NEW FEATURE: When Opponents square off - Three shots on Rich Engels Versus Deb Peters

If you recall a few posts ago, I invited Republicans to e-mail me information on promises that Democrats hadn't kept in response to the Dale Hargens article.

While I didn't hear from any Republicans, my friend Rich Engels (Yes, I know Democrats too) sent me a few points he's going to be using as he runs against Republican incumbent Deb Peters. The first thing I asked Rich was "can I quote you on this?" And to his credit, he responded yes.

I think this has the potential to be a pretty good feature on this blog. What Rich is sending me are three valid points where he thinks his opposition has failed. Or, in the case of another candidate, it could be three points where he's better than his opponent(s).

So, for this feature, HERE'S THE RULES: In any instance, as a regular feature, I'd offer the focus of a blog post to any legislative candidate for three points whey they are better than their opposition, or why their opponent stinks, or any general points they'd like to make about their campaign. And that's three - only 3. And you can expect that a blogpost in rebuttal from the opposition will be also granted. It will be Candidate A versus Candidate B (and possibly C), where they take 3 points in preview of their campaign efforts and give us your best shots.

To me, it's a great preview of the strategy that may be employed in a race. Is the candidate sticking to their own record? Are they comparing and contrasting? Are they saying people should vote against the incumbent? It's pretty basic stuff, but infinitely entertaining and informative.

You want to lear how to make a point in a campaign? Watch how people do it, and see how effective it is. You learn by doing.

So, for the first installment, here's what Candidate Rich Engels has to say about his opponent, Deb Peters:

You asked for promises made but not kept, so I delivered without first promising.

Deborah Peters unkept promises and position changes (partial list):

1) In her 2004 vote-smart.org survey, Deborah Peters answered an abortion question with multiple choice answers, one of which was "e) abortions should be legal only when the life of the woman is endangered." Ms. Peters did not check that box. Instead, she added in the comment section that "Abortions should not be legislated;" In 2006 she flip-flopped and voted for HB 1215, to ban abortions except when the life of the woman is endangered.

2) In her 2004 vote-smart.org survey, Deborah Peters answered a sex education question with multiple choice answers, one of which was, "n) Support abstinence-only sexual education programs." Ms. Peters did not check that box. Instead she checked the box that reads, "m) Support sexual education programs that include information on abstinence, contraceptives, and HIV/STD prevention methods." In 2006 she flip-flopped and voted for HB 1217 - the abstinence-only education bill.

3) In her 2004 vote-smart.org survey, Deborah Peters was asked, "Should South Dakota eliminate the sales tax on food?" Her options were: Yes, no, undecided. Ms. Peters answered "Yes". She has neither sponsored nor supported a move to remove the sales tax from food.

Rich did indicate that this is a partial list, so it looks like he's going to be focusing on contrasting his positions with that of the incumbent. And at this time, I'd ask for Representative Peter's rebuttal or positions on her opponent. Deb, take your three shots by e-mailing me here, and I'll get your rebuttal posted as soon as I have it.