South Dakota Republicans like to holler about Democrats offering food for votes. How about hollering about one of their own offering beer for votes?
While her son performed in a school program in Sioux Falls, fake U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth was buying drinks for voters in a Rapid City bar. Bosworth invited voters to a meet and greet and Murphy's Pub and Grill in Rapid City Thursday evening and said the beer was on her.
Remarkable that Bosworth kind find the money to buy beer for perfect strangers yet not find the cash to pay people who work for her.
In legal news, South Dakota Codified Law 12-26-15(6) declares it misdemeanor bribery "To pay, lend, contribute, or offer or promise to pay, lend, or contribute, any money or other valuable consideration, to or for any voter or to or for any other person, to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition." Bosworth's beer-buying didn't happen on the reservation, so Attorney General Marty Jackley should have jurisdiction if Bosworth had her credit card in one hand and her petition clipboard in the other. If Bosworth bought you a drink and you signed her petition, do please let us know.
In psychology news, Bosworth also made the weird assertion that our grandparents were all moonshiners. Annette, your psychologist would call that projection, a defense mechanism whereby you ascribe your own objectionable attributes (in this case, a family history of lawbreaking?) to others.
AMAZING that she can buy everyone a round yet can't pay me & the others she owes.
You're still waiting for your paycheck, Ethan?
Sure am!
Congratulations to Dan Lederman and Joel Arends for finding such a willing decoy for Mike Rounds! Truly brilliant that they helped recruit her and Jason Ravnsberg to run in the senate race to divide up the conservative vote. Truly a brilliant strategy by Rounds campaign to have Rounds old lackey Rhoden run West River to divide that vote up too!
Oh God!!
Just what South Dakota needs, a drunk psychotic doctor in the senate.
I don't have a problem with her, or her campaign, buying beer for a meet and greet. But spending money on beer whilst continuing to stiff her creditors demonstrates continued lack of integrity. (Yes, I would say the same about welfare recipients, but this post is about a candidate for the US Senate). There's something wrong with the way this lady's brain operates.
But I don't believe for a second that her grandpa "ran moonshine." She's proven to be a tall tale teller, and this sounds like another one. Neither of my grandfathers "ran moonshine."
I sure wish you would have blogposted this last Thursday so I could have had a beer on the good doctor.
Pretty kinky,Grudz. Besides she's married,I think.
I can just picture it. Boz in a Rapid City bar with her medical jacket on, stethoscope around her neck, pistol at her waist drinking a beer while reading the Bible to the moonshiners. Her children work the crowd for pennies so their mother can go to Haiti to save people. Pathetic
If you signed her petition?
Good one, Cory.
The funniest thing I've seen so far this year on the Times:
"Oh God!!
Just what South Dakota needs, a drunk psychotic doctor in the senate." Roger Cornelius
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Laughed myself sillier!!!
I'm always happy to talk with voters of all stripes. I just won't buy them a drink to get them to tell me their stories.
Grudz, I wish I'd known sooner. I'd have sent you and asked for a selfie with your arm around her.
I'd rather see the video of Grudz and the Doc doing beer shots.
Just wondering why the Boz didn't invite President Obama, he enjoys an occasional beer.
I think it is absolutely unethical for her to encourage people to come drink with her in one post and advertise her Meaningful Recovery in another post. Disgusting.
I would have really enjoyed free beverages from Dr. Bos. If I could have a picture taken of the two of us I would really like that too. Dr. Bos, do you read these bloggings?
Every word, Grudz. And CD, you'd think an intelligent person would realize the disconnect between those messages. But Annette simply plows forward, saying whatever words serve her purpose at a given moment, without regard to ethics or truth. Republicans, do you really want a candidate like that on your ballot?
Corey, could you get the fake candidate to come to Eugene for one day?She could buy us all a few rounds of good Oregon microbrew! Hey, if she's going to throw her "doctor money" around, I'll take her up on that offer and enjoy a free drink and maybe pretend to listen to her.
Remember, before she can be a candidate she still has to get her petitions in. I predict that her petitions will be filled one day in advance of the deadline with barely enough signatures, and there will be enough bad ones (people in the wrong party, outta staters and Chad and other office staffers signing with multiple pens) on there that she won't make the ballot. I don't think Jason Gant ail pull a fast one, because I believe the other candidates can request access to them and verify the signatures for themselves.
But here's the thing, DJB: to formally challenge a petition, an interested party can't just shout "Point of order!" and trigger a full review. A petition challenger must review the petitions, research the signatures, and provide the Secretary of State with an itemized list of specific deficiencies identified in the petition (all within five days of the filing of the nominating petition: see SDCL 12-1-13).
First one must pay the Secretary of State for copies of the petition sheets. The SOS charges $1 per copy, so if Bosworth files a barely enough 2,000 signatures (max 20 signatures per sheet, front and back, surely some sheets not full, so guesstimate 120 sheets), obtaining every page to verify signatures and mark errors would cost $240.
Then you have two kinds of error-checking. First you can identify the obvious errors: missing or misdated notary seals, improperly completed candidate declaration, and missing signatory information. That just takes a good eye and time.
The trickier error-checking involves matching each name on the petition to the voter registration list. To obtain an electronic copy of that list, one must pay the Secretary of State $2,500 (paper costs $5,500).
A challenger could go further and cross-check signatures on Bosworth's petition with signatures on petitions already submitted for Nelson, Rhoden, Pressler, and Rounds. If any of Bosworth's signatories signed other petitions, their names don't count for Bosworth. That's about 16,000 unalphabetized signatures, available only in scanned, non-computer-searchable or sortable PDF format, spread across at least 1,600 pages, which would cost us $1,600 and a lot of eye-strain.
A cursory clerical-error challenge costs about $240. A thorough challenge checking names, voter registration, and prior singing costs over $4,000.
Anyone want to pass the hat? If any candidate has that cash, is there more return on investment to a petition challenge or to buying ads and filling the gas tank for more barnstorming?
If there's ever a committee, I'll donate time. For those of us who believe so strongly in her and her puppet master being held accountable... What's one more thing?! I think it would cost this state FAR LESS to deal with this madness beforehand.
Cory, you don't have to pay $2,500 + for a voter list. You don't have to pay anything. County auditors now have the statewide voter database, which members of the public can use for free. Very quick and easy to use. So someone would just have to get her petition pages and spend a day at the county auditor's office.
How did the state of McGovern and Mundt evolve into the bad joke of politics we see today? It's like South Dakota use to have Cadillac candidates and sadly, the state has traded them in for Yugos.
G, we can find examples of cranks and crooks on past ballots, can't we? Gordon Howie fit that bill in 2010. Charlie Gonyo sullied the primary ballot in 2008. The Libertarians have run various nutbirds and non-entities up the flagpole for years. Were there similar nbad apples back in the Kneip-Janklow days and before?
G does open an interesting question: without getting wrapped up in nostalgia, how do Mike Rounds, Rick Weiland, John Thune, and Tim Johnson stack up against George McGovern, Karl Mundt, and Peter Norbeck?
McGovern, Mundt, and Norbeck, as most back then, were not "Party Men," in other words they belonged to a political party without blindly following that party in every decision they made. Today's politicos make most of their decisions on what their political party decides. McGovern, Mundt, and Norbeck all placed citizenship above partisanship, like most Senators of the day.
Like McGovern, a majority of Congress were military veterans back in those days. That says a lot about duty, citizenship, and placing that above party politics.
We have at least 6 people that would donate time to help check signatures. If anyone hears a challenge, we will help!