Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Rick Weiland wants to focus on the economy, health care, and corporations' anti-democratic domination of politics. He doesn't think social issues will be a big issue in the 2014 election.
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Stace Nelson thinks otherwise. He opens with guns, then throws abortion up as the second big issue on his website, which he has retooled just in time for his official campaign kick-off. Who gets an abortion in Stace Nelson's America? Nobody, except for the one in 10,000 women who can get permission from a judge:
Stace is against abortion in all cases. For the sake of discussion, in the very rare documented rape/incest unwanted pregnancy cases, and if a woman's life was truly in danger due to documented medical complications, an exception could be allowed by court order if sought by a victim. Stace is for legislation outlawing the other 99.99% of the abortions currently conducted [Stace Nelson, U.S. Senate campaign website, downloaded 2013.08.17].
Democrats, take that as a cold bucket of water on our gleeful twitterings about Nelson's entrance into the race. Stace Nelson threatens women's liberty, and no amount of reaching out to liberal blogs, buying his Web services locally, or challenging corporate welfare should paper over that fatal flaw.
Marion Michael Rounds is no better friend of women's rights to control their bodies. But whichever Republican wins the nomination (and it will be Nelson or Rounds, unless you care to argue that Rounds and Nelson will sink each other and fecklessly pablumic Rhoden will default-float à la Rounds-2002), we will face a Republican who will try very hard to distract us from bread-and-butter issues with odious claims that our real problems are black Presidents and slutty women who should not be accorded full citizenship.
Rick Weiland, I don't want to spend 2014 talking social issues, either. But Democrats need a candidate who's ready to jam the culture war that Nelson and the GOP want to fight. You need to tell us that you will defend women's rights against oppressors like Stace Nelson.
Ultraliberal President Obama is a serious problem, and it has nothing to do with the concentration of melanocytes in his skin. Even Democrats are starting to realize that Our President has absolutely no respect for the law.
You're making up stuff, BS.
I commented in Stace's website post again on the DWC, Larry. Go get yourself in a tizzy again over there.
My heart is a stone, Bree: tizzies are futile.
Well, I will say your emotional state has improved (not that I agree with your stone heart assessment). In answer to your previous question, I'm due in Feb.
South Dakota is a proven pro-choice state. This view will not wash in the general election just as it failed miserably twice before as a ballot issue. Nelson's aiming for the chronic GOP primary voter and a majority of them may easily agree with this extreme view to eliminate reproductive rights.
The war on women continues as another Republican ignores the real issues because he can't come up with ideas.
Stace and the Republicans will talk about abortion, crony capitalism, how big the government is and ending Obamacare.
They will NOT talk about what government programs should be cut or how they want to fix the healthcare system.
They'll sound tough without offering any solutions
Stace ought to have somebody review the content of his website for spelling and grammar.
His issue statements provide a broad outline. He has time to think about specifics that he will certainly be asked about. For instance, do individuals have the right to own bazookas? Stinger missiles? If not, where in the second amendment does it prohibit these things? How many votes should the senate hold to repeal Obamacare next year without the ability to overcome a Presidential veto? Should the senate change its rules to prohibit non-filibuster filibusters - meaning people would have to actually talk like old Strom Thurmond did if they want to obstruct legislation? Do you believe that every bill should have an up or down vote the same year it's introduced like the South Dakota legislature requires? Should every bill be limited to 1 topic like in SD?
Stace's education statement deals only with in-state issues saying nothing about any federal issue. Is this a leftover from his state house campaign? Will he vote to eliminate the federal department of education and/or other agencies?
Say "Goodbye" to Stace.
This distracts from what ought to be Nelson's best messaging to win the election if, indeed, elections are about differences. Nobody cares about the abortion issue when the candidates have the same position.
Only one candidate can say he bucked the party machinery in Pierre to cut spending, and that's Nelson. Rounds ran the machine and Rhoden was Rounds' foreman.
Good deal with Nelson and his coming out. Why is it such a surprise? It seems to me that we more on the compassionate fairness side of the coin (me, for sure), sometimes think that a republican is going to somehow vote to the center. We are always wrong on this. Remember when republican presidents actually stood for all Americans, me either. Yet some voted with that hope only to find ourselves where we were in 2008, broke and ready to fall over the edge. Once again, a Democrat stood and found a way to avoid the cliff. These days, it seemed as if Nelson may have been the kind of person who could represent all and once again we almost got the wool pulled over our eyes.
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Rounds can try to out dumb one another and that will do nothing but help Rick. Now, lets see how informed the South Dakota voters are, especially the women voters. Are they gonna cut their own throats or are they gonna vote to protect themselves?
As usual Wiken you are overconfident in your own abilities.
Well, Stace, this isn't a surprise, but if you ever want to talk to a former-pro-life advocate who helped start crisis pregnancy centers and fought for abortion control during one of the last great elections, before becoming pro-choice herself, give me a call.
Crazily, I agree with Douglas. Otherwise, bye, Stace. You gave me some hope, but then the pro-life Christian agenda gripped your heart and pocketbooks. Don't try to tell me the money being collected in churches across the state doesn't help the campaign.
South Dakota Republicans self-identify at about 80% Pro-life. You will have to wait several months before his pro-life stance can even become a political issue.
Damn just when I was beginning to worm up to Stace he had to go and do this. It really looked for a while like he was reaching his hand out to the progressives in SD and it turns out all he wanted was to play footsy with the GOP whores that run the state.
Women keep your hands in front of your crotch because I see a trasvaginal probe in your future. If you don't want a total invasion of your body mind and soul you have to get up on your feet and take a big old bite of GOP ass.
Rick Weiland, if you want my vote you have to address these women's issues. The time has long sense come and gone to guarantee "private reliable reproductive health care"for the women of South Dakota. If that means abortions so be it. You cant run away from it, and you cant hide from it, it will be a part of any campaign run here in this state.
Draw a line and say this is where I stand on this issue. If you don't you are no better the Mike "i don't have a uterus but if I did" Rounds, or Stace "I want control of those things even if I don't own one myself" Nelson.
Rick if you just say what you mean and don't try to pander to anyone you could be the Dark Horse in this race. The independent in me really wants someone like that.
Stace and Mike watch your backs because there just might be a "Dark Horse Coming."
http://grooveshark.com/s/Dark+Horse+Coming/4Rr30B?src=5
The Blindman
Folks, we are getting our campaign site up. That was transferred over from my House site where it was posted since 2010. I will have an updated position on issues germane to the U.S. Senate, which our host photographed today. God bless.
Uh, Stace? Wrong voters, wrong blog.
Note that, after giving the political speech of his life, and with another big speech coming up on the other end of the state in less than an hour (hey, don't drive like Kristi Noem, Stace!), candidate Nelson in online from the road, addressing the concerns of voters and blog readers.
Whatever changes may come to his newly christened Senate campaign website, Nelson's speech in Alexandria gives little sign that he will moderate his stance in favor of women's reproductive rights. In his speech, he said he would defund Planned Parenthood and any associated contractors, as well as any foreign aid programs helping women access abortion services.
I wish Obama was truly liberal, as some rightwingers like to claim. I've been very disappointed in him. Yes, he did well on a couple social issues. But other than supporting women, children and LBTGs as full human beings and, as adults, fully able to manage their own lives, its not been good at all.
Meantime, it would be so wonderful to have a Republican candidate not rely on social issues but really address our problems with economy, foreign relations, immigration, etc. I remember back in the day when those were exactly what all politicians cared about and what their campaigns were all about.
Listen to the JFK/Nixon debates. Even earlier debates and campaign speeches. Politics today is so disappointing. Republicans especially are not interested in resolving problems. They are simply focused on garnering power by whatever means necessary. Yes, Republicans are significantly more concerned with winning as opposed to serving the electorate than Democrats are. With a few exceptions.
Recall that I was the first to warn you about Mr. Nelson's inevitable over-godding. He will be lucky to crack 10% in the primary.
The burning question in the GOP Senate primary is: who's going to get that coveted Jason Gant endorsement?
Bree, wondering why abortion referendum votes went down twice?
Some people are pro-life but want birth control protected. Also, a lot of people don't want a fight with the federal government. They want the problem solved at a federal level, sticking to restrictions at a state level. Those are the main things I think that probably mattered the most. There are probably other reasons.
I'm wondering Bree, do you think one of the other reasons might be that people believe small government includes keeping it out of women's private health care decisions? That seems to make the most sense considering what the votes were directly about. People seem to think that women are well-able to make good decisions about their health.
Huh, abortion? After the baby is born, what's Stace's position on health care... Is he still pro-life then? Or at that point does he begin to advocate the GOP's classic Darwinist attitude towards health care policy?
the decision on abortion is not simply a healthcare decision, it's also a decision to kill. I think it thick headed to call pro-life people against women's freedom but ignore the whole killing thing. We can debate the rights that living tissue and organs have, instead of ignoring that it exists at all, or pretending that this is a war on women
Let me guess Roger, you probably believe that women are merely a conduit... right?
Rog: long time no seethe.
no. but at some point we do make demands and file charges for neglect or abuse for what they do to that same lump of tissue once it's been excised, so why the ridiculous outrage at the very concept that some people Mark that point earlier than you?
Winston: I'm hoping his pro-life position does extend to health care for children, and not for the death panels, high cost, and red tape of the ACA. good point
Mr. Gilbert:
I suspect the endorsement will go to the highest bidder.
For some reason I don't think anyone will want Gant's endorsement going out on a postcard in 2014.