Keep Fighting, Dems: Obama-GOP Tax Deal Entrenches Plutocracy

Dennis Kucinich is not planning to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012. Maybe we can draft Robert Reich, who justifies efforts Kucinich and other rowdy Dems may make to beat the Obama-GOP tax-rate deal into better shape:

If the Democratic Party has stood for anything over the years it is to maintain and restore upward mobility for the majority of working Americans, ensure that the playing field isn’t tilted in the direction of the privileged, and limit the power of the richest among us to entrench themselves and their heirs into a semi-permanent plutocracy.

Continuing the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, including a sharp cut in the estate tax, violates these core principles. Doing so in the midst of an economic emergency that demands bold measures to rescue America’s vast middle and working class adds further insult. For President Obama and former President Clinton to tell America there’s “no other choice” or that “this is the best we can do” — when Democrats remain putatively in control of the House, Senate, and the presidency — is misleading [Robert Reich, "Why Democrats Should Disregard Bill Clinton's Endorsement of Obama's Tax Deal," blog, 2010.12.11].

Among the things I appreciate about Reich's call to principle is that he acknowledges that he admires his former boss and the current Commander-in-Chief as "good men." Yet he disagrees with them, civilly and passionately... just as we could in a good healthy primary. Hmmm... Reich-Kucinich 2012? Weiner-Paul?

Nygaard Snit-Fit: Dissent to Rising Dem Youth?

The Democratic caucus is now small enough that I could feasibly take them all out for dinner and remember what they all ordered. District 17 Senator-Elect Eldon Nygaard defected yesterday to the Republicans, thus bringing the GOP majority to 30 and the Dem caucus to 5.

Nygaard dresses his defection in language about the desire expressed by voters nationwide for change. Nygaard seems to be suffering a little Bjorklunditis, a condition marked by parroting pablum from the national media that doesn't really apply to South Dakota politics. If you want change in South Dakota, you don't vote for the majority party that has delivered and defended the status quo for over thirty years.

Nygaard apparently calculates that he can get more done for his district by joining the majority. He miscalculates the size of the majority. With an already overwhelming majority, one more Democrat jumping ship doesn't add much value for the GOP. The party can tease us Dems a little more (though even that advantage already seems maxed out), but Nygaard doesn't win much more political clout by boosting Majority Leader Olson's pack from 83% to 86%.

Now I might understand a candidate switching parties if the home party had been miserly in its support. But I understand from my Clay County friends that Nygaard enjoyed all sorts of Dem support, with folks holding fundraisers and young USD Dems knocking on doors to support him as a Democrat. Nygaard's pre-general campaign finance filing shows the Clay County Democrats gave him $1500, by far his biggest single donation. Nygaard is turning his back on a lot of committed voters who will be strongly inclined to field a challenger in 2012.

Nygaard's turncoatery (or turn of coterie) may signify a warning to the new Democrats. Nygaard evidently was denied two formal positions in a small Senate caucus that elected two twnety-somethings, Jason Frerichs and Angie Buhl, to leadership positions. This is pure speculation, but perhaps Nygaard represents some resistance to whippersnappery. The two men running for state party chairman, Ben Nesselhuf (age 35) and Mitch Fargen (age 27), may face similar dissent from some old-guard party members uncomfortable with the passing of authority to a new generation.

If such resistance does rear its head in some quarters, it is not a reason for Nesselhuf, Fargen, Frerichs, or Buhl to scale back their intentions for the party. The South Dakota Democratic Party's performance in recent elections has indicated that we could use new leaders and new ideas. Youthful leadership, like that provided by George McGovern six decades ago, is as good a bet as anything for rebuilding the party.

The party door remains open to everyone... and it goes both ways. Eldon Nygaard has gone out that door; he is welcome to come back in when he realizes he has made the wrong choice. But we won't stand at the door crying over departures; we have work to do.

----------------------------
Bonus Paradigm Shift: But maybe party identification doesn't matter so much any more. Maybe the dichotomy of Democrat vs. Republican, Left vs. Right, is just a distraction from the real battle lines in America: individuals vs. corporations!

----------------------------
Update 12:48 CST: Interested Vermillion ex-pat Rebecca Terk lodges her own complaint against Senator-Elect Nygaard's betrayal of the Democrats who faithfully helped him win his seat, even after his embarrassing vote, alongside Don Kopp and Kristi Noem, for HCR 1009, the resolution last session that denied climate science in favor of astrology.

----------------------------
Update 2010.11.20 07:21 CST: Former SDGOP honcho Joel Rosenthal sees Nygaard's switch as more reaonable and pragmatic than sticking with the "irrelevant" Democrats, whose tiny caucus will be stretched too thin to know what's going on across all committees.

Blog Potpourri: Fine Turns of Phrase

We find all sorts of verbal artistry on display in the South Dakota blogosphere this week.

Exhibit #1: Doug Wiken discusses Senator Tim Johnson's capacity for playing the grown-up in the room on earmarks. Senator Johnson notes that the federal government now lists every earmark online. Our Senior Senator says declaring a moratorium on the current earmark process will take spending decisions out of the hands of elected members of Congress and put it in the hands of an unaccountable Washington bureaucrat. Senator Johnson says earmarks done right fill vital needs in rural South Dakota. Wiken says "those enamored with the boilerplate mythology of Thune and Noem" should pay attention to Johnson's much more practical assessment.

Exhibit #2: David Newquist launches another hefty assessment of the disadvantages South Democrats face and the action the party should take to effect change. He addresses the South Dakota inferiority complex, saying young Democrats with talent recognize that this state doesn't appreciate talent and that they can find other states that will give them better political and employment opportunities. But Newquist still sees hope for young, ambitious Dems like Ben Nesselhuf and Mitch Fargen to stay and make a difference... and it's not through electoral politics that force us to pretend we are Republicans:

Elections produce nothing but rancor and lead to nothing but oppressive gridlock through the power game playing. A reformed political party must understand that to contribute to beneficial change, it will have to work around the state government, not through it. The old Non-Partisan League, which formed in the Dakotas early in their statehood, has some lessons for our current time.

Just as the Non-Partisan League built its influence through addressing the actual concerns of farmers who realized that the railroads and grain companies were impediments to their lives, the Democratic Party must acknowledge the forces that keep so much of South Dakota in a state of thralldom. The Non-Partisan League challenged the stifling oppression by the business community through state-owned banks, grain elevators, mills, and banned corporate farming. Many people objected to the socialist aspects, but state government in South Dakota is dominated by the credit bank interests, so there is really no difference between the rule of state government and the rule by banks. The Party needs to strengthen and revitalize its presence in those enclaves in the state where it has its support, and it must work at the local level to build functioning relationships with the segments within and outside the state that make the creation of viable communities its priority. The election of sacrificial goats and/or scape goats to the state legislature is more of a distraction than a reasonable focus of political activity [David Newquist, "Flogging dead horses, inflating degenerate balloons, or what?" Northern Valley Beacon, 2010.11.17].

Newquist clearly disagrees with my contention that we Dems should focus on fielding enough candidates for a primary in every race. But his suggestion is to focus on direct political action to benefit our communities. I (and the rest of us Dems) clearly have some thinking to do.

Exhibit #3: Bob Mercer discusses "The Soviet Takeover of Dakota War College." On reading the headline, I thought Mercer was referring to the turn of the blog from mostly rugged individual authorship to the new writers' collective (which, alas, includes some anonymous writers who need to cowboy up and put their names to their words). But Mercer's concerns about the Sovietization of the blog are less about creeping collectivism and more about the Soviet-style deletion of history and documents. Journalist Mercer appears to share concerns expressed elsewhere in the blogosphere that this self-censorship signals that, at best, six years of blogging was just a rough draft, now subject to revisionary pressure to suit ideological or commercial demands.

Poll: Nesselhuf Edging Fargen for Dem Chair Nod

The latest Madville Times poll finds Mitch Fargen doesn't have a lock on every election he runs in. I asked you, eager readers, "Who's the best choice for SD Dems Party Chair?" Say you:

Ben Nesselhuf	55 (37%)
Mitch Fargen	51 (34%)
George S. McGovern	22 (14%)
someone else	24 (16%)

Votes: 152

152 votes—not bad for a blog poll on an internal election in a state Democratic party that is supposedly broken and licking its wounds. That's more votes than came in for a poll here on the Secretary of State's race that involved Nesselhuf (he won that poll, too, demonstrating the clear misalignment between my eager readership and the general electorate... must expand audience!).

Getting Democrats interested in this party chair race is exactly what Mitch Fargen wants. I heard him on Brookings radio the other day saying he jumped in the race specifically because he wants to generate some excitement by giving people a choice for the office (well, that, and lead Democrats to victory in 2012!). And that's a great idea. Get people excited about the party. Show them we don't have just one or two big-name political families and a thin bench of brave soldiers who get on the ballot because no one else is willing to take the beating of an uphill campaign. Give people something to talk about. And use the election process to help us find the best person for the job.

The interest Fargen and Nesselhuf are generating within the party in this party chair race point toward a strategy we Democrats should follow in 2012: field enough candidates for primaries in every race and every district, from U.S. House and State Legislature on down to county dogcatcher. Give people a reason to pay attention, show up, vote, and buy in to the Democratic brand.

Nesselhuf and Fargen run close in this poll. So does somebody else. A near-third of respondents favor recruiting George McGovern, cited by many as the best historical model of building the Democratic Party in South Dakota (and he is in the neighborhood this week!) or someone else. Pure speculation: I'm comfortable reading that strong "neither of the above" contingent as either a fair number of people open to suggestion... or maybe Nick Nemec clearing his cookies and prepping to challenge the young fellas. ;-)

Nesselhuf and Fargen are both proven, energetic campaigners and fundraisers. Nesselhuf has an edge with experience (more years in Legislature, a statewide campaign) and perhaps a larger personal/political network. Both men will spend the next couple weeks beating the bushes for votes, pitching their abilities and their vision for the party. Having that vigorous conversation right now and getting Dems statewide thinking seriously about the action they need to take to win in 2012 will serve the party much better than an uncontested appointment to the chair. Go get 'em fellas!

New Blog Poll: Who's Right for SD Democratic Chair?

Not even two weeks after Election Day, and I already miss voting. Let's do it again! The latest Madville Times poll asks who you think is the best choice for chairman of the South Dakota Democratic Party.

We have two announced candidates stumping for the job: re-elected District 8 Representative Mitch Fargen and outgoing District 17 Senator Ben Nesselhuf. Who's better suited for patching the holes and setting the Democratic ship a-sail again, Mitch or Ben? Do we need to draft George McGovern to stop fighting hunger and reprise his 1950s party-building? (Crazier things have happened!) Or is there some other über-organizer/fundraiser/rabble-rouser who can lead the party to success in 2012? (I welcome discussion of the definition of success in this context.)

Click your pick here in the right-hand sidebar. Poll remains open until breakfast Tuesday. Then we'll talk about the results. And who knows? Some of the party leaders who get to vote at the party confab on December 4 might actually listen!

Tell your friends, and vote now!

Fargen, Nesselhuf Run for State Dem Chair

I told you Mitch Fargen was a pol to watch. He won every precinct in Lake County last week against a hard Republican tide. He won re-election to his District 8 State House seat. Now he wants to be chairman of the South Dakota Democratic Party. His press release:

November 11, 2010- Mitch Fargen, Democratic State Representative in District 8, has announced that he will run for the position of Chair with the South Dakota Democratic Party. Fargen is a Flandreau native and recently elected to a second term in the State Legislature. Over the past year he has been in charge of fundraising, training and recruiting for the Democratic candidates for the Democrat Caucuses.

Fargen said his reason for running is that, “This November’s election really shocked a lot of us in South Dakota and it got a lot of people thinking about what we need to do for the future of the Democrat Party and for the State of South Dakota. Because of this I have talked to many people across the state and I am focused on moving the party forward.” Fargen added, “We need to ensure our Legislators in Pierre have the support they need, we need to continue to build the party from the County and Legislative District levels, and we need to ensure we have the financial resources to compete. I have the track record and leadership to do just that.”

The election for State Chair and the other state officers are December 4 in Oacoma.

This announcement comes just a fwe hours after Ben Nesselhuf's announcement that he's seeking the chair as well. Now there's a great choice: both Fargen and Nesselhuf are proven leaders, good campaigners, and outstanding fundraisers. Emphasize that latter point: over the past year, the state GOP outraised us South Dakota Dems nearly 6 to 1. Job #1 for the new chair: raise money!

By the numbers: for this year's District 8 House race, covering a four-county area, Fargen raised about $22,500 (as of Oct. 21). He was able to donate about half of that to the statewide Majority Project. For the statewide Secratary of State's race, Nesselhuf's pre-general report receipts were about $150,000. (Update 22:20 CST: My friend Mr. Price reminds us Nesselhuf's total haul was over $200K, a Dem record for statewide constitutinoal office.) He had enough to reimburse the state party $10,500 for in-kind services. He also got $34,000 from the Majority Project, which he headed in 2008.

Who needs D-1 football: we've got a great SDSU-USD rivalry right here in the political arena! Let's get ready to rumble!



Update 20:33 CST: Current SDDP chair Cheryl Chapman says so long and thanks for the fish: in an e-mail to party members this evening, Chapman says she will not seek election to a full term as state party chair. (Chapman took over to serve the remainder of Jack Billion's term when he stepped aside in 2009.) Chapman praises exec Erin McCarrick and staff Cathy Avery and Kevin Killer. She also sees good grassroots base-building already taking place for 2012.

Better Line of the Year: Dems Need a Demagogue

Along with his continued failure to grasp simple hyperlinking, Bob Mercer has no sense of verbal artistry. In a blog post headed "Nominee for Line of the Year," Mercer deems the following mild line from Dr. Blanchard a "gem":

Yesterday South Dakota Democrats failed to win a single state wide race. The gubernatorial election was won by a Republican, which happens so often you'd think it's in the state constitution [Dr. Ken Blanchard, "The Sad State of South Dakota Democrats," South Dakota Politics, 2010.11.04].

True. Funny. But "Line of the Year"? Hardly. Blanchard's closing diagnosis is much more enlightening, compelling, and, dare I say, rhetorically artful:

There is a tragic flaw in the South Dakota Democrat. The best of that species tend to look beyond our borders for greater things. The voters frequently recognize that, and in an act of grace, set them free. Meanwhile, the party withers. This is not good for Democrats in the state, or for the state itself [Blanchard, 2010.11.04].

For even better rhetorical art, try Sam Hurst, who packs more "Lines of the Year" in one Dakota Day post than most of us bloggers manage in a year. He troubles the waters this weekend with the woulda-coulda-shoulda argument that Dr. Kevin Weiland could have beaten Kristi Noem in the Congressional race. Hurst comes to a conclusion similar to Blanchard's recommended remedy, and says it with equal if not greater punch:

Democrats do not just have an enthusiasm gap. They don't just have a finance and organizational gap. They have a charisma gap. Not a single leader in South Dakota can inspire or motivate the base. One depressed Democratic analyst told me after the election, with no small spit of sarcasm, "We need a demagogue" [Sam Hurst, "Could Dr. Kevin Weiland Have Beaten Kristi Noem?" The Dakota Day, 2010.11.05].

Demogogue, from the Greek dēmos for people, agōgos for leading. Leader of people, leader of Dems—we need someone to set Dems agog. We saw that need expressed last spring, when 3834 Weiland Wildcats sprang out of nowhere to call for a primary that the overly cautious powers that be kept from happening.

Paging Dr. Weiland, extension 2012. Dr. Weiland, 2012.

Lake County Dems Meet Tonight, Talk 2012

Hey, local Democrats! Don't just sit there—do something! Or at least come talk about doing something. The Lake County Democrats are meeting tonight at 6 p.m. at Nicky's, in Madison's lovely western suburbs. I'll be bringing my to-do list for 2012 (which started 60 hours ago). You should too!

SD Voter Turnout Higher in GOP Counties, Lower in Dem Counties

Mr. Woodring points out an interesting party-related phenomenon in Tuesday's voter turnout figures here in South Dakota. He notices that the six counties where voter turnout was below 50%—Buffalo, Corson, Dewey, Shannon, Todd, and Ziebach—all tilted for Scott Heidepriem for governor. Those counties also all have high Native American populations.

Mr. Woodring got me wondering if Dems really did sit on their hands in this general election. I haven't found a turnout breakdown by party on Secretary of State Chris Nelson's awesome results website yet. But we do have turnout figures by county as well as the final voter registration totals as of October 18, the final date to register for the November 2 vote.

Some quick number-crunching produces these correlation numbers:

Correlations with turnout
...with GOP voters as percentage of county total	0.689
...with % Dem	-0.642
...with % Indy	-0.285
...with total voter registration	-0.074

Counties with higher proportions of Republicans (top five: Campbell, Harding, Haakon, Douglas, Jones) tended to have higher voter turnout. Counties with higher proportions of Democrats (the six Woodring listed are the top six) tended to see lower voter turnout.

Another view: Of the 29 counties where Republicans make up more than 50% of registered voters, 23 met or beat the statewide voter turnout of 62.3%. Of the 13 counties where Democrats make up a majority of the electorate (such places do exist in South Dakota!), five beat the statewide voter turnout average.

Turnout does not appear to correlate significantly with number of voters available. The ten counties with the most registered voters were all within four percentage points of the state average, six above, four below. The ten counties with the fewest voters varied much more, from 43.4% turnout among Buffalo County's 1050 registered voters to 83.7% turnout among Jerauld County's 1365 registered voters.

(Interestingly, folks in Jerauld are almost evenly split between the parties, with 614 Republicans and 608 Democrats. They broke for Daugaard 54-46, Herseth Sandlin 51-41-8.)

This result suggests the enthusiasm gap played a role in the results in South Dakota. Given two Democrats at the top of the ticket who ran away from the Democratic label, Democrats appear to have been more inclined to stay home Tuesday.

South Dakota Legislature: No Good News for Dems

2011–2012 South Dakota Legislature, party composition (unofficial results, 2010.11.02) Click image to enlarge

Some vote notes on what happened in the South Dakota Legislature:

1. With Democrats Sandy Jerstad, Nancy Turbak Berry, and Gerald Lange booted by the voters from the Legislature, what's Dakota War College have left to blog about?
   
2. I guess there's still Frank Kloucek, still representing District 19. Kolaches will ride again... and maybe a little scrutiny of Monsanto-controlled SDSU?
3. But at least Turbak Berry got beat by Ried Holien, an old debate guy! Let's hear some good speeches, Ried!
   
4. Other incumbents who lost: Sen. Dan Ahlers from Dell Rapids, Rep. Oran Sorenson from Garretson, Rep. Quentin Burg from Wessington Springs, Rep. Matha Vanderlinde from Sioux Falls, Sen. Pam Merchant from Brookings, and Rep. Gerald Lange from Madison... all Democrats. Not one Republican incumbent in the Legislature lost.
5. If I'm counting right, the State Senate now has 29 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Dems lose 4. The Democratic caucus could carpool... in one car.
   
6. My count shows the State House with 51 Republicans and 19 Democrats. Dems lose 5.
   
7. Blogger and Pastor Steve Hickey wins District 9 House. Steve, I'll expect vociferous opposition to any new Blog Control Acts.
8. Blogger Steve Sibson does not win District 20 House. I was going to suggest that Sibby needs to put down World Net Daily and talk about things actually happening in South Dakota... but last night's results up and down the board make clear South Dakotans are not voting on policy.
9. Even without Sibby, the yahoo caucus made great gains. Expect Rep. Rev. Hickey to carpool with Reps. Jenna Haggar and Brian Liss from Sioux Falls. Get ready for Don Kopp to make climate change denial law as he originally wanted.
   

Sometimes Everyone on Message Is Not the Best...

I am not having a good week. The Mitchell Daily Republic catches us Democrats managing the message just a little too tightly:

The Daily Republic sent questionnaires to each [District 8] candidate. Two candidates, Fargen and Schmidtke, submitted nearly identical responses to most questions. Schmidtke, who has been Moody County Democratic Party chairman, said he had not seen Fargen’s answers and could not explain why they were nearly identical. He noted Democrats had discussed issues at the state level and are supporting gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem with talking points.

Fargen did not respond to several requests for comment [Melanie Brandert, "District 8 Incumbents Hope to Keep Spots in Legislature," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.10.27]

There's an obvious punchline here... but I'll leave it for commenters.

Republicans Backing Heidepriem and Herseth Sandlin...

...any Dems going red?

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem has won the backing of some high-profile Republicans, including Republican State Senator Stan Adelstein, Don Frankenfeld, and Russ Janklow. GOP State Senator Gene Abdallah has expressed his approval of Heidepriem's leadership on the issue of competing with the Larchwood, Iowa, casino.

Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has traditionally pulled lots of Republican votes, and even in this tight year, she's able to tout a growing list of GOP endorsers, including former state legislator Casey Murschel and former Mickelson and Miller chief of staff Frank Brost. (And Brost endorses SHS and hopes for a Republican majority in Congress—go figure!)

Just curious: can anyone show me comparable Democrats crossing over to vote for the Republicans? As viewed from behind my partisan lenses, I can see plenty that our two top Democrats have to offer Republicans that they won't find in their own candidate: in Heidepriem's case, specific plans, real fiscal conservatism, and leadership; in Herseth Sandlin's case, specific plans, less partisanship, and the ability to articulate positions beyond the party talking points.

But what can Democrats find in either Dennis Daugaard or Kristi Noem that (a) they can't find in Heidepriem or SHS and (b) would actually appeal to Democrats?

Blog Poll: Bartling Outpolls Barnett... and a Dems' Quandary

The latest Madville Times poll asked, "Who gets your vote for South Dakota auditor?" You, dear readers, gave Democrat Julie Bartling the nod:

Julie Bartling	74 (56%)
Steve Barnett	57 (44%)

Votes: 131

Not bad, although given the standard Madville Times bias and barn-sized margin of error, Bartling should keep shaking hands and kissing babies...

...which brings me to my quandary. Julie Bartling is notorious among South Dakota Dems for her work on the 2005 abortion task force and her primary sponsorship of the 2006 abortion ban. Bartling has since disavowed her 2006 legislation (which failed to pass muster with voters on referral that year). But some Dems don't like Bartling's politics on reproductive rights and may thus withhold their vote from her for state auditor.

When I first heard this Dem complaint, I thought, What's the fuss? She'll have a lot less opportunity to advance the Hunt/Unruh Handmaid's Tale agenda from the auditor's office than from the Senate chamber. Bartling will be a good state auditor. Her quals—18 years as Gregory County auditor—beat the pants off the other guy. Besides, we need every Dem we can get in state office so we can build a stronger bench of candidates for future races.

Yet I'm still considering my own protest vote against a down-ticket Dem over a similar hot-button political disagreement. Doyle Karpen wants to replace Dusty Johnson on the Public Utilities Commission. Doyle Karpen is a good Democrat with lots of good public service experience. But Doyle Karpen also thinks the Hyperion refinery would be "fantastic" for South Dakota and was instrumental as Union County Commissioner in opening the door for those Texas oil men to tear up a lot of good farmland and keep us addicted to fossil fuels. And a Public Utilities Commissioner has a little more say over other big dirty oil projects than an auditor does over abortion legislation.

But if I tell Dems to drop their political grudges and vote for Bartling, can they not bounce the same argument back to tell me to vote for Karpen?

I have some thinking to do over the next four weeks. Your thoughts, dear readers, are welcome in that process.

Lake County Dems Watch Heidepriem TV Together -- You're Invited!

It's not dinner and a movie, but how about potluck and a pitch? The Lake County Dems are hosting a little get-together for local Dems and other interested voters to watch, cheer, and discuss gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem's big half-hour TV broadcast tomorrow night. The party is bringing hot dogs, burgers, and lemonade; we'd like other guests to bring a salad or dessert to share.

If you're interested in political marketing and conversation, come to the Parsley Barn at 103 N. Liberty here in Madison Thursday, suppertime October 6. Chow starts around 6 p.m.; show starts at 6:30.

And yes, the Nebraska–Kansas game will still be on afterward.

SHS, Dems Support Health Benefits for 9/11 First Responders

O.K., fellow Dems, time to close the enthusiasm gap. Yesterday our Democratic Congresswoman, Stepahnie Herseth Sandlin, cast another vote alongside Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The bill: H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. What does the Zadroga Act do? Same thing James Zadroga did: tries to save lives and clean up the destruction wrought by the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center.

The bill is named for James Zadroga, a New York City police detective who worked several weeks at Ground Zero, and is the first 9/11 responder to have his death in 2006 attributed to illness contracted at the site.

The bill would establish an $7 billion fund over 10 years, with roughly a third of that going to cover the healthcare costs of the victims, and the other two-thirds to compensate them for their losses. Over 20,000 people, according to government figures, have suffered since the event, either from exposure to the toxic dust of pulverized buildings and combusted chemicals, or injuries, or post-traumatic stress, or two or all three [Joseph Picard, "House Passes Ground Zero Healthcare Bill," International Business Times, 2010.09.29].

All but four House Democrats voted for this bill. 88% of House Republicans voted against it. Republicans Kristi Noem likes—the man she won't admit she'll pick for speaker, John Boehner; the woman she imitates, Michele Bachmann; the man whose plan to privatize Social Security and Medicare she supports, Paul Ryan—voted against providing health care to the first heroes of the current War on Terrorism. Why? Because Republicans think paying medical bills for firefighters is "to put on the backs of the American taxpayer a new, $7 billion entitlement program."

Entitlement program? As Rep. Anthony Weiner says, if anyone is entitled to health benefits, it's the people who ran toward the smoke and flames and toxic dust on September 11, 2001.



The vote on the Zadroga Bill shows the gutless, heartless, hypocritical politics you'll get if you vote for Kristi Noem, or if you sit back and let her win by withholding your vote from Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Republicans will cloak themselves in the patriotism and heroism of 9/11, but they won't put their money where their mouths are. Democrats are willing to pay what we owe to our fellow Americans.

Hurst to Dems: Save Ire for 2012 Primary on Herseth Sandlin

I've been chewing on this one all week: in a brilliant and blistering essay, Sam Hurst of The Dakota Day calls Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin a "self-hating Democrat" who attacks liberals and her own party. Hurst brands Herseth Sandlin a cynical opportunist who when not flat wrong on the issues is "timid and disinterested." Hurst says Herseth Sandlin sabotaged real health care reform and "has not given Democrats a single reason to vote for her."

Hurst concludes we Democrats should vote for her.

Why? Because in the binary world of red-light/green-light, she does not need to be a good congresswoman...just a better one than Kristi Noem. That is an easy case for Herseth-Sandlin to make. And in a season where the balance of power in the House is at stake, that is enough. This is a frail reason to vote. It is utterly without imagination or enthusiasm. It is a strategy built on the most crass understanding of practical binary politics. But this November, that is reason enough [Sam Hurst, "The Logic of Binary Politics Compels Democrats to Vote for Herseth Sandlin," The Dakota Day, 2010.09].

Hurst wants the 3834 Weiland Wildcats and other crotchety Dems to hold their noses through November... and not one day longer. Come Wednesday November 3, Hurst says it's primary time!

His thinking here matches a thought I've been toying with even as I've watched Stephanie Herseth Sandlin surge and Kristi Noem repeatedly shoot herself in the lead foot. Perhaps the message from Dems to our incumbent in this race needs to be something like a warning ticket. We're giving Herseth Sandlin a pass this one time because Noem is a bad candidate. She is ill-suited to represent South Dakota effectively. Allowing her to take the House seat by our inaction is unconscionable.

Besides, unseating an incumbent Noem with a Hurstian McGovernite in 2012 would be significantly harder than launching a successful lefty Dem to Washington against a Republican non-incumbent following a spectacular primary victory over a four-term Democratic incumbent.

Let's take Hurst's advice and put Herseth Sandlin on probation. We keep her in office so we can keep up the pressure and demand that she return to Demoratic principles. We tell her she has a year and a half to turn things around, and we vow to test her in spring 2012 with a serious primary challenge.

But a challenge by whom? There is the question with which at least 3834 Democrats will cudgel their brains in the weeks and months to come. Stay tuned!
---------------------
Update 2010.09.23: Mr. Hurst's missive provoke more blog conversation at Mount Blogmore and the Decorum Forum.

Democrats, Be Democrats!

Dakota War College notices that Democratic consultant Paul Begala is telling Dems that trying to dissociate themselves from President Barack Obama won't work:



That's what I've been telling our state Democratic Party, particularly our Congresswoman, for some time. Our party rejected a resolution on George McGovern's Medicare for Everyone, for fear that the GOP would have a field day beating us up as big-spending socialists... even though the GOP has been waging that exact attack since Plumber Joe in October 2008. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin touts her independent Blue Dog status, but Republicans still paint her as a tool of the evil Pelosi-Obama agenda. SHS professes Clintonian triangulation in voting against significant Democratic legislation like health insurance reform, credit card reform, student loan reform, and climate change and energy security legislation, but the Republicans still tag her for supporting procedural votes and not convincing other Dems to kill those awful Marxist plots (Chris Nelson rolled out that strategy last November; R. Blake Curd followed in March; Kristi Noem is doing it now).

On party identity, too many Dems are showing their wienie-face when they should show their war-face. Even B-Thom can see through the absurdity of trying to call yourself an "Independent Democrat."

We are Democrats. The Republicans are going to brand us as Democrats. We should brand ourselves as Democrats. Bring Senator Al Franken back to say the priorities of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are actually better for South Dakota than the GOP's tax cuts for the rich (who don't live here!). Bring President Obama here to hammer on the first vote Kristi Noem would cast, for Speaker John Boehner. Remind everyone of the progress we Democrats have made with no help from Republicans.

Democrats, be Democrats. Own our party. Own our policies. Own our President. Be consistent and brave, and own November 2!

GOP Less Loved than Dems

I have mentioned more than once this week that Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin ought to avail herself more frequently of the genius of Senator Al Franken and run hard with her party and against the GOP. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey suggests I'm not so far off base. Some pertinent results:

1. The Democratic Party is viewed positively by 33% of respondents and negatively by 44%.
2. The Republican Party is viewed positively by 24%, negatively by 46%. That's the lowest positive the GOP has ever scored in this poll.
3. The "Tea Party" (whatever respondents think that amorphous blob of voter crankiness may be) is viewed positively by 30%, negatively by 34%. But it also gets much bigger "Don't Know/Not Sure" ratings than the main two actual parties.
4. Those preferring a Democrat-controlled Congress slightly outnumber those preferring a GOP-controlled Congress 43%–42%. Right before the last election when control of Congress changed hands, from GOP to Dem in 2006, the Dem-control preference was 52%–37%. Come on, people: we're not letting the GOP win the House on a slim margin like this! Fire up and vote!
5. Here's a fun split: Those who want a Dem-run Congress are split just about equally between either primarily supporting President Obama and other Dems or opposing those nasty Republicans, 48%–47%.
   
6. Those who want a GOP-run Congress have a hard time reflect the Republican "Party of No" status: 59% of them want to take Congress primarily because they oppose President Obama and the Dems; 35% are more fired up about their own GOP candidates.

Then again, Chuck Todd and the crew at MSNBC offer SHS this geographical caution about running too far left in old white South Dakota:

The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn’t lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it’s 44%-43%. Yet do keep this caveat in mind: Many of the congressional districts Republicans are targeting outside of the South resemble some of those Southern districts they’re hoping to win back in November -- where you have whiter and older voters. Think Stephanie Herseth's seat in South Dakota; Tim Walz' seat in Minnesota; Leonard Boswell's seat in Iowa; and Ike Skelton's in Missouri [Chuck Todd et al., "Jet Blue Nation," NBC News: First Reads, 2010.08.12].

South Dakota: Just like Dixie!—I'm not sure I feel complimented.

Now the above numbers could be skewed by fortuitous sample: 20% of NBC/WSJ's respondents identified themselves as strong Dem, while only 13% identified as strong GOP. But conservatives outnumbered liberals 35% to 23%.

Politics Is the Art of Redefining the Possible

Robert Reich's explanation of his disappointment with President Obama echoes my disappointment with the South Dakota Democratic Party. Reich also provides the political quote of the day, one I suspect I'll be referencing often:

The administration deserves tactical credit. It accomplished as much as it possibly could with a fragile 60 votes in the Senate, a skittish Democratic majority in the House, and a highly-disciplined Republican opposition in both chambers. Yet Bismarck’s dictum about politics as the art of the possible is not altogether correct.

The real choice is between achieving what’s possible within the limits of politics as given, or changing that politics to extend those limits and thereby more assuredly achieve intended goals. The latter course is riskier but its consequences can be more enduring and its mandate more powerful, as both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan demonstrated [emphasis mine; Robert Reich, "The Origins of the Enthusiasm Gap," RR's blog, 2010.08.03].

Mr. Heidepriem, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, fellow South Dakota Democrats... discuss.

Rasmussen: GOP Less United Behind Noem than Dems Behind Herseth Sandlin

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll on the U.S. House race in South Dakota shows Republican insurance agent Kristi Noem leading Democratic incumbent Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 49–44.

Now, for the sake of argument, assume Republican-run Rasmussen has any credibility (return later to Travis's explanation of why they don't). Does this poll mean SHS is in "deep, deep trouble"? Shouldn't the incumbent be kicking butt right now? Should Dems be even a little bit nervous?

Here's the conversation I can imagine among the cool cucumbers in the Team Stephanie office:

These numbers are all in our favor. In four weeks, we hardly lift a finger, everyone goes to the lake, and Noem's primary bump goes poof. Noem's "lead" fades almost to the margin of error. That trend will only continue. Health insurance reform, credit card reform, student loan reform—all these great programs will start kicking in, people will see concrete good coming from the big points of the Democratic agenda, and they'll swing more and more Stephanie's way.

Uh boss? Stephanie voted against those things.

[awkward silence...] Oh, heck!

Those who thought Herseth Sandlin's Blue Dog votes might induce Dems to sit in their hands and leave Stephanie's cheese in the wind might be surprised to see she's doing slightly better among Dems than Noem is doing among Republicans. SHS gets 76% of the Dems; Noem gets 74% of the Republicans. Noem's big advantage is among Independents, who favor her 50–35.

After a full year of votes disappointing core Democrats, why would SHS still be polling just as well among her people than the exciting and uplifting Queen of the Narrative Noem is among hers?

Rasmussen doesn't explain this one, but I'll take a swing: even amidst all the South Dakota angst about the economy and health reform and that darned Obama fella running the show, a lot of practical Republicans still see Stephanie Herseth Sandlin as a fellow pragmatist, someone they can work with. Those Republicans (still a minority, yes, but a significant one that in a 67% turnout like 2006 could put over 30,000 votes in Stephanie's column) see Noem as a symbol of a Republican party deserting their Chamber of Commerce pragmatism for radical ideology that puts image over substance.

These Republicans look at Kristi Noem and see Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin. They look at Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and see... a Republican... the kind of Republican they want to be, the kind of Republican their party used to have a home for.

Now Herseth Sandlin as good old Republican doesn't excite my vote, but it can excite the vote of Republicans disaffected with the values-voter/Glenn Beck karaoke that passes for their party's politics in too many circles. Herseth Sandlin can draw Republican voters in a way Noem cannot draw Dems.

Does that mean we Dems sip lemonade and coast until November? No: we still have to fight the battle for the middle. By my awesome internal spreadsheet (assume current levels of support within the two major parties and 67% turnout), SHS needs to claw back five percentage points of the Indy vote to squeak ahead. 5%—i.e., Noem could still take the Indy vote 45–40, leave a whopping 15% for dark-horse Marking, and lose by a nose to SHS.

Of course, these numbers will mean nothing when we all get back from the lake in time for Dakotafest and the State Fair. Even if Rasmussen's numbers are bogus, if I were Stephanie, I'd take them at face value, knowing I always run harder when I think someone else is in front.

But if Rasmussen's numbers mean anything, they show SHS is not in as deep a trouble with her base as the conventional wisdom (and my own blog) may have suggested. She still needs to keep us Dems happy (and recent votes against health care mini-repeal and for financial reform help do that). However, the more important battle may well be for the non-partisans... and the old-school Republicans who may end up seeing a Blue Dog Democrat as the best representative of their practical Republican ideals.

------------------------
Update 09:32 CDT: Be sure to compare my analysis with that of the esteemed Dr. Blanchard!