As with many South Dakotans, I just heard the news that Tim Johnson  is going to be declining not just a debate at Dakotafest, but the campaign will not debate at all!  Despite earlier assurances, the Johnson camp is removing all illusions that a demonstration of the Senator's ability to do the job of US Senator will take place.

In one fell swoop, the same Johnson team that blundered all the goodwill with the media earned during his recovery on grabbing a few national headlines has now placed this race into the tossup category.

The SDGOP in an early statement is calling the move Unbelievable, Unprecedented and Unacceptable and further notes that “This action is an insult to our democracy.”  At the least.

If you look at previous races, even Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin debated Bruce Whalen after Whalen's campaign manager questioned whether she was pregnant at the time with her chief of staff's child; a rumor originating with a vandalization of her wikipedia entry. She was utterly insulted and furious - yet she still recognized that South Dakotans demand that their politics are retail, and not won on television. And the joint appearances took place.

Unprecedented is the only word out there to describe this. What would have happened if Lincoln had said that he wansn't up to it with Douglas? We'd have likely had a different president. And that's just what might happen this November.

So far the media and electorate have been patient in giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt on whether he's up to another term in the US Senate. Unfortunately for him, his camp has now removed all doubt, and it is not in his favor. 

This is pretty convincing evidence that Senator Johnson is not up to the job, and that while his staff can carry him just so far in an effort to save their jobs, there are some things on which they just cannot fake the job description.

Unfortunately, Johnson missed the deadline to withdraw. Because if he’s not up to the rigors of the campaign, as well as the duties of a US Senator, then as sad as it is to say, he should not be running.

Period.

read the author's website at dakotawarcollege.com

According to KELOland news, a number of State legislators are being subpeonaed to testify in the School Lawsuit - where schools are using taxpayer money to sue the state for more taxpayer money - and some of the comments coming across sound more like spin than fact:

One of the lawmakers asked to participate is Representative Jim Putnam, a Republican from Armour. As the vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee, he analyzes budgets and tracks spending.

During a recent deposition, prosecuting attorney Scott Abdallah says, "You're of the opinion that the Bon Homme School District is not adequately funded. Is that a fair statement?" Putnam replies, "By their own admission and looking at their paperwork, yes."

Prosecutors also asked Senator Ed Olson to testify. He’s a Republican from Mitchell and chair of the Senate Education Committee.

Abdallah asked him during deposition, "Is it fair to say that you believe our current K-12 system is underfunded? Yes or no." Olson replies, "Yes."

Read it all here.

Do they intend to question legislators solely on the funding of their own school districts, or are they going to have them go through the school districts one by one?

I have to admit - it's a clever tactic by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Put the legislators on the spon on their own schools finances. But, it does come off as a little bit disingenuous. OF COURSE they're going to say their districts need more money.

I chuckled a little that you don't see them bringing out any of the hardcore fiscal conservtives to testify. In front of a jury, I think you'd assume a much different response from a Jerry Apa or a Brock Greenfield in response to whether their districts are adequately funded. You might even get a "heck yes," as opposed to politically prudent acquiescence or a similarly related agenda.

So, is such testimony the whole truth, or individual political agendas? Ask me again when the election is over.

Comment on this post at dakotawarcollege.com

At KELOland and elsewhere, it has been reported that State Representative Shantel Krebs is clarifying a statement she made on the gas tax earlier as part of the highway study group is charged with in finding more money to fix our roads.

Gas taxes are not keeping up with state and national highway needs. A summer legislative panel is looking for ways to finance future road work.

One of its members, Republican state Representative Shantel Krebs of Sioux Falls, talked recently about the panel possibly looking at a tax on vehicle miles traveled. Krebs says it's one of many options the state could consider.

She says many people thought she was advocating the vehicle mile tax -- but she says the panel needs to look at everything -- revenue and spending.

Read it all here.

It's good to hear that she didn't have a favorite approach, as Shantel is generally a pretty good legislator. However, I think she's missing the point over the firestorm that erupted from her earlier comments. It wasn't because she was perceived to be advocating a tax. The wisdom over whether we need to raise taxes versus cutting programs for transportation and what form a tax increase could take is an entirely separate debate.

The issue igniting the fury from the Internet was because part of the Oregon plan was a device which would have been installed in the vehicles of South Dakota Residents to monitor our driving habits, and report them back to the state. THEN we'd be taxed based on our driving.

Basically, she was seen to be advocating, or at least intimating, that a government monitor could be installed in our vehicles to track our driving. "A doohickey," as I'd referred to it before.

In our country, especially in South Dakota, such an act is utterly offensive to the sensibilities of most South Dakotans. And as you might tell, they aren't going to stand for it.

So, at this point, whether taxes are or are not on the table is up to the elected officials debating the issue, and we'll weigh in next session or thereafter. But installing a doohickey in our vehicles to monitor our driving - arguably violative of our rights?

Such a nanny-state measure should be off the table. Permanently.

And anyone suggesting otherwise shouldn't be surprised if South Dakotans start heating the tar and opening up some feather pillows in preparation for the firestorm.

Because there's some lines that should not be crossed.

comment on this post at Dakotawarcollege.com

Comment at dakotawarcollege.com

While others can take on the duties of constituent relations, as well as mundane office tasks, there are a few duties that only the person that the citizens of a state have elected to the US Senate can perform. As New Mexico Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman notes on his website:

Chief among my duties as a United States Senator is to introduce and debate legislation. It is through such efforts that I advance my legislative agenda on behalf of New Mexico.

Chief among a Senator's duties is to introduce and debate legislation. Yet, there are some who downplay the importance of our candidates for public office standing for public debates to prove to their constituents that they can do the job.

Of course, I'm referring to Tim Johnson's campaign manager Steve Jarding, who seems to be hedging on committing the Senator to appear at Dakotafest.

The official Dakotafest forum schedule, released Wednesday, lists an appearance by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer and debates featuring the candidates for U.S. House and Senate.

But Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., still has not committed to debating Republican challenger Joel Dykstra at the annual farm and ranch trade show near Mitchell.

Johnson’s campaign manager, Steve Jarding, said Wednesday after the release of the Dakotafest forum schedule that “nothing’s been determined yet,” regarding Johnson’s participation in the debate.

Read it all here. Why are they hiding the Senator from being exposed to debate? From previous releases on the matter, it sounds as if they aren't sure he's up to the task. Despite it's importance.

Yes, to the campaign, it might be a simple matter that either Johnson shows up for the debates or he doesn't. But to the rest of the state, it's a more complex question as to whether Tim Johnson is up for the challenges of serving in the US Senate. Or not.

If he ducks the debate, they might find we're leaning towards the latter.

Comment on this post at dakotawarcollege.com

I guess the speculators on the blog were correct - Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin just announced her pregnancy:

July 23, 2008

Dear Friends,

We are overjoyed to share with you some wonderful news: Max and I are expecting a baby!

With a late-December due date, we are looking forward to a particularly blessed holiday season this year. Max and I could not be more excited about the new addition on the way, and we are grateful for your continued love and support as we celebrate this news. I look forward to seeing you in person soon.

All our best,

Stephanie and Max

Paid for and authorized by Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for South Dakota PO Box 2009 Sioux Falls SD 57101 Craig Schaunaman, Treasurer

Certainly, congratulations to the happy couple from me and the Mrs. (6 more to catch up!)

Otherwise, any thoughts on what that means for the campaign? This is certainly a first for South Dakota voters.

And will that legitimatize her ducking debates this election, as she did in the prior 2 campaigns?

Did a convenience store that Scott Heidepreim has a 17% ownership interest in sell beer to the underaged? You'd certainly think so by this report on today's KCCR:

The five businesses that sold to the underage buyer were DJ’s, the Fresh Start on Wells and Harrison Avenues, the Cowboy Country Store on Harrison and Garfield Avenues (police had initially listed that as a Fresh Start store), Kum and Go on East Wells and Don’s Sinclair.

The check began at 7 p.m. Saturday. A similar check was held this spring and employees at some of the same businesses had been nabbed then too.

Read that here. Why do I call it Scott's convenience store? Looking at the evidence, as you will find on his 2006 financial interest statement:

and from his most recent, his 2008 statement:

(You can click on either one of the images to enlarge them.)

As you can see, Scott had and it appears he continues to have a 17% interest in the Bonanza Cattle Company, the owner of the Pierre Kum & Go. The very store that was just pinched in selling alcohol to minors. The very store.

Democrats took after a GOP candidate several years ago, Rep. Mike Wagner, in a postcard campaign for the very same offense. An employee sold beer to minors, and was stung in a similar police operation. And of course, Dems used it with great glee against the Republican.

Let's see how they attempt to take the moral high ground this time.

The legislature is taking aim at the Governor's office with regards to his "creative funding" of the laptop initiative after they had earlier rejected such a proposal:

Laptop funding questions have been floating since Rounds came up with the money. Today Legislators aimed those questions straight at the Governor's office. 

"Did we use general funds in lieu of Citibank Funds and if so, where was the authority to do so?" Senator Jerry Apa asked. 

Finance and Management Commissioner Jason Dilges says the money comes from a few different places. A little more than $200,000 came from Citibank funds. Close to $59,000 came from the education department's general fund. The remaining money came from the federal E-Rate Program.

and...

"Irregardless of whether we are in favor of the lap top program or not should not be the debate today. The debate is where the money came from," Rep. Larry Tidemann said.

Read it all here at KELOland.com. 

In the beginning, it was simply an end run around the legislature to accomplish the Governor's goals of continuing the program which was the centerpiece of his educational 2010 plan.  But in the end, I think this short term victory is going to end up as one of  - if not the - greatest blunders of the administration.

No one can ignore the fact that they didn't have the money, and just like a Las Vegas magic show, pulled money out of a hat. Which meant one of two things; they either lied, or they didn't know where they were on the budget. Neither message being terribly palatable to the legislative branch.

Even the Governor's most faithful and subservient lickspittles in the legislature are forced to squeak out a protest over the administration's handling of this one.

As legislators hold committee hearings on the issue, and question them over and over, this one is likely to dog the administration through the summer.

Making them dog days, indeed.

Comment on this post at dakotawarcollege.com

I just got a hot tip while in a meeting this afternoon that seems to indicate that the State Board of Regents are deliberately flouting state law in relation to past and now upcoming projects.

And another state agency that's supposed to keep them from doing it? Well, when it was last pointed out to them, let's just say that they're not doing much more than bending over and saying "thank you sir, may I have another" as if they're not much more than a minor obstacle to be walked over.

I'm getting an information dump on this that I have to sift through before I know the whole story. But at least on the surface, it seems pretty cut and dried.

Stay tuned.