Bob Mercer must have been gazing into Rep. Kristi Noem's ice-blue eyes. In Friday's Rapid Cit debate, Matt Varilek once again hammered Rep. Noem with honest observations about her poor performance in Washington, while South Dakota's lone Congresswoman once again could respond with whining and slogans and folksy pablum that she herself undermines.
Yet the Snow-Job Queen hypnotized veteran journalist Mercer into thinking she defined the election by asking Varilek to campaign for President Obama:
The last question of their debate Friday might have delivered the defining moment for the two candidates seeking South Dakota's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Kristi Noem, the Republican incumbent Kristi Noem, asked Democratic challenger Matt Varilek to name three ways re-election of President Barack Obama would be good for South Dakota.
Varilek refused to give even one. Instead he tried to re-cast the challenge as a contest between Noem and himself.
Varilek confirmed that as "a private citizen" he is voting for Obama but spent most of his two minutes of response re-attacking Noem on issues such as federal tax rates and budget cuts.
"The bottom line is I will answer to the people of South Dakota first and foremost," Varilek said [Bob Mercer, "During House Debate, Varilek Ducks Noem's Question About Obama," Chicago Tribune, October 13, 2012].
We all recognize the trick here. Rep. Noem is the incumbent. She knows that re-electing an incumbent hinges on proving the incumbent's record. She knows that her record stinks. She knows that we know that she's in over her head as a Congresswoman. She desperately needs us to talk about anything other than her fruitless Congresswoman Barbie act. So she tries to nationalize the election, playing to South Dakota's deep anti-Obama sentiment.
Alas, Mercer falls for it.
And alas, Varilek doesn't beat down Rep. Noem's trick better. He goes for the safe and sane answer, trying to keep the focus on what we ought to be talking about, Rep. Noem's failure to perform. Sometimes you've got to not take the bait...
...but sometimes you've got to bite, chew, and spit that bait right back. The next time Rep. Noem asks for three reasons that re-electing President Obama is good for South Dakota, Varilek and all of us should oblige:
- President Obama's Affordable Care Act helps thousands of South Dakotans get health insurance. Romney and Ryan would take their health insurance away.
- President Obama extended the life of Medicare by at least eight years with the Affordable Care Act. Romney and Ryan give up on Medicare, privatize it, and hand Grandma vouchers. (Ryan also wants to get rid of Social Security.)
- President Obama supports South Dakota wind energy jobs with the Production Tax Credit. Mitt Romney would let the PTC and our wind jobs die.
Matt Varilek isn't working for Barack Obama. He's applying to work for South Dakota. The main issue in South Dakota's Congressional race is the performance of the incumbent Congresswoman, not the President. Varilek is not obliged to give in to Noem's mind tricks.
But if that's how Rep. Noem wants to define the race, Varilek can beat her on those grounds, too.
Noem needs all the help she can get. Wonder what the return favor is.
Dougal,
The return favor is informed readers.
The closing graphs are the telling ones:
" Varilek tried to defend his writings by saying he was merely working as “a journalist†in producing those analyses. He said his role wasn’t any different than Rapid City Journal reporter Kevin Woster, who was standing in a doorway taking notes on the debate.
'Varilek’s official campaign biography on his website doesn’t make any mention of any work as a journalist, however, other than as a paper boy. The Varilek biography does list four years spent as a market analyst at an energy commodities trading company."
Varilek was clearly using the term "journalist:" to indicate that he was writing reports, not advocacy pieces, and he did not imply that he was employed as a journalist for some media.
Noem is using the campaign tactic that she used on Herseth-Sandlin, which is to identify a major party figure as an evil force for South Dakota and tie her opponent to that person. For Herseth-Sandlin it was Nancy Pelosi; for Varilek it is Obama. And in case Noem did not make the point clear, Mercer provides the vote statistics to show what an odious creature Obama is in South Dakota.
This is a proven tactic in South Dakota. In other states where brain cells occasionally, at least, step beyond the provincial borders, it does not work as well.
CHRIS NELSON CHRIS NELSON CHRIS NELSON.
It's all I keep hearing from Republican's who didn't vote for him in the congressional primary 2 years ago.
They know he would show up for work and get the job done. They don't think Kristi is representing them well.
Bottom line, in my opnion; is I think Matt hurt himself by not saying why he would vote for Obama. Either way Matt loses on this as I would bet the President will be lucky to even get 40%. I am not a Kristi fan but this was a good move for her to ask a question that no matter how Matt answers he loses.
Changing the subject is always a tactic worth trying when the subject is your own lousy performance in office. Up in the iron range of Minnesota, freshman Repubican Rep. Chip Cravaack is caught in a tough re-election battle. In following that race, I have seen Rep. Cravaack point to things he has actually passed during his one term. He may be a spinmeister on the big issues of the campaign, but at least he has some accomplishments on behalf of his district to point to.
Rep. Noem doesn't spend enough time working to build relationships with her colleagues, and she hasn't passed a darned thing for her state. She doesn't need to hold office to function as the spokesmodel for the House GOP on Fox News. We can elect a real working congress member and she will still be employable as a spokesmodel. Let's free her from her unwanted duties so she can pursue her passion.
Hmmmm. Let's look this one over. How a candidate for Congress will vote for President is NOT a story, unless it was the only matter discussed in a long debate (or the candidate chooses to vote against his party's nominee who also the incumbent).
Asking the question demonstrates Noem's desperation, and the answer demonstrates Matt's stronger discipline to ignore the distraction and stay on the message of Noem's incompetence, laziness and bad work ethic.
The reporter chose a wierd slant on a minor distraction above far, far, far meatier and important issues.
I would have spun it a little bit different. Like this
"The Congresswomen can't run on her own record, because she doesn't have one, runs ads as a candidate for congress, not member for congress, doesn't mention 1 single thing she has done, fails to mention that the debt has gone up $2 trillion since she has gone into office, and because of that she has to create boogey man out of me, because I support President Obama. Are there some things I disagree with the President about? yes, just like I'm sure the Congresswomen disagrees with Mitt Romney about some issues. But that is not the question in hand. Its about this race, who will represent you the best, who will show up for you. I'm not the incumbent in this race. Kristi is, she has no record to run on so she tries to make everyone forget. Lets not forget she is part of the least efficient congress since the civil war, and lowest approved congress in recent history.
I agree with OldGuy that it's a predictably useful tactic for Noem to use, but Dougal's assessment of her resort to that tactic and Mercer's spotlighting thereof as the headline takeaway from the debate is very strong. Mercer knows better than to fall for a distracting trick like this, doesn't he?
Bob, how is the public better informed when you lead with that one obvious distraction tactic instead of the larger South Dakota issues raised in the debate? On what grounds do we conclude that the "three reasons to vote for Obama" question and Varilek's dodge thereof is the most important thing voters need to to know about Friday's debate?
Mercer has been one of the few reporters coming to Kristi's defense in a long time.
The Capital Journal editorial board has been blasting Kristi and her attendance, Ellis at the Argus has been spot on lately in his Sunday columns about Noem - he's the one who started the whole attendance brewhaha. Mongomery has been hit and miss, Woster seems more interested in taking down Gant, Tom Lawrence writes a tough column now and then.
No one is coming to Noem's defense other than Mercer. He's in love with her i'm sure.
I don't think Varilek has the finess required to win a close race in a red state. That would require a person skilled at walking a tight rope like SHS, Brendan Johnson, Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson. I'm not sure Varilek is in their league yet. Sometimes it's ok to go against the party. It would serve both Noem and Varilek well to do so.
What is SD's most beneficial resource? Oh that's right, agriculture.
Look, I don't care if she's on 194 different committees, the one and only one that should ALWAYS take precedence in SD is the ag committee. Bye bye bubblehead.
Varilek is weak.
He should have had an answer for this question. There are plenty of examples how Obama's policies are far better for South Dakotans.
But like so many other South Dakota Democrats, they shy away and only look weak.
Mercer is a real journalist. Bloggers are not.
Noem needs all the help she can get. I'm just curious why the reporter took a path no legitimate reporter would take.
My guess is that Mr. Mercer was limited to how many words he could use and didn't mention that when it was Matt's turn to ask a question it was to
name ONE committee that she had attended at least half of the meetings.
She couldn't name ONE!
Guess it's a good thing I'm not an editor...I guess for Kristi anyway.
Mr. Mercer's story gives Kristi's side "She said her committee attendance was “a false issue†and said the farm bill is “my number-one priority." Then turns around and tells the truth that she hasn't attended half of the meetings where she is paid to represent South Dakotans and farmers!
Just a little disconnect there, bias or not enough space?
So unless Matt can get a whole lot more money to continue to inform Mercer's readers on Kristi's lack of interest in representing South Dakota, I guess Kristi's record won't matter.
In fairness to Mr. Mercer, I didn't see that in any other media story either. Saw it on Mt Blogmore and that was it. Here's the link if you haven't used up your free stories.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/blog/blogmore/blogmore-not-naming-committee-hearings-or-the-good-things-from/article_b8a22dc8-0516-5247-9d50-f439ddb1e5a2.html