Maybe Mike Rounds misread the memo: it's No-Shave November, not No-Show November.
The School of Mines Republicans and Tea-chugging Citizens for Liberty are hosting a debate for the GOP U.S. Senate candidates on Thursday, November 21, 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on the Mines campus (at the classroom building called "Classroom Building", which really confuses us civilians! Time for a new name, like "Anthony Amert Auditoria" or "The Rock Bucket"!). Candidates will field audience questions. KIMM Radio's Brian Fisher will moderate.
Organizers of the debate have told me that hard-charging Rep. Stace Nelson has already accepted their invitation, doggedly upholding the pledge he adopted from Marion Michael Rounds to take on all comers. Rounds's people have also called back... to decline the opportunity to debate and enlighten. The Rounds staffer told Mines GOP organizer Jared Thompson that the former governor's schedule was already filled that day.
Sen. Larry Rhoden has yet to reply, though one would expect he would have no trouble making the drive down from Union Center for another friendly face-to-face with his Legislative friend from Fulton. Debate organizers are also waiting for Annette Bosworth to call back; she's apparently too busy Facebooking to plan actual campaign events.
But for Team Rounds, that's the third skipped public event in November. (Readers, keep an eye out for more!)
Once again, Stace Nelson shows he thinks he has to earn your vote. Mike Rounds thinks he's entitled to your vote. And if you disagree, he thinks he can buy it.
Runnin' down the clock. What will it take to put Chicken Marion on the same stage with Semper Fi Nelson before June?
I hope people are looking at Rounds is doing-which is nothing and if he should somehow win in June I hope the people will take a closer look at Weiland and not just vote Republican because he's Republican.
I can understand not voting for the radical Tea Party but pick somebody who will truly represent South Dakota
The fact is you can't even get a petition to circulate to put yourself on the ballot until January. Some of these folks may not even make it on the ballot next year. Rounds would gain nothing by debating them right now. Nothing to gain = no debate. Aside from bloggers and blog readers, nobody's watching the campaign right now. These other three are jostling to be the alternative to Rounds. So for now Rounds only needs to sit back and watch with the rest of us as the guns and bibles and party platform and voter guides get waved around. That's just how it is.
It's Rounds's version of the "Rose Garden" strategy, which Nixon made famous....
Rose Garden is right, except someone else is occupying the $3 million governor's mansion. I wonder what a survey of most-likely voters would turn up if they were asked to name the current governor of South Dakota.
Except Rhoden is scheduled for the east side of the state next week as well. Not sure what he'll do but maybe Nelson will be debating himself! That'd be worth paying for.
Too bad the SD Tech College Republicans didn't offer to reschedule its debate to accommodate the former governor's schedule whose campaign website clearly shows his schedule for November 21 include events in... Never mind...
To help out things, maybe the candidates can participate via Skype. Perhaps Grudznick could moderate the debate.
The candidates could have their people there to elaborate after the debate ends. This could even be fundraising opportunity for the candidates. Imagine the possibilities --- somebody could have raffle for a gently-used camper or an airplane ride with the candidate! Since Stace will be there, he can provide security.
Might this help?
Winston, wasn't that Carter's strategy during the hostage crisis?
Mark, good point: The Mines Republicans could look for a reschedule date that would make it possible to bring all four candidates to campus and serve the public better. I wonder, though, if Rounds will make himself available for any date.
R: I agree it may be early... but the folks showing up at the Custer and Sioux Falls events last week weren't all blog readers. (I clearly need to improve my advertising!)
Free Pat Powers and Mike Rounds!
Rounds has already won a primary by staying out of the fray. Why change a winning strategy?
Barry Smith,
Just how long do you think Rounds can stay out of the fray?
It is possible that the fray maybe worse when he decides come out of the rose garden.
Cory, correct, Carter did use it during the hostage crisis, but Nixon used it first against the McGovern candidacy and then because of Watergate. Nixon found it to be a convenient strategy when there are charges of criminality floating around, while Carter's strategy was merely political in nature like Nixon's initial application of it against McGovern.
Reagan also used it during the Iran-Contra Affair. This scandal broke in November of 1986, but Reagan did not have his first public comment (a press conference) on this matter until February of 1987. Clinton during the Lewinsky debacle employed a "departmentalization strategy" where he went out amongst the public during the developing scandal and tried to change the focus and topic of the American mindset with cameo appearances on other issues like education, while appearing at the same time to be unfettered by the Lewinsky allegations..... Maybe that is what Rounds should do, try to run as a Republican running for the US Senate without talking about economic development and clinging-on to other issues instead.... Good luck with that one Mr. Republican Senate candidate.....
Roger to answer your question- as long as he wants-- The dynamics are different this go around but the same strategy will work for him. Sit back let the others duke it out for the anti- Rounds vote and then cruise to a win on name recognition. I wouldn't expect team Rounds to do anything that might upset that apple cart.
Barry, can that same strategy work, for the same reasons, when the dynamics are this different? And what if he had only one challenger on the ballot instead of three? What if he faced a united opposition? Could he win by staying above the fray then?
Cory I think it would work , but for different reasons almost opposite reasons ie. no name recognition as opposed to the most recognizable name. One challenger would make it tough , especially if that one challenger is Nelson. I think we will see a lot of events like the GOP smile fest at Rev. Hickey's church this week- notice Nelson won't be there-. Then there is all that money, the month before the primary his face and name will be everywhere. If he engages he takes a chance at screwing it all up. There just is no reason to engage especially with Nelson.
Barry,
If you include the current EB-5 scandal in this dynamic, and the contenders make an issue of it, won't the longer he tries to stay above the fray by not answering questions give the impression of a cover up or guilt?
Roger unless the EB-5 scandal actually ends in an indictment for Mike Rounds I wouldn't count on it being a factor at all. I do think there will be a debate or 2 toward the end with whoever is left standing and EB-5 will probably come up and if Nelson is one of those debaters it will be interesting, but it just doesn't make any sense for Rounds to go there now or anytime soon. Why would he want to put himself into a position were he is answering questions publicly about it right now?
Barry,
Whether there are indictments or not by election time, the revelation and any results should push Rounds into some kind of a response.
Does he want the silence to be his spokesman when the question comes up, why have you waited so long to issue a statement?
Rounds will not be able to escape unscathed by this brewing scandal, regardless of his Rose Garden position.
I don't think the debates have brought much name ID other than to those already paying attention which isn't much in the grand scheme of things. The people going to those for the most part already have their candidate picked. So, why should anyone debate without Rounds? Good practice but seems they could be out talking to voters and hit as many people as these debates do. Maybe more and it'd be one on one with potentially more people that are undecided...
TG, if I were a candidate, I'd certainly be doing that calculus as well. I wouldn't go to these early debates just for the sake of practice. But I would go because they are one more room with a lot of voters in them. Even if those people are all already voting for me, I go. I have my campaign manager sending out calls ahead of time to pack the room. I get there as early as the schedule allows and work the room, with an aide at my side taking notes and my campaign manager following up to get names and numbers of new volunteers and possible donors.
But I keep forgetting: I keep looking at politics the way an underdog does, the way a regular guy does. If I'm Mike Rounds, I don't think I actually have to talk or organize with any regular South Dakotans. I figure I can just smile and buy the election. There's something wrong with that.
Barry makes a good point: short of indictment, the EB-5 scandal may not alter the landscape significantly. The EB-5 scandal does gave anyone who challenges Rounds or Daugaard a really good policy issue to run on, but it will probably take more than one juicy issue to negate the nine-million-dollar advantage. Probably... but we face too many unknowns to make solid conclusions.
But if I'm Mike Rounds, and I know I'm not going to get sandbagged by that one policy issue, why do I hesitate to face an audience and talk about it? It doesn't cost me anything to get out in front of a story and say, "I'm clean, and this story is bull." Hillary Clinton went on a listening tour; why can't Mike?
CAH, It seems that Rounds is not the only one now running away from their record. It is hard to claim to be a conservative while having to explain how 57 votes in support of raising taxes & fees is "conservative" and then is ridiculed by Doc Thompson who points out that it is not..
Has Doc Thompson talked about the South Dakota Senate battle and his visit to Sioux Falls on his radio program yet? (I'd listen myself, but I'd probably break out in hives.)
Stace - this is why I don't like your tactics. Is everyone supposed to break all previous commitments to attend a debate? Is that more important than a Meet & Greet or a Fundraiser that is already scheduled? Why would you elude or assume that someone is scared to debate just because I said they were supposed to be somewhere else that night (and week)? To feed your own ego and hope that others believe what you say. It gets old to honest people like me.
Secondly, I talked to Larry about this debate yesterday and he had no idea what I was talking about. They've been gone since Monday morning so they hadn't the slighest clue about it. Perhaps they left a message on their home phone? I don't know, they don't know. But assuming he is invited and that is awaiting him at home, it will be less than a week to try to reschedule previous commitments but I go back to which is more important? I would go to a Meet & Greet or Fundraiser over a debate. They only draw a few (< 10 I'm guessing) undecided voters from what I've heard and seen.
And no Cory. Doc Thompson did no ridiculing.
I should've said I (this is me talking for myself everyone) would go to M&G/Fundraiser over a debate w/o the primary candidate. If Rounds was going to be there, I would probably do my best to shuffle. Cory, I think you're right. They should work with Rounds to see when his schedule could open up. That might draw more attention.