Do not be silent, O God of my praise, or wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me, speaking against me with lying tongues....
For a moment, I thought I was on the phone with Gordon Howie. But no, here was Independent candidate for U.S. Senate Larry Pressler, concluding our conversation by reading and drawing strength from Psalm 109:
They beset me with words of hate, and attack me without cause. In return for my love they accuse me, even while I make prayer for them. So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Don't get Pressler wrong: he's not spending the last days of the Senate campaign holding a "God help me!" pity party. He's at the Augustana football game this afternoon and the Stampede–Musketeers hockey match tonight to shake hands, wave his signs, and hand out pamphlets. He's planning a telephonic town hall Monday with thousands of Independent voters and a radio mini-blitz Tuesday morning. Then he and Harriet will settle in for supper and television Election Night at their farmstead in Humboldt.
In those last conversations with voters, Pressler plans to emphasize the most important factors voters should weigh in their Senate vote. He says South Dakotans need a powerful Senator. Repeating a standard stump line, Pressler cites his seniority, unique in the field, as an advantage in breaking gridlock to benefit South Dakota. Pressler says that if we want better air and rail service, protection for senior citizens, or an American pipeline plan that keeps fuel here and lowers our prices (a buck a gallon for diesel and distillates, he said in Wednesday's debate and in our conversation today), we need him in Washington using his power to solve problems.
Pressler says he was surprised by the endorsement that that Sioux Falls paper gave him this morning. Given the paper's silence on the endorsements he has received from retired FBI agent John Good (covered online by Mr. Montgomery, but not in print?) and Independent Maine Senator Angus King, he wasn't sure that Sioux Falls paper was paying attention. He has no idea whether the endorsement will help him or serve as the "kiss of death." He says he doesn't have the resources to throw ads up on Sunday morning television to immediately tout the endorsement the way he says Tim Johnson did back in 1996 (ah, the details one remembers), so he's hoping word of mouth—and other editorial boards—will amplify that endorsement for him.
If he wins, Pressler says great—he's ready to serve and feels more energized now than he did in his thirties, largely because he doesn't worry about appearances the way he did then. If he loses, he says no big deal—he's "been there, done that." He's been to the Senate, and as former member, he still has floor privileges. Win or lose, Pressler says he wants to continue working with the Centrist Project to pull politicians, journalists, and universities back to what Pressler says is the real purpose of politics: solving problems. (Note to serious Independents and third-way seekers: look them up!)
Pressler told the Black Hills Forum and Press Club this week that his campaign is public service, an effort to talk about issues that matter to South Dakota. In response, the Right and the Left attack him with "lies," videos and great piles of direct mail about his voting record on Social Security, honoraria for speeches, and his residency (Pressler says he and his wife have always voted in South Dakota and always kept a home here). Even Keystone XL proponents who want their pipeline and not Pressler's are "lying"—says Pressler, deliberately and not lightly—when they claim the pipeline will ship Bakken oil and relieve rail pressure. On the phone and in the debates, Pressler sounds particularly chapped when he says that word, "lies."
That brings us back to Psalm 109. Pressler says that's the text for his men's Bible study in Sioux Falls next week. The psalmist says his lying accusers indict him thus:
For he did not remember to show kindness, but pursued the poor and needy and the brokenhearted to their death.
The accusers wish the psalmist dead, his widow and children impoverished and shamed. The psalmist dishes right back:
May that be the reward of my accusers from the Lord, of those who speak evil against my life.
Pressler cited these passages somewhat laughingly, saying he's a New Testament guy and can't wish such Old Testament curses on his worst enemies. But he may find guidance for Tuesday and whatever comes next in the Psalm's closing lines:
May my accusers be clothed with dishonor; may they be wrapped in their own shame as in a mantle. With my mouth I will give great thanks to the Lord; I will praise him in the midst of the throng. For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save them from those who would condemn them to death.
Contrary to popular belief, Larry Pressler has a prayer. He's not needy, but he says he'll protect those who are, if you'll give him your vote.
Yes, if you are a devout Republican moderate who can't stomach casting a vote for the dishonest Mr. Rounds, please do consider casting your vote for Mr. Pressler. If you are a Democrat, don't even think about it. You already have a perfectly good, honest, and hardworking candidate in Mr. Weiland. Mr. Pressler, whether elected or not, isn't going to spend one minute of his time helping South Dakota Democrats build up strength in the coming years. Because he's not on our side. He's on his side.
One more time and then I'll stop. The purpose of a political party is to win elections. The Democrats can win this Senate race. But not if a third of them vote for Larry Pressler.
I like that Pressler calls lying what it is . . . Lying. Not "a mistake". Not "misspoken". Not "untrue."
I have said it before and say it again!!!!!!!! Vote for a veteran!!!!!!! It will surprise you how many of your politicions will not receive a vote and how many of our finest young men will not be around without there arms and legs while the REPUBS are anxious for another war!!!!!!!!!
What verses did Larry use to justify his position that it's okay to dismember living human beings without anesthesia inside their mothers womb?
Read carefully the last sentence of the closing line of the Psalm Cory quotes above and see if it doesn't actually apply to you and those you'd condemn to death.
Sincerely, Rev/Rep Hickey
Needless to say, Psalm 109 applies to Pressler's Senate race as much as it applies to my Royals being on God's side against the Giants in the World Series this week. Here Pressler has simply pulled a Gordon Howie on us.
fear the reaper: she's pissed.
You'd be further ahead reading palms. Who died and left a bunch of white wingnuts, with virtually no medical knowledge, in charge of women's reproductive,constitutional rights?
ps-if the costitution is not a living document,how is it you can bestow unalienable rights on present day fetii,when they never had said rights before?
Mike- no Constitutional right to kill human beings. Medical science has come a long way since 1973. Women deserve better than 1973 era medicine. But back to Pressler, Psalm 109 has nothing to do with his Senate race.
Here's a Constitutional right to life for the unborn right there in the Preamble: "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"... look up the word posterity. It means all our future offspring have these rights too. If a biological human being in it's mothers womb isn't our posterity, then who is? Again, back to Pressler, I don't want to digress and hijack this post with an abortion conversation. I made my point. He pulled a Howie on us.
church of the gaffe: pay at this window.
Since we've slid down the slippery slope into the roe, I, being as much a defender of the rights of the unborn, wonder what all my conservative friends have done to provide options for those needing the most common of abortions, those done for birth control. Or is it, we just make it illegal and everything comes up roses?
Will lose a few with his Biblical attempt.
Wasn't aware your side believed in science.
Steve Hickey pulling one sentence out of an entire quote disparages the whole psalm.
This is exactly what is wrong with quoting the Bible, anyone can make it say what they want, including Hickey.
Pastor Hickey, as far as I can tell, the only candidate who would agree with your hardline, anti-abotion policy and your interpretation of the Constutution is Mr. Howie. Can we assume you will be voting for him and perhaps counseling your followers to do likewise? If not, please remind us why you brought the issue up. Thanks
mfi, excellent point. Hickey denies established science, while jumping into a non-scientific opinion. Makes you wonder how much his opinions have to do with science, and how much to do with his opinions about his theology.
Looks like Hickey is all about his selective reading of the Bible, and how he can bend science to match.
Hickey, you are more than welcome to your opinions, both scientific and theological. You're completely free to use all your powers of persuasion to convince others to agree with you. You've no business whatsoever trying to legislatively force your opinions on anyone else.
Hardline? Rounds agrees. No one I know is voting for Howie. No one I know is voting for Pressler.
No Roger, there are rules of interpretation when approaching a Biblical text. It's not a free for all. But you are correct, people twist it to justify whatever they want. So do people on your team.
Bill, I'm going to make a friend out of you. We need you this next year to take on the loan sharks. Stay tuned.
watching rounds affixing a shotgun to a tree intrigues me.
Who writes these rules for biblical interpretations? You or is there a central committee somewhere?
Mocking the Bible by using select quotes for selfish gain is nothing short of the bastardization of the good book
I never quote or cite the Bible for precisely the reason I stated.
Deb - are your opinions allowable in public discourse and mine not? Put your ideas out there, I'll put mine. May the best ideas win.
I just sent out a postcard to every Democrat voter in District 9 giving a handful of reasons some District 9 Democrats are voting for me. Republican friends think it's a mistake. I put out the card because I represent Democrats too. My reference to it here is to illustrate my record of not being hyper-partisan as sometimes I agree with your party. I'd commend such openness to you, Deb and Roger.
Vehemence toward anything coming from the Republican side isn't helpful just as Republican vehemence toward anything coming from the Democrats isn't helpful. Voters are sick of it. This is what Pressler is trying to tap into. Centrism doesn't have to be compromise, it can be standing firm on the best ideas coming from the right and left.
Roger - it's a discipline called Hermeneutics - the science of interpreting Scripture. It's taught at the graduate level in Seminaries. There are different rules of interpretation for the various genres in the Bible. Psalms are treated differently than Gospels. Gospels treated differently than historical books like Chronicles. Letters are treated differently than apocalyptic texts.
pseudoscience for dummies.
chicken soup for the epistemologically challenged.
Do not vote for Rounds, do not vote for Pressler, vote for Rick, problems solved. :)
I like the way you cut to the quick, Rounds is the problem and Rick is the solution to the problem
We're already friends, pastor. I'm a fairly friendly fellow. But I'm in a partisan discipline kick right now, and so am a bit edgy. ;-)
Mr. Hickey's comments are classical Republican; when in trouble as a political party Republicans often then try to play the pro-life card.
Mr. Pressler is a layman quoting the bible as most Christians have done from time to time, but if a pastor such as Mr. Hickey refers to a Bible passage then my first thoughts are…. What is his pastoral education? Is he educated in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? Has he read the original scriptures? When a man of the cloth can say yes to all of those questions, then and only then, is his advice supreme…. Without such education, they are merely another layman, masked as a pastor with a political agenda….
"mike from iowa" wrote:
>"Wasn't aware your side believed in science."
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"Looks like Hickey is all about his selective reading of the Bible, and how he can bend science to match."
I may not be on Pastor Hickey's "side" in defending the Rounds-Wadhams campaign, but I'm on his side in defending the Bible. It's actually left-leaning institutions like CNN that routinely bend "science" to match their worldview. Read this to learn more: http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/10/25/the-rest-of-the-story/
Kurt: chuck the christianist crap and consider a liberal arts education.
Aramaic. Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic? And didn't write anything down? Smart of him. Neither did Buddha. The minute you write something down, people start screwing it up. Once they get it right to the edge of not making any sense any more, they call it one of two things. Religion or legislation. LOL
Winston - your first comment makes no sense to me. Regarding your second, though I've forgotten most of my Hebrew - only had to take two semesters of it more than two decades ago- I do keep up with my Greek and use it every week. I don't care a bit about Latin. The Masters of Divinity degree I have is the academic four year version with ancient language requirements.
Again, back to Pressler. He pulled a Howie.
"""No one I know is voting for Howie. No one I know is voting for Pressler.""" Only God knows what is in the hearts of man.
Or, is it possible Rep Hickey already has that list? Sorry, Revvy. I hope you find the humor, if there is any to be had.
How about that divine timing, Revvy? ;-)
"people twist it to justify whatever they want."
Exactly Hickey, exactly. That's been true since the first word was written. All those centuries of interpretation, copying, translating and on and on . . . All that was done by imperfect people who "twisted," sometimes benignly, sometimes intentionally. It continues.
I do put my Opinions out there. I have no problem with Opinions. It's when you've tried to substitute your Opinions for scientifically accepted Knowledge that I energetically disagree. I even more energetically disagree when you try to substitute your theological opinions as Christian Fact. You do that here on a regular basis. I'd guess that you behave similarly nearly everywhere.
Hickey, do you think you could be wrong? Seriously.
Deb Geelsdottir writes to Steve Hickey:
>"I even more energetically disagree when you try to substitute your theological opinions as Christian Fact."
Deb, your theological opinion is that the Bible texts have been "twisted" during copying and translation, and like Pastor Hickey, you assert your theological opinions as fact.
The question isn't who's asserting opinions as fact. The question is whose opinions are true.
less, attacking a named contributor from anonymity is cowardice: try again chicken.
Powers and his minions have been attacking whenever they can simply because Howie is calling Rounds and the SDGOP what they are, corrupt.
The "religion or legislation" comment might be more on target than you realize. Republicans would actually prefer religious legislation.
Mr. Hickey, my first comment is quite self-explanatory and a known fact by most politicos.
But what about the original scriptures?….. Did you read them during your studies of hebrew, greek, and latin?… and do you still rely upon them in interpreting the Bible or is the greek, as an example, merely a source for word interpretation?
I say this, because many years ago I studied latin and I still use it to break-down words for their meanings and originality, but I have never used it to understand Quintus Fabius Pictor and his historiography.
No Kurt, my theological opinions are just that, opinions. However, the changes in the bible through the centuries are verifiable, ie. facts.
Hickey, I'm curious about this sentence in your response:
"There are different rules of interpretation for the various genres in the Bible."
Do you use historical/contextual criticism in your interpretation?
I understand that the Bible has over time needed to be interpreted into numerous languages, but why is further interpretation needed.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"No Kurt, my theological opinions are just that, opinions. However, the changes in the bible through the centuries are verifiable, ie. facts."
That's exactly what I was talking about, Deb. Like Pastor Hickey, you're asserting your theological opinions as fact.
Good question Roger. Over time, more is learned about ancient civilizations, their culture, economy, social organization, and language. All those factors make a difference in interpretation.
In addition, as modern culture changes, citizens' relationship to the Bible and theology is different. For instance, very few people today understand how much care sheep require. They are the stupidest animal on the farm!
Then there are the tv preachers, always trying to get rich via bogus theology. Joel Osteen and his prosperity gospel is only the latest Big Lie. It's making him incredibly wealthy.
That's so Christ-like! Gag.
Kurt, what is unclear about my statement?
"No Kurt, my theological opinions are just that, opinions.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>>"No Kurt, my theological opinions are just that, opinions."
Then she asked:
>"Kurt, what is unclear about my statement?"
What's unclear to me is why you say, "No Kurt," when I'm in full agreement that your opinions are opinions.
""""However, the changes in the bible through the centuries are verifiable, ie. facts.""""" Is this a fact most agree on?
Um, okay. This is what the "No Kurt" was about:
"you assert your theological opinions as fact"
You said that in your 22:45 comment. I'm wondering if the definition of Theology might be part of the confusion. A short description might be that it's about the purpose and meaning of Jesus Christ's existence.
It's not about the history of the Middle East, cultural evolution throughout the world and what that means for biblical interpretation.
(ERROR: Your comment was too short. Please try to say something useful.)
Back to Pressler.
Usually when a politician recites scripture it makes me cringe. I don't mind what Pressler did because he is not running as super-Christian. It happens to be something that is important to him, and that's fine.
I have serious reservations about the way Kurt and Rev Hickey define "left leaning." The reality,imho,is they are tilted so far right that any opinion different from theirs appears to be left leaning. As far as scripture goes,I will stick with verifiable facts and leave what I strongly believe to be fiction to you "experts."
The only people who think I'm far right are those who are far left. See above : I just sent out a card with a handful of common points I have with Dems .
"pulled a Howie"—indeed, Pressler's mention of Scripture struck me as unusual. I don't think he's made a point of citing Scripture on the campaign trail. Pressler does not appear to make a show of his piety.
For context, Psalm 109 came up because I mentioned that my wife is finishing seminary and headed for pastorhood. Pressler said he'd like to take some seminary classes, said he enjoys the men's Bible study... and then he thought of the group's assigned text for this coming week and made the connection. Maybe I'm just easily played, but I don't think he was focused on making a political point with the Psalm; he seemed more interested in hearing my wife's educated explanation of how to square such Old Testament curses with New Testament forgiveness.
If Psalm 109 comes up in Pressler's interview with Tsitrian, or if we hear Pressler reading Psalm 109 on the radio Tuesday, then maybe we know he's politicizing the Scripture à la Howie (though here I am picking on my friend Gordon again! Shame on me.). But at the moment, I'm willing to ascribe to that moment on the phone an unexpected sense of connection between Scripture and life and a genuine intellectual curiosity.
As long as you're on here, Pastor, have you heard of Rounds' Lake Sharpe Investments - the slush fund on tax payer money that is being used to fund his campaign?
What does the bible say about corruption? I'm sure there are plenty of scripture and quotes on the sin of corruption, or does Lake Sharpe Investment not classify as corrupted enough to you?
"The only people who think I'm far right are those who are far left. See above : I just sent out a card with a handful of common points I have with Dems ."
Are you serious? After you basically threw the GLBT community under the bus with press statements and tweets this past year?
What about the corruption and at the very least gross mismanagement with what happened under the Rounds administration that has published and posted not only on this blog but published elsewhere? Conflicts of interest?
I already posted my Qs for Pressler, Cory. I only hope I didn't break the injunction in Leviticus about putting a stumbling block in front of a blind man.
It's a significant exaggeration to say I threw anyone under the bus with my comments this spring. I asked the medical/psychological community to weigh in so policy makers have more to go on if indeed what is self-evident isn't the case after all. Period.
I have been involved in corruption exposure in my party twice this past year. Once filing a lawsuit against the Secretary of States office and then breaking rank with party leadership with regard to EB-5 accountability and transparency. Another reason some Dems are voting for me.
Here is a link to Pressler saying he probably would support overturning Roe v Wade. https://t.co/zBMjE0lcDi
Steve Hickey, you have got to be kidding. You are supporting Mike Rounds, with all that we already know about the money that was stolen from our State by the EB-5 program???? You are about protecting the unborn children. How about those who have been born and have been cheated on education funding by these last two governors. I am amazed that with all that is known, that you will actually admit that you support Mike Rounds.
"It's a significant exaggeration to say I threw anyone under the bus with my comments this spring. I asked the medical/psychological community to weigh in so policy makers have more to go on if indeed what is self-evident isn't the case after all. Period."
Really? If you are only looking for the medical data to support your opinion rather than honestly be open to all that is out there or medical professionals who's opinions are biased to further their own agenda Isn't that very similar to those who use the Bible to push their own agenda?
What I see is a pattern of flip flopping. You tell us one thing and then do something else.
Does the need to feel important and accepted being a legislator override the other misdeeds that are happening in our state government?
If I may borrow a line from Larry Kurtz. Pick a Lane Steve!
Lanny, for sure I'm voting for Rounds. I'd guess you have no reservations about voting for Obama despite his involvement in scandals - IRS targeting and cover ups, NSA spying, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc, etc. It's my opinion that there isn't much to hang Rounds on so ALL THE FOCUS has been on trying to hang him for Joop Bollens crimes and Rounds is four times removed from it. That's my opinion. Rounds is an easy vote for me.
Pick a lane - that's the hyper partisanship people are sick of.
"Pick a lane - that's the hyper partisanship people are sick of."
No it's called priorities, focus and being consistent rather than to go along to get along. Telling people one thing and then turning around and doing another.
Rounds is a crook: if Dems hold the Senate he won't be seated.
IRS targeting and cover ups, NSA spying, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc, etc.
Standard republican talking points for the last 6 years, most if not all has been debunked as pure BS. Keep trying Rep Hickey.
Anyone believing Marty Jackley isn't spying on every South Dakotan is delusional.
the only people sick of elections are those addicted to commercial broadcasting.
Steve Hickey, I never voted for Obama and have not yet decided for whom I will vote on Tuesday. I just will not vote for someone who has run our State into the ground the way Rounds and Daugaard have. If you can look past crooks, I cannot understand how you cannot look past abortion. Both sins, if abortion is a sin, lead down the same path. If you are that much of a one issue voter, then you, sir are a part of the problem of what is wrong with this country. Mike Rounds has already taken the position that he is willing to join with McCain and Graham and go to war with anyone that we think needs to be taken to the woodshed. What is the difference in your mind, in what you perceive as murder of unborn children, and the murder of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent children, men and women in the last 20 plus years by our government?
We must remember many Democrats in South Dakota are conservative and it was Daschle's downfall to lead the agenda. Weiland seems like a genuine Democrat but Reid may have been right that Herseth was the most viable candidate. Many of us just live in the wrong political state.
Last year when Steve Hickey's comments went national SD was once again laughed at for appearing ignorant and 50 years behind the times.
When believers want their religious beliefs part of government it's dangerous and can't be compromised. Do you want literature (some may say fairy tales) to rule or science and reason?
Mark Twain on The Bible: It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Heard that on Atheist TV. There's a comedy section too Cory. It's not all grouchy grumblers.
The blood on the hands of the US in my lifetime alone is atrocious. We go into countries with no blessing but that of government and church leaders praying their congregations into believing we are saving the world and leave a horrendous mess. Broken bodies and souls of our world's young men and women and families not to mention the loss of life.
"Bombers without bombs?" Who in the Sam Hell does Mike Rounds think he is impressing with his Ellsworth rhetoric? Isis would never exist without our bombs.
South Dakota is celebrating 125 years of genocide.
Becky Jaspers and Paula Hawks are running in District 9 as Democrats? District 9 is the same district Steve Hickey is seeking re-election correct?
Four times removed? Steve, you exaggerate. Rounds interviewed Bollen. He hired Benda. He backed EB-5. He signed recruitment letters. He signed the Future Fund grants for NBP. He met with the players in 2009. He sent Benda to testify for the Epoch Star exemption. If we're all voting for Obama by picking Weiland, you are voting for Bollen by voting for Rounds. At least by following your local paper and voting for Pressler, you'd be voting for neither.
You start out fairly sensible John and roll on to your purist attitude that keeps SD Dems isolated and lost or losing.
Steve Hickey is not leading Mike Rounds to victory. If it is the Roe/Wade, SD voters have already proven Mike Rounds would be out on that representation alone. The Democrats here lose because everyone knows they want to immediately burn the house down. The purist Democrats don't even vote for their own party and now they want all that forgotten. Just ask Steph.
You're right Les. Mainly our actions created the next generation of terrorists. Worse, much worse then the previous. ISIS may move in to Kuwait. They've said that's their plan on how to engage us on the ground rather than on U.S. soil.
Cory, John, et al, suppose the Rounds' house of cards vote coalition collapses as a result of all this (and I think it will to some extent.) How many potential voters do you think he might shed?
Let's start with the assumption that he's been polling on the average around 40%. Do you think it's possible he could drop 10 points and come in third? 5% and we get three candidates scrambling for fractions of a percent? Or will he just shed a point or two?
The silence is deafening, Pastor Hickey. Is everyone in Pierre this way? Why doesn't anyone talk about Lake Sharpe Investments, or is this slush fund just business as usual?
There must be separation of church and state. It's about individual liberty. We should not be ruled by religious doctrine unless we choose that in our personal lives.
Bill, let's give Rounds a rock-bottom 30%. I postulate an EB-5 campaign that would hit him so hard it would send even some of that "Republican or die" base over the edge. Let's say enough stay home in shame that the 10% we can claw away expand to 15%. Stop right there, do nothing else, and yeah, those votes split up strangely among Weiland, Pressler, and Howie.
But we don't just stop right there and do nothing else. That's when we turn to that new in-play 15% and say, "Pressler? Really? Let me tell you something..." and we pour on whatever we need to pour on. But getting that 15% in play is so hard that we have to pour everything we've got into destroying Rounds first.
But this is all academic (unless we find ourselves in the same scenario in 2016 for Thune's seat, or other future races with this wild combination of two Indies and a GOP frontrunner having trouble breaking 40%). 48 hours to go: all that matters now is GOTV and divine intervention, right?
Divine intervention? Even their god couldn't convince them to vote something other than R. That's why people like Hickey are so smug, they have them fooled into the R or nothing vote and they know it. If anything is ever going to change, then it has to start Nov 5th and not stop. I'm glad I won't be holding my nose when I vote Tue.
Cory, I'm not talking about a separate reality, I'm talking about this one here and now. I really do think these two journalistic endorsements of Pressler and their scathing non-endorsement of Rounds will erode Mike's vote base. Just don't know how much.
I'll agree with you there. One endorsement is worth mentioning; two, from the two biggest papers in the state, coupled with a scathing rejection of Rounds, should be making the national news wires right now.
Indeed, the question is, how many fence-sitters do we have?
Or voted early and wish they hadn't.
How many fence sitters? I'm gonna guess about 25% of the total Senate vote is in flux right now.
I don't think Rounds can go lower than 35%, Rick has a solid 25%, Pressler 10% and Howie maybe 5% hiding in the Tea Party closet.
If Rick snags half of those and Larry the other half, Mikey just might be out of business. But it'll be a squeaker.
I have never seen both parties in so much flux in SD, which could have been so much opportunity for a dark horse.
For anyone to even remotely think they can predict this race is nonsense. I don't know 5 repubs who are absolutely decided and interestingly enough, I don't know 5 Dems who are even talking. I don't count MVille who is more than willing to share.
MMR will have a solid base at 30+ but it will be interesting to see how the vote in the darkness of the booth will possibly change all these theories. Early voters tend to be of the solid base so won't really have the surprise effect many are looking for. But who knows? Think of the notoriety Rick Weiland could have if elected after Reid's blow off.
Have you heard of Nate Silver, Les? The chances of SD electing their crook is like 98%.
Okay, here's my prediction:
It ain't pretty, but I think it can happen.
So take that Nate Silver. LOL.
p.s. Rick looks better and better, the more votes Presser can pull away from the GOPers and the Indys. My assumptions above include half of the missing Dem vote coming back to Rick, a reasonable share of the undecided, and a Democrat surge in Indian country (go Roger!)
Jenny the silence is deafening because I work on Sunday. I snuck on here early today which is in bad form for me on a Sunday morning. Relax. It is my understanding that there was no wrongdoing in the lake Sharpe investments and a statement was issued regarding it. The point I was trying to make above is that comparing Rounds and Obama with regard to scandal involvement, you all strain gnats and swallow camels.
because hickey knows the workings of any executive through divine white supremacy.
Steve, that there was no discussion of any conflict of interest in the Sharpe gift of taxpayer money is tragic. The statement came from a party official with a lot of skin in the Rounds' election.
So are you thinking that there is no scandal with EB-5?
Hope your Sunday was a good one.
So Steve Hickey says we're all supposed to just relax, things are fine in Pierre. Never mind about the millions missing from EB-5 corruption, questionable Lake Sharpe(slush funds for campaign) Investments. I reckon there's been a bit too much relaxin' out yonder in Pierre. It's time for South Dakotans to wake up. If Rounds hadn't been relaxin' at the wheel, maybe he could have caught Bollen.
"There are more prisoners than farmers in the US." -- Steve Hickey, six minutes ago.
I don't recall any media reports on the Lake Sharpe scandal or anybody in government making a statement about it, I could be wrong.
For well over a years now Cory has been telling us the story of Rounds and EB-5, granted his reports have a liberal tilt but the facts remain solid.
You and other Republican legislators have ignored his warnings about EB-5; concealment, denial, lies, stonewalling and cover up have been your chosen campaign to protect Rounds and the party.
As constituents we expect you and other elected officials not only to know the answers, but to ask questions. If you would put on an honorable face and ask the questions of Rounds and his crony associates, you would come to the same conclusion as the Rapid City Journal, Cory, and the many that read Madville Times.
When legislators fail to act when there is blatant corruption they are just as culpable as those they protect. Hickey proclaims to be a religious man, but endorses corrupt politicians that lie and rob from the public
Roger, excellent summation of the extent of the corruption in Pierre. While Rounds is the most odiferous, all his enablers can share in the guilt.
What's the quote? Something about evil occurring when good people do nothing?
I suggest that those who do nothing when aware of what I'm calling corruption, are not "good."
Google and you'll find front page headlines of me calling for Bollrn to come face the music. I'm not ignoring EB5. My relax comment was in regard to the impatience above when I didn't respond because I was in church.
Somehow I heard the quote, but can't recall it exactly.
Steve, you may have called out Bollen to face the music, the difference being that Bollen is not running for the U.S. Senate is he?
Every legislator should have demanded that Rounds be subpoenaed and appear under oath before GOAC. Why was Tidemann left to make a mockery of South Dakota justice?
Are any of the legislators who were charged with the oversight of GOED still in office or running for office?
Roger, you are again on point. While it is commendable to call for Bollen's interrogation, genuine courage is required to challenge ones own party leadership.
Therefore Steve, I recognize that you did request Bollen appear personally in Pierre. But . . . and this is a very important point . . . you have avoided criticism of Rounds' corruption. In fact, despite strong, documented evidence from a variety of sources, especially right here, you continue to support Rounds.
Hickey gets one point for Bollen.
Hickey loses 5 points for supporting the Corrupter in Chief.
Total: -4. (Nothing to be too proud of.)
I always like it when you catch someone in a slight of hand Roger and call them out. Steve Hickey is one of the dudes that should have called out Rounds and for that matter Daugaard on this EB-5 mess. Bolleen and Benda are not running for public offices as you clearly show. Good call.
Evil prospers when good men do nothing.
John Philpot Curran
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnphilpo380901.html#5BOkBdTUj3FXhXJh.99
Or "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Excellent quote mike from iowa, and most fitting.
As this EB-5 scandal has played out, I recall the elements of Watergate and what brought Nixon down. In order to protect their party they went to great lengths to protect him, following the same pattern as the SDGOP, until the inevitable when there was no longer anything to defend or protect.
Nixon wasn't brought down by the Watergate act itself, he was brought down by the lies he and handlers told, nearly every case prosecuted under Watergate included the charge of perjury and a whole bunch of otherwise good men went to prison.
Mike Rounds and the legislators defending him are making the same mistakes, they lack honor, integrity and have failed to seek the truth or even question their leaders.
Will Mike Rounds go the same way as Nixon, I don't know, but I do know at some point he has to answer for his role in EB-5, whether he wins the election or not.
Mike Rounds may have picked up some early votes for his sorry behind, but as the light shines on him and the rest of the cockroaches, people are shying away. It must be crushing to have the largest newspapers actually put in print that you are a dud and a crooked one at that. He is a lame duck before hunting season.
Jerry, have you heard people saying, other than here, that they are not voting for Rounds?
I truly hope that you have.
I dont post much anymore. I read most of Madville along with 8 or 10 other blogs, some lean left, and some lean right.
Like it or not those that lean to the left like to feel like they are helping everyone with their problems by expressing their liberal views. If they lean far enough to the left they will be leaning on the government itself. There is nothing wrong with that, its a thought process that gives those in the middle leaning both ways something to think about.
Those people in the middle are more then likely looking for a level playing field, while those ultraliberals are trying to force government to do even more all the time.
On the other side of the coin are the hard core right leaning conservatives. They also try to influence the middle but in a different way. They want less government interference in their lives, but with some exceptions.
1. Like Reverend Hickey, they want control of somthing, YOU! They want to be in the room with you and your doctor and be a part of the discussion about your reproductive health. Thats bullshit.
2. They all have a hatred for anything gay. Rev Hinkey, you are they, and that's bullshit.
3. And they think if they could just get enough people praying at the same time they can get the country back to the way it was in the 50's. You know, where minorities knew their places, and the women stayed home and kept the house clean while barefoot and pregnant. They think that if they dont ever hear the "A" word there wont be anymore abortions done. That worked so well the last time why would anyone want to complicate a womens life with the option of an abortion? They want to control not only a womans body, but also her mind. And that goes beyond shit to d
All three of these things come from the same place. You know that book of fables, that fun place to find just the Scriptures that supports their world view.
These people are leaning so far to the right that the only thing keeping them upright is that crutch they're leaning on, their religion.
All you have to know about Mike Rounds is this. He did everything in his power to stop the sexual abuse lawsuits against his Catholic Church. In my mind he's no better then the rapists themselves!
I guess I'm going to repeat myself again. Why do the people in South Dakota want to live demarcate, through social programs, while voting republican to show their dislike for the government? It doesnt make sense.
If you want to know what will happen if the far right gets control, just think "Jim Jones," because no matter what they say they want the same thing Old Jim wanted, complete control.
For some reason the words from the end of "The Overture" on Rushes "2112" comes to mind. Many think it comes from the Beatitudes in the New Testament, who knows what they were thinking at the time.
"Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
We have assumed control
We have assumed control
We have assumed control"
Meanwhile in Missouri life goes on. Think green.
Ah, my man The Blindman, with prose as poetry, with a little poetry mixed in for good measure. Thank you Bill!!!!
I'm glad you comment sometimes Blindman. I'm going to spend time pondering your latest. That is often the case with your words.
You libbies probably don't believe me but I think that Mr. Hickey as much as the next overgodder needs to stop trying to jam their god down my maw or expect me to come riding hard and fast with my god, and they may not like my god much. I'm just sayin...
Okay, since Dithmer went there, and because I usually try to avoid doing this, so what the heck, why not.
Let me ask an abstract question about God.
If you were to assign God a number, what would it be? I have two, and only two candidates. 1 and Zero.
You can avoid the dualism by adding those two numbers together. And you probably would be right to do so, because after all, there really is 'something' when there could be nothing, and nobody really understands why.
Now, there is a problem with being just one thing, isn't there? It can't be spoken of. Because to do so, the one would have to become an object of reference. An object observed and spoken of by something else.
But then of course the One wouldn't be the One anymore.
That's why I hardly ever talk about God. Not because I don't think I should. But because I don't think I can. Nobody can.
Mr. Howie can. And his god's number is 166.5 A quarter-beast.
Hey grudz, did you hear the one about the two?
Very good, Bill. I expected to hear that from Cornelius long ago due to the Great Circle. The problem both broken parties face. .
An ex con told me one day, "You guys try to define God. Put God in a box. God doesn't fit in a box, Les.
Heard that one, Bill. Did you hear the one about the two fathers and two sons who sat down to eat eggs for breakfast? They ate exactly three eggs, each person had an egg. How in the heck does that one work, if grandpa had no gravy?
Les, my circle is intact.
Actually I heard that God's number is Pi
There were three people. Grampa, dad and his son. Two dads two sons, but just three guys. The grampa didn't get gravy because the little runt Grudznick chowed it all down when the old man went to the can.
Last I heard you didn't have a circle, Roger. You don't have to be a part of the circle, for sure.
This is my imagery for God, and it does involve numbers:
If everything there is to know about God was a mile long; I know about 30 feet, at best!
Lol, and I only about two feet, Deb. The ones at the ends of my legs, ;-). And actually not very much about those.
Oh Les, we all have circles, my circle remains intact, is yours?
Comments are closed.