My liberal colleague David Newquist ostensibly takes P.P. of S.D. War College and, I think, me to task for our coverage of Pagegate.  Click here to read: Gropegate turns into a fumble

Former Janklow press secretary and now journalist again Bob Mercer apparently presents a mea culpa for why the MSM didn't report this story when they knew about it, according to David.  David also drags Dennis Weise's problems with Richfield Farms into the mix.  (David: Tell me what this fact has to do with the initial impetus for the Dan Sutton story?  If there is a connection, what is it?)

On top of all this, I got a rather heated phone message yesterday from the Argus Leader's Jonathan Ellis complaining to me about my coverage and comments about MSM coverage (or lack of coverage) of Pagegate.   In the message, Jonathan also questioned my manhood, saying I could call him back "if I were man enough."  Like some reporter at the Argus Leader gives me the willies. Yeah, right. 

But I digress. 

Let's review:

A high school age page made a serious charge against a sitting state senator.  The press knew about it but sat on it.  Meanwhile, the same newspaper that sat on the Dan Sutton charge had no problem breaking the Bill Sahr "scandal" without any evidence of a formal investigation or even a hint of what the charges were or who was making them.  (Note to the Argus: If I am wrong on this point, let me know.)  

Meanwhile, while the rest of the state's press sat on the story for whatever reasons (and remember that Bill Sahr knee capping earlier this summer), Pat Powers went to digging.  To accuse Pat of bad journalism is not true.  He presented facts--investigation of state senator, sensational charges, leadership involvement and proof--one of two acknowledged letters sent by legislative leadership.  He also managed to do it WITHOUT naming the alleged victim of the incident.

I say he threaded the needle pretty well. I think this is all responsible, whether done by a journalist, a blogger, a political operative, or whomever.  

It was only THEN that the state's MSM got off its collective lazy butts and ran with the story.  They got beat and beat badly by a blogger, my friend Pat in his pajamas in his basement in Pierre.  By a REPUBLICAN blogger?  Sure.  But tell me what that Pat wrote is not true?  You can't point to anything that he wrote that is inaccurate.

David, who I have enormous respect for and like a lot, is one to often tell us about the shroud of secrecy that goes on in South Dakota state government.  (And Jonathan Ellis, if you're reading this, I don't know you, but I think you are a very fine reporter.)  Pat Powers pulled the shroud back a little bit and the press finally, for competitive reasons, but nonetheless, finally, pulled it the rest of the way off.

I am about as partisan a Democrat as you will find.  But I also can think for myself and look at the facts.  If something untoward is found it have happened, it was self-inflicted by Sen. Sutton, not the Republicans.  Also unlike Foleygate where the Republican leadership may have known about Rep. Foley's inappropriate emails and actions toward pages but did nothing about it, there is no evidence as yet that Republican state senator Lee Schoenbeck sat on the information he received.  It appears he has acted properly.  It also appears that Democrat state senator Gary Moore also acted properly, calling for an investigation and castigating Sen. Sutton for not reporting the accusation sooner.  I am actually heartened that our legislative leaders from both parties have treated this accusation seriously and acted soberly.

And the fact that the kid making the accusations is Dennis Wiese's child?  That Wiese and Sutton are both Democrats?  That both have known each other for years in Flandreau?  Seems to me that that gives the allegations more, not less credibility (again, Sen. Sutton is presumed innocent unless or until otherwise found guilty by whatever tribunal ends up making an adjudication after an investigation and a hearing).

So what is to be gained politically by anyone at this point, particular when it appears to be Democrat-on-Democrat friction?  Are the Republicans happy that a young, popular Democrat state senator with a bright future might be having problems?  Sure, schadenfreude is rampant in politics.  But have they exploited this incident as much as they could have?  Frankly, I don't think they have exploited it at all.  But to use David's word, perhaps I am merely a "dupe." 

It also appears Dennis Wiese pushed and pushed and pushed for an investigation.  Personally, I've been on the other side from Dennis in some pretty heated matters, i.e., when he ran against Jack Billion in the primary this spring.  So I have no personal stake in taking Dennis' side in this.  But you know what, I don't blame him for pressing this.  I'm a father of a teenager too and if I thought someone had harmed them and I didn't think the authorities were doing all they could, I'd get ticked off and keep after it as well.   People can question Dennis' political motives but I don't think you can question his motives as a parent.  Tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you thought something bad happened to your kid? 

I also find it very interesting that I was apparently the only Democrat in the state who DIDN'T know about the accusations from the past legislative session.  (So much for being in the loop.)  I have now talked to countless Democrats who said, "Oh, yeah, I knew about that."  It was apparently a badly kept secret, except by all the rest of you who knew and who kept all this a secret from me.  Not that I'm complaining.  Believe me, I wish I didn't know any of this now. 

This is an ugly incident.  It is ugly if it is unfounded and it is ugly if it is true.  But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been reported. 

Frankly, particularly as far as the Argus Leader goes, I think they should be the last to complain about P.P.'s coverage or my coverage of this situation after their hatchet job on the PUC's Bill Sahr.  If there was substance there in the accusation, the Argus should have reported it.  They didn't, pure and simple.

As to David and any other critics out there, you're welcome to your opinion and it might even be right.  But you can't have it both ways: do you want to know what goes on in Pierre with our legislators or don't you?  Do you have a right to know if there are investigations of our public officials or don't you?  You choose.   

But one thing is certain.  If you wait for the SD MSM to do the coverage, sometimes you may be waiting a very long time.  David can cite figures about the accuracy of blog posts in general.  But we're not talking general postings here.  We're talking specific ones. 

Pat, as is almost always the case, was correct in his facts.  Hell, even sometimes Sibby is right on the facts.  And Chad.  And the NSU Hardy Boys at SDP.  And even me.  And others.  The blogosphere in general and the SoDaKBlogOSphere in particular, whether you like it or not, have been and are and will continue to be players in uncovering stories.  What is different about us compared to the MSM is that you know our political biases and leanings.  Use your brain and your b.s. detectors and come to your own conclusions about this story and every other one you read or watch or listen to.  But obviously the SoDakBlogOSphere ain't going away very soon.