Dave Kranz, the main political reporter for the Argus Leader, likes to report on divisions in the GOP camp. His Sunday column was largely devoted to a review of the frustrations of a Republican state senator who thought Republicans should have won the June 1st special election. Given that Herseth ran as a conservative and was 30-points ahead, I don’t think the final result (51-49%) was that bad for Republicans, but fair enough. The Senator feels strongly and his comments seem newsworthy. Here’s my complaint: Kranz maintains a double-standard and doesn’t report on similar divisions in the Democratic camp with regard to Senator Daschle’s leadership prospects. Here’s the evidence, all of which Kranz has not reported.
The Hill, in an article entitled “Dems look beyond Daschle” published June 2, 2004, reported that “Democrats were already developing campaign strategies to succeed Daschle” and that “the fault lines of a potential leadership struggle within the Democratic Caucus are already visible.” The article also noted that Democratic senators who wanted to be leader were trying to avoid doing so publicly because “any such maneuvers might be interpreted as a lack of confidence in Daschle.” On June 6, 2004 on the Chris Matthews show Atlantic Monthly senior editor Joshua Green reported that “Win or lose, Tom Daschle will not stay on as Majority Leader. There's a rumor going around the Hill that if he wins he'll cut a deal, step down, become appropriations chairman, and Chris Dodd, Harry Reid or maybe even Hillary Clinton will step in.” Matthews responded “Well, you're betting that he'll get re-elected, right?” Matthews added: “Don’t.”
A National Journal article entitled “Second-Guessing Daschle” published on December 13, 2003 reported that “Democratic insiders are directly questioning” Daschle’s leadership, which “has fueled much criticism” and “invited sometimes-unflattering comparisons to his counterpart in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.” The American Prospect reported on January 12, 2004 that Daschle “need[s] to do a better job of keeping [his] party together. This is no time to be a wishy-washy Democrat.” The Hill reported on January 27, 2004 on “deep rifts among Democrats” and noted that “several Democratic senators conceded that Daschle had been distracted by own re-election campaign.” The Hill also quoted Senator Dianne Feinstein of California saying “I don’t think Tom has ever let his responsibility to his state diminish his leadership position.” (the latter is a damning comment that I’m sure South Dakota voters would be interested in hearing). They also quoted Senator Dodd being critical of the Senate leadership and alluding to his leadership ambitions: “There is an appetite out there for Democrats to start answering in a more aggressive way…policies that we disagree with.” (ellipses in original).
The Hill reported on April 27, 2004 in an article entitled “Dodd’s ambitions percolating again?” that “Dodd is clearly positioning himself to pursue a number of options, including mounting a bid for Daschle’s job—he lost to Daschle by only one vote in 1994.” Craig Crawford, writing in Congressional Quarterly on May 19, 2004, said Senator Hillary Clinton might “have her eye on the Senate minority leader’s job.” A DNC staffer also told The American Spectator (December 3, 2003) that Daschle “is running for re-election, but probably just to lose his leadership position when he comes back in 2005 after the election. Everyone wants to move Hillary up the leadership ladder, but they doubt she can step in as minority leader. People are assuming someone like Dodd will take the top slot for at least some period of time, with Clinton as assistant leader.”
Amy Sullivan, a former Daschle staffer and current blogger, even wonder if Daschle should step down as leader given his need to promote a conservative image in South Dakota. The primary liberal sites in the liberal blogosphere such as Daily Kos, Buzzflash, and Matthew Yglesias also constantly berate Daschle and call for him to step down as leader. William Greider, the long-time journalist and promoter of liberal causes, summed up the feelings of many in the Democratic base. “For the greater good of the Democrats,” Greider wrote in The Nation (“Change the Leadership,” November 11, 2002) after the 2002 mid-term elections, “Daschle should go.” Greider said the “party of tired blood needs a ‘regime change’ of its own” and “someone with more backbone to manage the opposition politics.” “Daschle has been particularly lame as point man,” he added.
Now you might say that Kranz has a policy of not reporting on speculation about Daschle losing his leadership post. Wrong. Kranz wrote an article for the Easter morning Argus entitled “Politicos see no danger of Daschle losing clout.” What does one say? Obviously there are reports of problems in Daschle’s caucus. With the exception of the Spectator, all of these reports are in liberal or neutral publications, so Kranz shouldn’t be reluctant to report on them, especially after they’ve become so pervasive.
This unwillingness to report on Daschle’s shaky hold on power is serious business. Voters deserve to have all the information possible before they cast their votes. Otherwise, the democratic process will have been distorted. Remember that Tim Johnson ran in 2002 on the platform of “keeping Daschle as majority leader.” When the Democrats lost the Senate anyway, a post-election poll showed that had voters known Daschle wouldn’t be majority leader, Johnson would not have won the election.
Comments