I agree with Republican blogger John Tsitrian on a lot of issues. But he appears to have read the Rapid City Journal‘s Monday profile of Paula Hawks a bit too sensitively. Where Tsitrian reads off-putting partisan chest-thumping, I read a new candidate for Congress saying pretty typical things to mobilize her Democratic base.
Seth Tupper’s profile opens with this tale of maturing from a Republican into a Democrat:
When Hawks turned 18 and went to register, a county official had already checked the Republican box after seeing that both of Hawks’ parents were Republicans.“At the time, I was 18 years old and I was like, ‘OK, well, sure,’” Hawks said in a recent phone interview with the Journal. “And then as I got into college and I started thinking about really what that meant, and what kind of message that sent about me, I changed that for myself” [Seth Tupper, “Five Questions with Democratic U.S. House Candidate Paula Hawks,” Rapid City Journal, 2015.08.17].
Reading far too deeply, Tsitrian calls that story “gratuitously defensive“:
It makes her metamorphosis sound like an act of post-adolescent defiance. Most parents probably welcome the emergence of strong identities in their children, but being told that their political party affiliations send a message that their offspring shun is kind of cold [John Tsitrian, “Memo to Paula Hawks: Lose the Partisan Chest-Thumping. You Need Us Republicans,” The Constant Commoner, 2015.08.17].
Ease up, John. Hawks isn’t coldly dismissing her parents. She’s talking about a thoughtful evolution in political identity, not knee-jerk teenage petulance. South Dakota could stand a few more voters thinking through their values and their voter registration. Perhaps Hawks, a teacher familiar with Socratic questioning, will lead voters in just such a self-evaluation.
Tsitrian frets that Tupper’s profile suggests a “message-less campaign, more focused on Paula than the issues.” Tupper’s five questions focused more on Hawks than on message. Hawks followed along, recognizing the need for “get to know me” profiles as the first step to getting people’s attention for serious policy discussion. Hawks stayed consistent with the message she’s building for her two-week-old campaign, talking about the broad acceptance of progressive values (mentioned in her video interview with Dakota Free Press Saturday) and her concern about student debt, women’s workplace equality, and senior drug prices (again, consistent with Saturday’s talk).
Tsitrian chastises Hawks for mentioning (in a separate article online) that Noem has a 97% attendance rate in Congress. I’ll agree, that number doesn’t immediately feel like the kind of shocking stat that dethrones the Snow Queen. I’ll go further than Tsitrian and ding Hawks for bringing the issue up in hesitant fashion:
“Um, you know, I think that she …” Hawks said before falling silent a moment. “I kind of hesitate to speak to that just yet.”
After a few more silent moments, she rallied [Seth Tupper, “Hawks Critiques Noem’s House Attendance Record,” Rapid City Journal, 2015.08.17].
What? Hesitance? Silence? Not in front of the press! If you hesitate to go for the attack, then the attack isn’t ready. Save it for the next interview.
But Hawks makes this minor sally, and Tsitrian misses that she gets Team Noem to commit a minor error:
A tally of Noem’s voting record on the website GovTrack.us shows that through July she had missed 110 roll call votes, or 3.3 percent, of the 3,298 roll call votes taken since she became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011. The median career rate among her House colleagues is 2.2 percent.
The Journal sought a response from Noem but was directed to her campaign consultant, Justin Brasell, who spoke Friday to the Journal by phone.
“That’s just not true,” he said of Hawks’ characterization. “She’ll be in the lower tier of any measurement of missed votes.”
When informed of the GovTrack.us numbers, Brasell declined further comment until he could examine the campaign’s own numbers [Tupper, “Hawks Critiques…,” 2015.08.17].
Noem misses more votes than the majority of her colleagues. It’s a small fact, but a fact nonetheless that pushes her mouthpieces to make excuses.
Tsitrian sounds dubious about Hawks’s fundraising ability, saying Hawks doesn’t tell Tupper enough about how she’ll meet the “daunting challenge” of “going up against the political equivalent of Fort Knox.” Hawks’s campaign roadmap of “getting out and meeting folks and making sure they can put a face to the name” may not sound like much, but do candidates need to tell us their strategy? The next time any reporter asks how she’s campaigning, Hawks should just say, “Raising money and raising heck!”
Tsitrian says the only way Hawks can win is by “coercing a lot of Republicans to support her.” If it’s coercion, then it’s not going to be gentle, is it? But first things first: the Democrat in the House race needs first to rally the Democrats, the folks who will donate and volunteer. Then she can work on the Independents with her talk about shared progressive values. Those two groups alone can give a Democrat a majority. But then with Democrats fully funding and working the campaign and Indies buzzing, Democrat Hawks can work on peeling away Republicans with reminders of Noem’s failure to perform. She’ll never win the partisans who just want a pretty face to raise money and keep the seat (that’s our entire delegation), but Hawks can play to the Republicans who believe in Congresspeople getting things done.
Don’t let Tsitrian get you down, candidate Hawks. And don’t sweat the small fraction of the time that Rep. Noem doesn’t show up for work. Remind Tsitrian of the awfulness that ensues when Rep. Noem does show up. Remind Republicans of Noem’s non-performance, sprinkle in your own positive agenda, and Republicans like Tsitrian won’t need to be coerced into voting for a real Representative.
p.s.: Hawks tells Tupper she can get her message across “without being too wordy, without being too aggressive, without being too philosophical about it.” For the record, Paula, you’ll have a tough time being too aggressive or too philosophical for me. I respect your caution; just don’t draw the boundaries of campaign aggression and philosophy too cautiously.
I have indeed fallen for that fetching smile, Cory. Now I want to see if those gorgeous teeth can bite.
How does one get less messageless than SoDak’s representative,Noem?
Tsitrian is at times quite helpful and here puts his finger on the huge issue of how to get young voters to stop the robot-mimic of their republican parents, like tupper i speculate.
PAULA, PAULA, PAULA!!! kristie’s gonna need a hellava staff to beat her!
a 5 minute youtube captured noem embarrassingly grilling IRS in committee 6 months ago-ON NOEM’S OWN TWITTER. way over her head. slow leaner. just having fun on the great wall.
Go Paula!
“coercing a lot of Republicans to support her.”
Mr. Tsitrian, I find the use of that word, “coercing”, rather prejudicial. I believe coercion is commonly seen as a negative, perhaps including dishonesty and inauthenticity. When I hear ‘coercion’ I think of televangelists.
By your standard, every politician coerces voters to vote for her. I think “convincing” is just as accurate and more honest.
Duly noted and revised, Deb. “Coercing” has become “persuading.”
Thank you John. Good vocabulary choice.
Paula’s answer to the question of what distinguished her from Noem left me cold. Talk about missing a home run to a soft ball question. Instead, Paula could have focused on some of the stupid anti-SD votes Noem has made. Answering that she was different from Noem because Paula would have voted differently on specific proposed legislation would have been a much more meaningful and effective focus on actual policy, rather than mere feel good language that really tells the reader nothing at all.
Or perhaps Paula could have pointed out that Noem has sponsored 35 bills in the house between 2011 and mid-2015, with 25 killed out right in the House, 2 killed in the Senate, and 1 enacted into law (The Black Hills Cemetery Act). Eight of her bills are pending, with 1 having a 15% chance of passing, 1 with a 6% chance, 2 with a 3% chance, 2 with a 1% chance, and 2 with 0% chance.
Perhaps Paula could have argued that, in contrast to Noem, Paula would focus on sponsoring legislation that benefits South Dakotans and would actually have a reasonable chance of being enacted into law, rather than waste time and resources on legislation that will go nowhere.
Source for Noem’s sponsored bills:
I would guess that the RC Journal gives nearly every candidate a soft-ball introductory interview. I was neither greatly impressed with Hawk’s response nor significantly irritated. I don’t think an interview like this actually provides much that warrants significant investigation or comment. She did OK and that is about all that can be expected in an initial interview like this.
The real test will be whether she can come forward with enough good ideas to keep her name in the press and provide a serious contrast to vaporous Noem.
For some inexplicable reason my link has been removed. Sorry about that. Try googling “Kristi Noem – GovTrack.us.”
BCB, I don’t know what happened to that link! Is this what you wanted to share:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412475
BCB, I agree that Paula should press the “how I’m not like Kristi” line much harder and more bluntly, along exactly the lines you prescribe. I know advisors will recommend being positive and letting others play the attack dog, but I say nuts to that. Just like Paula exhorts us to embrace the Democratic brand, I say we need candidates who will embrace their role in speaking truth to misused power and explaining not just their own positive agenda but why our current Republican leaders are not doing the job we need.
And on those bills, BCB, what is the Congressional average of percentage of sponsored bills enacted?
“gorgeous teeth that bite”—hmmm… do John Tsitrian and I want the same thing after all?
Indeed we do, Cory. Indeed we do.
Thanks Cory, that is the link that documents what my comment says. As for “what is the Congressional average of percentage of sponsored bills enacted?,” I am not yet sure of the answer, yet it would seem that Noem really does not seem to be earning her salary if she simply sponsors bills that have no or very little chance of passing.
Next I would like to look at Noem’s yes and no votes on legislation that she did not sponsor. I will speculate that there are many (if not most) bills where her vote echos the anti-people conservative agenda. I would like to see Paula identify some of those bills and state a position contrary to Noem and explain why, in contrast to Noem, Paula’s view would actually benefit South Dakotans.
Also, I do not think it is negative campaigning to identify actual policy differences between Paula and Noem based on actual bills voted on in the House. South Dakotans may not arguably be the brightest candles in the candelabra, but they are certainly capable of understanding clear and honest explanations of policy proposals. If properly informed about the effect of such legislative issues, I suspect they will support policies that benefit South Dakotans and their families.
BCB is doing what needs to be done and broadcast loudly and persistently, which is to examine the actual legislative records and activities of both Noem and Thune. That may have a negative effect, but it is not the kind of falsehoods and character assassination that the GOP has made the main part of its campaign efforts. This is something the party should do, not just sit around and tell party officers and candidates what defective idiots they are for not doing it. Paula Hawks has an exceptionally strong background–especially compared to Noem’s, and a mind and a presence that makes her a candidate with tremendous potential. But Democrats seem to prefer to look for petty things to pick on and piddle away rather than support her in developing an effective campaign.
Not a word about Obamacare. That is a shame as you will find a lot of support for that. How about the Keystone XL? Here is a politico in Canada that hung his hat on the tar sands much like NOem and Tehran John. Time to hang them with it. http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082015/woe-canada-oil-sands-slump-economic-and-political-stephen-harper
There are so many many things that Hawks could do if she just opens up and shows that those pearly’ s can bite indeed.
Jerry, in her talk with me at the Brown County Fair, Hawks spoke favorably of the ACA and said we should use it as a vehicle to lower drug prices for seniors.
Yes, that is true, but not a full throated response to the greatest achievement in decades for the country and in particular, Democrats. Without that kind of supports, we will continue to see the state of South Dakota ignore the plight of the working poor while continuing to deny Medicaid Expansion. Keep in mind that NOem voted 50 some times to eliminate Obamacare to the tune of some million bucks a vote. We need to know the difference between Hawks and NOem continually. Hawks is concerned about the condition of her fellow South Dakotan’s while NOem could care less. Hawks should let everyone know that in no uncertain ways.
Hawks should also stand up with the Natives, and with farmers and ranchers that will be displaced by the Keystone XL. She has the soapbox to stand upon to make us all aware of the climate situation along with the fact that this black snake will traverse our water systems that we all depend upon. It rains here now, but that can change very suddenly.
Mother Jones indicates through studies, that there is indeed a big difference between Democrats and Republicans in the brain. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/brain-difference-democrats-republicans
Hawks needs to scare the bejesus out of the republicans by showing the truth. The truth is that NOem and company will destroy their Medicare and steal their Social Security. She needs to hammer that home and as she does so, show the living proof of their scheme.
Ms. Hawks could go to this to see her wish for lower drug pricing due to the ACA regarding Wal-Mart. Kind of cool http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2015/08/18/wal-mart-margins-hurt-by-affordable-care-act/
“The drop-off in cash transactions was likely due to more Wal-Mart customers being insured on the back of the Affordable Care Act, Muken said. That hurts margins because managed plans can negotiate lower prices than an individual who pays cash,” says this Reuter’s report following the same topic as Jerry’s WSJ link. My goodness—Hawks has some empirical justification for her policy suggestion!