For those of you who are wondering....

In case you were wondering, KCCR News has a report on what the Governor has to say about running for US Senate:
Rounds-office

Governor Mike Rounds continues to stress that he likes being Governor just fine. Rounds has been mentioned as a possible U.S. Senate candidate in 2008, which would be in the middle of his second term as Governor. Rounds, who has always said he has no interest in running for the Senate, says he is focusing on his job as Governor.

At this point, Rounds says he doesn’t foresee a situation that would compel him to run for Senate.
Read it all here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Everytime asked, he beats around the bush. He never says, "No, I'm not running, and I won't be running." Instead, he says, "I can't foresee anything changing my mind."

He'll be running. Mark my anonymous words.
Anonymous said…
Rounds has never been willing to make those kind of promises. He wouldn't make the "no tax" pledge - not because he wanted to raise taxes, but because he thought it was irresponsible to make a promise that he might have to break.

This is the same deal. He obviously doesn't want to run for Senate, and he isn't doing anything to prepare. But he isn't ready to say so conclusively yet.

There is certainly a game of chicken here as well. As long as it seems that he might run, the Dems are under pressure to keep TJ in the race
Anonymous said…
8:18, Rounds never took the no taxes pledge because he did in fact intend to raise taxes. He proposed about 5 different and significant tax increases in 2003 immediately after his election.

Your historical revisionism doesn't square with the facts.
Anonymous said…
According to former GOP Chair Joel Rosenthal, over at sdstraighttalk.squarespace.com, the White House asked Rounds to run and he said no.

Joel reports -- "Governor Rounds spent the night at the White House during the National Governor’s Conference in February and the President popped the question about a 2008 Senate run and Mike Rounds said 'No'."

The Governor of our state had a converstaion with the President of the United States about whether or not he will serve out his term. When asked by the press, his overpaid press secretary said "they talked about a lot of things." But he seems to have no problem leaking the details of that conversation to Rosenthal to be put up on his blog.

There are a lot of people on this blog calling for Tim Johnson to publicly reveal his plans about his recovery, and I wonder if those folks will also think Rounds has an obligation to be straight with the people of South Dakota about his intentions.

Is what he told the President different than what he's telling people in South Dakota? Do we need to start preparing for a Governor spending time on the campaign trail in the middle of his term? Will he keep his pledge to serve out his term? Why won't he give a straight answer to a fairly simple question?
edumicated idjit said…
Q: How can you tell if a politician is stretching the truth?

A: Their lips are moving!

Taken with a grain of salt the comment is worthless. Of course he's not running now. SD isn't a big enough state that someone with his name recognition won't be a front-runner from day 1, whenever that day comes! He's awaiting the final determination of who he'd run against (Johnson or Herseth-Sandlin), how much $ he can receive from the GOP both in and out of state, and what the next 18 months bring for political footballs to kick around. Then he'll mount his mighty, white charger and ride onto the stage to thunderous acclimation and applause as the savior of the people of the state!

JM2CW
Anonymous said…
I'm a Republican and I voted for Rounds in the last two elections, and would support him over Johnson. But the thing that drives me absolutely crazy about him is that it's impossible to get a straight answer from him. That's a problem with most politicians, but Rounds is horrible about this.

The thing I liked about Janklow was that you knew where you stood with him. I know a lot of Democrats who said that they didn't always agree with Janklow but they voted for him because he was a straight shooter. I never wondered if Janklow meant what he said, but I never feel like I'm getting the straight story from Rounds. I hate to say it, but he reminds of Slick Willie when he gets that big grin on his face and starts saying things like "I can't forsee anything changing my mind..."

Why can't he say, "No. I'm not running" or "I'm thinking about it, but I haven't made up my mind" or "Yes, and I'll be a helluva Senator."

I think voters appreciate people who don't sound like waffling politicians, and I think Rounds will be respected for being straight with voters.
Anonymous said…
I hate to agree with 10:08 but this sentence does sound like something written about Slick Willie -- "At this point, Rounds says he doesn’t foresee a situation that would compel him to run for Senate."

"At this point" and "doesn't forsee a situation..." are the kinds of things we used to see written about Slick Willie.

I like Rounds' politics, but I wish he'd be a little less slick when it comes to answering questions like this.
Anonymous said…
Hey, you need a little slick in a Senator guys.
Don't forget, the guy sells insurance.
What's the big deal? said…
Just for the sake of argument...

What's the big deal about anybody changing his/her mind about running? Why not simply say "I have no plans to run", then if at some time you've changed your mind, state just that: "I've changed my mind and I've now decided to run".

I could live with that. What am I missing?
Anonymous said…
whatsthebigdeal --

I agree. I'd much rather have someone who changes their mind, but is honest about it, than someone who tries to be all lawyerly and slippery.
Anonymous said…
Of course Rounds is going to run. He just refuses to commit himself to anything. Rounds talks and acts like the typical politician he is and never, never, never, takes a stand on an issue if he can see any possible way to avoid controversy. What really saddens me is the fear that I may be forced to vote for this idiot because he may be the only one running against Johnson or Herseth.
Anonymous said…
Remember his comment about HB1215 "That's not my bill"

Does anyone think Bill Janklow would have signed something, and then tried to say that it wasn't his bill?

I've voted for Rounds, and I've voted for Johnson. I'd much rather vote for someone who has the guts to tell me what I don't want to hear, than vote for someone who gets all cute trying to have it both ways.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has these kinds of thoughts about Rounds.
Anonymous said…
I don't want to be critical, but I'm glad that we're having the conversation. I've seen Mike Rounds give a dozen speeches and have read hundreds of newspaper articles in which he's quoted. I am a loyal Republican and I've given money to Rounds and voted for him twice. But I've always felt like I'm dealing with a used car salesman or an insurance salesman when I talk to Rounds. There's something about the way he picks his words -- like the ones in this article -- that just kind of gives me the creeps. He does sound like Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, and Hillary - he says a lot of words without actually saying anything. I hope his people are reading this, and I hope they start working on solving it. It's a problem, and it's going to cost us votes.
Anonymous said…
Hey Dummies -

It's called smart politics and Rounds knows what he's doing. He beat both Kirby and Barnett by out smarting them, and he has beat the hell out of Demo-rats by knowing how to be a good politician. Politicians all talk out of both sides of their mouth, and Rounds isn't any different. But what makes Rounds different is that he knows what he's doing an can pull it off.

The libs called Clinton the most skilled politician in the history of America, and Clinton won the president's race twice -- once after it was known that he been screwing interns in the oval office. Clinton had no morals, and he was a liberal, but he won. Now the libs are saying what they always say "it's not fair!"

I think Mike Rounds is like Clinton in his ability to tell voters what they want to hear. He's just not a liberal like Clinton, and that's what pisses off the libs. But if it takes talking out of both sides of yout mouth to get a conservative elected, why not? It's not like the Demo-rats are going to start telling the truth.
Anonymous said…
Mikey has never been held back by truthfulness in his political pursuits.
Anonymous said…
J-Ro knows squat about Rounds' intentions. The only person Joel talks to is Kranz and Kranz surely doesn't know. Rounds doesn't even know. Haz bins talking about the good ol' days. Joke.

Joel says Roberto Boddledocker is an "up & comer" and Kranz prints it. That's crack reporting & analysis I tell ya.

Come on repub party, save us from the rumor, speculation, kranz and joel conspiracy debacle. who's on deck??
Anonymous said…
Mikey knows the second he utters a phrase indicating he's a candidate for U.S. Senate the roof of his $3 million mansion with its secret list of beneficiaries, the Gov's Hunts, the airplane abuses, his lies in the Page fiasco and a lot of other crap will come crashing down on his pointed little head. He won't have a poor boy campaign with no resources to tell the truth on him this time. To paraphrase Curtis LeMay, he's gonna get bombed back into the Stone Age.

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