Server issues
So much for a vacation.
My server is acting up. If you try to access the site via www.dakotawarcollege.com, it doesn’t work. If you drop the “www,” it works just fine.
I’m working on it. Thanks for your patience.
Still on vacation. Best of… “Another helping of the abortion issue. Please?”
This vacation thing is tougher than I thought. It’s pretty tough to resist the temptation and post on a flurry of issues. Here’s another “best of” column from “the coming storm” series I did - specifically on the topic of abortion -pp:
When I started writing this series, I figured one of the issues I’d focus on was one of the most divisive issues that Republicans have faced over the years - the legality of abortion.
There’s been much written about the issue dividing the party, and how it’s caused much of our electoral troubles. Or has it?
I sent out several e-mails to legislators, activists and people in the abortion movement to see what I would get back. I openly solicited comments from Republicans. And surprisingly to me, there was not a huge amount of dissent. Without a huge amount of commentary, here’s what was related to me after I requested a paragraph or so on the issue, and it’s effect on the GOP.
Has it driven the party apart, or brought the GOP closer together and why?:
Going back to 2006, if you look at the votes in the Senate, HB 1215 definitely had bipartisan support. In fact, it was sponsored by Senator Bartling, and even supported by then Democrat Minority Leader Gary Moore. So saying this is a Republican issue isn’t entirely accurate. Of the 12 negative votes, eight were Republican and four were Democrat.
Has it had an effect on the GOP? I would say yes. While I don’t think it was the overriding issue in most legislative races, it did have a big effect on candidate recruitment. Let’s start first in the primary elections, where Adelstein and Duane Sutton were challenged based at least partially on their votes on 1215. As you know, in primaries, conservative voters show up. Both then lost in the June primary, setting up two general elections in which the GOP had no sitting incumbent.
Let’s turn now to the general elections. While the Dems traditionally had weak legislative recruitment efforts, they certainly stepped up some of their efforts for Senate seats. Now I can’t tell you why Heidepriem, Turbak, and Jerstad ran, but I suspect part of it may have been the abortion issue.
So as we look at last year’s elections, I think we can point to five districts where the abortion issue had some effect on candidate recruitment, either in the general election or the primary election. We can debate about why some of our people won and some lost, but I have generally held the belief that most legislative races are not won or lost on issues, but have more to do with overall quality of the candidate, how hard they work and how effective they campaign, and how well known and likeable they are in their community. On top of that, some had funding issues… some had a lack of funds and others had well-financed opponents. Some had both.
Back to your question and my answer. I would say ‘YES’, the abortion issue did have an effect on the GOP. It primarily had an effect on candidate recruitment efforts by the opposition. That may have been the tipping point for some of those legislative districts, but there were other factors in the mix as well within some of those campaigns.
In terms of the issue itself, I think it is certainly an issue dividing many within our party.
- Senator Bob Gray, Senate President Pro Temp
And…..
The abortion issue has been with us since 1973.
This is one of the top issues that defines the two major parties’ platforms. The Democrats are seen as the party of unfettered abortion while the Republicans are seen as the party of life. The right to life is the fundamental right above all other rights! Therefore on general terms the abortion issue has been good for Republicans.
Let’s look at the numbers: Republicans have grown in numbers in South Dakota since becoming known as the pro-life party. The SD Democratic platform in 1979 was still pro-life, but the nationwide Democratic Party on the other hand was not and forced politicians to support their stance on abortion to get funding for their elections. Therefore, we had politicians such as George McGovern in the early 70’s and Tom Daschle later saying one thing (I’m pro-life, but…) to get votes in South Dakota and voting the opposite in Washington . In 1978, Republicans had 1,600 less members than the Democrats in SD. In the 2006 election cycle, the Republicans had a majority of almost 50,000 people, 49,196 to be exact. Democrats actually have 2,440 less people now than they did 28 years before. Republicans have grown by 48,335 registered voters. Yes, it is true that some Republicans are pro-abortion but there are also many pro life Democrats.
Both parties have struggles within their ranks about this issue and will as long as the right to life of the unborn is not protected. The real question should be, what has happened to the Democratic Party in South Dakota and how much farther can they fall? And why is it that the media here in South Dakota has never pointed out these facts?
Overall I believe it has been a unifying force for the Republican Party.
- Dana E Randall, SDRTL President of the Board
And….
The socially conservative faction was brought together on the pro-life issue. They learned how to work as a cohesive unit statewide in the primary season and saw success. Though the abortion ban failed, I think many on the pro-life side saw the developments during the year positive.
The socially liberal side (I don’t use the word moderate on life issues, it just does not apply) felt public rejection from their party. Even though they were somewhat vindicated by the results on initiated measure 6, I think most left with a sour taste in their mouth. I would too if I felt my party had turned its back on me.
Most of the people left on the outside looking in right now in the Republican party are self-described moderates. The question for the Republican party is, are they liberal on life but conservative on other issues? Are they conservative on even one issue? Many politicians in this state are Republican due to the fact that it is the only way to get elected in some places. Others are careerists, and see being a Republican as the only way to advance in public service.
I love the fact that the GOP is the big tent party now, but some people are not Republicans, and many of them are finally coming to that realization.
Does this spell trouble for the GOP in SD? I would say emphatically no. I actually believe that 2006 was the year that the storm swept through the GOP. I think we are past the storm, but the question remains as to whether we will bounce back as a strong party. Not just a strong party structurally, but a strong party philosophically. Republicans can and will continue to win in SD when they get back to emphasizing low taxes, self-reliance, and common sense values. Small-government, low taxes voters will never leave the Republicans permanently over the life issue if Republicans stay true to their core values.
- Ben Zierke, GOP Activist
And…
Pat,
You asked me if I think the abortion issue has driven the party apart or brought it closer together. The answer is yes.
Abortion is an issue that divides Americans without regard to party affiliation. Within the Republican party, as in the general population, there are differing views on abortion. During my tenure in the legislature there has never been an abortion related bill that was considered a “caucus position” in the Republican caucus any more than there was in the Democratic caucus.
I believe the GOP as a whole can work through the abortion issue as well as the House Republican Caucus has. Even though individuals within our caucus have differing beliefs on this one issue, we have been able to work through them and focus on the multitude of other issues that bring us together as a party.
- Rep. Larry Rhoden, House Majority Leader
And finally,
The pro-life platform in the Republican Party is a major mobilizing force to ignite and engage conservative voters. Not only do more conservative Republicans vote, but this issue attracts thousands of pro-life Democrats and Independents to vote for Republicans. In addition, for those who feel the life issue is the #1 issue they vote on, pro-life voters outnumber abortion advocates two to one. This is the #1 social issue in future Federal and Supreme Court appointments, the presidential debate, and all US Senate and Congressional elections. The pendulum is always swinging in politics and due to the fact that many National Republicans abandoned Republican principles, conservative voters were disenfranchised with Politicians who allowed power and money to trump principles and the people who elected them.
- Leslee Unruh, South Dakota Abstinence Clearinghouse
When you look at this diversity of opinion, I think there are some valid points brought up.
GOP membership has continued to go up at the same time the Abortion issue has continued to gain in visibility.
Conservative voters are disenfranchised with politicians who allowed power and money to trump principles and the people who elected them - not because of abortion.
Possibly some of those who do feel disenfranchised might not have truly been Republican (based on a broad spectrum of issues, as opposed to just one).
We’re likely going to be acing the issue again this next session, and it’s very possible that much of the hullabaloo is not from within the GOP as much as from without. In that case, should the GOP in South Dakota have any caution to avoid the issue?
I don’t know on this one. I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, but if anything, this might have caused me to pause and think. Think that this might have little or nothing to do with the GOP’s troubles, as opposed to the abandonment of core values, as Leslee Unruh observed.
What are your thoughts on the issue? Are the commenters dead on, or all wet? (please be thoughtful, and use a name in your comments, because I think this is worthy of substantive discussion).
On Vacation! Starting “the best of the SDWC” posts: The Coming Storm in the SDGOP - Divide and be conquered
I’m officially going on vacation for a few weeks, and taking a “cleansing moment.” I anticipate possibly returning on December 1 rested and ready. At least that’s what the plan is.
But, to keep things going, I’ll be posting some of my favorite columns, features, and etcetera, (possibly with a few tweaks and updates). And the first is a column I wrote in September of 2007:
It is said that the strongest steel is tempered by the hottest flame. Well, what happens when your tempering agent is lukewarm water? Or a throw pillow?
Welcome to the 2002 South Dakota Gubernatorial election.
The two front runners were a popular attorney general who was all but anointed for the candidacy, and a very, very well funded upstart former Lt. Governor. Oh yeah, there was a former legislator in the race as well, but he didn’t have any money.
The winner of that contest was all but assured to face the University of South Dakota president, Jim Abbott. Because he was the only one who had any money to run a statewide gubernatorial primary campaign race on the Democrat’s side, predictably, Abbott won. But in a twist that no one could have predicted with any crystal ball, the Republican legislator without any money rode into the spotlight on a white horse, because the two front runners tore each other apart through their respective television commercials and press releases night after night on the TV news.
And you could have very, very easily called the general election right then and there.
The part about being tempered by lukewarm water comes in here. The only advantage Jim Abbott had were his personal financial holdings. Except for his first legislative election and his recent primary win, Jim had lost every intervening contest.
Legislative primary after his first win? Lost. Congressional Primary? Lost. On the SDDP ticket as Lt. Governor? Count that one as a loss too.
The thing is, as a Republican, we’d love him to death. Relatively personable, and a self-made man, he’d be looked at as a hero in our party. In the Democratic Party, Jim was like a bastard child for his success in the business world. In the Democratic party, Jim was… well, too Republican. In fact, in the past he’d even been criticized for it.
The only challenge Rounds faced was raising enough money to keep pace with the Democratic media buys, which was not insurmountable. Coming out of the primary as he did, Rounds was like teflon to any criticism. No matter how much mud was thrown, nothing had a chance of sticking.
It was literally impossible for him not to win that race.
At the same time, in the 2002 election you saw a mass of Republican legislative candidates facing an utterly neutered and foppish Democratic Party effort. Following prior trends, Democrats continued their dismal track record of fielding (roughly) only 20 State Senate candidates for 35 seats. And their efforts in the house races weren’t any better. 15 State Senate seats were just plain “abandoned” to the GOP, meaning that on the worst day we’d only had to win 3 out of the rest for a majority.
From Governor on down, the odds were in our favor. So much so, that we could have been sleepwalking through the 2002 election and won.
Because there was never any overwhelming electoral need to bring the various factions of the party together, we went past that election and into the 2003 legislative session in an environment where there were tons of Republican elected officials, but they were “just there” with no great endeavor having been required to bring the party together as one.
What did this result in? A GOP which was altogether too easy for dividing forces to move it apart. We might consider that the first great seed of discontent. We hadn’t come though fire. We went through a refreshing spring shower, and it left us quite full of ourselves.
—
Going back to the 2002 election, and “that one legislator;” in that race, each of the two major candidates in the primary had many, many significant backers.
But that legislator who unexpectedly came through the primary, Mike Rounds, more than anything else had one significant backer.
Behind the scenes with Governor Mike Rounds’ selection as the primary nominee there was one person whose stock immediately rose from background character to the top in the political scene. Who was that one person? None other than Republican legislator Stan Adelstein.
Stan had been this odd figure in Republican politics up until this point who spent as much time supporting Democrats such as Tom Daschle as he had Republicans. In the Rounds race, Stan found himself a place outside of the 2 main candidates where his interest would be appreciated.
The early pre-primary Rounds campaign found Adelstein investing $25,000 in the campaign through his “Building Rapid City PAC.” In fact, this represented the single largest donation the Rounds primary campaign received. In addition to this, Adelstein also made office space available to Rounds in the Rapid City Area in a prime location through Rapid City’s “gap” area. Adelstein’s support also continued through the general election.
After Rounds won the primary, and later the general election, this placed Stan Adelstein in the enviable position of sitting at the right hand of the Governor. Formerly a one term quirky legislator with little ability to pass legislation, the new year found him serving on Governor Rounds’ transition team. And by virtue of his early and significant support, Adelstein now had a direct channel into the executive halls of power.
As evidenced by his actions after this point, it was clear that Stan intended to continue to be a significant political player in the GOP. Legislatively, he had been derisively called “the Republican Frank Kloucek” in the press, a reference to his inability to have any of his measures become law. But outside of the walls of the legislature, any person knows that money drives the engine of politics, and Stan was well known to have a lot of “fuel” at his disposal.
In 2004, an opening was available in the Senate in Adelstein’s district which he readily pursued. But at the same time, given his unusual financial resources, Stan made the unusual step of supporting several people in senate primaries as he himself was running for that chamber.
In 2004, Adelstein used a new political action committee, the 21st century PAC to support those candidates of his choosing in both the House and the Senate as he attempted to exert more influence over those whose politics mirrored his own. Unfortunately for Stan, in 4 very significant instances, his choices were extraordinarily bad.
Stan supported incumbent Senator Patty deHueck over Bob Gray. Gray, a popular figure with the local chamber handily beat deHueck, whose liberal politics were closer to Adelstein’s than that of the conservative Pierre District. He supported Don Young over Jim Lintz in District 30, where Young used the massive infusion of Adelstein cash to pay himself mileage as opposed to using it for campaigning. Adelstein also supported lobbyist Ray Trankle over businessman Jason Gant who won the election.
In his biggest miscalculation of all, Adelstein supported Representative Claire Konold in his challenge against sitting Senator and Majority Whip Lee Schoenbeck, who crushed Konold on a 2 to 1 basis in the primary. And at this point, liberal Republican Stan Adelstein found himself at odds with his new conservative Senate President Pro Tempore.
This slight might have been overlooked. Many of his new compatriots begrudgingly started to forgive him at this point. But there were those who didn’t. And Adelstein fatally misjudged the influence he might possibly wield in his new Senate home.
As related in an e-mail accounting to the GOP Caucus of their 2004 post-general election interactions during the next primary season, Lee Schoenbeck provided a glimpse into his opinion of the discussions held between he and Stan regarding Stan’s new role as a State Senator.
It’s an understatement that it went badly:
“After you all elected me pres pro temp - he immediately called and started threatening that he thought I planned to run for state wide office one day and I needed his support - he spelled out certain committees he expected to be on and that he expected to be a chairman (that would be taking positions some of you occupied). As you can tell by the appointments he received, I don’t cow-toe to anybody’s threats and I particularly am offended by anybody trying to play me off against the interests of the caucus. Stan is a bad thing to have in any caucus - a cancer. I am proud that Jerry spelled it out - it is too bad we didn’t use our rules to expel him when he behaved so unprofessionally at last summer’s meetings.
Nobody makes the kind of threats he made to me, and EVER makes it back on the list of people that I would consider decent enough to be associated with.”
Read that all here. As Schoenbeck had related, as a new Senator, allegedly Stan expected his influence to leapfrog that of longer serving legislators. And accordingly, he was handed his hat and sent to the end of the line, as evidenced by his appointments to Health and Human Services and Local Government, in a less than leadership role.
One could say that the 2004 session was downhill from there, with many of his proposals lost. Additionally, it went so badly that a measure had been floated to limit Stan’s ability to fund campaigns through his favored PAC mechanisms had even made the light of day.
Looking from the outside, one could say that because of the unpopularity of some of his liberal viewpoints, operating strictly within the party he represented was no longer attractive for Adelstein. From here, the course Adelstein took was well documented:
When the South Dakota Mainstream Coalition was initially formed in June 2005, many people, especially Republicans, had lots of questions. Since then, few of those questions have been answered.
The Coalition was founded by seven South Dakota Republican senators: Ed Olson of Mitchell, Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls, Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls, Stan Adelstein of Rapid City, Royal ‘Mac’ McCracken of Rapid City, J.P. Duniphan of Rapid City, and Duane Sutton of Aberdeen.
The group of so-called moderates formed the Coalition because they felt their disagreement with the Republican base on a number of issues was not welcome. According to a report by David Kranz in the Argus Leader, executive director Senator Ed Olson of Mitchell said that the battle over the life and death of Terri Schiavo was the catalyst for the formation of the group. The same article also quoted Olson as saying, “Many of us don’t like the idea of putting specific religious beliefs into state law.”
Also regarding the formation of the coalition, Adelstein said, “In some ways, it comes down to religion.”
Read that all here. Acting as the driving force behind the MAINstream coalition, a concept imported from Kansas, it is arguable that Adelstein shifted his attempts to drive philosophical debate from within the GOP to outside of it, enlisting Democrats and funding this organization to take a greater role.
The members of the MAINstream coalition lost their subsequent elections. Badly. Many were removed from office in primary challenges. But the more important result was that it energized conservatives within the party both positively and negatively. On a positive basis, it gave many the impetus to step up to the plate and run for office. But it also energized others negatively because they falsely saw the Mainstream Coalition as something with impact, and they formed a similar organization of their own.
In October 2007, the South Dakota Conservative Action Council was formed by Lee Breard, former campaign manager of failed congressional candidate Bruce Whalen. He attempted to recruit a broad base of conservatives to the cause, but only managed to procure two - Steve Sibson, writer of the Sibby Online website, and Lora Hubbel, a failed mayoral candidate for the previous Sioux Falls mayoral contest.
While the Mainstream efforts organizationally didn’t amount to much more than policy statements, the SDCAC made a direct assault on political bodies or institutions such as the executive branch, and the state senate. To this end, they served as a conduit for an out of state measure which would have radically altered the ability of people to participate in the political process. (It is questionable whether this measure was brought because of genuine concern, or because of the promise of funding from the out-of-state organization promoting the passage of the measure.)
From here, the second seed of discontent was planted by Senator Adelstein, and tended by himself and others. Allowing division from the outside. A rift torn in the party won’t heal when we allow outside forces to keep it torn apart.
After quests for influence and domination over the course and the debate within the confines of the GOP, outside forces began efforts which started to unravel a tenuous truce between South Dakota’s Reagan-era coalition of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.
And it has cracked the Reagan coalition straight down the middle.
—
Coming into power with Governor Rounds, another former fellow legislator, former Senator Randy Frederick, had been granted the reigns of chairmanship at the South Dakota GOP in February 2003.
During his tenure, it could be said he had one good election and one bad one. For the first election, I’d argue that it could be said in 2004, the reigns were taken by Executive Director Jason Glodt, and the Thune versus Daschle election effort.
The 2004 Thune election effort had driven millions upon millions into the state, and when it was all said and done, the state GOP was well funded. It had a GOP Governor in the Governor’s seat, a new popular Senator in the US Senate, and a reinforced majority in the State Senate.
But 2006 left chairman Frederick with the reigns firmly in hand, and not owing anyone anything. Unfortunately, this translated into extraordinarily bad judgment which found the party committing horrendous sins against itself. And from this environment, a secret document emerged. The Do Not Help List.
It only came to light in hushed whispers towards the end of campaigns, but it’s influence was evident. Even now, many months later, information is still only emerging about a document where the GOP black-balled it’s own candidates, consigning them to succeed or languish of their own accord. Because the GOP wasn’t going to lift a finger. Even if it meant the loss of a super-majority in the Senate.
I’d heard of the document shortly after the election where certain operatives had a list - an actual list of who could and who could not be helped. This was apparent when party staff members asked to help some of the blackballed candidates on their own time - to which the party chairman allegedly refused permission. A chilling notion.
And the cardinal sin these blackballed candidates supposedly committed? They were “conservatives.”
Oddly enough, on a statewide basis this was the very group of candidates who individual party members had overwhelmingly chosen in primaries. But many now found themselves out in the cold from party leaders who now turned the party’s back on them, despite the mandate of the people.
Further clarification I’d received recently note that the infamous “Do-Not-Help” actually denoted a candidate’s worthiness by signal that Roman emperors used when throwing Christians to the lions - the code was a pair of thumbs up or thumbs down signs. Two thumbs up? You were gold. One of each? Some help would be provided.
Two thumbs down? At that point, it’s “have another Christian, kitty cat.” Those candidates such as Brock Greenfield, Isaac Latterell, and others found assistance from the state GOP in the area of slim and none.
Some like Brock, won handily against their challengers. Others like Isaac found themselves a only mere handful of votes away from representing the party that turned it’s back on them.
The third seed of discontent? Some Republicans found an enemy. And decided it was ourselves. They took a divide within the party which had emerged, and decided the time was ripe to tear the guts out of the GOP through the rift.**
Leaving a party divided.
—
I’d argue these can be pointed to as some of the major immediate causes for what ails the Republican party at the moment. While I’m sure readers can point to other examples, I see these as the most glaring causes and primary examples of such.
No great work to bring us together as one. Divided from within, and divided from without - leaving a fractured electoral coalition. And party leadership itself helping foster a festering wound.
In the next installments, I’m going to go through some of the other things that are going to continue to cause the GOP grief, including the abortion issue. Not to mention a resurgent Democratic Party.
And then, I think it’s time for a plan to try to put a broken party back together again.
(** Please note that this immediately past election in 2008, the party leadership appears to have largely learned their lesson, and at least with initial reports avoided from picking favorites based on ideology.)
Round 3, anyone?
From my e-mail box:
— On Thu, 11/6/08, VoteYesForLife.com wrote:
From: VoteYesForLife.com
Subject: Argus Leader Poll
To: info@voteyesforlife.com
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 11:24 AMArgus Leader is currently running a poll as to whether or not the abortion issue should go back on the ballot at another date. Right now we are behind. They will use the results for a story they will do in the regular paper tomorrow. Please go on-line at argusleader.com and vote YES. It’s not over yet!!!
One day since the election, and here come the nanny-staters.
From the Rapid City Journal:
The South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network on Thursday will announce the launch of another campaign to try to ban smoking in the state’s bars, casinos and video lottery parlors.
and…
The tobacco-free group is planning a Thursday morning press conference at Rapid City Regional Hospital. Chairman Dr. Allen Nord, of the South Dakota Academy of Family Physicians, will describe the campaign, joined by District 34 Sen. Mac McCracken, former state Secretary of Health Kitty Kinsman and Jennifer Stalley with the American Cancer Society. A second press conference is planned in Sioux Falls.
If free people in a free society want to allow the use of a legal substance in their place of business, please explain to me why it is not the businessowner’s decision? If the marketplace will not support it, let them not support it through their pocketbooks - NOT through government regulation.
If you remember, I wrote about Jennifer Stalley before. And her seemingly unending war on what she views as vice.
At least, she’s at war when it benefits the pocketbook of her organizations:
But if you take a look at who else she’s currently lobbying for, Stalley has also taken on the role of lobbyist for the Teen Court Association of South Dakota. And guess who is one of the major beneficiaries of the proposed alcohol tax that was withdrawn, which supporters say they’re going to try to put to the state ballot?
That’s right, First, she represented the American Cancer society which promoted a tax on tobacco. Now, she’s also representing the Teen Court Association of SD, a currently private organization which the massive ten cent a drink tax bill would make a publicly funded and supported entity.
I think we can do without the nanny-staters who wish to strip people of their rights. As well as their tax dollars.
The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. (McCain Concession Speech)
In the final analysis, Obama will win the Electoral College 364 (with NC) to 174 (with MO) and a 52-46% margin in the popular vote. Since 1928 (Hoover’s election), Obama’s 6% popular vote margin is 8th lowest of the 20 elections (less than in the middle) and electoral college margin is 7th lowest (lower third). Since 1976 (post Watergate), Obama’s popular vote margin of victory only exceeded that of Carter, Clinton (’92) and both GWB races and his electoral college margin doesn’t even exceed Clinton ‘92. Especially in the popular vote margin is pales significantlyin comparison to Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon (’72), Reagan and GHWB.
Another way to look at it is by eliminating re-election margins from the analysis (exclude also Truman and Johnson as they are not really elections or re-elections but a hybrid). Since 1928, we have had three “landslides” (Roosevelt, Ike, Reagan), four squeakers (GWB, Carter Nixon, Kennedy), and Clinton. Obama’s popular vote and electoral college margin is quite comparable to Clinton (202 electoral college margin and popular vote margin of 6%).
I preface this thread with these facts to ask the question: What is the clear statement except to advise Obama that if he over-interprets his “mandate”, he will suffer the consequences Clinton got in 94, Bush in 06, and Truman in 50. And, if he properly interprets the lack of “mandate”, he can prosper like Kennedy in 62 and Nixon in 70 where their party gained in the Congress and they were well-positioned for re-election.
Furthermore, Obama needs to properly assess what other statement might have been made.
Was it a rejection of the lack of leadership of Bush in articulating his programs or standing by his convictions?
Was it a rejection of Bush’s spending, policy of nation building and “spreading democracy” or mismanaging of the Iraq war pre-surge?
Was it an endorsement of his plans to expand the cost and reach of government, health care plan or his plan to redistribute the wealth?
Was it a admonishment of McCain’s horrible campaign without a consistent theme or strategy?
If it was a wholesale rejection of all of these things, wouldn’t the results have been more like Roosevelt Ike, and Reagan?
Whether or not Obama discerns the “statement” will have profound impact on the success of the Obama Presidency and his prospects for re-election. Failure to temper the inclinations of esp. Pelosi will likely be devastating to Obama as well as this new expanded Dem. Congressional majority if the Republicans can find a Gingrich-like leader to articulate an alternative (ala ‘94 and the Contract with America).
Frankly, Obama has a daunting task to manage the expectations of his most liberal supporters. They will want a wholesale “transformation”. I’m not sure the “mandate” is there. Part of me wants them to “go for it” as two years isn’t really that long in politics. But the American in me recognizes that this is a trying time both domestically and internationally. For the good of the country, we need President Obama to successfully walk through these hot coals. Carter and Clinton are examples of misreading an election and GWB of his post-9/11 popularity. Kennedy and Nixon (first term) are examples of good interpretation of an election.
I hope President Obama looks to the right models.
Joel Dykstra’s Thank You message
From my e-mail Box:
We knew from the beginning that we faced long odds. We started with nothing and faced the daunting task of unseating a long time incumbent in what really was an uphill year for the Republican Party. A hundred thousand miles and at least as many handshakes later, we made some serious inroads.
While the outcome wasn’t what we had hoped for, I am extremely proud of the race we ran and progress we made. To get nearly 40% of the vote on a shoestring budget and with no financial help from the national party is really quite amazing. In the end we raised 95% of our money right here in South Dakota.
I’d like to thank you for all of your support during the campaign. The successes we had would not have been possible without your hard work and financial contributions.
It’s been a wild ride, but a great experience. I’ve learned a lot and made many new friends along the way.
Again, thank you for everything and I look forward to seeing you down the road.
Joel
Joel - Thank you for carrying the GOP banner this year.
Roll Call: Thune running for Conference vice chairman.
Roll Call is announcing that South Dakota Senator John Thune is going to be trying to move up in Senate GOP Leadership.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has officially jumped in the race for the No. 5 slot in the Republican leadership lineup, announcing he will run for Conference vice chairman.
and…
“Sen. Thune is running for Republican Conference vice chair. He has been talking with his colleagues to gauge their support and has been encouraged by what he is hearing,” Downey said.
Urrrrghhh. Getting sick. Must be election.
Light posting from here on out, but I notice that I’m coming down hard with something.
Find a topic and discuss amongst yourselves. How about “Election 2010 - what does the GOP need to do to win?”
The Swing of the Senate chamber.
Will it swing to the left, or will it swing to the right?
With a new Senate lineup inevitably comes the question of who will be driving the car. Will it be the same Senate team of Dave Knudson and Tom Dempster who had a tendency to steer to the left, or will new players cause the chamber’s leadership to be turned to the right?
Here’s how I line up the Republicans in that chamber, in terms of where their allegiances possibly lie in terms of their upcoming leadership coalition:
Conservative Republicans
Novstrup, Fryslie, Gant, Corey Brown*, Gray, Rhoden, Howie, Schmidt, Haverly. (* I’m speculating)
Swing votes
Russ Olson, Gene Abdallah, Cooper Garnos, Jim Bradford, Tom Nelson, Craig Tieszen
Liberal/Moderate Republicans
Dempster, Knudson, Hunhoff, Vehle, Hansen, Adelstein.
And before you start, this is mainly in comparison to each other, not an imaginary ideal, primarily driven by ideological adherence versus pragmatism.
Basically, the CR faction is strongly in the driver’s seat as opposed to the LR faction, as all you need is 11 to pick Majority leader, and it’s entirely conceivable that they might pick off 2 of what I’d consider the swing votes. However, the question exists as to how hard they want to rock the leadership boat.
I think a likely scenario is that Dempster is dumped as assistant majority leader in favor of someone with West River connections. That might mean that Majority Whip Cooper Garnos is elevated to that position, and someone such as a Rhoden is put in that spot. Those in the “Swing” position are going to be pragmatic about things, especially in terms of committee leadership opportunities that are offered them.
The LR faction’s dwindling numbers would appear to put Jean Hunhoff in a poor position, as the chairmanship of Senate Appropriations might easily become a huge bargaining chip to sway support. Of course, you have to find someone who wants it.
Any insider care to comment on how they see things going?
Where have I heard this before?
Just when we think that someone might have been taught a lesson when it comes to hubris, we’re reminded that old dogs wearing toupees have trouble learning new tricks:
Adelstein said he was “startled” by the narrow margin, but is pleased with the victory, which he credited women voters and the support of Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican.
With a new Senate leadership and the departure of some “radical” old foes, Adelstein says he’s looking forward to pushing forward with his ideas. He said the vote provide clear support for his moderate ideology.
and….
Tom Katus said he visited Adelstein personally to congratulate him and urged him to reach out to all the voters in the district, include Schwiesow’s supporters.
“He didn’t appreciate that, he said they didn’t respond to him,” Katus said. “It’s part of what still wrong with this part of South Dakota, we’re still too polarized, we’re still one-party.”
Read it all here at the Rapid City Journal.
Here we go again.
With Obama in the White House the “progressive” pretense has finally been dropped.
From SouthDaCola:
I would like to congratulate Kevin Killer, Martha Vanderlinde and Scott Heidepriem on their victories last night. They all are good people and will represent our state well. Kevin and Martha are very progressive minded people, and they will bring a fresh and LIBERAL perspective to the State Legislature, which we desperately need.
Read it all here. Those on the other side of the fence certainly seem to be emboldened in adjusting their terminology.
Winners and Losers
Winners: Active and aggressive candidates. As always, they had a good night.
Losers: Lazy incumbents. Many aren’t incumbents anymore, and there’s a good reason why.
–
Winners: Ballot Measure opponents. It’s easiest to say no when faced with a daunting choice of constitutional revisions and initiated measures.
Losers: Initiated Measure proponents. “Hey you out-of-state kids - get out of my yard.”
–
Winners: Rick Hauffe & Jason Glodt. Rick helped make the Dems formidable opponents this year (as opposed to the Judy Olson years when they stunk). And Republicans recognize that Jason gets the credit for holding the dogs at bay.
Losers: SDGOP Executive Director Max Wetz. 9 to 5 ain’t no way to make a living in politics. Nor does it justify a (rumored to be $5000) election bonus.
–
Winners: The Governor. It’s easier to get your initiatives through when you aren’t contending with a democratic chamber.
Losers: Senate Democrats. I thought you were going to take the Senate this year. Instead, your numbers were shaved by one. And the House will still be the killing fields.
–
Winners: Bryce Healy. SDEA/NEA stepped up to the plate and participated in a broad coalition of interests. What? SDEA can work well with others? That and other factors might possibly mean the start of in-roads with the party in charge.
Losers: Lee Breard. Where do we start? the Wikipedia flap, the Bruce Whalen campaign in general, the SDCAC and now the dismal loss of Initiated Measure 10 after calling those in your party corrupt. Time to look for greener pastures. Because you didn’t just burn bridges in the South Dakota GOP, you bombed the remains.
–
Winners: South Dakota’s lobbyists. Because on the eve of the election Sandy Jerstad’s Olivia’s incident handed you what is sure to be the hit of the lobbyist party.
Losers: District 12 voters. If only you got to see Jerstad’s “off-the-meds” moment a week before, instead of the day before the election, you’d know what you were getting. Oh well. It will be just as good in 2010.
–
Winners: Race relations. Electing an African American president is certainly a milestone. And we look forward to a female candidate in Sarah Palin beating him in 2012.
Losers: Our pocketbooks. Too bad the first African American president is an advocate of wealth redistribution. Time to quit our jobs, we’ll be better off financially.
–
Winners: The high road in campaigning.
Losers: Dirty politics. Comparing and contrasting is one thing. But candidate stalking, slanderous e-mail campaigns, and xeroxed flyers that have to be distributed in the dead of night are not things that the public tolerates very well.
–
Winners: The Independent Media. Once again, political blogs march on in terms of both the depth of election coverage, as well as the timeliness. The MSM does it best when they invite us in the door as KELO did, to great success.
Losers: Print Media. They can try to imitate us, but they can never duplicate us.
–
Winners: Sibby. He gets a few weeks of complaining about democracy, as well as satiating his questionable obsession with me without challenge as I take a few weeks off starting Saturday.
Losers: Sibby. It might seem schizophrenic, but consider the topic. Sibby was taught the lesson that a coalition of interests must be built to a) elect a political party’s candidates, and b) pass ballot measures. Yet the lesson seems to have been lost. Until that’s learned, he’ll continue to surf the fringe of the blogosphere.
–
Winners: Joel Dykstra and Chris Lien. Two men who ran honorable campaigns against incumbents. Daunting odds, but that’s what Cinderella stories are made of. Don’t give up. You’re in good company. Abe Lincoln and Newt Gingrich lost their first state-level elections as well.
Losers: The Johnson Campaign. They might have won, but their attitude of “Joel’s not worthy” was morally bankrupt as far as the electorate was concerned.
Stay tuned for more stuff!
Republican House numbers.. (man, what a fun place to be next January)
There can never be too many friends winning the state house. And with only a net loss of 4 for the GOP, it puts the Republican party at a 46-24 margin. People like Dan Lederman, Jim Bolin, Charlie Hoffman, Lance Russell, Brock Greenfield and Todd Schlekeway kind of make me wish I was there.
Final on IM10 - 65-35%
Just a few words on this topic. Let that be a lesson.
For the nutjob ballot measures that people want to use South Dakota to serve as their guinea pig or electoral laboratory, including measures such as 2006’s Amendment E and 2008’s Initiated Measure 10:
Keep it and yourselves at home.
GOP picks up 1 senate seat, making it 21-14
Despite some of the top of the ticket concerns, where we didn’t do so hot, Republicans actually picked up a seat in the State Senate making the balance 21-14. And in a shocker, Jim Bradford actually won in District 27. Running as a Republican, this former Democrat won a district which includes a reservation.
If there’s anything to give Republicans hope, and something to scare the pants off of Dems - this is it. A Republican won a reservation district breaking conventional wisdom as well as the Dems’ stranglehold on these seats.
With this happening, Republicans should view this as a crack in the door, and should take the opportunity.
Let’s not blow the chance we’ve been given.
Adelstein wins in 32. Merchant in 7. GOP to retain majority in the state senate.
In District 32 State Senate, former State Senator Stan Adelstein squeaked out a win of 144 votes over independent Republican Elli Schwiesow, and 216 votes over Tom Katus.
District 7 would seem to be the Dem’s Senate sleeper race. Pam Merchant just took it by 224 votes.
This puts Republicans at 17 seats to Dems 11, leaving 7 seats up for grabs.
Of those seats remaining, as much as it hurts for Al’s sake, I’m going to project Turbak Berry the winner in the District 5 State Senate Seat, with 3 precincts left to report.
District 18’s State Senate Seat seems to be safe in the Republican Column, with Jean Hunhoff winning another term.
District 27 still remains an incredible tossup.
The nice thing is - Republicans just cemented their majority with these projections. 18 seats. Dems are at 12, with 5 still in the air.
Better luck next time dems.
(PS…. I was predicting 20-15, and I think we’ll get it)
Prescient, wasn’t I?
Please pause for a sad moment. Obama has won.
From Yahoo News:
McCain called his former rival to concede defeat — and the end of his own 10-year quest for the White House. “The American people have spoken, and spoken clearly,” McCain told disappointed supporters in Arizona.
Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, will take their oaths of office as president and vice president on Jan. 20, 2009.
Please take a moment to look at your wealth. Which will all now be redistributed.
SDWC Election Projection out west 33 & 35 in R column
I think I can project that Dennis Schmidt is going to take the District 33 State Senate Race away from Dennis Finch - AND Jeff Haverly has a commanding eoungh lead to defeat Theresa Spry.
And in case you’re wondering - Dems that leaves only 2 more to retain the senate.
