Just as Susan Wismer farted up her own message on EB-5 theft by letting some meathead consultant plagiarize content from other candidates, the SDGOP now fumbles the chance it has to royally roast Wismer by committing its own blatant hypocrisy.

The SDGOP's spin machine now goes ape over the existence of stock photos in the Democratic gubernatorial candidate's advertising.

Does this sound familiar?

Remember Mike Rounds's Parisian stock photo flop last spring? 30 seconds of expensive TV advertising chock wall to wall with stock, non-South Dakota images. I called the Rounds ad stupid, lazy campaigning symbolizing a disconnect with South Dakota as well as a failure to perform the simple task of sending out a photographer to take lots of nice photos of South Dakota. I invite the same critique of Wismer's stock-tography.

But the SDGOP doesn't get to make fun of stock photos when its response to Mike Rounds's stock photos was this:

Can any campaign claim that they’re purely made in South Dakota?

Yes, it would appear that there are some stock images used in the Rounds commercial. And one of them was taken of a *gasp* french person. But then you look at the landscape of the rest of the campaigns.

...So, is this a legitimate campaign issue, or are we devolving into silliness by demanding that they adopt an impossible standard?  Your thoughts? [Pat Powers, "Is the 'Made in South Dakota' Purity Test Impossible to Achieve? All Candidates Using Out of State Resources," Dakota War College, 2014.03.31]

My thought, South Dakota Republican Party, is that you are a bunch of opportunistic and amnesiac hypocrites. Carry on.

13 comments

In the noteworthy philosophical juxtaposition of the week, my friend Leo Kallis discovers the real reason for Governor Dennis Daugaard's disdain for philosophy: the Governor has admitted that he is a moral relativist... or as he would have been known in ancient Greece, a sophist:

Off the top of my head, I can think of only two schools of philosophical thought that would accept "everything is relative" as true: the ancient sophists and their descendants, the postmodern deconstructionists. For whatever reason, Daugaard doesn't seem like one of the latter.

Perhaps the Governor would know that if he brushed up on his philosophy instead of condemning it and trumpeting his wisdom about philosophy without understanding the subject. The latter quality does mark him as a sophist.

Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier: not everything is relative [Leo Kallis, "Daugaard the Sophist?" The Displaced Plainsman, 2014.09.25].

Meanwhile, from another quadrant of the political galaxy, Lora Hubbel sends out a campaign e-mail with this year-old video of a Sioux City pastor breaking out the pinstripes (I would like to see Kallis in that suit!) and berating his parishioners for supporting relativist Republicans:

2 Minute Trailer: "Exposing Situational Ethics," by Pastor Cary Gordon, from Cornerstone World Outreach on Vimeo.

I'll agree with both bearded believers: there are some absolutes. One must believe in something bigger than just winning an election.

12 comments

Ah, high school debate, that joyous season when ninth graders stand and deliver more public debates in one weekend than Mike Rounds will during the entire general election season.

Looking at contemporary public political discourse through my high school debate judging paradigm is generally a bad idea, since it insults high school debate. But let's imagine South Dakota's Democrats and Republicans are high school debaters and see who won this week.

When I judge a high school debate, I take notes called a flow. First the Affirmative team speaks and puts points on the flow to prove some point. Then the Negative team speaks to put responses on the flow. Usually, after two speeches by decent debaters, my flow looks like this:
Sample FlowAff lays out arguments, and Neg responds to each one, point by point. Even if Point III is bogus, Neg takes a moment to explain why Point III is bogus before moving on to IV, V, etc. (And Neg does this in eight minutes or less—smart kids!) That's good clash (and good fun!).

South Dakota Democrats are on Affirmative, arguing that Mike Rounds is corrupt and unfit for U.S. Senate. This week, Democrats put a lot of arguments on the flow. And how did Team Rounds and the SDGOP—the Negative team—respond?Bollen-Rounds corruption flow Clash? What clash?

Against seven well-evidenced Aff points that show Mike Rounds rewarding the corrupt double-dealing and deceit of state employee Joop Bollen, Neg launches two ad hominem attacks at the bottom of the flow, tacks one diversionary non-response to one point, and leaves the rest of the flow blank. Mike Rounds, Dick Wadhams, and the rest of the GOP team have not challenged...

  1. the existence of Joop Bollen's contract with himself;
  2. the illegal conflict of interest created by such a contract;
  3. Bollen's violation of Board of Regents policy;
  4. Bollen's concealment of his unauthorized legal pleading on behalf of the state;
  5. Bollen's subjection of the state to legal liability;
  6. Kathy Tyler's specific math or her general charge that Bollen diverted money from state coffers;
  7. Rounds's rewarding of this rogue state employee with a no-bid contract.

In a high school debate round, I can just glance at the flow, see all that white space in Neg's column, and know that Aff is winning the debate. The SDGOP's inability to come up with direct responses to these questions about Mike Rounds's management of economic development shows they weren't ready for this corruption to be exposed and don't know how to spin pretty black-and-white evidence that Mike Rounds should not be our next Senator.

Of course, Republicans have more than eight minutes to respond. But every day they leave the flow blank is a day when Democrats can shout "Drop! Pull!", and tell voters to draw the arrows and vote Aff. Keep piling on, Dems!

7 comments

While the GOP leadership treats Joop Bollen with kid gloves, accepting without complaint his refusal to testify in person before the Government Operations and Audit Committee, I am reminded of a somewhat testier Legislative committee that responded to balky witnesses with somewhat more intensity.

In December 2011, Rep. Stace Nelson and five other Republican legislators complained that the GOP House leadership was violating ethics rules. Leadership threw together an ad hoc committee, chaired by Sen. Joni Cutler, that declined to exercise subpoena powers or take testimony under oath. Dissatisfied with that lack of rigor, complainant Reps. Nelson, Lance Russell, and Lora Hubbel decided the hearing was not worth attending.

Chairwoman Cutler implored Rep. Russell to play nicely and said his attending the hearing in person would be much better than discussing the matter in writing:

There are both procedural and legal reasons for addressing those issues in this manner. My hope is that you would refrain from drawing conclusions about what you think I intend to do in the hearing as you risk inaccuracy in so doing. That is one of the huge drawbacks in trying to assess this through email and letters and why it is preferable, in fairness to everyone, to handle all of this in an open meeting and on the record with witnesses personally present.

We really need your cooperation and presence so that we can have the type of dialog that will help us work toward a proper resolution. We would be happy to meet into the evening if that would help you come to Pierre [Senator Joni Cutler, letter to Rep. Lance Russell, 2012.01.02].

When the hearing convened the next day and certain legislators remained absent Chairwoman Cutler got out the stick:

Emphasizing the seriousness of the hearing, Cutler reviewed statutes outlining the consequences of a legislator neglecting or refusing to testify when summoned. The penalties include a Class 2 misdemeanor, the forfeiture of public office and disqualification of running for public office again in the state.

It was the chairwoman’s review that prompted Rep. Lora Hubbel, R-Sioux Falls, one of the three missing legislators, to hop into her car and make the 225-mile drive to Pierre.

“They said we had to or we are breaking the law. If they want to beat me up there, I will let them beat me up,” Hubbel said while getting into her car to leave [Megan Luther, "Legislative Probe Hears Conflicting Testimony," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.01.04].

Cutler's January 2 letter to Rep. Russell doesn't appear to be a subpoena; she's simply inviting him to come speak in person to the committee. But when Rep. Russell refused to attend in person, she broke out statute:

SDCL 2-6-5: Disobedience of legislative summons as misdemeanor. Any person who is summoned to attend as a witness before either house of the Legislature or any committee thereof authorized to summon or subpoena witnesses, and who refuses or neglects without lawful excuse to attend pursuant to the summons or subpoena, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

SDCL 2-6-6: Refusal to testify or produce evidence before Legislature as misdemeanor. Any person who, being present before either house of the Legislature or any committee thereof authorized to summon witnesses, willfully refuses to be sworn or affirmed, or to answer any material and proper question, or to produce upon reasonable notice any material or proper books, papers, or documents in his possession or under his control, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

SDCL 2-6-7: Forfeiture of office by legislator in violation--Disqualification from public office. The conviction of a member of the Legislature of any crime defined in § 2-6-5 or 2-6-6 involves as a consequence, in addition to the punishment prescribed therein, a forfeiture of his office and disqualifies him from ever thereafter holding any public office under this state.

Chairwoman Cutler wielded this statutory threat on an ad hoc committee, in the absence of any formal summons.

Fast forward to today. Senator Larry Tidemann chairs the Government Operations and Audit Committee, which is specifically empowered by SDCL 2-6-4 to summon witnesses in its thorough examination of every state department's management and expenditures. He asks former state employee Joop Bollen to testify before the committee. Bollen refuses, with no apparent lawful excuse, and Tidemann shrugs.

The moral of the story: make millions of dollars while promoting a prominent Republican's pet project, and the Legislature will go easy on you. Question the Republican leadership, and the Legislature will discover its teeth and its statutory authority to bite.

59 comments

Darrell Solberg of Sioux Falls aptly summarizes the legacy of former Governor, now Senate candidate, Mike Rounds:

He... spearheaded the failed Northern Beef Packing plant in Aberdeen, which has cost people millions.

The implementation of EB-5... not only cost investors and taxpayers millions, it has lead to lawsuits, unanswered questions, a death and the distrust of people in state government.

Seven out of the eight years in office, his administration had a structural deficit (more expenses than revenue) and thus took money out of reserve funds to balance the budget.

....Lack of government openness and transparency led to questionable practices, pay to play, tax rebates for oil pipelines and no-bid contracts.

Increasing the number of state employees, many of whom were relatives or friends, increased the state’s expenses and dependency on federal dollars.

...[L]ack of attention and commitment to education funding has caused a severe teacher shortage in the state.

College tuitions are on an upward spiral; South Dakota college graduates have one of the highest educational debts upon graduation, forcing many to leave for better paying jobs.

...Use of state airplanes for the enjoyment of attending Pierre High School football games, with friends accompanying [Rounds] while his son played [Darrell Solberg, letter to the editor, that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.08.27].

I recall Rick Knobe interviewing Scott Heidepriem on KSOO a few years ago. Heidepriem compared Mike Rounds and Bill Janklow. A recovering Republican, Heidepriem said that he disagreed with plenty of Janklow's decisions, but he respected Janklow's big vision and his ability to translate that vision into action. Rounds, said Heidepriem, didn't seem to have any vision. Rounds came and went from the Capitol and didn't really change anything about South Dakota. The only real marks he left were red ink in the budget and higher numbers on the Hobbs meter.

Maybe the South Dakota Republican Party is done giving us Janklows. The party of No and Noem wants pretty smiles that say the right things but do nothing more than raise money and win elections. Mike Rounds's empty gubernatorial legacy shows he fits that mold perfectly.

Anticipated Related Reading: The University of South Dakota is digitizing the Janklow Papers. Janklow gave his papers to his alma mater on the condition that they make the documents available to the public online. The Janklow Papers should make for fascinating historical reading. Candidate Rounds, how about a sneak peak at the Rounds Papers, with a focus on your flight logs and Northern Beef Packers memos?

57 comments

The South Dakota Republican Party predicates its formal call for President Barack Obama's impeachment on allegations that the President is "by passing [sic] Congress" and "usurping his authority". (One does not usurp one's own authority, but as usual with South Dakota Republicans, we have to skip what they say and listen to what they mean.)

Fellow blogger Michael Larson goes to town on those words and Governor Dennis Daugaard's record and predicts that South Dakota Republicans will soon call for the impeachment of their own Legislature-bypassing, authority-usurping governor:

Three times in 2012, Daugaard waived the law to allow the transportation of over-width livestock feed on our roads.  In 2013 he lifted the rules over propane haulers.  In 2012 he also issued an executive order to expand his economic council.  In 2011 he created a task force to lure trust companies to South Dakota by helping them hide money. In 2011 he also created a task force to form a Department of Tourism.  In 2014 he signed an executive order to release of some state financial information.  Most recently he has done another executive order in the face of GOP animosity asking his Bureau of Finance and Management to speculate the economic forecast an additional two years in the future [Michael Larson, "The SD GOP Will Be Impeaching Daugaard Soon," Taking a Left Turn in South Dakota, 2014.07.13].

Larson says Daugaard's executive orders are of far less concern than his much greater blunders on Northern Beef PackersManpower Inc., and education. But when Republicans' own logic leads to the impeachment of their own governor, it's clear their message doesn't make sense for South Dakota.

3 comments

I expected more from Dick Wadhams. But the slumping Rove wannabe who returned to the scene of his star-making 2004 crime to work for Mike Rounds made nary a ping on our political radar until last week, when the South Dakota Republican Party announced that Wadhams was leaving Team Rounds to consult for the state party on all of its candidates' campaigns.

If Wadhams did anything to earn the $3,500 a month that Rounds was paying him, we didn't hear about it. Rounds marched easily to primary victory amid four opponents who could not muster the money or organization necessary to beat the frontrunner. Mr. Kallis sees Wadhams's services as equally "superfluous" to good GOP fortunes across the ticket in November and puzzles over the SDGOP's motives in transferring Wadhams to their wing:

Are the Republicans so flush with cash that they feel the need to spend some just for the sake of spending? Perhaps Wadhams is demanding a sinecure because he believes he was not properly rewarded in 2004 and the Republicans are obliging him. Neither rationale, however, seems to be one a fiscally conservative party would consider.

Perhaps party leaders are worried about some scandal coming to the fore, but Rounds, the person most likely to be harmed by known imbroglios, is in a four-way race and doesn't need to worry about capturing 50%. Is this an effort to marginalize the party's right wing? Wadhams history with the tea party is complicated to say the least [Leo Kallis, "Wadhams Hire Prompts Curiosity," The Displaced Plainsman, 2014.06.30].

I have no firm answers to Kallis's questions, just some possible scenarios that we can test for plausibility:

  1. Rounds and Wadhams thought victory in 2014 would be more difficult. They braced for full-on war through November. But outside conservative threats never materialized. Rounds scaled back his fundraising goals, cruised over his primary opponents unscathed, and realized, with some embarrassment, that he really didn't need Wadhams's services. Not wanting to lose his résumé rebuilder, Wadhams asked if he could expand his portfolio in South Dakota instead of having to swing into job hunt mode nationwide. The SDGOP obliged.
  2. Rounds and Wadhams had a dust-up. That 55% primary vote total was less than he thought he was entitled to; he wanted 81% like Daugaard got. Rounds came out of both debates kicking in chairs and knocking down tables because he felt Wadhams didn't prep him and his glass jaw for even the few punches his opponents landed. (Dammit, Dick! I wanted a coronation, not a campaign!) Tired of Rounds's entitlement whining, Wadhams asked for an out, and the SDGOP, trying to prevent any fallout that would make Mike grumpier, obliged.
  3. It's all mind games: Rounds and Wadhams orchestrated this move to say to Rick Weiland, Larry Pressler, and Gordon Howie, "You guys are so insignificant, we're paring down the campaign staff." As a bonus mind game, Wadhams gets to make Dems across the ticket, and maybe even some local candidates thinking about jumping in to replace Democratic placeholders in legislative races, nervous: The state GOP has Dick Wadhams to sic on me in our measly Legislative race? No way am I getting into that! And the games cost the SDGOP nothing, because Rounds continues to pay Wadhams's salary via campaign finance transfers from Rounds for Senate to the SDGOP.
  4. We heard nothing because Wadhams has got nothing left. Rounds realized this early on, but the need to produce nothing but happy headlines and maybe a contract clause kept him from pulling the trigger. Then Rob or Justin or somebody came up with the idea of transferring Wadhams to party HQ to get the deadweight off their ship.

Whatever the case, we'll have Dick Wadhams to kick around for another four months. While my urge for blog fodder aches for more, my desire for civil, policy-oriented discourse hopes the remaining four months will be as absent of Wadhams's overt intrusions as the last thirteen.

4 comments

While Pat Powers continues to be too distracted by his sponsors' press releases to get around to a real SDGOP convention recap, Ken Santema serves us the full text of South Dakota Republicans' latest statewide embarrassment, the SDGOP's resolution calling for the impeachment of the President:

WHEREAS, The president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect it from all enemies both foreign and domestic,

WHEREAS, The president has violated his oath of office in numerous ways with the latest being the release of five terrorists in exchange for a soldier without consulting Congress as required by law,

WHEREAS, The president of the United States has willfully and wantonly lied to the American people telling them they can keep their insurance company, and they can keep their doctor under Obama Care, prior to an election,

WHEREAS, The president has ordered Federal Agencies to enact rules (laws) that threaten the security of the people of this great nation (EPA regulations) by passing Congress and usurping its authority,

WHEREAS, the president has abused his executive privilege usurping his authority as decided by numerous federal courts,

WHEREAS, The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are very clear on the authority of the President and the Federal Government, and when they violate their oath it is the right, it is the duty of the American people to act,

WHEREAS, America was designed as a Lex Rex (the law is king) rather than a Rex Lex (The King is the law) system of government. It is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the South Dakota Republican Party calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States [South Dakota Republican Party, resolution, passed at statewide convention, Rapid City, SD, 2014.06.21, reported by Ken Santema, "About the SD GOP Resolution Calling for Obama's Impeachment," SoDakLiberty, 2014.06.23].

Reporter David Montgomery adds value by breaking down the vote on that resolution by county. We find twelve counties whose delegations voted unanimously against the resolution:

Beadle Clark Jerauld McPherson
Bennett Codington Jones Potter
Brule Day McCook Spink

I'd like to believe that counties where even the Republican convention delegates think impeaching President Obama is silly are counties where we will find widespread sanity. But notice that all but one of those counties—Day—picked Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in 2012, and aside from Bennett and Jerauld, those counties gave Romney a double-digit margin.

Perhaps more useful to Democrats (or advocates of sanity and practical policy in general) looking for places to make inroads is this list of the twenty counties that didn't send anyone to the SDGOP convention in Rapid City:

Bon Homme Faulk Hutchinson Sully
Buffalo Grant Hyde Todd
Corson Gregory Kingsbury Tripp
Dewey Hand Marshall Walworth
Douglas Hanson Sanborn Ziebach

Those convention no-shows include six counties that went for Obama in 2012 and 2008—Buffalo, Corson, Dewey, Marshall, Todd, and Ziebach. We Dems probably have those counties covered, but it doesn't hurt to press the advantage.

The no-shows include ten counties—Douglas, Faulk, Gregory, Hand, Hanson, Hutchinson, Hyde, Sully, Tripp, and Walworth—that turned out stronger for Romney and McCain than the statewide averages. Those latter ten aren't Democratic strongholds, but their local party organizations lacked the resources or the enthusiasm to muster delegations for the convention. Might there be an organizing vacuum that clever partisans could exploit?

The no-shows include four counties—Bon Homme, Grant, Kingsbury, and Sanborn—that went against Obama in 2012 and 2008 but only near or below the statewide averages. Bon Homme is split between Districts 19 and 21. District 19 includes Hanson County, home of numerous disaffected Stace Nelson supporters. I'd recommend a little targeted Democratic advertising to push the Legislative race... but District 19 is one place where we fielded no Democratic Legislative candidates. Maybe next time?

Meanwhile, in the District 21 side of Bon Homme, perhaps Democratic Rep. Julie Bartling and her ballot-mate Carrie Ackerman Rice could challenge GOP Rep. Lee Qualm to defend his party's impeachment resolution. Ditto in Grant County, where incumbent Democrat Rep. Kathy Tyler and her ticket-mate Peggy Schuelke could razz Republican challengers Fred Deutsch and John Wiik about impeachment. Delegate Deutsch voted against the resolution, along with his unified Codington County delegation, but every second Deutsch and fellow Republican House candidate John Wiik have to spend explaining their party's silliness is a second they aren't making the case for themselves against reasonable Democrats.

Rep. Peggy Gibson and Democratic Senate contender Darrell Raschke should go over to Democratic House candidate Joan Wollschlager's place in Lake Preston and stir up her neighbors to force District 22 GOP Senator Jim White and Rep. Dick Werner to explain their party's impeachment resolution.

The SDGOP convention impeachment vote is just one small dataset out of the multitude of information Democrats need to use to run smart and win in November. But these numbers provide some small pieces to add to the puzzle.

21 comments

Recent Comments

  • caheidelberger on "Watertown Students D...": Tasiyagnunpa Livermont follows up with a ...
  • Kathy on "Guest Column: Connec...": Someone brought up the term "warrior". The diction...
  • caheidelberger on "Hobo Day Too Good fo...": Jana, JeniW, I'd love to get those questions and M...
  • caheidelberger on "Guest Column: Connec...": Troy, I made the same argument about racial/cultur...
  • tara volesky on "Abourzek Says Weilan...": I think the people's endorsement is more important...
  • mike from iowa on "Daugaard, Noem Leads...": Mowrer has my vote and I know nothing about him ex...
  • Bill Dithmer on "Hobo Day Too Good fo...": A "lighted disco dance floor." The Blindman...
  • mike from iowa on "Guest Column: Connec...": Roger C-when kids from a large city ask questions,...
  • SDTeacher on "Hobo Day Too Good fo...": I'm thinking Weiland should hire Jana and JeniW to...
  • JeniW on "Hobo Day Too Good fo...": Rounds used the federal stimulus money to balance ...

Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

Hot off the Press

Subscribe

Enter your email to subscribe to future updates

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

Visit These Sponsors

Mike Myers, Independent Candidate for South Dakota Governor
Conversation and Lunch with Democrats!
Join Stan Adelstein's conversation about South Dakota's past and future

SD Mostly Political Blogroll

South Dakota Media

Madville Monthly

Meta