Boy, Kristi even sends me an e-mail to let me know she's leaving the door open for Stace Nelson to run for Senate:
I am excited to announce today my intention to seek re-election to the U.S. House in 2014. I am grateful to everyone who has encouraged me and pledged support for a potential campaign for the U.S. Senate. However, after spending the weekend discussing our future with Bryon and our children, we decided that right now we are in the best position to serve South Dakota as a member of the U.S. House [Rep. Kristi Noem, e-mail, 2013.06.11].
Hey, is that the royal we? Or did we slip up and elect the whole fam-damily to Congress? (Booker in charge of some votes could explain a few things....)
Since Noem has decided not to spend the entire year playing Hamlet/zone (or perhaps since the Senate Conservatives Fund decided for her—notice the anti-Rounds headline Pat conveniently ignores), we now await the true RINO-hunter to rise from the bush and take aim at M. Michael Rounds. Trust me, Dr. Annette Bosworth is not that hunter... and Mark Venner? Come on—not nearly as fun!
Update 21:05 MDT: And with Steve Kirby appointed to a five-year term to the South Dakota Investment Council, he'll be too busy to run for Senate. (Wait a minute: Madison newspaperman Jon Hunter serves on that council? Really?)
Mike Rounds is not the right-wing's choice in this election. Here and in Washington. That much is clear. The nomination truly belonged to Noem. Too bad she chose to duck and run.
Definitely, Stace needs to run!
Bree S. - I love it when I can sincerely agree with you. To quote Gene Wilder in one of his most memorable movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjD3D5FgmE
Who has better credentials of fighting evil in bureaucracy?
“Stace/Representative Nelson provided invaluable insight into the epidemic of rape & sexual assault in the US military in our film The Invisible War. With over 20 years investigating and combating these crimes as a Marine and NCIS investigator, and as an elected official, he has given a voice to hundreds of thousands of veterans who have survived these horrible crimes. Few people with his bona fides had the courage to come forward and speak the truth as he did.” Tanner Barklow, Producer The Invisible War
http://www.americanclarion.com/1458/2012/01/19/sd-legislators-ncis-experience-highlighted-in-sundance-film-festival-documentary/
Bree, you'd better light the fire under his can before he yields the floor to someone else out of gentlemanliness or whatever else might motivate him.
I don't blame him for not wanting to spend a significant portion of his year in D.C. But just think about the fact that if he becomes Senator he'll be able to take part in epic conservative changes in Congress standing shoulder to shoulder with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and our own Senator John Thune.
Although I really think Thune could have been a little stronger in his criticism of the NSA. But his Death Tax Repeal Amendment was good.
It takes courage and conviction to principle to enter the ring successfully, Bree, and maybe our friend lacks enough courage and the right conviction to jump in it to win it. Maybe he could wait for a more convenient opportunity that involves less risk. It might be five years from now or 10 years from now or 20 years from now when he's too old and fat and irrelevant. They say you miss 100 percent of the shots you do not take, but maybe he's smarter than that.
Nonsense. I'm sure he's considering his family and putting them through a hard fought race. And either having to spend time away from them or they would have to go with him to D.C. It's not an easy life. Last I heard Thune was still flying home every weekend to see his family. It's got nothing to do with courage or conviction I'm certain. It's a hard decision to serve your country again after you've already served and retired - especially at the cost of your family.
Nonsense. Did I just say that? How silly!
It is a tough decision to make with family. As quoted on "American President" nobody knows what it's like unless their name is on the ballot. But let's not be wusses about this. It's a tough road and anybody's who's been a Marine is well acquainted with every rock and rut in that road, so don't tell me what it's like. Okay? Do you really think the Weiland family is unaware of this? Don't dumb down or wimp down.
As a lifelong student of South Dakota politics, I find the concept of a Stace Nelson candidacy for the U.S. Senate very intriguing. If he's got the guts and feels it's right, he'll be in it to win it. If he lacks the fire in the belly, I don't know when the stars will be aligned like this again. As an avid student of South Dakota political history (back to pre-statehood), I don't know when the stars will align like this for a candidate like Stace Nelson again.
Go for it or sit on your haunches.
You just outed yourself, Rick.
If you think a Republican primary is going to get you elected this midterm, you might want to keep studying.
I hope Stace and Dr. Bosworth run. It'll be a good contrast.
Yes, Jon Hunter knows his investment banking - that is what he did before coming back to Madison and taking over the family newspaper and printing business.
Really? I don't feel outed. If others say you're outed but you don't sense that, are you unaware of reality?
(He's not that Rick, Bree.)
Consider this possibility: Noem is saving up to run for Thune's seat in 2016. Against whom does Stace have a better chance, Rounds or Noem?
Now would be a good time for Brendan Johnson to consider running for U.S. House.
With Noem out of the picture, the "placeholder" theory has become moot, I must admit, but who are the Dems going to run against Noem for the House in 2014?... No one ever talks about that race.
Sacrifice Ryan Casey against Noem. He's certainly earned a bit of a beating (publicly and electorally) for his antics.
With the mess in DC do you think Brendan could beat Noem? I say it would be close. If the climate was neutral he could win even with the voter registration disadvantage but this climate is bad for Dems. That said Brendan is 10x the candidate Stephanie was but he has 10x less name id.
Placeholder theory moot—it was never unmoot.
10x less? Mike, I'll bid you down on that one. Thanks to the press the Republicans ginned up for him, not to mention his real work as U.S. Attorney, Brendan's name recognition is certainly higher than Stephanie Herseth's was when she first ran in 2002 against Janklow and lost 54%–46%.
I bet the average voter knows nothing about Brendan Johnson other than that he's his fathers son. Everyone knows who Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is on her own merits.
2002 was a different time than 2014. I don't think SD was anti Republican or Democrat just ready for a fresh face. As strong as Brendan could be it would be difficult to run a race as a democrat in SD and not have the opposition define him as someone who supports Obama and the DC mess.
Brendan will get his chance and he will be very strong the day he runs. He might be the favorite.
"Now would be a good time for Brendan Johnson to consider running for U.S. House."
I agree Charlie. I think he could beat Noem
It was "unmoot" when we thought Noem might be running for the Senate. Such potential Republican division would have offered an opening to a Brendan Johnson candidacy for the US Senate, but it is all academic now.
Winston, quit playing Pat. The theory was always moot because it never made practical sense. No Dem stood to benefit from that strategy. If Noem was going to run for Senate, she was going to run regardless of which Dem was going for it. The theory was never better than academic. Worse, it was the propaganda flogged by GOP spinners wishing they could resuscitate their preferred Johnson/SHS memes which all went for naught.
The old Marine in me is chomping at the bit to jump into the race for the opportunity to serve South Dakotans in such a capacity.
The dad and the grandpa in me remembers the promise that I made my kids, after I retired, that I would be the butt in the bleachers parent/grandpa that they were deprived of because of my dedication to a career that they never wanted.
I currently am able to serve in the SD Legislature, perform my civic duties, and be there for much of my youngest daughter's last years of high school.
I did not take the decision to run to for the SD legislature lightly, nor did I take the decision to accept the request to run for re-election lightly.
We should all be concerned and leery of anyone who runs skipping towards the weighty responsibility of serving South Dakotans, and our fellow Americans, in such a capacity as the US Senate.
I entered the 2010 & 2012 legislative races as a civic duty, not expecting to win, but simply offering to serve. If I run in any race in 2014, it will be with the same motivation.
I have been contacted by numerous South Dakotans, and national conservative groups, to run in the US Senate race. We are giving those requests the utmost respectful consideration.
My family and I have made no decision on whether I will run in any race as of this time.
Cory, Ouch! Pat? The Johnson/Daschle wing of the Democratic Party stood to gain from a "placeholder strategy." Noem never feared the Democrats, instead she feared Rounds. The "GOP Flog Spinners" merely hijacked an obvious strategy laid-out by a wing of the Democratic Party, which is now forced to run Weiland for the Senate and ask themselves if they want to risk a BJohnson v. Noem race in 2014, with Sandlin left in the dust. Sandlin the only potential Democratic Senate candidate who had a chance against Rounds in 2014.
Sigh.
To review: there was no place that needed to be held. Petitions don't go out until January 1, 2014, and aren't due until the end of March. Declaring Brendan out and Rick in makes supporters do a hard pivot. Flipping later in the year makes them do it again, and every pivot loses supporters, because people get tired of being strung along and baited and switched. Declaring and bailing depletes Rick's capital for running in future races. Declining then declaring hurts Brendan or SHS with the flip-flop label. The whole scheme makes the Dems look like shady schemers. And the plan doesn't add one vote or or campaign contribution to the eventual nominee's column.
So tell me again: who on the Dem side benefits from this nutty never-was-a-strategy, and how?
Quite a statement! A Stace Nelson campaign would be a runaway train against Rounds and all comers, depending on how well it is set up to competently raise money and letting Stace be Stace (without getting stranded in that 'messaging minefield'). The question is if the momentum would run out for the general election or if he'd gain speed straight into the U.S. Senate. My guess is the momentum would grow after a smartly run primary. And while Rep. Nelson and I probably agree on very few issues, he'd be able to shake up the Senate where strong spines are a rarity. Fascinating possibilities.
Cory, the SD Democratic Party is not all-in-one nor is any political party. This strategy was not the strategy of a political party, but rather the strategy of a particular political clique. Whose mere survival or relevancy was depended upon the promotion and hopeful success of this strategy. Was this strategy risky? Hell Yes! But the clique had nothing to lose and possibly something to gain. It was merely a risk for the Party per se. The clique is not worried about the SD Democratic Party. If they cared about the SD Democratic Party they would have never have become Janklow apologists over the years, or ran Republicans as Democrats for Governor, or pushed Sandlin off the side as far as the 2014 Senate race is concerned (the one SD Democrat who could have potentially won the US Senate race in 2014) .....The "South Dakota Democratic Party is not all-in-one!" It has become a playground for an established few who have no true philosophical commitment, rather their commitment is only to their own political survivability and, thus, relevancy.
Which horse is on the track, which is stuck in the gate?
Candidates or potential candidates will do as they please. Other "issues" are more worthy of discussion than the horse race stories the so-called "establishment media" loves.
I am hyping the Frank K. candidacy anyway. The ground is shaking with the rumbling.
I respect Rep. Nelson for his heartfelt statement. I notice, however, that he doesn't mention the lifeblood of politics: money.
I don't see how a grassroots campaign is going to raise the money necessary to defeat Rounds. Perhaps the Tea Party Express or Senate Conservatives Fund has a bunch of cash just lying around, but if T. Denny is hosting fundraisers for Rounds, they need a lot of money. Also, even in a post Citizen's United world, they still can't coordinate with Nelson or any other candidate.
Let Stace be Stace may be a great strategy, but those controlling outside money may be unable or unwilling to let Stace be Stace.
One quick point on Noem. No one seems to be talking, but I find it hart to believe that she wasn't pressured from in-state and out-of-state folk not to run. I'd be willing the pressure was relatively intense. The Republicans smell blood and they are going to organize a tight circle to take the Senate.
Finally, if Weiland is a placeholder, the Dems can run a candidate possessing the best parts of McGovern, Daschle T. Johnson, Herseth-Sandlin, Bill Clinton, LBJ, JFK, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and Jesus to replace; they will still lose 70-30
When has Rounds had a serious race? Name one, other than the 2002 primary which he won by not spending money and just being the guy left standing when the smoke cleared from the Barnett/Kirby blood feud. He was hand-picked in 1990 because of the family name in Pierre by Gov. Mickelson to remove the one-term Democrat in the Senate who defeated Homer Harding because Homer was old and overstayed his welcome. After the '02 primary, news reporters, editors and publishers kept Rounds so deeply coated with teflon for being the miracle underdog of the primary. Now it's been a few years since he was in office. He ran up a debt against his party's will and his list of accomplishments is very spare compared to his predecessors. I don't personally dislike Rounds, but I think the hoopla over his infalibility sorely lacks insight and context. A serious research project would turn up a lot of damaging information. He's not in a lay up race for the statehouse where the GOP is the only game in Pierre. And I think Tim Johnson is going to be a big factor a year from now when it comes to talking with South Dakotans about who should replace him and if South Dakota is best served by some balance in its critically important congressional delegation. The only reasons some Republican talking heads are chattering about a "replacement candidate" is because it marginalizes the Democratic front runner and because it distracts from the state GOP's own concerns about Rounds being the right candidate to win Tim Johnson's Senate seat. As Winston said about Democrats, the Republican Party is also split into factions and several power clics that don't always like each other, some of whom view Rounds as too much of a big spender for eight years as Governor to now masquerade as a fiscal conservative. Some view him as being too light in the loafers to take on a serious challenger. He's a long way from being a safe bet, even in South Dakota which has demonstrated in the last few elections to dismiss Democratic candidates and some DC pundits are declaring it a "leans Republican" election. As I've said several times here, whatever assumptions you have for 2014, do not base them on more of the same from past elections. This is an entirely different election and Election Day is still a year and a half away.
Rick,
My bifocals like paragraphs and I sometimes miss stuff without a line break, so I'm double checking to see where we agree and disagree.
We agree, I believe, about Rounds not having had many tough races and the fact that he has skeletons in the closet. We agree that both both parties have factions and that the election is a long way off. In fact, it may well be several political lifetimes away.
I am agnostic about the effect Tim Johnson will have in the next election.
I think we differ on how effective Stace Nelson can be. He may not have have any skeletons in his closet, but he does have a whole bunch of comments on blogs that a campaign can make look really bad with a few well placed ellipsis and an ad featuring that scary voice guy can make sound really bad.
As far as inevitability, I learned my lesson with Bush I. I thought he had the second term in the bag after Gulf War I and the fall of the Berlin Wall. No one is inevitable 16 months out, but all signs point to Rounds being a prohibitive favorite.
Finally, we may disagree slightly on how the factions are handled. The Republican establishment folks have shown a lot of unity behind Rounds. As one who is watching how the game gets played here and comparing it with other places, they seem to have done a better job keeping their Howie-Hubbel faction on the fringe than some other places. As for the Dems, you certainly have more insight than I do. I'm unsure how they are going about patching whatever rifts may exist.
"The only reasons some Republican talking heads are chattering about a 'replacement candidate' is because it marginalizes the Democratic front runner and because it distracts from the state GOP's own concerns about Rounds being the right candidate to win Tim Johnson's Senate seat."
I am sorry, but that is pure fantasy. My guess is that the GOP welcomes Weiland's candidacy and does not fear it. They feared the true "front runner" who was Sandlin. The GOP's "replacement candidate" concerns are most likely the brainchild of their attempt to taint a once potential BJohnson Senate candidacy (that the GOP feared less than Sandlin, but more than Weiland), which I would allege is now a moot issue since Noem is staying in the House. Plus, I am a self-proclaimed "Democratic Talking Head" who subscribed to the "replacement theory' because I thought the signs were blatantly obvious ((relying on Facebook, Tumblr, no official website, a generic loco on their press release letter head, the timing of the Weiland and BJohnson announcements in May, the Casey families involvement in both camps, and a recent press release about being a "Johnson Democrat," (while the blogospheres were promoting a more liberal Weiland), which facilitated a potentially more pragmatic future political environment for BJohnson to inherit)), but the theory is moot now. The Weiland candidacy had always reminded me of the movie "Argo" except that now we are forced to actually make the movie.....Weiland is our candidate and we need to make the most of it... cameras, lights, ACTION!
I agree that Rounds is not all that he seems to be, but the irony of Rounds's political relevance is that he became Governor do to a intra-party fight between Republicans (Kirby/Barnett), and he will most likely become a Senator do to a intra-party fight between Democrats (Johnson-Daschle/Sandlin.) Rounds is not a product of his own design and on that note, Rick's analysis is truly correct.... I truly wish Team Weiland the best!
[Hey, Winston: check your e-mail!]
Winston, me thinks ye doth protest too much. Thanks bud.
Rick, I heed your constructive criticism, I truly do. Contrary to what some may think, I am a self-proclaimed disciple of Team Weiland, but if we cannot have this constructive debate which unfolded on this blog piece today, then we have no right to call ourselves Democrats. "Demos" is Greek for "the common people" and the Democratic Party must always be a peoples' party, and one way of assuring this is to not fear debate or challenges to the establishment, but to welcome them.
I am obviously a frustrated South Dakota Democrat who has not been amused by some of the shenanigans which have played out within our Party in reason years; and I wish not to be a "Stepford" disciple for such a Party. I do not believe in the practice of democratic centralism where all debate is found within a party behind closed doors and never externally, and to that point, I make no apologies.... That said, the debate we have had today is moot and, frankly, that is all I meant by my initial comment earlier today, but when I am challenged I will response. Because there has not been enough response in recent years and that is why we are where we are today as the South Dakota Democratic Party in 2013, with so much on the line in 2014.