By Kevin Woster

Interesting stuff this week in a Washington Post story about ethics probes into members of a House appropriations subcommittee - including Democratic Chairman John Murtha - and their relationship with an influential lobbying firm.

An ethics investigation doesn’t necessarily mean that anybody’s guilty of anything. Still, the relationship between millions of dollars in government contracts channeled through earmarks to clients of the lobbying firm, PMA Group, and the number of campaign contributions received by members of the appropriations sub-committee from PMA clients  certainly seems to merit further scrutiny.

Following the money around Washington, D.C.,  makes for an interesting tour that is, too often, not a particularly inspirational one.

It’s one area where the the self-serving inclinations of some members always seem to cross party lines.

By Jerry Steinley

So is Sen. Joe Lieberman a habitual flip flopper or an American hero?
I gained a whole new disrespect for Lieberman in 2006 when, after losing the Democratic nomination, he registered as an independent and won. A real man of his convictions…
Now he’s using his independent status to generally thrash about Washington kowtowing to the right, left, right, left… you get the idea.
Just last year he lost the Democratic party backing after supporting presidential nominee John McCain. Promising to play nice — and as a Democrat would — he kept his position on the Commerce Committee.
Earlier this week he said he’d help Republicans kill — going as far as a filibuster — any health care bill that included a public option.
And now, ABC News reports Lieberman, I-Conn., has said he’ll stump for some Republicans in the 2010 midterms and may not seek the Democratic nomination in 2012.
From ABC News: He finds being an independent “liberating” because, You’re not tied to a particular inner group and feel that extra pressure to march in lockstep. I think that the public generally is fed up with all the partisanship, and us against them.”
Americans are tired of partisan politics. Can Lieberman, and others like him, be the solution? Or just create a bigger problem?

By Kevin Woster

All told, banks and I have gotten along well over the years.

I’ve borrowed and repaid their money for goods and services I wanted and needed, used their check, debit-card and savings services and only occasionally had a misunderstanding or dispute.

I love my debit card in particular. Simpler than checks, more immediate and automatic than credit cards, it’s a plastic ticket to quick purchases just about anywhere I go - without fear of losing a credit card bill, missing a payment and getting tagged with a penalty (which you can sometimes get removed, with a simple phone call.)

My experience is fairly typical, but far from universal. The House Committee on Financial Services is looking into the “far from universal” stories as it considers H.R. 627,  the Overdraft Protection Act.

Home with the flu or something, I watched some of the committee’s hearing on the bill this morning. And the act is supposed to do what is says - protect consumers from onerous overdrafts on purchases with checks and debit cards.

A key issue is what my bank calls a “ready reserve,” which is sort of an automatic cushion of several hundred dollars below the actual account balance. Write a check or buy something with the debit card for an amount that exceeds your balance and you go into the ready reserve, but for a price similar to an overdraft fee - $20, $30 or so. Each time you use it while in the red zone, you get charged again.

It can add up. The advantage is you don’t get a check bounced or a debit-card purchase denied, perhaps in an embarrassing public  situation. Apparently, that advantage - which is also very profitable to the bank, which is the whole idea - gets some consumers deeper into financial trouble.

Advocates of change say the consumer should be given a chance to opt into the ready reserve rather than being automatically included and having to ask to opt out, as is generally the case now.

That’s just part of the reform proposal. And it seems reasonable to me. I dislike automatic inclusions, especially when they involve my money. It’s hard for me to imagine, however,  that people could  buy a pizza and a beer, or pay for a tire repair,  and either not know or don’t not care that they don’t have the money in their account to cover it.

Especially more than once or twice.

But for those folks, this might be a place where government regulations can make a difference.

By Kevin Woster

It was a front-page story to make you cringe over your bran flakes.

One of Rapid City’s little-known (before Journal business editor Barb Soderlin’s story) businesses is run out of a private home off Sheridan Lake Road.

It sells Nazi stuff. Odd Hitler images, flags and replicas of grenades and, uh, poison gas canisters are among the items available on Michael Kelly’s internet shop.

It’s just merchandise, not hateful propaganda, says Kelly, who claims no Nazi sympathies but rather a business mind that found a niche market that works.

“I look at everybody as one color: green,” he told Barb.

Here on Mount Blogmore, we believe in free enterprise and free speech.

But we’re not quite sure what to believe about this.

By Randall Rasmussen

The Federal Communications Commission is considering issuing what it calls net neutrality regulations. Supposedly it will ensure that the internet is open to all.

However, there are some who don’t think it’s a good idea for the FCC to wade into regulating the Internet.

 Among them, Sen. John Thune, who sent out a press release last week about the proposed network neutrality rules, saying they could hinder private investment in broadband networks, reduce the safety of online activity, and harm consumers and businesses that rely on reliable broadband access.

“Broadband access gives businesses and schools greater opportunities to excel,” said Thune. “Unfortunately, there are many areas, particularly in rural states like South Dakota, without adequate access to broadband networks. Expanding broadband to rural areas and improving broadband across the country will require continued private sector investment of hundreds of billions of dollars. New regulations on the Internet would likely stifle this investment and eventually harm consumers who rely on access to quality broadband.”

Thune and other senators sent a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. The link to the letter is from Sen. John Kyl’s Web site.

The Internet has made a wealth of knowledge and information available to more people than at any time in history.

The question is: Is the FCC’s proposal to regulate the Internet to ensure “free and open access” needed or is it a smokescreen for government to assert control over what has always been largely unfettered access to the Internet by the masses.

What say you, Mount Blogmore dudes and dudettes?

By Randall Rasmussen

 Remember when the Iraq War was heating up and the media would make sure they got a picture of President George W. Bush playing golf so they could air it while they announced how many U.S. soldiers were killed that day?

 The media’s juxtaposition of him playing golf while American soldiers were dying finally got to him and Bush announced he would quit playing golf while the war was going.

 Critics and pundits howled with derision. I Googled “Bush, golf, war” and got almost 8 million hits.

 Politico.com did a story on Monday that President Barack Obama has played as many rounds of golf in nine months as Bush played in nearly three years — 24.

 Not that you’d see a photo of the duffer-in-chief as he takes a mulligan on a decision on Afghanistan war strategy.

 However, on Sunday, the day after the New York Times did a story about how President Obama doesn’t include any girls in his sports outings, the White House made sure to have Melody Barnes, Obama’s chief domestic policy adviser, carry a bag of golf clubs out of the White House in front of an AP photographer before joining a round of golf with the president.

 Round of golf with a woman: mission accomplished.

 Decision on Gen. Stanley McCrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan: still dithering.

By Kevin Woster

And back here on the home front, Dave Knudson has a new campaign manager.

Jim Hagen, former chief of staff and campaign manager for Bill Janklow, will start with the Knudson campaign for governor on Nov. 16, after resigning his job as director of development and public relations for Crazy Horse Memorial.

Hagen did that job from LA, with regular trips back to Crazy Horse.  Soon he’ll trade LA for Sioux Falls - hopefully with plenty of cash and a villa on the Big Sioux as part of the deal - and be back in the state at the helm of the U.S.S. Knudson.

“I’ve had interest from several campaigns, but I definitely feel very, very strongly about David’s candidacy,” Hagen said. “I’m excited about coming back and helping out.”

Knudson will drop his consulting relationship with Nevada-based political pro Mike Slanker.

“By the nature of their work, campaign consultants are involved with multiple campaigns,” Knudson said. “I felt like we needed a full-time, day-t-o-day campaign manager. Jim is going to come back and run the campaign for us.”

When asked if this trade was a plus or minus financially for the campaign, Knudson referred questions to his campaign manager.

Who hasn’t started yet.

Crafty.

Actually, he simply declined comment.

By Kevin Woster

Even the Cowardly Lion believes in global warming.

Wait, scratch that. He believes in witches, or flying monkeys,  or ruby slippers. I can’t remember which.

But maybe not global warming.

Apparently, neither do more than 40 percent of Americans.

A Pew Research poll reported by AP shows 57 percent of us believe the planet is warming, down 20 percent from a few years ago.

Why? I’m guessing it’s because things cooled off for a lot of people. If you live in South Dakota, for example, and take a superficial view of the climate, as I love to do, you might sit shivering in your chair and question the whole global warming thing.

It was prett nippy around here this year, after all. Pretty wet in most places, too.

So it’s easy to reach conclusions on global warming or climate change like those you might hear from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Simple. One-sided. Full of sound and fury and signifiying, well, not all that much most of the time - except for great ratings.

I think the climate-change issue is a lot like most issues that matter: It’s complicated - more complicated by far than most of the high-pitched oversimplifiers would have us believe.

 I tend to think, based on what I’ve read, that the planet is warming. The larger issue is why? How much is us and our appetite for fossil fuels? How much are we willing to spend on a smaller carbon footprint? How much will it help? How soon and aggressively do we need to act?

But on the main issue of a warming world, isn’t that already settled?

By Kevin Woster

As the battle goes on in Congress over health-care reform, the insurance industry has landed the latest blow with data that shows profits are far from outrageous when compared to other industries.

In fact, the 2.3 percent to 6 percent figures - the 2.3 percent being in recent hard times, I think - on profit margins make the company appear to be positively reasonable in its money making.

Do you buy it? Or figure it’s slanted stuff, disguising higher profits?

I tend to trust AP, which reported on the data, until somebody shows otherwise. Although they’re human like all of us.

If it’s legit, the profits information helps drive - for now, at least -the argument on rising health-care costs away from the bad-guy insurance industry and back toward doctors, health care systems and government rules and regulations, as well as the generally terrible personal health-care habits of this nation.

The insurance folks needed something, as they continue to be regarded badly by the public and polling lately indicates more public support for a government-run insurance option, and perhaps more hope for those who believe in it.

Where’s Obama in all this? Not as deeply involved as some Democrats in Congress would like, according a report by  The New Republic’s Jonathan  Cohn, who says Democratic senators in particular are looking for some muscle from the White House.

One of my favorite commentators, Tavis Smiley, said yesterday on Meet the Press that Obama will be judged by his leadership on difficult issues. And certainly this is difficult.

With crunch time approaching on health care reform, we’ll see if this is one where the man in the White House really steps up and takes a hard public swing, or accepts less than the staunchest reform advocates want.

By Kevin Woster

That could be the compromise. The trigger.

Appearing on Meet the Press this morning, Joe Scarborough said Barack Obama’s White House team has made it known that they like the idea of a “trigger” as the fall-back position on the government-run health care option preferred by many Democrats.

The trigger option would be delayed implementation of the government option, likely based on some criteria for cost controls by the private insurance industry. If the industry didn’t respond appropriately over a certain time period, the trigger would kick in and the government-run health insurance option would take effect.

Scarborough said Obama likes the trigger because it gives some cover to moderates, including Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is one of the Blue Dog leaders, and would benefit from such cover.

Herseth Sandlin is in a tough spot on this one. Voting for the government option leaves her open to the socialized-medicine charge by conservatives in a state where the idea has received a mixed response. Voting against it further alienates her from her party’s left wing.

She must like the trigger both as a reasonable compromise in policy and, especially, as a relatively safe middle-ground on an issue that’s anything but safe for her.

By Randall Rasmussen

The White House tried to escalate its war with Fox News Thursday by preventing the network’s correspondent from attending a news conference featuring the pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. He was announcing his plan to cut the pay of top executives of firms that have received bailouts.

The rest of the media, however, stood by Fox News against the White House’s effort to feeze them out.

They probably realized that it would be a bad precedent to let the president of the United States get away with retaliating against a news organization because he doesn’t like what they are reporting about his administration.

The next time, it could be one of them.

Bravo, to the press corps for standing up to the White House’s attempt to swallow up the freedom of the press.

Here’s the link.

By Randall Rasmussen

When first lady Michelle Obama flew to Copenhagen for the failed Chicago Olympics presentation, she flew in her own jet, instead of on Air Force One with her husband, President Barack Obama.

Why? Well, it may be because she has her own entourage.

An e-mail that is going around claims that Michelle Obama has at least 26 staff members working for her in the White House, starting from Chief of Staff Susan Sher at a salary of $172,000. The e-mail claims that the number of staff assigned to the first lady is “unprecedented” and costs U.S. taxpayers more than $1.2 million.

The story originates from the Canada Free Press. You can read it here.

Factcheck.org did its own investigation. It found that Michelle Obama has a staff of 24 with an annual salary of $1.6 million.

However, a large staff for first ladies is not unprecedented, according to Factcheck.org. Laura Bush had a staff of 18 with a total cost of $1.4 million.

I think the story is overblown. First ladies are not on salary, but they often stand in for the president on official functions. They make speeches, they attend functions and ceremonies that the president hasn’t the time for, or are not important enough for the POTUS. Of course, they require a staff.

However, I don’t think first ladies need as many people at their beck and call as they have had in recent administrations, both Democrat and Republican.

For that matter, I’m inclined to believe that the federal government, from the White House on down, has too many people working for it, often for the same purposes in many departments and agencies.

Michelle Obama may have a too-large, too-expensive staff, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. Unlike her husband, Michelle Obama has no power.

By Kevin Woster

Investigative political reporting involves a lot of back-channel snooping, herculean efforts on the telephone and crafty source development at secluded tables in the back corners of shady cafes.

Or, you just check your e-mail.

I did one or the other last week - you guess which - and came up with a copy of Glen Bolger’s recent poll of 400 likely GOP voters in next year’s Republican governor’s primary.

Guess what? They liked Rounds. Who’da figured?

Almost 70 percent of those surveyed said South Dakota is headed in the right direction; 83 percent gave the governor a favorable rating; and 81 percent said they think the next governor should continue Rounds’ policies.

(No, it’s not true that the polling phone banks were staffed entirely by members of the Rounds family, although they could been, going strictly by staffing potential…)

Among GOP candidates, state Sen. Dave Knudson had the highest name ID, with 70 percent. After that it was Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard, 58 percent, Scott Munsterman, 45 percent, and Ken Knuppe 32 percent.

But Dauggard won in the favorable department, with 32 percent to 1 percent unfavorable; Knudson was 26 percent to 7, Munsterman 10 percent to 3 percent and Knuppe 8 percent to 3 percent.

And a pretty impressive 26 percent said the would vote for Daugaard, followed by Knudson with 9 percent, Munsterman 6 percent and Knuppe 3 percent, leaving the majority of GOP voters still undecided and confused (OK, I threw in the “confused” part on my own.).

Knudson also loses with the GOP voters surveyed on the abortion issue, where he’s pro-choice. Likewise he loses out on guns, where his “D” rating from the NRA - which, frankly, can be based on a single issue or vote that the, uh, somewhat demanding organization decided was absolutely defining - may or may not move most South Dakotans, especially Democrats and Independents, should he reach the general.

But enough editorializing (God bless the NRA! Uh, sometimes…). The NRA grade - which is the same one I got in two semesters of editing class at SDSU - isn’t great for Knudson in a Republic primary. But it’s worth nothing that Knudson has been awarded the 2009 legislator conservationist award by the South Dakota Wildlife Federation. That’s not the same as a gubernatorial endorsement, as Chris Hesla points out below. But it’s clearly a sign of respect from SDWF, and they’re not exactly anti-gun.

Still, Bolger’s Public Opinion Strategies produced a nice package of polling data that has to make Daugaard - a member of the Rounds team - feel pretty good. It should, of course, since his campaign paid for it.

Which doesn’t mean the results aren’t valid. Or that they shouldn’t worry the other candidates, Knudson in particular. But it would be interesting to see how the questions were framed.

It always is.

By Jerry Steinley

Fox News and President Obama just can’t get along and, in true first grade fashion, the dispute has escalated to a point it has become a national issue and a national embarrasment. President Obama — a cool character during the election — has taken off the gloves and declared battle on Fox.
It’s been a tit for tat for some time. Fox has been especially critical of Obama and the president has slighted the news organization in return. But who started it? And who is adult enough to say enough is enough?
My guess — neither.
Great for Fox, great for news, but real bad for the president. How can a president — a public servant — declare a news channel an adversary? It doesn’t only make him look bad, but childish, vindictive and egotistical.
This from the Huffington Post:
“It is rather odd to pick this fight with Fox News. All it does is elevate
their commentators and anchors to a level that people might tune in to see what all the fuss is about. Why in the world would the White House want to give this network any publicity at all?”
And, pulling no punches, Sen. Lamar Alexander, a leading Republican in the Senate, in the Washington Post:
The Obama administration is creating “an enemies list,” similar to the
Nixon administration. “This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants,” Alexander said. “It is a mistake for the president of the United States and the White House staff.”
There’s no way Obama can win this public relations battle… or is there?
Let me know what you think and how this tale will unfold and, hopefully, end.

Join us tomorrow, Tuesday, for a noon live chat with Larry Mann. Mann is the principal of Mann Strategies, Inc. a government and public affairs consulting company. He was retained by a coalition including Music and Vending Association, Video Lottery Establishments, Deadwood Gaming Association and the South Dakota Licensed Beverage Dealers Association through a ballot question committee called Citizen’s for Individual Freedom to coordinate the public smoking petition drive.

If you’ve got questions, Mann will have answers.

By Jerry Steinley

It seems the Obama administration just can’t quit writing checks on the taxpayer account. After spending billions bailing out banks, Wall Street, automakers and states that failed to plan for the rainy days, there’s more coming.
But let’s not call it stimulus — that’s a dirty word.
Time reports the White House is considering tax credits and other measures (totaling up to $100 billion) that should, according to the White House, get people back to work and get the economy back on track.

Sure, why not, I haven’t gotten my check yet. And besides, the stimulus spending we’ve already endured has worked out so well…
But Americans are saying no to further spending, even while the White House says yes, yes, yes.
An August Gallup poll shows 65 percent of Americans don’t want a second stimulus and more than half thought the government was spending too much.
And yet, under the guise of “tax credits” and probably hidden in multiple bills, more stimulus is on the way.
Are Americans so dense that Washington can turn a deaf ear to their growing concerns? Are Americans so predictable that placating them during the election with meaningless soundbites and empty promises suffices?
So who’s in charge here, anyway? The American taxpayer or the American politician?

By Kevin Woster

Of course, nobody’s unbeatable. John Thune proved that against Tom Daschle five years ago.

Can Democrats prove that in a tit-for-tat payback to John Thune next year?

 Probably not.

It’s a tough deal, beating a first-term incumbent U.S. senator. They’ve got the name, the staffers, the money and the ability to campaign under the guise of doing their jobs.

Besides, here in South Dakota, we don’t get tired of our senators until they’ve been there long enough to really figure things out, know what they’re doing and actually have some clout.

They’re also more tied into that D.C. political world. And that aggravates us, in ways and for reasons that I don’t completely understand.

Thune worked the “he’s gone Washington” theme against Daschle pretty effectively in 2004. Daschle encouraged his own demise in some ways through preliminary moves to run for president that led him into uncharaceristically risky tactical decisions that would hurt him when he decided to come back and run for Senate reelection instead.

There was other stuff going on, too. Important stuff: a really tough Republican candidate with plenty of campaign funds and an evern tougher campaign manager; Bush coattails that would begin to fade after the election; a stronger Republican voter turnout; the emergence of conservative blogs that, while not defining, did have an impact on the campaign; and a hesitancy on Daschle’s part to strike back hard at Thune, which might have made a difference.

So now Thune’s the guy. And there’s nothing the Daschle faithful - who still ache from that difficult loss - would like better than to return the upset favor.

They need a candidate first, of course. Then they need money and launch-pad issues and a message that can beat the odds.

That’s all likely to happen, given our history.

But it probably won’t be next year.

By Kevin Woster

Theresa Two Bulls has a job I wouldn’t envy as leader of tribal government for the Oglala Sioux.

I don’t know the former state senator well, but she seems strong and smart, which are essential for success in the difficult, politically charged role of a tribal president.

The political shelf life of a tribal leader can be brief.  Mike Jandreau’s 31-year-tenure as chairman of the Lower Brule - a tribe and a landscape especially close to my heart, since the farm where I grew up straddles the reservation and Mike’s brother, Faye, was one of our hired hands -  is unique among tribal leaders in this nation.

(Speaking of Jandreau, his grandson is tearing it up as a running back for the undefeated Lyman County Raiders. But that’s a subject for another time, except for this: YEEEEEEE-HAW! Go Raiders!)

Like “Jandreau” on Lower Brule, “Two Bulls”  is a familiar family name on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Its many members include those with accomplishments in varied fields of  government, the arts (Marty Two Bulls, are you out there? Still doing that art thing?) and religion.

But smarts, strength and even a family name that matters only take you so far in a world of profound challenges and biting political divisions.

It’s tough duty. Two Bulls, who is also making a name for herself beyond the sprawling, beautiful, troubled landscape of the Oglalas, and others who take on the challenge of leadership deserve credit for their courage and commitment.

Nowhere is great leadership needed more.

By Kevin Woster

The idea of longer terms makes sense to me.

Two years is a pretty short window to prove yourself in elected office. I think that’s true whether you’re talking about the U.S. House of Representatives, the South Dakota House of Representatives, the Rapid City Council or the mayor’s office.

You win your race, take a couple months off to focus only on your duties, then start worrying about the next campaign. Its a problem in Congress, but it’s mitigated by the alarmingly high retention rate of U.S. House members.

At the state and especially the municipal level,  a two-year-window is a pretty tough one for an office-holder to manage. You make one mistake, you say a couple wrong things, you aggravate a chunk of the voters and you could be toast. There’s just not much time to make amends, prove yourself on other issues or in other ways  or give the thinking members of the voting public time to put things in perspective.

Time and perspective: It’s the stuff of real life, and real adults.

Pressured by an election that’s always around the corner, those who aim for reelection too-often tend toward the safe route, the expedient reaction, the political reply and the distasteful pandering.

That’s why I found myself nodding this morning when I read our front-page story by Emilie Rusch, which outlines the RC Chamber’s argument for three-year terms for aldermen and four-year terms for mayor.

That makes so much sense, I can’t imagine why we haven’t done it already.

By Kevin Woster

Sen. John Thune has about $5.5 million.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin  has about $226,000.

That’s the latest count in the money-matters game being played by  the two South Dakota incumbents and their 2010 reelection campaigns.

Thune’s sitting pretty, from a financial standpoint. Especially since the Senate challengers on the Democratic side  haven’t raised a dollar.

It’s not just that the Dems are far behind in fund-raising. They don’t exist. Not yet.

Herseth Sandlin has three candidates lining up on the GOP side for a chance at her in the general next year. And still she professes little interest in the campaign.

Her fund-raising total seems to show it.

Of course, a quarter of a million is nothing to sneeze at, especially in a South Dakota House race. But money matters there, too, and the 2010 campaign is likely to cost Herseth Sandlin more than the last two.

GOP candidate Blake Curd could probably raise a quarter million from his own bank account with one swipe of a pen - provided that his wife agrees and  people at the bank can decipher a doc’s signature.

That’s not to say I think Curd is the GOP front-runner. I don’t. To me, SOS Chris Nelson walks into the primary race in that role.  He’s a familiar face and a well-liked insider who has performed well in the SOS office and played his GOP cards astutely over the years.

But Curd’s an intriguing candidate. He’s sharp and articulate and tied into the tea-party bunch, a somewhat-fringe political minority that brings an energy level and publicity punch that likely exceeds its numbers, especialy in South Dakota. The national Republican folks seem to like Curd a lot,  in part because of that whole personal checkbook thing.

Either way and either one, the GOP brain trust thinks it’s  got a couple (now offense to third GOP candidate Thad Wasson) of solid candidates for the 2010 House challenge.

And the money? Thune’s got plenty. Herseth? Not so much, at least not by todays congressional campaign standards.

But she took in more than $120,000 in the last quarter. And I’m guessing she can raise a lot more when she gets more serious about the campaign.

And this year, that’s likely to be sooner in the process than it was in 2006 and 2008.