While criticizing absent Republicans, Democrats should look for their own candidates
Attendees carry signs during a protest against President Donald Trump on April 5, 2025, in Sioux Falls. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)
As the editor of the daily newspaper in Pierre, I operated under the rule that editors should edit and reporters should write. This was back in the day when newspapers still had staffs. I had three reporters and they kept me busy at my desk, so it was rare that I would write a news story.
I can't remember the exact circumstances but for some reason, one day during Bill Janklow's second tenure as governor, I was filling in for a reporter at the Capitol and happened to ask a prominent Democrat why his party had such a hard time getting enough candidates for legislative offices. He blamed Janklow, a Republican.
It was impossible to get candidates to run for office, the Democrat said, because they didn't want to come to Pierre to be bullied by Janklow.
In the next century, as a freelance writer, I was once again in Pierre, this time to cover the impeachment proceedings for Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg. During a break in the action, I asked another legislative Democrat why his party failed to field enough candidates for office. He either didn't understand the question or didn't want to answer it. He gave a rambling discourse about overcoming the long distances it took to get Native Americans to polling places and how voters had a tough time distinguishing between the values of South Dakota Democrats and the values of those raging liberals in Washington, D.C.
South Dakota Democrats announce town hall meetings as frustration grows, even among some Republicans
In the most recent election, I used some of this space to praise the state Democratic Party for its efforts to find more legislative candidates than usual. This was a hollow effort, as it turned out that some of the candidates were just ballot placeholders waiting for real candidates to come along, or they simply lost interest. In any case, some of them dropped off the ballot. Democrats, as they traditionally do in this state, ceded majorities in the House and Senate before a single vote was cast in the 2024 election.
After the 2024 election, the future didn't seem bright for Democrats in South Dakota. They had just three of 35 seats in the Senate and six of 70 seats in the House. They don't hold any of the statewide elected offices. But now, in the spring of 2025, they have been gifted with a first-rate recruiting tool and his name is Donald J. Trump.
During the first months of his second term, Trump and his buddy Elon Musk have done their best to push the federal government into disarray. They've fired thousands of federal workers, shuttered federal offices, disrupted services to taxpayers and cut congressionally approved funding. Even usually staid South Dakotans have taken to the streets in protest.
Now the state's Democratic Party wants part of the action, promising a series of town hall meetings. These will be held in protest of the state's Republican congressional delegation's decision to follow the advice of their party leaders and stay away from the public that they serve. It seems that discretion is not only the better part of valor, it's also a way to avoid screaming protesters upset about the future of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal grant cuts and any number of other Trump/Musk shenanigans that have made it look like the country is run by Keystone Kops.
Of course people will be at these Democratic town halls to vent and organizers should let them. But they would do well to quietly take some names. Not necessarily the names of the people who complain the loudest or are the most emotional. It would be best to be on the lookout for those who are well-spoken. Perhaps even get the names of some disenchanted Republicans.
It will be easy for Democrats to appear as the party of reason at these town halls. It should also be easy for them to use these meetings to recruit a roster of candidates to run for office as Democrats.
The town halls are organized to ask where the state's Republican congressional delegation has been hiding. If South Dakota Democrats turn in the same woeful effort at candidate recruitment in the next election, it wouldn't be a bad idea to organize similar town halls to find out where their party has been hiding all these years.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
15 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Sen. Padilla's removal from Noem event indicative of Trump's cynical policies
The slam down, handcuffing and forceful removal of Sen. Alex Padilla from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference on Thursday flows from the violence and unrest caused by President Donald Trump's policies to go after the undocumented immigrants where they work, shop and go to school. Immigrants are not criminals but hard-working people (often in jobs others would not consider) who pay taxes and contribute significantly to our economy. They have been allowed to stay in the United States, often for generations, because they are needed Both political parties have failed to pass legislation that would deal with immigration in an efficient and humane way. The most recent attempt, before the presidential election, would have passed but for the opposition of candidate Trump, who cynically sought to exploit the issue. I fear he is now exploiting the unrest he is causing to use it as a means to declare martial law and gain absolute power. Tom Miller, Oakland Deport the worst I am somewhat appalled by the media describing the disruptions in Los Angeles as mostly peaceful demonstrations protected by free speech, accompanied by pictures of burning cars, looting and attacks on police. If these people want to peacefully join our society, why are some of them waving Mexican and, in a few cases, BLM flags? If they intend to intimidate me, they should return to their own country, self-identified by the flag they are waving. Most of our forebears came here legally and peacefully, including, in my case, some from Mexico. I would be happy with a system that screens potential citizens, and excludes those who want to commit crimes or intimidate those around them. I approve of President Donald Trump's stated goal of deporting the worst first. We need to get rid of those who commit crimes. I would be happy to see new citizens, but not the thugs who intimidate us through their demonstrations. Peter Behr, San Anselmo Newsom is right Regarding 'Trump vs. Newsom an ugly skirmish that benefits both politicians' (Politics, June 10): The story suggests that President Donald Trump's search for dictatorial powers through intimidation, fear and escalating violence, and Gov Gavin Newsom calling this out is simply a tit-for-tat play for the attention of an uninformed public. It is becoming more obvious that Trump is trying to tear down the guardrails of civil society, trash the Constitution and eliminate all opposition. If Gov. Newsom did not express his strong, powerful and articulate opposition to this despicable behavior, he would not be doing his job. The Chronicle must not be afraid to illuminate the fact that Trump is a mortal danger to our democratic way of life. Kanda Alahan, Concord
Buzz Feed
17 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
18 People Reacted To Trump Possibly Pardoning Diddy
As you probably know by now, Sean 'Diddy' Combs was indicted in 2024 on federal charges including sex trafficking and racketeering. Recently, HuffPost and BuzzFeed wrote about how Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked the president if he would consider pardoning Diddy. Trump told Doocy, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, that relationship busted up, from what I read." "I don't know, he didn't tell me that. But I'd read some … nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden." Trump, who once ran in the same wealthy social circles as Diddy, continued, "You know, it's different. You become a much different person when you run for politics, and you do what's right. I could do other things, and I'm sure he'd like me, and I'm sure other people would like me, but it wouldn't be as good for our country." In other words, Trump didn't give a definitive answer on whether he would pardon Diddy. People in the comments had a lot to say on the topic. Here are some of the best replies: "If Diddy is found guilty, he should not be pardoned. Stop pardoning people who were found or plead guilty." —cole Melton "When considering whether to pardon someone, Trump couldn't care less about whether a person is guilty. As long as the person has some kind words for Trump and/or helped Trump get even richer, the person has a good chance of getting a pardon." "Ask Trump voters if they voted for this corruption of the pardon system."—Carl Hayman "The fact that Trump commented on pardoning Diddy during an active, ongoing trial…I am just speechless. It completely undermines the entire justice system." "Always follow the money. Trump is using the power to pardon as an ATM. He only cares about the next money making opportunity, not law and order, justice, the Constitution, or keeping the guilty in jail. And most assuredly not you and me." —d icard "Even MAGA people on Fox and Breitbart are exploding over this. They hate this idea. Democrats need to keep the topic of Trump possibly pardoning Diddy front and center. Talk about it whenever they can. Keep it in the headlines." —TACO Trump "He says, 'I would certainly look at the facts.' And then what? Ignore them like he did with the results of the 2020 election? It used to be that if you wanted to win a high political office, you had to have character. Now all it takes (at least if you're a Republican) is to be a character." —Carl Olson "'You are the company you keep' has never been more true than as it relates to these two." "There is no justice system if anyone can simply prove love to their president and get a pardon." —Cory Crete"Pardons are now for sale."—James Gettings "Well, being liked is obviously the most important factor in any pardon." —Les Vogt "This isn't just grotesque; it's the rot made visible. Trump floating a pardon for a man indicted for sex trafficking, while reminiscing about party invitations and wounded egos, is less a statement of justice than a confession of moral bankruptcy. It's not about innocence or guilt — it's about whether someone 'used to really like' him." "In Trump's world, the law isn't sacred; it's a velvet rope outside a nightclub, waved aside with the casual shrug of a man picking names from a guest list."—Miles West "If our Republic is still standing in a few years, a different Congress must amend the Constitution to limit presidential pardons." "No more presidential pardons. I would let them commute death sentences, but nothing more. Enough of this abuse. These people had their day in court and have had chances to appeal. I don't trust anyone with that power anymore. Get rid of it." —Charles James "It's so weird (but so typical) that Trump has to tell everyone that Diddy 'used to like me a lot,' as if that's the most relevant thing about the issue. What a terrible thing it must be to live a life actually believing inside that you're incapable of being loved. That's the overriding reality that has made Trump who he is — an immensely insecure, flawed man." —David Hardy "'When you're president you do what's right.' I can't believe he said that because he certainly doesn't abide by that whatsoever." —Jenny Tayla "Whenever he talks about anyone — and I mean anyone — he always comments on if that person likes him or not. Narcissistic dictator." "I pray that Trump does not pardon Diddy. He's just as bad as Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly." —smileyzombie492 "Trump is sans empathy. He is a woman-hating dumpster fire." —jamesnylan And finally, "At least he didn't say he would. I was relieved to not read even that. The bar is low. 😭" The article people commented on originally appeared on HuffPost.
Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump has a plan to remake the housing-finance system. It's baffling to many lawmakers and experts.
GOP lawmakers and the mortgage industry are raising questions about the Trump administration's plans to maintain government control over much of the nation's housing finance system, defying expectations that it would back off. President Donald Trump surprised the industry late last month by pledging to take public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that stand behind half the $16 trillion residential mortgage market — while preserving an implicit federal guarantee for their solvency. His top housing regulator, Bill Pulte, who oversees the companies, added to the confusion by saying the administration is exploring ways to sell shares while keeping the companies under government authority. The insistence on preserving significant sway over the two mortgage giants, which were seized by the Bush administration during the financial crisis and placed in conservatorship, is setting up a potential rift with Republicans — and possibly even some administration aides who have long worked to reduce the government's footprint in the housing market. 'I want to get them out of conservatorship,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie. 'But I want to be very careful about how we do it, because we need the secondary market, and we need it to work,' he added, referring to the market where mortgage loans are purchased and sold to investors. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said 'we need to continue to investigate recapitalization and releasing' the companies from government control. The question of what to do with Fannie and Freddie has bedeviled policymakers for decades, with Republicans wanting the government to take its hands off housing finance and Democrats fearing that privatizing the firms would destabilize the market and push up mortgage rates. At stake is a potential windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars for an administration that is staring at massive fiscal deficits. The government holds a roughly $340 billion liquidation preference for the two companies, by one estimate — meaning the money would go to the Treasury Department before anyone else in the event of a sale. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, will meet with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins on June 17 to discuss the future of Fannie and Freddie, underscoring the importance of the issue. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but rather purchase them from mortgage companies and bundle them into securities to sell on the secondary market, freeing up the lenders to make more loans. That, plus the government guarantee, helps keep mortgage rates down, supporters say. Trump was widely expected to support privatization, after his first administration worked to prepare the companies for their eventual release. But his latest comments look more like what former President Joe Biden would do, according to Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser in the Obama White House. 'In the Biden administration, you could imagine a version of this,' Parrott said. 'The fact that we're hearing about it in this administration, I think, is catching folks by surprise.' The FHFA responded in an email that it is 'studying how, if the President elects to take Fannie and Freddie public, it can be done in the safest and soundest manner which includes keeping them in conservatorship.' It added: 'In any scenario, we will ensure the [mortgage-backed securities] market is safe and sound and that there is no upward pressure on rates.' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said the administration 'is committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency to advance the President's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' Keeping Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, according to one shareholder, amounts to attaching 'training wheels' as the government figures out how to monetize its stake. 'I think Pulte has probably confused people more than anything with his message,' said Tim Pagliara, a shareholder and author of the book 'Another Big Lie: How the Government Stole Billions from the American Dream of Home Ownership and Got Caught!' 'So the idea, for example, of allowing these entities to operate in conservatorship is a strategy that they probably talked about with the investment bankers on their primary concern, which is mortgage rates going up,' he added. 'It's like putting training wheels on a bike.' The administration's pronouncements have perplexed housing finance analysts who are unsure of what a scheme to take the companies public while keeping them in conservatorship would look like — or whether there would be sufficient investor appetite to make it worthwhile. JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note that they were 'flummoxed' by the comments. 'It's just hard to imagine why anybody would think there would be strong investor interest in that kind of model, unless the government were to convey they were going to run the [government-sponsored enterprises] in a way that's investor-friendly, and I think we're a long way off from that,' Parrott said. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, a stakeholders' group, agreed. 'The most important element of a successful stock sale is a board that is truly independent and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders,' he said. 'Under conservatorship, that is actually not even allowed. So, without an independent board with a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, there is no value to the stock.' Still, he said, 'there are far too many comments coming from major players, including the president of the United States, to avoid the conclusion that major action on conservatorship could be in the very near future.' Another housing finance analyst, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the nascent plans, also expressed skepticism about the idea that investors would bite on purchasing shares in conservatorship, with the federal government still owning the vast majority of the asset. 'The direction of that control can change at the next election,' the analyst said. 'Each administration has already demonstrated they want to use Fannie and Freddie in different ways, so what are you investing in?' For the most part, Republican lawmakers are keeping their powder dry as they wait for additional details about the administration's plans. '[Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Tim] Scott looks forward to hearing more' from Trump and Pulte on their plans for Fannie and Freddie, spokesperson Ben Watson said. Asked if conservatorship should end, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, said, 'I don't know.' 'We're going to wait until the first quarter of 2026 to have that conversation,' said Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), chair of the Financial Services housing subcommittee. 'Releasing them from conservatorship, that's one thing, but most of the folks I talked to still want the federal government on the hook.' The first Trump administration worked to build capital at the companies to prepare them for the end of conservatorship, an effort led by then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria. Calabria has returned for Trump 2.0, now in a position with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Two key Treasury officials — Jonathan McKernan and Luke Pettit — also hail from the school of thought that Fannie and Freddie should be released from conservatorship. 'The Treasury Department has not really engaged on this yet — so it does not appear to me that the administration is very far into the analysis of options phase,' Parrott said. 'Until the Treasury Department really engages in any of this meaningfully, it's hard to know where all this lands.'
