By Kevin Woster

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright wasn’t singing the Dr. John song in his recent public appearances.

But he clearly decided to use the wrong lines - as far as Barack Obama’s campaign for president goes - rather than say the right thing.

Every time Wright opens his mouth near a notepad or microphone, he prolongs that bad-news political opera that Obama has hoped to close down. And you get the idea Wright doesn’t intend to pipe down anytime soon.

I’ve thought from the first time I saw the Wright clips that this was a campaign loser that could become a campaign fiasco. Wright is doing everything he can to make it that.

Obama’s comments yesterday were effective, as were his wife’s. And it makes sense for reporters to focus more on gas prices, health care, the economy and jobs than on the relationship between Wright and Obama. And I think they’ll do that, if Wright can keep quiet.

I also think there’s a slim chance of that.

By Kevin Woster

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are fairly close on a lot of their policy proposals to deal with the painful price of gas. The big difference is the summer gas-tax holiday.

Clinton supports a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax. Obama opposes it.
Interestingly enough, John McCain supports the suspension. John Thune opposes it. Thune and Barack would certainly whup up on McCain and Clinton in hoops. But how about the gas game?

The Clinton-McCain game makes political sense, if not necessarily policy sense. Taxpayers might like the idea of saving a few bucks on a typical fill. Every buck helps, especially in hard times to people who struggle for each one they earn. It could be a great campaign position.

But you also have to wonder, in a state with a $600 million backlog in highway and bridge work, if South Dakota voters will buy in completely to a short-term tax break when so much is needed for our roadways.

It helps to counter the revenue loss with money from windfall profits from oi companies, as Clinton suggests. It’s not likely the oil companies will get much public support on this one.\

By Kevin Woster

We’ve lost a bunch of posts. I’m not sure why.

I’ll be off work Tuesday, and even less help than usual. I’m hoping somebody will have some answers when I return.

Meanwhile, to those of you who lost posts: I’m sorry.

To those of you inclined to post: Proceed with caution.

NEWS UPDATE::::::OK, I’m back, as near as anybody can tell, I inadvertently killed a number if posts - some submitted, some previously approved - with a deranged keystroke or two the other day. I apologize for being both hamhanded and moronic. Todd Williams has carefully designed a moderation formula that he thinks I can handle without causing any serious damage to the dialogue….

By Kevin Woster

And done a hundred things you have not dreamed of.

OK, maybe not a hundred. In fact, maybe the Rapid City Council members and Mayor Alan Hanks didn’t do a single thing that you have not dreamed of during their travels to New Orleans and other stops at city expense last year.

But, as reported Sunday by the Journal’s Scott Aust, they did dance the skies on laughter-silvered wings often enough to set a new travel-spending record of $41,777 in 2007.

Meanwhile, the mayor of Sioux Falls and city council members were less likely to go up, up the long, delirious burning blue (am I playing the “High Flight” theme too loudly here?). The council crew from the city of falling water spent less than the annual $24,000 travel budget in 2007, as usual.

And up in the Hub City, meanwhile, they were operating on a $3,000 travel budget. And, as usual, none of the Aberdeen council members left the state at all while traveling on the public tab.

So what’s up with the Rapid City gang? Why have they trod the high, untrespassed sanctity of space so often, while councils in similar cities stayed close to home?

Wasteful wanderlust, or earnest attempts to improve the city and educate themselves as public servants?

Mount Blogmore wants to know.

By Kevin Woster

Andrea Mitchell spoke this morning on one of the national new shows about the subject that presidential candidates - if not necessarily past presidents campaigning for candidates - are afraid to address directly: racism.

Mitchell raised the issue in regards to the strong support for Clinton among white, blue-collar voters. She seemed to imply that it was a sign of racism.

Is it?

She didin’t talk about instances where Obama receives strong support - 70 percent or 80 percent of the vote in some situations - from black voters.

How about that? Racism?

And is there a difference?

By Kevin Woster

It’s time to confess: I’m part of the Wetrosky cover-up.

No, that’s not a bad comb-over in the South Dakota House of Representatives. It’s a conspiracy to protect a campaign official for Hillary Rodham Clinton. And I’m part of it.

I must be, because somebody said so on a blog. Blogs are always true and accurate, right?

This one is back in New Hampshire, I think. I’m not sure, because I’m never quite certain what I’m reading or who wrote it when I start slogging around in the blogosphere. But I’m pretty sure that Clinton’s current state director for South Dakota, Geoff Wetrosky, worked at one time on a political campaign or two back in N.H.

And according to the blog talk, Wetrosky - a Beresford native who graduated from Augustana College in Sioux Falls - ripped off some of the yard signs of an opposing candidate back in N.H.

That’s not entirely unheard of in a political campaign, especialy if there are disputes about whether signs are properly placed. But as near as I can tell, Wetrosky - whom I’ve never met, and wouldn’t know from Frank Kloucek’s cousin - was never charged with anything.

According to the blog talk, Wetrosky also voted illegally in New Hampshire. As far as I know, he was never charged with that, either.

Call me crazy, but that all didn’t seem particularly newsworthy, particularly when compared to the first significant presidential primary in South Dakota in about, oh, my lifetime.

So when I wrote my story for the Journal yesterday, I focused on the Clinton campaign’s entry into the big primary bash in South Dakota, the naming of Wetrosky as state director, and a bit of information about what to expect in the race with Obama in South Dakota.

Seems newsier to me than something that somebody says happened a couple years ago in a far-off state that never resulted in any criminal charges.

Not that the New Hampshire story won’t merit a line or two in a Clinton story someday. I suppose it might. Maybe. I don’t really know.

Right now, I’m too busy working on this cover up to worry about that stuff.

By Randall Rasmussen

Fresh off her 10-point primary win over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton was urging Democrats to support her because she had won more votes in primaries than her opponent.

That’s true if you count the votes cast in Michigan and Florida, whose delegates won’t count in the convention because of early voting. Obama still leads in delegates because of more wins in caucus states.

How badly did Clinton hurt Obama by winning Pennsylvania? It was the first primary since revelations about the views of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, came to light, and Obama’s own God and guns comments.

Is Obama damaged goods?

Meanwhile, John McCain’s poll numbers rise as Obama and Clinton snipe at each other.
The longer the Democratic race goes on, the better for McCain.

Should Obama or Clinton bow out of the presidential race for the good of the party? If so, who should go and who should stay?

By Steve Miller

John Thune continues to downplay his chances to be the running mate for his friend, Republican Sen. John McCain.

Thune has been asked about the VP spot on the ticket in his recent weekly telephone conference calls with reporters.

“I just think that’s it’s a long ways off before anything happens on that, and when it does, I don’t expect to be in that mix,” Thune told reporters. “I’ve told people this–and I mean it sincerely–I very much like what I’m doing. I don’t have a desire to do anything else.

I’m going to leave it at that.”

So is he saying no way, no how, now time? Not quite: “You never say never to opportunities for public service. That much, I guess, is true.”

Thune has campaigned for McCain elsewhere in the country in the Arizona Republican’s successful bid for the party’s nomination and expects to do the same in the general.Wednesday Thune said he expects McCain will make a campaign stop in South Dakota.

Other possibilities mentioned for McCain’s vice presidential choice include his former primary rival, Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Secretary of State Condi Rice, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and possibly Kevin Woster. (OK, I added that. K.W.)

Meanwhile, Thune said, McCain is doing what he should be doing. “He’s raising money, doing outreach and letting the Democrats mix it up right now,” Thune said. “At the right time he’ll make that choice and I’m confident he’ll make a good one.”

What do you think, blogmorites? Who should McCain pick for v.p.? What advantages and disadvantages would Thune bring to the ticket?

And Woster? (Yeah, that, too.)

By Kevin Woster

Hillary Rodham Clinton is still on our June 3 primary ballot, right?

You couldn’t prove it by the New York senator’s campaign effort in South Dakota, which is - from my somewhat limited perspective here at the west wall of the Rapid City Journal newsroom - virtually non-existent.

Every day I get e-mails from the Obama campaign. Often they include local news. Often they include local contact numbers, and local contacts - a couple of them, in fact. If I call or e-mail the campaign, somebody gets back to me quickly.

Sometimes it’s an Obama person from Rapid City or Sioux Falls. Sometimes from the home office in Chicago.

I never hear from the Clinton campaign, other than the odd e-mailed news release that typically has little to do with South Dakota.

I suppose it’s the money. Obama has it, Clinton doesn’t. (Could you imagine hearing that a year ago? And, actually, she has money, just not OBAMA type money.) But surely there’s enough - particularly after her win in Pennsylvania yesterday and her appeal for donations (which apparently generated more than $10 million) - for Clinton to hire a contact person in the state? Maybe rent a little office in Tea or Rowena with its own telephone and a computer hookup? Send out a couple news releases with in-state news pegs? Even make a phone call or send a personal e-mail once in a while to a reporter?

It’s especially odd, I think, because Clinton always seemed the more likely candidate to win South Dakota in the Democratic primary, especially given the way she has connected with blue-collar folks across the country in the primary run.

Yet, at this point, we don’t seem to fit into her big-state primary strategy. She seems willing to concede the coyote-sunshine-Rushmore-pasqueflower-pheasant-walleye state to Obama, who seems more than happen to take it.

By Randall Rasmussen

Today, April 22, is Earth Day. It is also the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, the father of the former Soviet Union.

This is no coincidence. The organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970 deliberately chose April 22 because it was the 100th birthday of the founder of the communist movement.

The goals of today’s environmentalists and yesterday’s communists are the same: destruction of capitalism and a world united under one system of government.

Green is the new red.

Recyclers of the world, unite!

By Kevin Woster

No, not really. It just seems that way.

My main man Bill Fleming e-mailed this morning to say he couldn’t view the comments here on the Mount.

And I thought it was just me.

Be assured that I’m working on the problem as we speak - which means I’m sending an e-mail to the computer guys, and heading up to Spearfish Creek to confirm, once again, that your typical brown trout has an IQ higher than your typical reporter.

Sorry, that’s the best I can do.

By Kevin Woster

Aaron Sanders asked a reasonable question somewhere down in gunsmoke below: Why no thread on the school board?

That’s the Rapid City school board, and its ongoing budget battle and possible program cuts.

Good question, Aaron. An even better one might be: What was the school board thinking in adding a bunch of staff - including five new administrative positions - at a time of shrinking budget reserves, stingy state aid and ongoing property tax limitations?

If that was all part of a game of chicken between the board and the governor, I’ve got news for the board:

You’re driving a Mini Cooper.

He’s in a semi.

By Kevin Woster

This just in state Rep. Larry Rhoden of Union Center, by way of Max Wetz and the South Dakota Republican Party

“Sen. Barack Obama has been trying to convince people that he won’t tread on our Second Amendment rights, but his track record tells a whole other story,” Rhoden says in a news release. “He has been a long time advocate of gun control, but now he’s backpedaling and I don’t buy it.

“In South Dakota, we deeply value our rights and Sen. Obama has shown that the ‘change’ he wants to bring to America isn’t the kind thousands South Dakotans and Americans want. We need a President who cherishes our rights and will uphold our fundamental civil liberties.”

I’d guess guns won’t be a great issue for Obama in South Dakota, or other states where folks like me keep five or six around the house. But it’s not exactly a Rodham Clinton strength, either, is it?

By Randall Rasmussen

Sen. John McCain suggested that Congress suspend the federal gas tax this summer. His “gas tax holiday” would suspend the 18.4-cent per gallon tax on gasoline and the 24.4-cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

The Associated Press estimated the cost to government in revenue to $10 billion. That money is used to fund highway projects around the country.
Well, yes, the federal government would lose $10 billion in revenue, but that was McCain’s point. Less money for government is more money in our pocketbooks.

And, since the increasing price of gasoline and diesel is having a huge impact on our economy and on family budgets, that’s an immediate $10 billion boost to the economy.

South Dakota’s tourism industry, which depends on visitors traveling to the state, should back McCain’s plan. Gasoline may still be more than $3 per gallon even with the gas tax holiday, but it’s more money in tourists’ pocketbooks and could mean the difference between traveling to the Black Hills or staying home.

McCain also called on President Bush to also suspend replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The federal government has been buying 1 million barrels of oil a month. The government’s oil purchases have been contributing to the run up in oil prices.

If members of Congress want the $10 billion for highway projects in their home states, let them cut other pork-barrel projects.

Unlike the energy solutions proposed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have both offered up higher taxes on oil companies – which would be passed on to consumers – McCain’s proposal would actually work to lower energy costs and put more money in consumers’ pockets.

It’s not a long-term solution to our energy problems, but we’re not going to discover an alternative source of energy in the next couple of months anyway.

South Dakota’s John Thune, Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin should back McCain on this idea.

By Eric Lochridge

The Boss has made up his mind. According to The Associated Press:

Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, saying “he speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years.”
In a letter addressed to friends and fans posted his Web site, Springsteen said he believes Obama is the best candidate to undo “the terrible damage done over the past eight years.”
“He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next president,” the letter said. “He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where ‘…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.’ ”

So I guess that settles that.

By Kevin Woster

“Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin need to explain to the voters in South Dakota whether they stand by their presidential pick Sen. Barrack Obama’s elitist comments about Americans voting their values out of bitterness.”

That’s what the state Republican Party says, for obvious reasons. They’re trying to beat up on Johnson and Herseth Sandlin as they head into their reelection campaigns.

That’s politics. And sometimes it turns into a news story. Sometimes it doesn’t. And it’s always tough to decide when an elected official is obligated to repudiate controversial comments by a candidate he or she supports.

In the same news release sent out yesterday by the state GOP, Chairman Karl Adam of Pierre added: “Sen. Obama’s comments were condescending and insulting to thousands of South Dakotans and Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin owe it to South Dakota to explain whether they agree with his remarks or stand with the people here at home.”

They did seem a bit condescending, those comments. And as a church-going, gun-owning South Dakotan who loves his small-town background and connections, I thought they were offensive.

But is it Johnson and Herseth Sandlin’s job to repudiate them? Probably, I guess. But I’m not sure.

And will it then be incumbent upon Sen. John Thune and Chris Lien to speak out whenver Sen. John McCain sticks his foot in his mouth?

By Randall Rasmussen

Quite often you hear Democratic politicians in particular and liberals generally decry the fact that they believe the rich aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes.

Set aside the fact that the richest 5 percent of Americans pay half the income taxes in the country or that the wealthiest 50 percent pay 90 percent of income taxes collected. It seems that American families of very modest means are considered to be “the rich” by envious politicians looking for more revenue for their latest schemes.

Of course, those who believe Americans aren’t paying enough in taxes could voluntarily pay more. The IRS will gladly accept voluntary tax donations, but few people actually avail themselves of the opportunity to practice what they preach. Last year, only $2.6 million in voluntary donations to Uncle Sam were collected.

Last week, Rep. John Campbell, a California Republican, introduced the “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act,” which would amend the tax code to put a new line on IRS tax forms where people could fill out how much more they would like to pay in taxes.

Said Campbell: “It’s a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation.” He told the Wall Street Journal that he introduced his bill to give liberals a chance to ease their consciences without raising taxes on other Americans who already feel overtaxed.

Today, April 15, is the day income taxes are due. For those of you who think that some Americans aren’t paying enough in taxes, go ahead and pay more than you owe.

Campbell’s bill is a good idea to make it easier for people who think taxes aren’t high enough to put more of their money where their mouth is.

By Scott Aust

You’ve gotta give it to Bill Clinton, he doesn’t let the facts stand in the way of a good rant about the utter unfairness of the media.

According to this Washington Post article, the former president made at least six factual errors when talking about his wife’s “mis-statements” about her sniper-fire-avoiding trip to Bosnia with her daughter and Sinbad in tow.

So how do Bill and Hilary’s “truthiness” challenged campaign compare to Barack Obama’s unfortunate “bitter” blunder?

Which is worse: not being able to tell the truth and saying anything at all to get elected, or saying something you believe, albeit clumsily, and then having to back away from it?

And finally, any odds on how often we see Bill from here on out?

By Scott Aust

Hilary and Obama critics have been quick to condemn the Illinois senator about his comments referring to some Pennsylvania voters being “bitter.”

You can read a story here.

Obama was quick to say he misspoke and wasn’t clearly understood when he said:

…voters were “bitter” about job losses and other economic woes and so “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations

Call me an elitist, but I thought what he said made some sense, though I can also see how it can be interpreted another way. I saw that kind of bitterness in my youth back in Kansas when the oil fields went bust and a lot of farms went through foreclosure.

Is this the stumble Hilary needs to sway the superdelegates, and the nomination, over to her column?

By Randall Rasmussen

“What does Gen. David Petraeus have in common with the alleged D.C. Madam? More than you might think.”

So begins an “analysis” piece by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post which appeared in newspapers, including the Rapid City Journal, Thursday, the day after Gen. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, testified before Congress.

Petraeus, at least in Milbank’s mind, is no better than a prostitute. You can read Milbank’s piece here:
I have always doubted the oft-repeated protestation among anti-war liberals who say they support the troops but oppose the mission in Iraq. I think they hate the soldiers just as much as they hate the war in Iraq.

The only thing that Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is accused of running a prostitution ring, and Gen. Petraeus have in common is that they were both in Washington, D.C., on the same day.

Only a burning hatred for the military and anyone who wears a uniform could possess anyone to draw parallels between two people who happen to be in the same city on the same day.

Why not compare Petraeus to an accused murderer? A bank robber? A pedophile? A rapist?

Certainly, it probably never occurred to Milbank and the editors at the Washington Post to compare Petraeus to anyone else populating Washington that day who might be admired by the Post’s readers. A police officer, perhaps. A fireman. A shelter volunteer who fed and clothed a homeless person.

No, it’s the alleged D.C. madam who springs to a Washington Post reporter’s mind when he sees Gen. Petraeus in uniform, answering questions from politicians seeking some TV face time.

To many people on the left, our nation’s soldiers, sailors and airmen are prostituting themselves to fight what liberals dismissively refer to as “George Bush’s war.”

I’m embarrassed to admit that the Journal ran the story anyway.

The hearts and minds that need to be won are not in Iraq; they’re right here in the United States. Those hearts and minds, unfortunately, are being poisoned by fifth-column journalists who can’t even bring themselves to honestly report what’s happening in Washington, let alone in Baghdad.

(I gotta jump in here. I have a number of liberal-leaning friends who oppose the War in Iraq but don’t oppose or, to use a more simplistic, unfortunate word, hate the soldiers who fight it. One of those friends is a former platoon leader in Vietnam who lost many young men he loved and led into battle, and who was nearly killed by his wounds. He still gets periodic surgeries trying to keep his war-battered body together. And he hates the war in Iraq. But trust me, he doesn’t hate the soldiers. He loves them, in ways most of us can barely begin to understand. And I can’t think of any of my liberal, war-opposing friends who have anything but respect and concern for our military personnel, regardless of how they feel about the war. K.W.)

I love the smell of liberal ire in the morning.
It smells like … victory.
–R.R.

Randy: Notice how I responded to your post without labeling you? It’s really a good way to conduct an exchange, and generate a more reasoned, respectful discussion. You might try it. I think you’re capable of it. I really do. K.W.