Jeff Barth, Democratic candidate for South Dakota's lone U.S. House seat, releases a new campaign trail video in which he chides Rep. Kristi Noem and the Tea Party for ignoring South Dakota and focusing too much on taking down the President of the United States:
My favorite lines:
The number one thing [the Tea Party] went to D.C. to do was to get rid of Barack Obama... and in their effort to get rid of him, they've destabilized our country.
...I believe government can work. There's a lot of folks out there that don't believe government works, and then we elect them to office and they make sure it doesn't work [Jeff Barth, campaign video, posted 2011.10.24].
Barth is right that government can work. And Noem appears incapable of working, given her absolute lack of legislation passed to make any tangible difference in South Dakotans' lives this year. Keep pushing, Jeff!
Isn't it normal for one political party (in this case the Republicans) to want to "bring down" (vote out of office) an incumbent President of the other party? I don't think that sort of attitude "destablizes" America.
However, I do think the Tea Party is causing gridlock in Congress that could, ultimately, have a destablizing effect. They (the Tea Party Caucus) have proven utterly intransigent. They'd rather see Congress fiddle while the country burns, than see the Democrats get anything they want.
As this whole scene unfolds (or unravels) over the next year, I've become increasingly uncertain and cynical about the ultimate outcome. It's like being adrift on the open sea, and having to choose between dying of exposure and starvation if you stay in the lifeboat (four more years of Obama), or diving into the water and letting the sharks devour you (unilateral Republican rule). Some choice.
Jeff Barth is totally a wrong when it comes to understanding Kristi Noem. She is not a TEA PARTIER!!!!!!!!!! She is a self promoting oppurtunist. She doesn't even have a TEA PARTY record. She is not Michele Bachmann.
In republican circles it isn't a secret that Kristi does not like the Tea Party fringe. She wants to be seen as serious and not a nut.
If Varilek or Barth say she is a phony and an oppurtunist they will get a lot farther than saying she is a Tea Partier.
All Barth is doing now is making people think he is blind.
When the Whalen and Lien ran against SHS they told people she was a liberal and she was Tom Daschle. It didn't work because she is fairly moderate (at least her voting record was).
When Noem ran against SHS she said SHS had changed. That SHS didn't follow through on her promises. And because the momentum was so anti Democrat in 2010 people were listening. And then Noem said SHS was a liberal who voted with Pelosi all the time. (if there wouldn't have been a wave none of that would have worked for Noem)
I can tell you right now while Barth is out blasting Noem for being a Tea Partier, Tea partiers and conservatives are asking me if I thought Kristi changed. The truth is she was never a TPer. She just did what she had to do to get enthusiasm and votes.
Theater of the absurd.
Stan, you appear to recognize an important distinction between working to win an election by fielding good candidates with good ideas and seeking political gain by permitting the country to suffer if not actively causing more suffering.
Mike, I would agree that Barth should take a good look at what you are saying. He is running against her media image as mama grizzly/Tea Party darling. But her cozying up to the leadership, her voting record, and numerous statements show she doesn't really dig the hardcore angry conservative position. As you say, she simply rode that wave for her own gain.
But let's consider this: suppose voters believe Barth's current attacks. Whose votes does he gain? The middle who swung away from SHS in 2010. "Kristi seemed nice," those voters say, "but Barth is right, she's an extremist. Let's try this nice moderate Barth fellow."
Now suppose Barth says she's not a Tea Partier. Whose votes does he get? Barb Lindberg and Gordon Howie don't vote for him no matter what, since a RINO (or TINO?) is still better than a Dem. The middle doesn't move much on that point alone, since they perhaps derive comfort from knowing she's not a wingnut.
But Mike makes the point that attacking Noem isn't just about proving she's not a Tea Party devotée; it's about proving she doesn't have any philosophy other than "me me me!" Would that be a harder sell? Might not a lot of voters look at charges of selfish opportunism and say, "sure, just like every other politician"?
Her dust bill isn't helping her any. So I think the "me me me!" line might work. Also you can go down the list on issues she hasn't followed through on since getting elected. Town Halls, Debt Cieling, Medicare, - just to name a few.
You are right that people like Lindberg won't stay home but they will not drag any friends to the polls if they are disenchanted with Noem. And Noem has a terrible GOTV effort. If there isn't momentum on her side she can't win a close race.
"Me me me" treads an interesting line between policy and personality. Her self-absorption is certainly worth pointing out, but we always have to couple that with the clear explanation that she's not giving us any policies to serve South Dakota's interests. On showing she hasn't followed through on promises, Barth and other Dems have to be careful: after all, there are plenty of her promises that we are glad she hasn't followed through on!
What about this: suppose Barth continues to brand Noem as a Tea drinker. Barth's rhetoric won't affect Kindberg and friends at all: they know she's not authentic, and they won't get excited. Barth's rhetoric does capitalize on negative impressions of the Tea brand among other voters. He also puts Noem in a spot where she either gives the movement lip service (which Barb et al will see through) or she rebuts his charges by saying she's not Tea, which only makes real Tea drinkers angrier. So does hitting her with the Tea brand still give Barth an advantage?