Olson Goes Negative, Calls Parsley (Gasp!) a Lobbyist

Republican candidate for District 8 State Senate Russell Olson must be feeling the heat. At last night's candidates forum in Madison, Olson and his opponent, Democrat Scott Parsley, were asked "What differentiates you from your opponent?" Parsley addressed two policy issues, saying he will support more funding than Olson has for education and renewable energy incentives. Olson chose the personal over policy, touting his two years of experience as a legislator. He then characterized Parsley's experience in Pierre and in Washington "as a lobbyist and special interest." Olson said that lobbyists tell people how to vote while legislators listen and serve.

Now I feel a little silly calling that charge political hardball, but in the relatively gentle world of District 8 politics, that's about as close to throwing a punch as we get.

I don't mind hardball—that's politics. That's how the game is played, especially if you think you're behind. It's just too bad that Olson plays it so poorly. All too often, Olson uses keywords and catchphrases in limp attempts to appeal to casual listeners without apparently thinking about what he's actually saying.

Sure, Scott Parsley is a registered lobbyist in Pierre. He goes to Pierre to represent East River Electric... which means if you get electricity from East River, he's representing your interests. He does the same thing for East River and its customers that Russell Olson's employer, Heartland Consumer Power District, hires Dennis and Drew Duncan* to do. Heartland's March 2005 newsletter (PDF!) proudly touts its lobbying efforts "to promote and protect the interests of our Customers" (wow, you even get a capital C). That newsletter directs folks to contact Tim Muellenberg and Russell Olson himself with any questions about specific legislation Heartland may be lobbying for or against.

Olson's previous employer, the Lake Area Improvement Corporation, also had a lobbyist in Pierre, representing, I'm sure, the interests of anyone who supports economic development in Lake County.

Given Olson's comment last night, I guess we should be shocked—shocked!—that he would even associate with such organizations.

Olson's jab evidently means we shouldn't vote for his fellow Republican Jerry Johnson: he's a registered lobbyist for the City of Madison. Other nefarious lobbyist types in our midst:

• Kristofer Beck (Student Federation)
• Bryan Crocker (Prostrollo Auto Mall)
• Charlie Johnson (Dakota Rural Action)
• Jerome Lammers (Pork Producers Council, 1998)
• Don Marker (Sioux Valley Energy)
• Dr. David Rossing (State Medical Association)
• Bob Sahr (East River)
  
• Pete Stemper (Prostrollo Auto Mall)

Well, I guess we have it straight from Russ: Prostrollo Auto Mall "tells people how to vote." I knew it!

Olson's lobbying jab against Parsley is just silly. It's another example of the Olson campaign acting like some other Republicans we know: just saying stuff, avoiding policy, campaigning by connotation, and in the end, dragging itself and its fellow Republicans down.

But don't worry: if Olson loses on November 4, he'll probably still get to go to Pierre. Heartland will send him out to lobby—I mean, "promote and protect the interests of our Customers."

*Russ's boss, Heartland GM Mike McDowell, further touts Denny Duncan's paid lobbying in Heartland's March 2006 newsletter: "His work for Heartland has been outstanding. The protection and advancement of our Customer's [sic] public power system requires constant attention and Denny Duncan provides that service at the highest level." Coincidence! Dennis Duncan's law firm had somebody had someone giving the Madville Times constant attention last spring as they trolled my blog to lobby for TransCanada.

Update 2008.10.24: Dennis and Drew Duncan have also each donated $250 to Olson's Senate campaign. (Marie Duncan, who shares Dennis'S P.O. box, also chipped in $200). Olson takes money from lobbyists? Again, gasp! I wonder who's telling whom how to vote now.

Madison Chamber Forum: Video!

Here's video from last night's candidates forum in Madison! The following list gives links to the opening and closing statements from each candidate in the order they were presented at the forum. (Sorry—really gotta crank the volume!) You can also read my summaries of the Senate, House, and Commission candidates' responses to questions at the forum.

District 8 State Senate:

• Scott Parsley—opening
• Russell Olson—opening
• Russell Olson—closing
• Scott Parsley—closing

District 8 State House:

• Gerry Lange—opening
• Mitch Fargen—opening
• Patricia Stricherz—opening
• Jerry Johnson—opening
• Jerry Johnson—closing
• Gerry Lange—closing
• Mitch Fargen—closing
• Patricia Stricherz—closing

Lake County Commission:

• Gene Anderson—opening
• Craig Johannsen—opening
• Chris Giles—opening
• Roger Hageman—opening
• Dan Bohl—opening
• Roger Hageman—closing
• Dan Bohl—closing
• Gene Anderson—closing
• Craig Johannsen—closing
• Chris Giles—closing

Socialism Rampant! End Nigh!

Aaaaah! John McCain is right: socialism is lurking around every corner, even in South Dakota:

• South Dakota is receiving $31 million from the federal government to help poor people pay their heat bills. Oh! How dare my hard-earned wealth be redistributed to keep poor people from freezing. What are those poor people doing in their homes, anyway? They should go to work, where there's heat!
• South Dakota is joining 12 other states in trying to stop Brazil's JBS-Swift from buying Kansas City's National Beef Packing Company. Attorney General Larry Long says the merger would mean lower prices for farmers and higher prices for consumers. Senators Thune and Johnson support South Dakota's action. Horrors! How dare the state use my tax dollars to interfere in the sacred functioning of the market? JBS-Swift should be able to use its hard-earned money whatever way it sees fit, without government imposing artificial costs? If South Dakota wants decent prices for farmers, the state should buy its own packing plant (oh, wait, that would be socialism, too...).

The Red Menace is everywhere! To the barricades!

---------------------
But seriously, the Joe the Plumber nuttiness about socialism and redistribution of wealth is bunk. As Will Wilkinson says on Marketplace this morning, every candidate, every tax plan, every government system, redistributes wealth.

Madison Chamber Candidates Forum: County Commission!

Round III of tonight's Madison Chamber Candidates Forum: our Lake County Commission candidates! Here's a rough approximation of what Republicans Chris Giles, Roger Hageman, and Dan Bohl and Democrats Craig Johannsen and Gene Anderson had to say in the Q&A:

Question 1: What past experiences make you the best candidate for the Lake County Commission?

• Johannsen: Serving 10 years as commission gives me good perspective.
• Giles: In my past experience as Lake County States Attorney, I worked with different departments to help solve their problems, advised and observed the commission. Many people don't realize how complex county government can be, since they don't come into contact with all the parts.
• Hageman: I have lots of experiences, but “I'm not sure any qualify me for the job" [kidding!] In farming, I know what it's like to have floor pulled from under you and have to pull things together to make things work. I'm on church boards, corn producers, soybean producers, other ag associations in county.
• Bohl: If there's a problem I will talk it to death. [joke!] I can communicate with almost anybody. Last year I subbed for elementary P.E.: having lived through that day, I believe I can be a county commissioner (or run an insane asylum or be president: anything is possible!). I have experience as city commissioner, plus 33 years as coach and teacher. Most importantly, I love people, love helping people. You know that I listen, I respond. “If you can put up with my gab, I will help.”
• Anderson: Last two years on Lake County Zoning board has been great experience. I know what commissioners deal with. I'm on church boards, cooperative boards. There are things we can work together on.

Question 2: Given county budget restraints, how feel about offering health insurance to elected county officials?

• Giles: Lake County was one of first to offer this coverage. Many more counties offer it now. It's nice to make it available if officials want to be part; I don't think we should allow candidates to opt out and take the cash. That wasn't an option when I was states attorney; very few counties offer that option. It's not illegal or improper, but commissioners shouldn't get that option as part-time employees.
• Hageman: “I don't know if I'm for or against it.” Having a larger group is good for premiums. If funds are available, I'd agree with going along with it.
• Bohl: No. For commissioners, no way. I pay for my own insurance, I can handle it. I've said previously that if the policy continues, I will donate my $3600 opt-out money to the Madison Public Library and the Chamber of Commerce.
• Anderson: Health is a big budget item. I'd have to say no, given the way the economy is. There are better ways to use our tax dollars. Commissioners can handle their own health insurance.
• Johannsen: I was paying for my own insurance before I got the job. It does cost. I'll go along with whatever the rest of the board wants to do.

Question 3: Would each of you support a county inspector to insure county guidelines and ordinances are enforced?

• Anderson: I have no problem having a county inspector. But is it feasible within our budget? How important is it? Maybe we should have a part-time inspector. I'm not sure we can afford full-time.
• Johannsen: Yes, it is a needed position. Maybe it's a good problem: growth means more building, means we need an inspector. We can't have buildings too close to right of way and such; better to catch problems right away rather than have to move a building. Funding: maybe create zoning/drainage/weed inspector, increase fees to pay.
• Giles: A building inspector is needed, especially for new construction and to look for existing violations. No one does that now; it's handled just on a complaint basis. We could make a combined position for building and zoning, maybe even do something in conjunction with the city. Partnering with the city could make a full-time position that can meet the needs of both entities. Funding is an issue; maybe we need to look at building permit fees.
• Hageman: I agree an inspector could be beneficial. Not everybody is aware of all the codes. Folks doing their own building can be problem. Maybe we should just have it be a part-time position.
• Bohl: Creating a buildig inspector position is like geothermal heating: very expensive at first, but it pays for itself after so many years. Sure, it'll be tough to pay for the position, but in a few years, an inspector would pay off by eliminating problems. Madison's experience shows it works and is very useful for city gov't. It would help the county, too.

Question 4: What do to make county government more open to county residents?

• Bohl: “I like this one.” Not a bad idea to change meeting time: people can't come to nine o'clock meetings. What's wrong with going to 5 or 5:30? Doing a cable broadcast costs, but lots of people watch the city commission broadcasts; might be an option for the county. We must always be aware of open meeting laws, people's right to hear and know, right to attend and to respond, to have open communication. We don't have all of the avenues open now.
• Hageman: [To Mayor Hexom's rephrasing of the question and asking if he has any thoughts on the issue]: “No I don't.” Meeting times: reading the minutes shows that meetings can go long. Unless we're going to hold extra meetings to make sure we cover the agenda, moving to the evenings is going to be difficult. Maybe it's o.k. to do special evening meetings. We could also maybe move meetings to different towns if town-specific items are on the agenda.
• Giles: Some flexibility in meeting time should be looked at. Maybe we don't need to move every meeting to evening. In the past, meetings have been set in evening when we anticipate lots of public input. Maybe do it once a month. It's important to make meetings open to media through radio or cable TV. Another issue: certain times and places require executive sessions, but we need to reduce and minimize them. People are more confident in open government.
• Johannsen: We definitely have to follow open meeting rules more stringently. Meeting times: we have done special meetings, and I have no problem with moving meetings to other towns. Radio curently gives good coverage.
  
• Anderson: The radio and paper cover it. Maybe the board needs to be more open to the public, maybe use less executive session.

Madison Chamber Candidates Forum: Lange, Fargen, Stricherz, and Johnson

Round II of tonight's Madison Chamber Candidates Forum: our District 8 State House candidates! Here's my best summary (not a verbatim transcript, mind you) of what Democrats Gerry Lange and Mitch Fargen and Republicans Patricia Stricherz and Jerry Johnson had to say during the Q&A.

Question 1: What do you hope to accomplish during your first term?

• Fargen: Two things I really want to push for: last year, Rounds imposed a tax increase on ethanol blender pumps. That tax increase was unconstitutional since it didn't have 2/3 of legislature backing it. It was also completely against the effort to develop home-grown resources. I want to repeal that blender pump tax increase. We also need to find resources to pay for education, raise teacher salaries, and do it with a long-term solution, not a short-term fix like the Governor and Legislature have done the last few years.
• Stricherz: Energy, education, and the economy are big issues, but as I talk to voters, one issue keeps coming up: they're worried about young people having to register as sex offenders for having contact with young girls in their peer group. We need to discern between real offenders and children who aren't dangerous criminals.
• Johnson: On education, I differ with other members of my party. As a Madison city commissioner, I often questioned why the city had reserve accounts if it had no plan to use them? We need to look for ways to further the community. We should look at funding education with the reserves. We also need more accountability at state and local levels to use every penny in education wisely.
• Lange: It's difficult to win in a Democrat minority without reaching across the aisle. We must convince them our ideas are good. I've urged another tax system. North Dakota is far ahead of us, so are all other surrounding states. We need to focus on three things: education, education, education. The Finns saw education investment lift them from the bottom to the top of European economic development.

Question 2: With the threat of a slowing economy, how will you promote economic development in District 8?

• Stricherz: District 8 is a great district to live in right now. We have lots of opportunities right now. Let's promote continued agricultural development, energy development, other energy sources like solar.
• Johnson: We must look to regional resources like what's going on in Howard. I toured Howard several weeks ago; what's good for Howard is good for Madison, Woonsocket, etc. We should facilitate regional economic development, help all communities work together.
• Lange: After the election, we'll see change throughout the nation: expect New Deal type projects to make work on public infrastructure, funded through bonding or taxation to employ people in a grassroots effort to stimulate economy instead of trickle-down economics. We need lots of wind development; put turbines on school and public lands to help school funding.
• Fargen: We should be able to get a “Highway 34 Corridor” together to work together, encourage other businesses to come in and use the district's resources. Let's bring businesses, bring tech school programs here.

Question 3: South Dakota has a teacher shortage in secondary education. One solution: differentiated pay (more pay for secondary teachers than for elementary teachers). Your thoughts?

• Johnson: Last year the state legislature approved a package to increase teacher salaries. I don't necessarily agree with differentiated pay. Local districts have the opportunity to evaluate all teachers and decide what teachers should be paid. State Legislature and Department of Education should not decide. In the business world, better performance and more experience mean you get paid more. That's how local districts should be able to do it.
• Stricherz: I agree with Jerry. We all have to earn our pay. We may also need to consider whether diminishing enrollment means we need to combine three school districts into one. Do elementary in one town, middle school in second, high school in third. That would save money that could be applied toward higher teacher pay.
• Fargen: I'm against differentiated pay. School districts set salaries. We always want local control. The state legislature can set what we want the salaries to be, but local control is better. Let schools decide on experience.
• Lange: It's hard to work differentiated pay out with teacher's union. I've heard elementary teachers are more important in formative years; maybe we need best at lower levels. The teacher shortage is a problem because of lack of funds. I'd rather expand the opportunities for raising salaries the way other states have with a reasonable tax system that puts education first rather than skimping on it as we've done.

Question 4: Do you support a smoking ban in bars and restaurants?

• Lange: In theory it's good, but it's not viable in South Dakota with our attitudes toward individual freedoms and local control. A smoking ban would not be a wise decision.
• Fargen: I completely support that! Families need protection. Why infringe on families' right to be in that public area? We need to look at whether such a ban would apply on tribal areas, but I do support a smoking ban.
• Stricherz: I strongly oppose that idea. Business owners should be able to decide for themselves on how they treat their customers. It's not feasible for the state to dictate. Most restaurants and bars do good job of separating smokers and non-smokers; it should stay that way.
• Johnson: It should be up to city commission to decide [a joke! Jerry cracks a funny for emcee Mayor Hexom!]. Actually, I would oppose such a ban. Business owners should have the right to decide how they attract business (or don't).

Madison Chamber Candidates Forum: Parsley vs. Olson

Whoo-hoo! I'm back from the candidates' forum sponsored by the Madison Chamber of Commerce. Sorry I couldn't live blog—no public signal available at the Madison High School auditorium (boy, I pay thousands of tax dollars, and all I get is this free public education).

But here are my notes on the candidates' responses. I'll hold back from commentary tonight (although it's really, really hard!) and just give you the straight answers, as best as I was able to transcribe them. I'll post commentary tomorrow, along with videos of the candidates' opening and closing statements tomorrow. Enjoy!

First up: Q&A with District 8 State Senate candidates Republican Russell Olson and Democrat Scott Parsley.

Question 1: State revenues may be affected greatly with the current economic conditions. What state programs could afford to get less money if we have to tighten belts?

• Olson: It's important to look for efficiencies. Last year I introduced HB 1240 to make DMV self-sufficient for first time since inception. We don't always have to cut funding.
• Parsley: First, we need to not panic: we can't be sure where things are going. Governor Rounds has come out to say we may need cuts, but the state investment manager says don't panic. One area to cut: state government has grown at rate of 5-5.5% over past few years, faster than other areas of gov't in SD. Let's tighten belts there! We can also help agencies become more self-sufficient without raising fees on users.

Question 2: What differentiates you from your opponent?

• Parsley: Olson talks about education. He says he voted for a $21 million dollar budget increase for education that his fellow District 8 legislators Gassman and Sutton voted against. Thing is, they voted against it because it offered a 2.5% increase, and that's not enough. I agree: that's not enough! We also differ on action on renewable energy and developing incentives. I've worked with the governor and drafted legislation that has actually passed and is helping.
• Olson: The main thing is experience. I've actually served for two years in the Legislature, responded to e-mails, attended cracker barrels, taken calls from constituents on nights and weekends. Parsley's experience in Pierre and Washington is as a lobbyist and special interest. Lobbyists tell people how to vote; legislators listen and serve.

Question 3: Everyone running says they want to increase funding for education. How would you do it?

• Olson: That's the “million-dollar question”; in tight economic times, we have to find ways to do more with what we have. I'll introduce an energy bill to allow schools to use capital outlay to pay energy bills (fuel, electricity). For example, in Chester that would free up $67K in general fund that could be used to raise teacher pay.
• Parsley: I disagree with Russ: it's a “billion-dollar question.” Using reserve funds to pay for fuel? Those are local tax dollars, not state dollars. That approach doesn't do anything to increase the state's share of education. The state has trust funds set up to fund education. We currently pull 4% from the education enhancement fund. It has an extra $100M. There are other trust funds we could use for education. Maybe it's time to reprioritize. State Treasurer Vern Larson just reported the state has lots of funds available.

Question 4: Economy down, poverty up: what measures do you support to help people in need?

• Parsley: We have more two-income families, more uninsured children than any other state in country. We need to look at how we're spending money now, reprioritize to provide (for instance) good nutrition and health care for kids so they can do better in school.
• Olson: We have to educate citizenry on prioritizing their spending. We truly have a group of people who are uninsured and can't afford health insurance and good food, but there is a group in our state who don't give nutrition and health insurance priority above plasma TV, cell phones, cable. Take care of family first, luxuries second.

John McCain's Favorite Living Hero...

Politico.com posts Roger Simon's assessment of Colin Powell's Sunday endorsement of Barack Obama. He notes that our man Tom Brokaw had the good sense to keep his mouth shut and let the ex-general explain his reasoning clearly and fully for seven uninterrupted minutes of network airtime. Simon then recalls his experience on the Straight Talk Express in 1999, when a rather different John McCain was running for President:

The scene is the Straight Talk Express, the old Straight Talk Express, in 1999 — the one stuffed with reporters asking John McCain question after question and getting answer after answer, hour after hour. McCain is enjoying himself, even when the reporters, having exhausted all serious topics, turn goofy and play “favorites” with him, asking him his favorite tree (cottonwood), favorite breakfast cereal (Raisin Bran) and favorite toothpaste (Colgate).

And then there is this exchange that I recorded for history:

Favorite word, a reporter asks.

“Principle,” McCain says.

Favorite dead hero.

“Uh, Julius Caesar,” McCain says.

Favorite dead hero within the last 2,000 years.

“OK, off the top of my head, Lincoln,” McCain says. “Although the more I read and study, the more intrigued I am by Teddy Roosevelt.”

Favorite living hero.

“Colin Powell,” McCain says instantly. “Served his country. A wonderful man.”

[Roger Simon, "Powell Drops the Hammer on McCain," Politico.com, 2008.10.21]

Uff da.

Hyperion Drinks Your Milkshake... and 9 Million Gallons of Water

Daniel Plainview would be proud....

An eager reader points to a note in today's edition of that Sioux Falls paper on an upcoming meeting of the Clay Rural Water System. This Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at Vermillion's 4-H Center (515 High Street), the water system's board of directors discuss a request from Hyperion Resources to supply water for the proposed refinery at Elk Point.

Clay Rural Water currently supplies 1.3 million gallons of water a day to a little over 2000 locations in southeastern South Dakota. Hyperion is requesting a daily supply of 9 to 12 million gallons of water.

Perspective: my wife, my daughter, and I consume about 3000 gallons of water a month from Kingbrook Rural Water. Call it a hundred gallons a day (dang—even that seems like a lot of water!). The water Hyperion is requesting would be enough to meet the needs of 90,000 to 120,000 households like mine. That's another Sioux Falls and then some.

Some communities in the Sioux Falls metroplex are already scrambling to find enough water to support their population growth. The Hyperion refinery would take at least another 90,000 households worth of water off the growth table.

So if you had to choose, which economic development route would you pursue: one refinery that will generate a couple thousand jobs, or 90,000 new households filled with moms, dads and kids to generate jobs and wealth in southeast South Dakota? (And remember: you can't drink oil, no matter how green it is.)

Whistleblower: Southeast Tech Handing out Bogus Degrees

I almost missed this one: former Southeast Technical Institute registrar officer Matt Onnen filed suit last year against the Sioux Falls School District alleging that STI granted associates degrees to instructors who had not completed sufficient coursework. Onnen's suit demands that the district return $2.2 million in federal funds, plus possible damages. As the whistleblower, Onnen would receive a nice cut (25% or more) of any funds the district would be ordered to pay.

Now Onnen is also suing over his firing last year, which he says came because he wouldn't hand out the bogus degrees. (Lake Madison denizen Rollyn Samp is his lawyer—watch out, Sioux Falls School District!)

I don't have evidence to support confirm or deny Onnen's accusations. However, if either suit holds water, advocates for bringing the tech schools under the Board of Regents' supervision may add another argument to their case. Maybe awarding college degrees is just a little above the local school district's pay grade. Your thoughts...?

---------
Update 2010.02.01: Judge Bill Srtska finds STI was justified in firing Onnen. The whistleblower suit reamins to be heard.

Another South Dakota Conservative Says It: Obama Qualified, Deserves to Win

Professor Blanchard helps me continue my loose commitment to citing only conservative sources in support of the Obama-Biden ticket. The good professor tucks his conservative into bed with the rather unpleasant thought that Obama deserves to win the election. Blanchard pokes a hole in the McCain camp's rather limp effort to make us believe that Obama's fundraising success is somehow corrupt or (snicker) unfair:

There is nothing illegal or immoral about being a tremendous fund raiser; and as politics is almost as serious as baseball, good management means exploiting every rule of the game.

...to say that this isn't a fair fight is nonsense. Obama is raising a lot more money than McCain because he has convinced a lot more people with money to back him. There is nothing the least bit unfair about that. [Ken Blanchard, "If Obama [...] Buys the White House, Then He Earned It," South Dakota Politics, 2008.10.20].

Even good conservatives can appreciate good management skills. Barack Obama has management cred bigger than George Bush's MBA: in spite of name, skin color, and thinner résumé than most candidates in the field, Obama has run a disciplined, focused campaign that beat the Clinton machine and now may beat a Republican war hero. Obama's campaign has proven his qualifications, says Blanchard:

When Obama began his campaign, he was surely one of the least qualified candidates to pursue the presidency in living memory. That didn't stop a large part of the Democratic core from attaching themselves to him. But it precisely that fact that puts an end to questions about his qualifications. In the end, the only qualification for the presidency that matters is winning it. Obama has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he is as qualified as McCain, or Clinton, or Bush, or Gore, or anyone else who has come close [Blanchard, 2008.10.20].

Again, you don't have to take my word for it: even South Dakota's conservatives will tell you Obama's fundraising is a sign of success. Obama has inspired more people to give more money to support his vision for America. If money talks, Obama's millions of individual donors are shouting.

Big Candidates Forum At Madison HS Tonight!

Hey, local political junkies (and all interested voters)—after you get your fill of Kiwanis pancakes at the City Armory, head up to Madison High School, which hosts the big candidate forum at 7 p.m. in the auditorium! The forum will have three sessions: county commission candidates, District 8 State Senate candidates, and District 8 State House candidates. Bring your questions, bring your bumper stickers, bring your blogging gear! (Well, I can handle that last part for you, if you're busy.)

Conservative South Dakota Blogger Abandons McCain

That blogger emeritus Professor Jon Schaff would deem Senator Barack Obama unworthy of your vote is no surprise. That Schaff, a pillar of South Dakota conservatism online, would level the same criticism against Senator John McCain is at least somewhat surprising. In a reprint of his Aberdeen American News commentary, Schaff criticizes McCain's futile focus on earmarks ("a tiny fraction of government spending"), his lazy advocacy of an across-the-board spending freeze, his lack of specifics on reforming Social Security and Medicare, and his "idealistic belief that nations can be made democratic by force coupled with wishful thinking."

Schaff uses no gentler words to describe Obama's plans. Actually, in places Schaff cleverly uses identical words to lambaste Obama and McCain.

I agree with Schaff's criticism of Obama's and McCain's responses on spending cuts. Both candidates have failed to "cowboy up" and say what we have to give up to pay our debts. We need some fiscal tough love... even if the Rove/Plouffe playbooks say tough love doesn't win you elections.

I disagree with Schaff's contention that Obama's foreign policy will be based on naïveté and eloquence. Even if you totally discount Obama's good sense, it's hard to imagine the other folks in the room—Biden, Lugar, Jones, Powell—recommending Obama do nothing but go make a speech at the U.N. to tackle the world's problems.

But what I find most significant is this very salient example of a committed South Dakota conservative apparently abandoning the Republican candidate (and doing so, unlike many of the other conservatives I've cited here, without mentioning Palin):

Both candidates advocate taxing and spending policies sure to drive our public debt even higher. Both candidates are making us a deal. Indulge ourselves now and let future generations pay for it. I haven't met the person who doesn't like being given stuff and letting someone else pay for it. The fact that we will accept this deal says as much about us as it does about the politicians.

But we don't have to agree to this. Perhaps this is an election to vote “none of the above” [Jon Schaff, "None of the Above," South Dakota Politics, 2008.10.20]

This may excite the Jackrabbit and my other third-party friends, although it is unclear whether Schaff is urging us to go for Nader or Barr or to simply mark no one on the Presidential portion of the ballot. Schaff has spoken previously against the notion of bolting from the Republican Party for the sake of moral consistency. He warned his fellow conservatives last year that forming a third party in response to the nomination of Giuliani would have done nothing but ensure a Clinton victory (seems so long ago now, doesn't it?):

I suppose such social conservatives will call this a moral victory. They will take pride, right after their fall, for remaining consistent in their views. Like Tom Tancredo they will pat themselves on the back for not voting for the "lesser of two evils" and ignore the fact that they helped elect the greater of two evils. Acting like children crying over not being able to get exactly what they want, they will get exactly what they don't want.

As a friend of mine likes to say, in one sense a moral victory is a kind of victory. In another more important sense, a moral victory is a defeat [Jon Schaff, "Social Conservatives, Presidential Politics, and Moral Victories," South Dakota Politics, 2007.10.12].

Obama is still my second choice; I miss the straight talk and on-the-sleeve idealism of Dennis Kucinich. Still, I don't feel I'm stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. I actually believe Obama can do greater good than McCain. Even though my dad has already canceled my vote with his absentee ballot, I still want to vote for the man who can change the status quo and will ask us to help. Maybe my own vote is just a different flavor of moral victory, but I want to vote for the best man on the ballot, and in 2008, that's Barack Obama.

If conservatives want to move en masse to support Bob Barr, I can live with that. (Plus, Barr's VP has better education and business experience than McCain's sidekick.) But "None of the above"? Not an option. Not at this point. If you want none of the above, start circulating your petitions... for 2012.