O’Connor Gets Veterans Service Officer to Say Lederman, District 16 GOP Bad for Vets

Last updated on 2012.11.06

District 16 Senator Dan Lederman thought he could distract folks from his anti-veteran votes by pointing to the South Dakota Democratic Party's clerical errors.

The man who wants Lederman's job, Democrat Mike O'Connor, isn't going to let that distraction happen. O'Connor enlists Union County veterans service officer and registered Republican Ron Jenkins to set straight the record on how Lederman and fellow District 16 Republicans Rep. Jim Bolin and Rep. Patty Miller voted to cut funding for veterans services:

[O'Connor]: The politicians have made a mess of veterans funding. Did Senator Lederman really vote against our veterans? It's gone back and forth like a ping pong ball.

This is Mike O'Connor, a farmer from Alcester, a former legislator. One of the reasons I decided to run against Mr. Lederman is because I heard he voted against our veterans. He says he didn't; the Democrat Party says he did. Who's right?

I went right to the source, the veterans service officer for Union County, Ron Jenkins. What's the truth, Ron?

[Jenkins] Hello, I'm Ron Jenkins, and I am the Union County veterans service officer, a retired Air Force officer, and a registered Republican.

All three legislators in House District 16 voted in favor of the three bills, and against veterans each time. If you support veterans, ask State Senator Lederman and State Representatives Bolin and Miller to be honest about their failure to support our state's veterans.

[unknown] So please vote for Mike O'Connor on Tuesday. Paid for by Friends of Mike O'Connor for Senate [campaign ad, November 2012].

O'Connor takes a much fairer shot at Lederman here than McGrath takes at Jensen out in District 33. O'Connor focuses on votes on policy issues, not vague, unsubstantiated personal gossip.

Still, the ad has room for improvement. You can hear O'Connor trying to squeeze a lot of text into this one-minute spot. But if you're going to say "the three bills," you need to name them. I suspect Jenkins may be referring to the 2011 budget bill, which cut funding for veterans service officers, and 2011's Senate Bill 188, which ended graduate tuition reductions for National Guard members. (I'm having trouble coming up with a third; readers, any suggestions?)

One can debate whether Lederman and his Republican friends really have some anti-veteran agenda. As was the case with the anonymous robocalls attacking the GOP leadership last summer, we can point to at least as many bills where Republicans joined Democrats in votes that clearly support veterans.

But O'Connor lands a fair punch by getting the local expert on veterans services, Ron Jenkins, to go on the record and say Lederman has been bad for veterans.