Exploratory Senate candidate Annette Bosworth is off gallivanting around the state to "have a conversation with South Dakota." Howard last week, the Black Hills last weekend, Madison Tuesday, Mitchell Wednesday, Brookings this p.m.... Dr. Bosworth says she's having "real discussions with South Dakotans," but she's so busy traveling, she hasn't had time to respond to a press inquiry that I sent her nine days ago, asking her to address these ten policy questions:
- What action should we take to curb the NSA surveillance of Americans' communications? Would you vote to repeal the Patriot Act?
- Do you support ending federally subsidized crop insurance?
- How has the PPACA affected your medical practice? What elements of the PPACA would you keep, if any? With what policies would you replace the PPACA?
- Do citizens have a right to health care?
- Should the government close Ellsworth Air Force Base to save money and make the military more efficient?
- Are government budget cuts having a negative effect on economic growth?
- Should teachers carry guns in school?
- Beyond health care, what are the three most urgent policy issues that Congress should address?
- Will the Keystone XL pipeline be a net plus for South Dakota and the United States? Why or why not?
- South Dakota currently receives more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes. Should South Dakota reduce its reliance on federal funding? If so, what programs should South Dakota cut or what taxes should South Dakota raise to make up the difference?
Note I threw in #3 and #4 as softballs, right down the middle of her single area of policy expertise. Alas, even the health care questions are too complicated for her or her interns to dash off a paragraph or two.
Citizens, if maybe-candidate Bosworth has answered these questions with you on her listening tour, feel free to submit those answers here so we all can have a conversation not just about her but about policies that matter to all voters.
Maybe-candidate Bosworth does make a vague attempt at policy by reformulating Adam Smith's three proper roles of government:
Bosworth said the federal government should have only three roles: protecting the country, educating the people and caring for those who can’t care for themselves.
“I think using those as a foundation to grow from can be a launching pad,” she said [Chris Mueller, "Bosworth Gauges Support for U.S. Senate Run," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2013.06.20].
Triply mixed metaphor aside, Bosworth can't even get right the Tea Party message that she needs to motivate the anti-Rounds conservatives to support her. Real conservative want to abolish the federal Department of Education. A strict Tea-Scalia-Birch reading of the Constitution would also likely say there is no provision for the federal government to care for the sick and poor.
Bosworth's pale attempt at political philosophy also ignores the Constitutional mandates for the federal government to regulate commerce, establish uniform rules on naturalization and bankruptcy, coin money, deliver mail, promote arts and science via copyright, manage the District of Columbia, and protect the basic liberties of all citizens from stupid local politicians who haven't studied the Constitution.
It's a hoot and a half to travel around South Dakota seeing the sites and talking with people (especially if someone else pays the bill... and who is paying for Bosworth's listening tour, anyway?). But if you're serious about running for Senate, you need to be able to answer some basic questions about policy and civics. Bosworth appears incapable of that task.
Cory in Mitchell she said one of the 3 things the government should do is to take care of people who can't take care of themselves.
she must be for the Afforadable Care Act then. Hre's the story from the Mitchell Daily Republic.
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/80859/
I'm not disappointed that she's not another braindead, dyed in the wool Tea Party spokesmodel. Moderation would do South Dakota's GOP a lot of good. Wouldn't it be rare in America today that a high profile, big stakes GOP primary involved two candidates slugging it out in the middle?
But Rick, her trip to the Legacy Fund event in DC a couple weeks ago shows she wants to be that spokesmodel. Her comments thus far show a cluelessness about what her position really is.
But I wonder: could a real centrist stand a chance against Rounds? Doesn't he already have the centrist vote sewn up?
Owen, she appears to be cribbing her three roles of government from Mike Rounds's final budget address, in which he identified the major spending areas of the South Dakota budget as "Education", "Taking Care of People," and "Protecting the Public." (See slide 21: http://bfm.sd.gov/budget/roundsrec12/Budget_Speech_2012_Rounds_Slides.pdf)
Rounds' record in the State Senate betrays little ideological leanings, other than "falling in line" behind the Republican governors' agendas or shilling for the fossil fuel and insurance industries. You can make a case on the abortion issue, but his Catholic identity may have more influence than a GOP platform. The only time he colored outside the lines as a legislator was introducing legislation to allow non-public school students to participate in public school extracurricular activities at a time when such legislation was uncommon.
Rounds isn't so much a centrist as much as an establishment Republican with close ties to the deepest pockets among the lobbyists. This makes his meager record as Governor a bit surprising. Other than "falling in line" with our congressional team to "save" Ellsworth AFB and to establish the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory at Homestake, there is a dirth of achievements that are uniquely his own. I don't consider The Gorialla Project, a.k.a. Hyperion, as an achievement; it was a hopeless scheme that turned neighbors against each other in Union and Clay counties.
You'd think his spending the state into debt while masquerading as a conservative would be fertile ground for a real, live, fire-breathing conservative in a party primary for 2014. His claims of achievement are easily dismissed, especially since six of his eight years in office occurred before the Great Recession. Bill Janklow handed him a well-oiled machine, but it rarely went beyond idle for next eight years.
Again, I have no personal beef against Rounds. He's an insurance salesman in a small town market who drew the lucky political cards. His win in the 2002 primary was complete luck, and the press is embarrassingly generous with him. He knows how to soft sell himself and he's well connected to very wealthy backers, whom he served with his votes and actions as Governor. His financiers responded with $3 million in private contributions to build him a new Governor's Mansion. Ultimately, his oddly unremarkable tenure as Governor may have been what his financiers wanted all along ... nothing to happen at all.
["Morris," send me your true e-mail address, and we can talk about relevant truths. See also the comment policy.]
Hi there mates, how is the whole thing, and what you desire
to say on the topic of this paragraph, in my view its truly remarkable for
me.
Hi there would you mind letting me know which web host you're utilizing?
I've loaded your blog in 3 different web browsers and I must say this blog
loads a lot faster then most. Can you recommend a good internet
hosting provider at a honest price? Thank you, I appreciate it!
This piece of writing is really a fastidious one it assists new net viewers, who are wishing in favor of blogging.
It's awesome for me to have a web site, which is beneficial in support of my know-how.
thanks admin