SDGOP on DEM's failure to field candidates

From a release dated today from the South Dakota GOP:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Max Wetz
Thursday, June 29, 2006 605-224-7347

Dems agree Republicans providing good government

PIERRE – South Dakota Democrats apparently agree that three Republican elected officials are the best people for the job.

Democrats failed last weekend at their state convention to nominate candidates to take on Secretary of State Chris Nelson, State Treasurer Vern Larson and State Auditor Rich Sattgast.

“These three gentlemen are good stewards for the people of South Dakota and the Democrats evidently agree that Republicans provide good government,” said South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick. “All our Republican elected officials and candidates have been and will continue to provide solid leadership. I’m glad to see that the Democrats think so too.”

Frederick said he expects the Democrats’ actions will end their complaint about one-party dominance. “It’s hard to take them seriously when they fail time after time to field candidates at this level. Secretary of State is the highest ranking position ever left vacant in the history of the state,” he said. “Clearly Republicans are getting results for South Dakota and continue to make this a great place to live and work.”

Comments

scimitar said…
Randy Frederick's press release assumes incorrectly that there is one, and only one reason that Democrats failed to field candidates for Secretary of State, Auditor and Treasurer.

While I do not speak for the Democratic Party, there are a number of reasons why Democrats fail to field candidates for races: Lack of hotbed issues with those offices and lack of funding for candidates being two major reasons.

The Democrats both nationally and in South Dakota have always been at a fundraising disadvantage to Republicans because Dems are far less likely to cater to wealthy special interests. (This is not to say that these 3 offices attract big special interest money, but that the Republican Party does).

Also, the party in power has the built-in advantage of being able to use public resources to perpetuate party interests. Cases in point:

1) The Rounds administration offering to buy Sen. Adelstein's property with taxpayer dollars as enticement to keep him from bolting the party and giving money to Democrats.

2)(Pre-Bob Sahr Meltdown) PUC commissioners using taxpayer funds both to hire a PR person and to make what was in effect a campaign commercial for Sahr showing him playing with his daughter - apparently in his home.

3) The Governor's use of the state plane for campaign events (as long as they are coupled with official business).

4) The governor's hunt and buffalo roundup, which traditionally have been used as a fete for contributors as well as for economic development purposes.

The list goes on. The bottom line is that Democrats will field candidates and gain seats when Republicans abuse their offices as did Homer Harding and Tim Amdahl, or when they can raise enough funds to entice strong candidates. When Democrats retake the governor's seat (it will happen eventually, maybe this year - meltdowns happen quickly and unexpectedly as with Bob Sahr) Dems will discover where the bodies are buried, and will gain the financial advantage they have lacked for so long.
Anonymous said…
What a load of BS - "Dems far less likely to cater to wealthy special interests" Here's an easy example in one word: unions.

I'd be real interested to see what source(s) you have to back up that claim. If you look at PAC contributions in the 04 election cycle (contributions to federal candidates), Ds had $4M more in contributions from the top 20 givers than Rs. (That's from opensecrets.org) They had 2x as many $1M donors than Rs too.

No doubt Dems in SD have more trouble raising money, but whose fault would that be?
feasant said…
scimitar, you are so wrong. Multi billion dollar MoveOn, does that ring any bells?

The reason is simple, the Dems do not have anyone running against them is: these three guys are public servants, they apply the laws equally to Dems, Rs, Indys, Libaterians or what ever party. A super large majority of the people know this and it would be political suicide to run against any of these quality guys.

scimitar I still think you ae wrong about who caters to the wealthy, I firmly believe the Republicans are the common sense party.

Republicans should have to raise more money because the Liberal press gives the Dems all the free press they can give.
Anonymous said…
scimitar..............two questions....
1. What are you smoking?
2. Where can I get some?.....because what ever it is....it is taking you to a whole different world.
scimitar said…
My comments seem to have struck a nerve.

To Anon 6:32 - you quote opensecrets.org, so here is a quote to you from that website

2004 Election cycle funds raised:
Democratic Party $730,935,853
Republican Party $892,792,542

2006 Election cycle funds raised:
Democratic Party $269,729,828
Republican Party $378,027,447

On June 19, 2006, President Bush raised $27 million at one fundraiser. There is no question that those with the money give it disproportionately to Repubicans. That is because the Republican party caters to the wealthy.

It is the R's trying to repeal the estate tax, which is only paid by estates of over $2 million. It is the R's who have seen to it that working people pay a higher tax rate on earned income than wealthy investors pay on capital gains. It is the R's who awarded billions of $$ in no-bid contracts to Halliburton and their ilk for Iraq and have looked the other way at hundreds of millions of fraudulent billings from those war profiteers, ignoring the Inspector General reports of fraud and not demanding that the taxpayers be repaid. Expect this to be a big issue in congressional elections by November.

And Feasant: multibillion dollar MoveOn Really?
Anonymous said…
Scimitar

I did quote open secrets - as to the contributions of PACs which seemed about as close to "wealthy special interests" as I could get. Rs did do better than Ds with individual contributions.

You're going to need more than a higher total amount of money raised to show that Republicans cater to the wealthy.
Anonymous said…
In addition to unions, don't forget trial lawyers, and Hollywood.
scimitar said…
If you want more, anon 6:32 and 1:05, there is more in my 12:09 comment that you have chosen to ignore - a typical Republican reaction.

Thus far, I am the only one who has added actual facts to a comment. If your thesis is that Democrats cater to the wealthy, then please identify public policy initiatives in which Democrats fought for the big guy and Republicans fought for the little guy.

Good Luck. I'm waiting
nonnie said…
Scimitar, do you remember a guy named Soros and his deep, unending pockets? I think, if I'm not mistaken, that he's a DEMOCRAT!

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th