Argus Analysis on Thune Race: Unlike Daschle, Thune has voted for SD’s interests.
The Argus Leader is all but calling the 2010 US Senate race for Senator Thune, as the look at the inevitable comparisons between Thune’s metoric rise to the top of the GOP Caucus, and Tom Daschle at the height of his influence:
Up for re-election in 2010 as a leader of his party, Thune must perform the same juggling act between national politics and state interests that Daschle bobbled in 2004 while campaigning for a fourth term. And, like Daschle five years ago, Thune is helping run a minority party coming off a tough election, putting greater weight on GOP leaders to oppose President Obama’s agenda and shape a national message.
Political analysts say circumstances favor the incumbent this time around. No significant opponent has surfaced to challenge Thune and, they say, he knows well the perils of going against his constituents.
“Thune is a smart guy who is not going to emulate the practices of his predecessor,” said Jennifer Duffy, who studies Senate campaigns for the Cook Political Report.
“He’s not going to vote against South Dakota’s interests. He saw what it did to Daschle.”
and…
“The problem that Tom had is he had to carry a left-of-center-agenda for a left-of-center caucus and represent a right-of-center state,” Thune said. “You get out of alignment. He was the guy who became the face of the filibuster on all these issues, and I think many of them were things that people in the state were for.”
and…
Even Daschle says things have changed.
“Circumstances are so different between 2010 and 2004 that I wouldn’t begin to list them,” he recently told the Argus Leader.
Daschle said he had “no regrets” about his campaign five years ago, which he lost by fewer than 5,000 votes. He said Thune can do more for South Dakota as a party leader than as a rank-and-file member.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I guess it depends on your perspective. I see Senator Thune voting against South Dakota’s interests all the time. But we all have different ideas about what’s best and what’s not.
Daschle trying to be rich and living in a nice DC mansion was not a problem for me. Since when is success something to be ashamed of? (Oh wait. Under Obama, it is.) Daschle was just too liberal.
I agree with the Argus. Actually, I’ve said about what Thune said in previous posts (although admitedly it’s not exactly rocket science to figure this one out). SD is a right of center state for the most part, so it’s easier for any Republican to vote his/her party and state than a Democrat. This is also why if Herseth is smart, she’ll stay away from leadership. There’s a reason the Speaker is from San Francisco. She can be a far-left liberal at home and in DC.
As shown by John above, we do have plenty of Dems in the state, but there are more people who will agree with Thune than disagree.
Seems to me the Argus article argues Daschle lost on the “to big for his britches” issue, not because his votes were out of line with “South Dakota interests”. Thune is an empty suit scaling the ranks of a party headed for irrelevancy because of its right wing, reactionary agenda–an agenda he is helping to frame. His friendly, almost affable demeanor masks that fact, so he’ll win easily. But that doesn’t mean his votes are in the interests of South Dakotan’s.
“The problem that Tom had is he had to carry a left-of-center-agenda for a left-of-center caucus and represent a right-of-center state,”
I don’t think that’s correct – I think Tom’s problem was he was trying to get rich and powerful rather than govern.
I hope John avoids that all-too-common pitfall.