"Take it Back, Jack."

Jack Billion might have well have started referring to Republicans as infidel invaders and declared a jihad on them with the rhetoric he's starting to use in his press releases. In an unusually harsh move for South Dakota politics, he calls the Governor "a pawn of extremists" as reported by KSFY news:

The men who want to be South Dakota's next governor are squaring off on the abortion issue. Democrat Jack Billion is charging that Governor Mike Rounds changed his story about who will pay for a possible lawsuit over the state's abortion ban.

Challenger Jack Billion says his opponent, Mike Rounds has changed positions on who will pay for the legal defense of a ban on most abortions. He distributed a DVD to reporters showing Rounds saying it would be the state's responsibility to pay the legal bill that could reach several million dollars.


At the press conference, a statement was also distributed on Billion for Governor letterhead, that called Rounds, "a pawn of extremists." Mr. Billion later changed that language. "I took that out of the prepared statement. We will re-issue that statement because I don't feel that we really wanted to get into name calling, in this regard. I don't agree with the job Governor Rounds is doing."

Read it all here. And it's all ok, because Jack took it back.. Isn't it?

Actually, that brings up an idea for a new slogan. Instead of "Back Jack," maybe when he starts throwing out wild comments like that, it should be "Take it back, Jack."


Anonymous said…
While I'm a strong support of Gov Rounds, this is another example of him inserting foot into mouth.

During the debate in Pierre Rounds repeatedly stated that a special fund would be setup to take in all the cash people waited to donate to defend HB 1215. That included a million dollar donor both Roger Hunt or the Gov said wanted to remain anonymous.

Well the reason that it was anonymous is that there was never a real offer of a million bucks.

To date, that special defense fund only has about $12,000 in total contributions.

Now the Gov is saying it will be a cost the taxpayers of SD will have to bear. That is what I consider bate and switch. Tell the public that if the legislature passes HB1215 that it will not cost the taxpayers anything to defend. Now the story is different, the Gov now says that it is the responsibility of the taxpayers to defend HB1215 in court.

PP, I'm disappointed it that you tried to spin this to cover the Gov's backside. As much as I hate to admit it, Billon is right on this one.
Anonymous said…
You mean to tell me that Gov. Rounds is NOT the pawn of extremists? Which part isn't incorrect: that he isn't a pawn or that they aren't extremists?
Anonymous said…
Oops, typo. I meant to say which part is not correct: that he isn't a pawn or that they aren't extremists?
Anonymous said…
I think some legislators voted for 1215 because they were told the money was committed to defend it.
Now it looks like the best course of action would be to vote no on 6,and pick up the debate again.
Anonymous said…
1:16 "there was never a real offer of a million bucks." What evidence do you have for that claim other than your cynicism?

You don't suppose the anonymous $1M donor hasn't given any money yet because 1215 has to survive a referendum first, do you? People with $1M to give most likely didn't get into that position by giving their money away before they need to. There's a little interest to be earned on that money between the time of passage of 1215 and November.

Secondly, what about the request for anonymity itself? The AG Opinion saying donations were public info subject to disclosure might have had an effect on the donor's willingness to give.

I think it's pretty clear Rounds didn't want to deal with this bill as it was written, so why would he bait legislators to vote for it? Obviously he'd want to use the sub fund and the $1M as an additional reason to sign the bill - who wouldn't? That's just good PR (something Rounds isn't exactly known for).
Anonymous said…
Look for more of the name calling and lying to come. Go to Billion's website and read his diaries about how Rounds is a "sorehead" and how he saw people "throwing up" after a comment made by Rounds.
Comments to come:
dumb-dumb and poopy-face

For those of you who think money had was a deciding factor, you are just as wrong as the boycotters who tried to threaten our tourism economy. The personal donations to the state have instead been donated to various organizations that now have to fund the PR battle for the referendum.
Douglas said…
Anonymous@5:15, made an interesting statement that the money originally contributed to SD has been given back and is now being used for the political campaign ads for HB 1215.

That sounds like an interesting set of fund transfers if it actually happened.
Anonymous said…
Anon 4:35

Get real, the anonymous donor is Bob Fischer from Rapid City. If you think that he will actually follow through with his pledge, you don't know Bob.

There's not a chance he will ever give more than a couple thousand.

He was willing to say anything to get HB1215 passed. But when the time comes to actually live up to the pledge, Bob never step up to the plate. He never has, never will.
Anonymous said…
Anon 5:18 - Hey Nick, is that you? The poopy-face remark gave you away. I don't think there's another adult in the state that calls someone a poopy-face. Some others of your ilk might say dumb-dumb, but poopy-face? Never.
feasant said…
I don't have a clue who said they would donate a million,but if Bob Fischer said he would he will. You Liberals always have to try and smear good people.

I heard someone else.

By the way the LIBERALs are the ones going to cost us, let the people's voices be heard.
Anonymous said…
I don't think you can assuse the Governor of doing a flip-flop here. He did not lobby at all for the passage of HB 1215 - it was conservative legislators. They are the ones who pledged that all the money would come in. What Mike is saying is a truism - if the private money doesn't come it, the state will pay the bill.

And I definitely think it is true that no one will contribute to the legal defense fund until after the election. Why contribute if you don't know there will even be a lawsuit? If I supported the ban, I would give my money to the campaign right now as well.

And whoever said it is right - Jack can say he is against name-calling, but anyone who reads his blog can see that he is a cranky old man.
nonnie said…
Making a statement and then "taking it back" is a little like making a statement during a trial and then saying "the jury is instructed to ignore the last comment." The words have been intentionally spoken in each case and implanted in people's minds, even if "taken back" later.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long