South Dakota Politics

Election Heat: Halloween Edition

With a week to go to E-Day, Republicans are trying hard to encourage their troops.  Here are some reasons for optimism offered by the White House, according to the Allen Report at Time Online.

1)    No Republican is being taken by surprise, unlike many Democrats in 1994.
2) Absentee ballot requests and returns, closely tracked by the party, are meeting or exceeding past levels for Republicans in key states and districts.
3) When the national parties, national campaign committees, state "victory" committee accounts and competitive campaigns are added up, Republicans maintained a substantial financial advantage over Democrats at the last filing period.
4) Republicans say the district-by-district playing field favors them in several structural ways not reflected in national polls.
5) The get-out-the-vote machine designed by Rove and now-Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman in 2001 was dubbed the "72-hour" program, but officials say that's quite a misnomer and that it's really a 17-week or even two-year program.

Now all of these are real, I suspect, and they will make a difference.  But I don't think they are likely to make the difference, this time round.  There are too many Republicans behind in too many places for all these marginal advantages to work their usual magic.  At best they will prevent the Democrats from winning in a blow out.

I am guessing that the Republicans lose control of the House by a few seats, and hold onto the Senate by a seat.  That's hardly a daring prediction.  Right now it's the point spread. 

Legislators Subpoena AG's Office

Argus Leader:

The state Legislature’s Executive Board subpoenaed the Attorney General’s Office today, asking for all information related to the AG’s investigation of state Sen. Dan Sutton.

Sutton, a Flandreau Democrat seeking his fourth term in the Senate, has been the subject of a months-long criminal investigation following an accusation that he groped a high school page during the last legislative session.

Sutton has denied any wrongdoing.

The decision to subpoena the AG’s investigation is the first step in the Senate’s inquiry into Sutton.

The Senate meets in special session Nov. 27 to determine if Sutton broke Senate rules – a separate inquiry from the criminal investigation.

For more on this story, see Wednesday's Argus Leader.

Saddam Trial Update

New York Times:

Witnesses at Saddam Hussein's genocide trial on Tuesday gave harrowing accounts of surviving killing fields where Iraqi soldiers executed Kurdish prisoners in sprays of gunfire and dumped their bodies in mass graves.

One witness, who testified behind a curtain to conceal his identity, told the court that as he and other detainees waited in a bus in the desert for what they suspected to be a firing squad, they decided to attack the sole guard in the vehicle.

''But other guards outside the bus shot at random, killing many people,'' he said. ''I saw my friends falling dead like dry leaves from a tree.''

He said he ''miraculously'' managed to escape. ''I don't know how I fled. I can't remember if I jumped or walked.''

...

Another witness Tuesday recounted how he survived a separate massacre by feigning death when Iraqi soldiers shot at detainees lying at their feet.

The witness, who also spoke behind a curtain, said he was one of dozens of Kurdish prisoners who were taken in buses to an execution site in western Iraq in April 1988.

The witness said the prisoners knew they were going to be shot when they arrived at the killing site near Ramadi because they heard gunfire. They said the Islamic prayers that are customary before death, asking for one's sins to be forgiven.

''The guards took two prisoners at a time from the bus, shot them dead and dragged their bodies to a huge ditch,'' he said.

''When it was my turn, I and my cousin -- whom I asked to sit next to me so that we would be killed together -- alighted from the bus, were blindfolded and handcuffed. I beseeched God to save me.

''The guards asked us to lie down on the ground and then they sprayed us with bullets. I felt no pain. I thought that maybe when the bullet pierces the body, one doesn't feel the pain, but then I heard my cousin dying.

''We were pulled away by our legs. I pretended I was dead.''

SD in NYT

South Dakota is the subject of this New York Times story:

The federal appeals court in St. Louis yesterday blocked the enforcement of a South Dakota law that would have required doctors there to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure would “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Laws requiring mandatory counseling for women seeking abortions, and their informed consent to the procedure, are common. The United States Supreme Court in 1992 and federal appeals courts since then have upheld such laws, which typically require that medical information about the procedure and its health risks be provided to women before they can proceed with it.

The defect in the South Dakota law, said the majority in yesterday’s 2-to-1 decision by a panel of United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, was that it supplemented factual information with a value judgment.

Legislative Investigations

As the South Dakota legislature gets ready to convene a special session to deal with pagegate, the Florida legislature is also tooling up for an investigation regarding one of their legislators.

The Indian Electorate in South Dakota Politics

In recent years the Indian vote has become a crucial aspect of South Dakota elections.  In 2002, John Thune lost his Senate bid against Tim Johnson by 524 votes and the Indian vote played a big part in that (see John Fund's chapter on South Dakota in his book Stealing Elections).  Their vote played a big part in 2004 as well.  While Daschle received 1,000 more votes in Shannon County than Johnson did in 2002, Thune more than doubled his vote from 2002, from 248 to 564.  Daschle carried more raw votes than 2002, but Thune showed respectable gains percentage-wise.  The Argus Leader this morning notes that their votes may again play a big role in November, especially on the abortion ban.  Excerpt:

Since 2002, when Sen. Tim Johnson narrowly won a re-election bid against then-Rep. John Thune in large measure because newly registered Indian voters overwhelmingly backed him, the emerging power of the Indian electorate has been notable in South Dakota politics.

As the state decides whether to retain or reject its abortion ban on Nov. 7, the role of Indian voters might again affect the outcome.

"In our culture, they put children number one. That's still there, it always will be there," says Mabel Two Lance, 62, of Pine Ridge.

At the same time, many in Indian Country want little to do with a vote they say won't affect them - because the tribes are sovereign nations.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is at the center of speculation over Indian votes and the abortion ban for several reasons. Voter-registration drives around Pine Ridge in the past five years have enfranchised thousands of new voters, and tribal members this year recalled chairwoman Cecilia Fire Thunder after she announced she would build an abortion clinic at Pine Ridge. Bruce Whalen, a tribal member and the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth in the U.S. House race, also has made his anti-abortion stance a centerpiece of his campaign.

But there seems to be no unanimity of opinion about Referred Law 6, the abortion ban, at Pine Ridge or elsewhere in Indian Country.

Be sure to read the whole story.

UPDATE:  In more news regarding Indian Country, the Argus Leader reports that the Oglala Sioux Tribe will proceed with a general election on Tuesday.  The primary election results had been challenged earlier by an election appeals board claiming uncounted and inconsistent voting numbers in a district on Pine Ridge, but the tribal council has decided to proceed with the general election.  They will be choosing a tribal chairman, vice chairman, and tribal council members.

AIM

As many readers know, I've been conducting research on the American Indian Movement for quite some time now.  There's a new book out about them entitled The Unquiet Grave: The FBI and the Struggle for the Soul of Indian Country by Steve Hendricks.  I just started reading it last night.  I'll try to get a review written once I'm finished and let you know how it is.

Numbskull Quote of the Day

John Kerry:  “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Yes, you're reading this right.  Kerry told a college crowd that they should study hard and get a good education--or end up like losers in the military.  This coming from a man who once wanted to command these men and women from the White House.   Then again, Kerry has never been one to hide his contempt for the armed forces.  Will the national Democrats like Ned Lamont and Bob Casey Jr. dispute Kerry's claim that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines don't have what it takes to succeed in life?  More locally, will Stephanie Herseth denounce Kerry's claim?

UPDATE:  Kerry has made things worse.  On the one hand, he claims the entire issue was engineered by "right-wing nut jobs," led by a "doughy Rush Limbaugh."  Then later this afternoon he claimed it was a "mangled joke" aimed at President Bush.  He can't have it both ways.  This is, after all, the man who has always looked upon the armed forces with disdain: he called American troops rapists and murderers in his Senate testimony in 1971, and last year accused them of terrorizing Iraqi families on midnight raids.  Finally, Austin Bay notes:

In the spare space of 24 hours Kerry has resurrected the Vietnam Syndrome –at least his and the left wing of the Democratic Party’s Vietnam (loser’s) Syndrome. This is stupid but particularly stupid in the last week of a national election. Doubly stupid in the midst of a long, grinding war. Kerry is trapped, in an odd sort of amber. He’s stuck on stupid and stuck in the past simultaneously. John Kerry, the stegosaurus of American politics. (Okay, I’m unfair to stegosaurs, they had backbones and spikes on their tails– but the drawing at the link is cute.)

Why didn’t Senator Kerry just apologize? “I’m sorry for what I said. I meant to crack a joke and it came out sounding like an insult to US troops. Forgive me. We owe our defenders so much.”

But we know why.

UPDATE:  A Democratic Congressman told ABC: "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too."  Bruce Braley, Democratic Congressional candidate of Iowa, is canceling a campaign event scheduled for later this week with Sen. Kerry. 

Happy Halloween!

Plus, pumpkin carving with some not-so-average tools.

Hunting

Mobridge Tribune:

Although there seems to be less hunters coming to the area seeking to bag the much-sought after ringneck pheasant, those who are here are bagging birds but working harder at it, according to local officials.

The much-publicized drought and the effects of the hot, dry weather have had an impact on the opening weekend of hunting season, from the lack of cover for the birds, to concentration of the birds near water sources.

Area business owners said they could tell the number of hunters in the area was down from last year and according to one hotel owner, on a weekend that they normally turn people away, there were rooms available.

Connie Frailing, who with her husband Tim, operate Bridge City Bait in Mobridge, said the birds were "pretty wild" according to the hunters that gathered at the store, but most seemed to do fairly well.

"They (the hunters) are saying that the birds seem a little smarter this year," she laughed.

"Those with dogs did better than the others. They said there were a lot of birds out there, but they were having a hard time flushing them."

I went hunting yesterday at Dakota Black Goose by Arlington and the hunting wasn't too bad.  It was six of us with three dogs, so we had quite an advantage.  But overall it wasn't too hard to kick up birds.  It was the shooting that needed improvement, not our flushing skills.  Time to dig out my pheasant recipes and decide what to do with them.

The McGovern Legacy and Foreign Policy

Excerpt from the New York Times:

DEMOCRATS have spent three decades trying to exorcise the ghost of Senator George S. McGovern, whose losing 1972 presidential campaign calling for a withdrawal from Vietnam crystallized his party’s image as soft on national defense.

But surveying the midterm elections last week, Mr. McGovern, 84, said he sees an opportunity for an antiwar campaign in the 2008 presidential race.

“I would love to be running again if I were 25 years younger,” he said in an interview from his Montana home. “I think I would win.”

On the eve of the midterms, dismay over the Iraq war has propelled the Democrats to a political status they have not enjoyed since before Mr. McGovern: for the first time in decades, polls show that the public trusts Democrats as much as Republicans to handle foreign affairs.

But as they look ahead, Democrats are torn between two visions of their history. Some potential candidates in the 2008 Democratic primary and many liberal activists argue that the Republican responsibility for the Iraq war has, in effect, freed the Democrats from Mr. McGovern’s legacy. They say the 2006 elections will provide a mandate for a new antiwar argument: that troops can be pulled from Iraq in order to shore up American security elsewhere in the world.

Other strategists and political scientists argue that the Iraq war has given the Democrats a different opportunity to lay to rest their McGovernite image, in part by rejecting calls for a quick withdrawal in Iraq.

“All voters are doing is giving Democrats a chance, and we better not blow it,” said Gary Hart, the former senator and presidential candidate.

A younger McGovern could probably win the Democratic primary, Mr. Hart said, but he would still lose the general election. “Just running on a platform of ‘get us out of Iraq’ is not going to solve the Democrats’ problem on the issue of national security,” he said.

Big Government Conservatism

CNN:

A quarter century after the Reagan revolution and a dozen years after Republicans vaulted into control of Congress, a new CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."

The poll released Friday also showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans perceive, correctly, that the size and cost of government have gone up in the past four years, when Republicans have had a grip on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.

  ...

Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country's problems.

I agree with libertarian Neal Boortz that it might be good for the Republican Party if the Democrats captured the House and Republicans retained the Senate.  This would hopefully give them a wake-up call and force them to reconsider their principles that got them elected.  And frankly, given how some Republicans have acted while in power, they shouldn't maintain control in Washington.

UPDATE:  As a further testament to the strength of the Reagan Revolution, the New York Times reports that Democrats have begun producing less liberal candidates in order to win seats in Congress.  If the Republicans lose ground in the midterms, part of the reason may be because they failed to grasp the Reagan legacy.

District 2 Endorsements

The American News endorses Paul Dennert (Democrat) and Jim Lorenz (Republican) for House in District 2 and Brian Johnson (Republican) for Senate. 

Not Even Informed Consent

The US Appeals Court has upheld an injunction against South Dakota's informed consent law regarding abortion.  This law was challenged by Planned Parenthood.  Don't let the "No on 6" crowd fool you.  It isn't just the exceptions for rape and incest they worry about.  Anything that limits abortion in the least, including simply providing information to women, must be attacked in full.  Planned Parenthood will do everything it can, including fighting informed consent laws, waiting periods, and parental notification laws, to make sure there are as many abortion as possible. 

Governor Poll

Rounds up 22%. 

An Ineppt Reply

I have only a little to add to Professor Schaff's reply to Todd Epp.  I have generally admired Todd's blog as visually colorful and full of good humor.  Along with Mr. Heppler, I recently praised a post of his.  So I am a little shocked at his recent hissy fit.   It appears as if the strain of  working for the Billion campaign has gotten to him.  As Professor Schaff indicates, I was trying to be funny with these lines:

So our "Harrisburg Lawyer, political consultant and writer" now deems himself a professor, qualified to comment on literature.  Welcome to the profession, Professor Epp, Doctor of Thinkology.

It would be quite absurd to argue that one needs a Ph.D. to comment on Orwell's 1984.  Books are written for whoever can read them.  Nor did I mean to seriously question his intellectual credentials, or expect that he would be as touchy about them as he obviously is.  I think being a lawyer implies a high level of learning, and have no interest in a contest of  intellectual manhood. 

I wrote the above lines because  Epp has been calling  Dr. Seeber and myself "the NSU  Hardy boys," and "super sleuths, all year long because we dared to write about a police investigation of a death.  It certainly seemed to me that he was implying that we were writing outside our field of expertise, and that there was something pretentious and illegitimate about that.  My point was that Professor Seeber and I have as much authority to express an opinion on that matter as he does on Orwell.  But Todd didn't get it, and replied as if the words above were meant seriously.  Now he dispenses with Professor Schaff and myself by this method:

My wife has a very effective tool to deal with people who are [f]ools: She says they no long exist.  Life is too short to suffer fools of such magnitude.  . . . Blanchard, Schaff, the Ayn Rand quote is my last gift to you.  You both officially do not exist in Eppland.

So Todd's answer to criticism is to clap both hands over his eyes and ignore the critic.  Apparently his wife is content to suffer fools of little magnitude.

Fat People and Global Warming

In an earlier post I suggested that the tax on tobacco (it's proven to kill people!) should be followed by a tax on ugly people, who are proven to be annoying, and a tax on fat people who are proven to be overweight.  Why the latter?  Well, the New York Times supplies me with an argument.

Last week the list of ills attributable to obesity grew: fat people cause global warming.

This latest contribution to the obesity debate comes in an article by Sheldon H. Jacobson of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and his doctoral student, Laura McLay. Their paper, published in the current issue of The Engineering Economist, calculates how much extra gasoline is used to transport Americans now that they have grown fatter. The answer, they said, is a billion gallons a year.

Their conclusion is in the same vein as a letter published last year in The American Journal of Public Health. Its authors, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did a sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much extra fuel airlines spend hauling around fatter Americans. The answer, they wrote, based on the extra 10 pounds the average American gained in the 1990’s, is 350 million gallons, which means an extra 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide.

Hildebrand Calls KSFY "revolting"

Argus Leader:

A South Dakota episode of ABC's "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," is causing some extreme advertising prices at KSFY, some say.

A 30-second TV ad costs $10,000 Sunday night on KSFY, so political consultant Steve Hildebrand decided not to buy time during the show that features a Toronto family getting a new home. The show airs two days before the election, which typically drives television ad prices higher, as well.

"I think it's revolting what KSFY is doing," said Hildebrand, who works for the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, a group that opposes a ban on abortion. Voters are being asked to decide the issue on the ballot.

Without the special circumstances, the spot in that time slot typically would cost $600 to $800.

"They (KSFY) know that their viewership is going to be very high in South Dakota that night, and they think that these political campaigns have a lot of money and the most urgent need," he said. "So they're going to try to sell those time slots at top dollar to people who need it the most."

But Kelly Manning, general manager of the Sioux Falls ABC affiliate station, says it's not a case of greed: He has only two minutes of local ad time during the entire hour broadcast, and he wants to reserve some of that time for the home builders.

Not all local advertisers paid $10,000 for 30 seconds during the 7-8 p.m. program. Only the last available time slot is priced that high, he said.

"We had about a minute for political stuff and a minute for local advertisers," Manning said. "We had to weigh it out carefully and make things as equal as possible. We wanted to save some for the builders, who did so much, and we as a community and state reap the benefits of this, bringing notoriety to our state."

South Dakota Furniture Mart of Sioux Falls was the primary donor for furnishings for the Thibodeau family's new home, giving about $25,000 in merchandise, including bedding and accessories.

The company bought a TV ad during the Sunday night show, said Gordy Wallenstein, president of the corporate parent company, Furniture Outlets USA.

Groucho Marx Of The Blogosphere

I recently saw an old Dick Cavett interview with Groucho Marx on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). I laughed for the whole 75 minutes.  Groucho Marx could read his grocery list and it'd be funny. 

Mr. Epp seems to have taken a cue from Groucho.  Mr. Epp is frustrated that he can't have a serious argument with us.  Let's review.  I posted a link to a piece by Martin Albl on Amendment C.  Mr. Epp went ballistic.  What a great routine.  He pretended not to know the difference between "dismiss" and "disagree."  Then he accuses Mr. Albl (or as Mr. Epp calls him, Mr. Albi) of being prejudiced and advocating something similar to the "one child policy" of Communist China.  Hilarious.  Because telling a woman she cannot kill her baby is exactly the moral equivalent of telling her she must kill her baby.  Both tell adults what to do with their bodies (or actually someone else's body, but who's counting). And killing babies and opposing same-sex marraige? Same thing.  Where does he get this stuff!  Todd's arguments against Mr. Albl (and me) include: your ideas are old; your ideas don't match my experience; adults should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies (I await Mr. Epp's arguments for legalizing prostitution, the sale of body parts, public nudity and drug use).

My colleague Ken Blanchard then wrote this post about Mr. Epp's interpretation of the novel 1984. Ken takes off on Epp's reference to Ken and Jim Seeber as the "Hardy Boys" to give Mr. Epp the appellation "Doctor of Thinkology."  I am pretty sure Ken was being funny.  It seems to be in the spirit of the "Hardy Boys" gag of Mr. Epp.  But perhaps I overestimate Mr. Epp's comedic talents.  Perhaps he actually thinks Blanchard and Seeber are in fact the Hardy Boys incarnate. In that case this post where he takes (self) righteous indignation at having his credentials questioned makes more sense.  Perhaps Mr. Epp has lost his sense of humor.  When I was a kid and I lost something it was often in the toy box.  Perhaps Mr. Epp should check there first.  Unless he is practicing irony in this post.  In that case: comedic genius! 

I loved this last one, where he says he can't get a decent argument from us while calling us jackasses.  Why isn't this guy on Leno?  So in the course of three posts Mr. Epp presents virtually no actual arguments defending his positions, but proceeds to call his opponents: prejudiced, bigots, totalitarians like the Communist Chinese, authoritarians (as distinct from totalitarians), elitist apologists for oppression, stuck in the Dark Ages,  haters, and we use our education to "perpetrate illegal wars, discriminate against the citizens, support crony capitalists, and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with those power elites," and (big finish!) jackasses.  And he's really mad at all the name calling and is frustrated that he can't get a serious argument.  What a routine.  Bravo! Perhaps he is making a riff on Groucho's routine from Horse Feathers: Whatever they're for, I'm against it!  Here's the sound file. 

Jacks Beat Davis

Argus Leader:

More than a few fans from a Hobo Day crowd of 15,248 - the third largest in South Dakota State University history - left Saturday's football game early.

They should have known better.

For the third time in four games, South Dakota State erased a double-digit deficit in the fourth quarter to beat a team ranked in the NCAA Division I-AA top 25.

In this instance, the Jackrabbits beat No. 16 University of California-Davis 22-21 in Great West Football Conference play at Coughlin-Alumni Stadium.

Abortion Ban

The abortion ban looks headed for repeal based on a new poll showing it losing 52% to 42%.

UPDATE:  It would seem the poll has some flaws, according to Sibby.

Beck on Sutton

Randell Beck of the Argus Leader sees pagegate as a "witch-hunt," and even quotes Arthur Miller's "The Crucible":

I had to laugh last week when I read Sen. Ed Olson's comments about whether a special legislative session on the matter should be open to the public. He doesn't think so: "I'm just really sensitive because I'm closer to it than most. Because of my connection to those folks, I don't want a circus."

Great. Instead, we've got a public witch hunt featuring vague talk from Attorney General Larry Long about a "criminal investigation," innuendo from self-righteous legislators suddenly concerned about the scruples of a brother senator and a hearty "me too!" from an ambitious governor predictably concerned about being perceived as pro-pedophile. Give me a circus any day.

I don't mind telling you that as we enter Act II of this sad drama, in which we find some lawmakers piling on for a public lynching, your humble editor is beginning to wonder exactly who the victim is here.

...

In "The Crucible," Arthur Miller's searing and dramatic portrait of the witch trials in 17th century Salem, Mass., fiction becomes fact as hysteria overpowers justice. Men, swept along in a surreal tide of suspicion and fear, choose sides for the wrong reasons. Cynicism overshadows conscience.

Danforth, the trial judge, represents those who seem hellbent on drawing a line in the sand for the rest of the world.

"You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or must be counted against it, there be no road between," he says in Act III. "This is a sharp time, now, a precise time - we live no longer in the dusky afternoon when evil mixed itself with good and befuddled the world."

Yes, just now the machinery seems set against Dan Sutton.

I'm not sure I would characterize this as a "witch-hunt".  Yes we have to be careful because we don't actually know what happened.  But the allegations towards Sutton have been around since before the primaries last June.  Why was it never disclosed to the public?  Chad Schult, Todd Epp, SDWC, and SDP have all asked this question.  And I doubt this whole affair came about because of "politically inspired disclosures."  What does anyone hope to gain by this?  Besides, it appears that Dennis Weise has been asking for these investigations for quite some time.  But politically inspired rumors told as factual news stories must be all right for the Argus, as was the case with Bob Sahr.

UPDATE:  Sibby has some more observations.

VDH

Victor Davis Hanson:

Watching and reading the recent Washington punditry, whether in print or on television, is a depressing spectacle. Almost all—Charles Krauthammer is the most notable exception—have somehow triangulated on the war, not mentioning why and how in the B.C. days they sort of, kinda, not really called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. For some the Road to Damascus was the looting or Abu Ghraib, for others the increasing violence. Still more now say the absence of WMD did the trick.

But almost none of the firebrands of 2003 speaks the truth behind the facade: They supported the war when it looked like few casualties and a quick reconstruction and thus confirmation of their own muscular humanitarianism—and then bailed along the way when they realized that wasn’t going to happen and the unpopular war might instead brand them as “war mongers”, “chicken-hawks” or just fools.

Instead of that honest admission, we get instead either cardboard cut-out villains of the “my perfect three-week war, your screwed-up three-year occupation” type—a Douglas Feith, Gen. Sanchez, or Paul Bremmer—or all sorts of unappreciated and untapped brilliance: from trisecting the country to “redeploying” to Kurdistan, or Kuwait, or Okinawa?

Perfect Campaigns and Historic Elections

To Master Heppler's excellent post on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and Professor Schaff's learned reply, I would add this:  it is wonderful that the U.S. had such a perfect campaign, and it will be even more wonderful if we never have one again.  The Civil War did not follow the Lincoln-Douglas debates by accident.  The forces that were tearing the Union apart made the debates possible.  Without those forces, we would never has suspected the greatness of Lincoln or Douglas, or even the greatness of our own Republic.  Moreover I concur in part and dissent in part with regard to this from Master Heppler's post:

The outcome, in the long term, couldn't have been any better.  True, the election of Lincoln was all the South could withstand and they left the Union, leading to the Civil War.  But secession had been in the works long before his election.  In the long term no one can deny that Lincoln was the perfect choice.

Lincoln was indeed the perfect choice, but precisely because secession was not necessarily "in the works."  President Douglas might well have avoided it, by surrendering the most fundamental principles of the Republic.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Dred Scott decision, and Lincoln's subsequent election as President, caused secession and secession caused the war. 

To get a perfect campaign you need a perfect storm of political forces in which the very survival of the Republic is at stake. That is something that no one should wish for.  Give me wishy-washy candidates and muddled issues every time.  I am reminded of the shrewd Chinese curse: "may you live in interesting times."

It's step on Epp day, here at SDP

Ever since Jim Seeber and I interviewed the Aberdeen Chief of Police concerning the Morgan Lewis case, and wrote a summary of that interview for the American News, Todd Epp has been calling us the "NSU Hardy Boys."  Now I am not sure whether Todd is still angry with us for daring to ask questions about something neither we nor the public are qualified to think about, or whether he just can't afford to let go of his one clever idea this year.  But I confess I have been looking for a comparable epponym for the good lawyer.

While breezing through Sioux Falls this morning on route to God's Country, I saw that Mr. Epp had given me one.  This from the Argus Leader:

Two area lawyers and an Augustana College academic delved into the murky waters of comparing George Orwell's book, "1984," and post 9-11 America and examining individual freedoms Thursday night.  . . . Todd Epp, a Harrisburg lawyer, political consultant and writer, said the book's three slogans - war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength - fit the Bush administration. The first slogan is mirrored in U.S. foreign policy, and the last matches the Cabinet's actions of keeping the public and press at bay to benefit the government.

So our "Harrisburg Lawyer, political consultant and writer" now deems himself a professor, qualified to comment on literature.  Welcome to the profession, Professor Epp, Doctor of Thinkology. 

But before we conclude that the scarecrow's hat does not just enclose straw after all, let me point out the argument above is absurd.  A reasonable person may well conclude that the Bush Administration policy is eroding civil liberties, though this reasonable person would disagree.  No reasonable person could suppose that the newspeak slogans of 1984 "fit" this or any other administration.  If Bush cannot control the New York Times, if he is in serious danger of losing control of the House to Nancy Pelosi, there is not the most remote fit between Bush and Big Brother.  It seems that liberals cannot even imagine real totalitarianism, except as a brush to tar their opponents with.  Orwell could imagine it.  So can I.  Herr Docktor Epp is clueless. 

Dear Todd

I did not say you could not disagree with Martin Albl without being prejudiced.  I said you could not dismiss him without being prejudiced.  Those are two different things.  The first takes his argument seriously, the second does not.  "Prejudice" means to "judge" based solely on passion and without reason.  But Martin has reasons, not just passion.  But then Todd gives the prejudiced reply, stating that there is no other ground for opposing same-sex marriage other than pure prejudice.  That is someone who is dismissing Martin rather than thinking about what he writes.  Todd can't believe anyone could possibly have reasoned himself to a position that same-sex marriage is bad for society.  That person must be a bigot. It must be nice to never have to argue with one's opponents, who are proven wrong simply by the fact that they disagree with hip progressive opinion. 

To reject an opinion as "from the Dark Ages" without supporting arguments is dismissive.  An opinion is not false because it is old; nor is it true because it is new. 

Does the difference between male and female end with genitalia?  Is there really no such thing as masculine and feminine nature?  Plenty of smart people say no, but common sense (and plenty of social biology) suggests otherwise.  If there are differences between men and women that go beyond different body parts, then does it not make sense to say that there may be "motherhood" and "fatherhood" in addition to the generic "parenthood"?  We are not arguing about what happens in this or that household, but what is generally true.  It isn't just crazies like Albl and Schaff that say this. For example, it is iconoclastic leftist Christopher Lasch who argues in The True and Only Heaven that the idea that men and women are the same is a "sentimental fiction" (pg 36) in service of a radical progressive ideal.  BTW, different, it should go without saying, does not mean unequal. 
Todd then falls into the solipsism of "whatever I choose is good."  There are two ways to judge a choice.  Some say a choice is good because it is freely chosen.  Others say a choice is good because of the content of the choice.  Similarly, some say decent liberal society can thrive irrespective of the character of the people.  Others say that decent liberal society needs people of certain character, for example people who are able to control their passions.  It is a truism to say that people who are not capable of governing themselves are not capable of self-government.  Todd seems to think that all a society needs to hold it together is a radical commitment to equality and "choice," damn the consequences and damn what is being chosen.  The logic of his argument is that a society can be indifferent to the character of its people and to the character of the family, the institution most crucial to the formation of individual character. 

Again, there are really smart people who agree with Todd.  But the best of them do not casually dismiss their opponents' arguments as mere prejudice.   My argument here is not that Martin and I correct, although obviously I think we are, but to suggest that there are actually reasons behind our arguments.  As I said, to disagree with Martin is not prejudice, so long as one has reasons of one's own.  To simply dismiss a thoughtful and well intentioned argument as simply being the product of prejudice requires a profound lack of self-knowledge.

Senator Johnson

I was honored to have lunch with Senator Johnson today.  He is up in Aberdeen this weekend to do some community outreach and political work for his party.  Today he was on campus.  About 40 of us were in the room and I was honored to sit next to Sen. Johnson at our table for lunch and then introduce him to the room when he got up to talk.  He talked about budget matters and how they will be resolved depending out the election's outcome.  If the Dems take over, budget matters will be delayed until January when they are in control.  If Republicans retain power, an omnibus bill will likely be passed in a December lame duck session.  Sen. Johnson obviously prefers the former scenario to the latter.  He took questions, of which I think readers will be interested in two.  First, Iraq.  I think I can fairly sum up Sen. Johnson's argument as being that our military presence in Iraq, whatever its original merits, is not longer serving much good.  We should take the next 12-18 months to scale back our military commitment.  He said at one point that we should not "chaperon their civil war."  He said much more than this about Iraq, but this, I think, is the gist of it.  I find his arguments compelling. I asked him to talk about what is going on with the Farm Bill. Sen. Johnson answered as follows.  The current bill runs out next September.  He is concerned about how much funding there will be, especially for conservation programs like CRP (about which I had specifically asked).  I believe he said 80% of CRP contracts run out next year.  The money and conditions might not be there to make renewal attractive to farmers.  Interestingly he talked about how the Farm Bill is linked with free trade talks.  The current round of WTO talks might result in significant reductions in price supports and direct commodity subsidies.  But that might mean more money for conservation. Sen. Johnson called it going from the "amber box" to the "green box."  I assume that metaphor means less money for grain subsidies (amber) and more money for environmental protection (green).  I don't how that would effect ethanol. I assume very little as that is being subsidized on different principles than other agriculture programs (i.e., we are paying for energy, not corn).  Overall, he said the next farm bill will look much like the last.  Anyhow, it was a pleasant event.  Oh, and he really dislikes the Bush tax cuts!

Historic Races

I am intrigued by Jason's post on the "perfect campaign."  I suggest no such thing has ever existed. We invent a golden age when politics was high minded and thoughtful, but that golden age, like most golden ages, never existed.  First, let's remember that the Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in the 1858 Senate race in Illinois, not the 1860 presidential race.  What is remarkable about those debates from our point of view is their reliance on long, complex arguments.  In modern debates a long answer is ninety seconds.  Lincoln and Douglas sustain arguments of ninety minutes during their debates.  But the lower arts of politics did combine with this higher art.  For example, race baiting was a tactic used by Douglas.  I am drawing from memory, so forgive me if my facts are off a bit, but I believe it was the debate at Cairo (pronounced kay-row), which is in the deep south of Illinois (i.e., you might as well be in Kentucky) that Douglas pointed out that the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass had come to the debate in Freeport to support Lincoln.  Stephan Douglas made sure to point out that Frederick had ridden in a carriage accompanied by a white woman.  His southern Illinois audience got the point. 

In the 1860 presidential, as was the case in all presidential races until the 20th Century, none of the candidates (with the exception of Douglas) actually campaigned.  Lincoln never left Springfield.  The campaign was run through surrogates.  And it wasn't as if those surrogates were shy about defaming their enemies (remember that Republicans were often called "black Republicans"). 

Modern technology and the rise of interest groups has made the art of negative campaigning more noticeable.  And the ideological polarization of the parties has bred a fresh harshness in our politics.  But we should not dwell in the illusion that there was a point in our history when our politics was defined by great statesman who campaigned by presenting brilliantly argued speeches to the masses.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, which do represent democratic politics at its best, are not free from low politics.  But even if we forgive their infrequent descents into the political nether regions, the L-D debates are by far the exception, not the rule, of American campaign history.

Some Quick Hits

Just some quick political hits:

Look out for a KELO-Argus Poll that will show Gov. Rounds ahead by at least 20 points. 

Here is Martin Albl on why Amendment C (definition of marriage) is a sound amendment.  I appreciate Martin's ability to take hot button issues and discuss them in a logical and thoughtful manner.  You can disagree with him, but unless you are wrapped in prejudice you cannot dismiss him.

Here is a Los Angeles Times piece that suggests that if the Democrats take over Congress it will be because they are running a lot of moderate to conservative candidates.  For example, isn't it interesting the if the Democrats succeed in knocking of their Senatorial nemesis Rick Santorum, and it looks like they will, it will be by running a pro-life/pro-gun Democrat.  And look at Harold Ford in Tennessee.  It is hard to get to his right on abortion, gay marriage and Iraq at this point. 

The Perfect Campaign

Oscar Chamberlain over at the history blog Cliopatria wonders if the United States has ever had something close to the perfect presidential campaign:

My question to you is this: has there ever been in the US something close to the perfect presidential election campaign? My definition of “perfect” echoes our original republicanism. I mean that the candidates were strong, the debate meaningful, and the outcome not too bad.

I'd like to take up the challenge.  My choice is a period covering from 1858 to 1860, events that presaged and later took place during the presidential campaign of 1860: Abraham Lincoln versus Stephen Douglas.

Abraham Lincoln was from the "western" state of Illinois and was nominated by the new Republican Party (which replaced the Whig party after their collapse over the slavery issue).  In 1846, Lincoln was elected to the House of Representatives as a Whig.  He is probably best remembered in this capacity as an antiwar activist.  He spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood."  He also frequently challenged Polk's claims as to the boundary of Texas.  He retired shortly from politics to pursue a career as an attorney in Illinois, but was drawn back into politics after Stephen Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which effectively abolished the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Stephen Douglas, also of Illinois, ran on the Democratic ticket.  Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 espoused "popular sovereignty" as a means of removing the slavery issue from national politics.  Constructed as an alternative to the more extreme solutions of direct federal control or blanket protection of slavery, the doctrine left the decision to the inhabitants of the territories.  He was twice considered for the presidency, once in 1852 and again in 1856.  In 1857, Douglas broke with President James Buchanan, leading to a fight for control of the Democratic Party.  Some eastern Republicans favored the reelection of Douglas in 1858, since he led the opposition to the administration's push for the Lecompton Constition, which would have admitted Kansas as a slave state.  Needless to say, Douglas lost the support of the Southern Democrats but increased his favor in the North.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates, which took place for the Illinois Senate race in 1858, were perhaps the finest example of this oral tradition in American history.  This was the democratic process at its finest.  The quality of these debates is what is important.  Instead of an hour of sound-bite exchanging in an empty studio, Lincoln-Douglas debates were huge public affairs, were extremely detailed, and went on for three hours.  Patrick Fairburn notes:

[Lincoln and Douglas] engaged in 7 debates spread over a period of 7 weeks, from August 21, 1858 to October 15, 1858 in these Illinois cities: Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton. Attendance estimates ranged from a low of 1,500 in Jonesboro to a high of 20,000 in Galesburg. The average was about 15,000 very vocal folks at each town. The format never varied. The first speaker spoke for one hour; his opponent for the next 1 ½ hrs; and then the starter finishing up with a half hour.

These are the kind of debates we need today.  Given how civic-minded South Dakota is, certainly thousands would show up to the debate like this.  When Dakota Fest holds debates at least a thousand people arrive.  Why?  Because they realize how badly television distorts politics.  The great social critic Christopher Lasch, whose final book was entitled The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, wrote in his chapter "The Lost Art of Argument":

The Lincoln-Douglas debates exemplified the oral tradition at its best. By current standards, Lincoln and Douglas broke every rule of political discourse. They subjected their audiences (which were as large as fifteen thousand on one occasion) to a painstaking analysis of complex issues. They spoke with considerably more candor, in a pungent, colloquial, sometimes racy style, than politicians think prudent today. They took clear positions from which it was difficult to retreat. They conducted themselves as if political leadership carried with it an obligation to clarify issues instead of merely getting elected.

These great 19th century traditions were much better for democracy than the image-shaping, television smiles, sound-bites, gimmicks, and gesture politics of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Lincoln went on to win the election, carrying 1,865,908 votes (39.9%), Douglas had 1,380,202 (29.5%), John Breckenridge of the Southern Democrats had 848,019 (18.1%) and John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party had 590,901 (12.5%).   

The outcome, in the long term, couldn't have been any better.  True, the election of Lincoln was all the South could withstand and they left the Union, leading to the Civil War.  But secession had been in the works long before his election.  In the long term no one can deny that Lincoln was the perfect choice.  Compared to other possible Republican nominees, Lincoln was seen as a moderate.  His loyalty to the strength of the Union and the reconstruction of the South after the war (compared to some who wished to see the South implode) certainly shaped our political climate for years to come.  His unflinching opposition to slavery led to freedom for slaves.  In July 1862 Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, whose goal was to weaken the rebellion and free slaves not under Union control.  This did not abolish the legal institution of slavery (which didn't occur until the 13th Amendment was passed) but did show Lincoln had the support of Congress in liberating the slaves.

The presidential campaign between Lincoln and Douglas exemplifies the near perfect campaign.  Both candidates were strong in their own regards, engaged in debates on a level the nation hasn't experienced in some time, and the outcome in both the short- and long-term were exceptional.

UPDATE:  Welcome Cliopatria readers!  Feel free to drop us an email and weigh in.  Also be sure to check out the responses by Prof. Schaff and Prof. Blanchard.  I'm working on a reponse to them as well.

Woman Kills Bear

I want some of this action in South Dakota.  This is one mean ass baby sitter, and evidently a pretty good shot. 

Blogging from Bloomington 3

What comes first: politics or war?  Answer: war, at least according to one panel I listened to this morning.  Out of 72 cases where tribal societies began to organize politically for the first time, that is, a hierarchy of authority emerged with chiefs, soliders, and subjects, in all but three cases it was a response to frequent attacks by less organized outsiders.  For those of you who like big government, it is interesting to note that we probably wouldn't have government at all if it weren't for our chimpanzee like tendency to form a group so we can rush and beat the snot out of some other group. 

I picked up a copy of the MIM Notes in the Indiana University student union.  That's Maoist Internatioalist Movement.  It has articles like " New Generation of Amerikan Lackeys and Opponents."  At the website you can download Mao's writings.  I do not hesitate to point out that Mao Tse Tung was probably the single most successful serial killer in human history.  He murdered well over one hundred million of his fellow Chinese.  That, I think, exceeds the death toll for the second world war.  I quote from Wikipedia: "MIM was founded in 1983 from a group called RADACADS (for "RADical ACADemics") at Harvard/Radcliffe University."  You just about have to have a Harvard degree to be this stupid, or wicked, or both. 

No on #2 and #8

The American News comes out against Initiative #2 (tobacco tax) and #8 (cell phone tax). 

Wanna Join Me In Chicago?

Joe Knippenberg is trying to put together a roundtable on blogging for the 2007 American Political Science Association meeting in Chicago, August 2007.  Yes, you do have to plan this far ahead for the APSA.  Read Joe's invitation here.  In particular he is looking for some left leaning bloggers who might want to join such a roundtable.  Incentive: I used to live in Chicago.  I know the good restaurants. 

New Link

We get word from the SDMM people that our link to their response to Larry Long might not be working.  Try this link here. 

More on Four

This is what I love about the blogosphere: it gives us the chance to debate, discuss, and give readers a chance to hear from both sides and also have the option to weigh in.  Earlier this week Attorney General Larry Long sent us an email explaining his opposition to Initiated Measure 4, the legalization of medical marijuana.  Neal over at SDMM now has a point by point response to AG Long's email. 

We report, you decide.

Iraq

With Election Day inching closer and closer, Iraq is becoming a major campaign centerpiece.  I support the War in Iraq and our troops for many reasons.  However, this line by Senator Thune clearly and succinctly says one of my primary reasons for my support of the War in Iraq and the larger Global War on Terror:

Thune said many people are comparing Iraq with Vietnam, but in Vietnam, "they didn't follow us home," Thune said. "This is absolutely a war we have to win."

Here's a link to the article in the Jackson Hole Star Tribune.  Aside from the poor writing skills of the reporter (Thune said...Thune said.), this is a great line.  I truly believe that if we cut and run, they'll chase our troops home and attack our homeland in any way possible.

Blogging in Bloomington 2

I presented my Plato and Darwin paper this morning.  It was politiely received.  I got more questions from the audience than the other presenters, which means I won.  After a day of panel watching I joined I a gaggle of political scientists pretending to be biologists at Nick's, a perfect college hang-out with low hanging lights and a buffalo head on the wall.  They served a local microbrew called Dragonfly IPA that was just about good enough to move to Bloomington for. 

It turns out I am leaving two days to early to see Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister of Israel who will be speaking on campus here.  I am leaving one day too early to see the Gay Miss Bloomington Pageant.  That would be a hoot. 

Speaking of hoots, I think Professor Schaff nails the medical marijuana inititiative down.  It's legalization under another false pretenses.  I am voting no, but then I was voting no anyway.  I mean like, man, it's not good for this state, man, to ... what was I talking about?

I was ready to vote no on Amendment C until the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to rewrite the constitution of the the garden state.  I don't think our state court would such a thing, but maybe the other state court's of this land might need a message that the marriage laws should be written by the legislature and not by judges. 

Rural Economy

Madison Daily Leader:

Rural economies are improving, but a labor shortage is restraining growth, according to an October survey of bank leaders in a nine-state region that includes South Dakota.

...

Retail sales remained weak in October, as large retailers in trade centers pulled customers from a wide area, the report said.

The bankers' outlook for the next six months jumped to 61.8, its highest since May, from 43.6 in September and 37.5 in August.

That confidence is sparked by the Federal Reserve not raising interest rates, lower oil prices and improvements in agricultural commodity prices, Goss said.

"Higher grain prices have been good for farmers, who had a good harvest," said Joe Kennedy, CEO of First National Bank in Frankfort, Kan.

The index for loan volume in the rural areas dropped significantly, to 58.8 from September's 76.9.

The home sales index in the nine states rose slightly from 35.5 in September to 36.4, the survey found.

Bankers in all states except Kansas reported October job gains, but nearly 79 percent of bankers said a lack of labor is having a negative impact on rural business growth.

A Canticle For Liebowitz

I recently finished the sci-fi classic A Canticle For Liebowitz.  I post one passage:

The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they seemed to become with it, and with themselves as well.  They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier for them to see that something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow.  When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it.  But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.   

Contra Heppler (Kinda)

I don't have time to do a thorough response to Jason's thoughtful post, but one reason to support Amendment C has just occurred in New Jersey.  While it is not clear exactly what this ruling means, it certainly is one step towards judicially imposed same-sex marriage.  See Ed Whelan for more on the New Jersey ruling. 

It seems to me that Amendment D will have the effect of raising the cost of real estate.  It will create a disincentive for people to sell property because they will then likely see a big increase in their property taxes.  The supply of property on the market will thus shrink, creating a housing shortage, raising the price for everyone.  Amendment D seems very similar to the (in)famous Prop. 13 in California which is one major contributor to their exorbitant cost of real estate. 

Referred Law 6 has been talked to death.  I doubt many minds are changing at this point.  I post an email from a reader:

I agree that far too many people do not take personal responsibility for their personal actions, in all aspects of life, but if we can save a few human beings from being tossed in the trash can then we have done a good thing. Some will go to Minnesota or elsewhere to get rid of their “problem,” but if our law forces a few to pause and rethink their choice, then a few more individuals will be around to enrich our lives.

#4, Again

Yesterday I posted some inchoate thoughts on Initiative #4 (medical marijuana).  We got a response from Attorney General Larry Long which, with his permission, I reproduce here:

I also oppose Initiative # 4.  My objections are based upon the text of the measure.

 

First, #4 requires a "debilitating medical condition"  which includes ugly stuff like cancer, glaucoma, HIV and AIDS.  BUT, it also includes any "condition which causes chronic pain".  (So, your old football injury, back ache, or trick knee or arthritis may qualify)

 

Second, #4 does not require a physician's permission or prescription to qualify.  A copy of the "patient's medical records" will suffice.  (In other words, you present your medical records to the Dep't of Health with the words "patient complains of chronic pain" highlighted in yellow and  DOH is required to issue to you a registry ID card allowing you to smoke pot.) 

 

Third, if you qualify, you are allowed to possess 6 pot plants and one ounce of usable pot.  You may smoke this pot anywhere it is legal to smoke tobacco.

 

Fourth, you may also appoint a "caregiver" who is anyone age 18 or more and not your Doctor, who will agree to look after you.  There is no requirement that you are in need of "care".  Your "caregiver" may also possess 6 pot plants and one ounce of pot.  However, it is quite likely that your "caregiver" will light up with you, because both you and your "caregiver" are immune from prosecution of any kind.  Section 11 of #4 says:

 

  "No qualifying patient or caregiver who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to this Act may be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner, or be denied any right or privilege" . . . 

 

Therefore, as a practical matter the patient and his "caregiver" can light up pretty much whenever and wherever they please with out legal sanction. 

 

Fifth, #4 allows children to become "qualifying patients" if they have the "chronic pain" condition in their medical records and their parents permission.  Again the physician is bypassed.  The parent must certify to the DOH only that the parent "heard" a physician explain to the parent and the child the dangers of smoking pot.  The parent automatically becomes the child's "caregiver" and is responsible for the "dosage' administered to the child.  (how convenient)

 

The procedure in Measure #4 is designed to bypass physicians almost entirely.  The patient is allowed to self-diagnose and self-medicate.  The whole idea of a "caregiver" (unless the patient is bedridden) is simply designed to allow the patient to "medicate" with one of his buddies.  This measure (if it becomes law) will be an enforcement nightmare.  Irrespective of the policy reasons for or against "medical" marihuana, this is a bad piece of legislation and is designed to allow the general population to smoke pot and be immune from legal sanction of any kind.    This bill is horrible public policy.

I find Mr. Long's arguments convincing.  Eddie?

Update: I just noticed Eddie has responded to yesterday's post, here.  This, by the way, is how the blogsphere works at its best.  I make arguments and Mr. Long and Eddie respond intelligently and you all get to decide.  I think Attorney General Long has the better of the argument, but I thank Eddie for making his argument forcefully and respectfully.  Except when he says my position "stinks," proving that Eddie is a poop head (That's a joke, man). 

 

The $2.6 Billion Campaigns

Financial Times: "Next month’s midterm elections will be the most costly congressional races in US history, with business interests contributing three-quarters of the estimated $2.6bn that will be spent, says a non-partisan research group."

Blogging in Blooming Bloomington

Three parts Hoosier, one part Wheat-grass extract.  I am in the Indiana Memorial Union, a hotel built onto the Student Center here at Indiana University.  It's rather strange to walk down the hotel hall and find students knapping on the funiture with biology books drapped across their knees.  There is also a local Tibetan community and two Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries.  The Dali Lama, I have been informed, was here twice.  I ate at The Snow Lion, a Tibetan restaurant, shortly before being informed that there is no such thing.  Tibetans eat liver and mutton mixed up with barley.  You can't sell that in America.  So they offer Indian and East Asian goodies. 

While I was in there I listened to a wild-eyed Democrat on the other side of a carved screen talk about her divorce and how exciting it was to meet Birch Bayh.  Bayh was a U.S. Senator from Indiana who ran for President in 76 but got beat badly by Jimmy Carter.  How does that feel now?  He was swept out of office when Reagan was elected.  The lady behind the screen said that Bayh was energetic and asked lots of questions.  I believe he is the same age as my father. 

Maybe the Democrats are about to make a sweep of their own.  If you are up for a shot of fortitude, this piece from the New York Post might do the trick. 

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

How I'm Voting

Given the other comments from my colleagues, I figured I should weigh in as well on our lengthy ballot.  Again, be sure to read through the South Dakota Ballot Voter Guide (pdf alert) put out by the state.  Comments and counterarguments are certainly welcome.  If you disagree, send us an email explaining why and see if you can convince me otherwise.  If you think I'm wrong, either by getting facts wrong or just think my conclusions are wrong, please email us.  I encourage my colleagues to do the same.  It will help me as an educated voter if I'm corrected sooner rather than later.  If I have the time I'll respond to reader emails on this blog.  I've tried to keep these concise.  And be sure to continue reading about the issues and do your part as an informed voter.  So, here we go:

Amendment C
Allows further restrictions on gay marriage, civil unions, etc. and defines marriage between a man and a woman
I agree with defining marriage to be between a man and a women, but I disagree with complete intolerance towards homosexuals--I have no problem with them being in unions and being together.  Unfortunately this position brings up a number of other arguments about child adoption, polygamy, etc., but those are topics for a later post (in short, I think children are better off under a traditional family structure).  South Dakota statute already defines marriage between a man and a woman.  As I understand it, this amendment would put the statute into the state Constitution.  That said, I'm voting no on this because the state has already defined marriage.  There's no need to clutter our Constitution with this.

Amendment D
Property tax reform--assessment of land is based on acquisition value, increases the cap to 3% except in cases of reclassification, sale, addition, improvement, or destruction.
I'm leaning yes on this one.  If I understand the current law, property taxes depend on the value of the land around you.  If you buy a piece of land at a cheap price, your tax on that land will be cheap.  But if a neighbor moves in and builds a $1 million house next to you, thus increasing the value of the land, then your taxes will increase even if you've done nothing to improve your own property.  This tends to put financial pressure on retirees, farmers, and low- and middle-income workers.  They shouldn't be priced out of their property by their wealthier neighbors.

Amendment E
“JAIL” Amendment, which will create a special grand jury to hear appeals and punish judges, elected officials, and jurors for malfeasance
No.  Every public official and citizen on juries would be eligible to lawsuits by anyone dissatisfied by a verdict.  This has the potential to stagnate the courts either by litigation or the fear of litigation.  This measure would give too much power to the special grand jury that has no check on its power by any branch of our state government.

Amendment F
Constitutional revisions
I agree with my colleague on this one, I'll be voting yes.  There are a host of changes to Article III of the state Constitution under this amendment, mostly meant to clarify.  The removal of Congressional term limits will square our Constitution with federal court rulings.  One concern for me was the increase in the legislature's authority to set its own rates for expense reimbursements, which could mean digging deeper into public funds, but considering our legislators only meet for two months out of the year I think we can watch them and check any greedy legislators.  The legislator also will wield more power to act in emergencies, which is fine with me.  Remember Katrina and the bureaucratic mess that was?  If there's an emergency, I'd prefer they have the authority to act rather than fumble around a legal technicality.

Initiated Measure 2
Increase the tobacco tax
No.  Why?  Read below.  Plus I worry about a tall tax.  I mean, if someone is willing to propose an anti-Communist law, then just maybe . . .

Initiated Measure 3
Mandate no school before August 31
No.  This is a local control issue, not something the state needs to mess with.  Each community sets the start date for the school year and it should remain that way.   They go through the school board and if they don't agree with them, they can refer it to a vote.  There's no reason for a statewide law.

Initiated Measure 4
Legalize medical marijuana
I don't feel strongly one way or the other with this one, but I'm leaning toward yes unless someone convinces me otherwise.  I'd prefer that medical professionals determine what is good for their patients, not the government.  However, passing this law entails a cautionary note: I do not want this to lend itself to total legislation, as Prof. Schaff wrote below.  Although it might be preferable to include some tight restrictions on this measure (ie, ensure that marijuana in general does not become legal), I still think it's all right to pass it for medical purposes.

Initiated Measure 5
Restrict the use of the state plane to state business without exceptions for the governor or state law enforcement officials
This is a pointless measure based on an Argus Leader campaign to discredit the governor.  I'm voting against it.  If Gov. Rounds goes joyriding in the state plane, it won't be kept a secret in this state.

Initiated Measure 7
Repeal video lottery
No.  We have voted on this three times already and it's been rejected every time.  It may be bad to fund government through video lottery, but to just outright eliminate it is a bad idea.  The state receives huge amounts of money from gambling.  I think what's needed for this to work is a complete tax system overhaul.  Plus, gamblers have a right to make their own decision on what to do with their money.  Be sure to read Prof. Schaff's thoughts below.

Initiated Measure 8
Repeal wireless telecommunications tax
No.   This is nothing more than a measure pushed by out-of-state interests, in this case Verizon Wireless, who paid $115,000 to round up signatures for the petition to get this on the ballot.

Referred Law 6
Complete ban on abortions
I'm voting no, as I've explained before, because this is bad public policy (not because I support abortions).  I don't understand how this law is going to fix the problem.  What's at stake here is to reduce abortions, right?  Wrong.  Banning them won't fix it, it only pushes the problem out of South Dakota.  The number of abortions is not the problem; the reason for the abortions is.  Individuals fail to take personal responsibility regarding this issue.  Our society today tells you that you can do anything, get away with anything, and be guilt-free.  The problem isn't the number, but rather the idea.

To clarify my position, I believe that life begins within minutes of conception, a belief that's based on science, not faith (although they can often intersect).  The egg and sperm carry twenty-three chromosomes, the DNA that encodes a unique human.  When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the separate DNA strands combine into twenty-three pairs and a unique blueprint for a unique human being is created.  When the cell divides on its own, usually within a half hour, that being is alive, unique, and separate from its mother.  Thus, our DNA and genetic composition is a fact.  Cell division demonstrates life, as any biologist will tell you.  For me, what to do with that life is a matter of values rather than faith.  The question we face is whether to sacrifice that life as a matter of convenience.  Yet throughout the history of Western civilization we have enacted laws, constructed families, and developed moral and social structures to protect young lives.  The devaluation of innocent life is a dangerous precedent.

Those who support abortion either defy science and fail to recognize life at this stage, or simply ignore the question in order to focus on the "right to choose."  Yet by logic this argument supports a freedom from personal responsibility that I mentioned above.  The choice was already made because of a failure to use contraceptives or avoid the action altogether; a pregnancy is a result of poor choices.  Apparently some segments of our society wish to act as children and take no responsibility for their decisions.

The Governor Calls Special Session for November

The Argus Leader reports that Governor Mike Rounds is calling for a special session to investigate the misconduct of Dan Sutton:

Gov. Mike Rounds will call a special session to investigate allegations of misconduct between a state senator and a teenage legislative page, the governor’s office announced Tuesday.

The decision to call the Senate into special session on Nov. 27 came after the state’s four leading senators – two Republicans and two Democrats – sent Rounds a letter on Friday asking him to bring the Senate into session.

The four senators asked for the session to investigate allegations that Sen. Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau, groped a page who was staying in his hotel room during the last legislative session.

HT to Plains Politics.

Initiative #4

Eddie asks for some opinions on Initiative #4 legalizing medical marijuana.  Truth is I have no strong opinions either way.  But Eddie asks, and he shall receive.  I oppose the initiative for the following reasons. 1. I don't support the initiative process and so my default setting is to vote "no" on all of them absent some compelling reason to do otherwise (note that the initiative process has some important differences from constitutional amendments and referendum).  2. I'd feel a lot better about  medical marijuana legislation if I didn't think it was the first step to total legalization.  In general one would think that if a doctor can proscribe morphine he should be able to proscribe marijuana.  But I suspect that for many, medical marijuana is just a way to get around our laws against the substance. 

It is a technical case that I don't claim to have mastered, but Eddie seems to allude to Raich v. Ashcroft/Gonzalez.  I think this case was wrongly decided (as does Eddie, I assume), but I wouldn't stake my reputation (such as it is) on my position. 

As I say, I don't have strong feelings on this matter and would appreciate Eddie telling me why I am wrong. 

By the way Eddie, the proper salutation for me is "His Eminence."

Amendment F

The American News, fresh off its endorsements of Mike Rounds (can't find the link) and Stephanie Herseth, asks voters to vote "no" on Amendments E and F and initiative #3 (school start date).  Yesterday I mentioned my support for Amendment F.  The people I talk to in state government tell me that Amendment F is a necessary amendment to correct some discrepencies in the law and to modernize our legislative process a bit.  Vote yes on Amendment F. 

The Argus Leader Double Standard

South Dakota War College calls out the Argus Leader for applying a double standard by printing "rumors" about Republicans but spiking "rumors" about Democrats:

Here's the irony - the Sutton allegations were swirling around in the amosphere at the same time that the Sahr allegations came out, if not before. Every reporter had likely heard the sets of rumors on both, and (at the time) each had about as much substance. You had rumors of allegations, and rumors of supposed investigations.

So, given the same amount of information available for each, someone please explain why the Argus decided to tank one candidate over another? Why did they torpedo Bob Sahr's relection, and give Dan Sutton a bye? It certainly can't be because of an anonymous, unsigned letter?

Fast forward to today. Bob Sahr has been effectively driven from office and there's still no more information out there then when the Argus started it's hatchet job. For Sutton, there's a special session of the legslature pending, a paper trail regarding the senate inquiry, witnesses set to testify, and no lack of available information.

Clearly, one was picked over the other. It was the Republican who they decided to sacrifice over a few allegations.

It's not like the Argus doesn't have a long history of vendetta against Republicans. Their clashes with Bill Janklow are legendary. They've been on an a more that two year campaign against our current Governor.

Pagegate Triggers Special Session By Legislature

From the Argus Leader:

Legislative leaders have asked Gov. Mike Rounds to call a special session to investigate allegations that state Sen. Dan Sutton behaved inappropriately with a teenage page.

Subpoenas could be used to force people to testify during the session, which would begin on Nov. 27.

“I don’t think we’ve been through anything like this in the state’s history,” said state Sen. Ed Olson, a Republican from Mitchell.

The request was delivered to the governor’s office on Friday, according to Mark Johnston, a spokesman for the governor.

Olson, who is the chief operating officer of the Legislature when it’s not in session, said the idea is to have only the state Senate called into the session because the House isn’t involved.

Olson said he will request the session be closed to protect the privacy of witnesses.

“There’s no way in heck I would ever condone deposing an 18-year-old kid” in public, he said.

Rounds plans to meet Tuesday with South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long to discuss details of such a session.

The two intend to “coordinate and discuss the request,” Johnston said.

The session would be fair to all involved, Olson said.

“Fairness is the key operative word here,” he said.

For more on this story, see Tuesday’s Argus Leader.