Time for Anna Madsen and other prominent Brendan-backers to switch gears. Instead of reading Brendan Johnson's tea leaves for signs of progressivism, South Dakota Dems looking for a party standard-bearer have a declared U.S. Senate candidate: Rick Weiland!
Here are quick reasons Dems can fire up about Rick's announcement:
- Rick's from Madison. We all know Madison guys are smart. (For the record, Russ Olson is an Egan guy.)
- The Republican spin machine moans that Weiland isn't interesting... but that's only because his declaration throws all their diligently hyped Johnson-vs.-Herseth Sandlin hogwash out the window. Pat Powers is stuck wishing he could just recycle his tired anti-Stephanie propaganda. With nothing prepared to say about Weiland, Powers can only regurgitate Weiland's 2002 post-primary endorsement of the gal to whom he finished second.
- In further narrative dashing, we can also chuck the kerfuffly stuff about the DSCC trying to boss around the South Dakota grassroots.
- Rick spent the last ten years working for the International Code Council, where, among other achievements, he helped develop the nation's first green construction code. That practical policy work speaks in Rick's favor. It will also draw the Agenda 21 sustainability-equals-Stalin gooneybirds out of their holes to make the Republicans look crazy and drive Independents to Weiland.
- An experienced candidate in the Senate slot takes the pressure off Stephanie to serve the party in Washington. She can now focus her deliberations on the campaign and the job that better suits her family ties and moderate politics: a run for Governor!
- Maybe Rick will inspire his brother Dr. Kevin Weiland to run for office in 2014, too. Hmm... run Rick for Senate, Kevin for House... they could save money on signs! Heck, pull Ted Weiland to run against Russ Olson, and the Weiland brothers could get three times their money's worth with billboards in District 8!
- With Weiland already drawing cheers from Tom Daschle and Heartland America PACker Mike Chapman, South Dakota Dems may well have a strong progressive candidate who can draw the out-state enthusiasm (i.e., cash) we need to hold that Senate seat.
I do not endorse tonight; I reserve the right vote for any other Democrat who may throw in for the Senate primary and can better tickle my Wellstonian fancy. (Hey, Jeff Barth! Up for another walk at Great Bear?) But at this point, I greet Rick Weiland's entry into the race with enthusiasm. He's definitely a step toward building a winning Dem ticket. And if he's not the best Dem, he represents a step toward an energizing primary.
This is a bad sign for the Democrats in SD.
SHS is as strong of a candidate as there is and if she's already polling a head of Noem and a handful behind Rounds that's a great starting point.
Weiland will start out 70% back. No chance. I wouldn't even get engaged in this campaign if I was a Democrat. It's an enthusiasm killer. No one wants to volunteer for a sure loser. The entire purpose of this campaign is to fire a shot at Stephanie inside the party. Anytime that emotion is stronger than defeating Republicans it's a sure sign of a bad start.
I had no idea that Democrats at the base level hated Stephanie so strongly. It's a good thing the base is an extreme minority in both parties or we would see a matchup between Weiland and Bill Napoli. I shudder to think of how that would turn out.
"Kerfuffly stuff"? I think having Brendan pull out of this race proves that the DSCC is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The DSCC had a pull on a BJ candidacy which it does not have on a Weiland candidacy, mainly the fear of losing a primary election or general election because of a lack of funding and support from the DSCC donors list. Weiland is a seasoned politician who knows how to raise funds and if he loses he loses. BJ, however, could not afford to lose Weiland can. This is either a seized upon and brilliant end-round move by Rick or else the beginning of a "Last Hurrah" for him. Either way, he can be the liberal voice within the Party in the next year and give many Democrats like myself and an alternative to SHS.
I also think this move by Weiland saves face for Brendan Johnson. Now he can set his eyes on a more reasonable and attainable candidacy in the future, like the US House in 2016 with the help of the presidential cycle, or even 2014, if Noem chooses to run for the Senate.
This "saving face" reality also aids the entire SD Democratic Party in the coming year because it causes there to be one less major stumbling block to a united Party in the fall of 2014, especially if SHS prevails in a primary race.
If Sandlin beats Weiland, the division within the Party will be less than if Sandlin had beat Brendan. The only real issue between Weiland and Sandlin will be ObamaCare, but since it is now the law of the land, only the right-wing rumor mills over its implementation become relevant, and Sandlin's "no" vote on ObamaCare makes her the teflon candidate of 2014. If the opposite happens where Weiland beats Sandlin then all of the concerns for division become moot (since the left appears to be the more vocal constituency within the Party), but then the question becomes "Can Weiland beat a Rounds or a Noem?"
When it is all said and done, this Weiland candidacy is a "God sent" for the SDDP. It preserves Brendan for another day. It allows the SD Left a moment in the sun. If Weiland wins the primary, the left will feel good again. If Weiland wins the primary but loses the general then the center of the SD Democratic Party will find its resilience and the left will have had their try.
If Weiland wins it all "Hallelujah." If Sandlin wins the primary, I am confident the left will come home by November, especially if it appears that the Democratic majority in the US Senate is in jeopardy; and this time she would be running with a complete Democratic slate, I am assuming, (trivia question, "Who was the 2010 SD Democratic nominee for the US Senate?) and a gubernatorial ticket with legitimate historic ties to the the SD Democratic Party.
Looks like PP at the war college is going overboard trying to remain relevant. The "#1 political blog" has posted, it appears, about a half dozen posts related to Weiland since it was caught flat-footed when the Argus broke the news yesterday afternoon. Naturally, each one is negative and void of any meaningful political discussion. Must be a sad existence to have to fling mud to appear pertinent.
Pat's blood pressure must be at lethal levels.
With the Wart Collage's reputation for abject scurrility and its author's main political accomplishment the destruction of the Secretary of State's office, it is a huge boon to the Democrats. Anything it is for is suspect; anything it is against must have elemental decency and competence.
The blogosphere is full of pronouncements from those who have never actually been engaged in election compaigns or more significantly in political acts that have made significant contributions to their state or community.
Rick Weiland is an active political force who has sound accomplishments. His term for FEMA was quite the opposite of the Good-Job-Browny the agency demonstrated after Katrina. And SHS's voting record is of concern not merely to the liberal extreme in her party. For those who conjecture why Tom Daschle is so quick to support his former staff member, he was and is still a major player in healthcare reform as the spiraling costs still keep it out of reach of many working Americans. SHS voted against the Affordable Healthcare Act, just one of the votes that is of concern to those who still think politics should address major, actual problems.
Go ahead and have Rick run, he will get beat hands down. I am a Democrat but after what Rick's brother Kevin did to SHS in her last election I have no time of day for that type of candidate.
I repeat what I have said before, most voters are MODERATE and if liberals think that they can win this election with that type of candidate in this day and age they are living in a dream world!
look like 'garyd' had sour grapes for breakfast.
Pretty solid analysis by Winston.
I see in one of the links that Rick Weiland spoke with Brendan Johnson in the run up to his announcement. I wonder if he talked to Stephanie?
I don't know what it is, but the Weiland family I think has had "sour grapes," as Larry would say, about Stephanie for a long time. After losing to John Thune in 1996, Rick ran again in 2002 losing the primary to Stephanie after making a very lackluster campaign effort that year. And in 2010, Dr. Kevin Weiland did his best to undermine Stephanie before ultimately deciding not to run in a primary against her. Dr. Kevin Weiland's positions regarding agriculture and on some other issues make him completely unelectable in South Dakota. So the only conclusion I can draw is that he is the Democratic equivalent to the Republican "purity ball" crowd.
The bottom line for me is that Rick Weiland was a wishy-washy candidate against Thune in 1996, and he will get clobbered by Rounds (if he gets to the general election) in 2014. I think Rick knows he can't win, and he's just running for no other reason than to undermine Stephanie. I want no part of that.
I get the feeling the Democrats do not want to be relevant in SD.
SHS Senate
Brendan Congress
Good sleight. If Brendan Johnson has this kind of loyalty from Democrats then I 100% believe he could defeat Noem in '14.
Rounds is a flawed candidate. Reach out with your minds, Dems: all will become clear very soon.
Rounds is a good candidate with a flawed record who begins his campaign with a large head start in name ID, voter approval, and party registration. The needle Dems must thread has a very narrow eye, and Rick Weiland who has only known rejection from SD voters isn't the guy to thread that needle.
That said, I still think the Governor race is the best race for Stephanie. She ought to run for that and hope that Rick Weiland won't drag down every other Democrat with him in November 2014.
It may be a more constructive dialogue to divine down-ticket races like AG. Any ideas?
There are rumbles of Jeff Barth running for PUC.
This just seems like a poor choice for the Dems.. If their goal is to actually win the election that is. Rounds is a poor choice as a candidate. But since he is likely to grab the Republican primary he already has a large advantage over any Dem candidate. Now the Dems choose a candidate voters repeatedly rejected to put against Rounds?!
Larry, you may have thought that was sour grapes but I get real tired of individuals that seem to think they have all the answers and need to have candidates pass a "purity" test (liberal Democrats) and need to agree with their ideas and policies right down to the period or comma or they will fold up their tents and go home.
Or worse, undermine moderate candidates that truly represent the majority of the people so that they get defeated and then whine about how bad things are that the other candidate's views are not even close to what their issues are. A great example would be Kristi Noem.
The Republicans also have some of the same problem with the "tea partiers" but have the luxury of a larger majority along with a better plan to get their message to the people that actually vote.
Santema's advice is as welcome as a cold turd.
'Garyd,' if you're concerned, little buddy, become a party county chair. Contact Zach Crago.
"I had no idea that Democrats at the base level hated Stephanie so strongly. "
Republicans always assume a policy difference automatically means "hate". It doesn't mean that at all for Democrats.
Republicans hold grudges for 50 years because they turn every disagreement into hate. That tendency is one of the reasons South Dakota is stuck in the GOP mud. Agreement always at the lowest common denominator almost always means mediocre special interest advancement in South Dakota at the expense of all the real workers and thinkers.
Larry, I have served as a county chair in the past, so I have contributed to the cause. I have also been involved in several campaigns including Tom Dachle's and SHS along with others.
My point is there is a difference between being electable and being politically "pure" and some just don't get that!
"Rick's from Madison. We all know Madison guys are smart."
Couldn't agree with you more Cory. lol.
I grew up with Rick and I know what kind of person he is. His family is the definition of family values.
Hopefully people in this state will open up their minds and take a look at what Rick stands for. He talk specifcs and not do what right-wing conservatives do and talk about small government and then don't tell us what they mean.
Unlike Cory I will endorse Rick now, no matter who else gets in.
(good idea with Kevin and Ted Cory)
Members of the Democratic Party have never indulged in any purity tests for their members or their candidates. Those who think so have been reading too much of the Wart Collage ugly. The Democratic Party does have planks and policies on affordable and accessible healthcare; consumer protection and recourse against predatory and exploitive businesses; investor protections against irresponsible investment organizations; protections of the environment; discriminatory employment practices; intrusions into private family planning and management; and pork for the privileged and disrespect for the privileged. Someone who takes a stance against all or most of those is probably not a Democrat.
Bob Mercer notes a shift in party registrations, but those who claim Democratic affiliation and excoriate those who do not submit to Republican policies as immoderates have not come to terms with the demography of that registration shift. Their idea of electability is to cede the political doctrine to the Republicans and find candidates who will be obedient to that "conservative" notion, and hope that such candidates might get elected. We had a pretty good demonstration that notion doesn't work.
The demography in that voter registration shift denotes that the brain drain is affecting not only the young, but the working professionals, and retirees. They are migrating to those places where healthcare, consumer rights, environment, economic opportunity, and personal choice in religious and family life are still valued. Just as many of our ancestors emigrated out of lands that locked themselves into provincial attitudes and principles, our young, working, and retiring are finding more compatible places to work and live. A Democratic Party which surrenders its principles offers no reason for being. Compromise does not mean being compromised.
Maybe Brendan Johnson won't run for anything. Right now he's looking at 4 more years of a job that pays over $150,000 where he gets to be the boss and sleep in his own bed every night. That's a pretty good gig to have, as compared to a job in congress that:
1) pays only slightly more but requires you to travel back and forth from DC every week,
2) necessitates renting or buying a second residence thereby negating the extra pay;
3) requires that you to spend most all of your waking hours away from your family either campaigning for the position or meeting with constituents, lobbyists, donors, etc.
To get the job as US Attorney, Brendan had to sing for his supper once. But to get and keep a job in congress you have to sing for your supper over and over again every day. Giving up that cushy job and running for congress now presents a lot of risk for not a lot of reward.
It may be preferable for Brendan to stay in the plum job as long as he can swing it before making that transition to congressional candidate, or governor candidate, or attorney general candidate, in 2016 or 2018 when he'll still only be about 40 or 42.
Santema makes some sense. I don't think Rounds is as flawed as he does (I do wish Rounds was more to the right like Rand Paul but I don't have that option) but Rounds owns this state in a general against anyone but SHS.
I don't understand why Brendan doesn't man up and take Kristi Noem out. Now she is a flawed candidate who talks out of both sides of her mouth. I find her incredibly dishonest.
Yeah. Man up, young Mr. Johnson.
Mike, it may not be up to Brendan to take Kristi out. To stretch Mr. Montgomery's speculative logic just a little, Noem may to face the least formidable opponent possible. She (like you?) may view Weiland as an easier opponent than Johnson. Weiland for Senate opens the door for Johnson to run for House (though he said he's focusing on his US Attorney duties and will need to backtrack just a bit to run for House). If Noem wants to avoid that race, she goes for Senate... and we get good times for Weiland (GOP primary eats up GOP money) and Johnson (may or may not see GOP put up House primary, gets to run against non-incumbent).
Anyone playing chess this deeply?
How many Democrats vote Marion in a Rounds v Weiland race? 1-1 ratio?
I just spent two hours playing chess. My wife thinks that is all I ever do...
Meanwhile in what must be a completely different universe...
Seth Tupper at the Mitchell Daily Republic says that SHS shouldn't run because she has a young child.
He goes on to say that he knows that may be sexist...but so what...this is South Dakota and we don't care...right Seth?
But wait...does our current congresswoman have children? Seth...maybe you can answer that for us. How old was poor little political toy Booker when Kristi ran the 1st time? Seth...you might have that info right at your fingertips...right?
Wonder if there are any women who advertise with the MDR that are justly and extremely offended? Or maybe the he can tell us how many moms have to work to feed their kids at the newspaper.
Of course Seth probably doesn't care about working moms in his shop or readership...or he wouldn't have stepped in this one. His concern is for Party over moms...and right before Mother's Day!
Mom's...how do you feel about Seth's concern over a mother making a difference by getting a great paying job that he thinks would be better served by a father?
Seth...this one won't go away. Your admitting that it was sexist doesn't dismiss your obvious belief that women should be home, barefoot and in the kitchen making treats for the PTA.
Are all of the women at the MDR without children?
Do you yell at the working poor mothers in your shop to bring you a sandwich? Seth? Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?
Read Seth's resignation letter here:
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/79462/group/homepage/
Heck, even PP at the SDWC eludes to it being over the top.
http://dakotawarcollege.com/mitchell-daily-republic-to-stephanie-herseth-sandlin-dont-run/
For those that didn't click the link, here's Seth's money quote:
"If time with your son and your family is really so important to you that you would consider forgoing a Senate race, show it by temporarily making a sacrifice on their behalf. When your son is a little older, you’ll still be a viable candidate, and you’ll be even more respected for having honored your family above your ambition." "Or, if you’ve already decided to run, stop talking so much about the importance of family time. It’ll look insincere later when you’re spending nearly every ounce of your time and energy trying to win an election."
The stupid...it burns.
So Moms everywhere...if you are working for any wage at all, please do not talk about family values! It'll look insincere...
Wait...what? Working moms have no family values?!?!? I can only imagine what he thinks of people who pay women so little that they have to work 2 or 3 jobs... Oh...sorry...he obviously doesn't think like that.
This is about women and family values. No men need to worry about this one...work you ass off...cuz family values.
If you thought Michael Jackson set new artistic heights with the Moon Walk in Thriller...wait until you see Seth walk this one back with his publisher.
Of course, if there is no real apology, then the sexism is endemic in the whole organization including ownership.
Oh yeah...Seth, if your non-apology starts with "I'm sorry if I offended anyone"...well, you know how quality journalists see right through that one...so try the truth.
Sorry, but this sexist toothpaste isn't making it back in the tube.
One of our State's best political reporters, Tom Lawrence, no longer works at the MDR. Meanwhile Seth Tupper does...?!
Will you run for PUC or for some other post, Jeff?
Gary, I appreciate your service to the Democratic cause. Now, to be technical about it, what did Kevin do to Stephanie in 2010? He did not run against her. He contributed $400 to her campaign. How do Kevin's actions in 2010 reflect poorly on Rick's ability to campaign and legislate in a way that would make you prefer to vote for Mike Rounds or Kristi Noem?
I'll back what David says: SD Dems don't do anything like the purity tests that some Republicans impose. Remember, we're the party of Gerry Lange and Bernie Hunhoff, who fly the blue flag but have good Catholic voting records on abortion. SD Dems already tack right of platform on a lot of issues to maintain their viability. But there comes a point where you tack so far away from the platform, the party, and the President that you really don't fit the Dem brand any more. And when they can't distinguish SD Dems from Republicans, SD voters will vote Republican.
Anna Madsen and others doing the quick pivot from Johnson to Weiland aren't imposing a purity test on one or two issues. They're talking about a lengthy record of positions and votes and, more importantly, a campaign approach where Dems run from their brand (recall Herseth Sandlin and Heidepriem both leading with "Independent," not "Demcorat," in their 2010 campaign materials) while the GOP embraces theirs. Madsen and Casey seem to agree with me that SD Dems need to reclaim and advocate their brand with our own Wellstone (Rick! Are you hearing that name in your head? Wellstone! Wellstone) to distinguish themselves in the political marketplace and have a better shot at winning.
PUC? Forget that: Barth is going to run for House again... right, Jeff? :-)
Jana, would you feel better if Tupper had made a similar attack on a male who dropped out because of family needs or problems. I got the impression Tupper was just reminding Stephanie of what she said. Seems to me the press ought to do that with all politicians who blather like an empty wagon rattles and then expect everybody to forget what they said when they backtrack or totally ignore their previous self-serving blather.
Et tu Doug, no that wouldn't make me feel better. But I sincerely doubt that he has ever questioned a man's ambition who has a young family. Does he not have family values?
This wasn't about dropping out, it is about leaning in.
Millions of good mothers work, and work hard for less than their male counterparts. Tupper is saying that you can't be a mom who believes in family values and loves their children and work at a job that is demanding.
Tupper stepped in it and showed both his sexism and party bias hypocrisy, all in one column.
Time out! I'm working up a post on Tupper. Carry on about Weiland, but hold your fire on the Tupper-SHS thread!
Awesome!
I recently purchased "Lean in " for my wife. She finished reading it while recovering from a hip replacement. Sheryl Sandberg had really impressed me with her raw intelligence when I had seen her on PBS. Anyway, I am well aware of the burden that females have when they have families. The same is also true for males who lose their wives however.
I will get back to this discussion Weiland topic in my next post and check the new post. I don't think feminists help their cause when they explode over minor issues when there are many more serious issues of discrimination against women that just don't catch media attention.
Too many years ago, Rick Weiland, Curt Hohn, and I worked on the ill-fated McKeever for congress campaign. I wish him well in this campaign. I do hope to contact him and hope he will get out and knock on thousands of doors and discuss important issues even if they aren't on the lips of the rabid right in South Dakota which will never, ever, vote for a Democrat even if on the way to sainthood.