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.

Hurst: Weiland Canned-didacy Shows Need for New Ideas, New Dems

Rather than frittering away his brains in a constant drizzle of blog posts, Sam Hurst, saves up his brilliance for one big kerwhallop of political analysis and literary lament on what Dr. Kevin Weiland's all-too-brief candidacy for U.S. House tells us about South Dakota and our Democratic Party. He brands Stephanie Herseth Sandlin as a Reagan fiscal conservative, clinging to personal power rather than capitalizing on President Obama's victory to strengthen her party back home. He addresses Weiland's position on the unhealthy results of current ag practices and policy and says that's exactly the conversation we need in our political discourse (as Hurst says, promoting health is not anti-farming).

Hurst also takes the same position I have on the primary that could have been: far from hurting the party, a vigorous primary would have been exactly the conversation we needed to strengthen our party with new ideas and fight for the many to whom the status quo flips the bird:

...Where do new policy ideas come from? If we have learned anything about the relationship between politics and policy over the last decade, we should grasp that general elections (where both sides move inexorably to the middle) are no place to hear original ideas.

Political conditions on the ground in each state are different, but in South Dakota, this is not the time for nuance, for playing the game, for insider tactics. This is not a time to celebrate the vague mirage of a middle ground without substance.

Let Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin worry about herself. Let Democrats worry about the fate of the party. It is at rock bottom. It stands for nothing. It has virtually no ability to raise money or mobilize its base to action on behalf of its candidates. It has no influence over politicians elected in its name. It cannot compete. Not forever, not for always, but right now, South Dakota Democrats need leaders who will yell, "Charge!" And it needs soldiers willing to aim their sabers into the fire. Perhaps 3,834 naïve, liberal, desperate, lost souls, would be a good place to begin. Poor Lakotas, closeted gay couples, rock climbers and back country hikers, family doctors, less-than-literal Christians, seven Jews, two Muslims, the last family farmers, underpaid teachers, artists, windmill technicians and solar electricians, a ragged army indeed [Sam Hurst, "3834: Remember That Number," The Dakota Day, 2010.04.08].

"Charge!" sounds like a much better campaign slogan than "Kum-Bah-Yah."

McGovern Day is tomorrow in Rapid City. I passed on SHS's offer of a free bus ride, but I hope Hurst, Weiland, and other interested Dems will drop by the Rushmore Plaza Holiday Inn to lead some spirited conversations about who South Dakota Democrats are and what we should be fighting for.

Herseth Sandlin Apologist Hides Behind Elitism

Sam Hurst is not the typical blogospheric barroom brawler. His thoughtful prose generally floats above the combative, poke-in-the-eye polemics that Sibby and I goof around with. I thus hesitate to use words like hammers, skewers, or other such violent metaphors to describe his writing.

But Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's Blue Doggery has provoked Mr. Hurst to come out swinging. Hurst offers a crushing critique of former state Dems chair Judy Olson Duhamel's open letter telling Dems to pipe down and defer to SHS on her GOP-enabling health care vote. Hurst dissects Duhamel's letter as elitist incumbent's lament.

Duhamel tells South Dakota Dems "to consider the fact that [SHS's] comprehension of the complexity of health care issues is far greater than the understanding that most of us have." Inherent in that claim, Hurst notes, is the position that SHS knows better than Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, "73% of American physicians, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, hundreds of physicians, nurses and health professionals in South Dakota, the AARP, health committees in the House, 65% of the American people and the Executive Board of the South Dakota Democratic Party."

On that same point, and perhaps most damningly, "Oddly enough Congresswoman Herseth-Sandlin's level of comprehension is exactly the same as the Republican Party and private insurance companies." Ouch.

Hurst also challenges Duhamel's effort to defend SHS's Blue Dog record by arguing that the Democratic party is a big tent that imposes no litmus test and welcomes diverse points of view. Hurst smells an upside-down elitism here:

The value of diversity is to give voice to those who do not have power. You use the diversity argument to suggest that Congresswoman Herseth-Sandlin, one of the most powerful politicians in the state, is the victim, and that the grassroots rebellion should be more accepting of her position even though it stands in direct opposition to the Democratic Party. The implication is that the grassroots of the Party (those who support the President and our senior Senator) should shut up! and accept whatever position the Congresswoman decides to take in the interest of her career [Sam Hurst, "Congresswoman Herseth-Sandlin... Listen to the Butterfly Wings!" The Dakota Day, 2009.11.12.

Hurst offers much, much more worth reading in this article and in a preceding October critique in which he prefigured many of the arguments that have erupted into the open in the South Dakota Democratic Party following SHS's vote against health care reform last weekend. All the more reason to find a good South Dakota Dem to challenge SHS in the 2010 primary.

-----------------
p.s.: What does SHS think of primaries?

As someone who went through a primary campaign in 2002, I think primary election campaigns make candidates stronger.

On balance, the engagement of so many people has been not only overall good for the party, but ultimately good for the nominee [quoted by Denise Ross, "Herseth Sandlin: Primary Will Make Dems Stronger," Hog House Blog, 2008.05.21].

Hurst: Guns Are Intimidation, Not Political Speech

Remember the lockdown-freakout in Tea last week? Remember the honyockers with guns outside Presidential speeches this summer? The Dakota Day's Sam Hurst puts two and two together:

So my first anxiety is not just that goofballs are parading around in public with their guns. It is their proximity to impassioned political debate and their proximity to a President who they ideologically and racially hate, that makes nightmares of past assassinations flash through my brain. These are not armed men at a gun show, or a shooting range, or even the parking lot of Cabela's. These men are at political rallies. If an armed man appears in the neighborhood of Central High School the school goes into lock down, and the SWAT Team is called in. But if the same man appears at a political rally, outside a presidential appearance, where ideological tensions are already high, he is simply expressing his Second Amendment rights [Sam Hurst, "August Gun Strutting Opens a Terrifying New Constitutional Frontier," The Dakota Day, 2009.09.30].

Hurst goes on to make an even more important point about guns and the Constitution. We can argue about whether we have a right to our guns to hunt, to pick off criminals, or to play Chuck Norris in Invasion U.S.A. But it's downright scary to think that anyone has a right to carry weapons as an act of political intimidation. If you need a gun to make your point, you must not have much of a point.

Update 08:33 CDT: I think Hurst is sensing the same frightening vibe that Thomas Friedman senses. The NYT columnist compares the increasing hateful disunity in America to the "poisonous political environment" he saw in Israel in 1995 right before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Dr. Newquist hears something similar in John L. Perry's call for an American coup d'etat. Wake up, America. We're better than this.

Medicare for All? O.K., Compromise: Medicare for Kids

[Updated 11:55 CDT] I'm still firmly in the Kucinich-Weiner-Newquist-McGovern camp: Medicare for all is the simplest, most sensible, most moral health care reform option available. McGovern expands on thoughts reported on Mount Blogmore last month in a powerful argument for universal Medicare in Friday's Washington Post:

Those of us over 65 have been enjoying this program for years. I go to the doctor or hospital of my choice, and my taxes pay all the bills. It's wonderful. But I would have appreciated it even more if my wife and children and I had had such health-care coverage when we were younger. I want every American, from birth to death, to get the kind of health care I now receive. Removing the payments now going to the insurance corporations would considerably offset the tax increase necessary to cover all Americans.

I don't feel as though the government is meddling in my life when it pays my doctor and hospital fees. There are some things the government does that I don't like -- most notably getting us into needless wars that cost many times what health care for all Americans would cost. Investing in the health of our citizens will enhance the well-being and security of the nation [George McGovern, "It's Simple: Medicare for All," Washington Post, 2009.09.11].

Dang: how about we run McGovern against Thune... or even against SHS in the primary to get her talking like a Democrat again?

If universal Medicare is too much for you, then how about a compromise? Bill Fleming points to a powerful, intelligent argument from Sam Hurst of The Dakota Day that current health care reforms are mostly bipartisan capitulation to big money interests and that we should dump current proposals for something much simpler: Medicare for every child in America. Parts I like:

Considering the Democrats' compulsive advocacy of rights, it seems odd that President Obama never mentions health security as a basic human right. The lions of pre-Clintonian liberalism--Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Senator Ted Kennedy--all advocated universal health care as a fundamental human right essential to the nation's security. Let the right wing argue that children have no right to health care. Let the conservative movement argue that "pre-existing conditions" are a necessary evil of market competition. Let Republicans argue to senior citizens that they want to cut Medicare because it is "socialistic". Let the Republicans argue that faceless bureaucrats from private insurance companies are more sensitive and efficient than faceless administrators from Medicare who have a proven track record over forty-five years. Let conservatives argue that runaway inflation in the private health market is a by-product of free market competition.

...[T]he creation of a health system that will improve the quality and cost of care for children is an immediate investment in the next generation, not a future deficit. A child who grows up healthy and well-educated is far more able to contribute to society and her own well-being than a child who grows up unhealthy and poorly educated. Conservatives ask us to believe that civilization prospers by reducing our commitment to the health and education of children now so that when those children grow up to become middle-aged smokers with low-wage jobs in an economy they are uneducated to compete in, they will have their existential freedom.

...Children are the way out of the mess that Congress has created, and they are our path to the future, but children have no voice, and so far their grandparents have refused to stand up for them. It's that simple.

[Sam Hurst, "Health Care Battle Needs a Dose of Simplicity," The Dakota Day, 2009.09.07]

Do read Hurst's full argument. Do show it to the Glenn Beck histrionicists who say they're out teabagging for their grandkids. Show it to your Congresspeople and ask them whom they serve: a few thousand insurance execs, or 300 million Americans and future generations?

---------------
Update 14:50 CDT: See also Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in today's NYTimes. Hard-working American gal has lupus, dies early because no one would insure her. Is that what America stands for?

Rushmore Reaction: Herseth Sandlin Makes Protesters' Point?

Sam Hurst at Dakota Day agrees with me that Wednesday's Greenpeace protest at Mount Rushmore was no outrage. He smiles and says he can imagine much worse things than having to bail his own kids out of jail for a similar stunt.

If there is any outrage, Hurst suggests it lies in Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's missing the point over the incident:

This week the Congresswoman asked us to return her to Congress. She has just been appointed to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. But it occurs to me that she has been so amped up with mock outrage that she never bothered to read the banner: "America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming." I would feel a lot more comfortable giving her my vote if she showed as much passion and outrage about the problem of global climate change as she does about the Greenpeace trespassers [emphasis original; Sam Hurst, "Greenpeace Banner Challenges Congresswoman Herseth-Sandlin… 'Be a Leader, Not a Politician'. She Refuses," Dakota Day, 2009.07.09].

Hurst and I likely constitute a minority, likely to be heaped by our neighbors with scorn and calls to go back to Russia. One does not score political points in South Dakota by giving Greenpeace activists the time of day, let alone praising their message. But Hurst reminds us that the Greenpeace activists are making more than one point that many of South Dakota's politicians would rather we not pay attention to.

Sam Hurst Raises Bar for Blogosphere Quality

W

hile I fritter away my time lobbing snowballs at misguided and defensive sophists, Sam Hurst is establishing himself as the greatest writer in the South Dakota blogosphere:

T

here is an old cliché about the technical nature of Keynesian stimulus spending that is revealing for both its cynicism and its simplicity. "You can pay people to dig holes and then fill them in, just as long as it's new spending."

Crackle-bang — rarely does anybody else on my link list craft opening lines that. (Hurst also uses that fancy drop-cap — show-off! ;-) )

When I presented this cliché to an economist recently, he explained; "The creativity is in knowing which holes to dig, and which holes will make a lasting difference to society."

So imagine my surprise when I asked Paige Baker, Superintendent of Badlands National Park, to fantasize about how he would spend a big injection of stimulus money from the Obama administration if he could get his hands on it. "We have more than forty dams that the buffalo herd depends on, but over the years the ponds have silted in and gone dry. Because there is no water, it limits the areas of the park where we can allow the buffalo herd to graze. If I had the money, I'd send teams out to those stock dams, and clean them out."

Hummmm. Dig holes, fill them in, and then dig them again... [Sam Hurst, "Forty Dams in Forty Days, Restoring the Badlands," The Dakota Day, 2008.12.11].

Read the whole article. Great word choice, great story-telling structure, and more relevant to the real lives and real politics of South Dakotans than a lot of the noise out here on the Internet (or in the legacy media).

I just read that Columbia University will start considering online-only publications (that's us!) for Pulitzers. Sam Hurst just jumped to the front of that queue (assuming anyone in New York notices our happy little prairie blogosphere). Keep up the good work, Sam!

Saving the Fourth Estate: Sam Hurst Online

Hat tip to the estimable e-mail of Mr. Epp!

I have mentioned West River journalist Sam Hurst three times on this blog (here, here, and here). Each time, it's been because he's committed darn fine journalism.

Expect a lot more Sam Hurst links here: he has launched a blog! The Dakota Day: A Journal of Opinion and News Analysis from the Northern Plains. Two words: Yum-my!

The site looks great (I want that style sheet!). It also offers a spectacular manifesto, "What We Believe," placing Hurst's work squarely in the tradition of Edmund Burke, the Founding Fathers, and the First Amendment. He refers to Burke's coinage of the term "Fourth Estate" to describe the press as the "most powerful" pillar of society, a bulwark against business, the clergy, and the aristocracy that made up Britain's power elite in 1786. And then:

The founding fathers anointed the often rowdy, always cynical, hyper-opinionated press with a constitutional halo of public responsibility. Watchdog of unpopular opinion. Megaphone of dissent and controversy. Permanent critic of the state. What did Edmund Burke understand that John McCain and Sarah Palin did not?

At every campaign stop the GOP dynamic duo railed against the elitist press, and late in the campaign Sarah Palin even began to rant that her freedom of speech was being threatened by the revelations of the press. Burke could have offered a tutorial. There is a linkage between the idea of limited government and the idea of a free press. It is the press that keeps government limited, against all the headwinds of special interest, money, and privilege. The louder politicians scream that the press is “elite”, the more we should worry. The more politicians complain that they are “victims” of the press, the more we should cheer. The finest tradition of the press is to enforce the limits of government [Sam Hurst, "What We Believe," The Dakota Day, 2008.11.12].

Bingo. Boffo. Even stern critics of the South Dakota blogosphere, who have rightly lamented the superficial, half-baked nature of much of the discourse online, should enjoy Hurst's lengthy, substantial posts. It's only a week old, but if The Dakota Day can live up to the promise of its first few articles, South Dakota's other online scriveners (and the folks making money at it) will have to step up a notch to compete. Welcome to the show, Sam!