No Evidence Marking Changed Outcome of Noem-Herseth Sandlin Race

Seth Tupper got me all excited by pointing to this U. of M. Smart Politics headline: "Did an Independent Turn South Dakota's 2010 U.S. House Race?" Finally! I thought we might get an answer to the question that may be keeping Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin tossing at night and shunning the mic.

Alas, Dr. Eric Ostermeier doesn't answer his own headline question. Smart Politics notes what we already know: B. Thomas Marking's 6% finish was huge for a third-party or no-party South Dakotan (though, not noted by Ostermeier, still slightly lower than fringe conspiracy theorist Lori Stacey's finish in this year's Secretary of State race). Marking's take was larger than the 2.2% margin by which Kristi Noem beat the incumbent.

But the SP article presents no new analysis of whether Marking took more votes from Herseth Sandlin or from Noem. Ostermeier interviews Marking, who repeats what he told the Mitchell Daily Republic a couple weeks ago, that he believes he drew equally from each candidate. Marking doesn't even think his 6% finish is that remarkable: he compares his campaign to other third-party efforts across the country and says, "They get a few percent of the vote. Six percent doesn't separate me from them."

So we're still where we've been since Election Night, with lots of speculation but no evidence that Marking's 6% take changed the final outcome of the race.

Marking: Noem Was Worst Choice

B. Thomas Marking thinks 94% of South Dakotans made the wrong choice for Congress last week. The 6% finisher thinks the 48% who voted for Kristi Noem made a really wrong choice:

B. Thomas Marking was disappointed not only with his showing in South Dakota’s three-way U.S. House race, but also with the order of the top-two finishers.

“I think that was probably the third-best choice,” Marking said this week of the winner, Kristi Noem [Tom Lawrence, "Marking: Noem Was 'Third Best' Candidate," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.11.11].

Alas for us bloggers, the ideologically enigmatic Marking does not elaborate on why he ranks Noem last. (Apparently Kristi's giving B-Thom top billing over Stephanie in her victory speech Election Night didn't impress him.)

Alas as well for true Indies, B.-Thom doesn't plan to build on his 6% momentum and make a run for other office any time soon. He says his experience and focus is national, so local or state office is out. And he found running a $10,000 campaign against million-dollar war chests futile, so he won't throw in for national office until campaign finance reform brings public funding.

Votes from the Fringe: Stacey Outpolls Marking

In the South Dakota U.S. House race, Independent B. Thomas Marking got 5.99% of the vote. That 5.99% of the vote had little to do with Mr. Marking's qualities as a person or candidate. Lori Stacey, Constitution Party candidate for Secretary of State, nuttiest person on the statewide ballot, got 6.60% of the vote. 832 votes more than Marking.

B. Thomas Marking didn't say much, but what policies and positions he did advocate were debatable yet reasonable. Lori Stacey spouted conspiracy theories and baseless threats and dwelt on minutiae of word choice as only a desperate paranoiac fringe candidate can. Her campaign finances were laughable even compared to Marking's paltry sums.

Yet she got more protest votes than B. Thomas Marking, who got to play referee (a good role for Indies—keep that in mind for future elections!) between Kristi Noem and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in the marquee race of 2010.

Maybe worth noting: Marking's third-best showing came in Hamlin County, Kristi Noem's home turf. Noem's own neighbors were among the folks most willing to vote for the third man. He drew 8.32% in Noem's backyard, even better than the 7.89% he pulled in his home county of Custer. Marking had his 17th-best showing in Brookings County, Herseth Sandlin's current home county. He bombed in Herseth country up north, Brown County, where he got only 4.59% of the vote.

Marking Violating Hatch Act with Website?

I reported Sunday that B. Thomas Marking is suspending his campaign for a couple weeks while he is away serving Uncle Sam. Marking is a reservist emergency responder for FEMA and will be away for training in Alabama until September 24.

Now if I had to be gone for a couple weeks just as a big campaign was heating up, I'd surely find a way to keep in touch with my potential voters and donors via e-mail and my campaign blog. But Dakota War College made a very good point Tuesday: under the Hatch Act, Marking can't even do that.

If applicable to reservist emergency responders (I'm still digging for that*), the Hatch Act restrictions on political activities for "less restricted" federal employees preclude Marking from doing the following:

• knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a political contribution from any person (this may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations);
• being a candidate for public office in partisan political elections;
• engaging in political activity while on duty, in a government office, wearing an official uniform, or using a government vehicle;

While Marking is on duty or in any federal building, he can't distribute any campaign material. So I wonder, as did Mr. Powers: does that include automatically distributing campaign information via his website, as he continues to do as of my writing this morning? Does that include leaving his clever campaign videos dinging his opponents up on YouTube? It sounds as if the Hatch Act requires Marking to scrub his entire Web presence until he returns from Alabama.

Now there's no jail time for Hatch Act violations. Marking may stand only to lose his FEMA position. But Marking has struck me as smart enough that he'd know the ins and outs of the Hatch Act. Perhaps he hasn't left for Alabama yet, and the moment he does, we will see the website, donation button, videos and all disappear from the Web.

So I wonder: how does a current violation of the Hatch Act stack up in South Dakota voters' minds against habitual violations of state highway laws?
------------------------------------
Update 2010.09.11 07:35 CDT: Ding ding ding! Found it! This September 18, 2008, advisory opinion from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel says that individuals who work or the government on an "irregular or occasional basis" are indeed subject to the Hatch Act while on duty. The opinion is specific to members of the Disaster Mortuary Operation Response Team, which is part of the National Disaster Medical System, which the FEMA administrator directs (see Stafford Act, Sec 503a.3.B). Marking is a FEMA disaster reservist.

Marking on Stage: Intelligent, Critical of Party Games, Still Not Ready

B. Thomas Marking will not be a factor in South Dakota's U.S. House race. He lacks the enthusiasm and resources to mount an effective campaign. But he was at Sunday's Congressional debate at the State Fair, and he said some things worth considering.

First, let me emphasize that Marking is intelligent and articulate. I suspect we could have an engaging conversation about political philosophy as well has his vast experience as a public servant and world traveler. His comments at Sunday's debate were not Lyndon LaRouche crackpottery or Tea Party hyperventilations.

Marking leveled some reasonable criticism of both parties. He noted with disdain that while the South Dakota Democratic Party invited Independents to vote in their primary (a blatant attempt at seducing Indies into the Party, said Marking not so inaccurately), the national party leaders swung into action to quash a challenger who threatened a real primary challenge.

Marking also criticized the culture of political parties and the press. "In the culture of the party," said Marking, "It's all about the game" and scoring points. Marking pointedly observed that "game" attitude was on display in the rowdy cheering sections at the debate. "I want to thank all of you people who didn't come here waving signs and wearing t-shirts but actually came to learn." Scolding your audience may not be the best debate tactic, but I give credit to Marking for courage and zingers.

Marking offered similar criticism of the press. He proposes an innovative online voting system, an unprecedented revolution in how we conduct democracy (well, not really: see Estonia), and the press ignores him and runs headlines like "Sparks fly between Kristi and Stephanie." Marking likened the press coverage to America's Next Top Model.

(On a related note, Marking tied with Herseth Sandlin for best-dressed candidate at Sunday's debate. Marking wore a conservative dark suit and white shirt, lacking, alas, a necktie. Herseth Sandlin wore a vibrant blue blouse and black slacks, but the open-toed black shoes don't work for me. The bright pink nail polish also lacked complements in the outfit. Noem slummed in blue jeans, all to informal for the occasion. Even if there are cows and horses outside, you should debate looking like you are ready to govern.)

Marking decried the big money the parties funnel to candidates, promoting a culture of party loyalty over candidates with integrity, talent, and vision. He said he is annoyed by party candidates who claim to be "Independent Republicans and Independent Democrats." That's like labeling a product "genuine imitation," said Marking, emphasizing that he is the only real Independent in the race. Marking won applause from a fair chunk of the audience by calling for campaign finance limitations, saying voters could best trust a candidate to rein in the federal budget who first runs a campaign on a limited budget. Unaddressed by Marking or those who applauded were the Constitutinoal complications of telling candidates that they and everyone who supports them can only spend a fixed amount on First Amendment expression.

Alas, once out of his prepared remarks, Marking sunk back into weak sloganeering and demonstrations of the shallowness of his understanding. Asked what cuts he would make to the Farm Bill, the first words out of his mouth were "This is not my area of expertise" (oops). He said he couldn't compete with the Congresswoman or Noem (double oops). On a question about the ag lending situation, he said he would defer to the Congresswoman (then get off the stage!). Even pitched a softball question asking the candidates to name "the most critical issue facing the country" (dozens of cards from the audience, and the moderator picks this puffball? Come on!), Marking muffs a chance to expound on his vision and says he'll cover that in his closing comments.

Oh yeah, and Marking still thinks a revenue-neutral 30% national sales tax would bring fiscal and economic magic to America. Wrong. (And new debate rule: I automatically vote against anyone who uses the phrase "Fair Tax," on grounds of talk-radio karaoke bubbleheadedness and dishonest addvertising. You can call rubbing my armpits with sandpaper the "Good Wash," but that doesn't make it good. Call it a national sales tax, and we can talk.)

As I said, Marking isn't stupid. He says some reasonable things about the state of American politics. He just lacks the breadth of policy knowledge necessary to be an effective Representative for South Dakota.

Herseth Sandlin Owns State Fair Debate, Hammers Noem

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and State Representative Kristi Noem have debated live five times now. Yesterday's high-noon debate at the Women's Building (isn't that inherently unfair to B. Thomas Marking?) at the South Dakota State Fair was the first one I've attended. The experience changed my mind in one significant way. Herseth Sandlin is no longer our little princess smiling and waving her way to Washington. She's a fighter, ready to play hardball of the highest sort, all facts and figures that her opponent can't beat. Noem is the new pageant princess, not paying attention, stuck on her note cards, and thinking she's entitled to win on emotion and image.

Madville Times Feature: South Dakota State Fair U.S. House Debate, Sunday, September 5, 2010
1. Opening Statements
2. Farm Bill Cuts
3. Ag Lending
4. Cut Ethanol Subsidy?
5. Indirect Land Use Penalty
6. Renewable Energy Standard
7. Most Critical Issue
8. Creating Jobs
9. Who's the Princess?
----------------
p.s.: Marking Time

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin won Sunday's debate on all points, substance and style. Let me put on my debate-judge hat and tell you why. I'll break this up into a series of posts: a 90-minute debate provides a lot of material!

Opening Statements: Kristi Noem drew first speaking position. She spent half of her opening pointing out her photogenic family members in the audience (husband and comrade in speed Bryon, kids, Grandma Arnold) and pointing out how wonderful the State Fair is and how "our family always comes to the State Fair." Noem also included a sprinkling of folksy "Well goodness sakes" and similar Palinisms (are you running for Congress or a remake of The Waltons?).

When she turned to policy, she still wrapped it in family and emotion, with her well-worn story about her family going into debt for ten years to pay off the estate tax after the tragedy of her father's death (a story about which there are some pertinent legal and financial questions, like why there was an estate tax if Mom was still alive, and just how rich the Arnolds must have been to even qualify for the estate tax threshold). Noem then noted that her opponent's very first vote each session has been to elect Nancy Pelosi as speaker. "I don't support Nancy Pelosi's agenda for this country," said Noem, without specifying what that agenda is. Again, Noem is avoiding specifics and playing for the emotional response to a name and an image.

Ah, but Noem did have a couple specifics: she mentioned Herseth Sandlin's votes for the stimulus package and for extending the federal debt ceiling, both of which Noem said were just bad.

Noem then borrowed the tactic launched by Chris Nelson last December: where Herseth Sandlin votes against Pelosi, attack the procedural votes. Noem said as Assistant Majority Leader in the State House, she knows that if you really oppose a bill, you can show some leadership and convince colleagues to kill it.

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wasted no time dismantling what few relevant specifics Noem put on the table in her opening comments. She briefly mentioned having "lots of family" at the fair and Zachary probably out looking at four-wheelers, then got to business. She said Noem sounds like she's moving to San Francisco to run against Pelosi herself.

Herseth Sandlin then recited a list of fights she's had against Republicans to protect South Dakota interests. In 2004, she wrestled House Ag Committee Republicans who wanted to weaken Country of Origin Labeling. She cited Bush Administration and Congressional foot-dragging on drought assistance that she fought for until her party took over and made it happen in 2007. She cited her work to put together a good bipartisan 2008 Farm Bill that President Bush vetoed twice. Herseth Sandlin emphasized that GOP House Leader John Boehner voted to sustain that veto twice.

Now notice the difference in tactics: Noem just shouts "Pelosi!" and hopes ad hominem is enough. Herseth Sandlin shouts "Boehner!" but then ties his name to a specific policy.

Herseth Sandlin then turned to note that she has worked with her GOP colleagues in the House, as well as with the Bush Administration, to improve forest management and pass support for renewable fuels. Herseth Sandlin said that South Dakota can't afford to turn over its lone House seat to "a partisan mouthpiece for either party's agenda." The subtext here: Do you think a GOP/Tea Party candidate being feted as a GOP "Young Gun" and given big face time on Fox News will be allowed to buck her party and work with the Obama Administration?

Herseth Sandlin then turned to her most recent vote, the Medicaid and education funding Congress dished out to help states. Herseth Sandlin pointed out that Governor Rounds requested and accepted that money because South Dakota seniors and students need that money. She said she worked to cut tax loopholes for multinational corporations to pay for that funding. Some Noemsters in the audience jeered when Herseth Sandlin spoke of successfully restoring the requirement that Congress pay for what it spends, but Herseth Sandlin, always listening, was ready to shoot back that Senator Thune supports the same requirement.

Herseth Sandlin said Noem has said she would have voted against that Medicaid and education assistance because closing those tax loopholes will cost businesses money. Herseth Sandlin then drops another hammer: "I will stand with seniors and students in South Dakota over multi-national corporations any day." That line has emotional appeal, but Herseth Sandlin roots the attack in specific policy, on a specific vote, on a specific position mouthed by her opponent. That's good debating.

Herseth Sandlin hit many more specific policy points that define what voters can expect from her in Congress. Herseth Sandlin was also more aggressive and intense than Noem. (And while Republicans may now try to spin aggressive and intensity as agitation and lack of composure, I don't recall the GOP having a problem with agression and intensity during all the town hall shouting they did during the health care debate.) On substance and style in the opening round, advantage Herseth Sandlin.

Dang, and that's just the opening statements! I'll analyze the candidates' responses to questions and their closing statements in subsequent posts. Stay tuned! (Boy, it's a good thing I only have ten minutes to write a typical high school debate ballot, right, kids? :-) )

Marking Pulls Plug on Campaign... Temporarily

Just home from the State Fair—beautiful day! My divine Miss K was not terribly impressed with the Congressional candidates. debate, but she found the puppies, miniature horses, bunnies, and pigs adorable.

In news almost as big, Independent U.S. House candidate B. Thomas Marking announced at the Congressional candidates' debate that he is suspending his campaign for a few days. His employer, Uncle Sam, has called him away for some FEMA training. In his closing statement, Marking told a cheek-by-jowl audience in the Women's Building Auditorium that he thought about saying no, but then decided his current duties as a public servant outweigh the needs of the campaign. Marking neither confirmed nor denied that the Madville Times helped him make this hard decision.

Marking said we can expect him to return after the training to ramp up the campaign. He also noted that the woman he dreams of replacing with online polls, Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, will also be off the campaign trail for a bit as Congress reconvenes (scheduled dates: September 13 through October 8), meaning GOP challenger Kristi Noem will have the state all to herself. Noem, of course, won't notice, since she already thinks she and her family are the only people on the highway.
--------------------------------
Coming up tomorrow: full analysis of the U.S. House candidates' State Fair debate! Who said what and who kicked butt... but first, I've got to sleep off a big day of sunshine, cute animals, and deep bull. Stay tuned!

Pull the Plug on Marking

I am hard on third-party candidates because I hope for so much from them. As a blogger and even as a Democrat, I believe we'd have much livelier and more instructive election discussions and debates if we had a viable third party, or at least a sufficiently strong Independent movement that would offer voters alternatives to the status quo. And I can't help rooting for underdogs.

I cast my first Presidential vote for H. Ross Perot. He fired up millions of supporters, entered the popular lexicon (remember the giant sucking sound?), and won nearly 19% of the popular vote. He had lots of facts and figures handy, and he was excited to talk about them. Plus, he used charts (and still does!). Perot came across as if he'd done his homework and was ready to do the job. Perot's running mate, the venerable Admiral James Bond Stockdale, alas, presented himself as shovel-ready... and not for the handle.

Listening to Independent B. Thomas Marking on SDPB's Dakota Midday yesterday, I heard more Stockdale than Perot. If passion and enthusiasm are suddenly anathema to good politics, then Marking ought to be the GOP's favorite. Not once did Marking sound fired up about his campaign or this 30 minutes of free air time to reach voters statewide. Marking gave his usual brief answers. That's a plus in some settings, but not in campaign mode. Every time a reporter asks you a question, you need to give an answer that shows how deeply you've thought through the issue. You need to tie that question into your preferred key messages and hit them hard. You need to own the airtime, own the microphone, talk like you are the boss. Instead, Marking comes across as a nice enough gentleman on the street, surprised to be interrupted by some reporter asking him political questions, and eager to return to his daily stroll.

Marking also has a bad habit of dodging questions. He doesn't dodge creatively. He doesn't buffalo or bluster to make listeners forget some uncomfortable question and come away remembering that he sounded smart and tough. Marking just declines to answer. He did it at the Sioux Empire Fair House debate. He did it Thursday on the radio. He declined to answer a listener question about helping people pay for long-term care because his mother was listening and is facing long-term questions herself. What, is Marking planning to put old folks on ice floes and doesn't want Mom to see it coming?

Come on, B. Thomas, that long-term care question is exactly the kind of question you should answer. It's a golden opportunity to show you understand the policy problem on a personal level. That's why your opponent Kristi Noem beats the drum on estate tax, because she has what sounds like a compelling personal narrative to tell. (Actually, given that the details of her story don't add up and that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has a better plan with more deficit responsibility, Noem might want to drop it... but that's another post!)

Marking also failed to answer a question about economic stimulus. He mouthed the armchair quarterback points anyone could get from two minutes reading the KELO forums. When SDPB host Paul Guggenheimer asked Marking for specific ways he would use the stimulus money better, Marking had nothing. He mumbled something about having to consult with economic experts. Bonk. It's September. If you haven't already consulted with economic experts and come up with some alternatives to the economic stimulus, you're not ready for the job of U.S. Congressman.

The rest of Marking's statements are more regurgitation. He toots the national 30% sales tax horn, like every other casual Libertarian radio listener. He says a national sales tax would be better than income and other taxes, because (paraphrasing) we would shift taxes away from investment and savings and all the things that make the economy grow and instead tax consumption. Never mind that consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy. Never mind that a national sales tax opens Social Security to more fraud and removes the same amount of money from the market economy as the current system (if not more). Marking just hears "Fair Tax" and thinks it must be good.

Even on his single best (his only) distinguishing idea, the online referendum, Marking shows a disappointing superficiality of thought. Guggenheimer asks how an online referendum differs from the current system of just writing or calling your Congressperson. Marking says (paraphrasing) that calls and letters give a distorted view of the general feeling of the population. Marking never confronts the obvious: implement an online referendum in Congress, and interested parties will wage concerted get-out-the-vote efforts, just as they do now with online polls and real elections. A random sample would likely give a better view of the general feeling of the population than Marking's online referendum... and Marking doesn't seem to get that.

I advocated for B. Thomas Marking to be included in all of the debates, hoping he would be a butt-kicker. Alas, he's not getting his boots off the ground. He's not showing the doubled fire in the belly he needs to make up for the inherent disadvantages of third-party/non-party status. He's not making the most of his media appearances to make headlines and drive the conversation. And he's not demonstrating any defining or deep grasp of the issues that promises great contributions to the election discourse.

Marking isn't ready for Congress. He's not even ready for a great quixotic campaign that would stir up the electorate and worry the frontrunners.

If you want to be a good third-party candidate, you don't have to be Ross Perot. But don't hang around being James Stockdale. B-Thom, save your money, quit now, and enjoy autumn in the Hills with your family.

Herseth Sandlin Turns Tables on Noem; Marking Blows Opportunity

Well, I was hoping to enjoy the archived video of the first Herseth Sandlin–Noem–Marking Congressional debate at the Sioux Empire Fair yesterday. But the video provided by the Web wizards at that Sioux Falls paper got only one question in before it hitched, skipped, and crashed my browser. I'll keep trying....

Nonetheless, I've seen and read enough to take heart: Herseth Sandlin came out swinging, with exactly the aggressive style she needs to beat back the well-funded Republican attack machine operating behind the slogan-chantin' figurehead of Kristi Noem.

Where Noem began with the predictable reference to Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi, Herseth Sandlin responded by positioning herself against the big-spending tendencies of both parties and that obstructionism of John Boehner. Where Noem backpedaled and rode the fence on her own support for proposals to privatize Social Security*, Herseth Sandlin made her position against such Republican tomfoolery crystal clear. Where Noem whimpered about how bad the stimulus act was, Herseth Sandlin hammered the facts that Noem and the South Dakota Legislature gladly used that money to balance the budget, fund ethanol blender pump legislation, and avoid hard decisions.

One of Noem's big points, Arizona's immigration law, shows the misalignment of her priorities and the ease with which teabaggers get tied in knots. Noem shows her desire to Glenn-Beckify the race, talking about another state's policy that doesn't have much impact on South Dakota. Then she wraps her position in this contradiction:

"When we are sitting here in a recession and need dollars to go to our priorities, our priorities should not be our administration and our country suing our states when all they want to do is protect their people."

Oh, wait: so we shouldn't waste federal dollars on lawsuits to ensure that state laws don't violate the Constitution and individual rights (there's the line of attack Herseth Sandlin took), but it's great for states to expend hard-to-come-by tax dollars during a recession to challenge federal laws on the same grounds?

Sure, when Noem is just a pretty face in nice pictures from Texas, it's easy for voters to say, "Sure, I'll vote for her." But put her on the stage, pit her head to head with one of the smartest ladies in the state, and talk about the facts of Noem's partisanship and certain slavish submission to John Boehner and Michele Bachman (not to mention her farm-subsidized hypocrisy), and you'll see South Dakota voters run back to Herseth Sandlin's intelligent, South-Dakota-focused leadership in a hurry.

You can also tell Noem lost this first debate by the tenor of Republican response. Usually Republicans like being the aggressor. They like tough debating style, 1-2 punches and body checks against us wimpy Dukakis liberals who cling to our talking points. But let Stephanie Herseth Sandlin bring the heat and Noem remain stuck on her dull rehearsed lines, and suddenly Noem gets praise for being "mellow" and "on message" while Herseth Sandlin is "agitated" and "not the measured or scripted Stephanie we're used to." Check that, PP: that's the "measured and scripted Stephanie you were hoping for so you could offer your standard blog insults and portray Noem as the strong woman on stage.
---------------------------
Speaking of strength, alas, Independent candidate B. Thomas Marking has none. I agree: the undone necktie was an unnecessary distraction. You either wear it at full mast, or you bag it. And marking's debate tactics are terrible. He gave up valuable debate time, giving brief answers or worse totally ceding his allotted time. I always tell debaters to use every second they have. When I hear a kid at a debate tournament get up for an eight-minute constructive speech, deliver just one main point, and then bail out after just two minutes, that kid has probably torpedoed his team's chance of getting my vote, unless that one point is not just good but amazing.

When you're the third-party candidate, when you're guaranteed to get as little attention as the easily-confused mainstream media can get by with, you don't cede your rebuttal. You don't decline any opportunity to take the mic and talk to a bunch of voters at a fair or on the Web, especially those rare opportunities when you are sitting right next to the two big-name candidates and thus have the chance to show yourself every bit as smart and patriotic and ready for the job of Congressperson as they are. Failing to grab that easy opportunity makes me feel silly for having defended your right to participate in the big media debates.

I do note Marking appears to have shifted position again, saying now that he would treat the online referendum he'd set up as binding on his votes in Congress, not simply as advisory. In other words, Marking doesn't want us to vote for him; he wants us to vote for a computer.
---------------------------------
*See Noem's online chat with RCJ's Kevin Woster, May 11, 2010 in which she endorses Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) budget proposal, which includes privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Care to limb back on the fence, Kristi?

Big Majority Want Indy Marking in Debates

Most of South Dakota's mainstream media scrupulously avoids ever linking back to us blogs. I thus don't expect the Mitchell Daily Republic to pay much attention to this post.

But maybe they ought. Following MDR boss Korrie Wenzel's decision to exclude Independent B. Thomas Marking from the U.S. House candidates' debate at the Corn Palace Festival on August 28, I posted the following online poll:

Should SD media include Independent candidate for U.S. House B. Thomas Marking in live public debates with candidates Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Kristi Noem?

Your responses, dear readers:

• Yes: 115 (78%)
• No: 32 (22%)
  

Voting was pretty steady through the week. I didn't detect any poll-sandbagging effort from the Marking grassroots (does such a group exist yet?) or from any Operation Chaos mercenaries from either of the other campaigns.

A few potential interpretations of these numbers:

1. Those darned liberals reading the Madville Times just want Marking on stage to confuse and split the anti-incumbent vote (hey, not that I'd mind).
2. Voters want to see if Marking will dare the same zingers face-to-face with the big dogs as he's willing to lob on YouTube.
3. (I like this one best): Voters want every candidate, regardless of party, to have a fair chance to make their pitch to the electorate.

Mitchell Daily Republic, 78% of this poll sample join me in urging you to change your mind and invite Mr. Marking to the Corn Palace stage with Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Kristi Noem. And other South Dakota media, consider the possibility that South Dakota voters might actually want to hear from every candidate on the ballot.

Evil Corporate Contributions Disqualify Herseth Sandlin, Noem... Who's Left?

So Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin took a $1000 donation from a BP employee last December. Fair enough. I'm pleased to see South Dakota's conservative bloggisariat is coming around to my position that Big Oil and big corporate money are evil.

I agree with HuffPost and PP: I don't like seeing my Congresswoman funding her campaign with money from dirty, greedy, Gulf-killing BP. Her being in the company of Alaska's Republican oil lapdog Lisa Murkowski on this "issue" is embarrassing. And I tell you what: if the people of South Dakota vote Stephanie Herseth Sandlin out of office purely on the basis of her taking money from Big Oil, I will consider that a giant leap forward in the political thinking of our state. I would expect my District 8 neighbors to take the same stance toward State Senator Russell Olson and kick him out of office for sucking up to TransCanada by killing the pipeline tax and preserving their tax exemptions.

Also worth noting: over the last 20 years, 71% of BP-related campaign contributions have gone to Republicans. I wonder why this issue didn't make PP's radar until Herseth Sandlin's name popped up?

I'd be more than happy to be able to go through every candidate's donor list and exercise a line-item veto on contributions from sources I or my fellow South Dakotans might consider scuzzy... speaking of which, where's Republican candidate Kristi Noem getting her money? A quick run-through of the Federal Election Commission numbers show...

1. $500 from Harms Oil of Brookings
   
2. $500 from Howes Oil of Sioux Falls
3. $1250 from subsidy-sucking Poet Ethanol
   
4. $500 from economy-crashing Citibank (SHS has $12,750 from Citigroup)
   
5. $450 from usurer extraordinaire Premier Bank
   
6. $1000 from an out-of-state Metabank banker
7. $4650 from Sanford Health's CEO and docs (surely to promote evil stem-cell research)
   
8. $2400 from wealthy venture capitalist Steve Kirby
9. $1000 from Apple (Dietr! What are you thinking?!)
10. $2400 from Sioux City's Agri Beef Co.
11. $6900 from lawyers

Interestingly, I can't find any itemized contributions for Independent candidate B. Thomas Marking. Looks like he's our man!

---------------------------
Bonus Raspberries: As for the guy who isn't running because no one would chase him, don't forget that Senator John Thune has received $3500 from BP. Thune's biggest donors include the bankers and real estate agents, among whom one might find a fair amount of responsibility for our current economic plight. Lawyers also like Thune, as do Poet, Xcel Energy, DM&E, Wal-Mart, and Moyle Petroleum.

Larry Pressler, Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, Larry Diedrich, and Rick Weiland also appear on the two-decade roll of BP donations to South Dakota candidates. BP employees have also given $250 to our neighbors Michele Bachmann and Al Franken. Go figure.

New Poll, Vote Now: Let Marking Debate SHS and Noem?

The Mitchell Daily Republic's exclusion of Independent candidate for U.S. House B. Thomas Marking from the Corn Palace Festival debate on August 28 got me thinking: what's a guy got to do to earn a spot on the political debate stage? How much popular viability beyond getting enough signatures to make the ballot must a candidate demonstrate to be taken seriously?

While we ponder that, take the latest Madville Times poll: "Should SD media include Independent candidate for U.S. House B. Thomas Marking in live public debates with candidates Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Kristi Noem?" Click your position right here in the right-hand sidebar, then drop a comment. Tell us all what you think earns a candidate the right to be heard in a public debate. Voting and comment is open to everyone, regardless of your potential for winning a public vote. ;-)

Poll is open until breakfast time Saturday, around which time I'll post the results and offer some more commentary. Tell your friends, and vote now!

Mitchell Media Muzzle Marking

I offer my sympathy this morning to independent underdog B. Thomas Marking. The U.S. House candidate was told by Mitchell Daily Republic publisher Korrie Wenzel that he will not be allowed to participate in the big Corn Palace Festival Debate with his big-party opponents Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Kristi Noem on August 28. Marking says he'll still come to Mitchell that day (and hey, who won't? It's the Corn Palace Festival!!!) to visit with voters. Marking appears to accept the Mitchell mainstream media's exclusion of outsider voices with a sigh and a shrug, as well as optimism that he'll still get to debate the big dogs in October on SDPB and at other events.

Wenzel defends his exclusion of Marking by citing the independent's low marks in the polls. Of course, the only such data available comes from the Republican-run Rasmussen polls... and Republicans have a keen interest in seeing anti-incumbent sentiment focused on their novice GOP darling rather than dividing voters' attention with a real outsider.

Attend to Wenzel's circular reasoning:

I understand if he’s disappointed, but we have to remember that we only get an hour per debate and I think the audience will be better served by hearing what the top candidates — candidates who appear to have an overwhelming lead in the polls over Marking — have to say [Korrie Wenzel, quoted in Tom Lawrence, "Excluded from Debate, Marking Plans Separate Event in Mitchell," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.07.23].

Hmmm... could it be that the two "top candidates" are on top mostly because people have already heard a lot from them? Are people really "better served" by hearing from the people they already know? Might they not gain even more benefit by hearing a new voice who doesn't usually get much attention from the media information gatekeepers? Maybe the Corn Palace Festival would do the voters a favor by excluding Herseth Sandlin and Noem and giving Independent Marking a chance to catch up with the "top candidates" who have lots of money to spend on ads in Wenzel's newspaper?

(Oh, oops, sorry—there I go again, slipping into advocacy for affirmative action.)

I'll admit, I'm not wholly convinced Marking deserves a seat at the debate. After all, I've criticized the Constitution Party for whining about having to round up a certain threshold of popular support before being allowed into the statewide political arena. Allowing every fringe candidate a seat at the debate table can make for a messy forum.

But as Marking notes, he did get enough signatures to make the ballot, and as an Independent, he had to get as many signatures as Herseth Sandlin and Noem combined. Marking has already made it through the gate of statute and popular support to make the ballot: should media executives be allowed to erect another gate to keep challengers out?

In the meantime, B. Thomas, add more meat to that Facebook page, fire up a blog, and crank out some more videos!

(And I wonder what other wacky tea-flavored independent candidates the Mitchell Daily Republic might muzzle....)

----------------
Bonus Baseball: I notice that on July 14, the Marking for House Facebook page got updated with three photos from a Citizens for Liberty event. One photo features Marking in front of a "Curd for Congress" poster; the other two show R. Blake himself in the frame with B. Thomas. Is this a clever ploy for Curdistas disappointed that Noem stole their thunder? Or is B. Tom just solidifying his support among the ever-important first-initial-only crowd?

Update 13:55 CDT: I still sympathize with Marking, even though he makes the patently absurd claim that Stephanie Herseth represents the far left. B. Tom, I know the far left. I am the far left in South Dakota (which isn't saying much). Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is no far leftist.

Marking Scores Indy Zinger, Compares Congress to Nursing Home

Hat tip to Newsmonger!

Holy cow! B. Thomas Marking can swing hard! And I'm not just talking about his tennis game.

"Your Independent candidate" for South Dakota's lone U.S. House seat has two new campaign videos up on his YouTube channel. In this video, Marking wittily dispatches a snide remark from Republican candidate Kristi Noem and takes a Reaganesque swipe at the youth and inexperience of his opponents. (To be fair, Noem's original comment to the Yankton Press & Dakotan appeared to be directed at primary opponent Chris Nelson.)



"The only candidate with silver hair in this race" compares Congress to a nursing home: "Both institutions are filled with folks who have a hard time recalling their history, balancing a checkbook, or performing basic functions like reading a document." (And don't think Marking's attack is aimed solely at the incumbent: Noem has her own troubles balancing her own budget and the state's without federal handouts.)

"Bring it on kids," indeed! I hope Marking will get a chance to show this kind of wit on the campaign trail and on the debate stage with the two main party candidates.

* * *

Bonus points to Marking on both of his new videos for homemade campaigning done on the cheap. He definitely didn't fly to Texas to shoot these ads. One point off for stretched idiom in this video, where he tries too hard to make a play on words and family history (connotations are open to debate, but to my ear, old school is more positive than negative).

Independent Candidate B.T. Marking Promotes Nationwide e-Democracy

Seth Tupper pops the press release first; the general media follows up with a couple sentences: professed independent B. Thomas Marking from Custer has declared his candidacy for South Dakota's lone U.S. House seat. Lifelong government employee Marking offers some small-government talk about citizen rights and small bills—but seriously, people, this idea that a bill is bad because it is long is wearing thin: screaming, "Oh no! So many pages!" feels like a lazy freshman's excuse for not engaging with the true complexity of policy issues.

Marking also offers some views on energy independence (o.k.), a vague call for personal responsibility as the solution to health care costs (dodging the issue), and securing the borders (any daylight between him and pro-immigration Black Hills neighbor Thad Wasson?).

What really catches my attention, though, is Marking's call for electronic democracy. Far from the pointless Tea Party hyperventilations of "Republic not a Democracy!!!" Marking actually thinks we need more direct democracy. In an October 11 comment in the Custer County Chronicle, Marking calls to task editor Norma Najacht for a little "RNAD" ramble:

Walt Whitman, in about 1860, noted that democracy \"is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawakened . . . It is a great word, whose history, I suppose, remains unwritten, because that history has yet to be enacted.\" Whitman\'s words are as true today as then. The ideal of democracy has never been achieved, not in ancient Athens, not even in modern Switzerland. And pure democracy may never be achieved on the level of the nation-state. That said, this beautiful concept must be kept alive and vigorously defended. It will always be the standard by which we gauge the shortcomings of all other forms of government, most especially our own.

...A constitutional republic was the best we could do in colonial times. It was a revolutionary departure from oppressive monarchy -- the system the founding fathers really feared. In the past 233 years, however, our world has changed a bit. At least one founding father, Thomas Jefferson, knew that \"laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.\" Alas, our institutions of government have not kept pace. Furthermore, if modern technologies can take us closer to democratic governance, why settle for something less? [B. Thomas Marking, comment, Custer County Chronicle, 2009.10.11]

Marking's #1 goal is to use modern technology to allow us, the voters of South Dakota, to directly control his work in Congress:

Within 90 days of being sworn in, my staff will set up a secure computer system and register all interested South Dakota voters, so they can begin voting on national policy issues (domestic and foreign). The majority decisions of these referenda will dictate my voting on bills brought to the floor of the House. (Relax. If the internet isn't your thing, we'll accept paper ballots.) [B. Thomas Marking, "Goal 1," campaign website, retrieved 2009.11.06]

Wowza! That's actually a cool idea, a step more radical than the relatively simple participatory but non-binding information system I've conceived of for the South Dakota Legislature (shades of OpenCongress.org). Mr. Marking has even written a novel, Amendment XXIX, on the issue.

I suspect even amidst Tea Party fervor, South Dakota's voters (and the mainstream media, which needs a much simpler two-party battle narrative) probably won't give half a hoot about independent candidates. But I hope Mr. Marking can get his foot in the door and start a conversation about electronic democracy.

What would Jefferson do? Given the Internet, he might side with Marking and recognize that today's tech tools make possible a direct, lively democracy that the Founding Fathers couldn't make work in horse-and-buggy days.