Archive Blog
What has the world come to when South Dakota’s 2 national Democrats vote like fiscal conservatives while our lone Republican votes for a pork laden Wall Street bailout bill? Stephanie Herseth Sandlin today joined fellow Democrat Tim Johnson, who vote nay a few days ago, when she was one of 171 that voted against the bailout. John Thune, our lone Republican voted for passage….
Is politics really this easy? For Stephanie Herseth Sandlin it appears so if what Badlands Blue is reporting is true.
Following on the heels of the train wreck that was Bruce Whalen’s run for the House 2 years ago, Herseth Sandlin’s current challenger’s campaign doesn’t seem to much of a well oiled machine either.
In short, all of this raises some pretty serious questions about the state of the Lien campaign. For starters, does Lien currently have a campaign manager? If Weber is still there, why did he change his LinkedIn Profile? Did Lien fire Hugh Weber over the false press release he sent out attacking Stephanie Herseth Sandlin? Did he fire him for another reason? Is Chris Lien talking to Lee Breard, the political hack who falsely accused Herseth Sandlin of being impregnated by her Chief of Staff? Is this a sign of the kind of campaign we can expect from Lien? Sounds like the Lien campaign might be in a bit of a mess. Stay tuned…
What makes this even more funny is the rumor that Lowell is floating that Lee Breard might actually be considered to replace Hugh Weber as Lien’s campaign manager. Besides his current affiliation with the secretive open government campaign that PP over at the War College is harping on, Breard’s forwarding the rumor of the mystical Ajay Bruno/Wikipedia Herseth Sandlin secret pregnancy non-story back in 2006 was a traffic generating boon for this site to which I am still seeing the benefits of 2 years later.
It appears, at least to this point, that for the second straight House campaign, it will be good to be “Queen” Stephanie.
From Maplight.org via The Left Coaster
On March 14 of this year the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants. Ninety-four House Democrats voted in favor of this measure–rejecting immunity–on March 14, then ‘changed’ to vote in favor of the June 20 House bill–approving immunity.
“Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart?” asked Daniel Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org, “Their constituents deserve answers.”
MAPLight.org’s research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week’s FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:
Comparing Democrats’ Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging: $8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)
88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.
And in case you were wondering, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who was one of the 94 Democrats changing their mind on immunity, just so happened to recieve $6000 through telecommunication PAC contributions. But of course it is just a co-incidence, right Stephanie?
As the excuses and self-serving explanations fly from Congressional Democrats as to why they caved, the fact remains that they did cave and actually gave Mr. 25% more than he asked for when they passed the Telecom Immunity Act FISA reform bill yesterday.
The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.
So the next time you see our illustrious Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin you can thank her for being one of 105 Republicans Democrats that sided against protecting our civil liberties when she voted to effectivey legalized warrantless wiretaps on US citizens and to give Telcoms retroactive immunity for spying on us before they had the power to do so. She joins our other national Republican Democrat Tim Johnson, who was one of 18 democratic Senators to voted similarly back in February and made it a complete South Dakota sellout.
And while we are thanking folks, be sure and thank presumptive nominee Barack Obama, he decided that he could live with being the benefactor of such far reaching legislation and still pander to those outraged over the telcom immunity by pledging to work to remove that part of the legislation.
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.
I guess we deserve whatever we get come January, more of the same McCain, or no change Obama. Is there a lesser of 2 evils?
I am sure that emails like this will be coming fast and furiously in the next 5 days leading up to our primary so without further ado, here is Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s latest pro-Obama message from the inbox.
Dear Friend,
Like many South Dakotans, I’ve been inspired by Barack Obama.
Over the course of this campaign, Barack’s commitment to finding common ground, and his ability to spark hope and optimism among people of all ages and backgrounds, convinced me that he is the right candidate to be President of the United States.
What we do — or don’t do — this week in South Dakota will have a big impact on the election.
Just a few months ago, no one would have guessed we’d have such an important role to play in this race. But as the last state in the nation to cast our votes, we have the opportunity to close out the Democratic Primary with a solid victory for Barack.
To make this happen, we need every vote and every delegate we can get. You can help by signing up to Get Out the Vote in your community.
Obama supporters throughout the state are already canvassing their neighborhoods for Barack. I hope you’ll join them between now and Tuesday.
Sign up to help Get Out the Vote for Barack in South Dakota:
http://sd.barackobama.com/SDgotv
When Barack is elected president, I am confident he’ll create the kind of positive change we need in Washington and here in South Dakota.
He’ll refocus our energy policy to create jobs across rural America, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and put partisanship aside in order to get things done.
In the next five days, we can play an important part in this pivotal election to bring that kind of leadership to America — and in your neighborhood, there’s no better advocate for Barack than you.
South Dakota’s primary could be the contest that finally puts Barack over the top.
Help make it happen by signing up to join your fellow supporters and Get Out The Vote this week:
http://sd.barackobama.com/SDgotv
Thank you,
Stephanie
Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
I may not be as edumacated as my esteemed blogging professor colleagues from the north whom seem to think that passing FISA reform without Telcom immunity is a compromise that will weaken the legislation. Nor am I as smart as those that consistently blame the Democrats for holding up this legislation and are in turn weakening our national security.
So since I ain’t that smart, maybe someone could explain to me what from the following points make the Democrats, re: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, the bad guy on this issue.
- What the Telcom companies did by allowing the government access to their US customers without warrants was illegal and they knew it was illegal. They already had immunity for turning over records to the Government as long as they followed existing laws while doing so.
- Not giving Telcoms retroactive immunity will not prevent them from helping the Government in the future. Why? Because they would be legally bound to do so (If the government had legal standing to get the records in the first place that is) and would open themselves up to legal action or worse if they didn’t.
What President Bush and Republican’s stonewalling of the legislation because of the lack of immunity does do:
- Prevents the implementation of oversights that would ensure that the Administration hasn’t gone too far while stomping on our 4th Amendment rights.
- Opens up the possibility that current FISA regulations could expire as President Bush has already rejected a House and Senate offer to extend current rules until a new policy could be worked out and refuses to sign any reform that doesn’t include immunity. In other words, his stubbornness is putting us in danger.
- Continues to reward Telcom companies for breaking the law and leaves open the possibility that they can continue to break the law without consequences.
What this fight is really about:
- Protecting the Telcoms whom are facing over 40 lawsuits because of their complicity with the Bush Administration’s illegal wiretapping program. After all they have spent millions on campaign contributions to members of Congress and now want some return on that investment.
MAPLight.org’s research department reveals that the telecom industry gave, on average, $10,660 to members of the House of Representatives who voted “no” as opposed to $7,085 to those who voted “yes” on the House amendment (to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773), to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
- Giving the Adminstration an open door to unchecked misuse (see my comment on oversights above). All the government has to do is say the word “terrorism” and suddenly it can spy on anyone, anywhere, whenever it wants, with no due process whatsoever and no warrants to get in the way.
So could someone explain to me why Herseth-Sandlin is the bad guy here and Tim Johnson (and John Thune for that matter) aren’t? And speak slooowly…
Badlands Blue has a post calling out Mt Blogmore for a negative post in regards to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s vote on FISA that specifically didn’t include Telcom immunity.
In other words, according to the Rapid City Journal’s blog, Mt. Blogmore, Rep. Herseth Sandlin is an extremist, Bush-hating, terrorist-loving librul because she voted against granting immunity to big telecommunications companies for past warrantless wiretapping? Because she voted in support of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? Amazing.
And while I definitely agree with Lowell’s criticism of the Herseth-Sandlin hit piece and with his point that we should not be granting immunity for past warrantless wiretaps, I have to wonder where his anger was just a few weeks ago when Tim Johnson broke ranks with Democrats and voted for similar FISA changes that included the same retroactive Telcom immunity that he is now defending Herseth-Sandlin for not allowing.
Selective memory?
Lowell over at Badlands Blue posts on our Democratic representation’s position on a bill currently making the rounds in Congress that would force pharmacist’s to fill prescriptions even if they have moral objections for doing so. Being the mouthpiece of the Democratic party he prints statements from both Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s camps supporting the bill for varying reasons including from Johnson
“I believe it is important to ensure patient access to FDA-approved medications that are legally available,” Johnson said. “I also believe it is important to protect health-care providers’ rights to refrain from taking actions they find objectionable.”
Johnson said he hoped legislation addressing the issue could be carefully shaped to “allow health-care providers to obey their personal consciences without imposing their own beliefs upon the patients they serve.”
And from Herseth Sandlin
She believes that every man, woman and child in South Dakota should have timely and ready access to necessary health care, including prescription medications,” Hart said.
Hart said Herseth Sandlin “does not believe that there is a role for Congress to get involved in this local dispute in Montana,” but she believes that, if a pharmacy is unable — for whatever reason — to fill a prescription, it should assist the customer in getting the health-care service they seek elsewhere.
What Lowell doesn’t touch on is Senator Thune’s position which predictably is in opposition to making Pharmacists do their jobs.
“I believe that, if a pharmacist or pharmacy owner has a religious or moral dilemma with filling controversial prescriptions, he or she should not be mandated by the federal government to do so”
So there you have it, it has come down to the Federal Government having to tell an industry to do their job. Should pharmacist’s be required to fill legal prescriptions even if they do not believe in the purpose of the drug? What’s next, pharmacists asking for marriage licenses before filling Viagra prescriptions or outright refusing to fill them at all?
Pork and earmarks seem to be the buzzwords of the day on the heels of the Tim Johnson sponsored $1M earmark for the Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy (what a name, how much of the $1M is for the building sign?) at SDSU. When talking pork and politics you seem to get a lot of doublespeak and hypocrisy and our Reps aren’t immune.
First Badlands Blue calls out John Thune’s criticism of earmarks in the wake of this bill considering his support of the Robert Dole Institute of Politics just a few years ago at the University of Kansas.
Gee, that’s interesting, because I could have sworn John Thune was in the House of Representatives for the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas and the name change from Washington National to Reagan National airport by bill S. 1575, which passed in the House by voice vote on February 5, 1998. John Thune supported both pieces of legislation. It is especially noteworthy that Thune voted yes for the Conference Report of the FY 1999 appropriations bill, which included the late edition earmark for the Dole Institute.
Then PP over at the SDWC calls out our lone Congress person Stephanie Herseth Sandlin who when running for office spoke out against earmarks but is now happy to let us know she supports this $1M waste of money.
“She is very supportive of the project, which will enhance the educational experience for our state’s students and improve the course offerings of one of our state’s premier universities,” Levsen said. “As a South Dakota State graduate, it’s fitting that Sen. Daschle’s papers be archived in Brookings.”
So what is missing from a listing of hypocrisy over this latest piece of pork? How about any mention of hypocrisy aimed at the South Dakota Senator who was responsible for sneaking the earmark into the appropriations bill in the first place. A little digging on my part has yet to find anyone calling him out on it because apparently he has no problem with the tactic of throwing earmarks into spending bills. In fact he has even been given special mention as having a perfect record on pork by voting against all 10 amendments he was present for that sought to reign in this wasteful practice.
The only senator receiving a 0% was Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) who voted against all 10 anti-pork amendments he was present for.
If anything, it appears no one can say that Senator Johnson has flip flopped on this issue…
On the heels of last week’s useless resolution condemning the MoveOn.org New York Times ad ripping General Petraeus, Rep. Mark Udall from Colorado is supposedly introducing a similar useless resolution on Monday looking to officially condemn Rush Limbaugh’s phony soldiers comments from earlier this week. As with the MoveOn resolution, the Udall version is totally meaningless and a waste of time but it will be interesting on one front to see if Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, whom had no problem voting to condemn MoveOn’s right to free speech, will be as willing to do the same to Republican mouthpiece and never ending blow hard, Rush Limbaugh.
I will be just as curious to see if Tim Johnson does the same if and when a Limbaugh condemnation makes its way into the Senate. He like Herseth Sandlin didn’t think MoveOn should be allowed to voice their opinion in the New York Times and was one of 22 Democrats voting to condemn the ad.