My friend Jana is lit up over what Seth Tupper said. The Mitchell Daily Republic editor tells Stephanie Herseth Sandlin not to run in 2014, and Jana smells sexism.
Let's give Seth a close reading and run the sexism check.
Tupper says he doesn't like politicians who overuse family talk to hide their real motives. He takes SHS at her word when she says she loves her family. O.K., no foul for stating the obvious.
He interprets her other public statements ("...working moms deserve an effective voice in policymaking") and current "unofficial media tour" as signs that she still loves and is conflicted about balancing the two. O.K.
Tupper then critiques SHS for political "fence-sitting." That's nothing that harsher critics on both sides of the aisle haven't said, and that's nothing sexist. That's simply an honest assessment of the cautious center-conservative tendencies that make Lefties cranky and gave Righties a pass to vote for the clueless but more reliably crony-conservative Kristi Noem.
Tupper then praises SHS for positioning herself well for a comeback:
She’s lived and worked in the state. She’s spent time being a mom. All of that makes her more grounded and more qualified to serve, in my opinion [Seth Tupper, "Don't Run, Stephanie," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2013.05.09].
Jana's sexism critique isn't going there, but I'll ask: is it sexist to suggest that a woman is better qualified for public office because she's a mom? Is a mom of three a better Congresswoman than a mom of one? A bit more broadly, if all other things are equal, does a parent deserve your vote before a non-parent?
Tupper then "steps in it," as Jana says. He ties SHS's political fence-sitting to her trail-ballooning statements on I love family time but I love to serve, too. He tells her to pick which words she means more:
But I’m a little bothered by her use of the old “I want to spend time with my family” routine. If she’s going to say that, she’d better mean it. She owes that to her son, who will someday grow up to read her comments. If she now goes off to spend months campaigning and six years working a breakneck schedule as a senator, voters and her son are going to have a hard time believing her [Tupper, 2013.05.09].
Presumptuous, yes, presuming to speak for some possible future version of an adorable little boy. But sexist? Tupper's not blind to the possibility:
I know how sexist that sounds. If Herseth Sandlin’s husband, himself a former member of Congress, got back into politics, nobody would question his commitment to his family or his son. In a more equitable world, men would have to agonize over such things just as much as women.
But we don’t live in that world. We live in reality. And that’s why I say this to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Don’t run.
If time with your son and your family is really so important to you that you would consider forgoing a Senate race, show it by temporarily making a sacrifice on their behalf. When your son is a little older, you’ll still be a viable candidate, and you’ll be even more respected for having honored your family above your ambition.
Or, if you’ve already decided to run, stop talking so much about the importance of family time. It’ll look insincere later when you’re spending nearly every ounce of your time and energy trying to win an election.
Tupper walks on thin ice (and here I go out after him). I know anti-SHS Mitchell chauvinist piggery when I hear it... and I don't think Tupper's there. He does not base his critique on a personal belief that women are better off barefoot, pregnant, and fixing pot roast for us mighty hunters. He bases his critique on Herseth Sandlin's own words.
To test Tupper for sexism, imagine applying his words to Mr. Sandlin in the same situation, not just the hypothetical where he would up and run (and hey, there's a thought: get Max back in the game by bringing his political experience to bear on South Dakota office?), but the hypothetical where prior to running he would make prominent his talk about loving his family and wanting to spend lots of time with his son and not being sure if he can balance those desires with his urge to get back into politics. In that hypothetical, every word Tupper wrote would appear to apply just aptly to Mr. as to Mrs.
Tupper is really saying, "Poop or get off the pot." That advice may not be good, what with over ten months before any final decision is necessary. Herseth Sandlin, like every mom, has a lot on her plate. She is fully entitled to take her time weighing the pros and cons of running for any office in 2014, just as is any man.
And Tupper is entitled to question her public statements about that decision-making process, just as he would question any man making similar statements... right, Seth?
Stephanie does not care what Seth Tupper has to say and why should she? Steph will make a decision when she's ready and Seth can just keep being a journalistic spectator. In other words, Seth or any other commentator does not really cary any importance into the personal decisions of any politician.
This is yet another of those times where I agree with young Ms. Jana though she may not see it that way.
Points taken Cory...but not in total agreement. Maybe it's just the filter we view things through.
You say: "To test Tupper for sexism, imagine applying his words to Mr. Sandlin in the same situation..." Only let's change it from Mr. Sandlin to Mr. Thune circa 1996.
Well I can't imagine that happening. Seth, and others, have covered so many politicians over the years that have all been strong family values men and have weighed there decision to run on what it would mean to their family. But yet he, and the others, have never once ventured where he did with SHS with the implication if you love your kid then don't run.
Let's test Seth's sexism with this statement to JohnThune back in 1996: "If time with your (children) and your family is really so important to you that you would consider forgoing a Congressional race, show it by temporarily making a sacrifice on their behalf."
He is implying the false choice that if the candidate runs, they must love the office more than their kids.
I don't remember anyone forcing that discussion with JT in 1996.
Does anyone recall? Does anyone recall a candidate that didn't say they loved time with their family? Does anyone recall a candidate saying that a part of their decision to run was made with their spouse and family?
Maybe I missed it.
I sure won't miss Seth's upcoming column on Stace Nelson "getting off the pot" and if Stace says he loves time with his family then he should just forget about running for their sake.
I think Seth has to hold Noem to the same standard and as Jana has demonstrated anybody else, male or female.
There was a time in the annals of published literacy where people showed a deep respect for others' motives. They did not impose their personal thoughts into the heads of others. And if they wanted to know what someone intended to do, they felt compelled to ask and to report the answer. If a person said they did not know, they would not chide them for indecision or impose some kind of obligatory demand on the person to provide an answer.
I have no idea what Stephanie Herseth Sandlin or Brendan Johnson are thinking and how they are weighing their personal lives against possible runs for public service. They might well be considering factors that are just none of our damned business. And never should be, if they wish to keep it that way.
However, the situations provoke some resonances of things I have been told clearly and forthrightly. During Thune's last run for re-election, I was among those asked to recruit candidates to run against him. There were some very strong candidates who far exceeded Thune in intellect, accomplishment, and personal integrity. In declining to become candidates, they made clear that if they wished to serve the public, they would not choose the political path to service. Politics in general has become too destructive of person and family and too degrading to permit a person to do much public good. Bob Mercer's post on Brendan Johnson's declination resonates with that attitude. But it would be fatal for any public figure, candidate or not, to offend the state's denizens with such an open statement. It would be most healthy for the state if some experienced politicians and public servants would be frank and forthright about why our political campaigns disgrace everybody who gets involved in them.
0.
OMG...I forgot that Cory is a debate coach! Yikes, me thinks I might be in over my head.
I don't hear anyone drowning. ;-) And seriously, on this issue, I don't feel like I'm trying to win a fight. I'm not invested in defending Tupper from the charge of sexism; I just want to test whether that charge is accurate.
I can take the point from above the Tupper is taking a pretty simple and obvious position and perhaps applying it selectively to the lady of the headline moment and not to other candidates.
Stace made some comments last Saturday about the sacrifice his family has had to made to put up with his politicking. Tupper's critique could indeed be applied to Stace.
So if there is sexism here, is it in Tupper's words themselves or in his choice to apply them only to SHS? And if that choice is the seat of the sexism critique, is it sexism if he applies them to SHS but not Noem? Or is it some other sort of error?
Thune did show his daughters making inane statements in his support ads, but he mainly attacked Daschle on Daschle's "lack of family values". Stephanie made ads with her adorable twerp running to the bathroom or whatever.
Live by the gun, die by the gun. Prosper by exploiting your family, expect that use to be fairly used against you. Stephanie does not deserve a free ride on this. If she does decide to run, she better have a really, really good explanation for her change of heart. If she runs and wins, I will support her, but once and twice was enough Stephanie for me. Her waffling and fence straddling and hopping made politics for other SD Democrats more difficult.
As I indicated in the discussion on Weiland, I indicated I worked on a campaign with him, so you may choose to discount my statements here. I am not unbiased.
Mr. Wiken, you know that Stephanie is amongst the saner of your tribe. Stop bashing her for being a mother who chooses to work.
All politicians fence sit, Noem is doing it right now, I hear her statements saying she doesn't want to rule anything out and doesn't expect to make a decision anytime soon. So I think attacking someone for fence sitting is a little premature, its still over a year from the primary and if she makes her choice by June 1st then I don't have a problem for it. Now if its August and she is still a maybe then the attacking is fair game.
I do have a big problem with attacking people for the family thing as long as they are committed. I didn't think SHS ran a real race in 2010, ask people around her and outsiders they said it wasn't the SHS of prior years. Now was that because of her young kid? Or just being in a terrible political climate in a red state? IDK. If its because of her young kid and she is going to be the same way then its fair to question whether she will give 100%. But don't say that because she is a mother that she shouldn't run because it means she can't do both, or that she loves 1 more than the other.
Good points. I think Tupper's sin is in applying it only to SHS...and applying it only to a woman and a mother.
All right, now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps we can conduct TupperWatch parties to analyze Tupper's treatment of other candidates?
The Senate race may be starting early, but with Rounds and Weiland in, Herseth Sandlin doesn't need to demure much longer. If the issue were only time spent on the porcelain throne, I'd agree that people were reading too much into Tupper's comments.
Tupper's don't run because time with family is important is sexist plain and simple. No one ask a male candidate that question. The fact that the question reveals the world as it is doesn't mean that it's not a sexist question.
I'd like to add another point to Jana's hypothesis. If the male candidate were the sole breadwinner in a large family and were taking a pay cut to be a U.S. senator, would anyone question his love for his family or would he be lionized for sacrificing money so that he could serve. If one has 5 or 6 children to support, any pay cut is going to create some financial pressures
Young Ms. Noem is a mother and a woman. It would be tough to be that sort of mother without being a woman I guess but does this Mr. Tucker fellow bash on Ms. Noem in the same manner?
Media bashes Mr. Weiland as he does some big announcement not on the blogs for fumbling the basics, while it rains in Hay City.
Where? What?
Young Mr. Montgomery's postings about Mr. Weiland botching the basics about big news on fridays at this place http://politicalsmokeout.tumblr.com/post/50130067390/weiland-hires-consulting-firm
Let's first get over the idea that running for office has to be some big sacrifice. It's set up that way now because our candidates aren't running to work for us. If it was just us they had to convince, running for office would be easy. Just show up at some forums and debates where you present your views, knock on some doors, ride around in some parades, makes some telephone calls. Not that tough. You can even take the kids around with you. South Dakotans would like that.
No, it isn't old time campaigning that is tough. It's difficult now because candidates are running to see who can best lick the bottoms of the corporate elite. The voters are just a necessary hurdle to get over. Candidates have to fly to many different places and phone many different people not in South Dakota. They have to hire campaign "staff," who really serve the minders and lackeys of the monied elites. They have to spend lots of time figuring out some media strategy to hide that fact that they are bought and paid for by shadowy multi-billionaires.
Once they get into office, they do absolutely nothing. Most of the real work is constituent services, which is handled by staff. For the easiest job in the world, they get paid six figures. The tough part of the job is figuring out how to do the bidding of the monied elites who put you in office, while selling it to your constituents.
I suppose the hardest decision a candidate has to make is figuring out how big of a butt kissing he or she wants to be. Most of us don't like the taste of backside, but if that's your thing, go for it. I won't vote for you.
"
Mr. Wiken, you know that Stephanie is amongst the saner of your tribe. Stop bashing her for being a mother who chooses to work."
Grudznick finds another strawman to bash. He is comprehension-challenged.
I and as far as I can tell nobody else in this discussion has bashed Stephanie for being a mother choosing to work. The primary problem with the Tupper column was the headline atop it. The primary problem with Stephanie is that she says a lot of things that don't make sense or are irrelevant eyewash.
Of course, what Stephanie has said, is chickenfeed compared to George Bush in his flight suit claiming the war was over followed by Republicans in Congress now trying to cover that BS talking point with sand from the killing of our ambassador in Libya.
Botching the basics? bunk. Montgomery grumbles that Weiland releases the info late Friday, when it won't get much press. I'm not even sure hiring a consultant is big news. It's expected, isn't it? I suppose you could argue it sends a signal to the base as to what kind of campaign he plans and shows he's spending money... but honestly, why even bother with a press release? This is baseball, not substance. Pat will holler, but South Dakotans mostly don't give a darn who writes his copy. Weiland can start making news by knocking on doors, posting his views on a decent website, and selling himself to the voters.
Seth has never walked in Steph's shoes. He's clearly out of his lane on this one. Not only does Steph probably not care what he has to say, but, I really don't either. She will make the final decision and I support whatever decision she makes. But, don't get me wrong, I will not support a hardcore leftist Democrat, ever...
G-Man, let me ask (and I won't take the answer personally!): does that mean you would not support me if I ran for office?
Are you actually going to run for office?
Cory brings up good points but maybe Montgomery can explain why Friday is a bad day.
Is it that reporters have checked out early?
Their circulation sucks on Friday and Saturday?
This isn't a reflection on quality of the news as much as it is a reflection on Mr. Montgomery and the media.
Maybe Mr. Montgomery would like to tell us how the competing news sources of Facebook and other social media do on weekends?
No...David? Please weigh in.
And be honest and transparent...that seems to be a big deal in your circles.
Ms. Jana, as cretinous as some of the media but not all of it is they do know their audiences to a certain degree. People just don't pay attention to things like Friday breaking news. The real media knows this and has built much of their world around it. We can complain about it but it just is. Mr. Weiland should have known this or his crackpot media advisors should have known it. Yet another botching.
But it's OK. He is leading in the polls if you only count the Dems that have announced.
Come on, G! I asked first. :-) Consider it not an announcement, but a test of your political spectrum test. You said you will not ever support a hardcore leftist Democrat. I'd just like to know if you see me sitting to the left or to the right of your no-can-do line.
Hey Grud...if they know their audience so well...why are they leaving so fast and why are weekends so bad?
My point is that a Senate candidate hiring a consultant isn't exactly man bites dog news...and if Mr. Montgomery want to ridicule a candidate for doing news then he should also be required to say why traditional news sucks on weekends.
PS: Not that it would affect you Grud...but social media like Facebook is the busiest on weekends...Oh and Grud...ask your buddy Montgomery if any Republicans have ever sent out releases or called him on a Friday?
Mr. Nesselhuff spouting the same gibberish isn't exactly man bites dog news either but this blog place and Mr. Nesselhuff seem to thing so and issue pressers about it.
PS: Ms. Jana, I don't know much about those things indeed and I have never spoken with the very young Mr. Montgomery. I doubt I would ever get the chance to meet him in person unless he came to my home.
What, Grudz? Mr. Nesselhuf said something? Where did you read that on this blog?
Mr. Nesselhuff is all over the news every time he has a chance saying things that are inane and "man-bites-dog" tidbits because he only has tidbits to say. That is my point. I did not say he blogged it here. I think I even saw him on the evening news today with the same "man-bites-dog" bit and looking a bit down in the mouth about Ms. Herseth pulling back her teasers and bowing out. He looked shell shocked.
Weiland. He's your man.
Sorry Grud...that was directed more at Mr. Montgomery and his cohorts who are more concerned about how the game is played and or who is the hottest in DC, than policy. Actually, looking at how the Hot people vote and what it means for 'everyone' in SD is seen as not news...you know...worthy of a Friday news dump.
I will apologize when Montgomery shows me how he covers issues that matter more than the pop culture of politics. And not to pick on just David...but this applies to all of the political reporters who seem to forget that the day-to-day votes in Washington actually matter.
Amazing how the puppet masters who run the game of politics have somehow attached their strings to the media. Heck, when they talk I can't even see the operatives lips move.
Heck, ask him how JT voted on the paycheck fairness act or violience against women act...he'll show you the story and what it meant to women in SD...or maybe he'll just show you JT's March Madness picks.
Sorry David...call them like I see them.
Howdy...Doody!
Grudz: "this blog place... seem[s] to thin[k] so." What part of that part of your phrase did I misunderstand? Or did your iPad autocomplete have too much coffee?
Pardon my sensitivity: I just like the record to be clear.
Heck...maybe there should be a transparency in media push to see who they get their news from, what is original reporting and if the puppet strings hurt.
In Montgomery's defense...the Argus is probably still hurting from losing so often to past Governors that they are afraid to do their job...or they are out of money to sue and have decided to go along to get along.
What was the old saying...comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I think that changed to it doesn't matter if you have a ton of likes on Facebook and stay in good with the "kool klique kids."
Well, at least Pat Powers won't be throwing his silly mud about Montgomery being a Dem lapdog.
Mr. H. I am not often as clear as I want to be.
Mr. Nesselhuff blathers randomly about the same thing over and over like the real media does that Ms. Jana bashes.
You also are distressed about Mr. Weiland but you post about him here in this blog space. He is your man.
Dang it, there you go again, imagining words into my mouth. Where's my distress about Weiland?
Sorry David "Smokeout" Montogomery...but your condescending little scold to a new candidate on when he makes you work is a bad sign of the respect you have for someone that makes the commitment to sacrifice for public service and is a sad indicator of your respect for the candidate and that sacrifice.
Maybe he doesn't love the "game" as much as you. Or maybe he was following your rule and just doing a non news disclosure on a slow day or maybe it was when the news happened and it was just inconvenient for you.
David, if you think it was legit news worthy of a Monday...when did Rounds announce his campaign consultants? Didn't see it in your Smokeout coverage.
Think about it David. Words matter...and they matter more when a little attitude is applied...so are you saying there is no reason to click on the Argus on Friday or pick up the newsprint on Saturday?
Grud...that Cory is a crafty one. Maybe you can show us how he is a mouthpiece for "Mr. Nesselhuff."
You keep looking until you find it...but don't let it get in the way of gravy for breakfast.
But do prove your point with facts. I would suggest a good strong blend of caffeine to aid your search...because it will take a long time to prove that one. Could even take more gravy than caffeine.
Then just for fun...compare and contrast that to the sycophantic SDWC press release regurgitation machine. Sad he has no original thoughts...don't ya think. I bet he hurts from all those strings pulling each and every way.
Oh Grud...you are a crafty one as well.
It turns out that "Mr. Nesselhuff" has only issued 3 press releases since the first of the year (Not sure if they went out on Fridays though) and put up only one blog post and his last message to the party was in September of last year...but he does have 2100 friends on Facebook. At least that's what's up on the SDDP website.
So accusing Cory of being a shill for Ben is a little far fetched Grud. Unless the Dems have a ninja political machine that I'm unaware of...oh yeah...that's why it's called ninja...you can't see it.
Cory,
Love the in-depth analysis. If anything I write can produce an analysis just as long or longer than my piece, I must be doing something right.
My main aim with the column was to hold Herseth Sandlin accountable to her own words. She chose to bring up her family in numerous interviews. I think we're all sick of hearing public people talk about family time and then fail to follow the words with action, so I give Herseth Sandlin credit for meaning what she said.
Thank you, Seth, for providing fodder for such analysis. You make the key point: accountability for public statements. SHS brought this issue up, she said it was important... and her subsequent "not running" announcement is consistent with those statements.