Chris Nelson Lands PUC Nod

Chris Nelson rides again! Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard has named him as heir to Dusty Johnson's soon-to-be vacated seat on the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

After being term-limited out as Secretary of State and losing to Kristi Noem in the GOP primary for that U.S. House seat, Nelson has snagged a pretty nice consolation prize that will keep his brains and talent in Pierre serving the people.

But what's this -- no experience necessary?

Daugaard appointed Nelson despite the Secretary of State lacking any experience in the utilities industry, saying Nelson was the right person for the job.

"He's demonstrated time and again that he's willing to fairly interpret and apply our state laws without regard for politics," Daugaard said [David Montgomery, "Secretary of State to fill Johnson's PUC vacancy," Rapid City Journal, 2010.11.23].

No experience in utilities, and he gets the job? That's it—I am totally sending Daugaard a résumé. Make me Secretary of Education! I've at least been in a few classrooms! That's more experience than Nelson has for the job he just got.

The official Dems' line will surely echo what we heard from House Minority Leader Mitch Fargen yesterday on SDPB's Dakota Midday: same old bureaucracy, same old cronies.

But here's a more interesting narrative I see developing. Daugaard moves the chairs to give Dusty Johnson a better position from which to launch a statewide campaign... say, U.S. Senate in 2014. Daugaard finds a way to keep capable and decent public servant Nelson in the game. I see both of these moves as signals from the mainline South Dakota Republicans, the fellas who got a heck of a lot more votes than Rep.-Elect Kristi Noem did on November 2, that they're keeping their best guys in the chute for Tim Johnson's Senate seat. Noem won thanks to lots of outside Tea Party groups (and overheated conservative males searching "Kristi Noem bust" on Google Images) that pose a threat to the proper order of South Dakota Republicanism. The adults in the party aren't going to let that get out of hand.

My, we humans do tend to see patterns where there may be none, don't we?

Update 12:22 CST: The Dems' response, from party exec Erin McCarrick in a press release five minutes ago:

It looks like the Daugaard Administration is the new retirement home for State employees who are term limited or who have paid their dues to the Republican Party. How are we going to fix the huge budget deficit we are facing with the same players?

Just as many businesses are kept out of government contracts in Pierre through the no-bid process, possible qualified persons are being kept out of positions in Pierre. South Dakota should question the hiring process in Republican Administrations—are there no other qualified people in South Dakota, or do they already live in Pierre?

Arndt Switch Prompted by Last-Minute Democratic Caller

Oh ho! The story turns! Secretary of State Chris Nelson gives Kevin Woster his version of events of what led to Lieutenant Governor candidate Ben Arndt's last-minute conversion to the party nominating him. Secretary Nelson swears up and down that his call Friday to the Heidepriem-Arndt campaign was motivated by his fair reading of the law, not political chicanery. Given Nelson's clean track record as Secretary of State and willingness to torque off even members of his own party in the cause of upholding electoral law, his claim is not to be dismissed lightly.

Nelson does dismiss my thesis (and Heidepriem's) that SDCL 12-6-3.2, which says the party can only nominate its members for office, only applies to primary elections, not convention nominations. And then Nelson tells Woster something really interesting:

...[Nelson] presumed after he read in the Rapid City Journal (OK, or maybe some other news source) about Heidepriem picking Arndt for his LG mate that they would check the law and figure out they couldn’t do that.

“They have smart people working on that campaign. I just assumed that was one of the things he’d get done before the convention,” Nelson said.

Nelson said he took some calls checking on that point after Heidepriem picked Arndt. And he got a call from a Democrat at their convention in Sioux Falls last Friday afternoon as he was driving to the GOP state convention in Huron.

“I told them what the statute says and how we interpreted it,” Nelson said. “My assumption was that by then Mr. Arndt had changes his party registration.”

When Nelson found out otherwise, he notified the Democratic caller that it should be done ASAP [Kevin Woster, "And the Secretary of State Repsonds," Mount Blogmore, 2010.06.29].

Holy buckets! Was this minor excitement actually provoked by a trouble-maker from the Democratic Party? If so, mystery caller, give me a call! I want to shake your hand! After a weekend of tight party discipline determined to manage the message and not make waves, I am actually pleased to hear someone in our party shook things up, brought a potential legal complication to light, and got Ben to join the right party.

Now don't think I'm changing my mind on the Heidepriem-Arndt ticket. I still think Team Heidepriem could have made a strong case for its interpretation of electroal law, and they certainly did not make this decision lightly or inattentively (contrary to the GOP's efforts to keep squeezing juice out of this story). Secretary Nelson has at least made a reasonable case to the contrary, that statute does require constitutional officers to be members of the parties nominating them.

By making his or her call on Friday afternoon, some lucky Democrat provoked a chain of events that on the whole boosts the Heidepriem-Arndt ticket. I could feel it Saturday. I was not the only person in the convention hall feeling a little sheepish about cheering for a Republican at our podium. When Heidepriem announced that Arndt was South Dakota's newest Democrat, he gave the party faithful reason to cheer and give the ticket that much more support.

Meanwhile, outside the hall, Arndt can still portray himself as a candidate for whom party affiliation isn't that big a deal. He picked being able to participate in the process and work to solve South Dakota's problems over clinging to an old affiliation on some card. Well played, Mr. Arndt!

Secretary Nelson Says Law Demanded Arndt Switch: Which Law?

Secretary of State Chris Nelson weighs in on the GOP's gamesmanship on Ben Arndt's political affiliation:

Secretary of State Chris Nelson said Democrats were told Heidepriem's running mate would have to register as a Democrat.

"There's a state law that says if you're going to be nominated as a candidate of the party, you have to be a member of that party," Nelson said Saturday in Huron, where he was attending the Republican State Convention. "It's been on the books forever" [Wayne Ortman, "Lieutenant Governor Candidate Switches to Dems," Rapid City Journal, 2010.06.26]

Now I'll admit, I thought there might be such a rule. Requiring Democratic nominees to be Democrats sounds like common sense. We require it of our Party officials.

But whatever books Secretary Nelson says he's reading, I can't find them or this alleged rule anywhere online. I know the question is moot with Arndt's switch to the right party, but the question remains intriguing... especially given that either I or Secretary Nelson is quite clearly and publicly wrong. Here's a breakdown of the relevant Party rules and statutes I can find:

Secretary Nelson is likely referring to this statute, SDCL 12-6-3.2:

No person may sign a declaration of candidacy or be nominated as a political candidate for a party unless that person is a registered voter with that party affiliation.

If this is the statute Secretary Nelson is citing, it appears to have been on the books since 1998, somewhat short of "forever." But notice that dot before the 2? This statute appears in Chapter 12-6 on Primary Elections. There's room for arugment here, but if I were lawyering up, I'd place my bets that a rule written in a chapter on primary elections applies strictly to primary elections.

No other statute or party rule appears to support the argument that a party nominee for a constitutional, non-primary office must be a registered member of the party. To wit:

South Dakota Codified Law 12-5-21:

Nomination of state candidates not voted on at primary--Presidential electors and national committee members. The state convention shall nominate candidates for lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, and public utilities commissioner and in the years when a President of the United States is to be elected, presidential electors and national committeeman and national committeewoman of the party.

No mention of party affiliation. And note this is a separate SDCL chapter on Political Parties and Party Affairs.

South Dakota Democratic Party Constitution, Article I, Sections 1 and 2:

SECTION 1: Any person 18 years of age, who is a registered Democrat in South Dakota may participate fully in any public Party meetings and be elected to any Party office, except where specifically prohibited by law.

SECTION 2: All meetings at all levels of the Democratic Party are open to all members of the Democratic Party of South Dakota.

...elected to Party office... That means positions like precinct commitee member, county chair or treasurer (like me!), or state chair. Lieutenant governor is a Constitutional office, not a Party office.

SDDP Const, XIII.10:

In addition to the members listed previously in this Article, all Democrats who are currently serving as an elected State-wide Constitutional officer, an elected member of the Public Utilities Commission, the floor leader of the Senate and House, or as a member of the U. S. Congress shall have voting privileges on the Executive Board.

Close, but no banana: this rule says a lieutenant governor has to be a Democrat to participate as a voting member alongside the Party officers of the Executive Board. But it does not stop us from nominating a non-Democrat to the lieutenant governor's position; we can nominate and elect such a candidate, but when he shows up at an Executive Board meeting, we simply say, "Sorry, pal; no vote for you."

SDDP Const, IX.18-19:

SECTION 18: The State Convention shall nominate candidates for Lieutenant Governor, and other constitutional offices as proposed by the pre-convention caucus.. In the years when a President of the United States is to be elected, the Convention shall nominate Presidential Electors and National Committeewoman and Committeeman of the Party.

SECTION 19: Nominations shall be made by majority vote of the votes cast, and shall be certified to the Secretary of State by the officials of the Convention, immediately at the close of the Convention.

These sections say nothing about party affiliation of the nominees. Convention officials certify the vote and send it to the Secretary of State.

Dear readers, I welcome further reading and interpretation of state election law and party rules. Knock yourselves out... after you've finished picking up branches and mowing the yard.

Noem, DWC, Daugaard Razz Chris Nelson

Are Republicans razzing Chris Nelson? I have to wonder:

1. Kristi Noem goes looking for a replacement campaign manager. She skips Nelson's manager and picks the guy who brought his candidate in last. (Then again, did Nelson have a campaign manager?)
2. Dakota War College steps out to endorse Jason Gant over Nelson's deputy Teresa Bray for the GOP Secretary of State nomination. Mr. Powers. says Bray is too much like Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Ben Arndt: she hasn't lived in South Dakota or been involved with the party long enough to warrant elevation to an elected statewide office.
3. Not that anyone expected Daugaard to pick Nelson as his running mate, but look who Daugaard does choose: the guy who kept Chris Nelson's old mustache. One cannot miss the repudiation of Nelson's anti-whisker campaign tactic. Now if Dennis would just whisker up. (Pierre readers: has anyone seen if Nelson is letting his upper lip return to its better, darker self?)

Come on, Republicans, give Chris a break. He knows he should have fought harder to win the primary.

The Press You Don't Want: Chris Nelson Compared with Orly Taitz

If you want to be taken seriously as a politician, you do not want the press drwaing parallels between you and California birther-maniac Orly Taitz. But that's the press South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson gets after losing his bid for the GOP House nomination. Conservative blogger David Weigel notes that conspiracy-theorist Taitz suffered a decisive loss in her primary bid to become California's secretary of state. He then compares her to our man Nelson:

Still, there was a less colorful defeat for believers in that conspiracy over in South Dakota. Chris Nelson, the GOP secretary of state, had speculated that Obama's citizenship might be a scam. He watched a huge early advantage crumble and lost handily to State Rep. Kristi Noem [David Weigel, "Plenty of hype, but a bad night for Orly Taitz and other birthers," Washington Post: Right Now, 2010.06.09].

Nelson's defeat likely had more to do with not campaigning hard enough than stoking the birther fires. But his weasel words on the fact of President Barack Obama's American citizenship left a memorable stain on the reputation he thought would let him coast to a primary victory.

Chris Nelson's Awesome Maps Show How He Lost

...or, "I shaved my mustache for this?!?"

Give Secretary of State Chris Nelson credit for continuing to offer great election stats and maps online. Here's a map of how South Dakota's counties broke in the GOP Congressional primary:

The Secretary's map is better, because it's interactive: hover your mouse over a county, and up pop the percentages for each candidate! Zowie!

Nelson won some of the wide open spaces. He got his coworkers in Pierre to vote for him, and Dan Lederman brought him the Dakota Dunes vote down in the southeast corner. But Nelson ceded the northeast to home-girl Kristi Noem. He also failed to win the majority of single-digit (license plates!) counties. Noem won the nine largest counties in the state, representing 60% of the state's population.

Noem also managed to beat Nelson back in his family homestead turf of Mellete County. Oof. Stupid me! I had a brain fart, was thinking White River instead of White Lake. Ms. Shaw below reminds me that Nelson did indeed win his old home in Aurora County amidst that swath of central SD Nelson country.

Today's big lesson: even Chris Nelson can't coast on reputation. Campaign conservatively, and you will lose. Always play to win!

South Dakota Primary Prediction 2: Nelson 42%

Yesterday I commented on the striking opposition between the portraits South Dakota's two largest newspapers painted of Secretary of State Chris Nelson. I mentioned that Nelson would win today's GOP House primary 45–28–27. Like almost everyone else, I'm much less certain about this race than the gov's race, so I hereby exercise my right to change my mind... just a little:

1. Chris Nelson 42%
2. Kristi Noem 31%
3. R. Blake Curd 27%

A bunch of Republicans are going to walk into the voting booth tomorrow knowing the U.S. House race is their chance to really kick the Dems in the teeth. Winning the governor's office for the ninth straight time is no big deal. Beating Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is Kool and the Gang cranked. Republicans have their best shot at beating SHS since before Janklow went to prison. They don't want to screw it up.

So the Republicans will look at that ballot and pick the person they know is best equipped to win that race. They won't pick the rich Sioux Falls doctor (who didn't move to South Dakota until this decade) any more than they'll pick the rich Sioux Falls lawyer for governor. They won't pick the Castlewood ranch gal who brings a better narrative but started late and is still a newcomer to the big show. They'll pick the guy they know. They'll pick Chris Nelson, the guy who's won two statewide elections, who's been to their Lincoln Day dinners for years, and who's primed to neutralize SHS's biggest advantage aside from incumbency: the nice factor.

Now there may be Republican chess players who grumble that Nelson hasn't worked hard enough to win this primary and to show he's serious. But those chess players also know Nelson isn't stupid. He's like Obama against Clinton in 2008: Obama knew he didn't need to win every state; he just needed a few more delegates than Clinton. Nelson knows he could spend a whole whack of money to beat Noem and Curd hard. But why make the primary unnecessarily bloody when he can save his strength, win on points against the Republican upstarts, and save his big donor haymakers for the main event against Queen Dem?

Still doubt Nelson will get serious about fundraising against SHS? Check a small clue in Nelson's word choice:

"Understand, I'm a fiscal conservative. That's not just a word for me. It's how I operate. That's how we're operating the campaign," Nelson said. "We're going to spend less money than the other two campaigns, no question about it" [emphasis mine; Chet Brokaw, "Chris Nelson Aims to Win GOP House Race on the Cheap," AP via Rapid City Journal, 2010.05.17].

Nelson was talking about winning on the cheap in the primary. Tomorrow morning, contented Republican donors will wake to the pleasant buzz of GOP-dominated headlines, followed by the ringing of their phones. It will be Chris Nelson, saying, "Good morning, friend! It's time to write that check."

I could be wrong. Just like my Republican friends, I recognize they have their best shot since 2004 at the House seat. Deep down, I may be convincing myself Nelson is the least-bad Republican and thus convincing myself he's going to win the primary and spare us South Dakota's own Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul.

Am I seeing what is, or just what I want to see? Let's run the experiment and find out. Republicans, feel free to surprise me.

------------------------------
We Dems do enjoy reading our neighbors' tea leaves. Badlands Blue picks Nelson, too, 40–30–30.

SF, RC Papers Draw Opposite Conclusions about Chris Nelson

South Dakota's two biggest newspapers, the Rapid City Journal and that Sioux Falls paper, demonstrate the ability of apparently rational people to reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the same person. In big weekend primary endorsements, the Rapid City editors conclude that Chris Nelson is too "fiercely partisan" to make bipartisan collaboration happen... and the Sioux Falls editors conclude exactly the opposite.

Here's RCJ's take:

...Nelson doesn't appear to be much for collaboration. Though he may characterize himself as assertive, Nelson sounded fiercely partisan during his meeting with the Rapid City Journal editorial board, trumpeting the political rhetoric which may please some in the GOP, but does not move this country forward ["EDITORIAL: Three good choices in GOP House race, Blacke [sic] Curd the top one," Rapid City Journal, 2010.06.05].

(PP likes to talk about the "kiss of death." I think that's what you call it when the paper that endorses you spells your name wrong.)

And here's what the big East River paper said:

The key for Nelson is that he doesn't see things only in black and white or as a blue state/red state issue. He identifies fiscal responsibility as a major driver in his campaign and describes dealing with the budget deficit as more than a Republican or Democrat problem, but as an "American problem" ["Editorial: Nelson has best grasp of issues," that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.06.06].

Yes, they really are talking about the same person.

Dear readers, you are welcome to spin whatever hypotheses you wish as to what lies behind these dueling endorsements... but your political theories must also account for the fact that both papers have endorsed Dave Knudson in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Honestly, I think the Journal got it wrong, or at least failed to look at the big picture. Yes, Nelson made himself look silly taking the stage with Kitty Werthmann and the guns-in-school Second Amendment Sisters. And yes, Nelson deserves a kick in the pants for his yahoo answer on the bogus birther movement (although the good Dr. Blanchard makes a reasonable argument that we Dems made much more of Nelson's non-denial than was warranted). That Sioux Falls paper makes a mistake in failing to mention Nelson's willingness to sacrifice his mild-mannered image to pander to the primary wingnuts.

But is the RCJ serious when it suggests Nelson is more partisan than either Curd or Noem? Did the RCJ not notice the rabid tri-corner-hat wearers R. Blake was hanging out with last year at the tea parties? Did they not notice Noem's instant appeal to the religious right, appeal so strong it drove a declared fundagelical candidate out of the race? And did they not notice Nelson's impeccable impartial and fair execution of his duties as Secretary of State, to the extent of alienating some hard rightwingers in his own party?

If apparent partisanship is the RCJ's criterion for denying a candidate its endorsement, then what would RCJ say about Senator John Thune and his complete resistance to bipartisanship since President Obama took office? Then again, our very partisan junior Senator proves that even South Dakota's hard right can soften and play nice with Dems when it comes to bringing home those cherished federal earmarks.

If anything, Nelson has the best proven record of being able to work with people from all parties, a record RCJ chooses to dismiss as the putterings of "a career bureaucrat who does not have the real-world private business experience." Curd has learned to tone down some of his tea party rhetoric, but send him to Washington, and he'll be exactly the passionate partisan the RCJ thinks it sees in Nelson. Ditto Noem: she's Michele Bachmann in ranch boots (expensive, federally subsidized ranch boots).

Chris Nelson has made me queasy with his wingnut moments and wimpy Web content (though his Tweets are the best found-object art of the primary season). He's made Republican supporters nervous with his lackluster fundraising. But when Nelson wins the primary Tuesday (and he will, 45–28–27), as Republicans won't gamble a good year on relative newcomers who are still learning on the campaign trail), he will change tack. Nelson will turn down the wingnut talk, target the Herseth middle, and start tapping fresh donors. And his Republican friends, hungry for battle, will happily pour on the cash for the main event.

Campaign Finance: Curd Arrogant, Kirby and Kurtenbach Conflicted, Noem Broke

Dr. R. Blake Curd is pouring $42,000 of his own money into his U.S. House campaign fund. Of course, it's not just any old money; it's his "hard-earned money," says campaign mouthpiece Joshua Shields. Really, do we really have to engage in this "I worked harder than you for my money" contest? Doesn't everyone work hard?

Curd is also cloaking his big self-donation in noble language about children (hey, I thought that was only a liberal Dem tactic!):

It's important that people understand that I'm serious about this election.... I can't think of any better thing to invest your money in than my children and the children of South Dakota, and that's exactly why I've invested some of my own personal money in our children's future [R. Blake Curd, in Ledyard King, "In Money Race, Curd Piles up Lead," that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.05.28].

Give me a break, R. Blake. You're not investing in our children. You're buying more dorky bowling ads and billboards and paying consultants to craft propaganda so you can win a political job, just like the other candidates. And I find it a little offensive (as I suspect does Chris Nelson, whom you are not-so-subtly poking here for his campaign-on-the-cheap) that you believe people are only serious about issues if they spend money. That's the free-market fundamentalist mindset run rampant. The fact that you are richer than Chris Nelson doesn't make you more serious about policy or about helping South Dakota.

Curd's cash-in gets me reviewing the campaign finance records. Some notes of interest:

• Among R. Blake's backers are a whole bunch of doctors... and fellow wealthy South Dakota Republican Steve Kirby. Kirby and his wife Suzie maxed out for Curd right around Christmas. Ho ho ho.
• Kristi Noem has Wall Drug power: Ted Hustead is her treasurer.
  
• The Kirbys also kicked in $1500 each for Noem when she announced in February.
• Daktronics mastermind Al Kurtenbach gave both Nelson and Curd $250.
• Also conflicted: South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley. Jackley PAC has given $500 to Curd and $500 to Nelson. Marty apparently can't figure out which candidate he backs any more clearly than he can figure out which argument to run in court.
  
• As of last week, the Noem campaign was broke: $43,152 cash on hand, but $48,537 in debt. Maybe next time she'll hire Team Munsterman to shoot her ads locally instead of jetting to Texas.
  

Nelson Letting Fiscal Conservatism Crimp Campaign?

Chris Nelson said something the other day that ought to make me like him. He played to my inner cheapskate:

"Understand, I'm a fiscal conservative. That's not just a word for me. It's how I operate. That's how we're operating the campaign," Nelson said. "We're going to spend less money than the other two campaigns, no question about it" [Chet Brokaw, "Chris Nelson Aims to Win GOP House Race on the Cheap," AP via Rapid City Journal, 2010.05.17].

In a political jungle dominated by corporate gorillas, the candidate who gets less cash from the big money interests gets extra points on my scorecard. Nelson also scores points for practicing what he preaches about fiscal conservatism.

But there's a time and place for everything... including principles.

Peacocks waste an absurd amount of resources growing their outlandish tail feathers. A "feather conservative" could cut down its chickpea intake and fly more efficiently. But during mating season, the big spenders get the chicks.

Like it or not, fundraising is a proxy (an imperfect proxy, a distasteful proxy) for electability. It is a market measure of the intensity with which certain people want a candidate to win and think the candidate can win. Dr. Ken Blanchard says so, so it must be true! (That's the good professor, filling my day with unpleasant truths.) Even if Nelson's relatively thin wallet results not from donors balking but from Nelson's not asking, it still sends the signal that he's not the alpha bird. The absence of that signal makes it easier for Republicans like Michael Sanborn to buy into what the other GOP candidates are offering.

Nelson sounds absolutely sincere when he says he won't spend lots of money in Congress. But setting that example in his campaign fundraising may mean he won't get a chance to prove it.

-----------------------------
p.s.: Note that that Sioux Falls paper chose to headline the story about Nelson's low fundraising with the faintly negative "Running on Reputation". Are they hoping they'll sell more papers with Noem's bodacious hair on the cover... or maybe Curd's gleaming noggin?

Curd and Noem Say More Online Than Nelson

I found a surprise when I reviewed the "Issues" pages of South Dakota's GOP candidates for U.S. House. From at least a couple perspectives, Chris Nelson comes across as the emptiest head on the block. Kristi Noem and R. Blake Curd both address more issues and advocate more specific policies. Below is a numerical comparison (with SHS's "Issues" page data thrown in for the enjoyment of the lucky winner on June 8) :

	Curd	Nelson	Noem	Herseth
issues	7	6	10	9
words	1724	240	471	753
words/issue	246	40	47	84
specific policies	5	1	7	12
words/policy	345	240	67	63

Note that Curd's numbers include the "Read More" pages linked to each issue (nice! give the Web reader links to click, make 'em feel like they're doing something).

Note also that my "specific policy" count is open to interpretation (I'm looking for actionable policy, not just guiding principles or slogans). I welcome your own readings and codings of the content, dear readers....

This is a very snapshotty (some might simply say shoddy) glance at campaign content. But so is the seemingly tireless jibber-jabber over campaign TV ads. This snapshot shows what each candidate wants to lay out for the motivated voter who is actively seeking information.

There's also no inherent value in word count alone. Noem manages to lay out more specific policies than Curd with just 27% of Curd's verbiage. Both men in the race are worse on this count... and surprisingly, looking just at the Issues pages, Noem barks out a policy bite at about the same rate as the incumbent Congresswoman she hopes to unseat.

Much to the discredit of all three GOP candidates: still bupkis on Native Americans. Only SHS takes time to address on her main issues page the rights and concerns of South Dakota's biggest minority group. Gubernatorial candidate Dennis Daugaard has picked up the slack on this issue since my January criticism of our candidates' awkward silence on Native American issues; the GOP House candidates had better do the same.

SDDP Dings Nelson Birther Dingbattery

When R. Blake Curd gets props from the South Dakota Democratic Party, it's time to check the TARDIS control console and make sure we're still in the right universe. But hey, it's Chris Nelson who opened the portal to the alternate reality where he's saying Kitty Werthmann and R. Blake Curd talk sense. So it makes perfect sense that the South Dakota Democratic Party drops bombs on Nelson for his willingness to entertain the nutty conspiracy theory that Barack Hussein Obama isn't an American. Says SDDP exec Erin McCarrick in a press release:

...it’s particularly disturbing that Secretary of State Nelson – the man responsible for determining whether South Dakota candidates at all levels are qualified to appear on a ballot – is lending credence to such a ridiculous conspiracy theory about President Obama’s qualifications.

The SDDP presser takes Kristi Noem to task as well for evading the question. The SDDP then notes with apparent approval that third man R. Blake Curd "clearly and plainly rejects" the birther foolishness. Badlands Blue is more charitable toward Noem, as am I, saying Noem and Curd both "wisely dismiss the question." Wisely. Wisely. Even conservative Dakota War College calls Nelson's birther spewings imprudent. The only people cheering Nelson's absurdity are the conspiracy screamers who drool over World Net Daily. I hate to be a one-issue voter. I hate to see one stupid answer negate the technocratic competence a candidate has to offer. But when Nelson shows himself as willing to run with the wingnuts as anyone else in the GOP, and when he steps in a big pile of birther doo-doo that even R. Blake and Kristi are smart enough to step around, I'm much more inclined to think this GOP primary is anyone's game. And if Nelson manages to recover and win, I'm much less inclined to give a pass to Dems who in their justifiable disgust with Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's votes on numerous issues would vote for Nelson in November. Nelson is making clear he's not the tolerable centrist we thought he was.

WaPo Blog: Chris Nelson "Takes the Bait" on Birther Issue

I'm not the only one surprised that Chris Nelson sounds like the biggest birther on the block. Kevin Woster talked this noon on SDPB about our U.S. House candidates' responses to his question about whether they believe President Obama was born in the U.S.A. His comment section has some other folks raising eyebrows about Nelson's failure to acknowledge the obvious and preference instead for cowardly non-denial denial.

Woster noted that folks in Washington noticed Nelson's birther intonation. Says Washington Post's David Weigel:

Of course, most people have taken "at face value" Obama's certification of live birth from Hawaii, released by the campaign in 2008, as proof of where he was born. Interestingly, Nelson's less-well-established primary challengers don't take the bait, and blow off the question [David Weigel, "S.D. secretary of state: Obama's citizenship may be 'scam'," Washington Post: Right Now, 2010.05.10].

No word yet on whether Nelson's denialism will stir more embarrassment that the Legislature's denialism on climate science....

Nelson Bigger Birther than Curd and Noem?

I thought I knew Chris Nelson. I thought I could count on him to be the rational Republican who could challenge Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on practical policy issues and tamp down the red-meat right-wing nuttiness.

Instead, Chris Nelson appears to be campaigning for BFF to Michele Bachmann and Orly Taitz.

Kevin Woster cracks my perecption of reality by asking our U.S. House candidates a simple question: Do you think President Obama was born in Hawaii or someplace else?

The answers, in descending order of rationality:

Kristi Noem: “South Dakotans have many other important issues they are concerned with, such as jobs, energy, and the economy.”

R. Blake Curd: “Hawaii’s own Republican Governor has said President Obama was born there. That’s good enough for me. What concerns me is the direction he and the Democrat-led Congress are taking our country. That’s what I’m focused on. Conservatives should harness their energy towards electing fiscally responsible leaders who will fight reckless spending, our growing debt and higher taxes.”

Chris Nelson: “Yes, meeting the constitutional qualifications to be President is a very important issue. If President Obama isn’t constitutionally qualified, it would be the biggest scam ever perpetuated [sic] on the American people. MANY people contacted me as Secretary of State prior to and after the election asking how Obama could be on our ballot given this controversy. Absent a court finding that he isn’t a natural born citizen, we have to take the certification from the National Democratic Convention at face value.”

If, Chris? IF?!?!

Noem gives the right answer, shrugging off the nuttery with one sentence. R. Blake gets windy but at least says he takes the President at his word. It's Chris Nelson who piles on all the weasel words he can, invoking invisible masses to validate the controversy and fears of the biggest scam ever. In Nelson's world, President Obama's status as a native-born American is merely a matter of opinion of the National Democratic Convention.

Ugh, Chris. Ugh ugh ugh! When you make Noem and Curd sound like the reasonable Republicans in the room, your campaign is really, really in trouble.

Poll: Noem Narrows Nelson Numbers, Curd Creamed

The latest Madville Times poll finds Chris Nelson leading in public opinion... but not by as much as I might have expected!

The poll asked, "Which Republican is best qualified to represent South Dakota in Congress?" 190 respondents clicked as follows:

• Chris Nelson: 90 (47%)
• Kristi Noem: 83 (44%)
• R. Blake Curd: 17 (9%)

The numbers were fun to watch over the week. For the first three days, Nelson was creaming the competition, capturing about 70% of the votes as of Thursday. But starting Friday after lunch, Noem supporters came on strong, posting about 70% of the votes in the last 36 hours of the poll, which ended Saturday night.

So, given the standard online self-selecting polling error about the size of Kristi Noem's farm subsidies, what do we learn from these numbers? Here are some possible interpretations:

1. Nelson's got name.
2. Noem's got buzz.
3. Curd's got money that isn't buying much. (As of March 31, Curd had spent twice as much as Noem and Nelson combined.)
4. Noem's people pay more attention to the Web. Yes, that skews polls... but no more than any good get-out-the-vote push skews election results.
   
5. The conservatives who come to this blog to observe and dissect opposing views aren't flocking to Curd. They see Nelson and Noem as better standard bearers for the fall who can better cut into Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's greatest source of strength, the gentle middle who just want to vote for someone who seems nice enough.
   

Your further analysis of the numbers is welcome!

Curd, Nelson, or Noem: Vote Now! Poll Ends Saturday Night

The choice is clear: one syllable, two syllables... or a syllable and a half?

Just a day and a half left on the latest Madville Times poll, which asks you which GOP candidate has the best chops for Congress? R. Blake Curd, Chris Nelson, or Kristi Noem—vote now in the right sidebar!

You have until the SNL closing credits (repeat tomorrow night; go make out, wait for Betty White on the 8th!) to vote. Click in, speak up, and we'll dissect the numbers on Sunday.

Chris Nelson Rediscovers Franco-Philosophical Bliss

From Secretary of State Chris Nelson's Twitter feed:

During my college days at SDSU I was part of the college Republicans group. Returned to camus this evening to...

Good to see Nelson is abandoning the false absolutism of his conservative friends and taking up French writers again. Or maybe he was thinking of e. e. cummings....

Nelson Promises More Web Info from Washington

I've previously praised Secretary of State Chris Nelson for putting the Web to good use in providing voters with useful information. Y'all seem to agree: the SDSOS candidate list is one of the more frequently clicked exit links from this blog. Now candidate Nelson wants to take that technowonkery to Washington. As Bob Mercer noted last week, Nelson has offered a "Plan to Restore Faith in Washington."

Now if that were Gordon Howie writing, Restoring Faith would mean not expelling God from the Capitol. But that's a different race... and this is Chris Nelson. Among his proposals for good government:

• Publish on office website a listing of all meetings with lobbyists (including all staff member meetings with lobbyists).
• Publish on office website in advance a listing of all official travel of Rep. Nelson and staff.
• Publish on website a weekly listing of all public events and meetings attended by Rep. Nelson.
• Conduct at least one open town hall public meeting per month. Locations would move throughout South Dakota
• Release South Dakota citizen office phone call tallies on major legislation.
• Staff will be given direction to place the highest emphasis on troubleshooting constituent problems with federal agencies.

Nelson sounds so much better when he's not saying silly things. These innocuous proposals play to his strengths. His Web suggestions and constituent service proposals are natural extensions of his work as Secretary of State. They also play to the disgruntlement he knows is out there with the incumbent, who Republicans and even some Democrats complain has not been accessible as they'd like their Representative to be.

The proposals sound pretty white-bread... but roll with it, Chris: you know that's the candidate you want to be. You know deep down you aren't a Teabagger. You know you don't want to shout "Nullification!" to the Calhoun conservatives at the 9-12 meetings, where you and Jerry Prostrollo may be the only rational pragmatists in the room. You know the politics of Kitty Werthmann and Nancy First are a dead end. You know South Dakotans need competent civil service, not the grandstanding and Revolutionary War re-eneactments your opponents favor.

And you know that's why you're ahead of Noem and Curd, and why you're tied with SHS in the polls. You won't beat her with partisan wingnuttery (Chris Lien? Bruce Whalen?). You'll beat her with nice... and cool Web ideas. Don't give in to the Dark Side, Chris! Stay sane, stay center.

Smartest Elephant in the Room II: Which Republican for House?

New Madville Times poll! After your great enthusiasm for the GOP gubernatorial poll, it's time for a GOP House poll: "Which Republican is best qualified to represent South Dakota in Congress?"

Once again, I'm not asking which one will win in June. I'm also not asking which one you'll vote for in June or November. Even if you're a Herseth or Marking voter, I'd like your assessment of the qualifications of the three Republican candidates for South Dakota's lone House seat. Chris Nelson, Kristi Noem, or R. Blake Curd—which one's best qualified to represent our fair state in Washington?

Vote in the poll in the right sidebar, then leave your comments below. Voting ends Saturday night, so click now!

Hated and Poorly Debated: Nelson, Curd, Noem Blow Smoke on Health Care

Health care reform is hated by all... all three GOP candidates for South Dakota's House seat, that is. They evidently hate it so much, they can't even debate it right. Compare what they say to RCJ's Lynn Taylor Rick with what they were actually thinking.

1. R. Blake Curd: “At this point, we don’t know the extent of the bill and its reaches. It is a significant increase in the governmental intrusion into health care."
   • Translation: we know darn well what's in it, but addressing facts generally works against Republicans. So instead of acknowledging the long list of good things the new law does for South Dakota, I'm going to keep bleating my campaign slogans about big government that let you voters maintain your fantasies that you're fighting Marxist tyranny.
2. Chris Nelson: "Because you exist you must purchase insurance? That particular mechanism is not constitutional."
   • Translation: I don't want to talk about why insuring everyone is a good idea. I don't want to confuse people with policy details. Keep it simple, shout Constitution!, and hope no one asks about all the other things required of people by dint of their existence, like wearing clothes and signing up for Selective Service.
3. R. Blake Curd, on the insurance mandate: "You can’t criminalize any behavior you don’t want to happen because you think it’s a bad idea."
   • Translation: Ignore the fact that I sponsored and voted for the smoking ban and supported all sorts of other legislation to criminalize behavior I don't like. I mean you Democrats can't criminalize behavior you Democrats don't like.
4. Kristi Noem, on banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions: "I haven’t really evaluated it. I don’t like the mandates."
   • Translation: Oh no. That's one of those facts about the law that people like when they cut through my Michele Bachmann impersonation. I can't admit Democrats did a good thing. What do I do? What do I do? Help, R!
5. R. Blake Curd, same topic: "I’m not sure that a blanket federal law is best solution for it."
   • Translation: I don't know, either, Kristi! Um... um... do like Chris and change the topic to the 10th Amendment again!
     
6. Kristi Noem, on why Republicans didn't do something about health care when they held the reins: "Maybe we haven’t had the people in Washington, D.C., with the will to do it. But I don’t think it’s good to pass bad legislation to be able to stand up and say we passed something."
   • Translation: Stop reminding people of the facts! Everyone knows it's easier to say no to Democrats than to create policies of our own. And that's the same do-nothing obstructionism I'll take to Washington!
     
7. Chris Nelson, same topic: "I’m not making excuses for what Republicans did or didn’t do in the past...."
   
   • Translation: Yes, I am making excuses....

This is why I like primaries: the more Republicans talking, the more blog material they provide.