South Dakota Has One Vote In U.S. House: Nation Sighs in Relief

by: Alan Malavolti

Sioux Falls, SD- Anyone who watched the five South Dakota Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives debate on KSFY television realizes the United States truly is a nation of many blessings. To America’s great fortune, South Dakota can only send one of them to the hallowed halls of Congress. What began as a debate quickly turned into this year’s most hilarious sitcom. With phrases like, "if its good enough for chickens (to eat); its good enough for people," the debate made up for its lack of substance by providing an abundance of comedy. If anyone can claim victory, it would be the moderator, for being able to remain standing while the rest of South Dakota rolled on the floor in fits of mirth.

Former Ambassador Bert Tollefson was the first to speak, or more appropriately yell, at the audience. Unsuccessfully running for elected office has made Tollefson a staple of South Dakota politics. One pundit jokingly remarked, "Wasn’t he an Ambassador during the Lincoln Administration? He has himself cryogenically frozen, thawing out only during election years." In fairness to Tollefson, he was an Ambassador during the Eisenhower Administration. The hostility of his frequent tirades, particularly toward those "buro-crats" in Washington, keeps him warm through the coldest South Dakota winter, let alone in a cryogenic freezer.

Anyone who has had the misfortune of being subjected to an old man, who is not senile but just experimenting with the concept for future use, can guess Tollefson’s debating style. In my own misguided and ignorant youth, I errantly asked an older gentleman a question about fishing regulations. "Fishing regulations," he screamed, "let me tell you about fishing regulations." Except for his first sentence, fishing regulations were never mentioned, although I did receive a day-by-day history lesson, beginning with the Paleozoic era. During the first lull in the conversation, somewhere between two hours and an eternity later, I finally was able to ask, "Well, yes, but what about the fishing regulations?" The old man looked at me inquisitively, "Fishing regulations? What do you want to know about fishing regulations? Let me tell you about fishing regulations…." As I said, I was young and foolish.

Tollefson attempted to respond to the moderator’s questions using this technique. Fortunately for the viewing audience, the time constraints limited our exposure to the age enhancing effects caused by asking an old man a question. When asked how he would protect Social Security, Tollefson shook his fist in the air, "Social Security! Those buro-crats in Washington…." The diatribe that followed caused many to wonder if the cryogenic technicians had failed to say his candidacy had been revived in the year 2002. His answer, for lack of a better word, included a reference to Senator Kennedy’s "exploits" at Chappaquiddick in 1969, as if this were a recent scandal. I, for one, am anxious for the 2004 Presidential elections, to learn how Tollefson plans to resolve the crisis of American hostages being held in Iran.

When the debate turned its attention to the problem of prescription medications for senior citizens, some thought Tollefson, a senior among senior citizens, might have an issue he could discuss. Shaking his fist in the air, "Those buro-crats in Washington," quickly dismissing the idea that he, for the first time in his history, has an agenda or even an issue to base his candidacy. He went on to express his support for lowering the cost of drugs, "the legal kind."

Fortunately for South Dakota, and the nation, Tollefson’s support stands at 0% in the latest polls. Looking on the positive side, his performance during the debate should not hurt him much in the next poll. Always good for a laugh, it will be sad to see Tollefson’s bid for the U.S. House of Representatives come to an end with the June 4 primary. With the ongoing fight against terrorism, the problems in Israel, and the uncertain economy, America really could use the comedic styling of Bert Tollefson. Maybe South Dakota should use its one vote in the House to raise the spirits of the country!

Even with the demise of Tollefson’s candidacy, South Dakota still has an opportunity to entertain the nation. Whether it is a major forest fire in the Black Hills or a couple of unruly guys drinking beer at a barbeque, Governor William J. Janklow has an innate ability to appear at the scene of any disaster, usually to compound the problem. In all probability, this innate ability brought him to the debate, more than his own candidacy for the House. With Janklow enjoying a commanding lead in the latest polls, it is entirely possible South Dakota will sacrifice its one vote to give America a reason to smile, repeatedly.

Several weeks ago, Janklow was criticized for saying he wanted to "work together," for the betterment of South Dakota. Generally, such a statement is well received from a politician. In Janklow’s case, too many South Dakotans know the truth: there is the right way, the wrong way, and the Janklow way of accomplishing anything. Teamwork and togetherness are hardly defining characteristics of Governor Janklow. Individualistic, overbearing, and aggressive seem more accurate.

Janklow arrived at the debate with his more acceptable campaign slogan, "I will fight for South Dakota." To demonstrate this, Janklow adopted the unusual debating technique of yelling his answers to the camera. Unlike Tollefson, Janklow was able to find the camera and discuss the issue being raised by the moderator. "I’ve been fighting all of my life," he bellowed, going on to provide a litany of his battles, ranging from his service in the Marines to his present job as governor. At the conclusion of his list, South Dakotans have to wonder if there is anyone left for him to fight.

Governor Janklow, as we should expect, appeared extremely knowledgeable on topics directly concerning the state. He demonstrated a keen understanding of the areas that he has been working on as governor. His method of revealing this left much to be desired. As he discussed the policies he has already implemented, he counted on his fingers, not for his benefit, but more for the benefit of the audience. Over the course of several answers, counting one, two, three, it became clear he was talking, or more precisely yelling, down to the viewers, as if we were unable to follow him along three key points. Thankfully the time constraints of the debate forced him to less than ten key points. Taking one’s shoes off to count on your toes, even if it is to aid the audience, is undignified. His lead in the polls, counting on his fingers to help the audience follow his points, and yelling down to the viewers, made Janklow appear smug and overconfident.

Not to be outdone by Tollefson and realizing he had done little to add to the disaster, Janklow apparently decided to interject his own humor. He was highly effective. With his jowls shaking as he pronounced every syllable, pointing an open hand at the camera, Janklow responded to a question concerning the war against terrorism. "Kill them! We need to hunt them down and kill them." He went on to say we should, "place the ones who surrender in POW camps, before we kill them." As for the terrorist leaders, "they should stand trial… then we should shoot a few of them." Where do children get the idea that violence is the solution to their problems?

Speaking between Tollefson and Janklow were Tim Amdahl and Roger Hunt, which proved to be extremely unfortunate for them. Both of these candidates addressed each question, avoided controversial answers, and provided reasonable solutions to the problems facing South Dakota. Their function in the debate was to provide the audience with an interlude from the comedic styling of a grumpy old man and an overbearing, tough talking thug. While we caught our breath, Amdahl and Hunt spoke to an inattentive audience. Their message and any hope of increasing their 3% showing in the last poll were destroyed by the farcical displays of Tollefson and Janklow. Little harm was done, since even if they were able to gain the Republican nomination, neither could defeat the Democratic frontrunners of Stephanie Herseth or Dick Casey in a general election.

Trailing far behind Janklow in the polls is former U.S. Senator and Representative Larry Pressler, the only other viable Republican candidate. Of the five, only Pressler is likely to see an increase in supporters, as some will undoubtedly abandon Janklow. To Pressler’s benefit, not all of Janklow’s talk produced uproars of laughter, much of his yelling and aggression helped to focus our attention on Larry Pressler and what he had to say. Less au courant to state issues than Governor Janklow, for obvious reasons, Pressler spoke eloquently and intelligently on state matters, nonetheless. After what we all hoped was his retirement from politics, Pressler has been teaching at a college. The speaking style of a college professor, instructive without talking down to or yelling his point to the audience, was a refreshing change of pace.

Despite the popularity of his ideas and opinions, Pressler trails Janklow in the polls and will continue to do so. The main emphasis of Pressler’s campaign is the experience he has gained by being a former U.S. Senator and Representative, which will benefit South Dakota if he were elected to return. Pressler has yet to understand his experience is his greatest weakness, rather than a strength. As he calls South Dakota to remember him as a former Senator and Congressman, the voters are likely to remember his final term in office. In the minds of many, Larry Pressler became a part of the Washington establishment, necessary to be an effective legislator, but not something your constituents back home should know. He came to be seen as a person who left South Dakota and forgot about our concerns and needs. His perpetual emphasis of his experience in Washington, to some, is an appeal to South Dakotans to let him return to his friends, rather than a request to let him work for us.

In the race for U.S. House of Representatives, the Republicans field only two viable candidates: Larry Pressler and Governor Janklow. Pressler’s reliance on his past experience, with little emphasis on his future intentions as Congressman is an insurmountable detriment to his campaign. While he has, in the past, done much for South Dakota, he fails to understand the voters only remember your last word, your last act. On this score, Pressler has a poor track record, one not so easily overcome, particularly when he so readily holds it in our faces. This leaves Janklow as the most likely winner of the primary and a strong contender in the general election. Governor Janklow knows this. During the debate he studied his watch, yelled his answers, talked down to the audience, promised to fight everyone but the Bush White House, and made clear his confidence in being our next Representative. Despite his audacious behavior in the media, most recently this debate, he probably will be. It is unfortunate for the Republicans these are the only five choices confronting them on June 4. It is unfortunate for America that South Dakota is so strongly Republican. It is going to take a great deal of work by the more levelheaded Democrat, either Stephanie Herseth or Dick Casey to defeat the weaker and ludicrous Republicans.

Alan Malavolti is a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com who lives in Sioux Falls, SD.