Grrr. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
This one will probably get some discussion going. Under a prior post I did recently on the South Dakota Victory campaign, there were a couple of commentors who noted how highly they thought of the 2002 and 2004 Victory Director Larry Russell, and noted how he's one of the party's future stars.
Then just today, there was Jack. Let's just say Jack didn't agree. You can read it all here, but here's just a snippet:
But let me state flat out that I think what Jack had to say was a little off base. I didn't think it that it showed much objectivity or original thought. And I couldn't disagree with it more.
If Jack's argument is to have merit, let's take a look at the mistakes on the other side of the aisle, and make our best attempt to compare oranges to oranges.
Where were the Democratic party officials who said "I was responsible for hiring Maka Duta, and she screwed up, so I resign" when she flat out forged voter applications. I didn't see any Democratic party officials resign when they had a convicted murderer, Joseph Prentice, out registering voters.
Show me the resignations of the supervisors in those instances. And then maybe I'll lend some weight to the arguments of the other side.
Until then, I'll continue to believe Larry acted with honor. His employees screwed up. He took responsibility. That's an example of doing the right thing. A quality that's too often overlooked in politics nowadays.
Then just today, there was Jack. Let's just say Jack didn't agree. You can read it all here, but here's just a snippet:
Larry Russell might be able to beat Maka Duta, but he sure as hell isn't going to beat Stephanie Herseth. As a Democrat, I'd love to see it -- sweet, squeaky clean Herseth versus the guy who was forced out of state to Ohio because of ethical problems.I allow comments on the board, frankly because they make things more interesting. I'm not always right. Heck, I screw up, and I'm not so arrogant I won't admit it. And discourse over political topics is part of what makes it fun.
But let me state flat out that I think what Jack had to say was a little off base. I didn't think it that it showed much objectivity or original thought. And I couldn't disagree with it more.
If Jack's argument is to have merit, let's take a look at the mistakes on the other side of the aisle, and make our best attempt to compare oranges to oranges.
Where were the Democratic party officials who said "I was responsible for hiring Maka Duta, and she screwed up, so I resign" when she flat out forged voter applications. I didn't see any Democratic party officials resign when they had a convicted murderer, Joseph Prentice, out registering voters.
Show me the resignations of the supervisors in those instances. And then maybe I'll lend some weight to the arguments of the other side.
Until then, I'll continue to believe Larry acted with honor. His employees screwed up. He took responsibility. That's an example of doing the right thing. A quality that's too often overlooked in politics nowadays.
Comments
Maka Duta was employed by the SDDP as an independent contractor. As soon as it was discovered that there were some discrepancies in her work she was fired and turned into the authorities. It is fair to say we may have never heard her name had the party not turned her in. She was not shipped to another state like Larry (and his underlings who broke the law). I don’t think it was necessary for anyone to resign in that case because everybody acted properly. Nobody attempted to protect the guilty parties as was done by Larry Russel. Good topic!
If SD bloggers took the "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" model completely seriously, there would be few blog posts and probably no newspapers for that matter.
Gotta be a whole lotta slop in the system to keep it running.
Consider that the Republican party often likes younger candidates. Except they like them sauteed with butter.
If you're dealing with the GOP heirarchy, and they get to choose between a seasoned candidate and a brash young newcomer - guess who is going to get picked.
It's not that the seasoned vet is a bad choice at all. But looking at the ballot box, it's young republicans who win.
Look at when Thune first ran - there were a ton of Republicans who didn't give him a chance against Carole Hillard. But when the votes were counted, it was Thune who came out on top.
violation of South Dakota election law can beat Stephanie Herseth by saying that Larry Russell
acted more appropriately than South Dakota Democratic Party officials who faced similar
allegations in 2002. So what? My point was that he might be able to beat Maka Duta – or other
Democrats involved in the impropriety -- but he won’t beat Stephanie Herseth. Stephanie
Herseth was not employed by the South Dakota Democratic Party and had nothing to do with the
alleged actions of Maka Duta. Arguing that she was involved is like arguing that Larry Diedrich
was responsible for the actions of Larry Russell and the other SDGOP employees who resigned
in 2004.
Larry might be a nice guy. He might be your friend. He might be very sorry for what happened.
He might be the most honorable person in the state party. That’s not my point. I really don’t
care if he’s a nice guy. My point was, and is, this – Larry Russell will have to deal with the
ethical issues raised by his conduct in the 2004 campaign if he decides to run for Congress. And
he’ll have to deal with them in a political environment in which issues of ethical integrity are
very relevant – the Majority Leader of his party in the House of Representatives has been
indicted for violations of election law, and he may very well be facing a trial in the heart of the
2006 election cycle. The Majority Leader of his party in the United States Senate is under
investigation by the SEC for possible insider trading. The Chief of Staff to the Vice President
(and Senior Advisor to the President) will be facing a criminal trial for a cover up that occurred
in the White House. Public opinion polls show that Americans have serious questions about the
integrity of the White House, and there is no question that the “culture of corruption” will be a
major Democratic talking point in races for Congress and the Senate in 2006. The DCCC will
have a field day with this, and they’ll probably have 10,000 gross ratings points behind an ad
defining Larry Russell before his official announcement tour is over.
You argue that Larry did the “honorable” thing by resigning in 2004. But you ignore the fact that
under his watch our state’s election laws were violated. It was a big enough deal at the time that
he had to resign. It was heavily covered by the South Dakota media. The “honorable” thing only
occurred after a very dishonorable thing occurred. And that’s the image that reporters, voters and
activists will remember.
So if he runs against Herseth, those issues will certainly be raised by reporters, and they will be
raised in an environment where the integrity and ethics of a candidate will very much be an issue.
To be sure, I hope you do run a candidate that has to spend his first few months explaining how
his involvement in a campaign law scandal was “honorable.” I hope that you do nominate
someone who will have the phrase “left South Dakota in 2004 after being implicated in a scheme
involving the violation of state election law” in the first paragraph of their announcement story. I
hope you do nominate someone who has the biggest liability one can have as a Republican in this
election cycle. You know as well as I do that challenges to popular incumbents only work if you
give the voters a compelling reason to vote against the incumbent. But he’ll have to spend the
first few months, at a minimum, on the defensive, talking about an issue that he clearly wants to
avoid.
I understand that he’s your friend, and I understand that you’re angry that I raised questions about
his electability. But the point of my post was not that he is a bad guy – I really don’t care if he’s
a nice guy – my point is that he would be a bad candidate.
And the fact is you never once dispute my central claim – Larry Russell can not beat Stephanie
Herseth, and he wouldn’t beat her even if he hadn’t been forced to resign and move to Ohio, even
if the violations of law were never prosecuted, and even if no Republican in Washington were
under investigation. But especially since all of those things happened, it’ll be impossible for
Larry Russell to win. If you think I’m wrong, if you think Larry Russell will beat Stephanie
Herseth in 2006, tell me how.
So, as I said before, bring him on.
Larry is not one of your standard "perennial candidates". We can leave that up to the likes of Ron Volesky, Jeff Partridge, Dick Brown, Dave Knudson, and Bill Peterson. Larry does not stay awake at night thinking about when he can run next. Even more, he does not plan his life around politics, like many others do.
The bottom line is Larry Russell is not going to be a candidate any time soon, if ever again. He thoroughly enjoys working in the private sector and spending time with his family and friends. Larry is just like any of us. He enjoys the simple life.
Yes, if Larry ever decides to run again, he will have to answer questions about the 2004 Election. However, it will end up being a one day story. South Dakotans are forgiving people, and they do not like mudslinging. If they were not forgiving people, Bill Janklow and Tom Daschle would not have ever been re-elected year after year. Tom Daschle lied about his pro-abortion stance for 26 years, and people still forgave him. After Larry responds honestly, then the story will be effectively over. It will be time to move on to more important issues than something unfortunate that happened many years perviously.
We are all Christians, and we need to understand everyone makes mistakes. It takes a big man to stand up and take responsibility for other's actions. It does not take much to be a person like you who would rather cast stones. Before you criticize others, like Larry Russell, you should do some self reflecting on yourself. People like you will be judged for supporting the killing of innocent human life.
I would far rather support someone who has tried to make a difference in the public service arena (even though they made some mistakes along the way), than someone, like yourself, who stands on the sidelines and criticizes others for their willingness to make a difference while doing nothing yourself.
Great Stuff, thanks fellow Anon.
As the resident political expert I would like your opinion on the idea that if Larry Russell admits to wrong doing, it’s a one day story. If you were running the campaign against him, how many ad points do you buy reminding voters of this and how effective would it be? I have my thoughts, but I’ll keep them to myself for now.