Republican John Tsitrian digs America's two-party system. He thinks three or more parties make a paralyzing muddle, but he thinks one-party rule is even worse.
Tsitrian thinks South Dakota labors under harmful one-party rule. He blames, in part, the abdicant leaders of our Democratic Party:
Where, for example, is Tom Daschle these days? South Dakotans made him who he is, but Daschle's blow-off of the state and his party's need for some leadership is regrettable and classless....
Corinna Robinson's Congressional campaign is starving for money. Meantime, U.S. Senate candidate Rick Weiland looks to be running himself ragged going around the state on a shoestring of a budget against the lavishly-financed Mike Rounds. Why should South Dakota's Democrats be excited about these candidates when you, Senator Tom Daschle, appear to be indifferent and apathetic?
I pose the same question to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, bearer of one of South Dakota's legendary political names and a former South Dakota Representative to Congress. Do you even care, Ms. Sandlin about how your party's fortunes are faring in South Dakota state races, the same South Dakota that your dad served as a state legislator and your grand-dad once governed? Sheesh. Come out here and show your face once in a while.
Even that great old liberal warhorse former Senator Jim Abourezk (a fantastic individual who once made it possible for me to visit Syria) could be out there helping out the party, if only within the confines of Sioux Falls as a concession to his age [John Tsitrian, "Memo To South Dakota's Democratic Elder Statesmen: Where Aaaaare Youuuuuu?" The Constant Commoner, 2014.07.30].
For what it's worth, I did just get a letter from Tom Daschle encouraging me to contribute to the SDDP's YELL Fellows program. Tom, Linda, and Nathan Daschle have put $4,009 into Weiland's campaign so far. Herseth Sandlin has put $1,000 into Robinson's campaign.
But whatever letters and money they are contributing, is Tsitrian justified in saying that Daschle, Herseth Sandlin, and Abourezk are derelict in some duty to the South Dakota Democratic Party? What do past office holders owe their party? Sure, parties help candidates get elected, but candidates reciprocate by busting their chops to get elected, by sacrificing privacy, family time, and job opportunities to serve the public. What do Tom and Stephanie still owe the SDDP? For that matter, what do Larry Pressler, Walter Dale Miller, or Clint Roberts owe the SDGOP? What will Kristi Noem and John Thune owe the Republicans when we retire them?
Tsitrian's complaint raises another question: who are the leaders of the South Dakota Democratic Party? Yes, yes, Deb Knecht is the party chair, Zach Crago is our able exec. But who really leads the Democratic Party? Who are the SDDP's William Wallaces, the folks who can paint their faces, shout "Freedom!", and rally Democrats to action? Who tells South Dakota Democrats whom, what, and when to fight? Who can walk into a room of donors and make it rain?
Do Daschle, Herseth Sandlin, or Abourezk wield any power like that? Do our current statewide candidates? Does Bernie Hunhoff? Jason Frerichs? Angie Buhl O'Donnell?
Who's the boss... and who if anyone has an obligation to keep being the boss?
I restate some omments I made on Tsitrian's blog.
The voters of South Dakota gave clear and unquivocal messages to Tom Daschle and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin that they were no longer wanted. o They did not abandon South Dakota. South Dakota rejected them. So, they moved the focus of their talents and abilities to other areas in order to continue building constructive and accomplished lives. They owe that to themselves and their families.
To grovel obsequiously to gain re-acceptance among the people who rejected them would be degrading and humiliating. The real shame in all this is a constituency that cannot accept and live with the results of the decisions it makes. The fine folks are standing around the swing set in the playground whining because the kids they rejected won't play with them anymore.
It seems to me that both Tom and Stephanie have given plenty of themselves for the betterment of SD. If they choose to limit their activity in politics these days, they certainly have that right. Active participation in any political party or activity or even being elected to office should not be considered a life sentence. These two folks are simply human beings who deserve to be respected for whatever decisions they make, or whatever life path they choose.
Their last campaigns sucked. They had money and thought that allowed them to ignore policy issues of their middle-class core supporters. I am hoping Rounds makes the same kind of mistakes as he hauls around the baggage of his time in the Governor's office.
Cory, the answer most likely is the same as it's always been.
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
— Will Rogers
Our only hope is, the SDGOP kinda seems to be following suit lately. ;-)
Herseth Sandlin and Daschle retiring from office is one thing, but as Newquist points out, y'all rejected them.
Not fair to reject them and then keep shooting at them when they don't jump back into the frying pan.
Either Daschle ir Herseth Sandlin campaigning for someone in deep red South Dak is probably the kiss of death for that candidate. Not only were Steph and Tom rejected, opposition gets to scream "Obama lover", as both had connections to that administration.
Buck up and find your way.
Also: no clue who the SD Dem leader(s), outside of paid party position, is. Anyone?
Ellis made the interesting point that Johnson has also failed to really lead. I guess I don't know what to think. I think many of the Democrats that are passionate fall into middle-class or lower class citizens. I think David's past analysis of how politics has merged into this wicked and cruel display of gutter snipping opponents and the fact that you will need to spend a lot of money.
It is also disheartening when good candidates can't break gerrymandered districts. I look at Ann Tornberg and all the work and effort she makes in District 16, but despite winning areas like Canton, Beresford, and Elk Point; the Dakota Dunes can wipe it out completely.
Democrats believe it's more important to be right than to win; Republicans believe it means nothing unless you win. Both parties have stuck to these core beliefs, with the Republicans playing a smarter game of locking up the State Capital and then winning the congressional seats. Democrats look for their saviors in Congress to bail them out, and fail to realize the most obvious reality: When you're running as Democrat, you really are on your own.
TGA, the democratic party in SD has no visible leadership. You get to see names, but they keep such a low profile that they are indistinguishable from the rest of us.
Politics is a high visibility game, if you want to play its all about facial, and name recognition. You have to be out front on the issues, not sticking your finger in the air to see what direction the political wind is blowing.
A great party leader would be able to handle the press. They would have the ability to manipulate with short concise answers to questions that are intended to change the direction of the discussion and steer that discussion in the direction they need it to go.
Unless you can lead from behind South Dakota doesn't have any true democratic leadership. There sure could be some good people at the top but they fall short of what is needed to kick butt and take names.
Here's how I see the dem leadership. They are registered as democrats, thay are mostly moderate, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the one thing that I have noticed is that I just dont understand is this. They all walk around like their right leg is shorter then the left, causing them to naturally lean in that direction.
The Blindman
So are the Democratic legislative candidates totally on their own? Do they get much help from state HQ? State HQ is just getting back on it's feet financially isn't it? It would be nice for the SDDP to have photos, bios, links and political stances for each candidate running for House and Senate on their website but it could be the need for volunteers to do it too in Sioux Falls.
Lynn, what do you believe are the top three obligations of any state party?
Bill D, do Thune, Noem, and Daugaard exert power on their party in ways that Johnson does not and that Herseth Sandlin and Daschle did not when in office?
MJL brings up an aspect of politics in South Dakota in his comments about gutter-sniping that needs to be emphasized. The GOP is totally dependent on character assassination and defamation, and in cases of Tom Daschle and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, it worked. That says much about the South Dakota electorate. Both Daschle and Sandlin were effective legislators who managed to pass significant legislation and address problems. Tom Daschle was way ahead of the game, for example, with veterans when he got the VA to acknowledge Agent Orange as a factor and when he sponsored the establishment of local clinics so veterans would not have to travel 200 miles to get treatment
Susan Wismer is facing the GOP tactic as she tries to hold the GOAC to the mandate from the legislature, but her efforts immediately produce one of those petty defamatory insults from Wadhams and the malevolent twits who hired him. The people of South Dakota have twice chosen petty character assassination over issues and accomplishment. If people have a moral and ethical aversion to participating in defamation and character destruction, they are not likely to see much point in entering the political fray. However, I think it is true that the Democratic Party needs to address the GOP tactics before good candidates think it will not be seriously damaging to them and their families to run for office.
96 Tears help me with those top three obligations of any state party
Cory, Thune, Noem, and Daugaard dont even make a blip on the national radar.
I like Tim but lets face it he has never been a true leader. Daschle was as close as the dems have had to a leader in this state for a long time. He knew the buttons to push to get things done. Until Thune came along it was enough but his failure to build and run the right campaign showed a certain inadequacy as a leader.
The same holds for Herseth Sandlin, for a time it was enough to get things done and then when she, like Tom, failed to mount a high end campaign she got her walking papers. That's not leadership.
As much as it pains me to say this, Bill Janklow is the only real leader that either party has had in this state, probably going as far back as George McGovern. Just admitting that causes my hemorrhoids to bunch up. Bill led a lot like LBJ. He knew where the bodies were burried, he wasn't afraid to use a little political blackmail to accomplish what Bill Janklow wanted, and one more thing, he absolutely hated to lose. Nationally he wasn't much, but in this state be got things done. Now there were times when you didn't know if Wild Bill was working for himself or his state but he was always out front even if he was just preaching to the choir. That my friends is true leadership.
The Blindman
Ps there have been other people that have led in this state but it was in a different time, and under much different circumstances. What passed then, would be like fighting with feathers
That's a subjective issue for most, Lynn.
Here's the deal. I think this turns into a discussion based on perceptions of how people think campaigns work, the role of money, the role of incumbents (get re-elected no matter what or fall on the sword for a cause, like a balanced tax system), what you want from a local Democrat organization (book club, picnics, rallies, issues forums, phone banking, raising money, knocking on doors, getting favorable press, etc.), what makes a good Democrat or a bad one, who's responsible for recruiting full slates of candidates and training and equipping them, winning seats in the courthouse and statehouse, punishing bad Democrats in office, putting stuff out on blogs and Tweets and Facebook, wearing uniform, etc.
How do you define a strong state party and what describes a weak one?
Some people think as long as we help the President by sending Dems to Congress, they've done their job. Republicans have shown they can control all statewide offices in Pierre and all but one congressional seat. They get their power from voters who agree with them rather strongly.
How do you change that? How long would it take to change that?
My thought is you won't get far until you have a critical mass of Democrats who agree winning is the best way to do things. I will tell you that the money for winning will not come from outside South Dakota unless you can demonstrate to donors in D.C. and elsewhere that you could win without their money.
Again, we are on our onezeez, at least until Democrats and/or their candidate(s) are worth the investments.
I look back at the late 1980s-early 1990s when Democrats had a mini-boom. The had nearly equal numbers in the state Senate, and had pretty good representation in the state House. Yeah, they never took the Governor's chair, but Lars Herseth came very close to winning.
What did they have? A bunch of crusading, issue-oriented folks, mixed with folks with deep roots in their communities. They weren't scared of being Democrats. They weren't scared of taking on the issues. They weren't scared of calling out Republicans. These candidates had had visibility in their communities. It helped that they caught Republicans in a cycle where they had just awful leadership. That leadership problem is pretty evident now, so you would expect Dems should make a surge this year.
Dems then also had some resources---money mostly funneled through Daschle and folks willing to volunteer to help with lit drops, etc. They also had candidates who were willing to work, mostly going door-to-door to create a face-to-face contact with potential voters. They also had help from pretty smart political professionals, including Jody Severson, on developing messaging. I'm not sure they have all this anymore.
You also have to consider that the Republicans gerrymandered many districts to maximize their representation in the Legislature. A couple districts around Rapid City used to be very winnable by a Democrat. Now it would take a near miracle to win there.
I agree with Don's assessment. The Democrats got discouraged when Janklow returned and the whole thing turned into too much work. Republicans seized the moment, gerrymandered very shrewdly in 1991, 2001 and 2011, raised all kinds of sleazy money and didn't let seats go unchallenged.
The next redistricting opportunity is 2021, and it's already the middle of 2014. If there is an opportunity, better start right now and hold onto Tim Johnson's Senate seat, and maybe pick up a constitutional seat if you're lucky and work like hell.
Democrats can come back by 2021, but first one must burn down the mission and start entirely from scratch with entirely new leadership from the county levels to the state level. There are no simple or magic answers. The present leadership is too comfortable avoiding the hard work and tough challenges of winning as a Democrat. Don't expect them to change their MO.
Redistricting should be done by a computer program both at the state and national levels.
Out of 435 US Rep seats, there are really only about 25 in play; +/- 410 seats are gerrymandered to oblivion. Ridiculous.
Clarification: given the opportunity, BOTH parties draw maps to fit their side best. If Dems are in control of the SD legislature in 2021, they'll gerrymander the hell out if it, too.
Just wondering if the South Dakota Republican Party has a distinct leader? If so who would it be?
In MN a panel of retired judges do the redistricting. There is a substantial time for input from a wide variety of groups. Democrats and Republicans, and groups with particular interests. It works well. No one is happy with the final result.
No political party ought to have any authority over Congressional or legislative districts.
Roger- I can easily say John Thune, followed by Dennis Daugaard, followed by Mike Rounds, followed by Kristi Noem.
Deb, I agree with you. I saw Cory's tweet about the Canada method. It makes to much sense (like a single payer system), so it will never get adopted by this state.
@David Newquist, John Thune not Tom Dashle was the lead local Senator as he was the lead Republican sponsor on the rural veteran healthcare clinic bill in 2007.
Since reading your post, I have a hard time thinking of a bill the SHS sponsored much less introduced, that passed. I asked her at the American Legion here in SF, (a meeting that I attended at the behest of Roger Andal) if she planned to introduce a bill in the House to have our returning troops tested for exposure to depleted uranium as Tom Daschle had for Agent Orange. She assured me and us that she would. Never heard another word about it.
@Blindman, that shorter right leg that you describe affects the National Democratic party as well. Every President since Nixon, was/is to the right of Nixon, both parties. The Pubs had one other true leader and he would have been in the US Senate for quite some time, presuming that he would have run for that office, had he not died in office and that was George Mickelson the younger.
Deb-isn't that one reason former weasel/speaker of the house Tom Delay was convicted and sentenced to prison? He was funneling monies into Texas to redistrict after the 2000 election/census.
TGA-last election Dems nationwide had a million more votes for congress than rethugs and still couldn't get control. Take a look at a map of Texas congressional districts and see how they were drawn by partisan wingnuts. iowa's four districts are drawn by non-partisan committee steriving to have the same number of residents in each district. Most of the population is in the eastern half of the state,iowa's 4th district includes nearly the entire western half of the state and is heavily red. Unlike Texas and other red states,in iowa the lines aren't twisted to isolate one party or the other.
Having talked in 2010 with current and former Democratic legislators, they were proud of their redistricting efforts. When we asked why it sucked so bad from a voters POV, they said a few Dem seats got saved. When asked why they did not push for competitive seats, they would quit talking to you.
.
These same legislators believe Jason Gant's voter purge system save them work.They are letting Gant tell them who to send campaign literature to instead of finding potential voters, they are happy to keep sending literature to the least number of people.
.
Lazy and cheap does not even begin the descriptions of their efforts.
.
The entire state Dem Party structure is not intended to win any election. It is set up to protect a small and shrinking power base.
.
A winning process starts with finding the Daschle, Johnson, Herseth voters and voting lists. Go find the voters who have fallen off the voting list, the habit of voting and bring them back. Instead of little issue petition drives, the state party should have put the resources into actually planning a winning strategy to win an election. Are the party 'leadership' using the names from those petitions as part of the get out the vote efforts? I doubt it.
.
The Democratic Party in South Dakota is designed to fail and they don't want help doing it.
BTW, when will the South Dakota Democratic "leaders" quit watching FOX "news" and using their soundbites in the speeches they give? As long as FOX is used as the starting point, the Democratic Party loses.
I'm not going to take the time to read all of these comments and respond because I have a job, BUT -
Who leads the SDDP?
It is very clear that our leader going forward and some might think our "savior" is Brendan Johnson. This does not mean that he will someday take on John Thune or the whole Republican establishment, but it does mean that he will continue to work in the public eye and lead by example to thousands of South Dakotans in whatever position he's in. Unlike Mayor Mike Heuther who has shown time and time again that he is not up for the task to run a statewide race for anything, Brendan Johnson has quietly gone about his business being our most influential federal appointed official in the state of South Dakota.
As for local leaders? It might be hard to see, but individuals such as Jason Frerichs and Billie Sutton have a tremendous amount of respect in Pierre and are a strong example to any South Dakotan. These 2 will be around for a long time and will not be residing in Pierre for their entire political tenure either.
[Hey, Yotes, can you send me a functional e-mail address?]
Yotes, US Attorney Johnson is doing fine work. But is he taking command of the party itself? Is he setting an agenda for the party, or is he just a nice, smart, effective public servant on home we are pinning some hopes?
So which Dems are better positioned to win a statewide race: Frerichs and Sutton with their "tremendous respect in Pierre", or Mike Huether with his googobs of money and Sioux Falls connections?
There is no way that Brenden Johnson can be called the head of or leader of the Democratic Party. In his job as US Attorney, he has to stay non political. When I asked his office if they were going to release information on the EB-5 investigation before the primary election, I was told that they could release nothing to the public, because of that non politicalness.
Regarding Daschle and Herseth Sandlin: Some commentrs seem to have lost track of Cory's original question. Cory asked whether they should be helping the SD Democratic Party. South Dakota Democrats didn't "reject" either person. They both barely lost their elections, in which they received the overwhelming support of Democrats. (Some commenters might have forgotten that in general elections, Republicans also vote, hence Daschle and Herseth Sandlin's defeat.)
So, turning around and blaming SD Democrats for "rejecting" Daschle and Herseth Sandlin is not only incorrect, it misses the point of Cory's question, and worse, it's mean-spirited blaming-the-victim. "Daschle and Herseth Sandlin weren't re-elected? It's their ardent supporters' fault! Screw "y'all"!"
I wouldn't blame Daschle and Herseth Sandlin if they felt some bitterness about the way they were turned out of office. Unfortunately, it happened when the right-wing Teabagger wave was beginning to crest in the country, and it was probably inevitable because of the makeup of our state. However, I do kind of blame them for disengaging from politics and not using their star power to lead and build up the Democrats' farm team in South Dakota. It's kind of hypocritical to blame SD Democrats for being in a weak position when some of our state's most successful Democratic politicians choose to cash in, withdraw from local politics, and abandon the farm team.
Lanny Stricherz,
Tom Daschle established the rural clinics in South Dakota while he was in office, which he left in 2004. His staff wasi nvolved in the actual setup of the clinic in Aberdeen. Thune signed on to an amendment to the original act in 2007, three years after Daschle left office.
The legislation that Herseth Sandlin sponsored can be reviewed here:
https://beta.congress.gov/member/stephanie-herseth-sandlin/1760
wa
Cory, South Dakota Democrats in composite need to figure out what they are all about and how to contrast that with the Republican Party in South Dakota.
One of the challenges with the "Blue Dog" Democrats like Ben Nelson in Nebraska, and to some extent, Stephanie Herseth in SD, is that their politics on certain key issues were indistinguishable from those of their opponent.
They were too conservative on key issues that defined the difference between being either a Democrat or a Republican.
It's an argument against partisanship, not for it.
It's also perhaps the only way a Democrat can actually get elected in a strongly Republican state.
On the other hand, a candidate with an "R" behind his/her name is automatically 5-10 points ahead of any Democrat or Indy regardless of their politics.
All of that suggests that if one wants to be a winner in politics in South Dakota, they should probably just go ahead and run as a Republican.
Because (and this is something Republicans get, and Democrats don't) the purpose of a political party is to win elections. Period.
The one that Thune signed onto, set up the Veterans clinic in Watertown and Wagner, not sure of any others.
I just reviewed the first 1000 bills which SHS sponsored or cosponsored. Of the ones which she sponsored, only two were passed. One was for naming the Post Office in Woonsocket after Eleanor McGovern. The other named the Federal Building after Judge Andrew Bogue.
I am sure that she either didn't know or being the blue dog that she was, didn't care that her naming of the Federal Building after Andrew Bogue was a clear slap in the face to the largest union under one roof in SD, the MeatPackers at John Morrell. Judge Bogue back in the 1990's had taken the retiree health insurance away from the Morrell Union, even though it had been agreed to in a previous contract. This affected hundreds if not thousands of already retired Morrell workers, many of whom, either they or their spouse had preexisting conditions for which they could then not get healthcare insurance. This was also one of the first strikes of management in breaking up or weakening the unions to the point that they had no clout.
If two bills like this over 5 or 6 years is what we are paying a congress person for, why send anyone? She authored a lot of other bills, but I am sure could not get support from Republicans and because she was a blue dog also could not get support from a lot of Democrats.
I beg to differ. Thune and Noem are true leaders.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/07/30/most-beautiful-congress/13386015/
So, is it time to reprise Bob Samuelson's old campaign slogan "Not just another pretty face"? (Might have been a good one for Stace Nelson, come to think of it. LOL.)
I noted quite a few more bills for which SHS was a sponsor that were passed into law, and quite a few that did not make it to the floor that would have benefited South Dakota. We seem to have quite differing sets of facts.
But, Lanny, you provide a good basis for shaking the dust of South Dakota off one's feet and moving on to more rewarding projects.
Yes, Thune and Noem are true leaders I read where some magazine named them the hottest members of Congress. Some honor. I didn't know that is what they were being paid over $100,000 yearly to do. They sure aren't doing any legitimate work.
at least $174,000 plus perks yearly for nothing.
Mr. Newquist wrote "They did not abandon South Dakota. South Dakota rejected them." That is as true as it gets and why was that? I would toss in that Daschle lost in 2004 due to the fact that we here in South Dakota were scared to death of the brown people of the mid-east. We voted in lockstep to the drumbeat of fascism that had overtaken America. So yep, we rejected him because he had the balls to stand up to President Cheney and we did not like that. President Cheney told us to go to the malls and buy crap made in China and be a good little proletariat and STFU. Cheney unleashed the hounds politically and here we are, we have no power to do much of anything. We are under a one party rule here much like Vlad's home turf and we seem to like it the way of the old countries our families came from. Our roads are falling apart, our children are leaving and we who are not republicans, are rudderless.
Thankfully we have this blog so that we can beat the crap out of Tom Daschle, one of the few politicos that really gave a care about his state and her people, with a special look at South Dakota veterans.
Stephanie was much the same way. She was beaten because we now had a black man in the White House that was a Democrat. The racists here went berserk, then add anti gay legislation crap along with the abortion crap, and all of the sudden the air is out of the sail and your ship has run aground.
So Mr. Newquist, you may be correct on your take, but you may want to add an asterisk on why.
I think this topic is similar to many of life's challenges. It takes an incredibly stubborn unwillingness to give up. I'm thinking about not only sporting events, but anyone, or group that overcomes great odds.
It's about a refusal to accept a fact that makes the goal seem like a silly pipe dream. There are people like that and they aren't extremely rare. They keep popping up in crisis after crisis.
I believe SD needs a small group to seek out the new McGovern. Those searchers don't have to include the McGovern themselves, but they have to search diligently, while also creating a support network, a network of believers. They don't necessarily have to be active in the search.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.
It's not a cliché, it's a fact.
Here's a little lesson about what could have occurred in South Dakota had folks not fought against the power structure. It also has some lessons for those in the Democratic Party who try to get too close to Republican positions on issues.
Janklow had the idea (kept secret until my organization found out about it) that the former Black Hills Ordnance Depot at Igloo should be used for a nuclear waste dump. The company that came courting was Chem-Nuclear System, Inc., which was being bought out by Waste Management, Inc. That company's President was Lars Herseth's uncle. Chem-Nuclear had a nuclear dump in Barnwell, South Carolina. The company paid for lots of mostly Republican South Dakota legislators to tour the facility. They also recruited several well-known Democrats to shill for them. They paid for people to harass signers and circulators of initiative petitions. Despite all this, the folks weren't buying Janklow's nuclear dump.
The point here is that the Barnwell nuclear dump that South Dakota Legislators toured, and came back saying "we got nothing to worry about if we site one here," is now leaking, and it's leaking so badly that a South Carolina court has had to intervene to require a cleanup.
I want to point out something. Lars Herseth, I'm sure, was extremely conflicted on this issue. He had strong family reasons not to fight hard against Chem-Nuclear. He could have just caved in to Janklow, or bargained the issue away for something else the Democratic Party wanted. Instead, he put on one of the longest (extending well past 2 AM on the last day) and toughest (several votes) efforts to defeat legislation ever. Even though we lost that legislative vote, Lars Herseth showed incredible courage. He was taking on the entire Republican establishment, and some of the Democratic establishment, as well. And he was taking on the interests of his extended family.
Lars was generally considered a business oriented Democrat, but he also had a big heart and was willing to fight for the people. If Stephanie had shown even half the courage that Lars did, she would be running for Senate now.
96: to get that outside money boost, does a Dem need to actually win a race and then enjoy the outside cash the next election, or can a Dem show massive fundraising and popular appeal and draw some of that outside cash before winning her first statewide election?
I think we have one Deb and that one would be Rick Weiland. Seriously, what more does the guy need do to show that? He has visited all the towns and cities across this state to get his word out and his poll numbers are in a very good place for this time of the election cycle. All this guy and Robinson need is money to keep it all going.
Donald, that's a heck of a good story for us to remember about Lars Herseth. What Dems like that do we have left on active duty in the state?
Mr. Pay, all I am saying is that with Daschle, we South Dakotans proved we could become cowards very quickly. We had a majority leader in the Senate for crying out loud! As such, he was battling a group that were leading America to doom and we would not listen or we would not see what was happening. All of the things that he was battling have now come home to roost and we allowed this empty suit of a fraud to take a place in the senate that is so far down the totem pole that dogs can and do hike their legs on him.
Stephanie was up against the same thing. I will agree that she did not have the gumption to take on big issues like the ACA and defend it. That certainly would not have hurt her and she should have also been an advocate of raising our minimum wage, which she had no stomach for. She was up against the fact that we had republicans screeching their asses off about all things Obama as well. We are not known here in South Dakota for having such a love affair with folks of color so it is easy to see how that would motivate the tea party racist vote. So maybe if she would have shown come courage regarding the ACA and something like raising wages, she would have at least had something to be against NOem in that election.
Great story Mr Pay and I think it exemplifies exactly what is wrong with politics today. I have not read this blog or Dakota War College much since the Senate primary in June. I read both yesterday for some reason, while searching the net to see if either Corinna Robinson Or Rick Weiland had made any comment on the slaughter taking place in Gaza.
I commented on Dakota as to how evil all three of our reps in DC were for their support of that slaughter. The majority there could not get enough of that slaughter. And of Course their party was right all along, even for Rev Steve Hickey who is against the death penalty for convicted felons, (as am I) but somehow can still support the killing of innocent civilian Palestinians.
And of course on here there is all kinds of support for TD and SHS, no matter how disconnected they had become from their party in SD or the people whom they represented.
I along with dozens of South Dakotans held a protest of the Iraq war in September of 2002 and sent letters to Senators Daschle and Johnson begging them to vote against giving President Bush carte blanche on going to war in Iraq. This was at the time of the Daschle anthrax letter. This was of course of no avail as they both voted to allow the war, if the President so desired.
We continued our protest of the war several times before it started and every Sunday on going for several years. A smaller group of us protested at SHS office here in SF with requests to meet with SHS whenever she would come back to SD. We petitioned her after the 2006 election when it became evident that the American people were no longer invested in the war and even a majority of South Dakotans opposed it. Our petition was for her to no longer support funding the war. She never once voted against that funding. We petitioned all three of them and SHS and Johnson multiple times to sign on to a bill establishing a Department of Peace. Never happened.
When it becomes impossible for people to do the right thing even when public opinion says it is the thing to do, how in the world can those people or any members of that political party expect people to continue to support them?
Jerry, I'll be very interested to see if Rick's tours of the state translate into votes and de facto leadership of the party.
Cory, I am very interested in that as well. It is clear that the Democratic Party has no sign of real leadership here in South Dakota. By doing what Rick is doing takes guts and leadership, he has both. So lets just see how this turns out. It may be that the so called leaders of the party here are toothless.
Cory, If it doesn't, something is seriously wrong with the Democratic party. There was a time when that is the way folks campaigned in SD. McGovern, Abourezk, Abnor and Pressler all campaigned that way. That was before the obscene amounts of money that have taken control of our politics made the pols think they did not have to go out and meet the people.
There is one other leader in the Democratic party that I have not seen mentioned on this blog's question and that is Kathy Tyler. People forget that last fall after the death of Benda, she was the one that called for a special session of the legislature to investigate EB-5. To the best of my knowledge, not one other Democrat stepped up and backed her on that request. THat of course speaks volumes about the party.
Tyler and Wismer, leading the charge on GOED/EB-5/Benda... are they getting enough backup from other Dems? If not, why not? And if not, can they be considered party leaders?
Cory,
That is a good point, why have the Democrats in the state legislature not formed a coalition to fight GOAC and Jackley over EB-5? What they afraid of?
When I look at the state Democratic Party it would be great to identify state leaders. It isn't often that we have seen our federal elected officials that are spokespeople for state issues.
State Democrats have an obligation to speak and represent their constituents and not just go along and get along.
Mr. Fleming, Bob Samuelson did not coin “not just another pretty face” as a campaign slogan. That belongs to the late George Cunningham in his 1984 quest against Sen. Larry Pressler. He plunged into the race when it became clear nobody was willing to jump in.
Cunningham! Right. Thanks for the correction 96!
Tried to answer you comment when you made it but the site would not accept what I had typed. If I remember, leaders lead and followers follow. Just because the followers won't follow, when the leaders are right and are trying to lead, does not make the leaders wrong. It only proves my statement in my last post. "That of course speaks volumes about the party."
Cory, sorry to answer so late. Work and travel.
My earlier point was that a candidate like Rick Weiland needs to change perceptions with national donors that a South Dakota win is very unlikely. I personally think he's succeeding at that and could very well redefine how Democrats can run and win in this state. He seems to emulate the style of a Jim Abourezk or a George McGovern who ran as liberals and got elected because the common sense people of South Dakota realized that the state's economy would not stand long if the state were not getting back $1.50 for every $1 sent from South Dakota to the federal treasury. South Dakotans might be conservative, but not in the way of a fanatic teabagger. They elected a Bill Janklow and a George McGovern because those leaders were populists who didn't leave you wondering where they stood.
Weiland's primary roadblock has been the well-publicized obstruction by Sen. Harry Reid, allegedly because of a long-standing feud with Tom Daschle and because Reid thought Stephanie was ready to jump in until Weiland entered the race. He's very wrong about that, and seeing what Stephanie is earning at Raven and her quiet, family lifestyle with a small child would be the primary motivation to not face the wrath of Karl Rove's mega-pacs and Koch Brothers' money this year. Look for Stephanie to run in the next four years.
For Weiland, this is a matter of threading the needle. Gain popularity and confidence through an inventive voter contact strategy while Rounds is inert before the September blast.
If Weiland looks like a credible candidate with a shot at winning, enough national donors will jump in to give him respectable resources to get on TV and run a strong ground game. It appears to me he's been "running on empty" with the hope that everything comes together in late summer, when Harry Reid's childish attitude no longer matters.
Nationally, the Democrats know the Senate is in deep trouble and that conventional strategies won't hold onto seats like Tim Johnson's. If Weiland pulls this out, it will change the playbook at the DSCC, and the pettiness of a Harry Reid will no longer be tolerated in future elections.
Just getting back to the original question, and why I posed the questions to Lynn. When it comes to money, people, message, a smart strategy and good candidates (the basic elements of campaigns), you make your own luck. One hundred percent of the time.
We talk about the end of the Democrat Party like it will never come back, but history and common sense tells us that isn't so. Politics runs in cycles, but the Republicans have done an excellent job keeping those cycles running longer and deeper in their favor. They rarely miss an opportunity, and they still run their party in the same way they did in the 50s, 60s, 70, 80s, etc. It's a structured top-down organization that builds and deepens relationships with key communities. They run Lincoln Day Dinners like clockwork in virtually every county. They infiltrate service clubs to spotlight their candidates. They connect with die-hard causes like SD Right to Life and gun nutjobs to maintain a basic level of activity 24/7/365. Their Achilles Heel is they like everything run like clockwork without rocking the boat, which was why a bull in a China closet like Bill Janklow posed problems for the organization. A steady Eddy like Pierre homecoming king Mike Rounds is more their cup of tea. He won't do, say or stand for something the rank-and-file find challenging. Sorry, I digress.
Democrats don't need to emulate Republicans completely, but there are lessons here to learn. The state party has a role, but so do the local parties (remember the GOP has county Lincoln Day dinners while Democrats have only one McGovern Day Dinner -- that leaves money on the table, folks!).
A county party has the primary responsibility of making a state party office and organization as strong as possible. A county party that refuses to do its part to raise money, hold events, recruit candidates, hold Republicans publicly accountable (EB-5 and the AG's crooked practices), involve business owners in Democrat activities, etc., is a deadbeat county party.
Frankly, Democrats need to pull their heads out of their asses and get to work NOW. We lost Daschle, Stephanie and our clout in Pierre because Democrats didn't work hard enough to push back. Look in the mirror. If the party is in the Valley of the Shadows, it's because its county and state leadership let them drift there. Any time they want to act like a competitive organization, Democrats can start by going door-to-door to independents, business to business and in social media to stand for their candidates, their vision and their legacy as the party that built South Dakota.
I've been looking at this organization and I feel good about what they are doing. https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment
The Madizens' comments seem to be looking for a savior. While I understand that, MLK needed people beside him and behind him. In fact, others created the mechanism that enabled him to lead formidable numbers.
I'm as guilty as others of sitting back while bemoaning the situation. See my earlier comment for a perfect example. I truly do believe that we are the ones. I don't necessarily mean that we will save SD or the USA. But we can play an important role in laying the ground work.
A centerpiece of any oppressive regime, whether corporate or not, is to create a sense of helplessness among those being oppressed. Then the Oppressees do the majority of the work for the Oppressors. That is what must be most fiercely fought against.
I'm looking at Move to Amend to help me avoid feeling helpless and play a part in creating the mechanism for a powerful leader to arise among us. We need our Ghandi, Red Cloud, MLK, Walesa, Mandela, McGovern, etc.
Deb - Thanks for listing McGovern. In 1953 George Ward gave him the job as the sole paid staff of the SD Democratic Party. There were only two Democrats in the Legislature. No statewide elected Democrats. Most of the few county party leaders wanted nothing to do with stirring up trouble. He found people to lead county parties. He drove hundreds of miles talking with people to see if they would help turn it around. He put his notes on 3x5 cards and kept them in a box in his car. Day by day, he found enough people to start changing the fortunes of the party to increase the legislative numbers in 1954 and to get himself elected to 1st District Congressman in 1956. From there, work continued to elect Ralph Herseth Governor in 1958 and the Democrats were a up and down force in the '60s until 1970 when they elected Dick Kneip Governor until 1978 and elected Jim Abourezk to Congress and then the Senate.
The course can change its trajectory when people decide to do so. But it takes really hard work and consistency without allowing for petty distractions. It doesn't happen overnight or even in a few years.
You make your own luck, especially if you're a Democrat in South Dakota. There are resources outside South Dakota, but they won't bank on someone who isn't willing to put 110 percent into the effort.
Democrats do not need a savior. We don't need bright shiny objects to distract us from our work. We need Democrats to put 110 percent into their role to win and build a sustaining county-based state organization.
Well said, '96. My Uncle who is still living got out of the US Army after 4years, in 1953. He went to work for the State Highway department. He was a born and raised Democrat, and guess what. He like many State employees back then and probably even today, were forced to join the Republican party. He still voted Democrat and always has, but that fact speaks volumes to how the Repubs got control, because I am sure that many of those State employees just voted the way they had been told to register.
George McGovern beating the bushes, is a lot like what Senator to be Weiland has been doing for nearly a year now. A buck or a hundred his way might just help him to be able to turn the trick. The seat is there for the taking.