George McGovern endorsed Matt Varilek for U.S. House this week. MDR's Tom Lawrence offers some tantalizing though non-binding historical parallels between Varilek's challenge and McGovern's first win against a Hamlin County incumbent.
The Republican spin machine can only recycle the old Pat Powers meme about McGovern sitting down with Fidel Castro (yeah, yeah, and Nixon's a hero for going to China). Fake blogger "Bill Clay" manages to croak something about Varilek being "over-hyped and over-endorsed." As usual, "Clay" is simply moving his/her lips, not actually quantifying what constitutes "too many" endorsements.
Back when the War College actually purported to educate us on how politics work, it would have told us that endorsements from heavy-hitters in the party is a good thing, unless for some reason you have to prove you are an anti-Establishment candidate, even within your own party. That's the tack Stace Nelson, Steve Sibson, and likely Bill Cissell are taking against the perceived failures of their own party leaders to be true to the party platform (and bless them all for their electoral efforts!).
But if you're running for U.S. House in a Democratic primary in South Dakota, and three prominent Democrats, all well-liked and respected within the party, all throw their names behind your campaign, you freak out in a happy way. The losses of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Scott Heidepriem in 2010 showed that downplaying your Democratic cred is not a winning strategy in South Dakota. Varilek is right on to go the other direction and embrace the Democratic brand and the party fathers as they embrace him. And George McGovern, Tom Daschle, and Tim Johnson are sending the signal that Dems should embrace Varilek. (Now, where's Stephanie?)
Over-endorsed? Oh, I wish I had such problems.
Related: Perhaps DWC should consider why their GOP candidates for President are under-endorsed. Governor Dennis Daugaard has stayed mum, and Rep. Kristi Noem is waiting for the party to tell her whom to support (nothing new there).
Hang on, Winston: are we really in a "Hail Mary" situation? Do you really want to promote the Barth candidacy by accepting two Republican myths, that (1) Noem is nearly unstoppable, and (2) that anti-intellectualism is a good thing?
Do you honestly believe Varilek can defeat Noem? With all
do respect, a young Tom or Tim today would not be as successful as they were in 1978 or 1986. The game has
changed.
I am not promoting anti-intellectualism, hell, I am backing a former state chess champion whose is the son of a diplomat.
But whether you like it or not, the "anti-intellectual" mentality unfortunately does exist in this state, and you
are not going to beat it with a soft spoken, boring candidate, who drives around in a 15 year old car that
he probably acquired three months ago. Weiland tried
that latter stunt in 1996 and lost to a "Hot" candidate.
If you think beating Noem can best be done with a straight
forward proactive "intellectual" approach in good ole South Dakota, good luck. I would also recommend you go to Walmart from time to time and see the real world, because
unfortunately those people do vote. (Cory, I am sorry that last comment might have been a little harsh.)
And finally, as to the issue of whether Noem is unstoppable. Lets look at the facts, with the exception of
Roberts in 1982, who lost to an other incumbent in a newly
created congressional district, freshman congressional
incumbents in SD have always won handily. Secondly,
the heating economy works to every incumbents favor.
Thirdly, Obama has a great chance at re-election, but in
SD his numbers will be as dismal as Carter's were in SD
in 1980, thus with no coattail affect and Obama's apparent
victory nationally, a majority of South Dakotans will retrench towards the Republican congressional candidate.
And fourthly, as long as Democrats keep talking about
Noem and her "Dust" amendment we are bound to fail.
Its not about dust its about Noem creatively positioning her
self against the EPA. You may like the EPA and I like the EPA, but every time we bring up the dust argument we
throw the farmers and ranchers to the Noem camp, and
how intellectual of approach is that?
Dear "Winston":
I appreciate your substantial comments. However...
(1) Fix your line breaks.
(2) I've tried to contact you by e-mail, but you've declined to respond. Please e-mail me and tell me who you are. Given that we're talking about specific people in an important campaign, I'd like to know who you are... and whether you are a Barth campaign staffer.
Well, looky here: http://www.ewg.org/release/foreign-companies-paid-billions-run-us-crop-insurance-program