Constant Conservative

I’m a political independent. So is B. Thomas Marking of Custer. He’s running for South Dakota’s single Representative seat in the US House. I’m running after my two-year-old (who believes himself to be fiercely independent while at the same time asking for constant subsidies). Independents apparently come in a number of flavors:

The Custer man, who has retired from a career in federal and state service, is running as an independent candidate. He faces Democratic incumbent Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Republican challenger Kristi Noem.

His life’s work has been the implementation of government policies, but not as an elected official.

He has a few out-of-the ordinary ideas about representation. Here is one of them:

“If my personal decision is at odds with what the people want, I will go with the people. It’s a matter of honor,” he said.

Constituents could vote either online or by mail, Marking said. He would collect information on issues and post it on a separate website so citizens could make informed decisions when marking their survey.

Elsewhere in the article, it appears as though he has strong opinions on matters. I find it improbable that he would be able to follow through with his statement that he would go against his own beliefs, as much as it might seem nice in the abstract.

Marking used health care reform as an example of an issue where citizens had little or no input.

“Do we want (health care) as an addition to our basic rights? People were never asked,” he said. “If the answer is yes, who pays? Business? Government? Then we forge ahead.”

He seems to miss that fact that business and government never pay for anything–they either pass the cost along to the consumers (in the case of business) or get their money from the consumers via taxes (in the case of government). And the statement about adding health care as a basic right tells me that he doesn’t understand basic rights.

“You saw the two parties in the past, and they were more the problem than the solution,” he said. “It seems like a matter of divide and conquer. They slap a label on the other side and describe them as evil. I didn’t want to be a part of it.”

As an independent, Marking admits he faces huge obstacles in raising money and recruiting staff. But he believes a small portion of the voters are hard-core Republicans and Democrats, and he will appeal to most South Dakotans.

It’s not, for me, so much that each side calls the other evil as is is that both Republicans and Democrats seem largely intent on the same goal: encouraging us to be increasingly dependent on the federal government. I’m not certain Mr. Marking holds a different view of dependency.

Marking does not want to see the U.S. remain in a protracted war in Southwest Asia or engage in long-term nation building. He prefers more use of special operations forces rather than conventional forces.

“With the way we are doing things now, you would knock (terrorists) down in Iraq, and they would pop up in Yemen. It’s like playing a game of ‘Whack-A-Mole,’” he said.

“We need to get our troops back here and take care of our border security. But border security has become entangled with immigration reform, and we need to separate the two. My wife is a legal immigrant from the Philippines, and we need to promote (that process).”

I don’t think very many of “want to see the U.S. remain in a protracted war in Southwest Asia.” However, we’ve made a number of promises to people in that part of the world and we should be very careful about breaking them. His statement about immigration reform being entangled with border security is a bit off the mark. If immigration reform means that we simply forgive all of the lawbreakers who are already here, then the issue remains very much one of border security. If by immigration reform, he means that we need to ensure that we enforce the laws already on the books–then I’m not sure what would be reformative about that.

On the domestic front, Marking expressed strong opposition to lawmakers who don’t even read complex legislation before voting on it. He noted the practice with the bank bailouts, stimulus spending and health care reform.

On the other hand, he doesn’t favor the GOP call for totally repealing the new health reform package. He doesn’t believe such an effort will occur or succeed. The dollars are already flowing for the programs, he said.

We should read the bills, he says. Good. But if we’ve already passed a bill, don’t worry about it too much. What’s done is done and we are already spending our grand-children’s money on the programs. Not so good.

Marking is intrigued by the fair tax proposal at the federal level that would tax consumption instead of income and investments.

Note that he is “intrigued” by this. Not saying that he’s actually going to do anything to further or if he is actually a member of the Fair Tax organization.

Congress also needs to push forward with energy independence as a matter of national security, Marking said.

The British Petroleum (BP) oil spill has created major outrage, but drilling will need to continue as an energy source until the nation develops alternatives, Marking said. He supports biofuels as a major renewable resource.

Of course, if one is running for statewide office in South Dakota, it is pretty well mandatory that one support biofuels. Energy independence, however, is a rather substantial pipe dream. Like it or not, we cannot be energy independent any more than we can be financially independent. The world is rather too connected to see such a thing come to pass–unless we are willing to dial back the clock to the days before universal electricity consumption.

In short, Mr. Marking does not seem to have a unified approach to policy–though he would not be the first politician with that characteristic. It will be interesting to see what ground he stakes out in specific opposition to Ms. Herseth Sandlin and Ms. Noem.

I had missed this over the weekend, but here is the latest Rasmussen poll on the South Dakota gubernatorial race:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds Daugaard, a Republican, earning 52% support to Heidepriem’s 35%.  Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, while nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Most interesting to me are the following numbers:

Heidepriem, a state senator, is viewed Very Favorably by 17% of the state’s voters and Very Unfavorably by 14%.

Twenty-five percent (25%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Daugaard, while six percent (6%) view him Very Unfavorably.

Pretty close numbers for Heidepriem (so much so that the positives and negatives largely cancel, with a 3% favorable edge). Daugaard, on the other hand gets a 19% positive advantage.

From some of those brave party people:

Democratic governors expressed “grave” concerns to White House officials this weekend about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, warning it could cost the party in crucial elections this fall, The New York Times reported late Sunday.

The closed-door meeting took place at the National Governors Association in Boston on Saturday, according to two unnamed governors who spoke to the Times.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on,’” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was quoted as saying. “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The suit is “toxic” because it will cause the Democrats to lose elections? What a remarkably wrongheaded view of things. This thinking is in concord with the statement by Hank Johnson of Georgia that Congress should pass a specific bill to ensure that Republicans are not elected.

The suit does show the citizenry that the Federal government does not care about the security of the states more than it cares about its own power. This dawning realization will tend to cause people to elect fellow freedom-loving individuals to positions of leadership at the state level to counteract (and perhaps reverse) the damage which is being done at the national level.

Perhaps the time is come for a few Democratic governors to consider the source of their authority: the federal government, or the people who elected them?

Things are shaping up for a good (read: exciting) competition for South Dakota’s seat in the House:

Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to knock off South Dakota Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin ever since she was elected six years ago in the rural, conservative state.

But with what could be a big Republican wave and an anti-incumbent narrative building — not to mention a strong GOP nominee in state Rep. Kristi Noem — party operatives believe they have the right mix of factors to beat the Congresswoman this year.

Democrats, meanwhile, are already trying to paint Noem — an anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gay-marriage conservative — as a right-wing partisan.

They also note that Herseth Sandlin survived a tough environment before, winning her first race in 2004, a very good Republican year.

But that was before she had a Congressional voting record and before she owned the positive and negative aspects that come with incumbency.

Read it all, but realize that the author is a bit biased against “right-wing partisans” as evidenced by her not describing Noem as “pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-traditional marriage.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has just sent out a fundraising letter. Here’s an image of the letter. Here’s a bit that really struck me:

Angle wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, and eliminate the federal Departments of Education and Energy. Paul thinks businesses should have the right to discriminate. And Sarah Palin? Well, she’s out there raisin’ money for ‘em, just a-droppin’ her g’s and pushin’ ‘em further ‘n’ further off that right-wing cliff like they were lemmings instead of mama grizzlies – or whatever her latest mammalian metaphor is.

Nothing like addressing the substance of one’s opponents arguments, is there? Then again, I suppose fundraising letters are not about being truthful, but about stoking the fires of true believers.

The good news? This letter probably would not have been written if the Democratic party were not feeling the pain brought on by ignoring the voices of many of its constituents. Of course, sending out a letter in which one’s opponents are belittled and otherwise made to look like fools may not help much. Then again, I’m sure Mr. Begala and friends are just looking out for the “small people.”

It is nice to see Power Line continuing to support Kristi Noem. The site has an extensive national readership and provides a level of analysis which is as welcome as it is rare. And before someone talks about out-of-state money and how it should not be used to support candidates, please, get a grip. Money flows freely across state lines in all political races at this level–the only question is one of transparency.

At least for his re-election campaign. Pat Powers notes that “the signs are not looking good for them” (the Democrats). I had previously thought that Mr. St Pierre would provide at least token resistance, but it would seem as though he simply could not get enough proper signatures to make it happen.

The countdown to November has begun in earnest. John at Power Line (who is himself a slightly misplaced South Dakotan) has a few thoughts on Kristi Noem, but the following remark about Noem being called South Dakota’s Palin stood out for me:

That strikes me as an odd approach: there are states where you could damage a candidate by associating her with Sarah Palin, but I don’t think South Dakota is one of them. In fact, watching Noem in action, it is easy to surmise that South Dakotans like her for much the same reasons that Alaskans and others like Palin. As for being an extremist, you can check out her views here. She is a mainstream fiscal conservative, perfectly suited to the electorate’s mood.

Go and read the whole piece. I’m hoping we hear from John regularly as the excitement of November approaches.

Thought the South Dakota Democratic Party was either unable (nobody available) or unwilling (nobody who had a chance) to field a candidate against John Thune, it appears as though an independent might make the cut. From the Rapid City Journal:

Secretary of State Chris Nelson said Wednesday that his office has received petitions for Mark St. Pierre of Kyle, who is trying to make the general election ballot as an independent in the U.S. Senate race.

Nelson said the petitions arrived Wednesday by registered mail. Volunteers sent them from Rapid City by the 5 p.m. CDT deadline Tuesday. St. Pierre needs 3,356 valid signatures to make the ballot.

We should know later this week or early next if Mr. St. Pierre supplied the requisite signatures. If he were to make it on the ballot, I wonder what his platform would be–other than “not John Thune.” Perhaps we shall find out in the coming days.

Here’s a piece that the RCJ did on Mr. St. Pierre a month or so ago. You may find the background information useful. I do like the ‘stache, but I’m afraid it may take him no further than did Knuppe’s.

Tomorrow, South Dakotans will choose the person who will run against Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in this fall’s general election. Well, the registered Republicans will do the choosing. The rest of us will do our best to pick the right person from the fall options.

Unlike the slate of candidates for the Governor’s office, those who are striving for the Republican nod for representative have much more in common with each other. I think I would be reasonably happy should any one of them succeed in moving Ms. Herseth Sandlin from the House to her house–in whatever state that may now be found.

My thoughts on tomorrow’s three contestants for the Republican nomination for Representative are as follows:

• Blake Curd — Of these three candidates, I’ve actually seen Mr. Curd in person and spoken briefly with him. I find him a serious individual and quite driven in those things to which he has set his mind. If I remember correctly, he was the first of the three to announce his intentions to run for this office. He seems to have a good grasp of the issues which are particularly energizing the populace at this time: health care, taxation, etc. As a successful surgeon, he is seen as the enemy by those who would engage in good old-fashioned class warfare. However, he knows what hard work is and seems willing to work hard both to get the nomination and then the general election. Name recognition is relatively strong, particularly with the more conservative Tea Party types.
• Chris Nelson — As South Dakota’s Secretary of State, Mr. Nelson has generally received good marks for his work in  overseeing elections and related matters. Of the three candidates, he is the one with the greatest experience in government. That experience is both a benefit and a drawback. Having not worked in the private sector in a number of years, he may be fairly understood to have lost some connection to the average citizen. Despite that, his work for the Round’s administration generally helps (for the same reason that Daugaard is benefited: most people do not actively dislike the current governor.) Name recognition is very strong for Mr. Nelson because of his current job. As an almost total aside, I wish he’d kept the ‘stache.
• Kristi Noem — Ms. Noem and has made substantial progress over the last few weeks getting her name and message in front of people. There is little question that she has made a place for herself in the legislature as well, though she has only been there for two terms. Her story of hard work and sacrifice is one which resonates with many of the rural areas of the state. While her stated positions on serious policy matters are quite close to those of the other candidates, she does have one advantage which they lack: she can cancel out the “female factor” of Ms. Herseth Sandlin.

If you are a registered Republican voter, please do get out and vote tomorrow. Research the candidates, talk to people you trust and consider that your choice may well have long-term influence on the state of South Dakota and her citizens.

Tuesday next is decision day for South Dakotans of the Republican persuasion. Seeing that I’m a bit of a red-headed step-child, I do not get to directly participate in the selection process. Nevertheless, in the grand American tradition, I am still permitted to provide a few thoughts on how matters look from where I stand.

First, allow me to say that I’m not carried away with any of the choices which we currently have. This does not mean that I think them all worthless or anything of the sort. Rather, it means I find no standout, no “I absolutely must vote for that person” person within the group.

A brief aside on the topic of Heidepriem and Arndt, if you will. I can say little more than what has already been said by others: it would seem that while this is indeed an historic occasion, the combination is far from magical. Mr. Arndt is a Republican with no ties, that I’ve been able to determine, to any local or state Republican leadership. As far as I know, he’s not held public office (though that might be a plus). His wife’s father seems to be a big Heidepriem backer and having Mr. Arndt on the ticket will make the funding of the campaign much simpler for Mr. Marshall than would otherwise be the case. I’ve little doubt that Heidepreim and Arndt will run well, but I think it improbable that the current tide of public opinion will reverse itself in time for the election to see the first Democrat governor in a very, very long time.

Taking the Republican candidates in alphabetical order, I find the following:

• Dennis Daugaard — Simply put, Mr. Daugaard is sitting in the catbird seat. As the current Lt. Governor, he has a huge advantage in name recognition. Further, he appeals to those who do not actively dislike Governor Rounds. The number of folks who think our current governor has done an alright job is fairly high. While Daugaard would put his own stamp on the governor’s office, it is probable that he would do the least to change the current direction of the government–from the people in positions of leadership to the programs and projects which would receive funding. He would be, in my opinion, the apparent “safe” choice for an electorate which is traditionally leery of change. At the same time, “safe” is not usually what one needs in the midst of a growing crisis.
• Gordon Howie — The man who claimed the Tea Party title has been struggling with getting past his negatives: family, finances and focus. His recent selection of Kermit Staggers as his running mate, should he win the nomination, was a good calculation from the standpoint of joining East and West River. However, if Mr. Staggers was seen as a polarizing figure in the recent Sioux Falls election, Mr. Howie has far outstripped him. At present, Howie has the largest polled negatives of any of the Republicans. While he brings many good ideas to the campaign, he has struggled to stay focused on what is necessary to win the goodwill of a sufficient number of people to vote for him and has instead chosen to fight many skirmishes which have detracted from his other efforts.
• Dave Knudson — As current majority leader in the state senate, Mr. Knudson has an extensive track record which can be examined. As a result of this examination, it is apparent that he is striving to place himself in a much more conservative light than is borne out by his voting record. He has made some interesting choices, particularly as casting himself as the man who can fix the problems in Pierre. He is, after all one of those who has contributed many votes to putting the state in the way of those problems. To his advantage, he has one of the better political organizations behind him. He is perhaps the most polished politician in the running.
• Ken Knuppe — If there is a maverick in this race (God bless Mr. McCain), it is Mr. Knuppe. As the individual with the least direct experience in government, he is probably the one most likely to make some necessary changes. However, his appearance and presentation have turned off voters who have bought into the idea that a governor should somehow have more poise and polish. It is of benefit to note that Mr. Knuppe is the most libertarian of the current slate and so holds the greatest appeal for West Riveronians who value their space and their freedom more than they desire absolute security.
• Scott Munsterman — As a former mayor, Mr. Munsterman benefits from having time in public office, but not so much time that he has done nothing else. His time as a chiropractor has proved very beneficial in allowing him to connect well with people. He has worked diligently on the name recognition and appears to be making headway in that regard. To me, he is also the person in the race who is the hardest to know what he would do in the governor’s office. He is not nearly so steeped in politics as some of his competition (as noted above) but my concern is that his desire to care for people would tend to lead him in the direction of encouraging the government of the state to care for citizens rather than to provide them with an environment in which they can best care for themselves.

My rather brief treatment of each of the candidates should not be taken for more than it is: my perspective. This perspective includes all of my biases and preferences, including the ones which leave me in the political limbo of my very own Independent’s Day.

If you should ask which of these men I would support were I able to vote in the primary, I do not know how I would answer. The answer might well be different based on whether I was supporting someone because that person seemed least likely to take the state in a poor direction or because that person was most likely to avoid an upset in the general election. I’m guessing that your answers might vary based on similar criteria.

Who will actually win the nomination? We’ll find out soon.

Among other things, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the upcoming primaries. The thing that keeps coming to mind is that politicians are apt to make promises which do not conform with their histories.

I am reminded of the phrase on the bottom of a fund prospectus, which goes something like this: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results . . . . .” The same statement can be applied to politicians, but I believe that politicians are probably less likely to change than your average mutual fund. A politician may appear to change quite a bit over a 40-60 year career, but was it change or simply the outgrowth of who the person was all along?

All of this to say that we should be paying far less attention to what each of the people running is telling us they will be doing if we give them power and instead be scrutinizing what they have done with the power they currently possess/possessed. In the case of individuals who have not held prior public office this examination may prove challenging, but a person’s behavior in any position of authority is a more accurate indicator of the direction he or she will head than the statements which that person makes for campaign commercials.

I hope to expand on this thinking with regard to the slate of candidates for representative and governor over the next several days.