As the saying goes: follow the money.

(Note: Noem claims she consulted with lawyers “for many, many months” — but she never put the legislators in the loop about her concerns, as Pullmann points out.)

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/24/kristi-noem-running-the-mike-pence-play-to-help-leftists-control-the-culture/

[On Tucker Carlson’s show], she also said: “It would put a law on the books that would allow the NCAA to take punitive action against our state. And we’re a small state, Tucker. We’ve had to fight hard to get any tournaments to come to South Dakota. When they took punitive action against us, we would have to litigate, and legal scholars that I have been consulting with for many, many months say that I would very likely lose those litigation efforts.”

It is deliberately misleading to assert the NCAA would retaliate for this bill’s passage when states including Idaho and Mississippi have passed similar laws and their college women still play NCAA sports. As Cleveland explains, Noem is attempting to make the public believe that the NCAA requires participating sports teams to allow transgender athletes, when this is false.
…
Noem repeatedly claimed she was scared of lawsuits brought by the NCAA, parents of daughters forced to compete against transgender boys, and unnamed others over this bill. She attributed this alleged fear to claims from “legal scholars.” Did she consider competing legal opinions, or is this another misdirection? Because other legal experts are publicly disputing Noem’s claims of a lawsuit bonanza and offering free legal aid against such a specter.

By “legal scholars,” does Noem mean her chief of staff, Tony Venhuizen, a lawyer who also sits on the board of the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce, which listed H.B. 1217 as a “tier 1” priority “of the highest importance” to oppose this legislative session? Or perhaps she means her “top advisor,” Matt McCaulley, a lawyer and lobbyist whose “clients include Sanford Health, which owns Sanford Sports Complex, a Sioux Falls arena that hopes to lure NCAA tourneys”?

Sanford Health also performs transgender treatments on minors, according to testimony before the South Dakota legislature in 2020. It therefore opposed a bill to ban transgender child mutilation last year, testifying and lobbying against it. Its lobbyist, McCaulley, is also getting hundreds of thousands of dollars to advise Noem, in an obvious conflict of interest state lawmakers have voiced concerns about.

“McCaulley is also the managing partner of Redstone Law Firm in Sioux Falls, which has been hired to provide outside legal counsel to the Noem administration,” noted in-state outlet Capital Journal shortly before Noem reversed her position on this bill.

Venhuizen is a former partner in McCaulley’s firm who left to work for Noem. Are these the legal advisors she’s talking about?

Even if NCAA is more than one of Noem’s intended fall guys for her refusal to sign this bill, the NCAA is not elected to control South Dakota laws. Noem and the state legislature are. South Dakotans don’t elect Kristi Noem to tell them she can’t sign laws their representatives want because some unelected leaders of private sports and business organizations insist their state indulge sexual insanity.
…
If “legal scholars” have told her these terrible things about the bill’s consequences “for many, many months,” why did she pledge to sign just two weeks ago? She didn’t find these kinds of claims persuasive for “many, many months,” but now suddenly does? Why?
…
It seems pertinent to note that Noem has not been a reliable ally of vulnerable women threatened by transgender politics. On July 13, 2020, the Noem administration okayed placing male prisoners in women’s prisons if the male claimed to be female.

That’s bad enough, but there’s more. As Jon Schweppe of the American Principles Project notes of the 2020 attempt to ban transgender child mutilation in South Dakota, Noem kept quiet on the bill publicly but did “tell one media outlet that she had ‘concerns.’ (Sources within the state have told my organization that she effectively killed it.)”
…
Noem says if the legislature doesn’t pass her preferred version of this bill, she will call them into special session. But the legislature already passed the version of the bill they want, and if Noem had objections, like every other governor she could have made them known during the normal bill process. That is how passing a bill works — when governors actually want a bill they’re willing to sign.

There are lots of allegations in there, especially by Schweppe, which should be tested in fairness to Noem, but the professional vitae of prominent people is something it’s hard to get wrong (unless you are the NYT or WaPo, in which case it’s an editorial requirement).

My major problem was originally about the suddenness of her about-face, which does not bode well for her political future with a party base that already is fed up with bait-and-switch Congresses and Presidents. If she had concerns about the NCAA, she had plenty of time to bring those up and let the legislators debate and choose their preference for action, with negotiation on her part rather than fiat.
That was before I read anything about her advisors’ conflicts of interest, which are hers as well if they swayed her decision to change course for their benefit.

These two posts cover the rest of the waterfront on conservative disillusionment with our erstwhile First Female Republican President.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/the-worst-thing-about-kristi-noems-sports-capitulation-is-her-lies/
(by Margot Cleveland, so it’s very lawyerly, and doesn’t mention the staffer connections)

While Noem understandably prefers to avoid facing the economic brunt of a showdown with the NCAA, if she led, others would follow. That is what conservatives want. That is what they demand. Name names. Expose the threats. Stand firm and beckon others to the battle against the NCAA and woke corporate America. Truly lead the coalition.

If the NCAA retaliates, publicly call on Texas and Florida—two athletic powerhouses—to decline to host tournaments. Ask religious colleges and universities (most of which have in force a similar sex-based rule for athletic competition) to do so too. We may not be able to win against the NCAA in court, but we don’t need to. Governors like Noem just need to lead.

If Noem isn’t up for the task, or if she believes her duty to her South Dakota constituents demands she put their monetary interests first, fine. But don’t wave the white flag of surrender and tell me you’re merely waving to your coalition to join you.

The substance of the two posts, combined.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/25/podcast-what-on-earth-happened-with-gov-kristi-noem/

Jon Schweppe, Director of Policy and Government Affairs at American Principles Project, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to break down South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s decision to issue a “style and form” veto against a bill seeking to protect women’s sports.

“This whole thing is ultimately a cover for vetoing on behalf of Amazon and the Chamber,” Schweppe explained. “That’s what everything here is and that’s what’s so disingenuous about it. I would just prefer that she admits she’s a squish, but she’s not gonna do that.”

Schweppe said Noem is gaslighting conservatives and insisting “that we’re the ones that are trying to hurt women’s sports by protecting women’s sports.”

Will Noem eventually sign the bill? Yes, but it will be “weaker,” Schweppe said. Even worse, he explained, is that the governor blew an opportunity to take the lead on a conservative agenda item that many voters care about.

“For women’s sports it’s pretty, pretty clear where people are at,” Schweppe said. “It’s an opportunity for us to draw a line in the sand, get all these states, ‘build a coalition,’ as the governor loves to say that she’s trying to do. We are. What we’re trying to do is get all these states to sign on to this, and then build off of that.”

Noem said once several other states join the coalition, the NCAA will most likely not punish the entire group.”

Yeah, well, one the reasons we elected Trump was that he was driving the bandwagon, not waiting for someone else to put it together and then hop on.

It’s a principle or not. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

smart phone tiny keyboard and device reboot!

https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com

There, I read “Compelling Commentary” and the linked article by Daniel Greenfield. And, I thought, “Let’s not give these bozos someone to blame.”

Downs says the base is still willing to forgive her.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/03/21/kristi-noem-analysis-n2586603

In other words, Noem tried to have it both ways and, like is usually the case when one makes such an attempt, she failed. What did she expect to come out of such a rookie mistake?

Jon Schweppe, the direct of policy and government affairs at the American Principles Project, spoke to Townhall when the news came out. On Sunday, he also directed us to a blog post of his, “The Kristi Noem Veto, Explained.” The post focuses on Noem’s political future, with the subheadline reading, “A victim of bad advice, the South Dakota governor is inexplicably destroying her own political career.” His last line emphasizes this point, in that “Whoever advised her on this issue did her a great disservice.”

Schweppe also spoke to Townhall to discuss Noem’s future further. He explained he referred to Noem as a “victim” there, in that he is “trying to leave the door open to praise her if she reversed.” He emphasized that main premise, continuing with “I do think she got bad advice. The buck stops with her of course. But if she owns the mistake and does the right thing, and takes on the institutional power trying to stop this bill, I’m happy to forgive her and call her a champion of women’s sports!”

What Schweppe has emphasized throughout our multiple conversations and in his blog post is that the APP’s sources say Noem is using her “Style and Form” argument in an improper way. He’s referenced how “unconstitutional” and “a misuse of her executive power” as well as an “abuse of [it].” This time he goes further, in that it’s “Not even close” to being constitutional.
…

[Schweppe:]
Republican voters want fighters to lead them into 2024 and beyond. I think it will be challenging for Noem to be seen as a “fighter” if one of her most high profile bouts ends in her capitulating to Amazon and the Chamber of Commerce.

If she wants to run for [p]resident someday, she needs to reverse this decision and instead champion the women’s sports bill. There’s still time for her to do that. And if she does, I’ll be her biggest cheerleader.

Here’s hoping that she’ll be able to thread the needle on this one….

If she is as good a politician as we need, to win in 2024 – against all the legions of Hell, and I don’t say that lightly — she must do a better job of conveying her real intent to the legislature and public, even if she know disagreement will ensue.

Claiming a “style” objection and then wanting substantive changes doesn’t cut it.
If what’s being said about her objections isn’t true, she needs to prove it.
The main thing was that she blind-sided her supporters, and nobody likes that.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/03/19/gov-krisi-noem-veto-n2586577

Considering that the governor retweeted the organization’s tweet to announce she would sign the bill, that Gov. Noem sent it back to the legislature came as a shock. APP’s Jon Schweppe, who serves as the director of government affairs, told Townhall that it was “a bunch of malarkey.”
…
Schweppe raised concerns that what Noem is doing is “proposing to gut the bill to such a degree so it would not have any effect at all.” When it comes to Noem’s claims that the emphasis is on “Style and Form,” Schweppe said this kind of veto, outlined in the South Dakota Constitution, is more so designed for typos, slight changes to sentences, and other such revisions. He even called it “unconstitutional” for Noem to claim to use her veto power in that way and that it would be “a misuse of her executive power.”

In response to Noem’s claims that her suggestions were “to address the potential unintended consequences of HB 1217 as originally enrolled,” Schweppe pushed back and emphasized that with such changes, the bill would not have its intended effect. It may be a way for Noem to still claim to support it, he offered.

Keloland.com reported that State Sen. Maggie Sutton had similar concerns about the bill’s effectiveness in that case:
…
As to why Noem would not sign the legislation, Schweppe pointed out she “only listened to the bill’s most fervent opponents” and likely caved to pressures from the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Regents. One of Noem’s stated concerns was:

I am also concerned that the approach House Bill 1217 takes is unrealistic in the context of collegiate athletics. In South Dakota, we are proud of our universities’ athletic programs, and in particular the great strides we have taken to gain national exposure and increase opportunities for our next generation over the past two decades.

Schweppe assured Townhall that there will be pushback forcing Noem to choose between a real veto or signing the bill into law. “Conservatives in the state and Republicans in the legislature do not see this as a legitimate veto,” he said.

If she really is that concerned about the NCAA, she should have made that clear beforehand, not after the bill reached her desk.
That’s what negotiation is for.

So I set up my Corvette for autocross and track days. The consequences of that is a very stiff suspension– much stiffer than what might be considered comfortable for a road car. So it’s not all that much fun around town– with all the tar strips and pot holes. It’s OK on the freeway and it’s quite the economy car at 70 mph. I usually average just shy of 30 mpg!

The C4 used frame rails on the outside, so you have to sit across a rather wide sill, and you’re kind of wedged in. The car was definitely designed for skinny people. The next generation, the C5 moved the frame rails inboard, moved the transmission to the rear axle for improved weight distribution, and widened the car 8 inches so the seats fit American posteriors.

About 10 years a bought a dedicated autocross car. It’s highly modified and isn’t street legal, so the Corvette doesn’t get much use. I haven’t had the time to do any track days.