South Dakota defenders of religious liberty, science, women's rights, and comprehensible speeches, here's something to worry about:
Great night with Rick Santorum @RoundsforSenate pic.twitter.com/lb7Km15MRG
— Jason Glodt (@JasonGlodt) August 9, 2013
That's U.S. Senate candidate Marion Michael Rounds backslapping with wingnut Rick Santorum at the big GOP fundraiser in Rock Rapids, Iowa. And here I thought Mike was supposed to be the rational, pragmatic alternative to the hard-right conservatives the GOP primary may offer. The only good side of this photo is that maybe the hard-core conservatives in the race will drag Rounds to further embrace loonies like Santorum and give a Democrat a better chance of beating him in the 2014 general.
Santorum is not the Rick we are looking for. Keep touring South Dakota, Rick Weiland! You've got to save us!
Make sure you keep this picture for the general election Cory so when Rounds try to move to the center again we can nail him with this.
Rich Santorum looks so full of himself. I'm glad someone popped his bubble in the last election.
Why doesn't the GOP run Kim Reynolds in Iowa? She's a pretty good candidate other than her drinking past (which I assume she's beyond).
One more reason to not vote for Rounds.
Rick Santorum and Mike Rounds share a hard right Roman Catholicism that opposes all abortion and artificial birth control, considers gays disordered and is willing to deny them all manner of rights, and is more than happy to overlook the Church's teachings on social justice and that whole capital punishment thing.
Pope Francis scares the hell out of them.
Take more than Pope Francis to get the hell out of Rounds and Santorum.
Rounds is just playing a game to assure the right wing that he is not so moderate. Owen is correct to keep that pic for the general election.
Not surprising, both pretend to be super catholic while breaking everyone in their path.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/fec-asks-Santorum-about-charges-that-he-bought-endorsement/
I like your enthusiasm for Rick Weiland, but deep down inside I think we all know (picture with Santorum or not) Weiland doesn't stand a chance against Rounds. As long as Obama is the President it will be extremely hard to get any Democrat elected at State level. In fact I have said all along if McCain had been elected SHS would still be in the US House and probably by far the front runner for Johnson's seat. I'm starting to think the best thing the State Democratic Party could do is just sit out all elections. Just let it go completely one party unchallenged in the State. Right now that is what South Dakota wants. Give them what they want for a few cycles and see what happens. At some point they might finally start voting a few moderate Democrats in at State level. They won't be the hard left total gun control candidates that you might be wishing for but they will have a chance.
Last the Democratic Party in this State will remain weak if you can't ever win the Governor's office. SD holds the record for the longest one party control of the Governor's seat in the US. Sadly I don't think that will change and I'm not sure I will ever see a Democrat win that seat in my lifetime. It's impossible and going more liberal like some on these blogs suggest won't win it. The best you can do is just start sitting these elections out in hopes that things will just spiral out of control.
that wasn't me.
nothing is impossible.
No, it wasn't you, Larry. While I wait for the commenter to check his email and confirm, let me respond:
(1) At no point have I wished for a "total gun control" candidate.
(2) Sitting out elections is a disastrous strategy. What long-term benefit comes from not challenging the opposing party and building the depth, experience, network, and name-recognition of candidates?
(3) Deep down we know no such thing. We know Rounds is the favorite in the primary and the general. But Weiland is working the campaign trail right now. He's shaking hands and kissing babies while Rounds goes to out-state fundraisers. Tortoise and hare, anyone?
(4) South Dakota does not want one party unchallenged. They know we need checks and balances—that's even part of BH76's contention that we would have re-elected SHS as a response to a McCain presidency and that we are electing Republicans as a response to the Obama presidency. Dems need to work to get South Dakotans to cross-apply that logic to their gubernatorial and legislative choices.
(1) You do speak of gun control a lot on your blog. Just know that promoting gun control is not a way to win in SD. Notice that Sen. Johnson voted against the Feinstein AWB because he was listening to SD residents. I understand there are other issues along those lines like background checks, but supporting bans won't get you votes in our state.
(2) You can keep running candidates, but at some point when you lose every statewide race every election cycle it becomes a hopeless situation. Sure we have a few Ds in the legislature, however for the most part all you have to do is put an R behind your name and you'll win. We do see some splits within the State Republican party between moderate and conservative, but most who run know you need that magical R to win an election.
(3) If Weiland beats Rounds I will eat my words, but the chance of that happening is 0.1%. I understand your enthusiasm and Weiland isn't a bad guy (neither is Rounds) but I predict a 40%-60% race in favor of Rounds. That seems to be how it goes for most statewide races. Yes I know that Johnson and Herseth-Sandlin have clobbered opponents in the past (2008) but things have changed a lot since then and as good as Weiland might be he isn't Tim Johnson or Stephanie.
(4) Yes it does seem like we can get a Democrat elected much easier to Congress if there is a Republican in the White House, but the same doesn't seem true at the local and state level. Last winning Democrat for the Governor's office was Dick Kneip in 1974. Think about that for a second... 1974! That is a national record. 36 years one party control and I'd say Gov. Daugaard is a shoo-in for 2014 making that 40 years. Now maybe things will change someday and maybe when Billie Sutton gets older he would be a good candidate. I could see someone like Billie doing well in our State because he would be seen as a conservative Democrat and would run well in the rural areas along with the more urban areas.
Sorry if I sound negative. I just see what happens every election cycle and the results are almost always the same. 40-60% for an open seat and usually less if their is an incumbent R in that seat. I'm just being realistic. By the way I am pretty much an independent voter and have voted for people of both parties. I'd love to see a more robust 2 party system in our State, but I'm not sure I will live to see the day and I am not that old.
You might be right Black Hills76 but I'm an eternal optimist. I hope that people will wake up and pay attention to what is going on in the state and to see that the problems that we have were created by the Republicans.
First on gun control. Reasonable control is needed, as you mentioned background checks. What the NRA and its lackey's have done is to convince people that the government is coming to get their guns. That just isn't true. Also, people have to realize that putting guns in schools is just plain stupid.
I think Rounds is a nice guy as well, but when Daugaard came into office there was a "structural deficit" with the budget and education paid the price with cuts. Who was in charge when this happened? Rounds and the Republicans, The Democrats have to keep pounding away at this and try to make people understand that the problems we have in this state are Republican created.
And where is Rounds priorities? He's going out of state raising money while Weiland travels around the state meeting and talking to South Dakotans. I hope the people will see this and give Weiland a second look.
I agree that Billie Sutton will make a great candidate someday.
The Democrats, such as myself, have to get out there and have conversations with people. Show them that the Republicans are not the answer. Show them that the Republicans are going far to the right and Rounds is trying to go with it.
I have to stay optimistic for the sake of my children and grandchildren.
BH76, check your email.
(1) BH76, you used the phrase "total gun control." You fail to show where that's what I or Rick Weiland advocate. Choose your words carefully.
(2) No, it's not hopeless. "Hopeless" is when we don't run anyone. Winning elections requires constant recruitment. Sitting out elections represents a failure to recruit that is much worse than running and losing.
(3) You originally said we know Rick can't win. Now you're fudging, saying it's highly unlikely. I will grant that, given current conditions, Rounds has better odds of winning. But again, I reject hopelessness and inevitability.
(4) Billie's a good guy, good story, good family, reasonable politics. But playing conservative/Republican Lite perpetuates second-class/failure status. It lets Republicans set the agenda and define our party for us. A candidate may win a race here and there by threading the needle; a party will establish long-term winning by defining itself as a real alternative. (See also Gov. Tom Berry's loss in 1936: a Dem, he should have ridden FDR's coattails the way darn near every other Dem nationwide did; instead, he chose to act Republican and left voters thinking, why not vote for the real Republican.)
(1) Do you or do you not support banning certain guns because of their cosmetic appearance? Did you support Feinstein's ban attempt and her list of guns that she would permit to be owned? All I am saying is supporting ideas like that won't win you votes in SD. I don't know what Weiland's opinion is when it comes to gun bans, but I'd love to hear it.
(2) Let's revisit this topic after the 2014 election is over. I'd say it already appears a good chunk of statewide races might end up being unopposed. How many statewide races did the Democrats win or were even close in 2012? Maybe that why I seem to have little enthusiasm as a SD Democrat.
(3) Extremely unlikely is probably the correct term, but I will go with highly unlikely so you don't get too depressed about the likely outcome. :) Sorry it is what it is and you know it.
(4) I am a moderate as I think you will find many South Dakotans to be. Suggesting that the real problem with SD Democrats is that they are not liberal enough I honestly don't think is a winning strategy. If this is a good strategy should Rick Weiland ask Dianne Feinstein to come up and campaign for him? Would that get him a lot of votes? Now I understand that you probably don't care for the moderates in the party, but I am going to tell you that SD is full of them. A SD Democrat could easily be a Republican on the East or West coast. Most SD Democrats who ever were elected were "moderate" except McGovern during and after the '72 election. Preaching that people like Billie Sutton don't have a future in the state Democratic party because they are not liberal enough won't win elections. I have listened to Billie Sutton. He is very moderate on issues and is big on improving education funding. I think he would be a good candidate in the future even if you don't agree with me. I also would love to see SHS back in the game at some point. I thought she was a great congresswoman.
Cory just one more comment about point (4) but in talking about Gov. Tom Berry losing because he didn't ride FDR's coattails are you suggesting that that Weiland can win in SD by riding Pres. Obama's coattails?
On #4: I offer Berry as an example of how SD Democrats have lost big by following the Republican-Lite strategy you advocate. I'm not saying Obama can provide a major coattail effect in South Dakota (remember, even our Dems picked Clinton big in the 2008 primary). I'm saying that in a situation where there was a popular Democratic President who won re-election in a landslide (and even won South Dakota 54%–42.5%) and should have been able to bring local Dems along for the ride, SD Dems blew it by failing to distinguish themselves from local Republicans.
Just as pressing the flesh with Rick Santorum won't win the election for Rounds (good grief: I dread the community where such an appearance would help a guy win), expressing support President Obama's agenda won't single-handedly win the election for Rick Weiland. But making an intelligent and passionate case for the good parts of the Obama/Dem agenda will get Rick farther than portraying himself as a Republican. Dems need someone to make them feel like their party label is not a source of shame.
Weiland can exploit President Obama's leadership that has led to market surges and the enrichment of South Dakota ag producers.
Ken Blanchard in Monty's story:
“South Dakota is a populist state,” he said. “If there’s one thing that’s consistent in our history, it’s been a suspicion of big banks, big government, big anything. If I was Weiland, that’s exactly the campaign strategy I’d push — complain about all the folks that are getting away with murder, taking advantage of and exploiting the average guy.”
Democrats have a good shot at changing the narrative of South Dakota politics. Republicans abandonned (in rhetoric only - behold the big spenders in Pierre!) the notion that good things can come from wise use of government resources. Their new brand is government is the enemy and must be destroyed. Their motto, cut your way to prosperity, makes no sense except to the mouth breathers who think Rush Limbaugh is right.
The middle ground position and the left leaning position are now up for grabs. People are hungry for solutions. They're looking for a genuine leader with a clear vision. Pandering will not sell. There are no answers coming from Washington because the ideologues of the extreme right won't allow problems to become solved. Harry Reid is incapable of standing in a fight. What people hear and see are not solutions, just distractions and meaningless soundbites. Rounds is the GOP's guy because he has no solutions. He proved for eight years that nothing really can happen in Pierre and is selling more of the same for our nation. Think of Kermit Staggers with hair and you've got Mike Rounds. A slick bobblehead for deep pocketed lobbyists and the angry right wing of the GOP.
The key for Weiland is just authentically talking with the people and listening ... and making sure he is understood. He doesn't have to offer a 21st Century New Deal, but he can and should embrace the FDR New Deal and give South Dakotans the incredibly long list of benefits from that era and those programs which have kept our state from becoming "Buffalo Commons." The Republicans are selling the elimination of federal programs, forgetting that South Dakota receives $1.50 in federal aid for every $1 sent to the IRS.
Weiland doesn't have to have big ideas as much as big ambitions to knock down the partisan walls and the silly rhetoric and make sure problems get solved. His job is to make sure South Dakota doesn't have to accept less than its fair share of the pie. This really is his time.
I agree with SD being a populist state. Running as more of a populist then a true blue liberal will get you a lot more traction. Looking back just about every Democrat that ever ran and won in this state did not run on a liberal agenda, but they ran as populist moderates. I agree that big government (or big anything) doesn't go over well in SD no matter the person's political affiliation. There are many examples of this if you start to look back at many of the ballot referendums and referred laws over the years.
With that said, about the only thing that could help Weiland at this point is if out of state interests get involved in the Republican primary and make a mess of it. If Rounds sails through that smoothly I just don't see how Weiland beats him in November. Remember Gov. Rounds got to where he did because of a primary that was out of control.
I can't really say anything bad personally about Mike Rounds. I have talked to him in person several times and he has always came off as an extremely personable man who was easy to approach and visit with even if you had a different opinion. Now we can debate policy and who has the best ideas for the future, but a personal attack on Mike Rounds isn't the way to go because honestly I think it would backfire. That might likely be better advice to the candidates running against him in the primary because I honestly think if out of state interests come in trying to take him out in the primary it will end up backfiring on them. With all of that said, Mike Rounds doesn't need Rick Santorum and he would probably be better off just being himself.
Regarding Rounds' 2002 primary, that teflon will return only because the news reporters would bend over backwards to slap it back on. Other than the press and some political junkies, nobody remembers the 2002 primary.
Rounds has had only cake walks in every election he has run. The GOP blistered Tom Daschle's hide with attacks on him personally, his faith, his wife -- you name it, they threw it at him and he went down to defeat. There are some skeletons in Rounds' closet and if Weiland gets the funding or a third party group with money moves in, Rounds won't be able to run a homecoming king election. He'll have to fight back with Karl Rove's third party groups and you won't see teflon hanging on him any more. In fact, I'm willing to bet 25 cents the right wing groups will strike first.
Rounds has had a very charmed political life, but only inside the Pierre arena where Republicans are thickly shielded. Even Jason Gant gets away with the worst ethical violations and all he gets is a baby slap on his hands from the state's largest daily paper. Running for the Senate means you play by the Senate campaign rules, and they are virtually the same in every state.
Rounds's 2002 primary teflon existed only because Kirby and Barnett were raining fire on each other and ignoring Rounds, right, Rick? That dynamic doesn't exist this year. Even Rounds recognizes it. He knows everyone, especially newly declared Stace Nelson, will be firing directly at him, and he hired Dick Wadhams to fire back.
And trust me, BH76, Nelson won't bring the personal attacks. Rounds is very personable and soothing, as most successful candidates must be. But there's plenty of policy to hit him on, like fiscal mismanagement, visionless leadership, and the absence of any lasting legacy as governor.
Good point, Cory. The reason Rounds won the primary was he was the unknown contender in the blood feud that backfired between former Lt. Gov. Steve Kirby and Attorney General Mark Barnett. Now he's best known of the four candidates.
South Dakota Republicans are quite clearly looking for leadership other than more Mike Rounds. The evidence is his party is now sending three candidates to make sure he is not the candidate in the general election. Anybody wanting to connect the events of 2002 with 2014 is just trying to slap more teflon on Rounds.