South Dakota Politics

Surge

Washington Times:  "[A]t least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past [once] called for more troops in Iraq . . . now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that."  It was once conventional wisdom in Democratic circles that the Bush administration blew it by not placing enough troops in Iraq.  They were for the surge until a Republican proposed it.

Newspaper Blogs

John Hinderaker: "The peril of newspaper blogs is that a reporter might say what he actually thinks before an editor catches up with him and makes him stop."  You have to read it to believe it.

Sutton Censured

Argus Leader excerpt:

State senators voted moments ago to censure Sen. Dan Sutton for his behavior with a teenager who served as a legislative page last year.

The vote was 32-2 in favor of the censure. Voting against censure were Sens. Jerry Apa, R-Lead, and Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City.

"It's a relief," Sutton said shortly after the vote.

An earlier vote to expel him from the Legislature needed 24 votes to pass, but failed when only 14 senators voted for expulsion.

Sutton, a Democrat from Flandreau, was the subject of an investigation by a nine-member Senate committee last week.

The censure is an official reprimand. Sutton will not lose any of his privileges as a senator.

Readers of the Argus Leader are almost evenly split regarding Dan Sutton:

(screen shot taken at 4:30 p.m., 1/31/07)

Mitchell Historian to Discuss Work

My former high school history teacher will be giving a talk about his recent essay about the Grand Army of the Republic in South Dakota:

A Mitchell historian will discuss his research about the history of the Grand Army of the Republic in South Dakota at 7 p.m. Thursday at Dakota Discovery Museum in Mitchell.

Steve Morgan’s work, “Fellow Comrades: The Grand Army of the Republic in South Dakota,” was published in last fall’s issue of “South Dakota History,” a South Dakota State Historical Society publication. Morgan teaches American and world history at Mitchell High School.

Formed in 1866 and based on the values of fraternity, charity and loyalty, the GAR also allowed veterans to share their experiences and shaped the nation and state politically.

The essay can be found in South Dakota History, vol. 36 no. 3 (Fall 2006).

Gov. Rounds Appoints Krebs as Press Secretary

From a press release:

PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Mike Rounds announced today the selection of Mitch Krebs, Sioux Falls, as his new Press Secretary.

“I am very pleased that Mitch Krebs has agreed to serve as Press Secretary,” said Gov. Rounds.  “He has a strong background in journalism and broadcasting and is a great addition to our team.  I look forward to working with Mitch.”

Krebs is currently news director at KSFY-TV in Sioux Falls and co-anchor of the KSFY News at 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.  He has been with KSFY-TV since 1996.

“I’ve been covering the great things that happen in our state for more than a decade and now I’m extremely fortunate and excited to be part of that process into the future by joining Gov. Rounds’ staff,” said Mitch Krebs.

KSFY General Manager Kelly Manning added, “If there’s a job to be done, you want a guy like Mitch Krebs on your team.  He really was an important part of our station’s growth and atmosphere over the past 11 years.  I’m personally excited for Mitch and know only great things await him in the future.”

Krebs was born in Fort Doge, Iowa, and raised in Austin, Minnesota.  He attended the University of Minnesota.   He and his wife, Shantel, live in Sioux Falls. 

Krebs will begin his duties on February 12, 2007. 

Conservative Film Critic

I found this excellent film site via Powerline.  Note this critique of what passed for art at the Sundance Film Festival.  A snippet:

Not always, but for the most part, a dark, cynical take on things is the easy way out for an artist. Politics aside, the glut of these kinds of films reflects a dearth of talent in contemporary filmmaking. Successful art makes its audience feel something. So, a piece of art in the form of a film that makes the viewer feel ugly, dirty, depressed, or ill is in itself successful, but it’s much more difficult to uplift an audience.

A shot of a rancid maggot covered piece of meat can make an audience feel something. And any pretentious moron in a beret can call it a metaphor for anything. But if you want to make an audience feel good it takes more than a shot of a flower. It takes music and lighting and mood. It takes talent.

I do not desire a return to the regime of the Hays Code, which was surely too restrictive, but one could argue that better films were made under its restrictions than under the open regime starting in the early 60s.  Indeed, in my opinion the worst era of Hollywood film is from the mid-60s through the 1970s as Hollywood drank deeply from the draught of new found freedom, all the way down to the dreck at the bottom of the cup.  Hollywood (and entertainment in general) now too often goes for the cheap thrill of coarse language, blood and guts, crude sexual innuendo and vulgar humor.  This is not talent but cheap gimmicks.  Film noir flourished under the production code, even a film like The Big Sleep that had a subplot involving pornography.  Hitchcock could make tremendous films of thrills and eroticism without resorting to vulgarity.  For example, in To Catch A Thief, Grace Kelly and Cary Grant go on a picnic.  Kelly offers chicken to Grant and, with a mischievous look in her eye, inquires, "Would you like a thigh or a breast."  Now that's clever film making.

NYT

Associated Press:

The New York Times Co. posted a $648 million loss for the fourth quarter on Wednesday as it absorbed an $814.4 million charge to write down the value of its struggling New England properties, The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

The company said the non-cash charge reflected declines in current and projected results at the newspapers, which have been hit hard by the consolidations of key advertisers in the New England area as well as greater competition from online media.

The company originally paid $1.1 billion for the Globe in 1993 and $296 million for the Worcester paper in 2000.

The Times reported a loss amounting to $4.50 a share for the October- December period. It earned $63.1 million, or 43 cents a share, a year ago.

Results at the Times' Boston-area properties have been slumping badly in the past year, amid a tough economic climate there and the consolidation of key advertisers including the retailers Macy's, part of Federated Department Stores Inc., and Retail Ventures Inc.'s Filene's.

Advertising revenues at the New England properties declined again in the fourth quarter, falling 6.1 percent in the period and 9 percent for all of 2006.

Gay Marriage III: the Constitutional Question

Todd Epp's praise for my position on gay marriage included some counterarguments on the constitutional questions involved, which were the primary focus of my American News piece.  I want to respond to them here.

Todd says this:

I think marriage is a fundamental right and there is no compelling state interest to ban gay couples from marriage.

The "compelling state interest" language begs the question.  Under Supreme Court doctrine, a state needs a compelling interest only if it is violating an otherwise recognized constitutional right.  To say that marriage is a fundamental right is very unclear.  Does this mean a right of anyone to marry anyone else?  Here is how I put the matter:

All marriage laws discriminate. A man cannot marry his sister or his mother, or a 10-year-old girl. A man can't marry a horse (though some have tried), nor can any two persons marry a third. Sometimes this involves judgment calls. Can first cousins marry? If not, what about second or third cousins? And what is the proper age of consent? The Constitution provides no clues, and this is sensibly left to the good sense of the people of each state.

I think that Todd means that marriage is a fundamental right for such couples as he is willing to recognize.  I think that confuses a preference for a principle. 

Todd goes on:

If, as the fundies say, marriage is only for pro-creation, that reason for marriage went out the window a long time ago. People decide to have kids out of wedlock and couples with no intention of having kids get married. People typically get married because they are in—prepare for this—LOVE.

Let me work backwards.  Since people can obviously be in love, and in some cases have children, out of wedlock, what do they need wedlock for?  If people don't need it to form partnerships, have sex, etc., then in denying marriage to some kinds of couples, we aren't depriving them of anything.

The "fundies," i.e., religious fundamentalists, are clearly right about the origins of marriage.  It exists in all cultures because it solves a fundamental biological problem.  Men don't know who their children are.  Marriage is a familial contract: the woman promises fidelity, so that the man can have some confidence that these children are his children; in return, he promises to support them.  That is why marriage exists in the first place.

Of course some husbands and wives cannot or do not wish to have children.  In that case marriage has functioned to protect women by securing for them a share of property in the case of divorce.  Legal tradition also extends certain benefits from one spouse to another, as in the case of a public heath care plan.  More happily, it functions to give each partner certain kinds of access and medical consent.  These are secondary functions of marriage.  They evolve because marriage already exists for the aforementioned purpose; but they serve good purposes and that is enough reason to keep them. 

Homosexual marriage would extend the institution to cover a new case.  I am on record as favoring this.  But unlike Todd, I do not think there is any constitutional reason why any state should be compelled to accept my policy preference.  Love clearly won't do it.  I love my brother, Dave.  I love my best friend of more than thirty years Kenny Shelton (he's way too ugly for any sexual interest on my part, I might add).  I don't suppose that this is any reason why the State of South Dakota should responsible for their medical care. 

Todd hopes that "people on my side of the political divide" will consider what I have written.  Those are generous words.  I would hope, though not expect, that people on his side of the political divide would stop trying to get courts to write their policy preferences into the margins of the Constitution, and instead do the hard work of persuading legislatures to enact good policy.

Gay Marriage II

Todd Epp heaps such lavish praise on me for my position on gay marriage that I am suddenly uncertain about it.  I stated the following in a post early Monday:

I had a piece published in the Aberdeen American News this morning on the Gay Marriage controversy in Massachusetts.  I argue that no American constitution requires extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, but I end by coming down in favor of gay marriage.

Here are my reasons for favoring it:

First, as I stated in my American News piece, "If a man is lying unconscious in a hospital bed, should his male partner for the last 30 years not have the same rights of access and legal consent that a wife would have? I say yes." 

Second, I think that some form of gay marriage is coming in most places anyway, and I think that creating alternative forms of marriage will further dilute the institution and hasten its decline. 

Third, advocates of homosexual marriage have argued that it will encourage exclusive partnerships among gay men, and discourage promiscuity. I am not confident about this, but it reinforces the idea that marriage is about mutual obligations, long term fidelity, and exclusivity in sexual relationships.  Again, I think that this strengthens marriage.  Marriage is weak enough everywhere; if the homosexual community is really prepared to defend the institution I think this should be encouraged.  Moreover, it might work and if it does, that would be a very good thing for the general welfare.

These arguments are not compelling.  They are judgment calls, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Todd calls me brave for taking this position.  As warm as that makes me feel, I don't think courage is yet required.  I have no one to fear in taking such positions.  At most it requires enough nerve on my part to risk offending some of my friends. 

I will reply on the other side of the issue in my next post.

Ding Dong

The "open fields" bill is dead.  Let us hope it does not have zombie-like powers.   

Troops Respond to Criticism of War

Don't miss this video at Instapundit.

Good Grief

This is the worst news of the year.  The Mall of America is replacing the Peanuts characters at the mall's amusement park with Nickelodeon characters like Sponge Bob and (I am now choking on my own bile) Dora the Explorer.  Why? Well, Peanuts just isn't cool anymore.

Six months from now, many shoppers who frequent the Mall of America will probably forget that Snoopy was a prominent draw at the megamall for nearly 15 years, Pollak said. "Peanuts and the Gang just aren't relevant to the current generation of young children," he said. "They stayed the same, and their marketing strategy never progressed. They were of a time and that time has passed."

Damn Peanuts and its unprogressive marketing strategy!  What a shame that Chuck, Linus, Snoopy, Lucy and the gang are not "relevant to the current generation."   I guess they will have to settle for being funny for 50 years. 

Al Franken for Senate

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Al Franken announced Monday that he will end his radio talk show on Feb. 14, increasing speculation that he is preparing to run for Minnesota's U.S. Senate seat in 2008.

"I'm definitely giving it serious consideration, and I plan to make a decision soon and announce that, hopefully not on the same day that Barack Obama makes his decision and announces that," Franken said on his liberal Air America radio show.

Franken disclosed his plans on the same day that Air America, which filed for bankruptcy protection last year, announced that it will be sold to Stephen Green, the founder of a New York area real estate company. Franken will be replaced on air by Thom Hartmann, a talk show host based in Portland, Ore.

Presidential Primary

Much to Professor Schaff's disappointment, the South Dakota legislature is considering a bill that would move the presidential primary forward:

Several South Dakota legislators want to revive an early presidential primary in the state.

A bill offered in the Legislature would require a presidential vote in the state every four years on the last Tuesday in January. That would be one of the earliest presidential primaries in the nation.

The measure calling for the early primary, HB1272, is a companion bill to HB1271, which would give counties $500,000 for expenses of the special winter elections.

South Dakota held February presidential primaries in 1988, 1992, and 1996, and those early contests attracted several presidential candidates.

But the Legislature got rid of the early primary in 1997, restoring South Dakota's presidential primary to June so it's held at the same time as primaries for state offices.

The February primary was eliminated because lawmakers felt South Dakota was not getting enough attention from presidential candidates. Opponents also said the only people who got to rub elbows with the candidates were political party officials.

The cost of the early primary was part of its downfall, too.

There's a lot of validity in Professor Schaff's arguments against frontloading.  I've been a supporter of moving the primary forward, but the evidence and arguments compiled by my colleague has begun to convince me I may be wrong.  In any event, consider the arguments on both sides and debate amongst yourselves.

KOTA Cant Spel

Oops:

Thune Is COOL

The Aberdeen American News praises John Thune and others for introducing County Of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat products.

Hurrah for the senators - led by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Craig Thomas, R-Wyo. and our own John Thune - who are sponsoring legislation to move the deadline for implementing country-of-origin labeling to Sept. 30 - one year ahead of the current deadline.

Sen. Thune said in a release, "This delay hurts South Dakota's cattle producers and treats consumers with disdain. I will continue to work with my colleagues who support mandatory COOL to fight this delay and secure an earlier implementation date."

As well they should.

Energy And Economy

There has been some significant reaction to President Bush's energy policy proposals from last week's State of the Union speech.  For example, Kevin Hassett argues in favor of a tax on carbon emissions and against ethanol subsidies.  Greg Easterbrook praises Bush for calling for a raise in fuel efficiency standards in automobiles.  Both of these solutions to energy strike me as statist and thus, to one extent or another, wrong headed. 

Hassett's proposal is the worst.  This site points out the harmful economic impact of carbon caps, which would have a similar effect as a carbon tax (Hassett wants to tax carbon so as to create an economic disincentive for the use of oil and coal).  Carbon caps or taxes amount to a huge blow to the average household's budget.  Hassett says that his proposal is the "text book" economic solution.  But isn't the "text book" solution to allow the market to set the price?  If people really wanted to lower their carbon output, wouldn't they do it by changing their habits?  Or is that the more enlightened have the right to compel change through the taxing power of the state?  It seems to me that people will show their preferences through their purchasing power.  Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson seems to have a realistic view of the economic impact of carbon control.

Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson said he heard about the agreement only recently and is not sure South Dakota's largest city should sign on [to CO2 reduction plans].

"I think there is some worry about what it might do to the economy," he said. "Before you could commit to it, you would have to study what you'd have to do to get to that level."

Raising fuel efficiency standards seems less pernicious to me. Easterbrook points out that if Bush's proposals are followed, the average auto fuel efficiency will rise from 21 MPG to 31 MPG, a significant gain that might drop oil consumption as much as 20%.  I just wonder what compromises in auto safety are required to make such a leap in fuel efficiency. 

President Bush also suggested last week that we raise the amount in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  This has the effect of taking large amount of oil off the consumer market, possibly raising price.  It seems to me that the market has done its job so far.  When price sky rocketed last year, production went up as well, along with the search for new oil fields.  The result is a lowering of oil prices by about $20 a barrel from last summer.  Also, SUV sales have plummeted as people search for more fuel efficient automobiles.  As far as global warming, I tend to buy into the Blanchard thesis: there is nothing we can do to significantly lower the human component of global warming that will not destroy our economy.  Technology is the solution to global warming, not economy destroying regulations.  When the economy goes in the tank (so to speak), it won't be the rich oil "fat cats" that pay the price.  It will be the hard working guys on the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico who will be out of job.

BREAKING NEWS: Daschle Returning to the Senate?

From Wonkette:

A source close to the Johnson family told us this little tale last night.

Senator Tim Johnson, still recovering from the thing that Nate had in Six Feet Under, is sick of being a Senator. Johnson is planning on retiring from Congress at the soonest possible opportunity, but there’s one catch. If Johnson leaves the Senate, it’s the responsibility of South Dakota’s governor to choose his replacement for the next couple years. Governor Michael Rounds is, of course, a Republican. And while the Democrats were smart enough to ensure control of Senate committees even if they lose the majority, Johnson doesn’t want to be the guy who lost them the majority.

So — Johnson’s retirement is predicated on Gov. Rounds’ appointment of Johnson’s personal choice of replacements. That choice, currently, is Tom Daschle. In other words, it’s a complete stalemate.

The ’90s are BACK!

Media Monopoly

Regarding the issue of media monopoly and the Argus Leader, I read this USA Today story with great interest.  Gannett Corporation, the owner of the Argus Leader, is lobbying to change federal rules so it can buy TV stations:

When members of the Federal Communications Commission look at TV stations these days, they aren't just kicking back to watch American Idol or Heroes.

Regulators are about to reassess their rules on who can own stations and how many — a review they are legally bound to do every four years. And to rule on the most controversial proposals, they must determine how much damage — if any — the Internet and other new media are inflicting on local stations, which collectively had an estimated $26 billion in ad sales last year.

If officials conclude that competition from the digital world threatens local TV, they might decide it's OK to ease the rules and let companies own multiple stations in a market, or let a newspaper buy a station in its town.

Broadcasters and newspaper companies (including USA TODAY parent Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher and a major owner of TV stations) are lobbying for that.

"If you get rid of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, it maximizes the chance for better local news in a community," says Newspaper Association of America CEO John Sturm.

But the case for change becomes weaker if, as many consumer advocates say, stations still generate healthy cash flows and dominate local news.

"A small handful of giants determine what the American people see, hear and read," Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said this month at the National Conference for Media Reform, a gathering in Memphis of 3,500 activists.

They fear that once the rules are relaxed, big companies will consolidate even more. "I think that we need greater diversification in the media," Sanders says. "I think we've got to stop media deregulation, big time."

While the issues are important, some can't help but look at this year's debate with skepticism.

"The term 'media monopoly' has meaning, it's had meaning for 60 years, but I think the content of the term is changing," former FCC chairman Reed Hundt says.

" 'Media monopoly' seems now to be about whether you can use the Internet for free or whether there's any limit on what you can send over the Internet," he adds. "The issues of the last 10 years don't have that much resonance anymore."

Read the whole thing.

Democratic Surge Out West? No.

Stuart Rothenberg surveys the numbers from the last election, and finds nothing unusual.  Here are the first and last paragraphs.

More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.

The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.

John Edwards

Jim Geraghty:  "There Are Two Americas; John Edwards' New House Takes Up Almost All of One Of Them"

The Constitutional Politics of Gay Marriage

I had a piece published in the Aberdeen American News this morning on the Gay Marriage controversy in Massachusetts.  I argue that no American constitution requires extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, but I end by coming down in favor of gay marriage.  Not surprisingly, I got a lot of grief from the American News Forum folk, who do not seem to be able to read. 

Will We Love Huckabee?

Among the various routs to the Presidency-senator, Vice President, etc.-one of them, Governor of Arkansas, is about to be tried again.  I take proprietary interest in this case, as I was born and raised in Jonesboro, Arkansas.  From CNN:

Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a favorite of conservatives, will take the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, an official told The Associated Press on Friday.

Huckabee, 51, plans to file papers on Monday establishing an exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money and hire campaign staff, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.

So far Gov. Huckabee's candidacy should be filed under "amusing."  This is especially so as as he was born in Hope, Arkansas, the same town that saw William Jefferson Clinton squeeze into moonlight.  Someone is going to have to do a test of the water in that town.  By all accounts, Mike Huckabee was a stand up guy and a good Governor.  I know a lot of folk who knew him.  What other cards he has hidden in his vest, I can only guess.  But it looks like a very long shot. 

Still, he lost a load of weight and is in trim fighting condition.  If he is indeed another man from Hope, well, ya'll are in for real show. 

Who Is "Responsible" For Iraq

Ken Blanchard recently penned a post on whether the Democratic Congress or President Bush is responsible for U.S. policy towards Iraq. Robert Kagan has some thoughts:

The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead, other than perhaps go back to the Baker-Hamilton commission's vague plan for a gradual withdrawal. Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to cap the number of troops in Iraq at 137,500. No one explains why this is the right number, why it shouldn't be 20,000 troops lower or higher. But that's not really the point, is it?

Other critics claim that these are political cop-outs, which they are. These supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.

Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.

Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.

Certainly those who argue in a simple minded fashion that this is "Bush's war" (unintentionally?) play into the idea that the president has total war power and Congress can only stand on the sideline and watch.  Yet, most in Congress voted for the war in Iraq.  Even larger majorities continue to vote for funding for the war.  They are responsible, too.  Those who propose cutting off funding owe it to the public to explain what they think the outcome, short term and long term, will be for both the United States and the Middle East.  They need to tell us how that future is better than the one proposed by President Bush.  That's what statesmen would do.  We, unfortunately, are plagued with mere politicians (what position will Senator Clinton hold this week?) and the hacks who support them. 

2007 Farm Bill

Argus Leader:  "Congress is considering how to respond to all the change with a new farm bill, the massive legislation that sets ag subsidy levels. Lawmakers face a welter of proposals, from permanent disaster aid to more conservation dollars to payment limits on the largest farmers.  But most important for South Dakota might be a proposal to elevate support for ethanol, especially cellulosic ethanol made from grass and crop residues. That could reshape farms, rural economies and landscapes across the Great Plains."  Read the whole story.

Johnson

The Washington Post has a lengthy article today entitled "At Roll Call, an Uneasy Silence," which discusses Senator Johnson's absence from the Senate and his recovery.

Hitch Skewers Rich

One of the very best (and most vicious)  book reviews I have read.  Christopher Hitchens tears into the vapid Frank Rich of the New York Times.  HT Joe K.

Frontloading: Bad

A wise piece from the LA Times about how California's possible movement of their primary from June to February might upset the whole primary apple cart.    On this page we have debated whether South Dakota should join the race to the front of primary season, a notion I have consistently rejected.  This piece about California shows why.  As the author points out, if California moves to a February primary, an enormous number delegates will be selected by the middle of that month.  This means that it is likely that the parties will have essentially selected their nominees about eight months before the election.  Only candidates with big money can possibly run in what will essentially be a national primary.  Candidates will have to garner media attention in order to be viable.  This gives enormous power to the media.  Candidate will not run the personal hands-on campaigns of Iowa and New Hampshire.  They will run vapid big media campaigns long on platitudes and empty promises, but short on any personal connection to the voters.  We will end up with nominees who are essentially untested, since you just need a couple big days to gain the nomination.  Outsider candidates will be a thing of the past, as the ability to start slowly and gain momentum will be lost.  We can already see how candidates must announce ridiculously early in order to compete in our front loaded primary system.  For the 1972 election, George McGovern announced for president in January 1971.  At the time that was considered extremely early for an announcement.  As you can see here, as we approach the end of January 2007, we already have 20 announced candidates (of various levels of seriousness), with possibly more to come (e.g. Newt Gingrich and/or Chuck Hagel).  It is almost as if our presidential races never end.  There is never a time for governing, just campaigning. 

I suppose this bird has flown, so perhaps South Dakota should just look to its self-interest and join everyone else in the front of the bus.  But it'd be nice if at least one state held out for electoral sanity.

Keep It Closed

Here's a little nugget about Rep. Larry Lucas from Mission who wants to change our primary from closed to open.  In closed primaries, as South Dakota has currently, the voter must be registered with a political party to vote. Not true in open primaries, where independent registrants are allowed to cast votes. 

What is the purpose of a primary?  Is it not for the parties to select their nominees?  Then does it not make sense that a voter should be in a political party?  Why would you let people who don't bother joining a party take part in what is essentially a party event?  I did not vote in the 2006 primary in South Dakota because I was not registered with a party at the time.  I changed my registration shortly thereafter precisely so I would not find myself in that situation again.  Parties are the engine of change in American politics. If you want change, than join a party. 

South of the Border Tortilla Crisis!

It just goes to show you: it's always something.  Professor Schaff comments below on the recently falling price of gasoline.  Good news, you say.  Well, yeah.  Unless your livelihood depends on corn tortillas.  The Washington Post reports that as the price of gasoline heads south, taco shells are headed in the opposite direction.

Mexico is in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history. Dramatically rising international corn prices, spurred by demand for the grain-based fuel ethanol, have led to expensive tortillas. That, in turn, has led to lower sales for vendors such as Rosales and angry protests by consumers.

The uproar is exposing this country's outsize dependence on tortillas in its diet -- especially among the poor -- and testing the acumen of the new president, Felipe Calderón. It is also raising questions about the powerful businesses that dominate the Mexican corn market and are suspected by some lawmakers and regulators of unfair speculation and monopoly practices.

Tortilla prices have tripled or quadrupled in some parts of Mexico since last summer. On Jan. 18, Calderón announced an agreement with business leaders capping tortilla prices at 78 cents per kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, less than half the highest reported prices. The president's move was a throwback to a previous era when Mexico controlled prices -- the government subsidized tortillas until 1999, at which point cheap corn imports were rising under the NAFTA trade agreement. It was also a surprise given his carefully crafted image as an avowed supporter of free trade.

Consider the awesome force of those words: "the worst tortilla crisis in modern history."  Drum roll, please.  I am curious now, for the first time I assure you, about what the second greatest tortilla crisis  in modern history looked like, and how your typical pre-modern tortilla crisis differed from the modern version.  Surely there is a Ph.D. dissertation in this. 

Shrewd historians and political scientists will recognize that this crisis has serious implications for the freedom of the press in Mexico. 

Kerry Slams U.S.--Again

Captain Ed:  "Kerry Slams US In Davos Summit."  Glenn Reynolds sums Kerry up nicely:  "Like Jimmy Carter, he'll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he'll console himself with the approval of America's enemies."

Iowa

The Washington Post:

DES MOINES, Jan. 26 -- When New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton arrives here for her first presidential campaign events this weekend, she will encounter unfamiliar terrain -- a landscape where she is not the perceived front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

Although Clinton appears formidable at the national level, she has not built up a lead in Iowa, home of the first caucuses of the 2008 campaign next January. Most recent polls of Iowa Democrats have shown former senator John Edwards of North Carolina in the lead, with Clinton in a pack that includes Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack.

"This is anyone's race to win, including obviously Governor Vilsack, who is very familiar with the landscape here," said newly elected Iowa Gov. Chet Culver (D), who met with Clinton shortly after she arrived Friday afternoon but who is remaining neutral. "That's the wonderful thing about the caucus process. The winner will have to earn it."

That puts Clinton in the unusual position of having to prove herself against other Democrats, and having to build up a political infrastructure in Iowa at a time when many rivals already have a head start. Her appearances here -- her first in more than three years -- are certain to start a media frenzy, potentially intruding on the direct access to candidates that caucus-goers have come to expect.

There are many reasons why Clinton may meet resistance in Iowa. An obvious one is her vote for the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Although she has increasingly become a harsh critic of the administration, her long support for the conflict -- and her refusal to renounce her vote -- has left a sour taste among some liberal Democrats.

She also has opposed subsidies for ethanol, a politically incorrect position for any presidential candidate seeking support in an agricultural state such as Iowa.

But, more fundamentally, her challenge may be finding ways to show Iowa Democrats that she is a more personable and accessible figure.

"Her history is eight years at the White House and six years as a U.S. senator -- all of it with Secret Service -- and there's many obstacles that go along with it, many of which Vice President Gore faced in 2000," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama adviser who ran the Clinton-Gore reelection effort in the 1996 race and managed Gore's victory over Bill Bradley in Iowa in 2000.

"She's going to have to figure out how to get outside of that circle, in order to have the same kinds of dialogues with Iowa voters that all the other candidates are going to have," Hildebrand said. "It's expected in these early states, and she's going to have to figure out how to get that done."

Rep. Hunt Defiant

Rep. Roger Hunt continues to withhold the name of the anonymous donor who contributed $750,000 in last November's abortion fight.  Argus Leader excerpt:

State Rep. Roger Hunt on Friday rejected Attorney General Larry Long's attempt to force him to reveal the name of a major campaign contributor in the 2006 state vote on an abortion ban.

South Dakota's campaign finance law violates Hunt's free speech rights, Hunt argues in court papers filed Friday. The law also is vague, he maintains.

Long subpoenaed Hunt in December in an attempt to force him to reveal the source of $750,000 in contributions to the Vote Yes for Life organization. The contributions were made through Hunt's corporation by someone he says is a South Dakota resident.

Long has said Hunt violated campaign finance laws by not disclosing the donor's name.

Gas Prices Down

Some time ago I opined that the days of sub-$2.00 a gallon gas are probably over.  Well, I am happy to report I was wrong, at least in Aberdeen. State and national price still averages over $2.00.  I hope to be further proven wrong. 

Censure It Is

The Senate panel votes 6-3 to censure, but not expel, Dan Sutton. The three members who voted against the resolution favored expulsion. 

Two Americas

Perhaps the story of John Edwards's new house will take on the same dimension as Tom Daschle's Washington DC home in the 2004 Senate race, although don't expect the multi-millionaire Clinton's to bring it up.  Still, average guys don't build $6 million homes with 28,200 square feet and their own "basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated 'John's Lounge.'"

Note: apparently getting listed on Drudge has collapsed the Carolina Journal website.  The link above may or may not take you to the news story.  Here's the picture of Edwards's new estate:

The Biology of the Soul

Time.com has a very interesting article by Steven Pinker.  It presents a summary of what is going on in the science of consciousness.  Here is an excerpt. 

We all feel we are conscious of a rich and detailed world in front of our eyes. Yet outside the dead center of our gaze, vision is amazingly coarse. Just try holding your hand a few inches from your line of sight and counting your fingers. And if someone removed and reinserted an object every time you blinked (which experimenters can simulate by flashing two pictures in rapid sequence), you would be hard pressed to notice the change. Ordinarily, our eyes flit from place to place, alighting on whichever object needs our attention on a need-to-know basis. This fools us into thinking that wall-to-wall detail was there all along--an example of how we overestimate the scope and power of our own consciousness.

Our authorship of voluntary actions can also be an illusion, the result of noticing a correlation between what we decide and how our bodies move. The psychologist Dan Wegner studied the party game in which a subject is seated in front of a mirror while someone behind him extends his arms under the subject's armpits and moves his arms around, making it look as if the subject is moving his own arms. If the subject hears a tape telling the person behind him how to move (wave, touch the subject's nose and so on), he feels as if he is actually in command of the arms.

More Incoherent Drivel on Iraq

I admit I did have some expectation that my post on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Non-binding resolution on the President's "surge" policy might attract a barb or two from my friend Chad at CCK.  I was not disappointed.  Chad's post was full of the nastiness and careless reading that has become his blog's M.O., but I will reply to his musings about responsibility. 

He attributes to me the proposition that the Democrats want to bring our troops home.  Yes.  That was expressed in the non-binding resolution.  But "wanting" is not a position or a policy.  What are they prepared to do about it?  The answer is nothing, just yet.  Why not?  If they think the President's policy is a terrible mistake, why not act to stop it?  Why not use their powers to force an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq?  The answer to that is that they do not want to take responsibility for what would then happen.  So long as they express "wants" without actually doing anything, the President will be held responsible for the eventual outcome.  That was the point of my words about responsibility.

I will now go further.  The Democratic majority in Congress has the power to stop the President from putting more troops into the Fertile Crescent.  They are responsible as much for what they don't do as for what they do.  Passing cowardly non-binding resolutions may well allow them to escape responsibility, but that is just weasel talk.  If the Democrats allow the President to pursue his policy, when they could have blocked it, they are in fact responsible for it as he is. 

Iraq

Glenn Reynolds:

DONALD SENSING LOOKS AT THE NEW IRAQ STRATEGY, and likes what he sees.

Meanwhile, a question for Chuck Hagel, et al.: "Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disaproval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a president with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass. " If Petraeus succeeds, they'll be bragging that they voted for him. If he fails, they'll note that they opposed the surge. As John F. Kennedy noted, political courage is scarcer than physical courage . . . .

Yes.  Instead of drafting a pointless resolution, why doesn't Congress help figure out a way to assist the President in winning this war?

Getting Serious about Iran

The Bush administration has authorized the military to pursue Iranian infiltration in Iraq, including the use of lethal force and may even label the Iranian Army a terrorist organization for its connections to Hamas and Hezbollah:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

More analysis of the situation by The Captain.

The Unbearable Lightness of the Congressional Majority

Since John Kerry voted for the war before voting against it, we have been waiting for the Democracy Party to tell us what it really thinks about the war in Iraq.  It appears we have longer to wait.  From the Washington Post:

A day after President Bush pleaded with Congress to give his Iraq policy one last chance, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rebuffed him by approving a nonbinding resolution declaring his troop increase in Iraq to be against "the national interest."The committee voted 12 to 9 to send a resolution of disapproval of the president's Iraq policy to the Senate floor next week, setting up what could be the most dramatic confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration since the war was launched four years ago.

A "non-binding" resolution.  That'll teach that rascal in the White House!  This strikes me as about the worst thing that the new Congressional majority could do.  They could have acted to stop the President from putting more troops in Iraq and pursuing a new, more aggressive policy.  That might or might not have been the thing to do, but at least it would have been something.  But of course it would have meant taking responsibility. 

The enemy in Iraq cannot hope to defeat the American forces on the ground.  Their sole strategy has been to convince Americans that the situation in Iraq is hopeless, and to make our tenure there as costly as possible.  The Senate's non-binding resolution sends the message that the strategy is working without removing a single soldier from harm's way.  That is a curious way of supporting our troops. 

SDP Jazz Note: The House that Trane Built

Jeffrey Siegel's extraordinary jazz site, Straight No Chaser, has a podcast on a recent book about Impulse Records. 

I’ve been engrossed in reading Ashley Kahn’s history of Impulse Records, The House That Trane Built for the past few days. There is a Four CD set that goes with the book (thanks for the Chanukah present, Nancy!) and assists greatly in matching Kahn’s descriptive prose to the sometimes wild sounds of the label’s avant-garde recordings.

The book sounds very interesting; the CD collection less so.  I am not much interested in anthologies, as I would rather have the original recordings as the artists themselves put them together.  Recently I acquired the Miles Davis Quintet recordings Cookin, and Workin'.  Both of them are essential pieces in a good jazz library. 

But an anthology provided for free is something I can't resist.  Siegel offers a number of cuts from the above mentioned collection, punctuated by reading from the book.  As I loaded the dishwasher tonight I listened to the podcast.  Rapture would be the word.  If you like jazz or are curious about jazz, check out Siegel's podcast.  You can download it for free, and listen to it on your computer or on your MP3 player. 

I am sure that record company executives are worried about this free distribution of music.  They shouldn't be.  People who listen to the podcasts and don't buy the music weren't going to buy it anyway.  I, on the other hand, have been spending all the money I make writing for the Aberdeen American News buying music I first heard on Straight No Chaser, or my other favorite podcast In the Groove: Jazz and Beyond. 

Historical Irony

Eric Rauchway of Open University:

I couldn't resist this item from Prague:

The Museum of Communism is currently located ... above the McDonalds and next to the Casino....

via The News Quiz.

I'm Just Askin'

PP asks why legislators would propose a repeal of the death penalty even though most South Dakotans favor capital punishment.  Is it possible that the legislators advocate the repeal because they think the death penalty is wrong?  Henry Hyde once said that every legislator should have at least one issue that he'd be willing to lose his seat over.  Perhaps this is it for this group. 

Eleanor McGovern

Argus Leader:

Funeral services for Eleanor McGovern will be 2 p.m. Saturday at First United Methodist Church, 310 N. Rowley St. in Mitchell.

Public viewing and visitation will be 6 to 8 p.m. Friday at the church.

Refreshments will be served at the church following a private committal service on Saturday. She will be buried a Graceland Cemetery in Mitchell.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the McGovern family.

This Is What It Has Come To, Part II

Yale Daily News:  "Events set to observe Roe"

On Thursday, the Yale Medical Students for Choice will host workshop on manual vacuum aspiration for medical students, using a papaya as a uterine model. Manual vacuum aspiration is a surgical abortion method that uses a syringe to remove the fetus from a woman’s uterus. Merritt Evans MED ’09 said she thought it was important to have the workshop because the procedure can be used for a variety of different purposes — including miscarriage management and the treatment of a failed medical abortion or ectopic pregnancy — and is inconsistently taught in medical school.

While the workshop is targeted towards medical students, undergraduates are also invited to attend.

“The reason I wanted to include other people is that it is such a simple procedure, but the media attention around it … makes this an emotionally traumatic and a complicated thing,” Evans said. “It’s just to be like, ‘Here is what actually happens, here is what the medical procedure is like, this is what an aborted yolk sac looks like.’ It looks like a piece of cotton.”

Epp on Sutton

Our blogosphere colleague Todd Epp doesn't buy Dan Sutton's argument:

But I’m also a father and I’ve also taught and coached young people.  I cannot for the life of me think that Dennis Wiese would put any of his kids up to charging a family friend—Dan Sutton—with these horrible accusations just to get a little pay back for the Flandreau Development Corporation (which Sutton is president of) suing or threatening to sue Ridgefield Farms for the money it invested.

Would you put your 18 year old kid through this?  And your other kids?  And their friends? 

I don’t think Dennis Wiese would do such a thing.  I think he has acted like a parent who beleives his kid has been harmed.

And do you honestly believe that Austin Wiese concocted this whole story just to help his dad out?

Don’t you think with all these moving parts, it would have fallen apart—particularly if you are depending upon a bunch of kids to pull off the knee-capping of a sitting state senator?

And don’t you think it would have fallen apart after two days of hearings in Pierre?  It hasn’t.

And what about Attorney General Larry Long and the DCI?  They obviously thought there was some fire with the smoke, that something indeed untoward happened to Austin Wiese by Dan Sutton?  They just don’t investigate to investigate because they have nothing better to do.  And when Democrats are involved?  Come on.  Give Larry and the cops some credit.  These are hard nosed people.

I’m sitting in Augusta, Kansas, six or seven hundred miles away from Pierre.  I have no inside information about what might happen.  But here’s my guess what the Senate will do.  Dan is at the least going to be censured. Cripes, don’t sleep in the same bed as a page! And I think, based on what has transpired, that Dan is in real danger of losing his seat.

After that, it will be up to the lawyers, the courts, Dan Sutton, and public opinion.  But I don’t think it looks too good for Dan Sutton right now.

You can catch the trial later today at:

Sutton Hearing

KELOLand will be streaming the proceedings live.  The Argus Leader blog has been extensively covering the hearing, and so has Denise Ross.

Minimum Wage Setback

The New York Times:

Prospects for an increase in the minimum wage suffered a setback today in the Senate, where a move fell short, at least for now, to raise the minimum by $2.10 an hour without tax breaks for small businesses

The 54 “yes” votes were six short of the number needed to shut off debate and move on to consideration of the bill, which easily passed in the House two week ago. That bill would increase the wage to $7.25 from the current $5.15 in three steps, but without tax breaks. Today’s vote, while disappointing to those who want to raise the minimum wage at once and with no accompanying tax provisions, was hardly a surprise. A substantial number of senators had indicated they wanted to tie a wage increase to tax breaks for small businesses, to help offset the costs of the increase.

Next, the Senate will debate what kind of tax breaks to attach to a wage increase. Then, the Senate will have to agree with the House. President Bush has signaled that he would sign a bill providing for a wage increase with related tax breaks.

All 43 “no” votes on the motion to end debate were cast by Republicans. Five Republicans joined 47 Democrats and two independents in voting “yes.” They were Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John W. Warner of Virginia and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. (Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, and Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, both Democrats, did not vote.)

I expect that eventually the minimum wage bill will pass both chambers with some sort of tax relief offered to small businesses to accommodate the additional cost of higher wages they're unprepared to offer.  Each party will claim some degree of victory and bipartisanship while inflation rises and lower-wage jobs are lost.  The result of that?  It'll be President Bush's fault, obviously.  Plus, the Washington economic meddlers will ask for another minimum wage increase in the next few years.

The Master Of The Inane

Yes, I did well on the State Of The Union guessing game.  Aced out Knippenberg.  I am listed 35th, but only finished 3 points behind the winner.  When it comes to understanding meaningless political rhetoric and command of empty political gestures and cliches, I am a master.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president must make an annual address to Congress.  It just says "from time to time" he should report on "the State of the Union."  And he certainly does not have to appear in person.  Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of personally delivering a speech.  He and his successors simply delivered an "annual message" in paper form to Congress.  Woodrow Wilson re-inaugurated the practice of giving a big speech to a joint session of Congress.  One more reason to dislike Wilson.

"I Didn't Do Anything"

One consolation: At least Dan Sutton is taking on the charges against him rather than play legal games through his lawyers.  He should have done this months ago.

Update: We've finally made national news. This just hit Drudge.