I exaggerate because I love (Epp, not the herb).
Actually, Mr. Epp tonight offers a not unreasonable assemblage of evidence suggesting that Bill Janklow is positioning himself for a run for governor in 2010. Involvement in high-profile legal cases, passion for office and spotlight, still rhetorically fired up for the cameras, history of doing what hasn't been done before, displeased with the direction the Rounds administration has taken... pretty good recipe for someone going less than gently into that good night.
But come now: such drama is just too good to hope for, isn't it? Maybe some Republicans could salivate over the prospect. So could Dems. Of all people, Mr. Lauck* reminds us of how an erstwhile Janklow drama set the stage for the ascent of a great Democratic Senate Majority Leader:
On top of Senator Abdnor's existing weaknesses, he faced a stiff primary challenge from the sitting governor, the charismatic populist Bill Janklow, who openly said that he thought Abdnor would lose to Daschle: "I can hold that seat for the Republican Party. Jim Abdnor can't hold that seat." From the sidelines McGovern called the 1986 Republican primary a "bloodbath" and the Wall Street Journal called it a "blood feud." William Farber, the long-time head of the USD political science department, said Republicans were on the "verge of destroying themselves."
Abdnor survived the primary challenge, but ran out of cash. Daschle, however, spent half a million dollars on ads during the first three months of 1986, more than double the combined amount Abdnor and Janklow used bashing each other. By the end of July, Daschle had three times as much cash as Abdnor. An Associated Press headline that month: "Daschle's campaign war-chest runneth over." At the end of July, Daschle was ahead by 15 points [Jon Lauck, "Daschle's Dakota Past," National Review Online, 2004.04.02].
Imagine this possibility: Janklow declares in 2010, Daugaard drains two years' worth of fundraising fighting the primary, and the governor's office gets to recycle a nameplate... the Herseth nameplate. (They'll have to squeeze the "-Sandlin" on there somehow.)
Too much to wish for, I know. With Christmas coming, I'll save my wishes for chocolate, a little snow, universal health care... and then a Giuliani nomination that makes Jim Dobson and Bob Ellis put their money where their mouths are, form their own Taliban Party of America, and pave the way for a good 3-4 terms of Dems in the White House.
*I hereby acknowledge that I sacrifice all progressive credibility by citing Mr. Lauck. Lowell will probably kick me off Badlands Blue for this. ;-)
Actually, Corey, if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate a candidate who doesn't even hold to some of the most important planks in the Republican Party platform, it'll be them who has paved the way for one or possibly two terms of Dems in the White House. Meanwhile, the rest of us who still believe in the values the Republican Party will have abandoned will form a new party that, like the Republicans after the Whigs, will come back in an election or two and give good people a party they can believe in again. (If the Republican establishment is that stupid, that is).
ReplyDeleteTrue, even if the Great Schism comes, we can't get complacent. The Republicans bounced back from flipping their Whigs to putting Honest Abe in the White House in just a couple terms. Dems may gain power with help from a splintering right-wing, but we'll need to earn the right to keep that power by governing well. Of course, I think we're up to that challenge! Bring it on!
ReplyDeleteCorey, I'm very disappointed in your using the word Taliban in reference to any faction of the Republican party. I thought you were wiser than that. Because some people appreciate the basis on which this country was founded and don't like the way that basis is being corrupted does not in any way, shape, or form mean they are anywhere near a Taliban. Anyone who resorts to name calling in that way should apologize.
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint, Anon, but I will stand by the Taliban comparison. I could use a clarification on what you mean by "the basis on which this country was founded... being corrupted."
ReplyDeleteIf the basis to which to which you refer is religious, I direct your attention to Garry Wills and his latest book, Head and Heart: American Christianities. He argues that the separation of church and state, the only true political innovation of the US Constitution, "has allowed religion to flourish in America as it does nowhere else in the developed world." There is a distinct faction of the Republican Party that imperils that separation by fomenting resentment and fear of outsiders, an exclusivity that Christians like the one who married me abhor. The right-wingers threatening schism want hierarchy, judgment, and persecution of the infidels, as defined by their special interpretation of Scripture. What little wisdom I can muster sees all too frightening a parallel between such fearful theopolitics and the worldview of the Taliban. I stick by the comment, not as name-calling, but as a cautionary analogy,
For further understanding of where I'm coming from, see the documentary film Jesus Camp by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. There's a fine line between piety and fanaticism; I sumbit that the subjects of this film cross it, creating an American version of the madrassas where Islamic fundamentalists indoctrinate their children in the destructive theology of fear, exclusion, and holy war.
Sorry, Corey, I disagree. Am I Taliban because I get upset when wishing someone Merry Christmas is attacked, when using red and green Christmas lights is banned, when certain people want to take "Under God" out of the Pledge (I know it was inserted lately but that is beside the point), when they want to take "In God We Trust" off our money, want to remove a cross that has been in a cemetery because it is offensive to some person, etc etc? I will be as tolerant as the next person, and I don't want a theocracy anymore than you do. But when Christianity is attacked in the name of tolerance, I have a right to be upset. And that does NOT make me a Taliban. You still owe people an apology for that reference. It's insulting, not cautionary.
ReplyDeleteAnd, this is the Christmas season, not the Islam season or the Buddhist season or the atheist season. We deserve to be able to tolerate it as we have since the beginning of this nation's history without being told we are being intolerant.
Oops, my bad, didn't proofread. Should say "We deserve to be able to CELEBRATE it as we have since the beginning of this nation's history without being told we are being intolerant."
ReplyDelete(This started with Janklow, right? ;-) )
ReplyDeleteStill no apology, Anon. I haven't labelled your particular politics Talibanesque. Christmas persecution isn't the issue... although there are some hints of that sense of "enemies out to destroy us" that does worry me about those who do represent an American version of the Taliban.
By the way, not to pop your bubble, but your last statement, "We deserve to be able to CELEBRATE it as we have since the beginning of this nation's history without being told we are being intolerant," is based on a misunderstanding of history. We haven't celebrated Christmas since the beginning of our nation's history. See this review of Stephen Nissenbaum's The Battle for Christmas from Publisher's Weekly on Amazon.com:
"Christmas in America hasn't always been the benevolent, family-centered holiday we idealize. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony so feared the day's association with pagan winter solstice revels, replete with public drunkenness, licentiousness and violence, that they banned Christmas celebrations.... [N]ot until the 1820s in New York City, among the mercantile Episcopalian Knickerbockers, was Christmas as we know it celebrated. Before Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore ('A Visit from St. Nicholas') popularized the genteel version... the holiday was more of a raucous festival and included demands for tribute from the wealthy by roaming bands of lower-class extortionists.... Taming Christmas... was a way to contain the chaos of social dislocation in a developing consumer-capitalist culture. Later, under the influence of Unitarian writers, the Christmas season became a living object lesson in familial stability and charity, centering on the ideals of bourgeois childhood."
That won't keep me from enjoying the holidays, nor should it deny you that pleasure. Merry Christmas! (By the way, just how often have you been attacked for saying that? How many enemies of Christmas can you name in this community? Citing all those nameless "they"s might be a symptom of that mindset I was warning you about....)
I could cite you many specific examples if I took the time to do the research, which I don't have. Suffice it to say there are many specific attacks on Christmas traditions, and if you don't see that, well, you aren't looking.
ReplyDeleteI am conservative, not Taliban. But you can call me whatever you want if it makes you happy. There is a huge difference between the two BTW.
This has been a twisted road since starting with the subject of Janklow, hasn't it? But I couldn't let that remark slide by.
"This has been a twisted road since starting with the subject of Janklow, hasn't it? But I couldn't let that remark slide by."
ReplyDeleteNo problem, Anon. I'm here for the conversation.
And I still haven't called you personally a Taliban.
But I will agree with you: the true spirit of Christmas is under attack by all sorts of powerful, evil forces: Wal-Mart, Disney, and all the giant, amoral corporations that have a very keen interest in keeping everyone's thoughts on shopping rather than on true Christian love and charity. If everyone just spent the holiday worshipping, loving their families, and helping the poor, those companies would go broke! Go see What Would Jesus Buy?