By Kevin Woster

Given some of the discussion points being made below about John Thune’s concealed weapons bill and which trumps which - state government or federal government - I think a stand-alone thread is warranted.

If you believe that state’s right’s should trump federal law on concealed weapons, shouldn’t you also believe state’s rights should trump federal law on abortion?

And if you believe in state’s right’s on the abortion issue, shouldn’t you believe likewise on the firearms issue?

By Randall Rasmussen

Can you tell anything about a person by the beer they drink?

According to White House, the beers are on ice waiting for Thursday’s ”beer summit” between President Obama, Cambridge (Mass.) police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr.

It will be Bud Light for Obama, Blue Moon for Crowley and Red Stripe for Gates, the White House says.

If they can’t agree on a beer, how can they agree on race relations?

President Obama — a politician to his very core — has chosen the most popular beer in America: Bud Light.

He’s already in political trouble by wading into a local police matter that he admittedly didn’t know any of the facts. By choosing to drink Bud Light, he’s certain to alienate the fewest number of beer drinking voters.

By Kevin Woster

The health-care overhaul that President Obama says we need to save both the future of our nation’s overall health and its economy continues to struggle.

Despite the stated optimism of Democratic leaders, moderate voices in the party are hesitant to commit support until issues such as budget impacts, long-term debt, individual choice and small-business effects are addressed.

So far they haven’t been, at least not to the satisfaction of some Democratic foot-draggers. And the Blue Dog Coalition, including Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, is likely to play a crucial, perhaps deciding role in determining the shape and fate of the legislation.

It will put Herseth Sandlin in yet another interesting spot, balancing what she hears from South Dakota with what is asked of her by leadership and the White House.

By Kevin Woster

New York’s Central Park or Viborg, Centerville, Marion and Turkey Ridge.

Where would you feel safest?

I’ve never been to Central Park. But I have been to Viborg, Centerville, Marion and Turkey Ridge - not to mention Davis and Chancellor and Hurley.

I felt real safe there, despite the fact that - as New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly points out - things like the murder of a deputy sheriff do happen, albeit rarely, in Turner County.

Daly mentions the Turner County tragedy, along with the a more light-hearted look at the shooting - once real, now reenacted daily up in Deadwood - of Wild Bill Hickok during a  well-crafted potshot at Sen. John Thune. The target was really the senator’s statement, in defense of his faltering concealed-permit legislation, that Central Park would be a safer place with a law-abiding South Dakota gun owner present, packing a concealed handgun.

Thune’s comment was rhetorical, of course. The presence of a law-abiding South Dakota gunslinger with a Glock under his Carhartt wouldn’t have any real impact on the safety of Central Park, either way.

Nor does the tragic shooting of a deputy in Turner County make South Dakota towns any less safe than New York’s answer to Custer State Park. (A weak answer, for sure, but an answer nonetheless …)

Still, it was an entertaining read. For an unarmed columnist, that Daly can pull the trigger.

By Kevin Woster

I hate to say it, but I agree with Terrell Owens.

Let Michael Vick play.

The subject of the former star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, his prison time and house arrest for involvement in a dog-fighting ring is more sports than politics, of course.

But there’s plenty of politics involved, too.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is faced with a difficult decision in determining whether to let Vick return to the upper level of professional football this fall. Apparently he has been considering many options, including allowing Vick to play, but perhaps are a few games of suspension.

Owens says additional suspension would be wrong and, in typical Owens style, is attacking Goodell.  I don’t like Owens’ style or his attacks. And I hate to to jump on his bandwagon for anything. But in this case, I tend to agree.

Four or five  games isn’t a huge delay, but why not let the substantial punishment - in lost freedom, fortune and public standing - Vick has already received suffice?

Already damaged goods to some teams, the highly talented Vick will be an even more complicated package with even a short-term suspension facing him.

The guy messed up. He paid the price. Let him get back to work.

The sooner he does, the sooner he can begin fully paying his “debt to society,” to the NFL and too all those who admired and supported him.

By Kevin Woster

President Obama clearly erred when he turned a local issue involving a good friend and a police arrest into a platform for presumptuous proclamations during his televised news conference last week.

He made broad assumptions without a clear understanding of what happened, thus becoming a kindred spirit with the good citizens of Mount Blogmore.

But he recovered nicely by calling both his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, and the police officer who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley.

In presuming that Crowley and other offices had acted stupidly and perhaps with racial bias when they mistakenly confronted Gates as he tried to get into his own home, the president presumed too much. And he said too much, particularly given the venue and the weight of his office.

It now seems pretty clear that both Crowley and Gates could have handled things better. (Isn’t that often the case, when human beings are involved?). And it appears also that this wasn’t anything like a blatant case of racial profiling or a rogue cop.

Obama called both personally, which was a nice touch, and invited them to the White House. Crowley apparently suggested they might all have a beer together (correction courtesy of Blogmorites notsob and Jim…). Obamalso said he regretted how had he stated his opinion during the news conference.

Stated regrets by the leader of the free world? I like that. I like the personal phone calls, too.

It’s a reassuring approach to a complex, potentially explosive issue. And it seems to be turning a relatively minor incident, which could have grown exponentially,  in a positive direction rather than a negative one.

All in all, it’s a nice save by the president.

By Kevin Woster

You gotta admit, it’s entertaining.

Regardless of how you feel about the extension of the state smoking ban approved by the 2009 state Legislature and signed by Gov. Rounds, you have to be engaged by the delightfully unusual developments since:

A petition drive to refer. A surplus of signatures. A referral certified, and the law suspended before taking effect. A challenge that determines so many signatures are invalid that the referendum efforts fails  and the law should take effect. And now a trip to court to challenge the results of the challenge.

I love America.

South Dakota ain’t bad, either.

It’s a delightfully intriguing question to those of us inclined to be intrigued by such things: Should more than 2,000 signatures be declared invalid because a single notary public put down the wrong expiration date for his or her seal?

It wasn’t that the seal had expired, as I understand it. It was simply that the wrong expiration date was entered.

Petition-drive coordinator Larry Mann says that’s not reason enough to disqualify more than 2,000 otherwise valid signatures, and an entire referral effort that was otherwise valid.

 But SOS Chris Nelson says having accurate information on the forms is required by law. And smoking-ban advocate Jennifer Stalley says the rule is clear: the petitions must be properly notified.

Does that mean a petition notorized by an currently valid notory public isn’t properly notarized because of  a clerical error?

Sounds like a really good question to me. I can’t wait to see what the court says.

By Kevin Woster

Would you?

I might, for myself, because it’s not so bad. I have more costly, increasingly complicated-but-still-affordable health insurance, after all, that is subsidized by my employer. And I’m in generally  good health for a 57-year-old.

I have a reliable family doc, a reasonable selection of reliable specialists, treatment options that are far from cheap but not beyond my means and the money to pay for medications that improve my quality of life considerably.

I worry about my health. I don’t worry much about my health care. And I do what I can with lifestyle choices to stay healthy.

But that’s just me. Lots of people have different medical conditions, insurance situations and treatment options. And they make different lifestyle decisions, often to their detriment.

For some, the cost of health-care is a life-altering burden. And all of us pay for the increasing financial impact of the public programs, including Medicaid - which covers something like one in five U.S. citizens to one degree or another.

The drag on the economy is beyond my calculation but someting President Obama is focusing on as he pushes his health-care-overhaul plan. He made an effective move last night with his appearance on national TV, answering questions about his plan in a comfortable, conversational, reassuring style.

He’s good on TV. More appearances would probably strengthen his cause.Which doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll get all he wants in health-care reform, or should. Nobody has all the answers, just as nobody asks all the wrong questions.

 Absolutes are almost always wrong, and often are very harmful.

Take one of my least-favorite media yakkers: Ann Coulter, who surely ranks near the top in mean-spirited  political commentary, right up there the formerly entertaining Keith Olbermann (But wasn’t he great on Sports Center?)

Here’s what Ann had to say this week about health care:  “All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats’ idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.”

There are reasons to question more government involvement in health care, of course. Many of us do. But “all the problems”?

The insurance industry doesn’t deserve some blame? The pharmaceutical industry? The unhealthy lifestyle choices of so many Americans, and the belief that a pill or a procedure is the answer to all our problems? Individual docs or health-care systems that are driven too much by profit and not enough by service? Ridiculously frivilous malpractice suits? 

Nope. It’s all the government’s fault.

And the scary thing is, all across this country people read, hear and embrace simplistic absolutes that are so far removed from reality it’s laughable.

Except that it’s not funny at all.

By Randall Rasmussen

For those of you who didn’t watch President Obama’s press conference Wednesday night, and want to know what he said, here’s a full transcript.

By Jerry Steinley

There’s a showdown in Congress and it’s taking place this morning.

Gun rights advocates hope to pass legislation that will allow people with concealed weapons permits in one state to legally carry their firearms into other states with similar gun laws.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune is leading the charge saying truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should (and this is quoting AP) be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states.

From the AP: National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said the last two decades have shown a strong shift toward gun rights laws. “We believe it’s time for Congress to acknowledge these changes and respect the right of self-defense, and the right of self-defense does not stop at state lines,” he said.

Gun control groups have the opposite take.

Heck, I’m no gun hater but using the self defense argument to loosen gun restrictions?

I’ve traveled cross country more than once and never felt I’ve needed a gun to protect myself.

Is Congress really worried about our need to protect ourselves with a weapon or … or what?

By Kevin Woster

And those Greenpeace climbers thought the wind on Mount Rushmore was tough.

Now comes a bit of a legal gale from U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley: A federal grand jury has indicted 11 Greenpeace members for their role in the protest at Mount Rushmore on July 8.

The federal miscdemeanor indictments include conspiracy to climb Mount Rushmore, filed against all eleven, plus various trespass and climbing and aiding and abetting charges.

Maxiums on each count against individuals are a $5,000 fine, six months in prison and additional restitution. Greenpeace Inc., also was charged, and faces a max of $10,000 on each count, plus restitution.

As the new release points out, “the charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the individuals and corporation named are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.”

Which is not to say they didn’t do it, of course, since they actually video taped themselves in the act and in some cases spoke candidly about how they planned and carried out the protest climb.

The question is: Are they guilty under the law.

By Kevin Woster

Tim Johnson made is official: South Dakota’s senators will split on the Sotomayor nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Johnson just issued a news release that said, to the surprise of, well, nobody, that he would vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. He also pointed out his consistency here, legitimately so.

“Our duty as Senators in this process is one of advice and consent to the President.  That does not mean we should simply rubber stamp the President’s nomination.  However, the President does deserve due deference for his choice, especially when the nominee is so well qualified, prepared for the post and well within the broad mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence as is Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

“ I held this same view when I supported both of President Bush’s nominees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  And that is why I will now vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor.”

Remember the Alito vote? It was 58-42.  Johnson and Thune both voted for Alito. Here’s a partial list of those who didn’t.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid,  Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

That pretty much wraps up the Democratic power structure in the Senate, and those who would soon move to even more powerful jobs.

The Roberts nomination was a breeze, with only Sens. Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer voting against the nominee.

Roberts, now the chief justice, seemed pretty hard for anyone to vote against. Alito seemed to be about as far right of center as Sotomayor is left.

I’m having trouble seeing the difference between the “no” votes cast by Democratic senators then and the “no” votes to be cast by John Thune and others in the Republican leadership now.

Am I missing something?

By Randall Rasmussen

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., announced Monday he would vote against Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He issued the following statement: “Judge Sotomayor has a compelling personal story and I appreciate her meeting with me. I carefully followed last week’s Judiciary Committee hearings as members questioned Judge Sotomayor on her judicial philosophy and her record of decisions from her time on the bench. After this review I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor has consistently advanced a narrow view of the Second Amendment, providing little reasoning or explanation for her decisions, and twice has ruled that the Second Amendment is not a ‘fundamental right.’ This is an important distinction because the Supreme Court has made this determination a key element in deciding whether to apply parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the Second Amendment, to state and local governments.

“Judge Sotomayor has also had seven of her 10 decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned, including, most recently, Ricci v. DeStefano. In this case, a three person panel dismissed a reverse discrimination claim of 18 New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied promotion because too few minorities passed a promotion exam. The panel published an unusually short and unsigned opinion that adopted the lower court’s ruling without adding any original analysis. Judicial and legal experts have noted this disturbing trend of avoiding or casually dismissing difficult and important constitutional issues in her rulings. The Supreme Court should not be the first time a judge tackles these difficult decisions.

“I am also concerned that Judge Sotomayor has a record of bringing her personal views into her decision making philosophy rather than deciding cases based on precedent and fidelity to the law. Her statements during the confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee do not always match the philosophies she has expressed prior to this hearing, such as her application of foreign law.

“I take the Senate’s role of advise and consent very seriously. I believe that it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to thoroughly review all nominees to the federal bench, especially those who will have a lifetime appointment to the highest court.”

By Kevin Woster

What’s next for Gov. Mike Rounds?

Good question, as posed - I believe - by Poplicola somewhere down below.

It never came up during the three-day Woster family reunion at Thunderstik Lodge south of Chamberlain, where the political discussion tended to center on Sarah Palin and her plans.

(The consensus among the Woster clan members who admire Palin (a minority) and those who do not was that she had stepped in it big time by quitting her job. But the family’s lead conservative voice was absent (take care of that sciatica, Ray), so we didn’t have a complete survey.)

We never got around to Rounds. But, if I may resort to law enforcement terms, he remains a person of interest among those of us who ponder GOP candidate options in the future.

He’s about my age, minus a year or two, so he still has some options left on a narrowing political landscape. But he claims none of them involve 2010.

When I last spoke to the governor during the State Game Lodge re-dedication a couple months back, he said he was looking forward to returning to the insurance business in Pierre, where he’ll get to work with his son, Chris.

I can understand that appeal. I’d love to work with my son, although I’m not sure how that would go over in the emergency department up at St. Paul Regions.

I can also understand the governor’s desire to have more time to spend on the Missouri River, fishing and hunting, as well as pestering the ringnecks down on the Rounds family ground in Lyman County (good choice for hunting turf, Mike).

A Rounds run for U.S. Congress next year would make life very interesting for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. But barring a clear change of heart by the governor, it appears unlikely that she’ll have to worry about that.

I don’t think Jean Rounds is much interested in Washington, D.C., anyway.

Still, after shocking the political establishment (and especially know-it-all reporters, including one from Lyman County) with his 2002 primary win and running a generally successful administration (near-miss budget crisis notwithstanding), the governor has enough political capital to stay viable for a while.

Easily until 2012, when the potential impacts of the Obama administration on Herseth Sandlin will be clearer, and the political itch might need a scratch.

Or maybe even to 2014, when Tim Johnson will have another huge career choice to make.

My guess: We’ll see the name “Mike Rounds” on a statewide election ballot again.

But probably not next year.

By Jerry Steinley

What a difference a couple of days makes. On Tuesday, I questioned the president’s urgent request to have a health care bill on his desk by Congress’ Aug. 7 recess.

Blogmore didn’t agree.

“What’s the rush?” questioned one poster. “Only someone who is new to the issue, is a political pawn, or hasn’t paid any attention for four or five decades could even ask that question. There is no “rush” going on here. Reform of health care has proceeded at a glacial pace, and the cost just keep getting bigger the longer we let the politicians “study” this issue. It’s time to act.”

And there was this…

“There are millions of Americans without medical insurance, and they need it ASAP. The idea of health care reform is not new… This is an issue that’s been looked at with intense interest since before Clinton took office. So we should wait because it will cost a lot? Your reasoning behind even asking “What’s the rush?” doesn’t add up.”

Guess what? It doesn’t add up.

Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf warned Congress Thursday the Democrats’ health care bills wouldn’t slow rising medical costs and could in fact break the federal bank. Costs, he said, would rise at an unsustainable rate.

The Washington Post online reports Obama on Friday defended the health care plan, insisting Congress would find ways to save money.

“Let me repeat: Health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it,” Obama said Friday, as quoted in the Washington Post. “Already, Congress has embraced our proposal to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending and unwarranted giveaways to insurance companies in Medicare and Medicaid. So we actually believe that about two-thirds of the costs of reforming health care could be achieved through these savings alone, without any new revenue. Of course, that still leaves one-third of the costs in order for us to cover all Americans that we’re still going to have to find a way to pay for. And the key committees in Congress are working diligently with the White House to see if we can come up with an agreement on that remaining one-third. The bill I sign will also include my commitment and the commitment of Congress to slow the growth of health care costs over the long run.”

Now with the Congressional Budget Office information in front of us, is a commitment from Congress to slow rising health care costs something the country can bank on? Or can we wait until after the recess to give this a better look?

By Kevin Woster

I’ve been quite charmed by Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s somewhat clumsy tapdancing on her “wise Latina woman” comment.

Basically, she’s saying she blew it.

I like it when important people say that. It’s so, well, rare.

“It is clear from the attention that my words have gotten and the manner in which it has been understood from some people that my words failed,” Judge Sotomayor said this morning to questions from Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.

She has offered several version of the “my words failed” in the last couple of days. I can relate. My words fail all the time. It’s rare that I write or say some substantial that I don’t look back and wish I’d written or said it better.

Sometimes, I wish I hadn’t said it at all, as I’m guessing Sotomayor is wishing these days, regarding the “wise Latina” comment.

Not that it’s a huge deal. She’s virtually a sure-thing for confirmation. And everybody’s entitled to a misstatement or two. South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who could be a ”no” vote on this nomination, said that today during a telephone news conference.

“Certainly if we were all judged by statements that we made or phrases we used over the years, nobody would be able to withstand the perfection test on that,” Thune said.

He’s betting she gets confirmed, too. Nonetheless, the “wise Latina” comment is troubling, as is her decision in the Frank Ricci case and her lack of clear support of the Second Amdendment as a fundamental right, Thune said.

The “wise Latina” comment was a multiple misspeak, however, he pointed out.

“It’s not  like a random, one-time thing,” Thune  said. “She made it five different times in speeches she made.”

Thune said it was “possible that she was trying to inspire minority students” with the comments. Which is probably true, since the speech was at an event at the University of California at Berkley aimed at such inspiration.

It’s also possible that she has “evolved” on that philosophical point in the eight years since she made that speech.

I’ve certainly evolved on many issues over a number of eight-year-periods. And my guess is that  Sotomayor has evolved on this one.

Especially since she was nominated to the highest court in the land.

By  Kevin Woster

As lead-off questions by a reporter to a U.S. House candidates go, this isn’t the strongest: “Who the heck are you, anyway?”

But that’s what I resorted to this afternoon with Thad Wasson.

Who?

Exactly.

Wassom left a voicemail here in the newsroom saying he wanted to talk about his U.S. House campaign. Just so happened, I was calling Secretary of State Chris Nelson about other news affairs, so I asked him if he’d ever heard of Thad Wasson.

“Not before today,” Nelson said.

Same here.

Turns out, Wasson lives in Piedmont, works as a Quest technician, has a wife and three kids and considers himself a conservative Christian.  He also got ahead of himself a bit in collecting names on his nominating petitions. He has about 40. But, as I understand the law, can’t declare your candidacy and take out state nominating petitions until next January.

“Uh, oh,” Wasson said when informed of that. “I guess I’m not off to a very good start.”

No harm, no foul, especially since the state Web site seems to allow petitions to be downloaded, and offers somewhat confusing dates on when the drives can begin.

At this point, Wasson said he is committed to a run, and will argue for a conservative agenda that includes support for dramatic tax cuts, reduced government, skepticism of the value of U.S. involvement in the NATO and the United Nation, support for adoptions and opposition to abortion.

Wasson, a Republican who moved to the Black Hills from Denver eight years ago, said he doesn’t expect to be embraced by the GOP power structure in South Dakota.

“I’ve made a few calls, and some of the locals said ‘don’t bother running,’” he said.

He thinks he’ll bother, anyway.

“I’ve got young children,” he said. “I’m worried about their future.”

He’ll be the first Republic U.S. House candidate for the 2010 election, if he runs.  Nelson is also a possibility, one more likely to be embraced by the Republican establishment. Nelson said Tuesday that he continues to explore a run for Congress himself, with plans to make a decision by the end of summer.

“I’m very interested in it,” he said of a U.S. House campaign. “But there are some things I need to be assured of.”

What could those be? Money, I’d guess, and quite a bit of it, from both the state and the national levels.  And probably help findinga couple of key campaign staffers, and campaign support.

It’ll take that and more for the Republican candidate to make a race of it in the House campaign.

By Jerry Steinley

One thing you can say about president’s first year in office is that he acts with urgency… all of the time. So I’m not surprised he wants health care reform legislation on his desk before Congress leaves for an August recess.

“Don’t bet against us. We are going to make this thing happen,” the president said.

But what’s the rush? Health care reform is going to cost trilllions and funding it could come at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid cuts, a fee on companies and a tax on wealthier folks.

This can’t wait until after the August recess?

Is there a real urgency to pass reform or is there just a good chance if it doesn’t get passed in the heat of the moment calmer heads will prevail after legislators get some down time?

Health care is too important - and this legislation could have untold impact - to rush it along.

What does Blogmore say? Time for health care reform or time to take a deep breath and rethink rushed legislation?

By Kevin Woster

That Dan Barry, he can write.

The traveling columnist-reporter for the New York Times hits some of those out-of-the-way places that tend to get lost in the shuffle of the big-time news.

Barry wanders beyond the expected and ends up in places like Eagle Butte, where he stopped recently to do a story on the construction of a new hospital - “this promise being kept” - and its base of funding through the federal stimulus package.

The hospital is the news, but the story is a lot bigger than that in a grand landscape where broken promises endure and grinding poverty is predictable if not acceptable.

 Nobody can tell it all, particularly in a single setting.  But Barry tells plenty with the time and room and resources he has, as those darn NYT writers tend to do.

It’s well worth a read.

It’s also worth considering in the larger context of  health-care needs in Indian Country, and what the Obama health-care proposal could bring to a land of daunting medical concerns.

By Kevin Woster

Most of the time, traditional news outlets  break it, and the blogs shake it.

That’s what the folks at Cornell University say, following a study - reported in the NY Times - showing that traditional news outlets still break the vast majority of news stories, hours before they appear on blogs.

There are exceptions, of course. The study indicates that 3.5 percent of story lines originated with blogs and found their way into mainstream media.

I know how that works. I’ve gotten some pretty good story ideas and tips off of blogs. I’ve also gotten gas, headaches, vertigo, mild nausea and skin rash.

And that’s just from Mount Blogmore.