Myopic or myopia - a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

Dr Gonyo at first glance seems to suffer from the above defined affliction which also affects many of our other politicians. But unlike most here in South Dakota whose myopia leans towards the Religious Reich agenda of repressing those that do not conform to their religious views, Dr. Gonyo seems to have a woody for everything immigration.

Here are his goals:

* Read each bill completly before voting.
* Vote “No” on any form of immigrant anmesty.
* Maintenance of a consistantly strong and permanent defense capability & military.
* Constitutional rights of American citizens.
* No federal funds to firms involved in the practice of aiding, or abetting foreign illegal aliens.
* Maintain mutual alliance with Israel, the only true ally of USA in the middle eastern area.
* Federal restrictions on any American currency transfer from within the USA by individuals illegally in the USA.
* Bring to task any entities operating on a tax exempt basis while aiding illegal activities within the USA.
* Investigation of T.I.N. frauds against the American taxpayers with full prosecution against the illegal aliens and the tax people who aid them.
* No federal grants, subsidies etc., no farm subsidies, to firms employing foreign workers or subcontractors employing foreign instead of American citizens.
* Require all federal employees to be bona fide American citizens beginning with ICE and the Southern Border Patrol.

Can you see the pattern forming and maybe more importantly, is immigration reform something that is high on the South Dakota radar to the point that his crusade would useful in getting elected? And finally, what’s with his number 1 goal to “Read each bill completly before voting”? Has that been a problem?

It’s looks to be an interesting primary.

A circuit judge says she might issue her decision within a couple of weeks in a libel lawsuit filed against the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and its executive editor, Randell Beck.

Judge Kathleen Caldwell of Sioux Falls heard arguments this past week during a court hearing and said her written ruling will be handed down “hopefully, within a couple weeks.”

Dan Scott sued the newspaper over a July 15 column written by Beck. Scott, who was president of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation at the time, argues that his reputation was tarnished because many people were fooled by Beck into thinking that a letter of apology Beck wrote in Scott’s name was for real.

The wheels of justice sure turn slowly don’t they? And for those that want to again read the column in question, I have posted it here as it is no longer easily available on the Argus’ web site.

Rounds told Stateline.org that if either of the two parties’ presidential contests are still undecided by June, South Dakotans could come off looking pretty smart.

“If it comes down to the fact that there are actually still competitive races, Republican or Democrat, then for that party they may very well say, ‘See, we were smart in doing so (on June 3),’ ” Rounds said.

Somehow I doubt the travel agents for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are rushing to make travel plans for either candidate to come to South Dakota even considering the fact that the nomination will likely not be locked up before (or after for that matter) our June 3rd contest.

What nonsense. South Dakota Democratic Party money is being used to host a website that criticizes a loyal South Dakota Democrat who has worked for the party for years, who has taken all sorts of public heat for the party, and who has staunchly defended Senator Johnson since before Lowell Feld knew how to say “Pierre” (and who doesn’t get paid for it).

These comments — and Lowell’s tacit approval of them — prove that the state Dems need to reclaim their own blog. Paying someone from Virginia to host a discussion that publicly criticizes a loyal South Dakota Democrat is insulting and counterproductive. Lowell Feld, NotPP, and Barely40Dem can wage all the personal attacks they want on Todd Epp, but not on the Dems’ dime.

Whatever the real purpose, it was reported last month that South Dakota had issued 20 percent fewer tax stamps than they had the year before marking either a smashing success in getting people to quit smoking, or an ever growing trend of people going elsewhere to buy their smokes. Apparently this drop in tax stamps (re:taxes) has the South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation thinking it’s the latter as they have requested and gotten an amendment to SD 10-50-6 added to this years legislative session to address this.

SB8 looks to eek out every nickel possible by adding single packs to the statute (SD 10-50-6) that covers cigarette bootlegging. It currently only covers those caught with over 2000 cigarettes not carrying a SD stamp but if passed would cover as little as one partial pack.

“ Any person who possesses or receives cigarettes that do not bear a tax stamp or imprint indicating the South Dakota cigarette tax has been paid shall pay the tax imposed pursuant to § 10-50-3.“

I can remember back in my Navy days driving through California and the South West and having to stop at checkpoints that looked for foreign fruit. Will we be seeing checkpoints soon at our borders and outside of reservations looking to catch those with out of state cigarettes? Probably not considering Governor Mikey is also looking to gut the Highway Patrol budget but one never knows.

Either way you might want to hide your cigarettes when stopped for other reasons, the tax man cometh and he will find you sooner or later. Those extra nickels and dimes are needed by our “small government” legislators to finance the latest “nanny state” law whatever that might be this time around.

C’mon, now, is this really that difficult to comment on? I mean, if the leader of the state can’t even bring himself to say, “YES, we need a code of ethical conduct for our legislators,” what does that tell you about him?

The fact that anyone actually believes a piece of paper that states that lawmakers should not molest children along with other common sense “rules” is going to accomplish anything or improve their image should be the real question. All it shows me is that common sense is apparently not so common anymore to the point where our legislators think they should re-enforce these rules and that a sicko will be a sicko with or without a code of conduct.

During an interview with the Mitchell Daily Republic, Dykstra’s communications director mentioned what Governor Rounds told Dykstra when asked about his plans for next year.

After Dykstra left our office, I asked his communications director, Sue Salter, for clarification. I wanted to know whether there had been a conversation between Rounds and Dykstra about a possible Rounds for Senate candidacy, and if there had been, what was said.

Salter said there had indeed been a conversation. She wasn’t a party to it, but she said she felt comfortable in paraphrasing the governor. Rounds had apparently been as vague and open-ended with Dykstra as he’s been with everybody else.

“The governor told Joel that he plans to be governor for three more years, so you tell me what that means,” Salter said.

Can’t anyone in South Dakota politics give a straight answer? Rounds’ answer sounds eerily similar to what Senator Johnson’s staff had maintained up until he finally came out and admitted his intentions. Isn’t it amazing how a simple yes or no question can be so difficult?

Leslee Unruh, founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said she could not confirm the source of the new initiative effort or even whether leaders of the state anti-abortion push have decided to pursue an initiated measure rather than developing a new law in the Legislature banning abortion.

Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, one of the state’s notable anti-abortion activists, says legislation or a ballot measure are possibilities.

“Stay tuned,” Hunt said. “I do believe the pro-life interests across the state are looking at both of these routes.”

Here we go again only this time Roger won’t be able to funnel $750K through a shell corporation for this attempt like he did in 2006. Will his big money donors be just as willing to donate when they don’t have the promise of anonymity? Like Roger says, stay tuned.

South Dakota is a trickier question. While national Democratic strategists and operatives close to Sen. Tim Johnson insist that he will seek another term, some Democrats are quietly skeptical. They suggest that when the Senator, who suffered a life-threatening medical emergency in December and returned to the Senate this month, needs to make a decision about the future, he may not choose to seek re-election.

If that were to happen, Republican strategists would place heavy pressure on popular Gov. Mike Rounds to run for an open seat, and while the governor doesn’t seem very interested now, he might find it hard to resist an open seat.

One Democrat familiar with South Dakota politics argues that given Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s apparent preference to run for governor — her grandfather was governor and her father ran unsuccessfully for the office — the Democratic Congresswoman might well decide against an uphill run against Rounds for the Senate. But all of this is moot if Johnson runs for re-election.

Got that? Even Senator Johnson’s quote saying he plans and running and winning isn’t enough to stop the speculation even among Democrats. And if you have somehow figured out the 2008 Senate race, how about the governor’s race in 2010? David Kranz continues the Herseth Sandlin for governor theme  and muddies that up for us as well this morning.

When U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin told me last week that she wouldn’t rule out a run for governor in 2010, the political dynamics for the next four years shifted.

But she might not run either, then again it’s not like we have over 3 years until the election…Oh wait a minute, we do! I am glad that is all cleared up and in just the nick of time…

When asked last month by Kevin Woster from the RCJ, Steve Hildebrand wasn’t sure if he would be pressing charges and apparently he hasn’t but why has nothing come yet from state or federal (IRS payments were involved) law enforcement? I wonder if someone from the casino on the corner was found to have embezzled a few thousand, and all but admitted the theft, if the results would be the same? And is Hildebrand not pressing charges in an effort to shield some of his new high profile clients (Presidential hopeful Barack Obama being one) from unfavorable publicity?

The silence is still deafening…