DWC Botches Facts on Reid Nay to 9/11 First Responder Bill

Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, patriotic champion of 9/11 first responders... unlike Senator John Thune.

Or, Note to Cons — when attacking check your facts first.

Tyler Crissman steps to the conservative mic this afternoon and gets mom's spaghetti all over his sweater. In an attempt to deflect criticism from major Dakota War College ad-buyer and Senator John Thune for his unpatriotic obstruction of medical compensation for sick and dying 9/11 first responders, Crissman fumes that the Left blogo-hemisphere hasn't criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his own nay on the Zadroga bill.

Why, oh why, wouldn't we liberals have issued such criticism of the Senate Majority Leader?

Fifty-seven Democrats voted for the bill and 41 Republicans opposed it. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up again for a vote ["9/11 health 'Zadroga bill' fails in Senate test vote," AP via SILive.com, 2010.12.09].

I eagerly await Mr. Crissman's retraction. Or maybe they'll just delete that post and all the comments that follow. Revisionist deletion is the Dakota War College way.

Meanwhile, if you're from Nevada, call Senator Reid and tell him to keep fighting for H.R. 847. If you're from South Dakota, call Senator Thune and tell him to stop fighting H.R. 847.

-------------------
Update 19:04 CST: Dang it! How are we supposed to sustain a healthy blog snarkfest if we go issuing corrections and apologies and straightening out our facts? Mr. Crissman replies promptly with a mea culpa... and corrects my shoddy geography. Harry Reid is indeed senior Senator from Nevada, not New Mexico as I originally stated.

Thune Blocking Compensation for 9/11 First Responders

Mr. Feser alerts us to the guff Senator John Thune is rightfully catching for his opposition to the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. What's this bill? Oh, just a little compensation for men and women who ran toward fire and sacrificed their health and lives to try saving their fellow Americans on September 11, 2001.

Senator Thune voted to block a vote on health care compensation for 9/11 first responders on December 9.

Now I can't tell whether Thune and his War College lackeys would call this bill pork or prosciutto. Since it would help New Yorkers and not South Dakotans, I suppose they'll bleat pork! I just call it fulfilling our obligation to our neighbors who risked their lives for us in the face of terrorism.

My friend Adam posts a couple of videos showing 9/11 first responders talk with Jon Stewart about the Zadroga bill. Below are some comments from OpenCongress.org's page on HR 847:

I'm a 40 year old retired cop from the First Pct. in lower manhattan. I was there the morning of 9/11 and worked over 2,100 hours in the pit the months that followed. My breathing ailments are too long to get into and I understand I will be heavily medicated for whatever time I have left. I'm writing this and urging passage of this bill for my kids sake. (Ages 8 & 6)What's done is done but at least give me the peace of mind of knowing they will be taken care of. Ret. PO Dave Smith.

I am one of the forgotten rescue workers who spent weeks and months in the "pit". I do not seek glory or a pat on the back for what I did. I live with the choices I made. I wouldn't change a thing except I hate to see my family watch me deteriorate. I can't do things I used to, I have no energy, I can't breathe, I can't sleep. I am waiting for the inevitable and it sucks. I never smoked and now I am on all kinds of respiratory meds and a machine at night. Please pass this bill, I am not the only one in this position. Passage will help the people and families of those who dedicated their time and for some, their lives, to help others in need. God Bless America!

John Thune has supported borrowing over a trillion dollars to kill people and break things in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he won't support spending $7.4 billion to treat the people who responded to the first shot of that war.

Senator Thune thought it was more urgent to rush tax cuts to his richest friends than to provide health care for dying patriots. Well, now that that baby's been put to bed, the junior senator from South Dakota should have no more reason to oppose Zadroga, right?

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House in passing this bill in September. Senator Thune, get on board. Make South Dakota proud and do right by these brave Americans by joining the Republican senators Kirsten Gillibrand says will support this bill.
----------------------
Update: Watch the Daily Show video, and you'll see Mike Huckabee tell the Republicans to pass this bill.

Update 2010.12.20 21:44 CST: The GOP is feeling the heat:

"I can tell you, whoever votes against 9/11 responders a couple of days before Christmas is truly un-American," said John Feal, a former New York Police Department supervisor who lost a foot when a steel beam fell on it during in recovery efforts at the World Trade Center and who launched the non-profit Feal Good Foundation to lobby on behalf of first responders [Laura Mascaro and Tina Susman, "GOP under Pressure for Opposition to 9-11 Responders Bill," Los Angeles Times, 2010.12.20].

Thune Flack: Herseth Sandlin Doesn't Buy Groceries

I was going to leave this alone, but some Republicans just can't win with class.

The Thune campaign successfully backed sock puppet Kristi Noem against Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. They got someone nice and Palin-y in the chute to run for Senator Tim Johnson's seat in 2014 (assuming the Palin and Teabagger fads can last that long...and gods help us if they do).

But gloating over their Ice Queen coronation isn't enough. The Thune campaign now feels compelled to play Oprah and tell Herseth Sandlin how she ought to live her life after an election defeat:

Andi Fouberg, press secretary for Sen. John Thune, said Thune was very visible in the wake of his razor-thin loss to Sen. Tim Johnson in 2002.

Thune, who then held the congressional seat that Herseth Sandlin does now, lived in Sioux Falls and was seen at the grocery store, at his children’s ballgames and in the community, Fouberg said.

“Senator Thune held a press conference the day after the 2002 election and had conversations with reporters throughout that week and beyond that,” she said. “There wasn’t really a period of silence” [Tom Lawrence, "Ousted Congresswoman Says She Has 'No Regrets,'" Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.12.01]

Senator Thune, you pay Andi with an i $100,000-plus a year to say things like this? Our tax dollars at work? Try our tax dollars at jerk.

Andi with an i neglects to remind us that the "press conference" the day after the 2002 election was more likely Thune's concession speech, since the 500-some vote margin wasn't called in that race until the morning after the vote. And the Thune-Noem machine wasn't terribly interested in giving Herseth Sandlin any visibility right after they won, since Noem trotted out to give her victory speech hardly 30 seconds after Herseth Sandlin had begun her concession speech.

Andi with an i makes a whole whack of bogus implications with her other references:

• "lived in Sioux Falls"—still pumping the lie that Herseth Sandlin doesn't live in South Dakota. How many times does someone have to say she lives in Brookings for you to accept the plain fact that she lives in Brookings? Even in victory, is the lie so titillating, so addicting, that you can't give it up?
• "seen at the grocery store"—seriously? this matters? What do you want, Hy-Vee receipts? (Actually, speaking of receipts, we shouldn't forget that Herseth Sandlin was spending more money in South Dakota than Noem during the campaign.)
• "children's ballgames"—golly, we're sorry that Zachary isn't old enough for pee-wee football yet. Should Herseth Sandlin submit affidavits from neighbors who saw her around town with Zachary at McDonald's or the Children's Museum or other places?
  

Herseth Sandlin tells the press that she spent the past month at her home in Brookings, on a family Thanksgiving trip, and back at the office in Washington. She's been particularly busy there: in addition to making every vote so far in the lame-duck session, she's had to move her office, hand over office equipment, and let staff go, even though she's still on the job for another month. Whatever calls she's getting for jobs, the Lawrence article makes it sound as if Herseth Sandlin, the good boss, is more focused on helping her staffers make the transition and land on their feet.

Now I know the Thune-bots at Dakota War College are crushed to lose a fun headline-meme. (Heavens forbid bloggers lose easy snark and have to come up with original, useful news about policy.) But if Herseth Sandlin had taken the opposite route and made lots of public appearances post election, the Thune-bots would simply have resorted to some other slimy line, like "Who does she think she is? She loses but keeps trying to hog the spotlight. Why can't she leave the stage gracefully?"

In a political and media environment highly inclined to brush aside losers, outgoing Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has been doing her job, helping her staff, and reclaiming some well-deserved privacy. And maybe, just maybe, Stephanie has been making up some quality time with a little boy who's a lot more important than providing fodder for those of us in the chattering class.

Thune to Food Safety: Drop Dead

Senator John Thune joined 24 fellow Republicans yesterday to vote against S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. The New York Times maps the Senate votes:

U.S. Senate vote on S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, 2010.11.30.
Source: New York Times.

Senator Thune cast his lot with the Confederates and cowboys who think we eating eggs with salmonella is a personal choice, not a matter for regulation. Senator Tim Johnson cast his lot with the hippies and liberals who want a little ovesight of their granola.

Some of my liberal friends have expressed concerns that federal food safety legislation could put small farmers and organic growers out of business. However, Senator Jon Tester from Montana succeeded in getting his amendment to protect small farms into the bill. Even food über-watchdogs Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser think the Tester Amendment makes S. 510 good enough to support. Update 19:27 CST: South Dakota farmer and Dakota Rural Action member Zita Kwartek tells The Independent Local that the Tester-Hagan Amendment protects our small farmers.

But Senator Thune's nay on food safety shows that he'll put Tea Party cred above sensible public safety rules as we push on toward 2012.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats All Rolling in Dough

Dr. Weiland gets me reading about the health insurance industry's huge donations to the Chamber of Commerce to fight health insurance reform. As an undercard, WaPo's Dan Eggen also discusses the personal wealth of our Congresspeople:

The personal wealth of members of Congress collectively increased by 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, even as the economic downturn eliminated millions of jobs for ordinary Americans, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics released Wednesday.

In the House, the study found, the median wealth was $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008. In the Senate, median wealth grew from $2.27 million in 2008 to $2.38 million in 2009.

The new data come as lawmakers consider whether to extend tax cuts for couples making $250,000 or more - a move that presumably would benefit many of the members. The Obama administration wants to confine the tax breaks to earnings under $250,000, although it has signaled it might be open to a compromise with Republicans on the issue [Dan Eggen, "," Washignton Post, 2010.11.17].

Interestingly, I check the original database at OpenSecrets.org and find there is no mathematical correlation between Congresspeople's personal wealth and party affiliation. The Democrats have as many rich lawmakers as the Republicans.

Perhaps that's one more reason that the difference between Democrats and Republicans, left and Right, isn't as big as you think. The real battle lines in American politics may be between individual rights and corporate power... and those of us on the individual rights side are sorely outgunned!

-------------------------
Our Congresspeople don't have to give exact data, just ranges for their net worth. Using OpenSecrets.org's calculation of average worth, 43% of House members and 70% of Senators were millionaires in 2009. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was one of them, with $1.3 million. She ranked about 160th among her colleagues.

Neither of our Senators made the millionaires' club in 2009. Senator Tim Johnson was back at $724K, ranking 79th. Senator John Thune showed "only" $441K in average net worth, ranking 88th.

Where's the Thune Buzz?

Tom Jensen summarizes 18 state-level polls on 2012 GOP presidential possibilities and finds significant enthusiasm for John Thune's potential bid... in Washington, D.C.:

The interest in a John Thune 2012 bid is pretty clearly confined to inside the Beltway—he averaged less than 1% across these 18 polls. He never got a level of support higher than 2% and the number of states where he got that—5—was smaller than the number of states where he registered at 0%—6. He will almost literally have risen from nothing if he somehow snags his party's nomination [Tom Jensen, "Wrapping up the 2012 GOP Polls," Public Policy Polling, 2010.11.16].

Let's see... add South Dakota, and that's six whole electoral votes. That's almost as good as Alf Landon. Still barely blipping... maybe it's time to declare Kristi Noem his running mate.

McCain, Thune Play Jack Bauer, Torch 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th Amendments

Is Bob Ellis trying to lure me in? Yesterday I grumbled about President Obama's continued abuse of the Fourth Amendment and wondered why the conservative shouters haven't added that point to their charge that the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Comes now Sam Kephart, granted a guest column on Bob Ellis's Tea Party blog, to decry Fourth Amendment abuses advocated by, of all people, sponsoring Senator John McCain and co-sponsor Senator John Thune. Kephart alerts us to S. 3081, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act.

...S.3081 lacks clear definitions for the operational terms “material support,” “The potential intelligence value of the individual,” and the all-inclusive phrase “Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.” It’s Catch-22 with no way out.

Under this law as currently written, any U. S. citizen who is a war protester, publicly exhibits anti-government sentiments, is a Tea Party activist, or a political opponent of a given Administration could fall (or be made to fall) under one or more of its ill-defined and ambiguous conditions.

If the Feds believe you are committing a “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities,” you can be hauled off and held indefinitely in military custody with neither legal recourse nor due process. Your Constitutional rights to free speech and personal liberties would disappear with the stroke of a hidden pen [Sam Kephart, "S. 3081 and John Thune: National Security Trumps Essential Liberty," Dakota Voice, 2010.10.18].

McCain and Thune's legislation even goes so far as to prohibit the Justice Department from expending any funds to conduct trials for such "belligerents" in the regular judicial system. In other words, if you cheese off Uncle Sam, your judicial rights disappear. No warrants, no grand jury, no speedy and public trial, no jury of your peers. The government can throw you in a hole for as long as it deems "hostilities" to be in effect... which in the age of the global war on terror is forever.

S. 3081 was introduced on March 4 this year and hasn't moved from the Judiciary Committee since. Let's hope it stays that way. And let's hope we hear more from conservatives like Kephart who want to hold Senator Thune and the rest of Congress accountable for protecting all of our Constitutional freedoms from fear.

---------------------
p.s.: This isn't the first time Kephart has said things I dig. It's good to see Bob Ellis associates with at least one guy who can talk sense.

Thune Message: Put Down Tea, Rally 'Round Me?

SDSU philosophy alumna and DC-NGO mover and shaker Anne Junod takes a whack at reading between John Thune's lines in his much ballyhooed Weekly Standard story:

...[G]iven the bevy of other names being tossed around as potential Republican presidential candidates in 2012, one must ask the questions: Who was this article really written to, why was it written at this time and what objective was it written to accomplish?

To answer these questions, one must read between the lines. In doing so, we discover that “Dakota Dreaming” functions as an appeal to deep-pocketed Bush Cheney funders of the conservative establishment who are irked by the loutish Tea Party in an effort to get them on board the Thune train [Anne Junod, "Between the Lines: Understanding the Subtext of Thune's Presidential Bid," The Independent Local, 2010.09].

Junod also discusses the meaning behind comparisons to former Virginia Senator and Governor George Allen and current Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. Not discussed: whether Thune's appeal to the grown-ups in the Republican Party will also captivate those noisy kids throwing the tea parties... or whether those kids even be a factor in 2012.

Thune Staffer Lutz Busted for DUI

Prediction: by November 2, the criminal record of every South Dakotan will have appeared in the press.

The Kristi Noem campaign must be in panic mode, trying to divert attention from Noem's habitual lawbreaking by publicizing Lars Herseth's speeding tickets (yes, Lars, who last ran for office in... what, the 1990s?) and SHS campaign chief of staff Tessa Gould's recent DUI.

Oops. Maybe should have vetted that last one with SDGOP godfather John Thune. David Newquist reads the paper and notices that Thune staffer Jason Henry Lutz got a DUI this year, too.

The moral equivalence bombs just keep dropping... and the Noem campaign keeps failing to explain why Noem's own reckless disregard for law and public safety are acceptable.

Thune Barely Blipping on Iowa Presidential Radar

Peter Roff at U.S. News and World Report last month called Senator John Thune's deficit reduction plan a "compelling package" that "could launch a 2012 Presidential bid."

Thune had better hope his Iowa neighbors start feeling more compelled. Just as his plan made the news, TheIowaRepublican.com ("News for Republicans, by Republicans") polled 399 likely Republican voters about their 2012 GOP Presidential preference. The winner: Mike Huckabee. The numbers:

1. Mike Huckabee: 22%
2. Mitt Romney: 18%
3. Newt Gingrich: 14%
4. Sarah Palin: 11%
5. Ron Paul: 5%
6. John Thune and Tim Pawlenty: 1%
7. Rick Santorum: less than 1%
8. Haley Barbour and Rick Perry: 0%

Thune and Pawlenty score 1% in their backyard. That seems... less than encouraging. Let's compare Thune's current Iowa standing with the poll numbers of another lanky Midwestern basketball player considering a run for President a year-plus out from the Iowa caucuses.

1. In June 2006, a Des Moines Register poll showed John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on top at 30% and 26%, John Kerry at 12%, and Iowa's own Tom Vilsack at 10%. Low percenters were Mark Warner and Evan Bayh. Barack Obama is not mentioned.
2. In September 2006, Barack Obama made a big campaign trip to Iowa to boost Iowa Democrats on the 2006 ballot.
3. In an October 2006 Iowa poll, Obama placed third at 13%, behind Edwards at 36% and Clinton at 16%.
4. In a December 2006 Iowa poll, Barack Obama tied for first place. The one-percenters in that poll: Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden. (Gee: maybe Thune will be veep!)

Maybe Thune is planning to jump in relatively late, the way he did against Daschle in 2004. If he is, he's going to have a steep curve to climb to break out in Iowa. Maybe he should start lining up some campaign stops for Grassley, Branstad, et al.

Thune's Paradox: 10% Cuts Never Eliminate Deficit; Debt Still Grows

When John Thune floated his "Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act of 2010," the Wonk Room noted that Thune's math was a bit off. His deficit reduction plan would create a joint committee, ten members from the House, ten from the Senate, equal numbers from each party (ah, spoken like a member of the minority) that would propose budget cuts to reduce the deficit by 10% every year.

Ever hear of Zeno's paradoxes? If you want to get to Hy-Vee, you first have to cover half the distance to the store. Then you have to cover half of the remaining half of the route. Then again, and again... nuts! You never get your grapes!

Ditto but worse with Thune's 10% plan. If enacted, his plan would chop the deficit down to 90% of the starting amount in year one, then 81%, then 72.9%.... We'd finally whittle the deficit down to less than 1% of the current amount by year 45 of the Thune plan... during which time the national debt would still have increased by an amount almost ten times the current annual deficit.

Thune Proposes Biennial Budget: Cool Reform or Cop-Out?

Seantor John Thune spoke to the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce yesterday about his proposal that Congress move to biennial budgeting. Congress would pass a two-year budget in each odd-numbered year, right after the new guys get sworn in, then let the federal government run on fiscal autopilot during the even-numbered years when everyone is election-happy.

Thune's plan, Senate Bill 3652, puts Congress and the President on a pretty tight budget timetable:

1. The President has to submit a budget by the first Monday in February.
2. Congress has until April 15 to complete its joint resolution on the budget.
3. Final budget must pass by June 15.
   

That time frame could make it more difficult for members of Congress to read in full the budget bills they are voting on. But deadlines can focus one's attention....

The biennial budget has its merits. Congress does have a hard time concentrating during election years, and many appropriations get ad hoc extensions that make it hard for federal agencies to plan ahead. Under a two-year budget, federal offices can make basic management decisions, like hiring and procurement, with a little more certainty, and maybe savings: if the boss at the regional USDA office knows a program is funded for two years, she can order two years' worth of printer cartridges on sale now.

But the biennial budget also gives in to the GOP narrative that government can't do anything right. Conservative Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth promoted a biennial budget fourteen years ago. He said the efficiency gains would be marginal; for him and fellow conservatives, the bigger benefit of a biennial budget is reducing the amount of time Congress is in session. The less time Congress spends in town, the less government action it can take. If you take as an article of faith that government is evil, the biennial budget is great. But if you take the position that the government is us, capable of working together to solve problems, then scaling back to a half-time Congress poses problems.

Election-year pressures no longer seem confined to election years. John Thune's Senate hasn't been terribly productive in either year of the current session, with Republicans playing obstructionist politics since President Obama's inauguration. Arguably, a biennial budget just makes the obstructionists' job easier, as they only have to say no half as often.

The biennial budget seems to surrender to the problem of the constant campaign. If Congress consolidates all budget action to the odd-numbered year, the incumbents will be that much freer to take off for fundraisers sooner, facilitating even bigger-money campaigns.

The biennial budget has its merits, but it feels like a cop-out. If Congress has trouble making decisions, the proper response would seem to be to elect people better suited to making decisions, not reducing the decisions they have to make.

Thune Leads South Dakota Delegation in Dirty Energy Money

Since we're talking about tainted campaign contributions, let's look at polluted political money from Big Oil and Coal. An eager reader points me toward DirtyEnergyMoney.com, a fun website with lots of buttons to push. You can look up how much money your Congresspeople get from the fossil fuel lobby and others who want to keep America in the energy Dark Ages.

So how much money do our Congresspeople take from energy lobbyists in smoke-filled rooms fighting for a smoke-filled country?

1. Senator John Thune: $521,046 (22% from coal interests, 78% from Big Oil)
2. Senator Tim Johnson: $218,260 (61% coal, 39% oil)
3. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: $72,450 (52% coal, 48% oil)

Alas, DirtyEnergyMoney.com only tracks current members of Congress, not candidates. You'll have to dig through Federal Election Commission records yourself to find the scuzzy money in Kristi Noem's war chest (though I've started a list here).
-----------------------------
Bonus BP-Boehner bash: DirtyEnergyMoney.com's numbers show that House Minority Leader John Boehner has taken $8000 in contributions from BP. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken $1000 in dirty BP money. The logical conclusion: John Boehner is eight times worse than Nancy Pelosi! ;-)

Grassland Wilderness Opponents: Are You Sure Thune's on Your Side?

Senate Bill 3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010, gets coverage from Kevin Woster in today's Rapid City Journal. Woster tells us that 13 of the 15 grazing permit holders oppose the bill, which would create America's first national grassland wilderness right here in South Dakota.

"It's kind of like a land grab," says opposing rancher Travis Bies. Actually, it's not a land grab at all. Not one acre of the 48,000 to be designated wilderness belongs to private landholders. It all belongs to us, the public. Neighboring ranchers have the privilege of buying leases from us and running their cattle on public land.

Perhaps these ranchers have the federal government confused with an entity that really does want to grab their land, the DM&E railroad. Now part of Canadian Pacific, the DM&E has long wanted to build a rail extension from the coal fields in the Wyoming Powder River Basin, around the south edge of the Black Hills, and up through that ranchland and grassland up to Wall. DM&E has threatened landowners with eminent domain to get what they want. DM&E has long tried to get special federal loans and other gimmes to make the PRB extension fly. These efforts have thus far failed, despite the dogged assistance of their former (?) chief lobbyist, Senator John Thune.

Hey, wait a minute: isn't Senator Thune also leading the charge against this wilderness designation? I've heard he extended a special invitation to Hermosa rancher Scott Edoff to come to Washington, be wined and dined, and testify against S. 3310. Fascinating: The Edoff family is among the ranchers who have staunchly opposed Thune-backed DM&E's land grab and rail extension. Thune singled Edoff out as representing South Dakota's ranch community, ignoring Edoff's neighbor and fellow Hermosa rancher Dan O'Brien, who came to speak in favor of the wilderness bill. (If I, a fellow South Dakotan, go to Washington to testify before the Senate, and Senator Thune declines to acknowledge me like that, I'll be torqued.)

It sounds to me like Senator Thune is rousing some ranchers to act against their own interests. S. 3310 explicitly addresses every concern voiced by the ranchers, thanks, according to Woster's report, to significant input already received from area ranchers. The legislation clearly protects existing grazing activities. It guarantees continued authority to address problems with epidemics, disease, insects, and prairie dogs. It even allows one road down the center of the Indian Creek area to remain, allowing continued public access for the old folks and people with disabilities Edoff tells Woster he's worried about. Supporters of the law tell Woster federal wilderness designation could actually improve ranch operations by providing better protection against destructive off-road vehicle activity than shifting Forest Service rules can.

Wilderness designation may also provide better protection against development like the DM&E Powder River Basin rail extension. Look at the maps of the proposed PRB route, the existing Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and the proposed grassland wilderness. DM&E appears to want to run its rail extension through the current grassland. I can't tell if the route would intersect the proposed wilderness, but if it crosses Edoff land, it must come close. There's no way DM&E would get to run rail across wilderness. Even if the route doesn't intersect the wilderness, one would think that raising the profile of the Cheyenne River Valley as home of the nation's first and only grassland wilderness would help the ranchers enlist more allies in keeping DM&E from resurrecting its Powder River Basin rail plans in the area. Might DM&E recognize this prospect as well and be asking their man in Washington to prevent it?

Ranchers, when Senator Thune comes knocking, pay close attention to what he's after. He's willing to make noise about protecting your right to lease federal land for your business efforts... even though the bill he's fighting includes clear language protecting exactly that right. But when DM&E offers you lowball prices and then tries using the courts to take away your land for their private business interests, does he take your side, or the side of his former employer?

Johnson Good on Grassland Wilderness; What's Thune's Problem?

Location of first national grassland wilderness (blue zones), proposed in Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. Click image to enlarge. [Image courtesy of South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition]

Senator Tim Johnson has a good idea. In May, he introduced S. 3310 the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. The bill, which got its first Senate committee hearing last week, would designate about 48,000 acres of West River grassland as national wilderness. That's about 75 square miles, a total area a little larger than Sioux Falls, declared off limits to development and mechanical travel (including my mountain bike) and kept about as natural as it can be.

The South Dakota Wild Grasslands Coalition released a survey last March finding about 60% support for this specific wilderness proposal among voters in the neighborhood of the affected lands. The survey even found majority support among snowmobilers and off-roaders.

Ranchers won't lose any grazing land if the wilderness designation passes. S. 3310 specifically excepts established grazing from the bill. In other words, if your cows eat grass near Red Shirt now, they'll be able to eat grass there after the bill becomes law.

Hunters and fishers would still get to enjoy the area right alongside backpackers, birdwatchers, and rock collectors. S. 3310 specifies that the state retains jurisdiction over fish and wildlife management, including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Even Ellsworth Air Force Base gets to carve a niche in this bill. S. 3310 specifies that the military gets to keep its current flight training routes and can even declare new flight paths over the wilderness. (And you know, even when I'm backpacking, I think getting a good look at big jet planes is kind of cool... as long as that ordnance stays bolted on tight!)

Now Senator John Thune ought to be backing Senator Johnson on this proposal. Thune appreciates the value of protecting habitat and game populations for hunting and tourism.

But Thune is opposing S. 3310. He cites opposition from Governor Rounds, the Legislature, county commissioners, and area ranchers like Ken Knuppe and Scott Edoff, who worry their grazing permits will change.

The list of ranchers opposing the wilderness designation does not include Dan O'Brien, who holds the largest grazing permit in the northern portion of the targeted territory. He raises buffalo and is looking into eco-/agritourism. In his Senate testimony last week, he invoked the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt to declare the silence and solitude of the Indian Creek area a vital national resource deserving "maximum federal protection." He says wilderness designation would protect his own ranching and business interests as well as the rights of all Americans to enjoy the grasslands, which he says are "the least protected landscape in the world."

Senator Thune appears to be reaching for arguments, resorting to saying that the language in the bill doesn't say exactly what it says. He's rounded up the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association to echo his alarmism. The SD Wild Grassland Organization pretty effectively disposes with every one of Senator Thune's and the SDCA's stated concerns here.

The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act would create a unique national wilderness, protecting a fragile prairie ecosystem that enjoys this sort of protection nowhere else. Right between South Dakota's two existing wilderness areas, the Black Elk Wilderness in the Hills and the Badlands Wilderness, the Indian Creek, Red Shirt, and Chalk Hills wildernesses would boost South Dakota's profile, tourism, and hunting without taking away from ranching. Passing this bill would honor the memory and wisdom of famed South Dakota outdoorsman Tony Dean, who appreciated the value of wilderness.

Senator Johnson recognizes the clear and immediate good S. 3310 would do. Senator Thune is grasping for hypothetical "potential" harms refuted by the spirit and the letter of this legislation, not to mention plain facts.

Come on, John: you can work with Tim on Ellsworth; you can work with Tim on wilderness. Drop the obstructionism, and support this good bill.

-----------------------
Update 19:37 CDT: I learn via Sibby that President Bush proposed creating a 71,381-acre Cheyenne River Valley Grassland. Sibby also leaves me to puzzle over how protecting wilderness ecosystems on federal land is part of the "socialist anti-property-rights agenda in South Dakota." Hmmm....

South Dakota Celebrates Ellsworth Pork

State Bravely Accepts Heightened Military Risk for Filthy Federal Lucre

South Dakota Republicans talk a good game on cutting federal spending. But start handing out military pork, and watch the good times roll. Republican Senator John Thune is as eager to take credit for bringing a new drone flight control center to Ellsworth Air Force Base as is Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, who as chairman of the military construction subcommittee and member of the majority party might actually have had something to do with bringing the joystick warroom to Ellsworth.

Senator Thune likes to cite the conservative Heritage Foundation when it suits his agenda (he also mentioned them to justify his vote for the 2008 bailout). Yet Badlands Blue astutely points out that Senator Thune conveniently ignores the Heritage Foundation's position from the Bush era on the benefits of closing military bases. Thune also ignores President Eisenhower's admonition about dependence on the military-industrial complex. But who cares about taking a principled stand against federal spending (not to mention military technology arguably more sneaky than black helicopters) when Uncle Sam's money (a) hires local people, (b) helps politicians get re-elected, and (c) wrecks things and kills people?

By the way, has anyone noticed that by taking these federal jobs and putting ourselves "up front in the War on Terror," we're increasing the risk of a terrorist or military attack on South Dakota soil? But hey, we're all about creating jobs with pipelines that could leak, refineries that could explode, pesticides that cause cancer, and other unnecessary risky projects. Military targets are good for the economy, too.

Thune: DC Must Do More on Oil Safety, But Not SD

Senator John Thune has been making political hay out of the Executive Branch's response to the BP oil spill. The worst thing he could say about President Obama's address this past week on fixing the problem and holding BP accountable was that the speech "should have happened a lot earlier." He also insinuated that the President made his speech for purely political reasons... not that Senator Thune would ever do that.

Senator Thune says we (by we, I assume he means all of us, acting through government) need to do more to prevent disasters like the BP mess from happening:

I think an incident like this always reminds us of the importance of consistency and continually re-evaluating and re-assessing and looking at ways we can do things better, that we can do in a more safe way and make sure that incidents of this type of consequence and impact don't happen going forward [Senator John Thune, quoted by Amanda Weber, "Thune Says Incident in Gulf Shows Need for Precautions," KEVN, 2010.06.16].

So does this mean Senator Thune will be coming home for the South Dakota Republican convention next weekend to razz his eleven fellow Republicans, including Madison's Russell Olson, who killed the pipeline tax last winter?

Thune says his impression of the pipelines going through South Dakota is that all precautions have been taken to prevent a huge problem to our local ecosystem like what we've seen in the Gulf [Weber, 2010].

Ah. When President Obama gets BP to ante up $20 billion (a pittance from their corporate reserves), Thune grumbles the President should have acted sooner. When his home state Republicans block the establishment of a meager $30-million disaster response fund with a two-cent-per-barrel tax on TransCanada's Keystone oil pipelines, Thune says South Dakota is doing all it can.

In John Thune's world, slow action from the Democratic President is intolerable, but inaction from South Dakota Republicans on the same issue is just fine.

Thune Goes to the Lake: No Challenger

Mr. Hendrickson takes a break from baseball just long enough to point me toward official word there will be no U.S. Senate race in South Dakota this year. Mark St. Pierre tried and failed to get enough signatures to run as an Independent against Senator John Thune. Signatures needed: 3356. Signatures filed: 2916.

Worth noting: if St. Pierre had filed under a party banner on March 31, he'd have made the ballot. This year, Republicans needed 2070 signatures, while Dems needed 1213. Start a new party, and you can get the job done with 250 signatures. Of course, you'll need 250 members....

So is the glass half-empty or half-full? St. Pierre failed to demonstrate the ability organize an effective statewide campaign or coordinate it with clear Web visibility the way the Weiland and Howie-nullification lightning campaigns did. St. Pierre had one billboard webpage with one phone number and one e-mail address. This isn't even a matter of money: Blogger and Facebook are free and, at this level, essential. When you don't have the money to get out of Kyle and drive around the state yourself to get votes, you have to put up that online outreach. Targeted e-mails aren't enough: you've got to be online, slurping up Google juice and turning curious searchers into signers and stumpers. Demonstrating an ability to take advantage of that easy and free organizing channel would have moved the chances of a Thune defeat from impossible to highly improbable (and that's progress!).

I wasn't charitable with Howie's failed health care initiative campaign, so I shouldn't hypocrisize and praise St. Pierre for coming close. It doesn't matter if you're short by a thousand signatures or by one: if you're not on the ballot, you can't make a difference.

Nonetheless, it is significant that a shoestring campaign, with no backing from the state party or any major organization, offered people a candidate with little chance of winning and still got 2916 people to sign and say, "Absolutely, let's challenge John Thune." That's a significant amount of voter discontent that the South Dakota Democratic Party could have channeled into some useful energy, had it been up for the fight.

And with a surging Kristi Noem riding the momentum of a primary upset, the South Dakota Dems can use all the energy they can get.

Mark St. Pierre Seeks Signatures to Challenge Thune

My neighbor Rod Goeman cites a Rasmussen poll on strong anti-incumbent sentiment, but notes that John Thune is "safe". Earlier this spring I had an online conversation with a Tea Party type who said "We should vote out all of the incumbents!" but hemmed and hawed when I reminded her that John Thune is an incumbent.

Care to test whether the people shouting "Throw the bums out!" really mean it? Mark St. Pierre is willing to conduct that experiment. Last night he sent to various Dems this call for signatures... and the attached petition images. In St. Pierre's words:

...as you know the party did not put forward a candidate to challenge John Thune. Johns record as a simple minded obstructionist is know to all of us. If the Democrats put forward, "Keeping Breathing Air Free" he would vote to kill it. He is against bank regulation, consumer protection, consumer education, health care and virtually everything. I am sure he is still singing "drill baby drill" at bed time, even as millions of comon folk like us lose their income and culture in the Gulf Region. I could not in good conscience let this man, of all men, run unopposed as if people of good conscience in our state approved in some way what he has been doing, or more realistically, not been doing. If it were up to Johhny, the Iraq War would be offcially enacted as never ending as it creates profits for big business, his real constituency. We have a chance, a slim chance I will grant, to stop him and send a Progressive to Washington. I am a new-commer to politics. I live on the Pine Ridge Reservation. I have not spent years getting to know all of you, but I have recieved the endorsement of many long time Democrats including, Paul Jenson, 5th generation Democrat, Jay Davis, Curt Pochardt, Deb McIntyre, Twila Merril, and many many more. I have the help of dedicated and progressive Independents like Kim Ames Wright, Chairwoman SD Ind. Movment 81000 strong, (out pounding the pavement). I have been a Democrat or a Democrat leaning Independent all of my life and been a business man, educator, writer, community development professional, and film maker, father of 3 and grandfather to 7. This is certainly the grass roots effort stories evolve from and I ask you to join us, who are out collecting signatures, to at least give us a chance to organize around a candidate who is on the ballot. We are at 1400 signatures with a little over a week to go. We need 4000. If everyone on this email list got one sheet completed we would have the number we need. All of us will be out everyday until the 7th to make this happen. Do not let this opportunity to send a clear messaage to the U.S. slip away. Join us! [Mark St. Pierre, e-mail, 2010.05.29].

Given that everyone is out fishing and waterskiing and not checking their e-mail, this message may go unnoticed for a couple days. Come Tuesday, we'll see if St. Pierre gets a fire started.

If that's what you want, click the above petition scans, print them front-to-back on the same sheet, and go get signatures. St. Pierre's running as an independent, so an registered voter, Dem, GOP, or otherwise, can sign. Practically, you have until Friday to fill it up and get the notary to stamp it. Then, since it's a facsimile and not the original document, you have to mail the document to St. Pierre so he can submit it himself to the Secretary of State.

But people, we really need to stop waiting until the last minute on these things.

-----------------
Update 2010.05.30: A St. Pierre operative updates the push, noting that mail take stwo days to get from Rapid City to Kyle: "People can also mail notarized petitions to Jim Petersen, in Rapid City, 1203 11th St., Rapid City, SD 57701, (petersen100@cs.com- 342-6245)) so as received by 7th - if it's last minute, the weekend of June 5th-6th this might result is speedier delivery than mailed to Kyle."

Johnson Right on Gays in Military; SHS Casts Correct Vote

David Montgomery works late to give a good breakdown of where our Congressional delegation stands on allowing gays to serve in the United States Armed Forces. Senator Tim Johnson, who didn't actually get to vote on the defense appropriations amendment that would repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, made the clearest statement of why we should support that repeal:

As things stand now, any repeal would go into effect only after the study is completed and military leaders and the President give the go ahead. Once that happens, I support ending Don't Ask Don't Tell because any individual who is willing and able to defend our country should be able to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation. My view is shared not only by the administration, but top military leaders as well [Senator Tim Johnson, quoted in David Montgomery, "South Dakota's delegation weighs in on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Behind Government Lines, 2010.05.27].

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin joined 233 House colleagues in voting for the repeal. She fails to address the issue of justice and opportunity for all, talking instead about the importance of leaving it to military leaders to "determine what's best for the military." I would prefer SHS add, "...and what's best for the military is to take every willing and able soldier it can get, regardless of whom they love. Forcing gays to stay in the closet and kicking them out when they don't (or when the Rapid City police rat them out) is wrong." Even if SHS manages not to let the gay-word cross her lips, her GOP opponent will still hoot and holler that her vote shows she's beholden to Speaker Pelosi and the "gay agenda." Why play word games, Steph? Call a discriminatory spade a spade and say "Gays have rights like everyone else."

Senator Thune plays a similar game of dodging the real issue. As Montgomery points out, Thune mischaracterizes the repeal amendment as a "White House ultimatum" rather than a compromise. (And don't tell me Thune doesn't have in mind some ultimata he'd issue if he got to be President.) Thune calls repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell a "last-ditch effort by the White House to deliver on a campaign promise"... as if delivering on campaign promises is a bad thing.

On Don't Ask Don't Tell itself, Senator Thune drops this turd in the rhetorical crapper:

"It just seems to me that moving forward [with repeal] would be a mistake.... There are very serious misgivings about changing a policy that has worked pretty effectively" [Thune, quoted in Montgomery, 2010].

..which translates as "Our soldiers are such wimps they couldn't shoot straight if we forced them to serve alongside queers. So kicking out over 13,000 skilled but annoyingly gay soldiers is a great idea. Besides, homosexuals aren't real Americans, anyway. Our Founding Fathers didn't mention them in the Constitution, so screw 'em."

Thank you, Senator Johnson, for the straight talk on this issue. Thank you, Rep. Herseth Sandlin, for at least voting the right way. And thank you, Senator Thune, for exposing the continued bigotry and ignorance of your party.