Herseth as Mainstream Democrat

See this op-ed in the Rapid City Journal regarding Stephanie Herseth.  Especially given her shifting position on Iraq, it's hard to consider her an "independent voice."  Here's the whole thing:

Herseth is a mainstream Democrat
By Alan Aker

Please, no more talk about how independent Stephanie Herseth is. You Democrat operatives can keep up the spiel about how hard she works, what a good listener she is, how good she is at bringing home pork, and how much common sense she has, but please, quit pounding on the “she’s an independent voice for South Dakota” theme.

Last week’s vote on the Iraq resolution revealed Herseth for what she is: a garden-variety, toe-the-line, mainstream Democrat.

A certain segment of voters love the idea of the independent politician.

It warms their hearts to imagine Herseth storming into Nancy Pelosi’s office, slamming a fist on her desk, and shouting, “I can’t vote for the gun control (or immigration, or tax, or energy) bill you’re pushing! The everyday, hard-working people back in South Dakota come first with me, and this bill isn’t what they’d want. The folks back home are more important to me than what our party’s Hollywood and trial lawyer contributors want.”

Usually, the dream sequence ends there, but I’m curious about what you dreamers imagine happens next. Does Nancy Pelosi gaze solemnly into Stephanie’s eyes, extend a hand of friendship, and with a tear in her eye, say, “You’re right Representative Herseth. I was wrong to ask you to vote in a manner that’s more to the liking of our Hollywood contributors than the good and noble folks back South Dakota. Forget that I even asked. Now, let’s get to work on that ethanol amendment you were interested in…“

I have no idea what Herseth really thinks about Iraq. Her published comments are a masterpiece of obfuscation: they’re sprinkled with words and phrases like “nonbinding”, “complex”, “oversight”, “tough questions,“ “the right answer is somewhere in between,“ and “concern.“ I challenge anyone to study Herseth’s public comments on the matter, and tell me what it is she wants to do about Iraq, other than hold a lot of hearings and ask those tough questions.

In the entire three years before last week’s vote, Herseth stayed away from the Iraq issue. Unlike most Democrats, she steered clear of strong criticism of how President Bush was conducting the war. She understood that most of her voters supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, wanted badly for us to win in Iraq, and had confidence that our military could eventually find a way to do so. Sure, some of her voters believe Bush is a war criminal and go spastic whenever they hear the word “Halliburton.“ But that’s a pretty small group in South Dakota, and, after all, who would they vote for besides Herseth?

So for three long years, as the media and the urban Democrats worked themselves into an ever-frothier lather that Bush bypassed the clueless Hans Blix and the United Nation’s corrupt Oil for Food farce, Herseth stayed quiet. So what made her change course and vote for a resolution that gives aid and comfort to the lying, lazy cowards who are, right this moment, devising ways to kill South Dakota soldiers serving their country in Iraq?

Did Bush stubbornly reject opposition recommendations to replace Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, increase the number of troops, and implement more aggressive rules of engagement? Did conditions on the ground worsen? Quite the opposite. Bush changed course on Iraq, and early indications are that it might be working.

What changed Herseth’s position is that Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House. I’m not claiming she was explicitly threatened or bribed.

Washington politics aren’t that straightforward. And although Herseth won’t tell us what she wants to do about Iraq, we now know that she’s no independent.