [not online]), it is revealed that 59% of Red State "voters felt the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees was wrong." Of course, Daschle has been leading the charge against Bush's nominees. As of today, both Houses of the South Dakota legislative voted to ban abortions, which is quite a contrast to Daschle, who now sends fundraising letters for NARAL (note: in Daschle's last competitive race in 1986, he ran as pro-life). South Dakota also has limits on damages in lawsuits. Today, Daschle's Senate Democrats killed medical malpractice reform.