Press "Enter" to skip to content

Frerichs, Dems Want Discussion of Progressive vs. Moderate; Weiland Game?

Ink blot time: the New York Times takes a look at South Dakota politics and we Democrats' tussle over just how liberal we dare be in a conservative state. Pat Powers sees confirmation of his tired propaganda that Rick Weiland is a placeholder candidate... even though, as usual, not one word of the article Pat cites says what Pat says it says.

I see the following points in John Eligon's report:

  1. Weiland flies some clear liberal flags: Weiland "has said he would fight corporate interests. Mr. Weiland also favors same-sex marriage and universal background checks for guns, and he is concerned about the weakening of Social Security and Medicare." Good.
  2. South Dakota Senate Minority Leader Jason Frerichs (D-1/Wilmot) says Weiland doesn't come across as a moderate. Apparently accurate from what we have on the record so far.
  3. Senator Frerichs says South Dakota Dems need to have a dialogue on "progressive versus moderate" and the direction of our party. Absolutely. And finding a more Blue Doggy Senate candidate to primary Weiland would provide an excellent opportunity for us to have that conversation and define our party's direction.
  4. State Dems' vice-chair Deb Knecht sounds willing to have that conversation and test the viability of a Democrat's Democrat in South Dakota: "Maybe times are changing and there’s enough young people that get out there and vote that like somebody a little more liberal."

Completely ignored by Powers is the argument some of us Dems want to hear a solid Wellstonian candidate make: that South Dakota is not as conservative as those afraid to wear the Dem label believe:

It is a state in which residents have twice voted by wide margins to repeal bans on abortion passed by the State Legislature. Voters also recently increased the cigarette tax, passed an indoor smoking ban, and killed the Republican governor’s education reform bill, which would have weakened tenure for teachers and tied their ratings to student performance. And Democrats note that although South Dakota’s voters approved a same-sex marriage ban, they did so by a narrower margin (3.7 percent) than California’s (4.6 percent) [John Eligon, "Finding Democrats to Run Where Republicans Win," New York Times, 2013.05.28].

Powers needs you to believe that the discussion is over, that Dems stand no chance in South Dakota unless they act like Republicans. He also needs to stir stories of Demcoratic schisms and chicanery to distract donors and voters from the cataclysmic prospect of a Rounds-Noem-DeMint primary in his own party.

The discussion has just begun. If Rick Weiland campaigns right (left?) and campaigns hard (and I'm still waiting for that to start), he can lead that very important discussion about the direction of the South Dakota Democratic Party and of South Dakota. If he emerges as our nominee (Jason, primary?), he'll give us a chance to test my thesis that the route to victory for South Democrats is not to imitate but to differentiate.

Update 10:02 MDT: Frerichs tells Mr. Montgomery he'll be old enough to run for Senate in 2014, but he says he'll be "very comfortable with Rick Weiland" if a moderate does not challenge him in the primary. If.

26 Comments

  1. Rorschach 2013.05.29

    I can support a Democrat for this race whatever shade of blue they may be. The problem here for me is twofold.

    1. I see maneuvering by party bigwigs to have Stephanie make her decision on running based upon a certain primary against someone who has poor prospects of winning and whose main goal if a primary should occur is not to win, but to weaken the stronger candidate - Stephanie. It's as if Sen. Daschle, while sitting around with his buddies at an elite Democratic Party party turned loose his yippy little dog on Stephanie as she arrived at the Party party - just for giggles. I really wish she would kick it. Stephanie might not be welcome at Sen. Daschle's elite party, but she's welcome at mine any time.

    2. Regardless of what shade of blue he may be, it's just hard to get fired up about a 50 something career congressional aid/appointed bureaucrat who has run twice before unsuccessfully and has little prospect of winning on his third go around.

  2. Rick 2013.05.29

    If the issues cited are a correct reflection of Weiland's beliefs, South Dakotans clearly stand with Weiland on reproductive choice, background checks (thanks to Dave Letterman, we know the vast majority support them) and supporting Medicare and Social Security. As to same-sex marriage, South Dakotans have certainly moved a long way with the rest of the nation in the last 12 months.

    I really like Jason Frerichs, having been a fan a long time. Some day I'd like him to develop into a statewide candidate. But seeking political cover in the mushy middle isn't going cut much hay across the state in a prime time U.S. Senate race. Jim Abourezk, George McGovern, Tom Dashle and Tim Johnson didn't get elected because they were in the mushy middle. They won because they stood for the people on issues that really mattered in their tenure. They took tough stands without pandering, and people respected that and trusted them. That was also the key to Bill Janklow's electoral success, and if he jumped in, it would be the key to Stace Nelson's success.

    Maybe staying safe in the mushy middle works in a lopsided Democrat district where any Democrat gets elected. You can be a "go along, get along" legislator for decades in a sleepy one-party district, but if you can't sell something more than you've got a recipe to make omelets without breaking eggs, nobody's going to buy it in a high profile, high stakes statewide election.

  3. Judy Judy 2013.05.29

    Cory,

    You focus on ideology when you question some Democrats hesitancy to back Weiland, but it really has much more to do with memory and the tactics Team Weiland used in the 1996 Primary. I point you to the following from a political smokeout posting.
    "It was 1996, when Weiland was engaged in a tough primary against Jim Abbott and others, the chairman of the Minnehaha Democrats was Roger Andal. In the middle of that campaign, Andal blasted Abbott for being a Democrat-In-Name-Only.

    “He wrote a letter that he sent out statewide, saying Jim Abbott… was really a DINO and that he wasn’t a real Democrat the way the that Rick Weiland was,” Barth recalled.

    An old 2005 post from the conservative blog South Dakota Politics tells a similar story:

    In May of 1996, Andal resigned as chairman of the Minnehaha County Democrat Party, saying that Democrat congressional candidate Jim Abbott had both contributed money to the state Republican party and had accepted thousands of dollars from Republican sources for his congressional campaign. Twenty minutes after Andal released his resignation letter to the press, Democrat congressional candidate Rick Weiland issued a press release attacking Abbott’s Republican connections.
    Barth said that account sounded mostly right."

    This call for purity by some Democratic staffers and their affiliates like Andal was unnecessary and turned off many good Democrats who supported Abbott. It was very short sighted and sealed Weiland's fate in the general election. (He only received 37% of the vote, significantly less that than Tim Johnson received that year's Senate race and 6% less than Clintorn-Gore.

    Weiland's purity test applied to a good Democrat who some years later was a candidate for Governor remains a memory for many Democrats.

    When one reflects on it, it also approximates the beginning of the South Dakota Democratic Party's decline from competitiveness to irrelevance.

  4. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.29

    Interesting, Judy. So is Rick Weiland the Dems' Stace Nelson? Or Gordon Howie? Is Rick Weiland's 1996 campaign really the test case for my Wellstone strategy... and a demonstration that it will fail in South Dakota? Or can a South Dakota Democrat mount a successful Wellstone campaign, as long as he/she avoids the personal attacks and layers on a heavy dose of party inclusiveness?

  5. Rorschach 2013.05.29

    Rick Weiland is no Paul Wellstone, Cory. Nor is he a good enough actor to pull off a Paul Wellstone impersonation.

  6. Bree S. 2013.05.29

    Lol, Rorschach.

  7. Charlie Johnson 2013.05.29

    It's easy to be "arm chair quarterbacks". It's a different story when you actually put the uniform on. I'll give Rick Weiland or any other candidate high praise for putting their name in the ring. More important the critical issues for everyday people can and will be discussed.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.29

    Good point, Charlie. Right now, all the spin machine wants to do is distract us from talking about the real issues with inside baseball. Weiland needs to start making noise about real issues to change the narrative. The discussion about the direction of the party can be part of that discussion, as we discuss just what sort of policies serve South Dakota's interests (the lesson Weiland needs to teach: South Dakota lives and thrives on liberal Democrat policies). When will Weiland start making that noise?

  9. Winston 2013.05.29

    I wouldn't recommend any good Democrat jumping into this Senate race, because down the line, when it is all said and done, you will find yourself in a primary with a Stephanie or a Brendan....mark my words.....

  10. Rorschach 2013.05.29

    You're probably right Winston. I hope you are right.

  11. Joe 2013.05.29

    The problem I have with Weiland is that in 2010 when the state party wanted someone to run against Thune just to run against Thune, he was no where to be found. But when people want to make sure Stephanie has a hard time it takes him a couple of days to enter the race. Maybe they didn't ask him, but in a state where the democrats have fielded few good candidates for many constitutional races, governor races, and other state wide races, he couldn't be coaxed but no problem whatsoever this time around.

  12. Winston 2013.05.29

    Joe, I totally agree. Although, I believe Weiland is personally a liberal. Where was the liberal establishment, which is now backing him, in 2010 when we needed a candidate for the US Senate? The liberal establishment within the South Dakota Democratic Party seems to turn the liberal spigot on and off at their convenience..... And I seriously question their liberal intensions when they were willing to run a gubernatorial candidate in 2010, who use to be the conservative Republican darling on KELO's "First Monday" throughout the 1990s and even up to the eve of his party switch in 2003, without any public explanation as to why he switched parties. Then, this same gubernatorial candidate has the audacity to claim he has a 100% voting record with the Chamber of Commerce in his 2010 gubernatorial bid.... I have never known a true Democratic to be proud of a high rating from the Chamber, but for some reason our liberal establishment did not have a problem with it.... go figure.....

  13. Rick 2013.05.29

    That's complete fiction, Joe. The party was dead set against having anybody to run against Thune because they got very poor advice.

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.29

    I'm riding with Rick on that line, Joe and Winston. There are numerous more logical reasons (not good ones) that explain the Dems's absence from the top line in 2010 other than "Weiland's a sissy, so screw him!"

    Now suppose the fireman misses a fire call on Monday. When he shows up to put out your fire on Tuesday, do you kick him off your block and let the house burn? Explain to me how your complaint about 2010 should affect anyone's willingness to back Weiland and/or the liberal establishment (wait? we have one? where do I sign up?) in 2014?

  15. Winston 2013.05.29

    Rick, it is my understanding that the "poor advice" was internal. "They" were of the belief that they could starve moderate split-ticket voters into voting for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee just because the voter had no choice for the US Senate.... so much for liberal philosophy.

    Cory, because I believe Weiland is a "placeholder" and the actions of the 2010 liberal establishment create a trust issue. This trust issue also fuels my further suspicion about what is really going on with the SD Democratic nomination for the US Senate race in 2014, which makes it hard for me to take the current Weiland candidacy seriously.

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.29

    Winston, I still reject the placeholder theory. There are more logical explanations for the words and actions we're seeing.

    That said, if it turns out I'm massively naïve and wrong, and if there is any truth to the placeholder theory, I will be mad as heck. I will jump onto your trust-issue boat, and we will sail over to Jeff Barth's house together to drag him into the race to beat whoever's playing games with us.

    But I won't be the only one torqued. So will other innocent draft-Brendanites who are taking things at face value and have made the quick pivot to Weiland. They won't like being played, either. No Dem candidate playing that game benefits... and that's a big reason I can't buy the placeholder theory. It's not a winning strategy.

  17. Winston 2013.05.29

    Cory, your right, the placeholder theory is not a winning strategy for the South Dakota Democratic Party, but it is the only strategy where Team Daschle/Johnson can conceivably win in 2014. This strategy is not for the benefit of the Party, it is for the benefit of a few.

    Your last paragraph assumes that the Left will not come home in the Fall if you turn them off in the Spring, but they do.... at least that is what a wise Democratic strategist once told me.... and that's what the establishment is banking on....

  18. Rick 2013.05.29

    Winston, you are staring too deeply into the abyss. The fact is Dems were told to discourage any Thune challengers because "they" felt it was a Mission Impossible which would divert resources to a lost cause. When I first heard about it, I thought it was cowardly and stupid because of the fundamental rule that you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take. Your placeholder theory is complete nonsense that is being hustled by the GOP central committee because they're scared of losing to Weiland and the resource he will muster in this election. Of course, this brings us around to the truth of your role in this discussion which is to help the GOP to remove the last Democrat statewide seat in South Dakota. Nice try, bud. But we've gotchya.

  19. David Newquist 2013.05.29

    Politics fail when facts get submerged under attitude, prejudice, and personal favorite notions. Rick Weiland had good reason not to venture into a 2010 race because his brother, Kevin, had challenged Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

    As one who was involved in recruiting candidates, I can attest that party members were making extensive efforts to encourage viable and capable candidates to run against John Thune. Of the ones I met with, the decisions not to run were not matters of personal courage. They were matters of consulting their families and reviewing the nature of the campaign Wadhams/Thune, Lauck, and company ran against against Tom Daschle. [To review that campaign, see the Washington Monthly summary Cory posted: https://madvilletimes.com/2013/05/familiar-stink-wadhams-desperate-to-use-south-dakota-to-redeem-self/%5D The people I was in touch with just could not justify subjecting their families to what the Daschle family was put through. It wasn't cowardice; it was consideration for spouses and children. And if there is blame to be cast, good Democrats who blithely chose to ignore the character assassination and libel might well consider themselves the reason there was no candidate.

    There are those who are looking for a "rock star" who achieves nothing for the state legislatively, such as Thune and Noem, but Weiland forthrightly proclaims that he is a Democrat, and his work as a staff member, a FEMA director, and a small businessman is there to examine, for those who are looking for competence and integrity.

  20. Kal LIs 2013.05.29

    The only way the placeholder strategy makes sense is if those remaining in the Democratic establishment have a death wish and want to commit political suicide.

    It's illogical to believe any independent or moderate voters will support a Democratic candidate if it's Brendan Johnson out, Rick Weiland in, Brendan Johnson in, Rick Weiland out.

    I also doubt anyone with an IQ higher than that of gravel will buy a "I need to drop out of the race to spend time with my family." press conference.

    For better or worse, Weiland's in. He needs to start running.

  21. G-Man 2013.05.29

    Right or Left? Weiland just needs to be "centered." Centered in his sincerety and committment to what he believes in. People want "centeredness," not the ongoing left-right fight that serves the interests of no one, especially the common good of the community. We need a "centered" leader who believes government is us and should serve our basic interests as it was intended to do: security, community support, and fulfilling fiscal responsibility. AND we must get on board with that and stop allowing our goverment to become just another business to support the interests of big business.

  22. Winston 2013.05.29

    Rick, Rick, Rick, you are assuming that Weiland can win. What do you know that Harry Reid does not know, I ask?

    Has far as for your last comment, "Of course, this brings us around to the truth of your role in this discussion which is to help the GOP to remove the last Democrat statewide seat in South Dakota. Nice try, bud. But we've gotchya," What? If I wanted the GOP to win in 2014 I would definitely be backing a Weiland hands down and not a Brendan Johnson or a Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.... but then again, a debate coach once told me that when politicos cannot deal with the facts they usually resort to character assassination.... I wonder what Troy Jones and Pat Powers think of your ill conceived slam.... they are probably having a good laugh right now at our expense, and all because I have struck a nerve with the the South Dakota Democratic Liberal establishment and you are apparently an agent of their self interests.

  23. Winston 2013.05.29

    One more point, Rick, as far as the "lost cause" theory, it certainly was not a concern back in '84, when the Dems ran Cunningham against Pressler, nor in 2000 when the Dems ran Hohn against Thune, or how about all of the sacrificial lambs the Dems ran against Janklow over the years ... why in 2010? Because I will also allege that the SD Democratic nominees for Governor and Congress did not want a left of center Senate nominee running around the State tainting their attempt to foster and present a right of center political image.... so much for the liberal philosophy.

  24. Judy Judy 2013.05.30

    Cory,

    I can not answer all of your questions, but, following Weiland's announcement, one of the uber reporters on the Argus Leader's "100 eyes" online show described Democratic activists opposed to Herseth Sandlin's candidacy as the "Tea Party Wing of the Democratic Party."

    Weiland is unlikely to fill your vision of a Wellstone candidacy. Ideologically he may mirror our beliefs but as a former congressional staffer, he most likely has become too calculating and cynical to construct an effective message. He may take populist positions but without the passion needed to appeal beyond the Democrat core of 36 to 38 percent of Billion and Heidepriem, or maybe with a good campaign the 43% of Varilek.
    Wellstone wasn't a former congressional staffer mentored by a sitting US Senator. He rose organically from the Minnesota political scene as a community organizer and candidate in his own right. He created his own following and was sensitive to the individual struggles of the voters. South Dakota Democrats need to find candidates in their own midst, rather than accept those descended from above with the blessings of DC game players.

  25. Rorschach 2013.05.30

    Well said Judy.

  26. Douglas Wiken 2013.05.30

    Weiland is what we have.

    He needs to get out into the boondocks, shaking hands, and talking to real people.

Comments are closed.