You are hereFeed aggregator / Sources / Madville Times: Latest Posts
Madville Times: Latest Posts
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Who's the Princess?
46 min 6 sec agoMadville 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.
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Get a Job! Get Lots of Jobs!
Tue, 09/07/2010 - 3:55pmPart 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.
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Most Critical Issue, Least Critical Question
Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:45amPart 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.
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Renewable Energy Standard
Tue, 09/07/2010 - 7:30amPart 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.
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Indirect Land Use Penalty for Biofuel
Tue, 09/07/2010 - 7:02amPart 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!
District 8 Legislature Poll: Vote Now!
Tue, 09/07/2010 - 5:55amNow 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!
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Cut Ethanol Subsidy?
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 6:15pmPart 4 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
Question #3 at Sunday's debate put Tea Party sensibilities to the test, asking whether it's time to get rid of the ethanol subsidy. I can find Republicans and Democrats who would say yes to that question. None of them were on stage in Huron. Republican Kristi Noem said no; Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin said heck no!
Noem offered an interesting nuance: she said that since the industry doesn't agree on whether the subsidy should continue, the subsidy should continue. (Hmm... sounds just like her position on climate change: since not every scientist agrees on climate change, climate change should continue.) Noem did not explain whether it would take a simple majority, two-thirds, or complete consensus from industry players to get her to end the ethanol subsidy.
Noem did say that ethanol is important to national security. She said we must rely on ourselves for energy, promote blender pumps, and put infrastructure in place so everyone who wants to use ethanol can. Noem wants to encourage flex-fuel vehicles and make sure people have opporuntities to invest in ethanol. (If she's talking about doing that from a perch in Congress, she's a Republican advocating some pretty active government intervention in the market.)
Noem concluded by saying we need someone in Washington who understands how the ethanol industry works. She mentioned her own experience of making the tough decisions with her family at the dinner table to invest in an ethanol plant.
Herseth Sandlin didn't mention her dinner-table investment decisions, but she stated emphatically that we need to do all we can to retain and modify tax credits and extend the tariff. She said continuing support for ethanol is essential to keep the ethanol industry growing and providing jobs in our communities. Herseth Sandlin went so far as to say our investment in tax credits and extending the tariff save taxpayers money.
Beyond the ethanol subsidy, Herseth Sandlin said she has introduced legislation to provide investment tax credits for ethanol research and development. She said such credits would help Poet and other South Dakota companies and promote cellulosic ethanol.
Herseth Sandlin also took free shots at Noem and the GOP. She commended the bipartisan work of State Representative Mitch Fargen and State Senator Dave Knudson for using stimulus money to promote blender pumps (Kristi voted for that, too, but oh! slap! pow!). Herseth Sandlin concluded by noting that the ethanol subsidy is a whole lot better than a subsidy for the oil industry (smack!).
Assessment: Not much daylight between the candidates, but Noem loses points for failing to live up to Tea Party ideals to unshackle the Invisible Hand. Then again, since Tea Party funders the Koch brothers are getting into ethanol, Noem may be right on the expected faux-conservative talking points. Advantage Herseth Sandlin on philosophical consistency and free shots.
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Helping Farmers Get Loans
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 1:45pmPart 3 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
Question #2 in Sunday's Congressional debate: What do you plan to do to help the current ag lending situation? Had I faced this question, I'd have been left hemming, hawing, and deferring to our Congresswoman just as B-Thom did. I'll see if I can get right what the ladies in the race had to say:
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin said she discussed this very issue with dairy producers on Saturday and called for changes in the Commodity Credit Corporation. She said farmers should be allowed to count silage in collateral value. The Congresswoman said we need to make sure Farmer Mac and cooperative lending institutions don't get caught in regulatory burdens that should properly be aimed at the Wall Street fatcats who swamped the economy. She said she worked with House colleagues to make sure this summer's Wall Street reform act carried such exemptions. Herseth Sandlin mentioned her work on expanding financing opportunities for young farmers and ranchers (I didn't catch mention of a specific bill; Herseth Sandlin did sponsor the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opporunity Act of 2007, though that didn't make it out of committee).
Herseth Sandlin then branched a bit with some indirect solutions. She noted that she has supported renewable energy, ethanol, wind power, and community wind projects (hey! she said community wind! Whoo-hoo!). Expand those programs, and you expand the ability of farmers to diversify their portfolio, which in turn expands their potential for cash flow and ability to get loans from the bank.
Kristi Noem started her answer by recycling an earlier talking point about the need for permanent disaster relief. Noem said disaster payments need to come the year of the disaster, not later, so farmers can get the cash flow they need to get loans for the next planting cycle. She said we shouldn't limit producer abilities to look at forward contracts and get premiums for the product they produce.
Noem then turned to foreign trade. She said the House has had three opportunities to approve trade agreements with other countries but has failed to take action.* Noem said we must open up trade to get good markets for our crops, which boost cash flow, which make it easier to get financing. She then started to say something about the Wall Street reform bill, but her answer ran over the time limit.
Assessment: Both candidates offered some Rube-Goldberg economics. Help farmers make money in other ways, and they'll have more collateral to get more loans? I guess that makes sense, although I would speculate the questioner was thinking more about the complications the farmer faces with paperwork, interest rates, tax rules, etc., the aspects of the lending process that Congress can change directly. On that line, Herseth Sandlin provided more direct solutions. Advantage Herseth Sandlin on substance.
*In response to a later question on unemployment, Herseth Sandlin pointed out that Noem was blowing smoke on these trade agreements. Herseth Sandlin says the three agreements Noem references (apparently with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama) have not yet been transmitted by the President to the Congress, meaning Congress has never had a chance to vote on them. President Obama wants these deals done, but the agreements, negotiated by the Bush Administration in 2007, have been stalled by Democratic opposition in Congress.
Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Where to Cut Farm Bill?
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 12:20pmPart 2 of South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis
The first question at Sunday's ag-focused debate asked what cuts the candidates would propose for the farm bill.
Kristi Noem went first. She said that farmers are looking more for risk management assistance than direct payments. She said the 2008 Farm Bill moved in that direction. Noem then lamented that only 18% of South Dakota farmers participate in the ACRE program.
Noem took a moment here to mention that we need someone in Congress who understands farms (the implication being that she's a better choice since she has lived on a ranch while managing her hunting lodge, a never-mentioned insurance business, and her mom's Watertown café than her opponent who grew up on a farm, then went away to college and Congress).
Noem proceeded to say that South Dakota needs permanent disaster relief. She pointed to $75 million in disaster payments the state has received but complained that the U.S. House missed an opportunity to make those payments permanent.
Ultimately, said Noem, we need to simplify programs like ACRE to make it easier for farmers to take advantage of federal assistance (as her family has, to the tune of $3,058,152 in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, a haul establishes the Noems has the 18th biggest recipient of farm subsidies in South Dakota over the last 15 years).
Now read all that again. The question was about making cuts in the farm bill. Noem hinted at cutting direct payments in her first sentence, but the rest of her answer focused on making more assistance available to farmers.
Herseth Sandlin listened and called Noem out. She said the question was about cuts and said Noem doesn't offer specific solutions but just tells you what's already in the bill.
Herseth Sandlin said direct payments will take more cuts, simply because they are harder and harder to justify to taxpayers. She said cuts to conservation programs in the 2008 Farm Bill were a prelude to future hard decisions (I'm not sure I like that answer—we're going to cut more from conservation?!—but she's telling us where the cuts will happen).
That said, Herseth Sandlin did go farther afield, saying that the cuts already made by her House Ag Committee are the kinds of responsible cuts every committee should be making. She said her committee found $6 billion in savings in the 2008 Farm Bill, redirected $2 billion to support necessary programs, and put $4 billion toward deficit reduction. Herseth Sandlin said that while ag programs can take some cuts, she will demand fiscal responsibility like that from all areas and not let the farm bill be the lone whipping boy.
Assessment: Talking cuts is unpleasant. Talking cuts to ag spending at the State Fair is downright risky. Both candidates do some dodging, but Herseth Sandlin gives the more direct answer and takes a hard shot at her opponent. Advantage Herseth Sandlin on substance and elbows.
Marking on Stage: Intelligent, Critical of Party Games, Still Not Ready
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:47amB. Thomas Marking will not be a factor in South Dakota's U.S. House race. He lacks the enthusiasm and resources to mount an effective campaign. But he was at Sunday's Congressional debate at the State Fair, and he said some things worth considering.
First, let me emphasize that Marking is intelligent and articulate. I suspect we could have an engaging conversation about political philosophy as well has his vast experience as a public servant and world traveler. His comments at Sunday's debate were not Lyndon LaRouche crackpottery or Tea Party hyperventilations.
Marking leveled some reasonable criticism of both parties. He noted with disdain that while the South Dakota Democratic Party invited Independents to vote in their primary (a blatant attempt at seducing Indies into the Party, said Marking not so inaccurately), the national party leaders swung into action to quash a challenger who threatened a real primary challenge.
Marking also criticized the culture of political parties and the press. "In the culture of the party," said Marking, "It's all about the game" and scoring points. Marking pointedly observed that "game" attitude was on display in the rowdy cheering sections at the debate. "I want to thank all of you people who didn't come here waving signs and wearing t-shirts but actually came to learn." Scolding your audience may not be the best debate tactic, but I give credit to Marking for courage and zingers.
Marking offered similar criticism of the press. He proposes an innovative online voting system, an unprecedented revolution in how we conduct democracy (well, not really: see Estonia), and the press ignores him and runs headlines like "Sparks fly between Kristi and Stephanie." Marking likened the press coverage to America's Next Top Model.
(On a related note, Marking tied with Herseth Sandlin for best-dressed candidate at Sunday's debate. Marking wore a conservative dark suit and white shirt, lacking, alas, a necktie. Herseth Sandlin wore a vibrant blue blouse and black slacks, but the open-toed black shoes don't work for me. The bright pink nail polish also lacked complements in the outfit. Noem slummed in blue jeans, all to informal for the occasion. Even if there are cows and horses outside, you should debate looking like you are ready to govern.)
Marking decried the big money the parties funnel to candidates, promoting a culture of party loyalty over candidates with integrity, talent, and vision. He said he is annoyed by party candidates who claim to be "Independent Republicans and Independent Democrats." That's like labeling a product "genuine imitation," said Marking, emphasizing that he is the only real Independent in the race. Marking won applause from a fair chunk of the audience by calling for campaign finance limitations, saying voters could best trust a candidate to rein in the federal budget who first runs a campaign on a limited budget. Unaddressed by Marking or those who applauded were the Constitutinoal complications of telling candidates that they and everyone who supports them can only spend a fixed amount on First Amendment expression.
Alas, once out of his prepared remarks, Marking sunk back into weak sloganeering and demonstrations of the shallowness of his understanding. Asked what cuts he would make to the Farm Bill, the first words out of his mouth were "This is not my area of expertise" (oops). He said he couldn't compete with the Congresswoman or Noem (double oops). On a question about the ag lending situation, he said he would defer to the Congresswoman (then get off the stage!). Even pitched a softball question asking the candidates to name "the most critical issue facing the country" (dozens of cards from the audience, and the moderator picks this puffball? Come on!), Marking muffs a chance to expound on his vision and says he'll cover that in his closing comments.
Oh yeah, and Marking still thinks a revenue-neutral 30% national sales tax would bring fiscal and economic magic to America. Wrong. (And new debate rule: I automatically vote against anyone who uses the phrase "Fair Tax," on grounds of talk-radio karaoke bubbleheadedness and dishonest addvertising. You can call rubbing my armpits with sandpaper the "Good Wash," but that doesn't make it good. Call it a national sales tax, and we can talk.)
As I said, Marking isn't stupid. He says some reasonable things about the state of American politics. He just lacks the breadth of policy knowledge necessary to be an effective Representative for South Dakota.
Herseth Sandlin Owns State Fair Debate, Hammers Noem
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:13amCongresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and State Representative Kristi Noem have debated live five times now. Yesterday's high-noon debate at the Women's Building (isn't that inherently unfair to B. Thomas Marking?) at the South Dakota State Fair was the first one I've attended. The experience changed my mind in one significant way. Herseth Sandlin is no longer our little princess smiling and waving her way to Washington. She's a fighter, ready to play hardball of the highest sort, all facts and figures that her opponent can't beat. Noem is the new pageant princess, not paying attention, stuck on her note cards, and thinking she's entitled to win on emotion and image.
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
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin won Sunday's debate on all points, substance and style. Let me put on my debate-judge hat and tell you why. I'll break this up into a series of posts: a 90-minute debate provides a lot of material!
Opening Statements: Kristi Noem drew first speaking position. She spent half of her opening pointing out her photogenic family members in the audience (husband and comrade in speed Bryon, kids, Grandma Arnold) and pointing out how wonderful the State Fair is and how "our family always comes to the State Fair." Noem also included a sprinkling of folksy "Well goodness sakes" and similar Palinisms (are you running for Congress or a remake of The Waltons?).
When she turned to policy, she still wrapped it in family and emotion, with her well-worn story about her family going into debt for ten years to pay off the estate tax after the tragedy of her father's death (a story about which there are some pertinent legal and financial questions, like why there was an estate tax if Mom was still alive, and just how rich the Arnolds must have been to even qualify for the estate tax threshold). Noem then noted that her opponent's very first vote each session has been to elect Nancy Pelosi as speaker. "I don't support Nancy Pelosi's agenda for this country," said Noem, without specifying what that agenda is. Again, Noem is avoiding specifics and playing for the emotional response to a name and an image.
Ah, but Noem did have a couple specifics: she mentioned Herseth Sandlin's votes for the stimulus package and for extending the federal debt ceiling, both of which Noem said were just bad.
Noem then borrowed the tactic launched by Chris Nelson last December: where Herseth Sandlin votes against Pelosi, attack the procedural votes. Noem said as Assistant Majority Leader in the State House, she knows that if you really oppose a bill, you can show some leadership and convince colleagues to kill it.
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wasted no time dismantling what few relevant specifics Noem put on the table in her opening comments. She briefly mentioned having "lots of family" at the fair and Zachary probably out looking at four-wheelers, then got to business. She said Noem sounds like she's moving to San Francisco to run against Pelosi herself.
Herseth Sandlin then recited a list of fights she's had against Republicans to protect South Dakota interests. In 2004, she wrestled House Ag Committee Republicans who wanted to weaken Country of Origin Labeling. She cited Bush Administration and Congressional foot-dragging on drought assistance that she fought for until her party took over and made it happen in 2007. She cited her work to put together a good bipartisan 2008 Farm Bill that President Bush vetoed twice. Herseth Sandlin emphasized that GOP House Leader John Boehner voted to sustain that veto twice.
Now notice the difference in tactics: Noem just shouts "Pelosi!" and hopes ad hominem is enough. Herseth Sandlin shouts "Boehner!" but then ties his name to a specific policy.
Herseth Sandlin then turned to note that she has worked with her GOP colleagues in the House, as well as with the Bush Administration, to improve forest management and pass support for renewable fuels. Herseth Sandlin said that South Dakota can't afford to turn over its lone House seat to "a partisan mouthpiece for either party's agenda." The subtext here: Do you think a GOP/Tea Party candidate being feted as a GOP "Young Gun" and given big face time on Fox News will be allowed to buck her party and work with the Obama Administration?
Herseth Sandlin then turned to her msot recent vote, the Medicaid and education funding Congress dished out to help states. Herseth Sandlin pointed out that Governor Rounds requested and accepted that money because South Dakota seniors and students need that money. She said she worked to cut tax loopholes for multinational corporations to pay for that funding. Some Noemsters in the audience jeered when Herseth Sandlin spoke of successfully restoring the requirement that Congress pay for what it spends, but Herseth Sandlin, always listening, was ready to shoot back that Senator Thune supports the same requirement.
Herseth Sandlin said Noem has said she would have voted against that Medicaid and education assistance because closing those tax loopholes will cost businesses money. Herseth Sandlin then drops another hammer: "I will stand with seniors and students in South Dakota over multi-national corporations any day." That line has emotional appeal, but Herseth Sandlin roots the attack in specific policy, on a specific vote, on a specific position mouthed by her opponent. That's good debating.
Herseth Sandlin hit many more specific policy points that define what voters can expect from her in Congress. Herseth Sandlin was also more aggressive and intense than Noem. (And while Republicans may now try to spin aggressive and intensity as agitation and lack of composure, I don't recall the GOP having a problem with agression and intensity during all the town hall shouting they did during the health care debate.) On substance and style in the opening round, advantage Herseth Sandlin.
Dang, and that's just the opening statements! I'll analyze the candidates' responses to questions and their closing statements in subsequent posts. Stay tuned! (Boy, it's a good thing I only have ten minutes to write a typical high school debate ballot, right, kids? :-) )
City Offers Lake County Int'l Sewer Agreement
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 7:37amLooks like Lake County International will get a pot to poop in after all. The implement dealer on the west edge of Madison contacted the city last spring about hooking into the municipal sewer system in conjunction with the business's big expansion project. Owner Jeff Bloom filed a written request a couple weeks ago. The city commission's initial response to the prospect of a new industrial customer pumping money into the city's sewer system seemed surprisingly lukewarm.
But apparently the city sees the benefits of connecting another big customer who, unlike its competitor across town, is willing to foot its own bills for infrastructure. Included in tomorrow night's commission agenda (pp. 18–21) is an agreement between the city and Lake County International to hook 'em up.
Meditation for the day: Poop is money. Money is poop.
Marking Pulls Plug on Campaign... Temporarily
Sun, 09/05/2010 - 9:37pmJust home from the State Fair—beautiful day! My divine Miss K was not terribly impressed with the Congressional candidates. debate, but she found the puppies, miniature horses, bunnies, and pigs adorable.
In news almost as big, Independent U.S. House candidate B. Thomas Marking announced at the Congressional candidates' debate that he is suspending his campaign for a few days. His employer, Uncle Sam, has called him away for some FEMA training. In his closing statement, Marking told a cheek-by-jowl audience in the Women's Building Auditorium that he thought about saying no, but then decided his current duties as a public servant outweigh the needs of the campaign. Marking neither confirmed nor denied that the Madville Times helped him make this hard decision.
Marking said we can expect him to return after the training to ramp up the campaign. He also noted that the woman he dreams of replacing with online polls, Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, will also be off the campaign trail for a bit as Congress reconvenes (scheduled dates: September 13 through October 8), meaning GOP challenger Kristi Noem will have the state all to herself. Noem, of course, won't notice, since she already thinks she and her family are the only people on the highway.
--------------------------------
Coming up tomorrow: full analysis of the U.S. House candidates' State Fair debate! Who said what and who kicked butt... but first, I've got to sleep off a big day of sunshine, cute animals, and deep bull. Stay tuned!
Noem Spins Irresponsible Behavior as Virtue
Sun, 09/05/2010 - 9:30amI've thought that Kristi Noem's lengthy criminal record—skipping court six times, earning two arrest warrants—is a sign of either complete irresponsibility (Court date? Oopsies! Forgot again! Tee hee!) or sheer arrogance (What? You expect me to go to court? Do you know who I think I am?)
Noem's comments on Weekend Edition Sunday this morning convince me all the more it's arrogance. NPR's Brian Naylor asks Noem about her lengthy record of court-dodging and arrest warrants. She not only ignores those violations, but she tries to dress her unsafe driving up as virtue:
My nature has always been to be in a hurry and to try to get things done, and that's obviously something I need to work at when it comes to my driving record [Kristi Noem, interviewed by Brian Naylor, "Political Pedigree No Longer Protects S.D. Rep," NPR Weekend Edition Sunday, 2010.09.05].
Wow. The gall. Princess Kristi is just trying so hard to get things done, she can't be bothered with something so trivial as a court date. She says she needs to work on her speeding, but she never says she is working on it. She portrays her risky behavior as "her nature," as if it is something beyond her control.
This isn't hard, Kristi. When you're behind the wheel, you don't speed. When you get a ticket, you pay it. When the judge says come to court, you come to court. Quit trying to dress up your problem as "nature" or some noble effort to "get things done" and be responsible. Responsibility is a choice, the kind of choice you Republicans expect of everyone else.
--------------------
Update 2010.09.06: Gee, ignoring the law really is a Noem family value:
It isn’t that uncommon in Noem’s family, based on court records since 1989. Noem’s husband, Bryon, had 18 recorded traffic citations during that period, 11 of them for speeding. Noem’s brother, Rock Arnold, had 34 citations during that period, 25 of them for speeding. He also missed court or fine payment dates four times and had warrants issued three times. Another brother, Robb, had 21 citations, including 12 for speeding.
And Noem’s mother, Corinne Arnold, had 11 citations, nine for speeding [Kevin Woster, "Noem Apologizes for Traffic Citations," Rapid City Journal, 2010.09.05].
Merit Pay? Start at the Top
Sun, 09/05/2010 - 8:35amSometimes my mind wanders....
Independent candidate for District 8 House Jason Bjorklund supports merit pay for teachers. I've mentioned previously that measuring teacher performance is tricky; I'll need to ask Bjorklund at the first candidate forum just what specific metrics he'd use to determine which math teacher gets a bonus.
But it occurs to me as odd that merit pay comes up for teachers but not for any other public servants. Why would we focus so much attention on making teachers prove their worthwhen there are so many bigger fish to fry on the public payroll?
If we're going to talk merit pay, let's start at the top. Let's experiment with the most highly paid, most powerful public employees first and work our way down.
In the education system, for instance, let's start with merit pay for our university presidents. Enrollment up at DSU? Good for you, Dr. Knowlton! $5000 bonus. Dip in retention at SDSU? Oh, sorry, Dr. Chicoine: that's $5000 off your salary (though he can make that up by attending one Monsanto board meeting). If merit pay works with our university presidents, we can phase merit pay in further down the ladder: add our top VPs and administrators one year, maybe deans and department chairs the next, rank-and-file professors and instructors after that.
Same in the K-12 system. Don't start with the teachers: start with the superintendents and principals. Or maybe go bigger: since the K-12 system is the constitutional responsibility of state government, apply merit pay first to the people at the top of the power pyramid: the governor and the secretary of education. If schools across the state see their ACT scores go down, nick Governor Rounds's and Secretary Oster's pay $1000 each.
We could even apply this principle at the local government level. Take Lake County. Dwaine Chapel, executive director of the Lake Area Improvement Corporation, makes over $100,000 a year, more I think that any public official, elected or otherwise, in our county. Chapel will tell you the LAIC is quasi-public-private, but his salary is paid for essentially by tax dollars. Why don't we test out merit pay on his position first? Every month that unemployment goes up, chop that paycheck by $1000. For every new business that opens its doors, $1000 bonus.
If we see merit pay produce results for the LAIC, then we can try it at other levels of local government:
- Give city engineer Chad Comes a bonus for the year if there are fewer water main breaks and sewer backups.
- Give states attorney Ken Meyer a bonus for a higher successful prosecution rate.
- Give city finance officer Jeff Heinemeyer a bonus for higher satisfaction ratings in the next Citizen Survey.
Noem "Bought and Paid for" by Republican Leadership
Sun, 09/05/2010 - 5:56amI keep telling Pat not to start a fight he can't win. But does he listen? Of course not.
Dakota War College's latest meme to soothe the crumbling hopes of Noem supporters: beat the Pelosi drum again. He claims that Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is "bought and paid for" by $35K in campaign contributions from Speaker Pelosi.
Hmm... Democratic Speaker supports Democratic candidate. Dog bites man.
But o.k., let's see who has "bought and paid for" Republican challenger Kristi Noem:
- Small potatoes, but notable: Common Sense Issues PAC sends Noem $250. CSI PAC's donations this year are strictly Tea Party, with equal donations to teabagger delights J.D. Hayworth in Arizona and Marc Rubio in Florida.
- Bigger potatotes: National Republican Congressional Committee chair and Texas Rep. Pete Sessions has bought a $5000 share in Noem through his PETE PAC.
- GOP Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan has bought another $5000 chunk of Noem through his CAMPAC.
- So has GOP House leader Eric Cantor, through ERIC PAC.
- So has Senator Thune, through his Heartland Values PAC. The "Friends of John Thune" have kicked in another $2000.
Midco Resists Subpoena for Customer Info in Video Piracy Case
Sat, 09/04/2010 - 10:38amLast February, when legislators like Noel Hamiel, Nancy Turbak Berry, and Mitch Fargen (yeah, you, Mitch), threatened to decimate the South Dakota blogosphere with the ill-concieved Blog Control Acts, I offered five counterplans that would better serve the goals of the legislation in protecting citizens from anonymous libel. My first counterplan was to use current law to subpoena service providers like Google and Midco instead of individual bloggers to obtain Web user information in cases of suspected wrongdoing.
I might have overestimated the willingness of Midco to play ball with such a plan:
Midcontinent Communications, an Internet, phone and cable provider in Sioux Falls, is refusing to provide information about an estimated 140 customers who are accused of illegally sharing copies of the film "The Hurt Locker" through peer-to-peer networks.
...The subpoena sent to Midcontinent is asking for the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Media Access Control addresses for all the customers whose IP addresses are listed.
...[Midco VP Tom] Simmons also said providing the information would take a lot of work, time and money."We're going to expect some degree of compensation for all of that to jump through all the hoops that they are requiring," he said [Kelly Thurman, "Midco Resists Subpoena in Lawsuit," that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.09.04].
I am pleased to see Midco takes protecting customer information as its default. I am also heartened to see that they are resisting having to act as unpaid police. Midco's resistance to these subpoenas shows one of the major flaws of the thankfully defeated Blog Control Acts: bloggers and nearly anyone at a computer would have had to invest significant amounts of money, time, and study in Internet surveillance and legal advice that would have driven most casual users away from the most free press ever invented.
------------------------
Update 2010.09.06: David Newquist differs with me (and with prevailing court opinion) about the responsibility for comment-section libel. He agrees with me, however, on the general quality of comment sections, especially on KELO, as refuges for subliterate ad hominem wretches.
Amish Invade South Dakota, Challenge Civic Religion
Sat, 09/04/2010 - 10:11amThe South Dakota blogosphere hosts a couple threads of discussion of the Islamic Center developers want to build in an old Burlington Coat Factory rendered "hallowed" by 9/11 landing gear. While some worry about Muslims in our midst, South Dakota is experiencing another religious infiltration that challenges our civic religion: the Amish are coming!
Tom Lawrence discusses this new influx in the Tripp neighborhood in today's Mitchell Daily Republic:
More than 50 Amish people have come to the area this year. So far, six families have bought 720 acres of land and planted crops and roots in southeast South Dakota [Tom Lawrence, "The Amish Arrive in Southeast South Dakota," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.09.04].
120 acres per family? What kind of farmers are these folks? How can any farmer support a family on less than a whole section or two? Don't they pray the mantra of Saint Butz, Get big or get out? If these weren't Amish, I'd think they were getting their farm advice from some liberal hippie blog on the Interwebs.*
They are a traditional people who eschew most modern conveniences. They rely on old-fashioned horsepower — horses — for their field work and travel.
...The Amish use traditional farming methods, including putting their corn up in shocks, instead of combining [Lawrence, 2010].
What? These folks won't come in to the blessed showrooms of Jim River Equipment to buy a big combine, or Prostrollo's to buy a big F-350? Blasphemy! South Dakotans have a sacred duty to shop and boost those sales tax revenues! If we let the Amish in, they'll start converting people to their ways and drive this state into deficit and decline.
The Amish don’t believe in confrontation or fights and have declined to serve in the military. Borntreger said his wife’s grandfather was drafted into the military during World War I and when he refused to serve, he was held as a prisoner of war.
They are conscientious objectors, he said, and are now treated that way by the American government [Lawrence, 2010].
The Amish won't serve alongside our best and bravest? They don't even believe in using guns for personal protection. More blasphemy!
Big farms, big business, big technology, big patriotism and guns—these are the central tenets of our culture. The Amish clearly challenge these tenets. Ought not we be alarmed at the presence of this challenge to our civic religion in our midst?
-------------------------
*Cultural note: The Gracevale Hutterites brought their kids in to the library one day last week. Some of the kids were checking their Facebook pages.
Pull the Plug on Marking
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 2:32pmI am hard on third-party candidates because I hope for so much from them. As a blogger and even as a Democrat, I believe we'd have much livelier and more instructive election discussions and debates if we had a viable third party, or at least a sufficiently strong Independent movement that would offer voters alternatives to the status quo. And I can't help rooting for underdogs.
I cast my first Presidential vote for H. Ross Perot. He fired up millions of supporters, entered the popular lexicon (remember the giant sucking sound?), and won nearly 19% of the popular vote. He had lots of facts and figures handy, and he was excited to talk about them. Plus, he used charts (and still does!). Perot came across as if he'd done his homework and was ready to do the job. Perot's running mate, the venerable Admiral James Bond Stockdale, alas, presented himself as shovel-ready... and not for the handle.
Listening to Independent B. Thomas Marking on SDPB's Dakota Midday yesterday, I heard more Stockdale than Perot. If passion and enthusiasm are suddenly anathema to good politics, then Marking ought to be the GOP's favorite. Not once did Marking sound fired up about his campaign or this 30 minutes of free air time to reach voters statewide. Marking gave his usual brief answers. That's a plus in some settings, but not in campaign mode. Every time a reporter asks you a question, you need to give an answer that shows how deeply you've thought through the issue. You need to tie that question into your preferred key messages and hit them hard. You need to own the airtime, own the microphone, talk like you are the boss. Instead, Marking comes across as a nice enough gentleman on the street, surprised to be interrupted by some reporter asking him political questions, and eager to return to his daily stroll.
Marking also has a bad habit of dodging questions. He doesn't dodge creatively. He doesn't buffalo or bluster to make listeners forget some uncomfortable question and come away remembering that he sounded smart and tough. Marking just declines to answer. He did it at the Sioux Empire Fair House debate. He did it Thursday on the radio. He declined to answer a listener question about helping people pay for long-term care because his mother was listening and is facing long-term questions herself. What, is Marking planning to put old folks on ice floes and doesn't want Mom to see it coming?
Come on, B. Thomas, that long-term care question is exactly the kind of question you should answer. It's a golden opportunity to show you understand the policy problem on a personal level. That's why your opponent Kristi Noem beats the drum on estate tax, because she has what sounds like a compelling personal narrative to tell. (Actually, given that the details of her story don't add up and that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has a better plan with more deficit responsibility, Noem might want to drop it... but that's another post!)
Marking also failed to answer a question about economic stimulus. He mouthed the armchair quarterback points anyone could get from two minutes reading the KELO forums. When SDPB host Paul Guggenheimer asked Marking for specific ways he would use the stimulus money better, Marking had nothing. He mumbled something about having to consult with economic experts. Bonk. It's September. If you haven't already consulted with economic experts and come up with some alternatives to the economic stimulus, you're not ready for the job of U.S. Congressman.
The rest of Marking's statements are more regurgitation. He toots the national 30% sales tax horn, like every other casual Libertarian radio listener. He says a national sales tax would be better than income and other taxes, because (paraphrasing) we would shift taxes away from investment and savings and all the things that make the economy grow and instead tax consumption. Never mind that consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy. Never mind that a national sales tax opens Social Security to more fraud and removes the same amount of money from the market economy as the current system (if not more). Marking just hears "Fair Tax" and thinks it must be good.
Even on his single best (his only) distinguishing idea, the online referendum, Marking shows a disappointing superficiality of thought. Guggenheimer asks how an online referendum differs from the current system of just writing or calling your Congressperson. Marking says (paraphrasing) that calls and letters give a distorted view of the general feeling of the population. Marking never confronts the obvious: implement an online referendum in Congress, and interested parties will wage concerted get-out-the-vote efforts, just as they do now with online polls and real elections. A random sample would likely give a better view of the general feeling of the population than Marking's online referendum... and Marking doesn't seem to get that.
I advocated for B. Thomas Marking to be included in all of the debates, hoping he would be a butt-kicker. Alas, he's not getting his boots off the ground. He's not showing the doubled fire in the belly he needs to make up for the inherent disadvantages of third-party/non-party status. He's not making the most of his media appearances to make headlines and drive the conversation. And he's not demonstrating any defining or deep grasp of the issues that promises great contributions to the election discourse.
Marking isn't ready for Congress. He's not even ready for a great quixotic campaign that would stir up the electorate and worry the frontrunners.
If you want to be a good third-party candidate, you don't have to be Ross Perot. But don't hang around being James Stockdale. B-Thom, save your money, quit now, and enjoy autumn in the Hills with your family.
Funniest Bike Part I've Bought
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 9:00amAfter ten years of serious bum friction, I decide it's time to buy a new bike seat. I order another split seat, designed to preserve proper sensation and function in the old kibble and bits (the old split saddle did a fine job of keeping my parts... sensational). Planet Bike calls their seat the "Anatomical Relief Saddle." Cool. Fine.
Then I catch the abbreviation. This is what I now sit on while pedaling:
Clever devils.
