Is support for Mike Rounds going soft? Let's read some tea leaves: Dan Lederman's Rushmore PAC used to be somewhat excited about the former governor's entry into the race to replace Senator Tim Johnson. When Rounds announced his exploratory committee in September 2012, Rushmore PAC burst with excitement and photos of their man for Senate. Of course, Rounds's Peter Norbeck PAC gave Lederman's Rushmore PAC $2000 in August, 2012, so how could Lederman not be excited? Lederman's PAC also shared the joy of Rounds's official campaign announcement at the end of November, 2012.
But this morning when I search the Rushmore PAC website for "Mike Rounds," I find nothing. The three breathless September 2012 articles are gone. Come on, Dan: don't tell me the money's dried up? According to the most recent Federal Election Commission report, Rushmore PAC hasn't spent any money on Rounds during this campaign. If anything, Rushmore PAC's expenditures give the appearance of supporting Annette Bosworth. Aside from $400 for a Sioux City bookkeeping, Rushmore PAC has given $600 to Bosworth's primary political consultant Patrick Davis and $1,650 to Bosworth's primary blog booster Pat Powers. However, those expenses were all prior to Bosworth's Senate announcement in June, so we'd have to posit some sneaky spring conspiracy among friends of Lederman and friends of Bosworth, and we don't posit crazy theories like that around here, do we? But the main point: Rushmore PAC appears to be scrubbing its Rounds content. So this morning's minor political question: what could provoke any aspiring Republican brokers to quietly back away from candidate Marion Michael Rounds? p.s.: Rushmore PAC is not backing away from Rounds's primary challenger Stacey Victor Nelson. Lederman wages a frontal assault on the Fulton Fulminator with a harshly worded attack on Nelson as a cowardly robocaller. Update 12:50 CST: Team Lederman thunders back that they love Mike Rounds and maxed out their financial contributions to him in 2012. But that doesn't explain why Lederman is scrubbing his blog of Rounds references.
Lederman makes pink slime look like a boutique microbe-free health food.
Santitizing the sticky wicket, perhaps? Is Rino Mike runnning a stealth campaign? Or maybe just keeping a low profile until the EB-5/NBP cloud passes so he can appear with the Sun glinting off his armor, blinding the Mutton Thumpers and Hog Rubbers.
Rounds' last campaign report shows Lederman donating money to Rounds and the articles he scrubbed from his PAC, and twitter accounts were drooling with support for Rounds. It looks like Lederman is behind two conservative decoy candidates that were brought in the race for Rounds (Bosworth & Ravnsborg) to keep the national conservative groups, and the voters, from being united behind Nelson.
It would also appear that there is coordination going on with Powers who also scrubbed articles on his blog that he reposted of Lederman drooling over Rounds. All of that coordination appears to come from the Rounds campaign which would be illegal with Lederman's PAC. Obviously they are worried about Nelson's progress.
Better be careful, Cory. You're about to get one of those cease and desist demand letters from Sen. Lederman. You may get sued into bankruptcy for something. He's got more money for lawyers than you do.
R, have any friends who like working pro bono? :-)
I know a few.
Cory - I usually believe that when you report or blog you do the research. What happened here? I don't necessarily agree you often but I respect your opinion but you missed the mark on this one. You clearly, just went off comments and rumors your either read or were told. Clearly, Dan supports Rounds not only financially but working the campaign as well. Get your facts and blog with integrity.
Curious who SDGOP will support after Rounds self-jettisons.
Sure, Laura, there's money back on the 2012 FEC report. But why would Rushmore PAC now be removing references to Rounds on its website? That's the big questions here.
I am not sure why the removal of the references, but I was referring to you reporting that the PAC had no financial support of Rounds, when clearly that is not true. If Leaderman doesn't support Rounds any longer, not a huge deal in my honest opinion, maybe Leaderman isn't happy with something Rounds has or has not done related to the campaign? We can all speculate, but not sure there is a big story here? Maybe Leaderman is making room on his website for new information? I guess I don't see this as a huge deal. It's early in this primary and it appears the candidates are still jumping in.
I'm not exactly happy with a political PAC not only naming itself after our number one tourism attraction, but, displaying a pic of our Mount Rushmore and being involved in multiple political lawsuits. Our state needs no more negative attention than we've already brought upon ourselves!
Borglum was a KKK devotee, Les: that a mountain was dynamited for a colonial power makes it the perfect symbol for the Zionism Lederman worships.
Larry,
Don't forget the two slave masters on that rock that millions pay homage to each year.
Roger: the embarrassment and the horror that i endure for my home state never ceases.
"I want you to think this is a non-story, that's why I continue to comment."
Laura, someday when this gig pays enough for staff, I'd like you in the editorial board room with Toby and me. We could have some good conversations before going to print.
Making room on the website? There's no such thing. Rarely if ever does one need to clear out old content to make room for new content. I've never had to do so. Lederman has more money than I do, so space is less of an issue for him. As was the case with Pat Powers when he went to work for the state, if he's deleting content, there's a political reason.
If Lederman were unhappy with Rounds, that would be big news, as big as any other prominent and powerful Republican's defection from previously stated support for Rounds. It would be bigger news than former legislators Frankenfeld and Abdallah declaring for Pressler, since Lederman is still in the Legislature and positioning himself with his PAC to be a power broker.
DD above offers the other plausible explanation: Rushmore PAC is scrubbing pro-Rounds content to erase any evidence or inkling of coordination between the PAC and Team Rounds.