You are hereFeed aggregator / Categories / SD Political Blog MegaMix
SD Political Blog MegaMix
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Who's the Princess?
Madville Times - 46 min 31 sec ago
Madville Times Feature: South Dakota State Fair U.S. House Debate, Sunday, September 5, 2010
1. Opening Statements
2. Farm Bill Cuts
3. Ag Lending
4. Cut Ethanol Subsidy?
5. Indirect Land Use Penalty
6. Renewable Energy Standard
7. Most Critical Issue
8. Creating Jobs
9. Who's the Princess?
----------------
p.s.: Marking Time
I thoroughly enjoyed the debate between Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Kristi Noem at the State Fair in Huron Sunday (well, except for the silly partisan chest-thumping and sign-waving from the crowd—I'm with B.-Thom on that). When done right (and contrary to Dennis Daugaard's opinion), a debate is the best format available to test candidates ideas and abilities side by side, to pull candidates off their scripts and teleprompters and challenge them critically analyze and explain issues.
As I mentioned in my opening post on Sunday's debate, the State Fair tilt between our Congressional candidates provided me with one major revelation: Stephanie is not our princess; Kristi thinks she is.
Noem demonstrates her princess attitude in her arrogance and inattention. We have seen Noem's arrogance and inattention toward the law in her court record. She disregards traffic laws. She has yet to straight-up forswear her behavior: instead, she continues to include excuse-language in her "apologies," mentioning her "nature," her desire to "get things done," and those "flat, empty country highways." Six times she has skipped court dates, as if she's just too important to deign to appear before a judge like some common citizen. Twice that arrogant inattention has earned arrest warrants. And apparently this same arrogant disregard for the law runs in the family: Noem's husband, two brothers, and her mother, who have a shared total of 84 traffic citations over the last two decades. (Remember, the Noem campaign opened up candidates' family court records as a campaign issue. Thank Josh Shields for another bonehead campaign move.)
Noem's princess attitude was clearly on display at the State Fair debate. She carries herself with dour hauteur... though if I were entering a debate ill-prepared to talk issues, I'd probably come across sour and restrained as well. While moderator Michelle Rook huddled with the candidates before the show to discuss the debate rules and format, Noem drifted away to chat with someone in the audience. During the debate, Noem ignored the two-minute limit twice, rattling on even after Rook called time. And most tellingly, Noem didn't pay attention to the questions and failed to respond to what specifically was asked.
Noem's campaign is based on emotion and image. Even her advocacy of repealing the estate tax is couched in the emotional story of her father's death and her personal sacrifice. She doesn't answer the practical policy questions of just how rich the Arnold family had to be to qualify for the estate tax in the first place, how much estate tax they actually owed, why they were paying it at all when Mrs. Arnold was still alive to own the farm, and the extent to which the over $3 million in farm subsidies they received helped ease that tax burden. (Hey, Noem has brought it up, so she should answer those questions.) She just trots out the story and expects us to get all weepy and vote for her. I get weepy for all sorts of people, but that doesn't mean I pick them for Congress.
Noem wants this race to be all about who she is. Herseth Sandlin wants this race to be about what she does. Where Noem spent half of her opening statement on Sunday talking about how wonderful the State Fair is, Herseth Sandlin mentioned her family and then got straight to business, talking about specific programs and votes. Throughout the debate, Herseth Sandlin piled her answers with specific examples of what she's worked for in Washington. Throughout the debate, our Congresswoman did not speak like someone who feels she's entitled to the job just because she's a nice South Dakota girl: she spoke like an eager job applicant, working hard to convince us to hire her based on her record of proven performance. Noem seems to think we should elect her because she's... well... Kristi Noem.
At numerous points in the debate, Noem said, "We need someone in Washington who..." and then filled in the blank with something relating to her life. Someone who understands the ethanol industry, someone who understands farms, someone who's been proactive on the issues, someone with real-life experience.... Latent in those Noem lines is the suggestion that Noem's life experience is somehow more real, more valid, than Herseth Sandlin's. Everyone lives a valid life. Everyone learns from different struggles. Suggesting that farming or running a business is somehow more valid experience than teaching or lawyering or other public service is elitism, and it stinks.
Saying you're smarter because you live in Castlewood is just as offensive as saying you're smarter because you went to Georgetown. You don't hear Herseth Sandlin saying things like "We need someone in Washington who has made life choices like mine." She doesn't feel the need to downgrade anyone else's life choices to prove she's the right person for Congress. But Noem apparently needs to validate her own life experience by invalidating the life experience of others.
In other words, Noem thinks she's special. She thinks she's the princess. She wants us to hand her the crown as a prize for being the wonderful person she is.
Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wants us to hire her for the work she's done for South Dakota. I may not agree with all of the work she's done, but at least she's not asking me to hire her on emotion and image. Princesses don't get my vote.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Firm that did the Herseth Sandlin push poll in SD under investigation in New Hampshire for the same type of poll
SD War College - 56 min 10 sec ago
Here’s an interesting one with regards to the firm conducting the DCCC poll that was released yesterday:
The state Republican Party asked the attorney general yesterday to investigate whether Democratic Senate candidate Paul Hodes conducted polling aimed at spreading negative information against his Republican opponent, Kelly Ayotte.
and…
New Hampshire law says that, under certain conditions, poll questions about an opposing candidate that touch on the candidate’s character, status, or political stance or record amount to “push polling,’’ a negative campaign technique.
Push polling is allowed if the callers identify on whose behalf the call is made and provide a telephone number for the company doing the polling. The penalty for not doing so may subject someone to a fine or up to a year in jail, said Associate Attorney General Richard Head. He said he had not seen the complaint and could not comment on it.
and….
Jenkins called the research a “message test’’ to determine reactions to statements. In a message test, the number of people called is much smaller than a push poll, Jenkins said.
“A push poll is an attempt to sway public opinion in and of itself,’’ he said.
Anzalone-Liszt did not immediately return a call requesting comment.
I had spoken with someone who had been polled by this firm in the Noem/Herseth Sandlin race, and it definitely was the same type of negative push poll where they floated messages in order to determine what is going to be the best to try to his Kristi noem with.
It’s not uncommon, and it’s done pretty often. Heck, over the years, I’ve scientifically conducted polls myself asking pointed questions about an opponent. However, I didn’t release limited results from it to try to sway public opinion for a floundering candidate.
The question to ask here to figure it out is – was the head to head question asked BEFORE the negative messaging or AFTER? Typically you do both.
If we’re to give such a benchmark any credibility at all, they should release the complete results, and not just cull the best results for their candidate from the data, as I strongly suspect we’re seeing.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Sibby must be giving them random headline lessons
SD War College - 1 hour 10 min ago
From argusleader.com:
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
A Burning Question
SD Politics - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:40pm
What's worse: a) building a Mosque (or Islamic Center) near Ground Zero, or b) burning copies of the Koran in Florida? In the unlikely case that you are hesitating, the answer is b).
It isn't a close call. The people who want to build the Islamic Center in New York may or may not have had Ground Zero in mind. They were not obviously intending to offend anyone.
By contrast, Pastor Terry Jones genuinely wants to beard Muslims the world over by publicly burning copies of the Koran. He probably thought he could ride this to national fame, and he was right. Burning the holy book of someone else's religion may make sense from a deeply partisan religious perspective, but it is just as deeply offensive to the American way. It also hands a weapon to militant Islamists in their war against the United States. For that reason, it is irresponsible and unpatriotic.
But here's the thing: Pastor Jones has as much right to burn copies of the Koran (assuming he owns them) as Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has to build his Mosque (assuming he owns the land). Likewise, those who object to the latter have as much right to express their opposition as those who object to the former.
They aren't treated the same in the press. The New York Times, and many others, depicted those who object to the Mosque (including most Americans) as bigots. I saw a cartoon with Republican labeled footprints on the Constitution, leading up to the Mosque.
So far the Times has not scolded General Petraeus or the State Department or Attorney General Eric Holder for scolding Pastor Jones. Nor has anyone to my knowledge condemned the coalition of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders who met in Washington to condemn Pastor Jones. I have seen no cartoons depicting them treading on the Constitution.
The rights of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion do not include any immunity to criticism. Nor is there any reason to favor Muslims over Christians, however radical.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
SF Councilor Jamison hammers Huether over his Events Center plan. Huether quotes Dale Carnegie.
South Dacola - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 6:51pm
If anyone can get an Events Center built, its Dale.
I could go on a long explanation, but I suggest you watch the video instead. Greg pretty much sums up public sentiment – if we are going to build this thing, let’s do it right so it passes a public vote and he even goes so far to suggest it gets built downtown. Woo-Hoo! This did not look easy for Greg to do, and it certainly did not look like Mike’s best day either (at least his hair looked good). So I want to commend both of them for airing their grievances in a public forum.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Get a Job! Get Lots of Jobs!
Madville Times - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 3:55pm
Part 8 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
The last question at Sunday's debate: What specifically would you do to fight unemployment and create jobs in South Dakota?
Kristi Noem blasted the failed stimulus package, saying the U.S. has lost 300,000 jobs and seen unemployment shoot past the President's assurances to 9.6%. The stimulus, said Noem, has done little but pile debt on our children. Noem defended her vote in Pierre to accept those stimulus dollars for use in South Dakota because the Legislature did not have the option to send those dollars back to Washington to pay down the national debt. We made the best decision for you, said Noem, to use those stimulus dollars here in South Dakota.
Noem then turned to her legislative record, saying she carried a bill on wind energy (HB 1263, I'm assuming) that dealt with easements and development periods. Noem said the bill passed unanimously and creates more opportunities for wind developers to come to the state. Noem said one potential wind project may create 3000 jobs, all without spending any tax dollars or creating any government debt.
Herseth Sandlin came out swinging again, saying, "The question is on what we will do." (That's the second time Herseth Sandlin explicitly pointed out that Noem wasn't answering the question.) Herseth Sandlin piled on the specifics of what she'll do to create jobs and opportunities for South Dakotans: she said she will promote blender pumps, investment tax credits, and continue to work bipartisanly to increase the Small Business Administration's loan authority to $5 million. She recalled the trade agreement point Noem made earlier in the debate and said she will work to get the South Korea trade agreement moving.
After those positive specifics (more than Noem laid out), Herseth Sandlin still had time to rebut Noem's stimulus argument. Suppose the Legislature had had the option to send the stimulus money back for debt relief, the way Noem wanted. What cuts, Herseth Sandlin asked, would Noem have made to balance the state budget? Herseth Sandlin said Noem imagines "the economy would have somehow magically cured itself." Herseth Sandlin said Noem is just politicizing the stimulus and not offering specific solutions.
Assessment: I'm still trying to untie Noem's logical knot of how the stimulus can do no good yet be good to spend here in South Dakota. And Herseth Sandlin is right about Noem missing the question. I could be generous and say that by pointing to her wind energy easements bill, Noem was highlighting the general kind of legislation she would craft and support in Congress to create jobs. But Noem herself did not say those words; she left me having to fill in those blanks... and that left a big blank for SHS to fill with a reasonable charge that Noem didn't answer the question with the specifics requested.
Both candidates threw punches here, but Herseth Sandlin is throwing them harder. That's how you win a fight.
On answering the question and the opposition and answering harder, advantage Herseth Sandlin.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Stephanie is toast.
SD War College - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 3:33pm
I love the impotent fist pumping over at Democratic mouthpiece Badlands Blue.
Since they’ve all but given up on the Gubernatorial race, and they didn’t have anything good to parrot about their Congressional candidate for the last week, they were all over the push poll that the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee just released today to try to stop the bleeding of their candidates and tried to make lemonade from the bleak results.
In case you missed it, the Daily Kos reported that polling that the Democrats did showed the following:
SD-AL: Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 50%, Kristi Noem (R) 39%*
With B. Thomas Marking picking up 4-6%, and the margin of error at 4.9 percent.
Literally, after running TV unchallenged for weeks, The Democrat’s own push polling (where they were testing anti-Noem messaging) makes it potentially a dead heat when you look at the margin of error?
The handwriting is on the wall. Stephanie is toast. She’s the incumbent, and has been on the air for weeks – and that’s as good as it gets.
Wait until Noem starts running her fall advertising. This is so reminiscent of the Thune/Daschle race where Tom went on TV equally as early.
Ended up that it didn’t matter. Just like now, minds were made up.
And this year instead of Tom Daschle, we’re going to retire Herseth Sandlin.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
American Paranoia and our Strange Beliefs
SD Politics - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 1:18pm
Best two paragraphs published last weekend, by Ross Douthat in the New York Times:
The belief that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim (apparently held by nearly 20 percent of the country) gets the headlines. But as the George Mason law professor Ilya Somin has noted, national opinion polls reveal support for numerous far-out or noxious-seeming notions.
There's the 32 percent of Democrats who blame "the Jews" for the financial crisis. There's the 25 percent of African-Americans who believe the AIDS virus was created in a government lab. There's support for state secession, which may have been higher among liberals in the Bush era than among Republicans in the age of Obama. And there's the theory that the Bush White House knew about 9/11 in advance, which a third of Democrats endorsed as recently as 2007.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Marking done on the trail for the moment. But what about the Hatch Act?
SD War College - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:46am
From the Argusleader.com:
-->
The Independent candidate for the U.S. House in South Dakota will be absent from the campaign trail for about 2 1/2 weeks.
B. Thomas Marking is a “reservist” emergency responder for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which he once worked for. The agency has summoned him to Alabama for training, along with about 160 other people from across the nation. He was leaving today.
I had always assumed – and was apparently wrong – that he was retired and no longer employed with the Federal Government.
So, how does that work with the Hatch act which prohibits Federal Employees from engaging in politics?
All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and the Vice President, are covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act. Employees of the U. S. Postal Service and the District of Columbia, except for the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia’s City Council and the District’s Recorder of Deeds, are also covered by the Act. Part-time employees are covered by the Act. Federal and District of Columbia employees subject to the Hatch Act continue to be covered while on annual leave, sick leave, leave without pay, or furlough. However, employees who work on an occasional or irregular basis, or who are special government employees, as defined in title 18 U. S.C. § 202(a), are subject to the restrictions only when they are engaged in government business.
Federal employees fall within two categories under the Hatch Act, Further Restricted and Less Restricted.
Does he have to take his website – which asks for contributions – down? Does he have to withdraw from the campaign entirely?
Hmmm….
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Most Critical Issue, Least Critical Question
Madville Times - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:45am
Part 7 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
The hosts of Sunday's debate—SD Corn Growers, American Coalition of Ethanol, East River Electric and SD Touchstone Energy Cooperatives—gave ag questions the spotlight before turning to other topics. Alas, out of several questions submitted by the packed house, the hosts chose this puffball: What is the most critical issue facing our country, and what will you do about it?
Come on, people. You might as well ask, "What's your stump speech?" or "What's the first paragraph on your website?" Use a debate to ask candidates the unexpected, to challenge their ability to think on their feet.
Oh well. We still got answers. Noem said the national debt. Herseth Sandlin said the economy.
Noem cited the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen to support her case. She said she decided to run in February while watching Congress pas a health care reform bill that we can't afford and that our children will pay for. Noem broke out numbers, saying the national debt has increased 39% since Obama took office. She said Congress should have to operate under a balanced budget requirement just like the South Dakota Legislature. She nicked Congress for failing to pass a budget resolution this year, the first time that's happened since 1974. And for good measure, Noem added that Congress is going into debt passing all sorts of programs that have no benefit for South Dakota. She said the stimulus promised South Dakota 10,000 jobs and instead we've lost 10,000 jobs.
Herseth Sandlin noted that the debt and clean energy are parts of the overall economic recovery problem. She then opened fire on Noem. She said Noem wants to have it both ways. Herseth Sandlin said Noem claims to support wind enegy but criticizes the stimulus, which has created 40,000 wind energy jobs. Herseth Sandlin said Noem blasts deficit spending but used those federal dollars three times to plug South Dakota's state budget gaps.
Herseth Sandlin defended the stimulus as necessary to counter the economy's downward spiral. The stimulus, she said, is about stabilizing the economy and making smart investments. She also challenged Noem's jobs numbers, citing the Sioux Falls Business Journal to say we've added 6200 jobs. Herseth Sandlin said Republican Governor Mike Rounds himself agrees that we've added jobs.
Herseth Sandlin concluded that she has the record on restoring pay-go principles, capping discretionary spending, and finding ways to pay for our priorities.
Assessment: As I said, it's a puffball question, so winning it doesn't add many points. Both candidates mustered numbers and clashed well. Had the organizers allowed rebuttal time, I'd have liked to have given Noem a chance to show her chops in listening and responding to her opponent's comments on the fly. Call this one even.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Medical Marijuana proponents in the news recently. Funny, the act reminds me a lot of Obamacare.
SD War College - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:08am
The ballot initiative on the medical use of marijuana was featured in the news this weekend.
The adage about how things rarely change holds true in this debate as well, especially considering that we’re facing the same ballot measure that South Dakotans had rejected before.
It does, however, make it easy to review existing material. Having been defeated previously, you would think that there had been major changes with the measure to place it on the ballot. Well, no. Not much at all.
So it’s safe to say that the rational basis that have been raised against the measure before still applies today.
#1 Marijuana is illegal.
To state it simply; It is not legal in a house. It is not legal with a mouse. It is not legal in a boat. It is not legal with a goat. (You get the point.) It is my strongest belief that the movement to legalize it for self-administered medical use will open the flood gates for a more relaxed attitude towards casual use, and a more widespread use of the drug illegally in society. We can barely keep it away from kids now while it’s completely illegal. Making it partially legal is not going to help that any.
And aside from personal beliefs, there’s that whole “still illegal under federal law thing.”
#2 Selling or distributing Marijuana is illegal. And what about quality control for the patient?
The act does not talk about the drug being prepared by a pharmacist with the dosage measured by a person who has had years of training and licensing for it. It’s not going to be prepared in a laboratory with strict quality controls for the health and safety on the end user.It does not proscribe that there is a certain amount of the chemicals that provide the relief (that they somehow can’t receive from the synthetic stuff that does, measured down to the milligram).
It’s going to be prepared in someone’s basement under “grow lights.” Somehow, I’m not seeing the standards, quality controls, and professionalization.
Maybe I’m too institutionalized in the quality control measures that I assume pharmaceutical companies use. But as all of us are well aware, even they screw up at times. I don’t even want to think of the quality controls that some dude in a basement is going to use. Where is the legal protection and recourse for a sick MM consumer who is not sold what’s promised? Or it ends up doing them more harm?
Pharmacists are licensed and inspected by the state and federal government. Drug companies are inspected, licensed and insured. Where are the similar strictures on “Caregivers?”
#3 Prescribing MM for Minors? No way.
The intent of the measure presented for vote in 2006 was to allow similarly afflicted minors access to Medical Marijuana? Children? Where are the medical studies that show effectiveness treatments of children with marijuana? In my own little insulated world, I’ve never heard of any.
And how would that work among two parents whose views are divergent upon the issue? While one parent calls it therapeutic – another may term it as child abuse. And given the side effects, they might not be far off the mark. And how would the State DSS consider the issue?
#4 Drug user/dealer will become a protected class of citizen.
As a landlord, if you personally and morally objected to illegal drugs and the people who sell them – guess what? Under this law, they would now have a cause of action to sue you if you didn’t want drugs on your property. Object to drug dealers working for your place of business? Again, they’d now have a cause of action to bring suit against you.
Your property could be used to grow drugs without your say so, and as an employer, you’d be forced to retain a drug dealer employee as long as they had their card because of the special protections they’ve created for themselves as a result of the act.
Marijuana users & growers would effectively be added to a list of the protected classes of citizens for employment and housing purposes.
It’s funny – At the end of the day, the measure being proposed for medical purposes reminds me of another failed prescription for society – Obamacare.
Both are a lot of rules and regulations that end up adding to the bureaucracy, costing people money, potentially endangering health, and whittling away at the rights of the individual to protect their own interests.
And they’re both supposed to be good for us.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
NY Times: Democrats’ Message is muddled this year
SD War College - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 8:40am
Interesting article today which indicates that Democrat’s electoral problems this year might be much of their own doing, as they have no message, as indicated by the article entitled Democrats Aren’t Running From Health Care. But What Are They Running On?
From the NY Times:
The message among the Democrats was varied. Some, like Colleen Hanabusa, who is running in Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District in Honolulu, had clear praise for the Democrats’ health care goals. Others, like Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, a moderate Democratic incumbent in South Dakota who voted against the bill, lauded some of the bill’s achievements, while criticizing other provisions and calling for further reform.
Still, most Democrats were willing to engage their constituents on the issue. And beneath the surface, their message was fairly consistent. Most Democrats –- whether they voted for the bill or against it –- suggested that it had been a reasonable start and had laudable goals, but that it required further tinkering.
What was more striking in our examination was a Republican agenda that appeared in sharper relief than the Democratic one, and which was more readily contributing to their messages to voters on the campaign trail.
For some Republican candidates, the agenda may indeed begin with the health care bill, which many are pledging to repeal. But there are also issues like the deficit, which more than four out of five Republicans highlighted on their Web sites in some form. Some 60 percent of Republicans, meanwhile -– including some in states far removed from the Mexican border -– addressed immigration, usually advocating tighter border security.
Democrats, on the other hand, are having trouble articulating a clear set of policy goals.
and…
Democrats have criticized Republicans for their vague agenda – and certainly the Republicans have not articulated anything as succinct as the Contract With America, which may have aided their exceptional performance in the midterm elections of 1994. But Republicans do appear to have a message that is at least reasonably clear to voters, and reasonably consistent from one Congressional district to the next: pick us, and we’ll repeal health care, secure the border and reduce the size of government. Democrats, meanwhile, who two years ago seemed to have a glut of agenda items, are now having trouble articulating to their constituents exactly what a Democratic vote would gain them. Perhaps that’s why Democrats are having trouble both with the sizable number of voters who are dissatisfied with both parties – and in motivating turnout among their base.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Renewable Energy Standard
Madville Times - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 7:30am
Part 6 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
Question 5 in Sunday's debate: Where do you stand on the national renewable energy standard?
Herseth Sandlin said she helped get the votes for the renewable energy standard in the 2007 energy bill. She said energy efficiency is the easiest part of meeting such a standard. She said she will support an even higher standard and that our electric cooperatives and investor-owned utilities have led the way in this area. A national renewable energy standard, she said, is essential for our wind industry.
Herseth Sandlin then returned to bipartisanship. She pointed to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's proposal for a broader clean energy standard. She said Graham and other lawmakers from the South want nuclear and hydroelectric power included with efficiency, wind, and solar in meeting any energy standard. Herseth Sandlin says there's a workable bipartisan compromise to be had there.
Kristi Noem agreed that the renewable electricity standard is good. She said she's heard people across the state say it's good for South Dakota. Noem does not support raising that renewable standard to 20% or 25%. She said very few co-ops could meet that high of a standard without raising utility rates, and we can't pass costs on to consumers in the middle of a recession when they can't afford it. Noem said we can't pass any legislation that would take more dollars out of our pockets. (Hmmm... can't take money from Americans, can't raise the debt ceiling... so in terms of paying down the debt, that leaves only one option: shutting down the federal government for six years.)
Assessment: Bipartisanship is one of Herseth Sandlin's favorite talking points. She ties this question to bipartisanship with a specific proposal and lawmaker. Not taking money out of people's pockets is one of Noem's talking points. She returns to it by appealing to an arbitrary number.
(A number of states, including Minnesota, have already adopted renewable energy standards in the 20–25% range. But the debate judge is supposed to judge the round presented, not the facts he can Google later. ;-) )
Herseth Sandlin approves of current measures and offers a roadmap for workable future action. Noem accepts the status quo, criticizes moving further, but offers no vision for the next step. If you don't want a next step, then Noem's your gal. But in terms of using the debate time to lay out specific plans for action, slight advantage Herseth Sandlin.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Does that count as raining on it? Kloucek to submit measure to regulate parades.
SD War College - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 7:26am
God forbid people choose to do something themselves without having the state intervene. Because of an isolated incident, Frank Kloucek is going to propose regulating all parades in South Dakota:
A South Dakota lawmaker plans to propose some changes to help keep people safe at community parades.
and….
Senator Frank Kloucek of Scotland says requiring an outrider, or single horse and rider, alongside every team of two or more horses could help keep them under control.
It will be interesting to see if he’s going to propose creating an office of parade regulation, headed up by an elected officer.
(Yes, that was sarcasm. This is a stupid idea better left to parade organizers in SD to mitigate their own liability.)
This one’s for you Frank:
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Indirect Land Use Penalty for Biofuel
Madville Times - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 7:02am
Part 5 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
Question 4 at Sunday's debate: what will you do about the international indirect land use penalties to protect biofuels? The indirect land use penalty is the idea of discounting the greenhouse gas emissions savings achieved by biofuels based on the carbon released when farmers convert forest and other previously unplowed land to cropland.
I know that now, thanks to Google and Wikipedia. I didn't know it Sunday, and from the sounds of the answer, Kristi Noem didn't know much about it, either. Noem said we need someone to promote a competitive market and avoid detriments to farmers' income. She said we need to pick the candidate who's been proactive on issues, gone forward and carried tough issues and fought for people.
Maybe Noem just assumed that the ag-heavy crowd already knew what the indirect land use penalty was. She certainly didn't explain it. Not one thing she said indicated she had a specific plan for dealing with it. Her answer was pure campaign-speak.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin sensed he advantage and pounced. Her first words were a direct response to the question and to Noem's tactics: "By continuing to fight with the facts." Herseth Sandlin said Congress has already worked bipartisanly to change the definition to protect the use of woody biomass in the Black Hills. She addressed Noem's general call for "leadership" by pointing out that we're making progress now, because the EPA hasn't used the bad indirect land use definition. The USDA is doing its own calculation pushed by bipartisan work on the House Ag Committee.
Herseth Sandlin said the Ag Committee is fighting the attorneys who want to deep-six the ethanol industry. She said they are fighting this administration as much as the last to protect ethanol. She said the USDA is our ally and that her willingness to fight has prevented the bad indirect land use definition from being implemented. Fight, fight, fight... Herseth Sandlin was forceful, passionate... oh, but I suppose those are bad qualities, right, Pat?
Wrong. It could be that Herseth Sandlin sounds more passionate in these debates because she's more confident than the woman sitting next to her. Noem knows she's in deep water and her Fox News talking points will only float so far. She's terrified of real hard questions. On this hard question, Herseth Sandlin recognized Noem had just buffaloed the audience and missed the facts. Herseth Sandlin thus swung hard, owned the question, and owned the stage.
Assessment: Advantage Herseth Sandlin. Without a doubt.
----------------------
p.s.: Big scary Speaker Nancy Pelosi was backing Herseth Sandlin on this issue. In ACESA, the climate change bill, she supported an agreement with Reps. Waxman and Peterson to tighten the requirements for imposing any indirect land use penalty for biofuels. Under the ACESA provisions, USDA would have had to agree to any definitions along with EPA and DoE. The American Coalition for Ethanol loved this agreement and wanted the Senate to follow suit. Advantage Pelosi!
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
District 8 Legislature Poll: Vote Now!
Madville Times - Tue, 09/07/2010 - 5:55am
Now it's really campaign season; let's roll with some polls! First up for fall, as you can see in the right sidebar, are the races for District 8 State Senate and State House. District 8: that's Sanborn, Miner, Lake, and most of Moody County.
Pick whom you'd like to see as our senator: Republican incumbent Russell Olson or Indy/Dem challenger Clark Schmidtke Sr. Then pick your preferred District 8 representatives: Democratic incumbent Mitch Fargen, Democratic incumbent Gerry Lange, GOP challenger Patricia Stricherz, or Independent Jason Bjorklund. Remember: in the State House race, you get to pick two!
Many have voted already—thank you! This poll will run through breakfast Wednesday, when we'll talk about the results. Get out the vote, and get ready for tons of blog fun as the South Dakota blogosphere brings you the rip-snortin'est coverage of Election 2010!
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Republicans are the least popular party
SD Politics - Mon, 09/06/2010 - 11:47pm
Except for the other one. Donkey-minded pundits frequently point out of late that all the bad news for Democrats hasn't translated into any affection for Republicans. This seems right and it marks one difference between now and 1994. It is getting very difficult to see how it matters.
CNN has released a new poll that confirms the Republican advantage on the generic question. The poll has Republicans ahead by seven points. Oddly, there is no link to the poll stats, so I don't know if this is likely or registered voters. If you ignore the Newsweek poll showing a tie, then the Republican's spread is between 6 and 12 points.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that, sure enough,
the two parties are equally unpopular. Forty-nine percent of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Democrats, with the same percentage feeling the same way about the Republicans. Just over one in five questioned dislike both parties.
Here is the bombshell:
Back in April, Americans who dislike both parties appeared to mildly favor the GOP on the generic ballot, by a 43-to-39 percent margin, with a large number saying at the time that they would pick a minor-party candidate or stay at home.
"Now, a lot of those voters appear to be bolting to the GOP," Holland said. "Republicans now have a whopping 38-point advantage on the generic ballot among voters who dislike both parties."
Republicans also have a large and growing advantage among independents. Sixty-two percent of independents questioned say they would vote for the generic Republican in their district, with three in 10 saying they'd cast a ballot for the generic Democrat. That 32-point margin for the Republicans among independents is up from an 8-point advantage last month.
Looking at those numbers, I get the same feeling I got when I first gazed over the rim of the Grand Canyon: the air gets tight in my chest. A thirty-two point advantage for the GOP among independents. On a scale of one to ten, that's, well, thirty-two.
However, among people who think both parties are worth a pitcher of warm spit, it's that 38 point advantage that is most revealing. A political party can afford to be unpopular if the only competition is 38% less popular.
Lest you think this is mere cheerleading, I can see lots of reasons for Republicans to be very nervous. One is that they might get cocky and blow it. Republicans are surely capable of that, when they have time. Do they have time enough? Maybe not.
Another thing is that this sentiment is not, I expect, evenly distributed. New York Democrats seem to be doing just fine. Still, when the GOP national advantage is this strong, it is going to affect races in virtually every district in the country.
Third, the Democrats can at least hope to win the spin. At this point, if they hold the Senate and don't lose the House by more than 10 seats, they can declare victory.
Finally, the Republican advantage seems to consist solely of one thing: they aren't Democrats. I don't think they have any idea what to do if they win both Houses of Congress.
The old Chinese curse may be descending on both parties: may you live in interesting times. The times they are certainly interesting.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Where the jobs aren't: a Labor Day meditation
Northern Valley Beacon - Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:05pm
The weakness in the American job market is being played for all it's worth--which isn't much--by the political parties. The Obama administration is claiming it has saved and is creating jobs through it programs. The Republicans are claiming that his programs are a failure and their ideas will create more jobs. Meanwhile, the real problem with job creation is being ignored.
People such as Glen Beck claim that it's the fault of the unemployed. There are 29 million people out of work, and there are 29 million people out there who insist that it is not their choice.
The fact that no one wants to face is: there are no jobs in America to be created. They have been outsourced.
A friend of mine went to a party where one of the games was a version of a treasure hunt, Everyone was driven to a huge mall where they were to compile a list of items made in the U.S.A. They were given an hour. The mall did not include a grocery store. The person who won came up with only five items. Most of the contestants complained about how frustrating the game was. One woman who looked only in clothing stores came up empty and asked if anything was made in America any more. The man who won found his items in a stationary store and a tool and lawn and garden store.
The point is that the driving force in the market place is cheap labor. And freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity are not part of the labor market. While our government is a democracy that gives lip service, at least, to those attributes, the business community is feudal. It depends for making its money on serfs who cost little to maintain and who are expendable when they cannot produce enough to sustain CEO bonuses.
One of the developments regarding the current recession and jobs involves General Motors. As a condition of the loan which bailed the corporation out of insolvency and gave it another chance, the company was required to get efficient. That meant that it had it to close unproductive operations and fire workers. Its down-sizing has involved the closing of its Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer divisions. But it is investing heavily in new facilities, and the consequent jobs, in China. At some point, it plans to market its China-made cars in the U.S.
The problem with American manufacturing is deep and complex. Labor costs are a part of the problem, but they have been posed as the only problem. They aren't. My history with automobiles illustrates the experience Americans have had with cars.
I obstinately refused to buy foreign cars. I owned one in the 1960s. It was a 1959 Volvo that simply was not up to the American Interstate system that was developing at the time. It was well built and could handle ice and snow fairly well. But it did not have the power for sustained highway driving. I drove to Highland Park, Ill., to visit relatives once in a freezing sleet and snow storm. When I got there, I could not get out of the car. The doors were frozen shut. We had to go to a nearby gas station and let the car warm up in a service bay before we could open the doors and get out. The car was tightly built, but it had its drawbacks.
The Volvo experience ended at a remote rural intersection when, on the way to cover a story in the boondocks, the car threw a piston rod. I never got to the story, and the newspaper state editors had to set up a correspondent's relay to get me back to the news room. My next car was a Rambler station wagon with a V8, which I had until I traded it in on a Dodge wagon.
I vowed, for many reasons, to buy only American-made cars. So I went through a series of Dodges and Jeeps (even a couple of Gremlins) which all served well for their time. My last Jeep was going on 12 years old when it needed constant service and was very expensive to keep in repair. The service manager at the garage where I had it serviced remarked one day that I should try a Honda CRV if I like small, 4-wheel-drive SUVs. One day when the Jeep was in for one of its frequent repair sessions, the manager said the dealership had just taken in a nice CRV on trade and I should look at it. I did and ended up buying it. That 12-year old car is still in the family, with my son now owning it. My spouse and I have Toyotas, a Matrix and a Rav4.
The switch to Toyota is another story of car failures. After shuttling my family around in a series of Chrysler minivans (which involved three transmission replacements) during their school years, we got a Ford Windstar, which was a good deal when we bought it. But it was in the shop being repaired more than being driven. It was a nice car in many respects, but its flaws were a constant plague. The front passenger seat was uncomfortably drafty in the winter. The power steering kept failing. Some times the doors wouldn't shut all the way. There were a multitude of small problems interspersed with a lot of big ones. When wheel bearings started failing, we traded it for a Matrix and took a huge beating in the price. This was the second time I had a foul Ford. The first was the one I traded in on the Volvo. That Ford could not keep gears from doing whatever gears are not supposed to do, and it left me stranded in strange places, like the Volvo ended up doing. The Honda and Toyotas are better engineered than those American cars, and are illustrations of how the Japanese car makers were focusing on engineering while the Americans diddled around with marketing as the key to competition. Like many of the people I know who drive foreign cars, I made the switch not because I preferred the foreign cars; but because I gave up on the expense and inconvenience of trying to keep the American cars running. I was very slow to learn.
As the American car companies played their brief footsie dance with the Obama administration to try to be saved, their main public relations ploy was to focus on labor costs. They never once mentioned the reason why they were losing out to the foreign competitors: engineering and quality of cars.
In the automobile industry, any new jobs to be created will have to be through new companies manufacturing new kinds of cars. The old jobs have been ceded to foreign car companies. They are simply not in America to be revived.
Wind generator blades account for 325 jobs in Aberdeen
That is true of production jobs in general. They are no longer in America. There is nothing to revive. If there are to be production jobs in America, they will have to be created from scratch. It is significant that 325 productions jobs in Aberdeen are in the production of wind generator blades.
A common argument circulating in the country today is that our children and grand children will be saddled with the debts that the country is accruing today. The fact of our shortage of jobs is, similarly, because of decisions made 25 years ago. We are reaping the result of trickle-down economics and the decision to move from manufacturing as the basis of our economy to service jobs. The critics of 25 years ago were asking who would buy or afford the services when there was no production to support them? We are living with the answer in an employment rate that will not budge off the 9.5 percent mark.
The much-heralded Reagan Revolution was devoted to busting labor. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, he won the opening battle in an all-out war against unions. The war on the working middle class was spearheaded by a propaganda campaign against unions. They were portrayed as organizations devoted to power and greed, whose members devoted their energies to sloughing off and contributing nothing to the American economy or general way of life. That portrayal is still evident in South Dakota and on this Labor Day has found its expression on some blogs. The attitude fomented is that jobs are created by the moneyed and powered class and workers who do not accept an ignominious serfdrom are obstacles to realizing the American dream.
There were some attempts to keep production jobs in America, but they were negligible in the corporate decisions to demolish the American workforce. For a time WalMart bragged that its merchandise contracts were negotiated with American companies that used American workers to manufacture their products. But in order to meet the low prices, those American corporations outsourced the work to China, other countries in the Pacific Rim, and some Latin American countries. Try to find an American-made product at WalMart today. The result will be what my friends found at that party. America is out of the business of making things.
When the Obama administration expanded the bailout programs started by George W. Bush, it did so reluctantly under the realization that letting the financial industry and automotive industry fail in America might well be a final close-out of American production jobs. The administration came up with money and restrictions in an attempt to prevent the corporations from repeating the irresponsible, incompetent, acts of greed that created the conditions for the recession.
Rather than focusing on how to revive and re-establish American production companies and jobs, Obama's opposition sees the attempts at salvaging the automotive and financial industries as a communist-like socialization of American business. The corporate executives whose firms have been saved are now among the leaders leading the opposition to Obama. The main jobs his bailouts saved were those of the people who see company success as the continued outsourcing of jobs and the ultimate serfdom of the American labor force. American corporations have no interest in building the country; their only interest is in turning their corporations into fiefdoms whose success depends upon keeping its workforces in a state of subjection and weakness.
All the talk about constitutional governance is not talk that includes the working class as part of that governance. The Constitution touted by conservatives in America does not include economic freedom, equality, and justice. It is, in fact, a Constitution conceived as a return to the feudal classes and relationships to which America was invented as an alternative.
For workers this Labor Day, the focus is what is happening to the American workforce and who is actually behind the trends that sustain unemployment. The Obama administration's biggest failing is in giving corporate executives another opportunity to impose their corporate version of fascism on the American workforce.
If American workers vote for the Republican agenda to overturn all that Obama has done, they can devote future Labor Days to pondering that fairly brief time in American history when workers were free men and women who were regarded with some sense of value and equality. That time may well be nothing but a memory.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
I hear someone knows his cows. And his bull….
SD War College - Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:04pm
Friend to the SDWC, State Representative Charlie Hoffman won the Legislative livestock showing contest at the fair this weekend.
Congrats to Charlie! Now maybe he can regain some of the fame he’s lost to his bride Holly, who is on Survivor this season.
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
Now, I hadn’t heard that one…… Can anyone confirm?
SD War College - Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:57pm
Someone left this in a comment today, and I have to say I hadn’t heard that one. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Miss Stephie vacationed in France last year with Nancy, Miss Stephie votes with her mentor over 93% of the time, Miss Stephie voted for Pelosi for Speaker, Miss Stephie rides on Nancy’s big jet – so yea I would say it is about the Pelosi connection.
We all know that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin accompanied Nancy Pelosi to watch the icebergs melt in Greenland, and she voted with her 93-95% of the time, etc. But I hadn’t heard about a vacation together.
Can anyone confirm or disprove a French Vacation?
Categories: SD Political Blog MegaMix
