Studying Stephanie

Dave Kranz speaks about our congresswoman at length in his column today. Although, he doesn't put her in a cheerleader outfit like Blind Orange Julius does when she's featured on his website. Here's the thing that caught my eye on the whole discussion:
In recent days, two other names have surfaced. House Speaker Matt Michels of Yankton and Bob Sutton, head of the South Dakota Community Foundation, are taking a look at challenging Herseth.

"I am receiving quite a bit of encouragement to consider it, and I wouldn't close the door on it," Michels said. "I am very flattered by the people asking me to look at it. It is a decision of the heart."

Read the whole article on Congresswoman Herseth here (or go buy an Argus).

Wasn't Dave also referring to Representative Michels and Bob Sutton as possible contenders for Governor recently? Next thing you know, he's going to be noting them as contenders for Senate in 2008. And then for Mayor of Sioux Falls. Who cares that they don't even live there...

Okay, I'm teasing. They both get mentioned for good reason. Seriously, either one would make for an interesting race against our congresswoman. Representative Michels is smart, very personable, and he has a visible leadership position in the State House. That's earned him lots of face time with the South Dakota media.

While he hasn't run for anything as of yet, Bob Sutton is networked with serious money through his work at the South Dakota Community Foundation - and more to his advantage - he doesn't have a voting record to contradict any public pronouncements he might make during the campaign.

The only thing either one would need is a network of people to help put up the signs, walk the communities, etc. Neither one is going to easily tap another candidate for that next year given the number of statewide races. But if it looks like a candidate has momentum, those people will come.

If I was going to point those two in advantageous (and non-conflicting) directions, I'd tell Representative Michels to wait for 'the big chair' in 2010 - we're more apt to go for someone with legislative experience (Rounds, Mickelson, Kneip, Boe) for that seat. And Bob should make a run for Stephanie in 2006 - in federal races, we tend to like more fresh faces (Daschle, Herseth, Thune, Pressler) who aren't hobbled with voting records during their first run.

Sure, there are exceptions to those views, but I think my advice bears out.

Comments

Unknown said…
How smart can Michels be? How "personable" can it be to advocate putting people in jail for trying to alleviate their adverse medical conditions?

'Course, Stephanie is in the same camp.
Anonymous said…
Bob: Can't you see how far out on the finge you are? Even Democrats can see the harms of drug use!

Good insight! If Michaels has a liberal voting record, like most of the Pierreified republicans, why would conservatives even care about trying to topple Stephanie?

And, wasn't Bob Sutton a democrat? Quite interesting how personal ambition is more important than principles.
Anonymous said…
Those who fought against separate-but-equal in public education were once "out on the fringe." Those who believed that the Earth was not at the center of the solar system were once "out on the fringe." Those who ________ were once out on the fringe. You can fill in the blank with any number of items.

Those who believed taxation without representation was unfair were once out on the fringe. This nation was founded by men who were out on the fringe.

Besides, medical marijuana isn't that novel of an idea. There's 2000+ years of history behind it. Fully 1/5 of the United States have legalized it. SD can (for once) be on the cutting edge, or (like always) be behind the times. It will be up to the voters.

The smart money is, admittedly, on the latter.
PP said…
How did this become a MM discussion from a look at who is running against Herseth?
Anonymous said…
PP,

I think I know why. Look at anonymous: His/her comment in reply to Bob's initial comment is so like any elected official on the mm issue.

They don't want to discuss it. They feel it will 'hurt' them politically because they're "out on the fringe."

Anonymous says "Even Democrats can see the harms of drug use!" What?!?! What does medical marijuana and Democrats and 'harms of drugs' have in common?
More partisian crap, that's what.
Anonymous said…
PP, would you rather us not discuss this here? Are some comments appropriate while others are not? If so, who is the judge? You?

Not trying to be sarcastic, just asking.
PP said…
I don't care if you all hash it out here. If I didn't like it, I'd use the delete button as a draconian measure.
Anonymous said…
"Hash" it out? Did PP just come out in support of the cause?
PP said…
I sense the delete button coming into play....
Anonymous said…
Your response to my post made me laugh. I'm not sure if you were joking, but I definitely was. The underlying tone of one's message is often difficult to interpret through this medium.

I'll wait until you go to bed to put something up there truly deserving of the delete button...
PP said…
Yes, I was joking.

(And for the record, no, I'm not joining the cause).

;)
Anonymous said…
Wow, the druggers really came out of the woodwork. They want to change the world for the worse. Too bad they have killed-off all of their brain cells!
Anonymous said…
Anon,

The "druggers" out of the woodwork?

Your choice of language and ignorance is incredible. Not to mention that fact you don't put your name to your words.

The opponents of medical marijuana frequently chose to use name-calling and irrelevant data to support the notion that marijuana has no medical value.

In the end, Anon, it's you who has lost your brain cells.
Anonymous said…
I don't know if others are as turned off by blatant ambition as I am, but I wasn't impressed by Bob Sutton's future plans... http://www.usd.edu/admissions/LifeAftertheU/bobsutton.cfm

Everyone knows a kid like that, and no one ever likes him...

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.