Tomorrow morning, the South Dakota Republican Party will choose its candidate for Secretary of State. Since my Democratic Party has not yet announced any candidate for perhaps the most contestable office on the ballot this fall, the SDGOP may indeed be picking the replacement for the beleaguered and bumbling Jason Gant. Should the party pick the woman who forced Jason Gant into the historic decision to not seek a second term, Senator Shantel Krebs? Or should the GOP pick the woman who has kept Gant's fat out of the fire for the last couple years, current SOS Pat Miller?
Former Senator Stan Adelstein wants his colleague Krebs:
...Shantel Krebs is a stickler for honesty. She is intimately knowledgeable on election law and election methods and procedures. In addition to that, Shantel, unlike Ms. Miller, has successfully operated and managed more than one business.
To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the past have there been as many complaints from businesses about erroneous online filing, lack of confidentiality, and frankly general screw-ups as we’ve seen recently coming out of the Secretary of State’s office.
Republicans would do well to nominate someone who is in a clear position to clean up the messes in the Secretary of State’s office and restore public confidence in its competence and integrity.
If we don’t, the Democrats will [Stanford Adelstein, "Just Say No—to the Possibility of Four More Years of Jason Gant," A Way to Go, 2014.06.18].
I take Adelstein's point that Miller is stained by association with the current regime. But Krebs has given no indication that she would be any less inclined to use the office for partisan purposes than Secretary Gant has. Krebs has made clear she sees no problem with Indian voting rights in South Dakota, an issue where Gant has demonstrated a willingness to put protection of Republican margins above universal enfranchisement. She hasn't spoken out on Gant's failure to train election officials properly for this year's primary, a failure that may have denied some Independents access to the Democratic gubernatorial ballot. Krebs's announcement of candidacy last summer seemed to view the Secretary of State's office as a tool for maintaining Republican dominance as for serving the broader public interest.
Former Secretary of State Chris Nelson has also endorsed Krebs. Hearing often reasonable Republicans like Nelson and Adelstein endorse Krebs tempers my concerns about Krebs's partisan motivations somewhat.
But I'd still really, really, really rather have my Democrats come through with a quality candidate for Secretary of State. Given the scandals of notary violations, partisan influence, election errors, and petition fraud that have taken place in the last four years, South Dakota needs an informative and vigorous statewide conversation during the general election about the duties of the office of the Secretary of State, not a decision made by a few hundred delegates in Rapid City tomorrow.
Update 09:48 CDT (08:48 MDT for you conventioneers): I am remiss in not referring to Ken Santema's thoughtful and detailed assessment of the Secretary of State's race. A somewhat independent observer, Santema leans Krebs, preferring a little more distance between the new SOS and the current regime.
Krebs would be the stronger Republican candidate. That's why I hope they pick Miller.
Krebs thinks electric cars and high fuel efficiency should pay higher taxes. Never mind the many-wheeled semi tractors and double trailers doing several thousand times as much damage per mile driven as do light cars.
Krebs listens to the special interests now and she will be listening to them if she gets elected.
Krebs thinks some people should pay higher taxes?!? Isn't that anti-Republican thinking?????
Jeni, it depends on who the higher taxes are on, there are certain members of society (normal people) republicans have no trouble taxing.
I find it disturbing democrats don't contest every race in the state, no way to know how fed up people really are here if we don't put up a fight.
JeniW is right. Krebs was big on increasing the gas tax if I'm not mistaken. Another regressive tax.
Tim, that is true, but at the moment electric cars are more expensive than gas dependent cars, so it is out of the price range for many. Plus there is the expense of installing an electrical outlet capable of handling the demand. Unless people have the skills to install such an outlet, they have to hire someone to do it for them. That means that only those who are wealthy enough can afford the car, the outlet, and higher monthly electric bills.
Tesla has already put up charging stations here and in Murdo I believe, as the technology advances and gets more popular the costs will come down. Republicans constantly blocking everything because it doesn't serve the carbon burning masters doesn't help the problem.
Tesla has charging stations in Mitchell as well
I count Shantel as one of my friends.
If you want a strong Democratic Party in this state, you have to find strong, viable candidates for every race. Over time the party would become more influential.
Krebs has gotten the nomination.
A Republican is a Republican, if they aren't part of Pierre cronyism, they will be in short order.
Always remember, Stan Adelstein put Mike Rounds in the governors chair and he also put Daugaard in as his second. Take a look at what a helluva job that was. We got the EB-5, right along with the rest of the corrupted stench of a republican government. What all of this is telling me is that Krebs is much more of the same only with a skirt. The list of these corrupted politicos is long and dirty, thanks Stan for your contributions to the good ole boys club and now you want to break the glass ceiling and make it co-ed, lovely. Toss some cash at it and I am sure your wish will be our command.
Here you go Roger, level headed thinking from south dakota republicans, what an embarrassment these clowns are. http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/06/21/sdgop-obama-impeachment/11212075/
Yeah Jerry, I've been following the impeachment resolution on twitter and facebook. Hopefully Cory will have a thread on that 3 ring circus and this resolution in particular.
As with repealing Obamacare, the idiots aren't or can't do their math. Do they truly believe that they can get 66 votes in the senate and an estimated 285 votes in the house to accomplish either?
It is smoke and mirrors, but it still pisses me off.
White red state hates black president: what a shocker.
Apparently so Larry,
Being black while president is an impeachable offense according to the Republican interpretation of the Constitution.
Shantel can be beaten: right, honey?
Comments are closed.