The South Dakota Libertarian Party doesn't have to nominate a con-artist or a socialist French teacher for attorney general. The SDLP can choose to nominate no one. That's the question I turn over to you, dear readers: given a choice between Chad Haber and Cory Allen Heidelberger, whom should the SDLP nominate? Or in that situation, should the SDLP nominate no one, and let AG Marty Jackley ascend to a second term unopposed?
* * *
Chad Haber has finally poked his head out from under his shell and handed the press his jobless, degree-less résumé to support his effort to distract from his wife's impending conviction. The putative (the Spanish would use a shorter word) candidate for the Libertarian nomination for attorney general asserts that he will help the Libertarian Party by being a viable candidate:
"This'll be a real candidacy. We know how to raise money," Haber said [David Montgomery, "S.D. Politics: Libertarians Looking to Fill Gap," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.07.21].
Haber also feigns largesse by saying he'll defer to a candidate who satisfies his criteria for "more qualified":
But he said he was hoping to find another lawyer to run against Jackley, and is still willing to "step aside" if "someone more qualified steps up."
Haber said his standards for "more qualified" primarily are based on a candidate being willing to "stand up" to Jackley [Montgomery, 2014.07.21].
O.K., Chad. I'm your man.
I've been calling out Marty Jackley for dereliction of duty and the state of South Dakota in general for corporate cronyism and oppression since before Chad and Annette fled his failing mortgage scam in Utah (which, by the way, Pat Powers finally gets around to throwing in Haber's face now that Chad is attacking Pat's pal Marty... more than a full year after I brought you that story and Raymond Paul Morris's accusation that Haber ran the mortgage-Ponzi scheme that sent half a dozen people to federal prison).
So Chad, you can already drop your candidacy, because a better candidate has come along: Cory Allen Heidelberger, honest and dedicated stander-upper to Marty Jackley.
Not that the South Dakota Libertarian Party needs convincing, since every Libertarian who has spoken publicly about the Haber candidacy has rejected it, but I made this case Friday to Bob Newland and other Libertarians that I'm a better candidate for their party. Look at all the qualities I can bring to the ticket that Chad Haber cannot:
- Lots of Democratic voters.
- The highest vote total ever received by a Libertarian nominee in South Dakota.
- Proven rhetorical skills (read Chad's writing, especially when he tries to get technical: you need to communicate more coherently than that to campaign, not to mention produce legal opinions and speak for the state of South Dakota).
- No one in my immediate family distracting with felony charges.
- Firm grasp of South Dakota legal and political issues, including EB-5.
- Proven record of reporting corruption in South Dakota, including the Taliaferro/Schwab case, which I covered two years before Chad Haber ever mentioned it.
- An honest dedication to truth, justice, and South Dakota, not self-promotion.
Plus, I've established that I can accept at least 52% of the Libertarian platform. Haber has offered no such detailed analysis of his political views.
Libertarians should not be fooled by Chad's only other claim to qualification for candidacy, his and his wife's purported ability to raise money. Sure, on paper, they raised more money for the GOP Senate primary than everyone else except Mike Rounds (and they outdid him in April and May). But every penny documented so far covered paid Base Connect and its associates to get those donations. That money didn't promote a political agenda. It enriched clever direct mail companies and bought Annette some Starbucks. That money also came mostly from out-of-state hot-button donors who won't give a rat's toejam about an in-state AG's race.
Translation: Chad won't bring you Libertarians any money. I can promote the Libertarian agenda better with a couple speeches and a few good blog posts.
But here's the big question for the South Dakota Libertarian Party: do you want either of us?
Suppose those lawyers Emmett Reistroffer is jawboning all back out. Suppose the Libertarian Party is stuck with just two candidates for attorney general: Haber and me. We both can get press for the party, but we neither one are lawyers, meaning we neither one can carry out the primary statutory duty of the attorney general: representing South Dakota in court. The question may not be who's the better candidate; it may be which one is less of a joke?