According to today's Rapid City Journal, there will be a meeting on September 25th (which the blogs have been reporting for a month) and Tim Giago says he secured the meeting upon dropping out of the race. The Daschle campaign, which has had a number of problems getting its story straight this year, denies there was a deal:
Thursday, Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand downplayed the idea that the meeting was taking place because Daschle had promised it to Giago. ... Hildebrand said the meeting was Giago's idea but that the two men did not strike a deal."There was never a deal struck with Giago. The dinner Tom had with Giago was Giago telling Tom he's not going to run," Hildebrand said. "This was Giago's idea ... to get everybody together with the delegation. His point is a very good one. His point was that the South Dakota congressional delegation ought to do more sitting down and talking and planning out and figuring out better ways to take care of what is a huge number of concerns and needs."
Giago said the two have an agreement not just on the meeting but on hiring an experienced American Indian to promote economic development on reservations. Daschle is about to hire an "extremely good" candidate, he said. "I don't know why Steve would say something like that. After we talked for over an hour, he said he would follow through on everything we talked about. We shook hands on it. To me, that is a gentleman's agreement," Giago said.
Of course it was a deal. Daschle gave his "word of honor," remember? If you're just talking things over, you don't give your "word of honor." You give it when a deal is struck. The Washington Post story on this matter also characterized it as a deal:
While Giago would not go into detail about the issues he and Daschle discussed, he has said that he wanted Daschle to open dialogue on returning the sacred Black Hills to the tribes of the Sioux Nation, and to help remedy the lack of economic opportunities on the state's reservations, the poorest in the country. Giago had expressed distress that Daschle did not seem open to discussing the Black Hills. ... At Saturday's meeting here, where Giago is based, Daschle agreed to convene a meeting in August in the Black Hills with tribal leaders and elders from all nine South Dakota reservations.
"Daschle agreed," eh? That sounds like a deal or agreement to me. Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say about the meeting:
He said Mr. Daschle had spent 26 years in Congress ignoring pleas by Indian tribes to return the famous Black Hills to the Sioux Nation. ... No one knows how much the meeting between the two men might ultimately cost the American taxpayer, but Mr. Giago pronounced himself satisfied with the result. He says his candidacy really "put the pressure on Daschle... So I went to him from a position of power which I've never had before, and Indians haven't had before."
"Pressure" and a "position of power" is what one uses to force a deal or agreement out of someone. So, again, sounds like a deal to me. Talon News also reported the meeting like this:
Giago told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he would now back Daschle. He indicated that at his meeting with the senator, he was able to lay out his concerns. Giago said that Daschle agreed to hold an August meeting with South Dakota tribal leaders to discuss a settlement of the Black Hills issue.
Again, sure sounds like an agreement. Giago also said when he first entered the race that "neither of the candidates running for the Senate will address the Black Hills settlement question" and that it won't be settled "until a politician with the guts to address it emerges and introduces a bill in the Senate to give back some of the land in the Black Hills and the money to the people." Lakota Journal, January 16-23, 2004. That makes it sound like Giago entered the race, in part, to put pressure on Daschle to make concessions.
So was there a deal cut? Sure looks like it. Why would Daschle's campaign manager say there wasn't? I have no idea. But he's also the one who said Daschle couldn't debate at the Corn Palace for "security reasons"! More on that debacle here.
The Journal also reports that during the September 25th meeting "the public and the media will not be allowed in." What?!? Let's see if the Argus Leader goes on a tirade about "openness," "transparency," and "accountability" on this one. They should, and I'd agree with them. And speaking of the Argus, they get left in the dust in yet another story. Kudos to the Journal for actually looking into an important story.
Comments