Last updated on 2014.10.08
Former State Senator Stan Adelstein took U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rounds to Israel to rub elbows and burnish his foreign policy cred in May 2013. Now the moderate Rapid City Republican blows the conservative dog whistle and tries to save Rounds's failing campaign by shouting, Don't vote for Obama!:
A vote for anyone other than Mike Rounds for the U.S. Senate is a vote for President Obama. The Republican Party cannot control the majority in the U.S. Senate without Governor Rounds.
If you WANT Barack Obama to continue completely ignoring the needs American citizens then vote for one of the other candidates. If, like me, you want control your of government in your state, vote FOR Governor Rounds. Mike Rounds well understands the needs of this state—and, for that matter, any state [Stan Adelstein, "South Dakota Supports Obama???" A Way to Go, 2014.10.06].
Unlike Rep. Betty Olson, Adelstein at least avoids birtherism and sticks with policy:
Our foreign policy is in disarray and the vicious president of Russia is contemptuous of Obama’s inability to act firmly. He is absolutely convinced of our near impotence in influence abroad. All of the president’s attempts to change our economic situation at home have been a gross failure. Without a change in congressional control these problems, that are a result of inconsistent and contradictory policies, will continue [Adelstein, 2014.10.06].
Adelstein does tailor the generic down-with-Obama talking points with specifics on the South Dakota contest. "None of the other candidates show the vaguest sign" of Rounds's leadership... although all I've seen Rounds lead us into is failure and scandal. Adelstein dismisses Weiland as beholden to the wealthy folks bankrolling him (no mention of Rounds's donors) and bringing no public-office experience or understanding of the process (never mind Weiland's leadership at FEMA, AARP, or the International Code Council, in all of which he had to work with the political process). Adelstein contends his friend Larry Pressler got into the race as a Democratic chicanerer, while his friend Gordon Howie is earnest, caring, and hopeless.
Of course, now that Adelstein endorses Rounds, Pat Powers will have to abandon Rounds, since an endorsement from Adelstein is nothing but bad news, right, Pat?
Until I read this, I had some admirations for Stan as he would rattle the GOP cage once in awhile but sadly, I think his meds and past several months have clouded his judgement severely on this issue--very severely.
Thanks Stan! Thanks for bringing to our attention your contribution to this face of corruption, Mike Rounds. Your 30 grand was the key to making him the criminal kingpin of South Dakota corrupt politics in the first place. I wonder if Stan's ultimate intention was this in the get go. Where else can you invest 30 grand and get back such high returns for the Motherland? To show further dogma, even after irrefutable proof that Rounds lied his ass off about the EB-5 and continues to do so, he now publicly endorses the criminal. There can only be one reason for this, as a senator, Rounds would be a well paid lobbyist for Netanyahoo, the war criminal leader of Israel.
Expect more war with a Rounds victory and more taxpayer money squandered for yet another criminal enterprise, current Israel. Listen to Netanyahoo speak with contempt for the United States and you see the pattern of Rounds doing the same thing right here in South Dakota. Stan picked his man alright, a corrupt politician that knows where the money is.
"Rounds might very well owe his political career to the state's loose campaign finance regulations.
He benefited from large PAC contributions as a fledgling gubernatorial candidate in 2002. Rapid City lawmaker and philanthropist Stan Adelstein funneled $60,000 to Rounds' campaign via two contributions from the Building Rapid City PAC, which was almost entirely funded by Adelstein. Of that $60,000, $25,000 came at a critical point late in a three-way primary race when Rounds was gaining momentum but running out of money.
Candidate Rounds also received more than $200,000 in 2002 in two separate contributions from Adelstein's A Better South Dakota PAC. While that PAC was organized by Adelstein, it was funded by a series of $5,000 contributions from several individuals.
Adelstein's fortune hasn't reached the heights of Sanford's, but he has been actively involved in South Dakota politics on both sides of the aisle since taking over the family construction business as a young man in the 1950s."
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/24/11603/south-dakota-campaign-funds-move-sideways
Well, Mr. Adelstein is a good friend of mine and of South Dakota's, as are a lot of other Republicans here on this blog and in our fair state. But that doesn't stop them from being unreasonable from time to time.
Their contempt for Obama is a case in point. Our country was a wreck when Mr. Obama took the reins, and over the 6 years he's been in office, the stock market has tripled in value. That means as much for everyday people with savings accounts and retirement plans as it does for the 1%ers.
The unemployment rate is down below pre-Bush levels (10 million jobs, guys! What's that, chopped liver?), and the deficit is dropping as fast or faster than it has under any prior president, except perhaps Mr. Clinton.
There have been sweeping social changes which I know moderates like Stan advocate, and Obama has brought our troops home from what is now understood as a hopeless unwinnable war.
But with all that, even the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from Obama this election cycle.
I just don't get it. I think Obama's done a remarkable job, given the sh*t sandwich we handed him. (And I'm not even going to go into the number of threats on his life and the ugly racial stereotyping he has endured.)
But go ahead, run agains Obama. Run against Harry Reid. Run against big PAC money. Run against anybody but the guy who is really in the race and wants to continue doing the job Obama started and get our country out of the hands of the military/industrial complex and back into the hands of government of, for, and by the people where it belongs.
Rick Weiland is the people's candidate. He's a people's candidate the way Adelstein was a people's candidate. And it surprises me that he doesn't see that. But then, a lot of things suprise me when it comes to what my good Republican friends think, ;–)
Bill nailed it. Bravo!
It's sad to see Stan using reality-free Republican boilerplate as shorthand to say he doesn't like that guy in the White House.
Yes, by all means, if we want a more "robust" foreign policy, we need to put Lindsay Graham and Grampy McCain in charge. There would be no shortage of hyperventilating, indiscriminate bombing, and arming people who would become our enemies two months later. Now that's a "muscular" foreign policy!
I'll never look at Stan the same way again, sadly!
What exactly does Stan want Obama to do?
What specific solutions does he have to deal with the governments, and private citizens in other countries who do not think we are such wonderful people?
Bill Fleming---thank you. You so nailed it and I think that an attitude of forgiveness along with rebuke like you put forth is the only path forward for this country. This "civil war" we've been in since mid-90's has to diminish sometime and I think we have to hope for it.
You hit the nail on the head, Bill.
Great post Bill! Thanks!
Bill,
I think that Pressler and Weiland should run hard on the Obama record. Please encourage them to do so. Thanks.
Troy, I think I just did.
Actually, Troy what I'm suggesting is that the reason you guys want to run against Obama, Reid, BMW's etc. is because you know your candidate, Mr. Rounds has a file of evidence of being a poor candidate for Senate that's getting fatter and fatter every day, and you want to distract people form looking at it in any way possible.
I don't blame you, my friend.
It's your only hope.
Has been from the beginning of the campaign.
Obama was handed a shit sandwich by the Bush regime and has chosen make the GOP eat it instead, Troy: you guys are toast.
Mike Rounds, the governor that was all too happy to spend Obama's stimulus pork. Stan wake up. Weiland is going to change that big money agenda? Cory wake up.
Whether or not Troy is toast, the boy always knows who's buttering his bread. Always profitable to be a Republican in South Dakota.
As Bill aptly points out, Obama's record is actually one of lifting us out of the anti-democratic ruts that the nation has been submerged in. The GOP in South Dakota has adopted malice and misanthropy as the foundation of its platform. They are trying to run on a policy of war-mongering and, in South Dakota they cling to racism and corruption as the basis for political power. Betty Olson and PP speaks for them, and that is the record they are running on. People in South Dakota are not running from the Democratic Party as much as from what this state has become under decades of rule by the dominant party.
Bill and all,
Good. I'm glad Weiland will soon be running ads that outline his agenda, including where he supports Obama. I thought he might be like all the other Democratic Senate candidates (Pryor, Braley, Udall, Shaheen, Begich, Hagan, Nunn, & Landrieu) who are running away from Obama.
Several months back, John Tristan posted a thread on how President Obama's economic policies have saved our economy, President Obama is good for business, all business.
Being the successful businessman that Stan is, it seems that he would recognize that fact and endorse any candidate that would continue President Obama's policies.
Troy,
If Mike Rounds didn't run and hide from nearly every debate in the state, none in western South Dakota, Rick could tell Rounds personally what his agenda is.
Stan's assertion that Rick is beholden to wealthy donors is ridiculous, what is Adelstein, small money?
How will Rounds be beholden to Stan?
Roger,
Not all agree with John. These are facts.
Unemployment rate is 5.9%. This is the lowest level since the Great Recession. This is good
Labor participation rate is 62.7% (lowest since 1978) and share of population employed is 59% which is lower than before the Great Recession. This is not good.
Only 42% of Americans believe in the American Dream (work hard, get ahead). This is down from 50% and the steepest declines are among people under 30, women, and Democrats. How is this Obama thing working out for you?
Real US median household income is $51,939 (3.9% lower than it was when the recession "ended" in 2009 and 7.9% lower than at the start of the recession). Not my idea of prosperity.
The Census Bureau Gini Coefficient which measures income inequality shows that it has risen greater during the Obama years than ever before. Furthermore, the poverty rate is 14.3% (no change since 2009) and 2% above 2007.
From 2010-2013, median income for the top 10% grew 2% while dropped 5.5% for the bottom 40%.
Federal Reserve quantitative easing during the Obama years has kept interest rates artificially low. This has disproportionately benefited the wealthy who have stocks and real estate and done nothing for the less wealthy who mostly have savings.
Obama's focus on income inequality has made it worse and retarded growth and recovery from the recession (slowest and least robust ever).
Troy,
You continually ignore Rounds willingness to debate, when will you specifically address that issue?
Are those of us that live in western South Dakota not entitled to see a candidate debate, by all appearances Rounds has blown us off and taking us for granted.
Troy, have you noticed that Cory doesn't DELETE your comments even if he disagrees with them? Can't say the same about your co-conspirator at the Dump Site.
Sounds like a sales pitch for a national minimum wage increase to me, Troy. :-)
The simple reason income equality is going up faster now is because so much wealth shifted to the top under dumbass dubya and whitey wingnuts in congress. Wingnuts accelerated the rape of the middle class and sent jobs overseas at the fastest rate ever.
Troy likes to tell us how businesses are too nervous to create new jobs. Says they're not comfortable with taking a risk. Pretty much saying that in spite of Obama and the Government throwing them all a lifeboat when their ship was sinking, they're not comfortable because the seats aren't soft enough.
Same old-same old.
Sooner or later the business community is going to have to accept responsibility for the sluggish economy and get up off it.
The President doesn't decide when and how business should innovate.
And small businesses don't create new jobs. New businesses do.
...the kind of new businesses companies like his and EB-5 are supposedly dedicated to get up and running.
Great!
Let's get to it.
Time's a waistin'!
I suppose if I were a South Dakota Republican, I'd be nervous about a start up business too.
Northern Beef Packers had more than $170 million in grants from the states and Communist Chinese investor money and couldn't make it.
If this is Mike Rounds idea of economic development, every Republican business start up should be more than a little nervous.
Great post BF. I used to have some respect for Stan, after all he did live in my home town for a few years. I stopped liking him a few years ago when he gave Bob Newland the brush off during hearings about medical marijuana.
His undying support of Rounds only strengthens my nagativity towards him. I'm sure he is a real nice man, but I will never give support of any kind again to people that treat Isreal better then their own country. I admit that before the Rounds trip i felt differently, however that one thing caused me to forever change my mind about both Stan and Rounds. One was trying to push his religion, and the other was trying to get more butter on his bread. I dont know how Jewdeism fits with Catholicism, but it looks like politics to me. Of course I could be wrong and Mike needed the Jewish vote so bad, after all look at the huge jewish voting block in SD, but it looks like he was after support when he got elected. Its a damn shame when a politician that governed in a state with the poorest counties in the nation feels the need to shmooze another country when he could be trying to find options to fix those conditions.
It makes you wonder, "who's blowing who and for how much?"
Bollen had the right idea, get the hell out of South Dakota before the shit hits the fan. Maybe Mike could convert. I hear tha Israel is awful pretty with all the money we send their way.
Let me see here. They go to Isreal to get support for a candidate those people in Isreal will never get to vote for, while knowing that at least 8% of the people back home dont get the same chance for a good life as those people.
Here's a question for both Mike and Stan. Would you support cutting aid for Isreal by 75% and putting that money towards the tribes in "this country?" Last I looked we were giving Isreal over $8million a day. Read it again, $8 milliom dollars a day. Just think about it, $2,920,000,000 every year to fix something in "this country. " shame on those two lowlifes. At least we know where their priorities lye, their religions first, their pocketbooks second, then some people that live in another country, and then way way down the line the constituents of South Dakota.
Shalom
The Blindman
nice list of dems in contention, sarah, I mean troy...we'll talk here nov. 5th if you come out. you're such a pitbull. did you hear...?
1. That old, Reagan-era black magic is making a comeback.
October 5, 2014
One thing they [repubs if they win the senate] will be able to do, however, is impose their will on the Congressional Budget Office, heretofore a nonpartisan referee on policy proposals.
Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P., jobs, wages and family incomes.***
True, recovery from the 2007-9 recession has been sluggish, but it has actually been a bit faster than the typical recovery from financial crisis, despite unprecedented cuts in government spending and employment. In fact, the recovery in private-sector employment has been faster than it was during the “Bush boom” last decade.
[Today], researchers at the International Monetary Fund, surveying cross-country evidence, have found that redistribution of income from the affluent to the poor, which conservatives insist kills growth, actually seems to boost economies.
kiss,kiss....PAUL KRUGMAN
2. Income inequality: Yale Nobel prize for economics winner Robert J. Shiller, (who called rising economic inequality "the most important problem that we are facing now today"),[39] former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, ("This is not the type of thing which a democratic society – a capitalist democratic society – can really accept without addressing"),[35] and President Barack Obama (who referred to the widening income gap as the "defining challenge of our time").[40]
You should talk to stan and see if his family may support a wealth tax with you.
LOL. Just what I expected. Rather than discuss why Obama's policies have adversely affected his primary objective (income inequality), the answer is "not his fault" but businesses or let's double down and do more of what hasn't worked. You guys are a hoot.
Like I said, anything to distract us from the fact that Rick Weiland is running against Mike Rounds in South Dakota. And despite Mike's being a rather popular former governor in a Republican dominated state, he can't seem to get his poll numbers much higher than 35% You're the hoot, Troy. Just what we expected. ;-)
Just as I expected, Troy is playing games, again.
Troy, you can take your laundry list of numbers and compare them to where they were when perhaps the biggest economic disaster in our lifetimes greeted Obama and I'm sure they'll compare favorably. The hole dug by the ruinous policies that defined the Bush economy was deep and possibly bottomless. The piece that Roger C. referenced was actually aimed at you and our fellow Pubs, using indicators that are near and dear (http://theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-09-27T13:40:00-07:00&max-results=7) to our Republican hearts. The markets are roaring, corporate earnings are at record highs, interest rates are at record lows and consumer sentiment and spending just keep going upward. Meantime, annual federal deficits relative to GDP are dropping almost as quickly as they did during the Clinton years. My Q is, why on earth would Republicans want to upset the status quo when the currently divided government is working so well for them? Economic growth could move forward at a slightly faster pace, which would generate improvement in the data that you list, but some regression analysis to where we were 6 years ago confirms that the trend is our friend. When Rounds says that Washington is broken I think he's right. A broken D.C. is about as close to a laissez-faire economy that is so near and dear to our Republican tickers.
Washington is broken alright, it was done so with the help of Mike Rounds.
Don't forget that he flew around in an airplane that was paid for by the feds. And, he had the gall to fly it for his personal pleasure. what a hypocrite he is.
John,
1) The numbers I used had the start of the recession as the baseline. They are what greeted Obama.
2) As serious as that disaster was, it was financial in nature and not fundamental to the economy. The recovery should have been quicker and more robust (unless of course, we didn't fix the financial exposure :) ).
3) Your litany of goods (stock market, corporate earnings) makes my point. These good times are not coming down to main street and family income. Obama has been good for the rich and bad for working people.
4) During Bush the Deficit as % of GDP was 2.5% over his administration and pretty steady (not very good in my mind). Take out the stimulus and the early spending/reduced revenue of the first couple years and Obama's actual and projected budgets are pretty steady at 4%. There is no dropping like "during the Clinton years."
5) The trend sucks. It is tepid at best and atrociously weak at worst.
Bill, all I can say is I'm pretty happy with my over-under on where Rounds will end up. :) Now get Weiland to start running issue ads that tie him to the policies of Obama. If they're so darn good, it might stop him from ending up in third place.
Obama has had a hostile congress for nearly six years where bush had a compliant bunch of weasels for six years. bush got his wars and his taxbreaks for the wealthy and all his spending and prescription drugs w/o having to raise a penny to pay for any of it. Obama can't raise taxes to pay bushes bills.
Lets get to it. Troy said, " Labor participation rate is 62.7% (lowest since 1978) and share of population employed is 59% which is lower than before the Great Recession. This is not good."
Wow that sure sounds bad to me, but wait.
In 1929 there were 129,767,000 people in this country. Today there are right at 315,000,000. That is more then twice the population that it was then. Now, unless you have been living in a cave you also know that our population is aging, but not dying. The number of people that are actively perusing employment has in its mix a whole bunch of just past boomers. Where are your supporting statistics that figure that into the equation?
In 1900 there was 13% of the population that was over 50. Today nearly 30%, and in the next 35 years it will double again. http://plus50.aacc.nche.edu/employers/popualation/Pages/default.aspx
I hear all this bull about how bad Obama has done, and we should be doing better, ok. Lets get in the wayback machine and go back to March of the year Obama took office. It seems like I heard something like this, "Our number one priority is to get Obama out of office." No lets fix this mess, no hands across the isle, they were only interested in one thing, not letting the president get anything done.
Didnt the GOP own the ACA before it was ObamaCare? What caused that change of heart? Was it the color of his skin?
Where was their alternative?
Obama had a jobs bill that got shot down at a time we could have added many new jobs in the country, and at the same time rebuild our infrastructure. If that plan wasnt any good why didnt the GOP come up with one of their own? Why would you keep something that good a secret if it would work? Thats right, they didnt have a damn plan. The only plan they did have was to obstruct.
Let me make this perfectly clear. Troy, what exactly would you have done differently if you had been in Obamas place? I have asked that question at least a couple of dozen times on these blogs and never got an answer. Doesnt it seem like someone could give a try at answering?
Has Mike Rounds ever had to answer that question?
Has Stan ever had to answer it?
Why?
The Blindman
Bill,
I'd have passed a market based health insurance reform which dealt with pre-existing conditions and insurance portability (the GOP has such a plan. Obama just ignored to discuss it because "he won and elections matter"). I'd have enhanced consumer control over health care decisions by expanding health savings accounts to reduce costs.
I'd have instead of passing Dodd Frank, I'd have reinstated Glas-Steagal. I'd lessen most other regulations on banks and just increase their capital requirement. These two basically take out all the financial risk in the system. Dodd-Frank just made the big banks more "too big to fail."
I'd have frozen the size of the federal government until expenditures were 18% of the GDP.
I'd have reduced corporate income tax rates to be competitive with the rest of the world.
You seem to pooh-pooh the labor participation number. Actuarily, our economy and current social spending (including Medicare and Social Security) depend on a 63% labor participation rate. If we are going to accept 59%, we have to have even more drastic spending cuts to prevent the weight of the system collapsing upon itself. Or, we can do Social Security reform that encourages people to work into their 70's (which still allows 15+ years of retirement) and get growth.
I'd cut the minimum wage for young people, especially young people in high unemployment areas. We have to give opportunity to that first job vs. incentivizing further automation.
I'd build Keystone which will reduce energy costs in the economy (effective tax cut for the people and make our industry more competitive). At the same time, i'd have a more strategic approach to incentives for the development of truly renewable energy sources (wind/solar) in areas where they can truly be efficient (e.g. powering offices, homes and plants) vs. the inefficient such as autos and trucking.
If I had more time to think, I'd come up with more. There is not a shortage of alternative solutions. We just need people willing to listen to ideas that don't fit traditional ideologies (conservative or liberal).
P.S. The lack of cooperation and the "get Obama out" is at least as much his fault as Republicans. It was Obama who refused any discussions with the GOP on stimulus, Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, Hafa, etc.
Troy, when Obama took over, the economy was losing 700-800 thousand jobs a month. You're calling that a disaster that was "financial in nature and not fundamental to the economy?" Good grief. Could there be something more fundamental to the economy than jobs? My litany is good because there's an underlying soundness to this economy: 55 straight months of job growth, slow but steady GDP growth, and all the market indicators are strong. As to the deficit, you're missing something, big time. Republicans have shut down their deficit hysteria in recent months, if you haven't noticed. Why? Because CBO reports that the federal deficit is now 3% of GDP, compared to 10% of GDP when Bush left office, as reported in The Hill this morning. Tax revenues are strong, maybe the strongest ever, and they're coming from an improving economy. Yes, we've got a ways to ago when it comes to spreading out income gains and improving real incomes, and Obama has to focus on those matters now. However, I don't see any initiatives coming from Pubs generally or the Rounds campaign specifically that address that issue. You think the trend, in your graceless prose, "sucks." I think it's going in the right direction. Take the last word.
Or not invading Iraq saving 3 TRILLION for single payer medical care and free college tuition.
GOP = earth haters.
Bush I and II = war criminals.
Adelstein is a Zionist like Rounds is member of a cult that supports the 'Discovery Doctrine.'
John,
Regarding the economy and job loss, I spoke in short-hand thinking you'd understand what I said. It isn't your fault I wasn't clear.
There are recessions that are fundamental (excess inventory, poor productivity, poorly allocated labor/capital, inflationary, balance of trade, international competitiveness) and there are those that are financial. Loss of jobs and drops in income are symptoms are both and why recessions are bad. The different types of recession require different solutions and have different recovery periods. That was why I made the distinction. Not to minimize one or the need for sound policies to move forward.
By the way, the 10% Bush deficit was mostly accounting. The outlay of TARP counted against Bush's deficit. The repayment reduced Obama's deficit. Take out TARP and Bush's deficit was about 3% of GDP and Obama's would have been higher during his years.
By the way, I opposed TARP, going into Iraq (the liberals and conservatives both called me un-American), and the length of time we have been in Afghanistan. Just as I oppose the strategy we are using to deal with ISIS.
P.S. John,
I realized I didn't define a financial recession. This is when a comprehensive asset bubble develops and it bursts (ala Tech Bubble on wider scale). The Great Recession was made worse because it triggered a loss of confidence over-reaction where asset values quickly went below their real value.
While the loss of confidence was the rationale for TARP, I didn't think it gave confidence but stoked fears it was worse than it was. The Stimulus was a mistaken application of a fundamental solution to a financial recession which in my mind undermined the fundamentals (making the recovery so anemic).
Troy,
Your comment at 15:51 and your subsequent "solutions" are in part of why President Obama was elected twice.
Your kind of thinking is what kept John McCain out of the White House in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.
Keep at it Troy, with your illogic you'll help put Hillary Clinton in the White House in2016.
p.s. Is Mike Rounds ready to debate Rick?
Thanks Troy, at least you had answers. I didnt agree with most of em but you are the first person of any party to give an answer.
The Blindman
Great to watch John and Troy in action. Thanks guys. This is why we need everybody working together, figuring things out. Call me when you're ready to make the TV ad. (...p.s. gotta get it down to 30 seconds. 60 max. We can do some infografix or something...)
Now, about Mike vs. Rick... ;-)
Bill,
It is a healthy exchange going on between the two, far better than Troy's usual one or two snarky sentences over at the Dump Site.
About those debates.............
Troy, I call bullsh*t on the:
"P.S. The lack of cooperation and the "get Obama out" is at least as much his fault as Republicans. It was Obama who refused any discussions with the GOP on stimulus, Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, Hafa, etc."
No talks whatsoever? I will give you the opportunity to prove that Obama refused discussions...but that is as big of leap to a lie that I've seen you take. Unless, of course you think that refusing discussions translates into not caving to partisan GOP rants.
OK, time for a quick review.
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence.
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
psssttt...over here David Montgomery.
Just between you and me, do your J-School profs a favor and review this before you bring shame on good old Grinnell College.
False equivalence is occasionally claimed in politics, where one political party will accuse their opponents of having performed equally wrong actions.[1] Commentators may also accuse journalists of false equivalence in their reporting of political controversies if the stories are perceived to assign equal blame to multiple parties.[2] It should not be confused with false balance – the media phenomenon of presenting two sides of an argument equally in disregard of the merit or evidence on a subject (a form of argument to moderation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Jana, do you mean to be posting these post to Monty here? Or are you actually aiming for the "Victory for Rounds... thread?"
Bill Dithmer, you are welcome. While we don't agree often, you often lay out ideas and complete thoughts.
Bill Fleming, I want the first order of business after the election to be the repeal of Dodd-Frank, re-institution of Glass-Steagel, and increase in bank capital requirements. We need the restructuring of the financial system to get real growth via small business. The second order of business is repeal and replace Obamacare. Get working on those ads. :)
Troy, your claim that Obama refused discussions with the GOP leaders might find a little evidence that will be hard for you to refute.
I know, let's Google "Obama meets with GOP leaders"...
Well, that was quick. 215,000 results in 3.7 seconds.
Troy, please proceed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIMnWGrh60M
Troy, why didn't the legislators deal with the long standing healthcare/insurance issues before Obama became president?
The healthcare issues did not suddenly appear on the day that Obama started his campaign.
The legislators failed us for decades, and I believe that those calling for a total repeal of the ACA are not going to be successful in coming up with something that can be implemented the moment that the ACA would be repealed, if it is repealed.
First order of business is to triple korporate tax rates,freeze all offshore accounts until the new higher rate is paid on the twenty plus trillion being hidden from gubmint taxes and then throw the sonsabitches in jail with whitey wingnut pols who allowed the rape of the treasury to occur.
I get the feckless "repeal" part of Obamacare that has become the GOP mantra...impossible as it is...they keep trying. How many times have they voted on that?
What I don't get, is the replace part. Would it be something from the Heritage Foundation? Ewwps...that is what Obamacare was based on. Maybe it's based on GOP favorite Mitt Romney's plan...ewwps again.
So what would it be? You know, something that works?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/opinion/paul-krugman-so-much-for-obamacare-not-working.html?_r=0
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/affordable-care-act-is-working-104942.html#.VDR1MfldUec
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/08/27/yes-obamacare-is-cutting-the-deficit/
JeniW,
My biggest beef with Bush II is choosing to be a war President. My second biggest beef is failing to move forward on health insurance issues where there is a big national consensus on the problem (not on the solution). Because I disagreed with Iraq, I don't accept the excuse health insurance getting pushed aside for Iraq and the war on terror.
My biggest beef with Romney was he talked about how bad Obamacare is but failed to talk as much about a replacement. I think that is the biggest reason he lost.
I love this blog. *passing out popcorn*
Now, connect all of the above: national to local. I'm not bashing Troy here, at all. But about 80% of what he said at 15:51 is not what the local voter is thinking about when in the voting booth. It's all heady stuff from some deep thinkers, analysts, partisans, et al. He is not relating to the average voter, as I get a sense that Rounds is not either.
Bill's post at 8:26. More please. Not because it's about Obama, because my first thought was to counter with all the reasons I'm pissed off at Obama. And that is exactly wrong. It's not about just me. It's because of the "we" and "us" and "running together" as opposed to running against you, yours, "them".
Good ad man, that Bill.
My man, Mr. Stan. He is a good egg indeed.
Thank you Stan for convincing me to donate to Rick's campaign, and for confirming that I made the correct choice of voting early for Rick.
You rock!
Tania,
I was answering a direct question from Bill Dithmer. They were views on governing which should be the goal. Not just winning elections.
"They were views on governing which should be the goal. Not just winning elections". Troy
Mike Rounds has broken more rules on governing than can be listed here, not only has he broken those rules it is becoming apparent that he has broke a few laws along the way.
The disgusting part of the Rounds saga is that the Troy's of the Republican Party continue to justify the Rounds corruption without pausing for a moment to think that the EB-5 scam could possibly be true. No, not Troy, he goes right to denial.
Not just winning elections coming from Troy is nonsense, all of this is about winning elections, are you really that naïve Troy?
Mr. C, you have long been the libbie voice of reason here. When might you run for office because I would tell people to put your signs in their yards, sir.
Why thank you grudz, that is a truly a compliment.
Others have suggested that I run for office, but I'll tell you what I have told them. I've always been somewhat of a political animal and as you point out, a liberal one. I have never had the desire to be a candidate myself, I enjoy working campaigns, advising candidates on strategy and getting out the vote.
I'm often hard on my own candidate and can be quite critical of them when they make missteps, that is why I like Rick, he hasn't made any serious errors in this campaign.
Once my candidate is elected, I am equally hard on them and expect them to keep their promises, I know Rick will do just that.
Liberal or not grudz, you should consider voting for the man named Rick Weiland, he is the only one of the four candidates that knows what the word integrity means and lives up to it.
Roger,
I've asked you to several times to detail what laws Rounds broke and what evidence you have. This should be easy since you say "it is becoming apparent he broke a few laws along the way." You've never answered that question despite at least a dozen requests yet you come back to your unsubstantiated charges.
I've worked for a Governor. They are in the office maybe 20 hours a week and on the road 60 hours a week. The magnitude of State Government is so large that nothing that people are saying Rounds should have known were matters one couldn't get on a Governor's schedule to discuss. And, since it appears things were not being done properly with Benda's knowledge, he surely wasn't going to brief the Governor on these things and reality is a Governor isn't going to ask for such details. This reality would apply if the Governor were a Democrat or a Republican.
Troy,
First of all I tried to respond to your question when you asked it during one of our conversations on the Dump Site, in typical cowardice, Pat Powers deleted it.
If you would take the time and review Cory's reporting on the Mike Rounds EB-5 Scandal since he started reporting on this after Richard Benda was murdered in a shelterbelt, you'd see a story of misdeeds and lawlessness emerge.
Now the facts of Mike Rounds involvement, as long as Tidemann and GOAC contain this scandal on behalf of Mike Rounds, we don't know all the facts, unless you are a Rounds insider, you don't know them either.
And that is the rub Troy, the stonewalling and cover up by two governors, their attorney generals, and the Republican legislature.
Unless you want me and others to quit assuming anything about Mike Rounds and his corruption he has to come clean and not with the sanitized version of Powers and Wadhams. Mike won't do that and you know it.
What law was broken and what is the tie to Rounds where he is a co-conspirator? It really is a simple question.
The message is that SDGOP has languished under the Governor's Club patronage and is being backed into the dustbin of history, Troy.
Denny Hecker the former auto dealer from the Twin Cities could have some South Dakotans joining him after the election at the Federal Work Camp in Duluth. They stories they could tell each other.
https://madvilletimes.com/2013/08/kevin-schieffer-reminds-me-south-dakota-should-vote-for-board-of-regents/
Troy,
Let's try this one first, Rounds committed felony in his GOAC deposition about not being served in the Darly lawsuit. The evidence is clearly there.
From there we can work backwards, but Tidemann and Jackley won't allow that, will they?
Troy,
Have you started reading Mike Rounds EB-5 Scandal coverage, yet?
I'm reminded that you use the word "objectively" quite often, apply it when you read those threads.
Roger,
You have been saying Rounds is a criminal for months and you seriously assert the crime he committed was a couple of weeks ago? Wow. You are a piece of work. Few people I've ever met have such a reckless regard for their reputation. Is this your real name or a pseudonym?
Could Rounds afford a mistress from the Philippines while he was governor, Troy?