Tomorrow, September 11, the Brown County Republicans will be hosting their Reagan Lunch. This month the feature is speaker is District 2 Republican State Representative Brock Greenfield. Greenfield is running for District 2 State Senator this fall against the Democrat incumbent Chuck Welke. The District 2 State Senate race will be a tough battle for both candidates. It should be fun to watch how this election will turn out.
Here is the announcement of the Reagan Lunch provided by the Brown County Democrats:
Come join other fellow Republicans for lunch at the Victory Center Office (1205 6th Ave SW). The lunch is free but if you want to donate you will be able to do so. The Reagan Lunch will be at noon on Thursday, September 11th, 2014.
Brock Greenfield, currently District 2 Representative, will be our special speaker.
For those wishing to attend take special note it is at the Victory office in Aberdeen, and not at a restaurant this time.
This evening there is a Meet & Greet in Aberdeen celebrating the opening of the Brown County Republican Volunteer Center. Here are the details from the events invitation:
When: Monday, August 4
Where: 1205 6th Ave SW, Aberdeen
Time: stop by any time between 5:30-7:00pm
Join Mike Rounds, State Auditor Steve Barnett, Secretary of State Candidate, Shantel Krebs, State Senator Al Novstrup and State Rep. David Novstrup at the Meet and Greet. Hot dogs and Hamburgers will be grilled.
The Grassroots Express will be coming along with a sno-cone machine.
Bring the entire family for a great time.
This is actually a pretty good chance to meet some candidates. Here is a rundown of the confirmed candidates in attendance:
Mike Rounds – US Senate Race – Rounds is the expected winner of the US Senate seat this fall. He has an incumbent-like advantage in this race.
Steve Barnett – SD State Auditor race – Barnett is a well-liked politician from the Aberdeen area. Currently he is unopposed in his re-election bid. There may be a candidate running against him after the Libertarian Party state convention this Saturday. But even if someone does run against him it will be a tough battle. Steve is well-liked and hasn’t seemed to do anything wrong on his job.
Shantel Krebs – SD Secretary of State race – Krebs is looking to replace current SOS Gant in Pierre this fall. She has experience as a legislator and business owner. With her experience, energizer-bunny intensity, and Republican label she will be tough to beat this year. Local Democrat Angelia Schultz can maybe give her a battle if she can find the financial support within the SDDP to run a true campaign. Lori Stacey of the Constitution Party is hoping the voters will look her way this year. And finally the Libertarian Party will likely choose Emmett Reistroffer to run for this office. So far I think only Schultz will give Krebs a good battle. Part of me fears Stacey and Reisroffer will focus purely on election issues. Election issues are important, but they are not the only aspect of the SOS office.
Al Novstrup – District 3 State Representative Race – Al is switching from State Senate to the State House; which will allow David to continue his tenure in Pierre. Local Democrat Burt Elliott is in the race this year. It is expected Elliott will take a lot of votes. That means Al Novstrup and the other Republican Dan Kaiser are going to have to work hard to keep both seats in their party. Right now I give Novstrup an advantage over Elliott and Kaiser, but the election is still a long way away… The fourth person in this race, Democrat Pat Hale, is unlikely to have any true impact.
David Novstrup – District 3 State Senate race – David was term-limited in the House so will try for the District 3 Senate Seat. He is running against city council member Mark Remily. This is a race the Democrats really want to win. I can see the SDDP giving financial support to Remily in this race if they have enough faith in him (and if they can find money).
I’ll be there this evening to speak with the candidates. Have I said before how happy I am to be a political geek in South Dakota? I’ve lived in states where it is almost impossible to meet candidates without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a plate of food. Even the candidates I write blog posts against have been gracious and are always willing to speak with me. South Dakota is truly a great state. Not once have I regretted moving back here.
Yesterday I noted the SD GOP state convention was pretty boring in its selection of candidates. That is not necessarily true in its passage of resolutions. One resolution in particular has garnered South Dakota quite a bit of national attention. By a vote of 191-176 delegate passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
Before continuing this post I will get three statements out of the way:
I support the idea of this resolution due to the many illegal activities performed against civil liberties by the Obama administration.
I supported the same idea of impeaching President GW Bush for the many illegal activities performed against civil liberties by the Bush administration.
The chance of any President actually getting impeached is so slight that it might as well be considered impossible.
With that out of the way it is time to look at the actual resolution. Here is what a delegate sent me as the text of this resolution:
WHEREAS, The president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect it from all enemies both foreign and domestic,
WHEREAS, The president has violated his oath of office in numerous ways with the latest being the release of five terrorists in exchange for a soldier without consulting Congress as required by law,
WHEREAS, The president of the United States has willfully and wantonly lied to the American people telling them they can keep their insurance company, and they can keep their doctor under Obama Care, prior to an election,
WHEREAS, The president has ordered Federal Agencies to enact rules (laws) that threaten the security of the people of this great nation (EPA regulations) by passing Congress and usurping its authority,
WHEREAS, the president has abused his executive privilege usurping his authority as decided by numerous federal courts,
WHEREAS, The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are very clear on the authority of the President and the Federal Government, and when they violate their oath it is the right, it is the duty of the American people to act,
WHEREAS, America was designed as a Lex Rex (the law is king) rather than a Rex Lex (The King is the law) system of government. It is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the South Dakota Republican Party calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.
I definitely agree with some of the WHEREAS statements, yet I could build a similar list for Bush (or almost any previous President). There are a couple of WHEREAS statements I would like to focus on a little bit.
Yes, the move by Obama to exchange POW’s was technically illegal since the President is required by the NDAA to notify Congress of such actions 30 days ahead of time. Yet it is the establishment war hawks in DC (from both parties) that have created this situation by keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open. If politicians truly cared about such situations they would work hard to end our interventionist wars and close Guantanamo Bay now; as opposed to playing political games in order to keep it open for at least another year. I somehow failed to see the SD GOP pass a resolution condemning the immoral and unconstitutional facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, Obama lied to Americans and many people (including me) received letters saying their insurance would be cancelled. But should it be any surprise that a major piece of legislation that was written by special interest groups and unread by those voting on it (or signing it in Obama’s case) would be based upon lies? I never believed Obama. I can only think that enough people believed his “hope and change” campaign enough to think he was honest. Too bad they are just now realizing Obama was just a double-down on the same bad big-government policies of GW. I somehow failed to see the SD GOP pass a resolution condemning the many lies perpetrated by the Bush administration.
In order for an impeachment to actually happen the US House of Representatives would have to pass the resolution with a simple majority vote. Then the Senate must concur with that resolution by a 2/3 majority vote. Even if the resolution passes the House (which I doubt), it would be very unlikely to even be taken up in the Senate.
Basically this resolution was a political statement by the SD GOP. The resolution might have had more impact if the politicians representing the Republican Party would actually support small-government policies all the time.. instead of just when it suits their candidates.
For comparison, below is the resolution to impeach Bush (H.Res. 1258 – 110th) introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in 2008. Bonus question to those saying the impeach Obama resolution is the work of anarchistic anti-government Tea Party types: did you make similar statements about Kucinich in 2008 for doing basically the same thing?
Impeaches President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sets forth articles of impeachment stating that President Bush, in violation of his oath of office:
(1) illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq;
(2) misused intelligence reports to deceive Congress and the public about a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;
(3) mislead Congress and the public into believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States;
(4) illegally misspent funds to begin a war in secret prior to congressional authorization;
(5) invaded Iraq in violation of U.S. law, the United Nations Charter, and international criminal law and failed to obtain a declaration of war;
(6) failed to protect U.S. troops in Iraq by not providing them with body and vehicle armor and promoted false stories about the deaths and injuries of members of the U.S. military;
(7) used public funds to construct permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq;
(8) invaded Iraq to obtain control of its oil resources;
(9) created a secret task force to guide U.S. energy and military policy in usurpation of the role of Congress in legislating such policy;
(10) misused classified intelligence information and conspired to identify a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
(11) established policies granting U.S. government contractors in Iraq immunity from prosecution;
(12) recklessly misspent public dollars on private contractors in Iraq;
(13) detained U.S. citizens and foreign captives indefinitely and without charge;
(14) authorized torture of captives in Afghanistan and Iraq;
(15) kidnapped and transported individuals to countries known to practice torture;
(16) authorized the arrest and detention of at least 2,500 children as enemy combatants in violation of the Geneva Convention;
(17) mislead Congress and the public about threats from Iran;
(18) created secret laws through the issuance of legal opinions by the Department of Justice and violated the Posse Comitatus Act;
(19) authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens;
(20) directed telecommunication companies to create databases of the private telephone numbers and emails of U.S. citizens;
(21) used signing statements to claim the right to violate laws enacted by Congress;
(22) failed to comply with congressional subpoenas and instructed former executive branch employees not to comply with such subpoenas;
(23) tampered with the conduct of free and fair elections and corrupted the administration of justice;
(24) conspired to violate the voting rights of U.S. citizens;
(25) pursued policies calculated to destroy the Medicare program;
(26) failed to prepare for the predictable disasters caused by Hurricane Katrina;
(27) mislead Congress and the public in an effort to undermine efforts to address global climate change; and
(28) failed to take proper steps to protect the United States against the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, obstructed investigations into such attacks, and recklessly endangered the health of first responders near the site of such attacks.
The South Dakota College Republicans (SDCR) earlier this week released a YouTube music video that has actually been getting a fair amount of views. I think it is worth a view from everyone for one simple fact: it is created by millenials who are interested in the political process! I think it is great to see young people getting engaged in politics and using modern technology for activist work. I think the Democrat version of college students in South Dakota should be doing similar things (if they are please let me know, I’ll pass that on as well).
As to the actual content of the video. I think the SDCR’s do a good job of showing Obama pushing his millennial supporters away. I would however say that the average disenfranchised Obama supporter is not turning to Reagan (as is implied in the video). Instead I would say between George W Bush and Barack Obama that most politically aware millenials I’ve talked to are learning not to trust the promises of any big party candidate. If young Republicans are able to push for a more efficient and transparent small-government agenda they could make some headway and gain some numbers. A good follow-up to this video would be to show what a post-Obama political landscape should look like.
It is that time of month again for the Brown County Republicans Reagan Lunch. This month there will be two guest speakers. Below is the info sent out in the Brown County Republicans newsletter. Anyone planning to attend must take note that this meeting will be at Minervas!
Thursday, May 8, 2014
at Minervas (Noon)
Larry Rhoden and Shantel Krebs
“All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” Ronald Reagan
Come join us at the Ramkota (MINERVAS) onThursday, May 8th for lunch. Notice the change in venue. Larry Rhoden, US Senate Candidate and Shantel Krebs, Candidate for the Secretary of State position will be our guest speakers. Meet Larry and Shantel and listen to why you should vote for them. Lunch will be in the restaurant for a cost if you decide to eat. The lunch is casual and social. Bring a friend. We hope to see you there!
I would recommend anyone in the area come. One of the great things about South Dakota is the accessibility of politicians and candidates at events such as this. Just remember the lunch this month is at Minervas!
The 2014 election season is going strong. As with any election season the subject of abortion is already coming out in the literature of political campaigns in the Republican Party. For many people this is their most important topic when choosing a candidate. It is also the topic where I see Republican status quo politicians break their campaign promises once they make it to DC.
Before going on I will say this post is not about which side of the abortion debate I fall on. As full disclosure I will say I fall with most Americans that are somewhere between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice; therefore I believe abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances (in my case I believe those ‘certain circumstances’ should be rare). See the Gallup poll trend below to see how the public generally falls on abortion.
What this post is really about is the promise, either directly or implied, from status quo Republican politicians that they will overturn Roe v Wade via legislation. Status quo DC politicians typically ignore their campaign promises when they get elected; and in particular DC Republican status quo politicians seem to ‘forget’ their Right-to-Life promises as soon as they get sworn in.
Proof of this lack of willpower to keep campaign promises can be seen during the Bush years where there was a period of Republicans holding a majority in both houses (2003-2006). If status quo Republican politicians were going to actually take steps to overturn Roe v Wade that would have been their opportunity. Even though the opportunity was there, DC Republican status quo politicians failed to take actions on their campaign promises.
2005 provided the best opportunity for Republicans to actually try overturning Roe v Wade. In that year the Sanctity of Life Act (HR 776) was brought forth by Representative Ron Paul. This Act basically said that legal personhood begins directly after conception. It would have also prevented federal courts from overturning abortion laws enacted by States. This is the legislative equivalent of what status quo Republican politicians had been promising each election cycle. The bill only received five co-sponsors and died in committee without a hearing.
Rep Paul tried again in 2007 (HR 1094, HR 2597), 2009 (HR 2533), and 2011 (HR 1096). Each of those attempts were sent to subcommittees so the bill could be killed without a public hearing.
Personally I don’t feel any of those attempts would have made it through a filibuster in the Senate. But that isn’t the point. The point is the status quo DC Republicans didn’t even attempt to pass this legislation that would have kept their campaign promise to overturn Roe v Wade. Many of the status quo politicians relied heavily upon RTL groups in order to get elected; yet these same politicians ignored the RTL groups after making it to DC.
As the 2014 election proceeds I would recommend anyone voting purely based on Right-to-Life issues to avoid status quo Republican politicians. They typically love to make campaign promises to end abortion; yet when it comes time to actually make good on those promises they outright avoid any attempts to publicly vote on abortion once elected. Instead you might be better off looking at candidates that will actually make good on their promise to fight against the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions. That is another RTL stance that status quo politicians love to talk about, yet somehow fail to actually push legislation on.
Today the Brown County Republicans hosted their monthly Reagan lunch. I’ve been going to these events for months, and I would say this had just about the best attendance. The guest speaker was Dusty Johnson, Governor Daugaard’s Chief of Staff. Following Dusty was Mike Rounds, former South Dakota governor currently seeking to win the Republican US Senate primary. Both speakers were well worth listening to today. In this post I will briefly pass on some highlights and some personal thoughts about their message.
Dusty Johnson started off by letting people know what exactly a Chief of Staff is. Basically the chief of staff is the equivalent of a Chief Operating Officer at a corporation. This means Dusty has to deal with the daily operations of the executive branch in Pierre and answers directly to Governor Daugaard. This is part of the reason I love these events, I get to find out what exactly people do in Pierre.
Dusty said one thing during the beginning of his speech that I think is worthy of repeating: “If good people are in government there is a better chance of good government.” I actually agree with that statement completely. As a limited-government advocate I believe in small government. But no matter the size government, it will only be as good as those involved. When people go to the polls this fall they should heed that statement and vote accordingly.
Talking about the upcoming 2014 South Dakota legislative session Dusty mentioned a few economic issues he feel will be hot. He expects dealing with the governor’s budget to be a top hot issue. He mentioned 85% of the budget goes to education or programs that are designed to help people. Of course included in that hot topic will be how to best spend this sudden surge of one-time money. I think this will be an interesting issue to watch over the next couple of months.
Dusty also spoke briefly about economic development. He said the session would likely include a lot of policy discussion and forensic discussions. In his view the legitimate discussion should be about how much state government should do in regards to economic development. The discussion should include infrastructure items and determining what beyond that is the realm of a good conservative economic development program. I actually hope he is right that this discussion will take place. Personally I think scandal aspects of the EB-5/Benda situation may overshadow any legitimate discussion.
Common Core came up as a question to Dusty. He started off by saying that we should be nervous about federal intervention into our children’s education. He did specify that Common Core is not technically a federal program; but that dangling a carrot in front of states so we can get some of our taxpayer dollars is basically the same thing as a federal mandated program. He went on to say there should be some basic standards to be used within the state, and that South Dakota should be deciding for itself what standards we use. Dusty called himself a true federalist and as such believes education clearly is left to the states.
When answering a question about why Governor Daugaard didn’t close all schools in the state like Minnesota, I believe Dusty inadvertently gave a good answer to common core as well. Dusty said Daugaard did not close the schools because we had a lot of diversity in weather temps throughout the state and it was thought the decisions of whether kids can go to school should be left to the school boards and the parents. I believe I will steal a variation of this answer from Dusty to use in future Common Core posts.
After Dusty was done speaking it was Mike Rounds time to give a short speech. For full disclosure I openly support someone else in the Republican primary, but I came into this meeting with an open mind and am going to write this post accordingly. I will simply pass on a few notes and thoughts about Rounds speech.
First I have to say this is a different Mike Rounds than I have ever seen live, or on videos. Mike spoke passionately and talked about specifics. In the past I have found Rounds to be an almost boring speaker, but not today. I don’t know if his campaign team has been coaching him, or if he was trying outdo Dusty, but whatever change he has made is working. His new approach definitely has the potential to get crowds actively supporting him; instead of just voting for him because they know his name. If he keeps this up the other Republicans in the primary might have to step their game up a bit.
Rounds did talk about out-of-state money. Many have been critical of his campaign for seeking such high amounts of campaign funds, especially from outside states. Mike said this was due in a large part because of the Super-PACs that helped to swing elections in 2012. He may find himself having to defend himself against large sums of money spent on attack adds aimed at taking him down. I have to agree with Rounds on that, this is an eventuality he has to prepare for and one I find quite likely.
Rounds mentioned the biggest problem he sees in DC right now is that Congress is letting the executive branch do whatever it wants. He went on to say his first priority if he becomes Senator would be to become part of a team of Republicans that will unify to reduce regulation.
The Aberdeen American News was there, so I will let them report on the specifics of what Rounds said. But I will say that Rounds was doing a good job of actually specifying conservative stances, instead of being general. Most of these were standard issues such as getting rid of the federal Department of Education, stopping Obamacare, and removing burdensome regulations. With this new-found surge of passion and talking about the issues Mike is acting more like someone who really wants to be a US Senator. It will be interesting to see if this lasts and how it impacts the Republican primary.
After the meeting I did speak briefly with Mr Rounds on a few issues. He does stand by the EB-5 program and believes at its core the foreign investment of money has helped the US economy. He pointed out that many small businesses are still applying for EB-5 money and that only cases such as the Aberdeen Beef Plant get any attention. I think we will find out in June if Republican voters agree with Mr Rounds on his stance.
As always the Brown County Republicans held an informative event that was worthy of attending. I recommend anyone interested in politics on any level to attend these monthly Reagan lunches.
PS. Even after this meeting I still don’t support Mike Rounds, but I think the other candidates have to take into account this new surge of passion from Mike.
Yesterday Republican South Dakota gubernatorial candidate Lora Hubbel held an informative meeting in Aberdeen. Aberdeen News reporter Scott Waltman was in attendance at the meeting and has a pretty fair summary of Lora’s presentation. I would recommend everyone read Waltman’s write-up. My post will add just a few notes I took from the meeting.
Ms Hubbel’s presentation revolved around three issues: Obamacare, RealID, and Common Core. At first the only obvious connection between these three issues is that they are all big government programs. Yet Lora is able to connect the dots on one topic that ties all three issues together: data mining. Obamacare, RealID and Common Core all depend upon data mining for full implementation. I agree this is a troubling trend. Bureaucrats love data mining because it gives them access to more information that can be used to further regulate society. Personally I don’t think the intent of our current bureaucrats are ‘bad’. But even good intentions should make anyone pause as to giving all of their personal data to the federal government. Even if people trust the current administration with their data (a big if), can it be guaranteed this data will always be protected and never used for ‘bad’ purposes? Personally I don’t think it is worth the risk to civil liberties to find out the answer to that question.
Towards the end of the meeting there were two in attendance that were questioning Ms Hubbel’s small government policies. The two asking the questions did it quite respectfully and were not causing a nuisance. Actually during this exchange Ms Hubbel said something similar to what I have often said “I want a government that is a referee and not a player”. At the end of the exchange Lora did have to stop so others could ask questions. This basically happened after the questions devolved to basic anti-small-government talking points such as “what about the roads” and “what about the poor”. But it was nice to see the two questioning Lora in a respectful way and actually seemed to be listening to her answers. That gives me hope that there are some of left that are willing to listen during a debate.
I would recommend anyone that wants to know more about the history of Obamacare, RealID and Common Core in South Dakota to attend one of Hubbel’s presentations. There was simply too much information in her hour-plus presentation for me to do a proper post. At this time I’m not sure who I am going to support in the South Dakota governors race. But I can say that I support Ms Hubbel being in the race because she adds a perspective to the gubernatorial race that might be missing had chosen not to run.
PS. It is also worth mentioning that Ms Hubbel is the only Republican officially in the gubernatorial race. Daugaard has yet to make his reelection bid official. There are also three other candidates in the gubernatorial race at this time: Curtis Strong for the Constitution Party, Mike Myers as an Independent, and Joe Lowe for the Democrat Party.
Gallup has posted some interesting poll results relating to honesty and ethics for professions. There are results for 22 professions broken down by party line and also broken down by age. The whole list is interesting but I will highlight a few political professions I think are worth noting.
There is a 24% difference in the honesty/ethics of police officers between Republicans (68%) and Democrats (44%). It isn’t surprising that many view police officers as being dishonest. Over the last few years there has been a notable increase in the number of stories about police raids gone wrong, places such as New York City doing stop and frisks on minorities, and police unions protecting officers when they are caught doing wrong. Personally I believe most police officers are honest and truly wish to serve and protect the public. I don’t find it surprising then than Republicans would generally believe police officers are more honest. Yet I am surprised that so many Democrats find officers to be dishonest or ethically lacking. Police officers do not make laws or create the system that is abused by a few amongst them. The job of police officers is to enforce laws and ordinances created by bureaucrats within the very government that Democrats profess to want more of. I find this probably the most interesting divide in this poll.
The difference between local officeholders and state officeholders in another interesting poll finding. But in this case I would focus more on the independent numbers. Independents are more likely to think any local or state officeholder is dishonest. This is especially true for state officeholders. Only about one in ten independent respondents believe state officeholders can be trusted. It would be interesting to see this poll done in South Dakota with the current GOED/EB-5 investigation going on? I wonder if even 10% of independent or Democrat respondents would have faith in the honesty of state officeholders. Also worth noting is that people age 55 and older are less likely to believe local and state officeholders are honest.
The last response I would like to look at is members of Congress and lobbyists. The difference between the groups isn’t as interesting as the overall low numbers both groups get. I do find it odd that Independents would have a little more faith in the honesty of Congress members. This is counter to how they feel about local and state officials. Neither Congress or lobbyists are particularly trusted by these results. There are more Democrats that trust the honesty of lobbyists. I find that odd as I sit here and listen to Senate Democrats deride the new budget deal (which they have already said they will vote for) because it doesn’t remove tax breaks for special interest groups. I know the DC politicians of both party’s understand where these tax breaks come from, but do that many average Democrats not realize these tax breaks come from lobbyists? I find such trust for lobbyists from Democrats to be the most disheartening result found in this Gallup poll. Finally I would note that younger people are more likely to trust both members of Congress and lobbyists.
Overall I would say it is interesting that Republicans are more likely to trust police officers and local politicians. While Democrats are more likely to trust members of Congress and lobbyists. These results mirror the general perception that Democrats support a large central government while Republicans support more local control. It will be very interesting to see this poll again in a year after the 2014 election has completed. Will the divide be greater at that time? If I were a betting person I would put money a much larger divide after a very heated election.
Earlier today the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) released its endorsement for Colorado state senator Owen Hill as their candidate of choice in the 2014 Senate Race. This is the second person the RLC has endorsed for the 2014 US Senate race. The first was for Lee Bright in the South Carolina race to take out Lindsey Graham. Now that the endorsements are (slowly) starting to come out it will likely bring speculation as to whether any South Dakota candidates will gain attention from the RLC. Here are the four Republican candidates in the race and my thoughts for each of their chances (full disclosure, I support Stace Nelson in this race, but I don’t believe my opinions below would change if I wasn’t officially supporting him). This list is ordered from least to most likely to receive an endorsement.
Mike Rounds – It is unlikely Rounds could ever get an RLC endorsement for this race after being called “too liberal” by the Senate Conservatives Fund. Plus the RLC is strongly opposed to government subsidies to businesses, which is exactly what the Aberdeen Beef Plant was. I think everyone can agree Rounds will never get the RLC endorsement.
Annette Bosworth – Bosworth is saying all of the right conservative things to try getting an endorsement from a group like this. And part of me hopes she can still come up with a good perspective as a doctor as to why Obamacare must go away. Yet at the same time there are potential scandals that may or may not be true. I really can’t see a group such as the RLC support a candidate that has an unproven public service record mixed with potential scandals.
Larry Rhoden – Early in the campaign Rounds released a scorecard showing Rhoden was not conservative (the same scorecard was later updated by Nelson, and ironically Rounds supporters say it is unfair to use such a scorecard?). That scorecard may hurt Rhoden’s ability to prove himself as the type of conservative liberty activist the RLC would support. Plus Rhoden is a very low-key speaker. That is something I can relate to, but isn’t necessarily the type of candidate the RLC could get excited about.
Stace Nelson – Stace is the most likely recipient of the RLC endorsement. He definitely has been able to garner a lot of grass-roots support from liberty groups in South Dakota. But at the same time he is somewhat less polished than the typical candidate the RLC would support in an US Senate race. Personally I believe Nelson exemplifies the stances and principles supported by the RLC and Nelson has the best chance of that important endorsement.
Nobody – There is always a chance the RLC will support nobody in the South Dakota primary race. Since South Dakota is likely to go R anyhow they may choose to focus on liberty candidates around the country that can take out current Republican Senators who are known to be bad in regards to liberty. The races for Senator Graham’s seat and Senator McConnell’s seat are perfect examples. These races will likely take a lot of resources (money) from the RLC and leave little for races in states like South Dakota.
Right now I believe the RLC will wait until near the end of the primary season to see if they support a candidate in South Dakota. A couple of the national conservative groups have done that recently in special elections. Hopefully the RLC doesn’t wait so long to make an endorsement that it becomes beyond the point of helping a candidate. Even if they don’t give monetary support (through the RLC-USA PAC), an endorsement from the RLC could amplify the chances of a candidate actually winning the Republican nomination. It will be interesting to see what the RLC does.