State Senator Larry Rhoden (R-29/Union Center) is traveling the state today to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
One of my commenters who knows a thing or two about party politics says the Rhoden candidacy is a sham. He's not really running to win; he's a Wadhams-Rounds patsy, running interference to split any anti-Rounds vote, especially opposition from the folks who think M. Michael Rounds is a "Republican in Name Only," and keep Smiling Mike on top.
That's a pretty strong charge, almost as fanciful as the Weiland-placeholder fantasy Pat Powers continues to fecklessly flog.
The big difference is that M. Michael Rounds is saying things that lend credence to the Rhoden-RINO-heat shield hypothesis:
Rounds had nothing but good to say about Rhoden when I brought him up during a recent doughnut-shop meeting here in town.
"Larry Rhoden is truly a gentleman. We got along fine," Rounds said. "We may have had some policy differences along the way. But not many."
Rounds said Rhoden "ran a good caucus, is a solid guy who has been involved with leadership positions."
He was much-less complimentary about some other conservatives, referring to them as "professional dissenters" who represent a very vocal, very small minority in the South Dakota Republican Party [Kevin Woster, "Rhoden Suits Rounds Just Fine in GOP Primary," Mount Blogmore, 2013.07.09].
Weiland as placeholder has never held water. Entering the race only to withdraw in favor of some party favorite wouldn't do Weiland, the replacing Dem, or the party any good. But Rhoden as RINO heat shield fits facts. Rounds benefits from Rhoden's splitting the anti-Rounds vote that more radical challengers would crave. Rhoden raises his stature in the party by playing the good soldier, sacrificing himself in a public defeat to protect the boss and the party from radical insurgents and thus earning himself a place at the front of the line to run for a big office in 2016 (e.g., the Senate seat Thune vacates to run for President!).
Rhoden's record shows he is not the anti-Rounds. By Woster's reasoning, he may be the also-Rounds.
Thanks Cory! This is glaringly obvious and logical. If the Rounds campaign is looking at the 2014 cycle as a repeat of the past couple cycles, the only obstacle between former Gov. Rounds and Senator-elect Rounds is a primary where Rounds will have to answer to real Republican primary voters. The cheapest way to remove that obstacle against a real force of nature like Stace Nelson is to split up the anti-Rounds vote.
Here's another consideration. The last big GOP primary was the Tea Party election year 2010. The GOP primary ballot had a hotly contested primary for House and a noisy primary for Governor. Yet, the state GOP primary mustered the lowest turnout of primary voters since the 1960s.
A low turnout is a big opportunity for smart populists like Stace Nelson. Frankly, I can't imagine the 2014 primary is going to create a large turnout unless Rounds' $9 million campaign treasury pays fellow Republicans to vote. Again, I kinda like Rounds personally but he's got a shallow record as Governor and left no wake when he left office other than a bankrupt state budget. In House leadership, Rhoden was one Rounds' horses who voted in those bloated budgets and helped create the deficit. Rhoden is among the annointed in Pierre who's served in the leadership in both the House and Senate, while Stace Nelson is bitterly viewed by the annointed ones as a pariah from the Right.
Once again, we see Rhoden coming to Rounds' aid to be his heat shield and grab some of those West River rancher votes who are still upset with the Brand Board fiasco and the fat spending in Pierre. I don't think Stace Nelson will settle for a House seat when his real nemeses are operating a phony primary for the Senate (where you have to run only once every six years instead of every two years!). Nelson has far less incentive to run for the House against the incumbent.
Best advice for Stace: Go big or lose the opportunity to your political foes. If the turnout runs low in June 2014, the people who have a reason to vote will call the election.
Just tell your GOP voters you're not a RINO, you're not a deficit spender and you're not going to back down because the power clic in Pierre or Washington tells you to stand down. What you see is what you get. It's what honestly seperates you from the rest.
Hooyah!
The West River split seems a big part of this strategy. Rhoden can put on his hat, say "Aw shucks," and automatically draw a huge chunk of the ranch vote that would otherwise be inclined to back a hard-right challenger to that city-slicker insurance salesman.
I've never subscribed to the Wieland as "placeholder" as placeholder implies they will step aside for another candidate and have no intention of running. I believe today Rick intends on running.
But have held the position Weiland may in the end just choose to not file his petitions if at filing time he discerns it is futile.. Running a race is hard work and taxing on family and pocketbook. I would think no less of Weiland (or Rhoden, Nelson or Bosworth) if in the end they made the same decision. To conclude "tilting at windmills" is not worth the personal cost or fair to their supporters (who they would continuously ask for money) can be the honorable thing to do. Sometimes, sticking it out is an expression of false pride.
Neither are intended to besmirch Weiland's (or the others) motive, intentions or good name and I hope it doesn't come across this way. I disagree with his politics but have no reason to doubt his character and have reason to think favorably of his character. Don't know him to have a very informed opinion.
Similarly, the idea Rhoden (Weiland, Bosworth or Nelson for that matter) is currently not running to win (or articulate a vision for the body politic) implies a character flaw I do not believe is true. Unlike Weiland (who I've never met or spoken to), I have more personal reason to believe his character and motives to be good.
Whether it be any of the announced or contemplating announcing candidates for the Senate, I believe them to running for what they believe are good reasons (win or articulate a vision).
To serve a role to deceptively aid another candidate, I reject.
Furthermore, to claim "my guy" has honorable motives and the other guy (who you likely no less well) has sinister motives is calumny.
Hardball. Those are the rules if you're running a 21st Century U.S. Senate campaign, and nobody knows how to play hardball better than Dick Wadhams. Ask Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson. Dick's no chump.
Honorable intentions are aimed only at winning when millions are in play to pick up a new GOP Senate seat. This morning comes the news that yet another "conservative" GOP legislator may be jumping into the Senate race. And, oh, look! He lives in former Gov. Rounds' own legislative district!
http://www.todayskccr.com/index.asp?folderID=22
This is about keeping Stace Nelson out of a Senate primary and keeping Rounds in the winner's circle next June. It's not dishonorable to be a team player, and failing to disclose whose team you're playing for is not a requirement, according to the hardball rules. I think we can see a team is forming on the field and we don't have to waste much time guessing who is the team captain.
Troy, how would it be a character flaw to engage in political activity that boosts one's preferred candidate and protects the party from a radical insurgency that could weaken its chances of winning the general election?
Cory,
The immensity of the work to run for office (if he doesn't work, it won't have any "heat shield effect) and the impact on one's reputation to get slaughtered is just a price I don't think anyone would pay.
And, to pretend to run (whether to win or articulate a policy vision) when your real goal is another purpose is dishonest. Saying your motive is one thing when it is another is dishonest.
Look, I have no doubt Rhoden & Rounds are friends (or at least friendly). 98% of the legislators are friends and friendly with and to each other. Abdnor was friends/friendly with most of his opponents starting with his 1972 Congressional opponent who was also from Kennebec and Abdnor had coached in baseball. Good friends McGovern and Humphrey ran against each other for President.
There is little I wouldn't do politically for my 35 year friend Lee Schoenbeck but being a "heat shield" is not one of them. I doubt Rounds and Rhoden's friendship is deeper than mine with Lee. More importantly, I would have to know Rounds than I do to charge him with asking Rhoden and Rhoden to think he would accept such a request or be motivated to do so.
The mere accusation of something so immense (run for office) and nefarious is most significant the accuser must have the most intimate knowledge of the debauchery of the person(s). Otherwise, it is calumny (the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to harm another's reputation).
fool me twice, shame on me.
curious the last time you accused pat of calumny, troy.
You keep using that word, calumny. I'm not uttering a false charge. I'm highlighting a hypothesis that seems unlikely (your rebuttal is reasonable) but still more credible than Pat's placeholder rantings. From the hardball perspective Rick voices, the RINO heat shield strategy could work. A Machiavellian like Dick Wadhams might actually try it, and Rounds didn't hire Wadhams to plant daisies at headquarters.
The hypothesis is just plausible enough that I think it's worth keeping in mind as we watch which way Rhoden directs his fire. Will he fire everything at the Death Star, or will he shell Nelson and any other rebels who challenge Emperor Rounds?
LK,
I am not accusing Woster or Cory of calumny.
Woster was saying they were a distinction without a difference.
Cory was raising the question related to an assertion of another poster. Whether it be Pat or Cory, I seldom disagree with either doing so. I've sent both private emails on posts and sometimes criticized both on their site when they went too far in my mind.
Hardball, calculated, clever are all tools of the trade in politics. Always has been and always will be. But some charges are so deep to inner character, I think they go beyond the pale. Personally, I think this charge is almost as serious as accusing with no real evidence of being a molester because the only purpose is to denigrate the person to the level of scum.
Yes, Rhoden's campaign could have a "heat shield" effect. I don't see it but others can hold that opinion.
Yes, it could keep Nelson out of the race (that would be a calculation solely for Nelson to make). It appears it didn't so I don't get that charge.
But, to think there is a Rhoden/Rounds conspiracy is well . . . . Let's just say beyond the realm of reasonable or just.
Child molestation?! I think you're exaggerating the horror and evil of political calculation. It's not pretty, but it's not diddling kiddies.
It remains to be seen whether the Rhoden gambit is keeping Nelson out of the Senate race. Less than 24 hours after Rhoden throws in for Senate, Nelson issues a carefully worded release saying he's exploring "federal office." He doesn't mention Senate. It is not illogical to look at that timing and wording and think Nelson could be preparing to pivot from the Senate run that has dominated all recent talk about Stace to a House run.
In my deeper darker moments, I tend to think Machiavelli was an optimist.
That being said, Rhoden is building a team with some solid cred. I'm having a tough time believing these people are willing to have their political careers attached to stalking horse. They have to pay the bills like everyone else, and they best way for them to earn cash is to do better than expected not lose deliberately so another candidate can win.
Want more on the Nelson pivot toward House? Check out this Facebook post on the Rhoden announcement from the SDGOP Accountability Project, another of those weedily proliferating social media accounts that seem to boost Stace Nelson: "Imagine that. A GOP candidate talking about conservative values during a primary. We seem to remember our D.C representative talking about the danger of the deficit back in 2010, and yet she's now voted for 2 consecutive debt ceiling increases" (see https://www.facebook.com/SD.GOP.Platform.Accountability/posts/600402196649416, posted 2013.07.10 around 12:00 CDT). See the shift of focus from Rounds to Noem?
Cory, good point. Bad analogy. First "horrible characterization" that came to my mind.
To your point about keeping Nelson out, obviously Rhoden would want less competition as will be harder to drive Rounds down to below 40% than 50%. Similarly, Nelson wants the same thing for the same reason. That is all within the "hardball" side of politics one in the "kitchen" should expect. No problem.
But that is a far cry from the accusation Rhoden's candidacy is conspiracy to insure Rounds gets the nomination.
If Nelson, Rhoden, Bosworth, Weiland all stay in, I believe they are doing so for honorable reasons. If they drop out, I will respect that.
Maybe my point is we should be more respectful of any and all who express interest or throw their hat in the ring. It is public service and denigration does not encourage the best and brightest among us to serve.
Cory,
If Nelson is exploring concurrently two races, his press release shortened the window to make a decision.
As long as we’re having this “character counts” in politics chat, let’s consider some of the more ethically challenged, Machiavellian moments from Wadham’s last campaign here in the Land of Infinite Variety. Somehow, word of an extremely private and damaging letter from Bishop Robert Carlson to Sen. Tom Daschle regarding his right to refer to himself any longer as a Catholic was delivered to Weekly Standard writer and South Dakota native Joe Bottom III. Bottom said he got it from “sources in South Dakota.” The letter was revealed in the Weekly Standard in April 2003 (right around Easter time – yippee!).
They were rather proud of themselves, as you can see here http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/559jrrei.asp and here http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/577zbjyn.asp.
The revelation was the equivalent of a psychiatrist’s office handing over records of her/his treatment of a public official for political revenge. This was one rock which should never have been overturned, but it got done early in the Thune-Daschle campaign to tar Tom’s image with Catholics of all political persuasions. Now, you can make a case that Thune’s people had nothing to do with it. In South Dakota? Against the Senate Leader? Really? In Bill Kristol’s flagship publication? This was just the opening salvo of a vicious, relentless campaign against Tom.
This is the kind of player we’re dealing with. He chased Kristi Noem out of the Senate race, even though South Dakota political protocol would give the rising star in the House the clear shot at running for the Senate. And now it appears he’s filling the field with self-professed – but safe – conservatives to make sure the one true conservative follows Kristi running to the door. A smart campaign manager goes for the throat if that means winning the campaign early and cheaply.
Again, one thing separates Stace from the rest. He actually votes no when he says he’s against bloated budgets and phony conservatives.
Nonsense! Larry Rhoden is not running to help Mike Rounds win. If anything, Larry Rhoden may have been talked into running by his good friend Bill Napoli, who can't stand Mike Rounds and would love to see someone else as the nominee.
I'm not sure Rhoden has the horsepower to beat Mike Rounds in a primary, but let's see if the big national funding groups come to his aid. If he gets money and a professional campaign manager like Dick Wad, the primary could be a real horse race. Rhoden isn't as polished or articulate as Rounds, but South Dakotans don't want a slickster. Seems to me that Rhoden has the same kind of credible experience Rounds brought to the table in 2002. Businessman, legislative leader, telegenic. I say game on!
So why is Rounds is saying nice things about Rhoden? Because that's what works for Rounds. Be the nice guy and don't alienate Rhoden's supporters. Diffuse their criticism by killing Rhoden with kindness.
If there are multiple primary candidates that works to Mike Rounds's advantage since he's the 800 lb gorilla in the race. There is plenty of time for the anti-Rounds forces to settle on one candidate by March 2014, and that may or may not be Larry Rhoden. We shall see.
R, I'm not sure I heard a lot of horsepower in the clips from Rhoden's announcement today. Can he fire up a crowd?
Does Mike Rounds fire up a crowd, Cory? I don't think so; it's not his style.
It's not all about appealing to the passions of the audience. One thing Rounds has that Rhoden does not is the insurance salesman's well-practiced quiet and convincing sales pitch. Tom Daschle had that too.
Daschle didn't sell insurance to hone his speaking style.
Rounds won't have to fire up a crowd if he gets the nomination. The energy, the money and ranks of young, freshly buzz-cut GOP troopers shipped in from Ohio and other tough political states will stir the energy needed to get the whoopin' and hollarin' stoked up.
Folks, this is a prime time Senate race, which you haven't seen in a decade in South Dakota. Politics has been in a coma since 2004 in this state and 2014 is shaping up to be a watershed election.
Rhoden was all GOP economic mythology with a nearly complete absence of fact.
He is for American values that of course, all other candidates of all parties also support.
He is apparently also for religious values that all the lovers of myth and mythology assume are handed down directly by God to all Republican candidates.
No Rick, Tom Daschle is not and was not an insurance salesman. But he had soft-sell skills second to none. Rounds is pretty good at it too. Recall 2002. While Barnett & Kirby served up the red meat for the true believers and beat each other over the head with it, Rounds walked away with their dinner. Not by firing up the crowd, but with the soft sell.
I had some insight on that primary and believe me when I tell you the ONLY reason Rounds got the nomination when the smoke cleared was because his name was not Barnett nor Kirby. Those guys disgusted voters back in 2002 and Rounds spent virtually nothing to emerge as the winner.
Alfred E. Neuman woud have won that primary if he didn't participate in the multi-million dollar overkill, which might have been the last time GOP primary voters had any sense of taste in what defines an ethical candidate.
The 2014 election cycle is NOT the 2002 election cycle, despite what Rounds' handmaidens in the media or the GOP will tell you. Winning is all that matters in a campaign, and Rounds and Wadham are not chumps. They are very well seasoned in politics and they will not suffer fools in this race for the U.S. Senate.
Actually, Daschle was once an insurance agent, briefly in the early 70s, after his discharge from the Air Force and before he went to work for Abourezk....
Though I'll agree that Rhoden is not the great alternative that some would want, and has many of the same issues to conservatives as Rounds does. He is not getting into this race to help Mike Rounds. He just isnt the guy to do it.
My guess is he wanted to get a bigger stage, looked at the options and thought Senate would be the best chance for him. The other option is he plans on running for Governor in 2018 and wants to gain some name recognition first.
The question that needs to be asked is "What was or is there any relationship between Wadhams and Aaron Trost (Trost is Rhoden's campaign manager) who ran Deb Fischer's successful 2012 Senate bid in Nebraska. If that link can be established then the "Shield" theory will gain further credibility...
Hey, Rick! If the heat shield hypothesis is wrong, how about this one: could Rhoden be running on the hope that he can play Rounds-2002 this time while Rounds-Wadham and the inevitable conservative firebrand challenge engage in mutually assured destruction?
Hey, Troy! Consider Joe's comment: would it be as morally reprehensible if Rhoden were running just to raise his name recognition for a future statewide campaign as you say it is if he were running just to help Rounds?
Winston, wouldn't the obvious connection between two top tier campaign managers be the Republican Senate Campaign Committee? The national party people are certainly talking with both camps to prevent a real primary, knowing that a primary more often wounds a winner than leaves the winner unscathed. Don't think they aren't sweating the details of how this election comes together. South Dakota is a top tier target this cycle. And don't think a serious U.S. Senate strategy just falls off a truck. People with money to hire a Dick Wadhams or an Aaron Trost are not simpeltons.
As to how much collusion exists between Wadhams and Trost, I think it's plainly obvious the only real threat to Rounds gaining the nomination is a challenge from either Kristi Noem or Stace Nelson. Noem ducked and ran when Rounds hired Wadham, knowing Wadham's reputation for brutality in attacks. Rounds' best antidote to a challenge from the Tea Party wing of the state GOP is to flood the field with other conservatives who won't threaten him but will marginalize the base vote for Nelson.
The description of Larry Rhoden's character and political appeal in this thread is pretty accurate. He is likeable and approachable on issues, even when he doesn't agree. He's well-versed on agricultural issues and has taken positions which appeal to Farm Bureau and Farmers Union activists. He's a low spark politically and that just isn't going to change. There's no way he's going to have any reach in the voter bases in eastern South Dakota, especially Sioux Falls and the I-29 corridor. (Anybody remember that other Meade County rancher Bob Samuelson?) I think he's smart enough to know all that. So, you have to ask why is he running with Mike Rounds. The standard beauty contest response "because I want to serve the people of South Dakota in Congress" doesn't cut it.
Of course Rounds is going to gush over Rhoden and neighbor Mark Venner posing as conservatives on the ballot. This only lowers the risk of losing to Stace Nelson. The more, the merrier.
Cory, I like that! I also wonder what role the Dan Lederman nuisance suit played in the strategy to keep Stace Nelson off the Senate trail. No doubt that while it's calm on the surface, a whole lot of paddling's going on below. Avoiding a firey primary has got to be Job #1 in the Rounds camp.
Rick, of all the possible candidates we've discussed, would you agree that Stace Nelson has the best temperament to withstand and counter a Wadhams-style negative campaign?
As long as he avoids gaffes and runs on his credentials: Police experience, U.S. Marine, veteran and a dedicated conservative Republican legislator who sticks to his guns. He's a rising star. Mike Rounds isn't.
Stace runs on his gut. He's a natural populist. What you see is what you get, and South Dakota hasn't had a candidate like that since Bill Janklow. On the other side, he's rattled the cages of the Pierre establishment and he has overplayed his hand in some of those fights. In his case, the rocks come with the field.
What he needs to win are a smart, tough campaign manager who won't let Stace be the campaign manager. He needs a fundraiser who's really good at raising national money. He needs a smart, young communications director who can stay in front of the candidate. Nelson campaign staff must have proven ability at keeping all the jackrabbits on the flatbed.
Rick, the RSCC connection is an obvious given, have Wadhams and Trost ever worked together on a campaign or do they have a common contributor pattern...? I am not denying the connection, I just hoping for the "smoking gun."
But what if Nelson decides to get into the Senate race anyway? Couldn't a Rounds/Nelson dogfight make Rhoden the "2002 Rounds" of 2014? Often people from the fringes of a given Party (like Nelson) are willing to run for office regardless of their chances....
Better yet, doesn't a "shield candidate" strategy involving Rhoden actually benefit the Weiland camp as much as the Rounds camp?
It seems to me that Weiland's populist anti-money theme, if it is going to work at all, would work better against an established Rounds than an anti-establishment Nelson.... would it not?
If Stace wants in, he ought to talk Rhoden out. Stace is the far better candidate of the two, and Rick gives him good advice here. He ought to talk Bosworth out too, because although she's not ready for prime time she will garner some anti-Rounds votes in SF area and a few elsewhere too. It needs to be a one-on-one Nelson/Rounds race for Nelson to win. That said, the idea that Rhoden entered the race to help Rounds is just preposterous. I would believe that Bosworth is helping Rounds before I would believe that Rhoden is.
Doesn't it seem like Bosworth is just making it up as she goes? I can't believe her conservative positions are genuine or at all longstanding. Seems to me she's trying to reinvent herself like Mitt Romney kept doing.
Winston - Assuming there is direct collusion between the campaigns, neither campaign would admit it. It would not look good ... in fact, they and their sychophants would scream to the high heavens to deny it ... because ... an outsider would not be able to prove it. They're shrewd, but not stupid; you won't see any gun smoke.
As to your second question, I agree. Lobbying and government largesse is a family trade in the Rounds family, which is how he got his buds to donate $3 million for a new Governor's Mansion. All of that fits very well into Weiland's anti-big-bucks-buys-government narrative.
You can bet the DSCC will spend what it needs to do the deep research that will paint a bought-and-paid-for-and-glad-of-it picture of the former Governor and current insurance salesman. The press in South Dakota has little interest (or skill set) to do the digging and documenting, but if half the rumors about the Rounds administration are true, it won't go well.
Here's a question for you, Winston. If Rounds is so popular and a given to be the winner according to the media, why are so many people talking about running against him in a primary?
Dr. Rorschach - DocBoz is somewhat fascinating. I'm beginning to wonder if she's going to make a big pro-choice statement to make a point and then leave the field.
Rick, the reason so many people are talking about running against him (Rounds) in a primary is because our Republic is still primarily a two-party system and in the absence of a vibrant Democratic Party, within the state of South Dakota, the political dynamics of choice finds it refuge within the constraints of the most viable Party, which in this case is the Republican Party, which in turn invites potential internal Party struggles.
If Rounds is not that popular as you suggest, then do we not want a "Shield" candidate in the form of a Rhoden to protect Rounds, and thus, Weiland and fellow Democrats from the potential "Bill Janklow" Stacie Nelson?
R: yes, Bosworth is making it up as she goes along. See this interview with Gordon Howie:
Rick: As I noted in my first Bosworth report last month, she really is pro-choice; her husband is telling her the talking points he has to say. It won't be hard for a reporter to tangle her up with a couple abortion questions.
Weiland's main point about big money does distinguish him better from Rounds than Nelson. He'll have to pivot a little on message to beat Nelson, but changing focus between primary and general is nothing new and nothing Weiland can't handle. Consider also that a Nelson supporter like Ken Santema says Weiland's position on banning big money from campaign finance threatens the First Amendment and makes him a "must-defeat" candidate.
And let's get back to the big picture: If I were Weiland, I'd trade my talking point about big money for the chance to run against someone who doesn't have Rounds's big money any day.
hey troy: about that calumny.
http://dakotawarcollege.com/more-info-on-the-matter-of-madvilles-pilfered-bosworth-papers/comment-page-1/#comment-162527