What do you think?
Rate this book
Daschle vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race
The story behind the unseating of a Senate majority leader
The race between Tom Daschle and John Thune in South Dakota was widely acknowledged as “the other big race of 2004.” Second in prominence only to the presidential race, the Daschle-Thune contest pitted the rival political ideologies that have animated American politics since the 1960s. In a sign of the ongoing strength of political conservatism, Daschle became the first Senate leader in fifty years to lose a re-election bid.
Historian Jon K. Lauck, a South Dakotan who was an insider during that heated campaign, now offers a multilayered examination of this hard-fought and symbolically charged race. Blending historical narrative, political analysis, and personal reflection, he offers a close-up view of the issues that divide the nation—a case study of the continuing clash between liberalism and conservatism that has played out for more than a generation in U.S. politics.
Daschle vs. Thune moves beyond the nitty-gritty of public policy to deftly show how the recent past continues to shape the ongoing political battles that animate pundits and bloggers. It is a compelling story told by a writer who knows both his home ground and how it fits into the wider U.S. context.
The race between Tom Daschle and John Thune in South Dakota was widely acknowledged as “the other big race of 2004.” Second in prominence only to the presidential race, the Daschle-Thune contest pitted the rival political ideologies that have animated American politics since the 1960s. In a sign of the ongoing strength of political conservatism, Daschle became the first Senate leader in fifty years to lose a re-election bid.
Historian Jon K. Lauck, a South Dakotan who was an insider during that heated campaign, now offers a multilayered examination of this hard-fought and symbolically charged race. Blending historical narrative, political analysis, and personal reflection, he offers a close-up view of the issues that divide the nation—a case study of the continuing clash between liberalism and conservatism that has played out for more than a generation in U.S. politics.
Daschle vs. Thune moves beyond the nitty-gritty of public policy to deftly show how the recent past continues to shape the ongoing political battles that animate pundits and bloggers. It is a compelling story told by a writer who knows both his home ground and how it fits into the wider U.S. context.
348 pages, Hardcover
First published September 14, 2007
3 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 23, 2009
Disclaimer: I was involved in a small way in this race on the other side of Mr. Lauck, so my review is naturally biased.
I would direct those that are interested to Cory Heidelberger's excellent review of this book at his website, madvilletimes.blogspot.com. I have to substantially agree with him that there is very little in the way useful analysis to be found here, and I don't think it's just because I disagree with the premise of the author that I feel that way. Lauck essentially spends a few hundred pages parroting talking points from 2004 used by the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle. Thune himself barely appears in the pages; he is cipher that apprently people can project their own ideas onto.
Daschle Vs. Thune is extraordinarily repititious and lacks any novel interpretation of the events of the 2004 campaign. Lauck's quarrel with the Argus Leader newspaper is returned to again and again with little profit. Lauck is deeply offended that he detects a liberal bias in the paper's coverage, but never addresses whatsoever the opposite bias found in virtually every other paper published in the state.
Lauck correctly points out that Daschle's position as leader of the democrats in the senate sometimes caused him to vote in ways that were not popular among some of his constituents. This is an obvious observation, but the votes that Lauck singles out as important were not the ones I heard people talking about: namely, the energy bill of '04, legislation to exempt gun manufacturers from liability from their products, and statements made by Daschle about the Iraq war. Without getting too bogged down in details, the ethanol issues from the energy bill were not a major campaign issue (any and all midwest politicians support ethanol production because it directly benefits their constituents) and the gun liability issue is so small that only a tiny minority of voters are attuned to it (and they are not the kind of voters likely to support a democrat). Iraq was of course a campaign issue, as it functioned as a stand-in for knee-jerk patriotic jingoism.
In the end, the 2004 campaign was settled on questions much simpler than the grandoise historical vision that Lauck wishes for us to believe was at work. Hot button social issues--particularly abortion and gay marriage--were reaching their fever pitch at that time and there simply was a huge amount of latent bigotry and know-nothingism that drove voters. Lauck's thesis that there was a great battle between Reaganism and McGovernism, and that Reaganism is ascendent, is already in the dustbin of history just a couple years after the publication of this book. You could sit up all night going over the finer points of the '04 election--and this senate race remains an endlessly fascinating topic to me personally--but you won't find any of the salient moments captured here. This book is not only partisan, which is not inherently a bad thing, but it has the same type of unwillingness to engage with actual issues that was so prevelent during the campaign. I'm still waiting for a book that will talk about the Daschle/Thune race with some authority.
I would direct those that are interested to Cory Heidelberger's excellent review of this book at his website, madvilletimes.blogspot.com. I have to substantially agree with him that there is very little in the way useful analysis to be found here, and I don't think it's just because I disagree with the premise of the author that I feel that way. Lauck essentially spends a few hundred pages parroting talking points from 2004 used by the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle. Thune himself barely appears in the pages; he is cipher that apprently people can project their own ideas onto.
Daschle Vs. Thune is extraordinarily repititious and lacks any novel interpretation of the events of the 2004 campaign. Lauck's quarrel with the Argus Leader newspaper is returned to again and again with little profit. Lauck is deeply offended that he detects a liberal bias in the paper's coverage, but never addresses whatsoever the opposite bias found in virtually every other paper published in the state.
Lauck correctly points out that Daschle's position as leader of the democrats in the senate sometimes caused him to vote in ways that were not popular among some of his constituents. This is an obvious observation, but the votes that Lauck singles out as important were not the ones I heard people talking about: namely, the energy bill of '04, legislation to exempt gun manufacturers from liability from their products, and statements made by Daschle about the Iraq war. Without getting too bogged down in details, the ethanol issues from the energy bill were not a major campaign issue (any and all midwest politicians support ethanol production because it directly benefits their constituents) and the gun liability issue is so small that only a tiny minority of voters are attuned to it (and they are not the kind of voters likely to support a democrat). Iraq was of course a campaign issue, as it functioned as a stand-in for knee-jerk patriotic jingoism.
In the end, the 2004 campaign was settled on questions much simpler than the grandoise historical vision that Lauck wishes for us to believe was at work. Hot button social issues--particularly abortion and gay marriage--were reaching their fever pitch at that time and there simply was a huge amount of latent bigotry and know-nothingism that drove voters. Lauck's thesis that there was a great battle between Reaganism and McGovernism, and that Reaganism is ascendent, is already in the dustbin of history just a couple years after the publication of this book. You could sit up all night going over the finer points of the '04 election--and this senate race remains an endlessly fascinating topic to me personally--but you won't find any of the salient moments captured here. This book is not only partisan, which is not inherently a bad thing, but it has the same type of unwillingness to engage with actual issues that was so prevelent during the campaign. I'm still waiting for a book that will talk about the Daschle/Thune race with some authority.
June 12, 2025
This is a detailed analysis about the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota, when former U.S. Representative John Thune unseated minority leader Tom Daschle. The author, Jon Lauck, begins the book by talking about each politician's backstory, before trekking through the election and ultimately getting to the post-2004 era.
I will acknowledge that Lauck and I do not share political views. Still, I found his book to be well-written. I, at least, didn't think it was biased. There were a lot of good points and ideas I (as a non-South Dakotan who did not understand politics in 2004) would not have thought about, such as with the constant references to the Argus Leader. Some points did feel repetitive, though, such as his discussion about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. In addition, I do wish he discussed the 2002 election more. But, I think what I liked best was that he never made it seem inevitable (despite the partisan lean).
Of note, while I was reading this book, Thune became majority leader. I did read this over a while, so some ideas did not stick with me as well. Interestingly, my copy is signed by both Thune and Lauk. I got it second-hand, though, and that too, for a low price.
I will acknowledge that Lauck and I do not share political views. Still, I found his book to be well-written. I, at least, didn't think it was biased. There were a lot of good points and ideas I (as a non-South Dakotan who did not understand politics in 2004) would not have thought about, such as with the constant references to the Argus Leader. Some points did feel repetitive, though, such as his discussion about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. In addition, I do wish he discussed the 2002 election more. But, I think what I liked best was that he never made it seem inevitable (despite the partisan lean).
Of note, while I was reading this book, Thune became majority leader. I did read this over a while, so some ideas did not stick with me as well. Interestingly, my copy is signed by both Thune and Lauk. I got it second-hand, though, and that too, for a low price.
August 5, 2008
Very informative, but he got a little repetitive on his main points that the Argus is biased and the Daschle wasn't the same in DC as he was in SD. Still good though.
November 4, 2007
I couldn't actually bring myself to read this. I just thought it was awesome to own a copy.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews