This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
- Pastor Steve Hickey now gets to joke about how Dr. Kevin Weiland has assumed the title for shortest South Dakota Congressional campaign ever (not to mention most signatures collected from eager party activists whose hopes are then single-handedly crushed).
- Pat Powers gets to put flip-flops on his blog to make fun of Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for switching her position on health care reform just to keep Weiland off the ballot.
- GOP House candidates R. Blake Curd and Kristi Noem pile on with the same criticism. There is a difference between voting against a bill and later promising not to vote to repeal it... but that difference is so thin and the promise so empty (SHS will not face a repeal vote this session, and even if she survives November, the 112th Congress is unlikely to seriously consider repeal... and President Obama would veto it anyway) that I'd just make an ass of myself trying to defend it.
- And just to top it off, South Dakota Dems make history by letting a sitting Senator go unchallenged for re-election. Ugh.
--------------------------
Update 10:31 CDT: No punchlines here: Dr. Weiland tells Kevin Woster that pressure from Washington and his own sense of family values caused him to make the wrenching call Tuesday afternoon. And before he quit, Weiland said directly to SHS, "No, you’re wrong. You’re on the wrong side of history. This is human rights for health care."
Then dang it, Cory; he should have run against Thune instead of detonating his shoe.
ReplyDeleteI mean, Todd said it, too:
ReplyDelete"First, my party has no one--none, zilch, nada, bupkis--to run against Sen. Thune in his reelection bid this fall. I'm not sure that has ever happened, that a major party candidate for U.S. Senate won by default in South Dakota. But it's going to happen."
He didn't post my blistering commentary.
Suffice it to say that hearing Nina Totenberg announcing the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore is a far darker day in nearly every other South Dakota Democrat's memory.
I swear, driving into this state is like passing into an alternate universe.
Dang it, yes, Larry: somebody should have run against Thune. And I'm as guilty as every other chicken/cash-poor Dem for not taking up that challenge.
ReplyDeleteBut Weiland's point of no return should have been when he saw he had 1200 signatures and rising, not when he had a box of 3834 signatures sitting in the parking lot a hundred yards from Sec. Nelson's OK stamp. Filing, running, and letting the primary process play out would have united the party in honest conversation. Caving to pressure from Washington and disappointing 3834 signers has only exposed us to more division, not to mention more ribbing from the GOP.
Nonetheless, there may be some merit to the state party's focus on in-state races. Maybe we will foster that crop of local Dems we need to fill the upper slots on the ballot next time around.
So, please remind me:
ReplyDeleteIs there a way onto any ballot for him this year? Independent? Green?
He can still do that.
Just goes to show the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, no matter how hard they claim they are.
ReplyDeleteGuess I won't be changing my voter registration anytime soon.
Yes, Matt, because throwing spitballs from the sidelines is so much more effective.
ReplyDeleteLarry, Independents have until June 8 to file petitions. They need 3356 signatures. Any registered voter, indep or otherwise, may sign an independent's petition, but the 3834 who signed for Weiland cannot now sign for an indep House candidate (SDCL 12-6-8).
After eight years of Bush-bashing, we deserve a reprieve this week!
ReplyDeleteIf you think Kevin Weiland's short blitz didn't energize democrats and cause them to evaluate their beliefs, you're mistaken.
I remember Rick Weiland talking about how, when he ran for Congress, detractors peer inside every orifice, as far back as they can look, and the effect of that privacy invasion can be overwhelming to your family.
I think Kevin made the right decision, only because he was not adequately prepared for a major campaign.
Hey, they did it to themselves... I'm just getting a good chuckle out of it!
ReplyDeleteIf a petition is never filed, have the signers actually signed a petition that falls under the limitations of that law?
ReplyDeleteIf so, the law needs to be changed.
Douglas, the statute says "The provisions of this section shall not prohibit a person registered with party affiliation from signing either a petition nominating an independent or a nonpolitical candidate for office if he has not previously signed a petition for that office to be filled." Maybe there's some qualifier elsewhere, but this law appears strictly to the act of signing. Once you've signed, you've signed. The legal status of the petition post-signing appears to be immaterial. I agree; that could use some amending for situations like this, where my guy bails and I might want to support another guy.
ReplyDelete