A not-so-lame duck

The odd ducks of Congress, or rather a majority of them, waddled out their last days of 2010 with a busy agenda. The media, the average voter, and even members of Congress throw this term "lame duck" around as if it is a perfectly worthless part of the legislative calendar. And indeed it usually is such. While everyone else applauds President Obama (which is much deserved) for the victories that came out of the 2010 Lame Duck, let's look instead at the few, but faithful, conservatives who might as well not have even shown up because they clearly had no intention of working until Christmas, fulfilling their term, and passing measures of progress.
I want to look briefly at a few of the measures that we saw come out of the Lame Duck and the rhetoric/argument that led to their ultimate passage.
DADT was a long time coming. Ultimately, I predict history will likely regard the reversal of DADT as giving more Americans the rights and respect they deserve. When homosexuality affects a family or individual, it is expected that they would have strong feelings on the issue. But when it comes to providing openness and respect to our soliders I fail to see how this becomes such a polarizing, ideological issue. Robert Gates has shown his approval for the repeal; several studies published recently show that many of those serving as well a Pentagon studies all affirm the belief that DADT will not negatively affect our armed forces. For those who agree with the repeal it can be difficult to understand what the final rationale was for those who voted against it. So I took the liberty of looking into the rationale of our very own Senator John Thune. Here is Thune's statement after much thought and deliberation:

Thune said he voted against the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell after considering the issue and studying a Pentagon report that called for removing the policy, which was enacted in December 1993.

“The thing to me is, this is a major change,” Thune said. “Why would you change it?

What? That's the best he could come up with?

Then it gets better. Those who were pissed about the end result of DADT decided to take it out on the START treaty vote. Once again...WHAT? That's the best you can come up with? You could write a book on the signal that sends on American foreign policy. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and the Senate reached the 2/3 majority they needed to ratify our end of the treaty. Again, Thune voted no.

These are just examples of the tidbits coming out of Washington over the last few weeks that continued to baffle me. What is most baffling is the clear and expressed opposition to issues that seem to achieve better outcomes for citizens and government alike. And if the opposition was doing it just to make a point, well, then they did a piss poor job.

I spoke with a current state legislator recently about some issues that we'll see presented out in Pierre this year. The politics of this session will be perhaps less intense, and more amusing that recent years. I based this on recent Argus and Rapid City Journal articles giving previews of bills that may be introduced this session on immigration and possibly Sharia law. What is not amusing is the proposed 5% cut to education.
More on that later.

For now, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Keep your stick on the ice as we head into the thick of South Dakota winter and an interesting legislative session.

Election Day

Get out and vote.

In Defense of Noem...

House candidates Kristi Noem and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin were supposed to face-off last Tuesday in Rapid City for the KOTA-TV Debate, but due to a "scheduling conflict" with a Siouxland Republican Women event, Noem was not able to show up despite agreeing to the debate this summer, reported the Rapid City Journal. 


But while I take issue with that, it's not what I am interested in discussing today.  


In response to Herseth-Sandlin's news release accusing Noem of “hiding out” because her “debate performances in August demonstrated she has little to offer when it comes to policy specifics” in a news release; her campaign manager, Joshua Shields had this to offer: 

 “Kristi and Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin have debated five times. They’ll debate at least two more times,” he said. “Kristi has consistently shown the clear differences between her and Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin’s record.”

Yes, Herseth Sandlin having one and Noem, not. Or is he defending her for not having policy specifics? Or has he just realized that they're campaign is solely rooted in negativity, and that his candidate has very little to offer beyond just a pretty face?

What Kristi Noem Isn't Telling You (...the Truth?)

So far the Noem campaign's bread and butter has revolved around attacking Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on any grounds imaginable, and telling voters what she WON'T do for South Dakota.

A prime example of this can be found on today's frontpage of Kristi Noem's website.

For those of you too lazy to click on the link, here's what I'm talking about: 

It would be understandable if just the scrolling messages were attacks on Stephanie, but EVEN the "Latest News" is all about Stephanie and not Kristi.

One may wonder with all this time and money being invested in attacking her opponent and telling us what she won't due for our state, when Noem is finally going to turn around tell us what she WILL do for South Dakota.

And since we're less than two weeks away from election day, and we still don't know, I think it's fair that we make a few inferences.

Based on her track record this campaign, you can bet your last speeding ticket that Noem will:

• continue to show a blatant disregard to the law (this time on a national scale)

• continue to lie to and mislead South Dakotans

• continue paralyzing partisan politics that keeps progress at a gridlock

      and

• pretend to push for a repeal of Healthcare Reform that brings countless benefits to South Dakota

Abortion: The non-issue of this election cycle

It is far too often that we get caught up on non-issues, that we blind ourselves to the actual issues at hand of the present day. 

Wednesday's Argus Leader would indicate that the powers that be are really making a similar play for a rejuvenation of the one issue voters in South Dakota to surge ahead of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in these last few days before the election.

Today's issue of the Aberdeen American News also features a letter to the editor making the same type of appeal. The author states that she is "voting for Kristi Noem." Why? Because of "the life issue." What issue does she speak of? The Republicans vow for full repeal of healthcare reform, not modification. And no one can honestly say that they're ever going to be able to successfully follow through on that promise. There's really no paramount issue within the next two years that affects the 'life issue.' So really, it's an illusion. A political tactic only used to muster up support for a candidate that literally promises nothing. Put bluntly, the "life issue" is a non issue. 


And Noem doesn't even promise pro-lifers anything whatsoever. On her website, all she says in regards to the issue of life is that she "promises to maintain a 100% pro-life voting record." She doesn't promise to sponsor an all-out federal ban on abortion, she doesn't promise to press the issue of life, just when the issue does happen to come up vote the 'right' way. 


Her promise lacks conviction and would appear to be a coward's way of securing votes.

It seems to be a time honored tradition, "If you can't beat them on the issues, then let's talk about abortion."

If only we lived in a world of Aaron Sorkin's post-Vinik republican party... 

Noem the Patriot!

When HERSETH SANDLIN says she won't specifically vote for Pelosi and she is boo'd...



BUT

When NOEM refuses to say she will vote for Boehner and she is regarded as a "patriot".

Am I the only one finding this mildly humorous? Or is everyone just sick and tired of this third-rate attempt at poetic irony?

Herseth on Healthcare: Lefty Liberal or Blue Dog Democrat? You actually DON'T get to decide.

A recent Argus Leader letter to the editor poses and answers their own question of:

Should anti-abortion taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions? Our representative to Congress says yes.

While they are correct on Herseth-Sandlin's voting record on the Stupak Amendment, their conclusion (especially in the context of the healthcare debate) is dishonest. 

I really do have to give credit to the creativity of the right-wing though. With their bread-and-butter strategy of attacking candidates for their support of healthcare reform (which is FAR from Obamacare) taken away, their willingness to go to new lengths to attack her on the healthcare front is somewhere between inspirational and laughable. First they complained that she wouldn't vow to repeal the bill, and now they're saying that she voted to support state-funded abortions. 

Well news-flash, she didn't vote for healthcare reform, she didn't vote to fund abortions. She didn't even vote for tort reform. She didn't vote for any bit of it. When the dust settled on the the votes on the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, the votes were recorded. 220 yea and 211 nay, and Herseth-Sandlin found herself aligned with the latter of the two. 

So let's stop playing pretend. She unfortunately (for millions of American and GOP talking points) didn't vote for the bill, and isn't feebly making promises to voters of repeal to win votes. 

]I realize both sides are far from keeping the campaigns positive, but let's at least try to keep it accurate.