Rhoden on the campaign trail for HB 1215

The Rapid City Journal is reporting this morning that instead of campaigning for himself or other legislative candidates, State House Majority Leader Larry Rhoden is on the campaign trail for HB 1215 this year:
A state lawmaker and pastors appeared at the prayer service to explain why they believe voters should approve the measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota.

The abortion ban has been referred to the voters on the Nov. 7 ballot.

House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said he believes that the public is getting some misleading information about the abortion measure.

and...

Rhoden said he was speaking as a member of the Legislature who simply wants to state facts and get support for the law — not as a candidate seeking re-election in November.

“If I was abusing a position or trying to take advantage of an issue to further my chances of winning a legislative race, then that would be questionable,” Rhoden said. “I think in this case, clearly, since I don’t have a race in the first place, it’s not the case. But even if I did, it wouldn’t be the case.”

Rhoden is unopposed in his district. He said he will speak at other Proclaiming Life and Liberty rallies this summer.
Read it all here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Maybe he can address the criminal charges coming against docs, nurses and hospital administrators who allow an emergency termination to occur to save the life of a mother...or how a pregant women w/a brain dead fetus should be allowed to risk death, even die, before being allowed to terminate her pregnancy.

Or maybe, he can talk about the value of a pregnant cow versus and open cow.

I love this State!
Anonymous said…
What an airhead! Where do you libs come up with this stuff? Is there a playbook somewhere that you can pick tag lines from? Try reading HB1215 and most of your stupid questions will be answered.
scimitar said…
He can rhyme: "case, race, place, case" but he's no poet.

Often tonguetied, frequently befuddled, and widely riddiculed, Rhoden is the least effective leader the House Republicans have had in years.

There is such a dearth of talent in the huge House Republican caucus that they had to abandon the historical practice of changing Speakers every two years and reappoint Matt Michels (the GOP's sharpest legislator) to a second 4-year term as speaker.

As to Rhoden, he is so in the dark that he doesn't even realize he's there.
Anonymous said…
scimitar gets it wrong again.

scimitar resorts to the "politics of personal attack". No specifics, just personal attack such as "He is so in the dark that he doesn't even realize that he is there"

Easy to say for someone who is afraid to enter the arena of public service.

Representative Rhoden is a thoughtful and dedicated public servant and doesn’t deserve to be attacked in a vague personal way.

Oh by the way, scimitar, the speaker’s term is two years and not four.
Anonymous said…
I disagree with him on HB 1215, but Larry Rhoden is a good man and good legislator.
Anonymous said…
anon 8:39:

Have you read the legislation? Was the brain trust that passed it thoughtful in the possible outcomes if successful. I doubt it. Several RINOs as you would call them, republicans to me, voted for the bill and other's signed it while holding their collective noses w/the belief it would NEVER become law.

Dave Gerdes had it right. If this is the law, be careful of the fallout and the unintended consequences. Remember, we don't have any liberal judges in SD that will change what's on the books.

Airhead? If you don't see in front of your nose Rep. Rhoden will miss a lot that is out there.
Of course, silly me, maybe you don't want to see.
Chris Madsen said…
I am afraid I cannot avoid coming to the defense of my good friend, Larry Rhoden.

Larry had a tough act to follow in Bill Peterson. Bill is a walking encyclopedia of South Dakota political history and is one of the most talented extemporaneous speakers I have ever encontered. However, just because Larry does not have those gifts does not mean he is toungtied, befuddled or riddiculed. To the contrary, I have always known Larry to be thoughtful, deliberative and plain spoken. No one should mistake Larry's style for ineptitude. He is very capable and he is doing an admirable job with what I think is one of the most difficult jobs in the legislature. Larry means what he says, he stands up for what he believes in and he is as honest as the day is long.

Check your history, Scimitar. The reason Matt Michels was elected Speaker for a second time was because I did not seek re-election for the term when I would have become Speaker. I know it has been done a couple of times previously, but going from the rank and file, or even from mid-management (whip, assistant leader) to Speaker is a forboding challenge. As a matter of fact, I am pretty certain that no non-Speaker Pro Tem has become Speaker since term limits have been the law. Without grabbing a book off the shelf, the only times I am aware it has happened is when control of the House changed hands in the 70's and when Scott Heidepriem did not seek re-election to the House when he was Pro Tem.

There is plenty of talent in both cuacuses in the House, but I can't blame individual members for not wanting the job under those circumstances, especially with Matt Michels available to fill the position. To run and lose could have jeopardized a shot at other leadership positions.
Anonymous said…
I'm not sure, but I don't think Michels will be returning to the legislature. Who is the odds on favorite to fill the speaker's place.
Anonymous said…
The odds on favorite is Tom Deadrick, who has served as the Speaker Pro Tempore the past two years.

For those of you buying the Planned Parenthood and NARAL lies about the consequences of this law, check the history books. Until 1973, SD statutes did not allow for any abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Until you can point to one doctor, nurse, or hospital administrator who intentionally violated the law and was subsequently incarcerated, you don't have any reason to worry.
Anonymous said…
“I think in this case, clearly, since I don’t have a race in the first place, it’s not the case. But even if I did, it wouldn’t be the case.”

Schimitar, if those words had been uttered by the Reverend Jackson, you'd have found them poetic.
Anonymous said…
race, case place, case, Larry sounds more like the Cat in the Hat than Rev. Jackson
Anonymous said…
Have you ever seen the SNL where Jesse Jackson reads Green Eggs and Ham? Hilarious...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPxPciXcJvc&search=seuss
scimitar said…
I did not accuse Rhoden of being dishonest, nor insincere. He is a straight shooter, from what I can tell.

However, the quote in this post is merely the latest in a long line of semi-sensical statements by Rhoden uttered without much forethought. He has a tendency to say stupid things that cause people to laugh at him and think of him as a buffoon. Sad, but true.

Combine Rhoden's inability to think and speak at the tame time with his fringe positions on a range of issues, and his effectiveness is severely limited either as floor leader or as an advocate for HB 1215.

Just let him travel the state and say stupid things. It helps the HB 1215 opponents.
Anonymous said…
I remember the Reverend Jachhhhh-ssssssnnnn reading Green Eggs and Ham on SNL. After visiting the link (thanks, anon 5:42), I'd have to say that might have been the closest the Rev. has been to making sense in the past two decades.

Kevin Nealon brings out the best in everybody.
Anonymous said…
I believe you're the first and only person that I've ever heard infer that 'people' are laughing at Larry. Spend some time at the capitol and you'll see the most involved, educated and Christian people are not laughing. From the remarks, I'm assuming you have a jealousy or something else involved here. He is a God fearing human and God is using him for his own purposes which I'm sure is more important than whatever your purpose is in your blog attacks. His words come out as God intends them to. I'm hoping that most Dakotans have the maturity to listen to the actual 'message' and the conviction of belief on any issue(whether you agree or not with 1215) versus attacking mere 'words'. At least I would have this hope for anyone that intends to vote - vote on the issue, not petty little word mincing. Have you ever been interviewed? Doesn't sound like it. Have you ever said anything you wish you could reword? It happens to the best of us.
Anonymous said…
schimitar

Rhoden has a inability to "think and speak at the tame time"? so people are laughing at him?

I have been to Pierre and there is very little tame time.
Lee Schoenbeck said…
For the last four years, and especially the last two, I have sat with and across from Larry in the barganing sessions that are the bottom-line of the legislative process. You really get to measure a person in that pressure packed setting. Larry is both a very good and a very bright person. He has a solid understanding and appreciation for what real families deal with in their daily struggles in our state. The naysayers about Larry could learn much from that Union Center ranch boy.
Anonymous said…
Despite of Lee's endorsement, I still think Rep. Rhoden is a good man and legislator.

I also hope the Legislature Research Council spellchecks our state laws as the two former legislators (and current attorneys) posting previously are having some difficulties.
Anonymous said…
It's "Legislative" Research Council
Mr. Spellcheck.

What's that about throwing stones in a glass house???
K said…
Until 1973, SD statutes did not allow for any abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Until you can point to one doctor, nurse, or hospital administrator who intentionally violated the law and was subsequently incarcerated, you don't have any reason to worry.

The homocide law was changed to include "the unborn" in the last couple of years. That's why the law would be applied differently now than it was then. Did you even bother to read Gerdes' memo? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Anonymous said…
K:

Like most liberals, you are seriously mistaken or confused. The current homicide statute was debated, passed and signed into law while abortion was legal. That means the legislature never intended to punish those who aid, assist, conspire, or perform abortions. Not even the most twisted argument could prove that it was meant to apply, like yours.

The homicide statute as it reads today would not survive a legislative intent challenge in our Supreme Court in the context of being applied to an abortionist. As Larry Long said in today's Argus in regard to the school law suit challenge: "It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what three members of the SD Supreme Court think." Great words from a great man…

Further, our Supreme Court is more than willing to rule on laws based on legislative intent. In fact, that's what makes our S.C. great. Because they interpret laws not on what they think or feel, but based upon what the legislature intended.
Thus, since the legislature never intended to criminalize abortion, in its current forms and methods, when it passed the current homicide statute it would be inapplicable to abortions.

Nice try, but I do congratulate you on your ability to spread misinformation and generally use sophistry and circuitous logic when arguing. You make a fine liberal.

I do applaud you in another regard. Homicide can only apply to the killing of a human life. Your argument implies that you do indeed recognize an abortion as the murder of a human life. I on the other hand am arguing, not that a human life is not being taken, but that the legislature never intended the law to apply in the way you have suggested.

So K, I guess we have found common ground in that abortion is the murder of a human life. Can I assume you will now be voting, no, crusading for 1215?
Anonymous said…
12:42 are you an accountant? Because your review of statutory interpretation and application is off. Gerdes is right. He gets paid to be right.

Go fill out a 1040 ez.
Anonymous said…
Typical response from someone who doesn't want to take on the argument. If I'm off say why instead of carping in your usual liberal whine.
Anonymous said…
One other thing:
That's a great winning argument: "Gerdes is paid to be right." and why don't you throw in your mother wears combat boots while you're at it.

In fact, I'm paid to be right, so that means I'm right and Gerdes is wrong. What say you?
K said…
Homicide can only apply to the killing of a human life. Your argument implies that you do indeed recognize an abortion as the murder of a human life.

You're really not getting this, are you? The South Dakota State Legislature, not me, decided to include "the unborn" in the homicide statute. I don't think itis homicide, but it really doesn't matter what I think. That's what they've decided. I don't think consensual sex between a 15-year-old and an 18-year-old is rape, but our laws do. The fact that I understand and recognize what the law says (something you seem to have trouble with) doesn't change how I view that law.

The thing is, I think you know that. I think you probably know some of the true consequences of 1215. But it doesn't fit very well into your campaign of misinformation, so why not just play dumb and repeat the same half-baked explanations "Super Lawyer" and his many anonymous incarnations has been spewing out since the Gerdes memo came out.
Anonymous said…
....and another thing for Mr. Spellcheck 11:44, it would be "In spite of Lee's endorsement," not "Despite of..."

Don't be afraid to go back to the third grade, Mr. Madison (Billy).
Anonymous said…
Hi K(ate). Got a dog in this fight?
Anonymous said…
K:

Yes it is true that the SD legislature did include the word unborn in the statute, who else could have included it there, one single "Super-Legislator?"

The unborn in the homicide statute applies to a woman who, God forbid, may be murdered similiar to how Lacy Peters was killed. The unborn does not apply to a woman who drives to the abortion clinic and has an abortion. Go back and listen to the committee hearings if you don't believe me. Or comb through the legislative history. It's all there.

I know Gerdes didn't listen to hours upon hours of committee hearings before writing the memo. (And by the way I think Gerdes is a good man and a good lawyer. This debate is about ideas not personalities, something lost on you because of your incessant need to call names and crappy ones at that in the mistaken beleif that it somehow propels your ideas forward).

Super-Lawyer (or one of her or his incarnations)
Anonymous said…
Gerdes gets "paid to be right"?
Gerdes gets paid to lobby. Being "right" would no doubt be a happy coincidence, but not necessary for Dave to be paid.
Eric Bogue said…
Scimitar: As the current Senate Majority Leader, I can tell you that I have worked closely with Rep. Rhoden on numerous occasions over the past several years. Larry is never "tonguetied" nor "befuddled"; and I have never heard another Legislator riddule him. The Leader's position in a post-term limits world is more challenging than it has ever been. Larry has done an outstanding job of representing a large and diverse caucus; and each and everyone of them should be proud of the effort he put in on their behalf . . . as should we all for the work he has done for South Dakota!

Scimitar: Given my experience with Rep. Rhoden, I would say that you are like one of the blind men describing the elephant - I would suggest that you are the one that should turn on the light and see the entire picture.

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