This year's U.S. Senate race became a foregone conclusion to many the moment Sen. Tim Johnson announced his re-election campaign. But we believe this was an opportunity missed for the Republicans.

Sen. Johnson's 21 years of service in Washington are to be commended, his last term perhaps highlighted by the long-awaited passage of Johnson's initiated Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL).

But voters should not re-elect a candidate as thanks for a job well done, but because they are the best candidate to continue to get the job done.

Sadly, Sen. Tim Johnson is no longer that candidate.

His brain hemorrhage in December 2006 has left him unable to perform the job of a U.S. senator. His limited speech function does not permit him to be an effective communicator - an essential part of his job - and his lack of mobility affects his ability to meet with his Senate colleagues and his constituents.

That is a primary reason that his entire re-election campaign has been carefully manipulated so that South Dakotans would not see him face any tough questions, much less his opponent. He has not wanted to debate Dykstra, not because it may highlight what Dykstra may bring to the job, but what Johnson no longer can.

He and his handlers determined that they had enough cushion in the polls to snub the voters of South Dakota.

Instead, the only Tim Johnson they have been permitted voters to see is the one which is scripted for television commercials. Johnson touts the government money he has brought home to this state thanks in part to being a member of the appropriations committee, and yet has not accepted responsibility for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco and the $700 billion bailout, despite holding a seat on the Senate banking and housing committee. This flair for finger-pointing is one of the many reasons Congress has been saddled with a dreadfully low approval rating,

Sen. Johnson's sales pitch for re-election has been built upon the past, the future noticeably missing from the manufactured rhetoric. But voters are electing someone for the next six years, not for memories of the previous 22 years.

His opponent, Joel Dykstra, has had a difficult time waging an effective campaign against Johnson. He has been hamstrung by a lack of campaign funds, and that has hurt his ability to get his message out. In addition, his campaign chose a 'victim' strategy early on, crying foul when Johnson declined debates. While we supported the calls for an open debate on behalf of voters, the issue wound up consuming Dykstra's campaign for many critical weeks. And that prevented voters from getting to know Dykstra and his issues; he became known more for the senatorial snub than his positions on Iraq, energy, health care and education. He has been more aggressive separating himself from Johnson since the government's $700 billion bailout, but it's a little too late.

It's disappointing the Republican party has not been more supportive of Dykstra; it's as if they conceded this race from the moment Johnson announced he would run for re-election. Perhaps they are waiting for Johnson to step aside before launching into a full-scale assault on the seat.

That's a shame, since we think South Dakotans deserved better from the Republicans. And they deserve more from the Democratic incumbent.

Johnson made a mistake to run for re-election and has made a series of missteps since, from his banking committee's oversight fiasco to ducking his opponent at the expense of his constituents. And, despite his protests, he is not physically able to perform the role as senator to the extent that his constituents deserve. Meanwhile, Dykstra's campaign has been under-funded and on loose footing through much of the campaign. He has not marketed his strengths well, and has failed to give voters a good reason to select him over the entrenched incumbent.

Therefore, neither candidate earns our endorsement for U.S. Senate.