Prediction: by November 2, the criminal record of every South Dakotan will have appeared in the press.
The Kristi Noem campaign must be in panic mode, trying to divert attention from Noem's habitual lawbreaking by publicizing Lars Herseth's speeding tickets (yes, Lars, who last ran for office in... what, the 1990s?) and SHS campaign chief of staff Tessa Gould's recent DUI.
Oops. Maybe should have vetted that last one with SDGOP godfather John Thune. David Newquist reads the paper and notices that Thune staffer Jason Henry Lutz got a DUI this year, too.
The moral equivalence bombs just keep dropping... and the Noem campaign keeps failing to explain why Noem's own reckless disregard for law and public safety are acceptable.
Think the Argus will provide this information in a follow-up?
ReplyDeleteTotal chaos.
ReplyDeleteMisbehavior of a candidate's staffer does not bug me much. An actual candidate's trespasses bug me a lot.
ReplyDeleteErgo, Noem has more serious trouble than Thune.
If our current president had been caught when he used cocaine, where would he be now?
Does illegal drug use constitute a more serious offense than failure to appear in court for a traffic violation?
Bill has it right: We have total chaos. (Does any other kind exist?)
Stan, the moral-equivalency questions are spinning out faster than any candidate or campaign booster can answer them. It's hard to compare one offense to another, though you rightly separate staffers and candidates. I find drunkenness reprehensible, especially when it threatens public safety. (So, apparently, does the Herseth Sandlin campaign, which suspended Tessa Gould while she awaited her court hearing, costing her a few weeks' pay—ouch!) I also find defying the court's reprehensible... unless one can make a good case for civil disobedience against a legal system acting unjustly. Hmmm... maybe there's my moral yardstick: maybe drunkenness and illegal drug use are ingeneral slightly worse than thumbing one's nose at the court, since I can conceive in certain situations of a good excuse for the latter but never for the former. Make sense?
ReplyDelete["Jared", if you're going to make accusations like that, you'll need to leave a full name and contact info.]
ReplyDelete["Jared", we're not having this conversation in public. Use my contact form. Send an e-mail via a Gmail alias from behind a proxy. Of course, if what you say is true, then there's no reason to fear putting your name to it, is there?]
ReplyDelete