A couple weeks ago, I mentioned a Brookings correspondent's report that Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth had lured students to a campaign event with an ad in the SDSU Collegian promoting marijuana legalization. The comment section lit up with a discussion of who actually placed the ad.
Let's look at the ad in question first:
The ad states that it was "Paid for by the libertarian Party." The ad refers to the Facebook page for the marijuana legalization organization South Dakotans Against Prohibition. It identifies no individual organizers or speakers. Staff at the SDSU Collegian did not identify the the representative of the Libertarian Party who submitted and paid for the ad. We can only hope the advertiser's check did not bounce the way the SDLP's check for SDAP organizer Ryan Gaddy's lawsuit did.
So we don't know who actually signed the check for this ad. But we do know what the ad says. It promotes the September 3 event as a chance to...
- get free food,
- "meet the libertarian party," and, most prominently,
- join a "grassroots digital media movement" to end cannabis prohibition.
I spoke with Nate Cacy, an SDSU student who attended the event at Hillcrest Park. Cacy says the first promise was absolutely true: free food was present.
The second promise is arguably true, if the Libertarian Party now consists of Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth. Haber and Bosworth were the only two organizers who identified themselves at the event.
The third promise, however, the thrust of the ad, proved entirely false. Cacy says that in the half hour that he attended the event, he heard not one word about legalizing marijuana. Haber dominated the event, talking nearly the entire time about his own candidacy for attorney general and, in Cacy's view, coming across as somewhat rude.
Haber exposed that rudeness most clearly when he took a moment to interact with his audience of four (Cacy reports seeing three other spectators, as well as a young unnamed companion helping Haber and Bosworth). Haber asked what issues the youth consider important. Cacy mentioned discrimination and cited LGBT equality issues as an example. Haber said to Cacy, "Oh, so you're coming out to everyone?"
Cacy is still wondering just what Haber's intent was with that comment. I'm trying to figure out how Haber's comment is any way an appropriate response to a voter who raises an important electoral issue.
I'm also trying to figure out the logic that gets a party to advertise an event around Issue X and then play a switcheroo in which one of its candidates shows up unannounced at the event and talks all about himself and not at all about the issue that drew people to the event.
Ah, but it's been a while. I almost forgot: if we're talking about Chad Haber, we're not talking about appropriateness, logic, or truth. We're talking about false advertising and self-obsession, the cement blocks to which the South Dakota Libertarian Party has chained itself.
Chad is simply clueless with an embarrassing situation where he asks if someone is coming out to everyone at such a function. These hijackers sure are representing the Libertarian Party well! They are doing so much damage as far as credibility and I wonder what the long term consequences will be. What a shame!
A member of the executive committee has since informed Haber that he "may not say that the SDLP sponsors anything you do in the course of your campaign or anything else unless you have express written permission to do so," and that he "should make it clear to the 'Collegian' that the event you appeared at was not sponsored by the SDLP."
Mr. Haber is insaner than most, and is probably taking great advantage of his pretty young doctor wife. I hope she gets off but he gets the books all thrown at him.
Kurt,
Thanks for your response on the Libertarian Reistroffer Busted thread Cory posted a couple of days ago. Emmett's excuse was one of the poorest I ever hear, sometimes people just need to say "I missed up, it is my fault, and I'll fix it". Politicians have a tendency to explain too much.
Has Haber received any written authorization from the SDLP executive committee to act on their behalf? Or is he only allowed to say he is a Libertarian without the party affiliation and approval?
From Chad's Facebook it is apparent that he has adopted his wife's "successful" use of ridiculous memes that says nothing about the SDLP platform and how it affects the Attorney General's race. I dutiful share them with a cynical comment.
Roger Cornelius wrote:
>"Emmett's excuse was one of the poorest I ever hear, sometimes people just need to say 'I missed up, it is my fault, and I'll fix it'. Politicians have a tendency to explain too much."
His explanation didn't strike me as an excuse, and I actually found it reassuring, but thanks for your perspective.
>"Has Haber received any written authorization from the SDLP executive committee to act on their behalf? Or is he only allowed to say he is a Libertarian without the party affiliation and approval?"
To be painfully honest, you may know before I do. The executive committee tells me almost nothing.
Kurt, is that executive committee member saying that Chad Haber bought the ad but falsely said that it was paid for by the Libertarian Party? Can you get that executive committee member to give me a call or just drop by the comment section here and confirm whether or not the SDLP bought that ad?
Kurt,
As I recall, Ryan Gaddy was boasting that he and SDLP would appeal the judge's decision to keep off the ballot in the PUC race. Any updates on that?
Who are the other member of the executive committee besides Shanahan and Newland?
I'm not understanding how your party functions, it sounds as though candidates can run as a Libertarian, nominated by the party, but he can't use the Libertarian flag without written permission. Or does needing written permission only apply to Chad Haber?
Sounds like Grudz is "coveting" someone's wife.
the less we dems align ourselves with the pot vote for spurious reasons, the more integrity we preserve. check out obama's drug director last week on NPR, it aint gonna happen folks. yet. please dont come after me all mean and stuff, just listen to what your president's man says.
I agree with you Leslie.
Even though SD has a longstanding love affair with using alcohol for recreation and entertainment, I do not think the majority of SD is ready to start a love affair with using pot for recreation/entertainment.
There is an increase tolerance/sympathy for pot to be used for medical conditions, but not for recreation.
Eventually it will happen, but not now.
Cory Heidelberger asked:
>"Kurt, is that executive committee member saying that Chad Haber bought the ad but falsely said that it was paid for by the Libertarian Party?"
The executive committee member didn't know who bought it. Stranahan indicated that he and Haber neither "distributed" nor "approved" it.
>"Can you get that executive committee member to give me a call or just drop by the comment section here and confirm whether or not the SDLP bought that ad?"
No, I'm on bad and worsening terms with the executive committee, but I'm 99.9 percent sure the party didn't buy it.
Roger Cornelius wrote to me:
>"As I recall, Ryan Gaddy was boasting that he and SDLP would appeal the judge's decision to keep off the ballot in the PUC race. Any updates on that?"
No, I haven't been told.
>"Who are the other member of the executive committee besides Shanahan and Newland?"
Last I knew, the rest of the committee was Nathan Barton, Samuel Saunders and Emmett, with one position vacant.
>"I'm not understanding how your party functions, it sounds as though candidates can run as a Libertarian, nominated by the party, but he can't use the Libertarian flag without written permission. Or does needing written permission only apply to Chad Haber?"
My impression is that this was only intended as a statement of the obvious: No candidate may claim party sponsorship for something the party doesn't sponsor.
Anyone one notice that the "L"s in ad are lower case?
That should be a red flag that the ad was not necessarily paid for by the Libertarian Party. Hard to believe that someone from the Libertarian Party would not catch that before the ad was printed.
Is it is like "catholic church" is all embracing (as in the Apostles Creed,) while the Catholic Church is a specific denomination?
JeniW, I wondered about exactly that odd non-capitalization. The ad also doesn't identify the "South Dakota Libertarian Party" specifically. It smells just a little like somebody trying to pull a fast one on campaign finance law, as if they don't want to say who's really paying for the political message but also don't want to be pinned down for falsely putting someone else on the hook as the sponsor. It smells just like the kind of legal/verbal trickery to which Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth have resorted in past legal situations to dodge prosecution and send opponents down rabbit holes.
Every state has a Sarah Palin. Looks like we got two.
well, every sara likely has a todd. didn't they all get in a fight outside a bar over trigg or somesuch, just the other night?
Leslie, I agree that the pro-pot vote does not offer a strategic advantage worth pursuing in South Dakota races. Apparently Chad thinks pursuing that vote is advantageous only for tricking people into attending a campaign rally. Of course, since he only drew four students to his rally, he clearly over-valued that advantage... and proceeded to waste it by acting like a jerk.
It is odd that Bosworth/Haber/Shanahan would not only sponsor this pot function, but appear at it, even for political purposes.
Remember at SDLP convention Haber didn't support pot legalization? The only support he gave the pot and drug guys was that pot arrests would not be a priority.
Pretty thin skinned, if you ask me.
Oh, Roger, remember that for Chad, words aren't about truth, and political positions aren't about building a better polis. They are just tools to serve his immediate desires.
This is true Cory. Now he is running his campaign based on patriotic memes and quoting the men that were. It worked so well for Bosworth, he is running with it.
Other than that, his campaign is hanging onto the Mette Rape Case and the Brady Folkens death.
Grudz - regarding "I hope she gets off but he gets the books all thrown at him." Remember, it takes TWO to tango. As folks who were in it together for months, I'd like to think you can at least see that.
Lesliengland,Palins were in a brawl at a private residence two weeks ago Saturday next. The kid slept through the brawl in a stretch Hummer. Most accounts of the brawl agree on main points. Palin's side of the story is diametrically opposed-like the difference between Madville Times and PP's alternate world blog. All you need to know is that the Palin fambly(wingnuts) are always the victims.