March 7th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
Are smear campaigns becoming an accepted tactic in South Dakota? If you go by the results of an unscientific poll run over at SD Watch you might think so. According to Epps’ poll, 59% of those responding think that the smear campaign being run by the Tim Johnson spin machine is fair while only 38% believe that it isn’t.
But, if you listen to just about everyone else, the opposite might just be the case. Not only is full on Johnson supporter Epp criticizing the tactic, just about every South Dakota blog on both sides of the isle is following suit and condemning the campaign for ripping Steve Kirby despite the fact he has yet to even declare he is running.
Ok, so you might think that it’s no big deal, who reads the blogs anyhow? Most people don’t even know that the Johnson attack dogs have latched onto Kirby and before today I might have agreed. A funny thing happened this morning that might give this story just a bit more pub as the infamous South Dakota liberal rag, aka the Argus Leader, has also penned an editorial criticizing Johnson for going negative.
As much as we might have hoped that the days of negative campaigning were behind us, that clearly is not the case. Every election cycle, it seems, is earlier and dirtier than the last.
And while we would have hoped Sen. Tim Johnson would swim against that rising tide of negativity, his campaign for re-election already has been part of problem.
While the Argus does go out of their way to show that their liberal leaning hasn’t been totally forgotten when they commend Johnson for asking that the site responsible for the smears be taken down, it is noteworthy that they at least mentioned this story. The Argus editorial now takes it out of the blogosphere and puts it squarely into the homes of many South Dakotans that might have never known that this was happening.
It is also noteworthy that while much of the controversy over the Kirby smear centers around the fact that he has yet to even announce his intentions to run against Johnson, it is being reported that his intentions should finally become known when he plans on making an announcement of some sort on Monday. If the claws have been brought out and sharpened before Kirby is even officially in the race, just imagine how ugly this might get if as is expected, he does decide to run.
Johnson has built up quite a bit of political capitol over the past year with most South Dakotans after his illness and has been allowed to campaign without much criticism from those that have announced their candidacy (Joel Dykstra who? ), but with this latest tactic has he made it ok for his challengers to finally take off the gloves? If so, hold onto your hats as what was once thought to be a somewhat boring and successful re-election campaign for Johnson could now be much more interesting.
November 3rd, 2007 by Bob Schwartz
When a large percentage of vehicle fatalities in South Dakota are alcohol related with an even larger percentage of teen and young adult fatalities related to alcohol, what does Bill Napoli want our federal lawmakers to do? How about removing the highway fund provisions making states set the drinking age to 21 so that South Dakota can lower the drinking age.
The Rapid City Republican wants U.S. Sen. John Thune to lead an effort in Congress to repeal or amend a 1984 federal law that required states to establish 21 as their minimum drinking age or face the loss of millions of dollars every year in federal highway funds.
“It’s a horrendous law,” Napoli said. “This has been an issue of mine for a very long time. I think the issue has lain dormant long enough.”
I wonder if Napoli consulted with law enforcement agencies before bringing this up again and of course he uses the tired excuse that if they are old enough to fight for our country they are old enough to handle alcohol.
“I think the Iraq war has really brought home that we need to take a very serious look at this issue,” he said. “We’re losing 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds over there all the time fighting to save our country, our way of life, our people’s lives. They come home from war more mature and having seen more than many of us sitting in our easy chairs. And we’re telling them they’re not mature enough to drink?”
Why do I think this is a poor excuse? How does because I used it myself when I was a 19 and 20 year old sailor stationed in Great Lakes and enjoyed taking the short hop up Route 32 to Kenosha to get drunk almost every weekend. At that time Illinois was a 21 state while Wisconsin still allowed 18 year olds to buy alcohol. I now realize that I was young, stupid, and more than anything else, very lucky.
Going to war does change your life, I cannot argue with Napoli on that point, I just don’t see how that correlates to an 18 year old being able to drink responsibly. It’s hard enough for some 50 year olds to figure this out and some never do so how’s an 18 or 19 year old fresh out of high school supposed to? I also believe that there are many 19 year olds that are mature enough to drink but is making them wait 2 years for the privilege worth the possible consequences?
Think about this Bill, those headlights from that drunk driver crossing the median one night could be aimed at your car some time, do you really want to greatly increase the chances of that happening just so you can allow 19 and 20 year olds the chance to legally drink a few years earlier? Patience is a virtue, let our youngsters learn that before turning them loose in the local watering holes…and then our highways.
October 5th, 2007 by Bob Schwartz
For some reason I don’t think the folks over at TransCanada are too worried but KELO is reporting on a sternly worded letter sent to them by the South Dakota PUC. In the letter the PUC basically told TransCanada that they are being watched in response to the number of complaints of unfair treatment by those in the path of the proposed Keystone Pipeline.
The Public Utilities Commission has written a letter to a top official of the company that plans to build a crude oil pipeline across eastern South Dakota to let the firm know the regulatory agency is watching.
The three-member PUC can’t influence how the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline handles land deals, but commissioners are warning that they’re keeping tabs.
When TransCanada first conceived their Keystone Pipeline project and saw that it would run a full 200 miles plus through South Dakota they must have been salivating. Eminent domain, already a sore spot for many is even more troublesome in South Dakota and TransCanada is exploiting the South Dakota laws in the courts by going after land from landowners that aren’t being as co-operative as TransCanada would like. While court involvement in eminent domain cases is not uncommon, the fact they can do this even before they have final approval from the PUC makes it that much more of a head turner for those involved.
Public Utilities Commission Chairman Dusty Johnson says he has heard the concerns of landowners who are already getting these condemnation papers. They say they don’t understand how TransCanada can take them to court before the PUC has given the company approval to build the pipeline in the state. But Johnson says they leave that process up to the courts.
Johnson says, “That’s not something we talk about with TransCanada they’re not asking our advice. If they did we might have told them to do something different but we’ve got our process to work and the circuit court has their process to work through.”
So now South Dakota landowners are being forced to fight condemnation in court on a project that hasn’t even been approved yet and if for some reason the project gets denied by the PUC, they will be out any costs associated with fighting it for no reason. But at least they can thank the state for our questionable eminent domain laws and the PUC for putting the fear of God into TransCanada with their “letter”. And for those that say this could backfire on TransCanada from a public relations standpoint, I somehow doubt they are too worried considering that the courts will probably give them what pissed off landowners won’t.