A Progressive on the Prairie

I received a variety of comments after saying I could no longer support Stephanie Herseth. They all boil down to a couple key points. Essentially, the argument is she is better than the alternative and is at least is a Democratic voice in the House instead of a Bush "rubber stamp." Another angle is that what she is saying is probably the view of a majority of South Dakotans so she needs to take those positions to get elected.

As to the first argument, if you throw a small tarp over their respective positions, little of either Herseth or Diedrich would be seen. So far, both mostly speak generically about wanting better health care, education funding, jobs, etc., for South Dakotans, veterans and Native Americans. There are two areas where they or their handlers have highlighted differences. Diedrich is more strongly anti-abortion/pro-life and he supports full retention of Bush's tax cuts whereas Stephanie supports only limited retention. But on other key issues -- Iraq, the Patriot Act and gun control for example -- it seems there's a "rubber stamp" regardless of who is elected.

Sen. Kerry voted for the war but I doubt that "knowing what we know now" -- which was the question put to Herseth -- he would say yes we should have invaded. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act (who didn't in the "only a traitor would vote against this" atmosphere at the time) but says it needs to be replaced or modified with laws more protective of civil liberties. Kerry supports gun control measures that Stephanie opposes. Given the dichotomy between Herseth and Kerry on these positions, how does she add to the Democratic voice in Washington?

The "she has to say this to get elected" argument -- often accompanied by "wait and see how she votes" -- truly irritates the naive, altruistic side of me. Is electability worth foregoing important principles? More disconcerting, this form of ends justify the means rationalization means a candidate is free to mislead the voters on his or her true beliefs as long as they express them once in office. Is it realistic to think that with the general election in November and another one two years down the road Stephanie is going to vote any different than her public pronouncements on these issues? She isn't even taking stands consistent with Demoractic principles that might actually lead to rational debate on these issues.

Maybe I am "too liberal" (if there is such a thing and, if there is, it is something I don't view as bad). I simply know that whoever is elected next month, I will remain unheard and unrepresented by South Dakota's member of the House of Representatives. And, contrary to what someone said, I'm not taking my ball and going home. I'm simply saying that my principles do not allow me to support either candidate because both are wrong on the issues (plural) that matter to me.
0 comments

The Argus Leader editorial board met Wednesday with Stephanie Herseth and Larry Diedrich. The article on that meeting leads me to conclude I can no longer support Stephanie.

The "jump" headline from the article reads, "Candidates: Agree on War, PATRIOT Act." The article itself says

• Knowing what we know now, would you support the Iraq war?

Herseth: "Yes, I still would have supported taking this action. ... This was a regime that was in repeated violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions." ***

• Do you support renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act?

Herseth and Diedrich: Yes.

Combined with her previously saying she agrees with Bush and supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it is clear Stephanie has no qualms adopting GOP/conservative positions if that's what it takes to get elected. This may seem inconsistent with my prior posts that Stephanie's position on gay marriage shouldn't be a litmus test. I still believe it is incorrect to be a "one issue" voter. We are beyond that. To support the invasion of Iraq "[k]nowing what we know now" based on some of the bogus rationale used by the Bush crew, is simply wrong. Even more offensive is that a lawyer running for national office on the Democratic slate can have the audacity to support renewal of the Patriot Act. One issue alone doesn't lose my support. But we're at three strikes and growing.

This does not mean I will vote or campaign against Stephanie. Yet today's article even undercuts a "lesser of two evils" choice here. I will abstain from casting a ballot in the Herseth-Deidrich race since Stephanie has made it clear there is reallly little difference in the end result.







0 comments

On the "gay marriage" front, a couple months ago I mentioned the possibility of Stephanie Herseth facing a "she's a lesbian, you know" whispering campaign. Well, it has started. I don't claim or have any reason to believe the Diedrich campaign is behind this. The fact is, though, there's plenty of sotto voce talk about how a woman of Stephanie's age and attractiveness wouldn't still be single if she were a heterosexual.

And some of the innuendo is even more overt. For example, a recent letter to the editor reports someone was apparently running a push poll about Diedrich being "a married family man" who supports "our South Dakota values" while Stephanie is "supported by gay-lesbian groups." And some of the circle jerk bloggers are all agog about another letter to the editor reporting that "an openly lesbian candidate from Sioux Falls [told] a group of homosexuals that Herseth is definitely on their side."

I guess, then, there was a typo in one of the rumor campaigns when she ran against Bill Janklow two years ago. Back then, one story was Stephanie ran for Congress to get back to the East Coast and a boyfriend in New York City. Guess they'll have to retroactively edit that story to make it a girlfriend in New York City. Of course, at the same time that story was going in one ear, someone was saying in the other ear that she was a carpetbagger who hadn't lived in South Dakota for years. Let's see, you leave the East Coast for South Dakota to run for Congress to go back to the East Coast? Damn, those wymmen democrats are sly!

Now that Stephanie has been here working in the ag field for a few years, the rumor mill needs new grist. Sexuality and sexual orientation are perfect given the current tenor of intolerance in our country. All we need now is some GOPer holding up the list of all the subversive gays who have infiltrated and taken over the Democratic Party as part of a plot to destroy truth, freedom and the American way.
0 comments

Watching a few minutes of First Monday on KELO Monday evening reminded me why I don't watch it and other political-oriented shows. I just get too irritated.

Setting me off was Rob Regier of the South Dakota Family Policy Council. He has one goal and one goal only -- to associate Stephanie Herseth and Tom Daschle with the buzz words "abortion" and "same sex marriage." Here is my editorial summary of how Regier diverted a discussion of campaign issues:

Regier: Stephanie Herseth supports GAY MARRIAGE!

Scott Heidepreim: Wait a minute. Stephanie came right out and said she agrees with the President and supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Regier: Stephanie Herseth supports ABORTION!

Scott H.: Wait a minute. We were talking about gay marriage and how Stephanie.....

Regier: Tom Daschle supports GAY MARRIAGE!

Scott H.: ....has made her position clear on that issue.

Regier: Tom Daschle supports ABORTION, too! In fact, both Stephanie Herseth and Tom Daschle support ABORTION!

That is the level of what this group and its cohorts are going to contribute to the campaigns this year. See, Regier and his pals don't want to know what the facts are. Their entire goal is to say "gay marriage" and "abortion" in the same sentence with Stephanie and/or Tom as much as possible. Why is it that these limited issue demagogues are not only given a free platform but basically escape unscathed in the media?
0 comments

The American Conservative magazine cover: Iraq is The No-Win War. The lede for the cover story: "The administration’s Iraq policy is in shambles. Iraq has become a geopolitical humpty-dumpty that America cannot put back together, and the time has come for the United States to withdraw." (Via Cursor).
0 comments

One of the links here is to a great collection of World War II era propaganda posters revised for our modern times. Unfortunately, the artist has been exposed as a fraud. The Washington Post reports his accounts of being a former Army Ranger who parachuted into Panama during the 1989 invasion of that country are as fictional as his art. It's a shame something so stupid can destroy something so good. (Via Tom Tomorrow).
0 comments