CQPolitics.Com - profiles on SD challengers to Johnson

Congressional Quarterly is profiling the two main challengers expected against incumbent Senator Tim Johnson who has been out of commission for a while with a brain injury caused by a congenital condition.

After they rehash the details on Senator Johnson, they get down to business on profiling the two people who are actively expressing interest in the race:
Dykstra: a Conservative Party Pro

Dykstra, who is assistant leader in the state House, describes himself as a “pro-life, fiscal conservative Republican.” He said he is testing the waters to see whether a Senate run would be feasible.

“I believe strongly that the system requires that we have credible candidates on both sides and that the incumbent have credible challengers that present options to the electorate,” he said.

So far, the response he is receiving for his possible bid has been “generally positive,” Dykstra said.

Dykstra cited two issues as vital to South Dakotans : health care and security. The high costs of health care and insurance hit constituents particularly hard given the large amount of self-employed, agriculture-based businesses, he said.

and....

Kephart: a Centrist Newcomer

Kephart, who moved to South Dakota with his family in 2004, said his interest in politics was raised last summer when he attended the state Republican Party convention. He jumped right into the fray on one of the hottest of hot-button issues: abortion, an issue on which he holds relatively moderate views.

and...

And when delegates to last year’s state party convention offered a resolution urging voters to uphold the law when it came up on the November ballot, Kephart offered an amendment to add language saying some “people of good conscience of both parties” may take issue with the ban.

Although his amendment was rejected, Kephart — and the negative reaction to his amendment — became a lead story of the convention. That’s when he became interested in delving further, he said.

The problem was systemic, Kephart said. “I realized you can’t have a resolution to the laundry list . . . of the business of the nation when the context, the background context of the political conversation is as dysfunctional as it is.”
Read it all at cqpolitics.com

Comments

Anonymous said…
So Dykstra describes the response he is receiving for his candidacy as "generally positive"?

That is absolutely the weakest statement a candidate could make - period. A candidate could not say the response is negative or indifferent - even if the response is negative or indifferent the least he could say if he wants to move forward is "generally positive".

But if the response was actually positive, wouldn't Dykstra have said the response has been "overwhelming", or "strong encouragement from across the state"?

It looks like Dykstra has been keeping the phone close for all those calls he was expecting but hasn't received. It must suck to put your ambitions on display and have them met by silence from people you need to win.
Anonymous said…
If Dykstra keeps doing his tap dance, he may eventually draw a crowd. But many in the crowd will just be waiting to see him trip over his own d!@#.

Don't expect many people on the Dykstra bandwagon. Everybody is waiting for someone better.
Anonymous said…
I wouldn't say that! He has support and you might be surprised!
People do support candidtes and those supporters will become public in due time.
Is it bad for a candidate to be humble! I see it that Dykstra is being that way. So i wouldn't read into the statments. Beside we kow how editors like to edit.
Anonymous said…
Kephart says he has "moderate views" on abortion.

What is a "moderate view" on abortion?

I wonder when Kepart was a fetus if he had "moderate views" on abortion or have those views developed since he was born?
Anonymous said…
I doubt fetus Kepart had a view on abortion. If he did, and it has changed, does that make him a fetus flopper?
Anonymous said…
The last comment brings up the question, "When does life begin?"

Mine started at birth.
jack said…
History is not on the side of either Dykstra or Kephardt (or, for that matter, anyone other than Mike Rounds). Twenty-six Senators have represented South Dakota in the United States Senate and none have beaten an incumbent without service in the Congress or service as Governor. Five men (Peter Norbeck, Harlan Bushfield, Coe Crawford, William McMaster and William Bulow) were Governors prior to their service in the Senate. Ten (Tim Johnson, John Thune, Tom Daschle, Larry Pressler, Jim Abourezk, George McGovern, Karl Mundt, Francis Case, Robert Gamble and Richard Pettigrew) served in the House prior to serving in the Senate.

Of the remainders, three (Herbert Hitchcock, Vera Bushfield, Alfred Kitteredge, Joe Bottum were appointed. Edwin Johnson (the first popularly elected Senator in SD) and Gladys Pyle both won open seats. The final five (James Kyle, Gideon Moody, Richard Pettigrew, Robert Gamble, Thomas Sterling) were appointed by the legislature (prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment).

The voters of South Dakota have never replaced a sitting Senator with anyone other than a Governor or Member of Congress. If Dykstra and Kephardt really want to serve in the Senate, their best bet would be to run for Governor in 2010, or to wait for an open House seat and try their luck there.
Anonymous said…
Well, mine began with conception as did my children!

I feel we are about to have a fight on our hands.

I have solid science and DNA on my side.
Anonymous said…
2:53, did you name all of your wife's periods? Along the way there was probably a fertilized egg or two that didn't implant. That make her a murderer?
Anonymous said…
Jack, that's a pretty interesting list. Another thing to consider: since we became an At-Large state, every person to hold the House Seat has gone onto serve in the Congress. Generally, state legislators and "concerned citizens" are not considered credible challengers to sitting US Senators (or even candidates for an open seat). God bless Dykstra and Kephardt for throwing their hats in the ring, but they shouldn't start looking for real estate in Washington any time soon.
Anonymous said…
When did Dykstra's & Kephart's congressional careers begin? When they conceived their campaigns? Or when they were actually elected?

If they are never elected, are they just potential congressmen who were not to be? Or are they actual congressmen who didn't make it past election day? In other words, should we start calling them Senator now, or wait until after they are elected?

I direct this comment to 2:53.
Haggs said…
Dykstra thinks he's a "credible candidate?" Heh, that's pretty funny. Someone who thinks rape and incest are just "buzzwords" doesn't have much credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Anonymous said…
Dykstra would be the best dressed candidate. ...

More women than men voted in the last election. ...

And nobody should deny that young men voted for Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin because of her appeal to them.

You have to consider everything.
Anonymous said…
I wonder who Ted Klaudt voted for? Like you said, you have to consider everything.
Anonymous said…
Haaaahaaaahaaaaa....We might as well run Brock, Isaac or one of PPs other favorites against Stephi. Heck, Lee Schoenbeck and Jerry Apa would have a better chance against her than Joel D. or what's his name from out west.

Please, was John Thune scared when the fella (if you know what I mean) from the treasurer's office ran against him?
Anonymous said…
Jack, that list is a moot point when Johnson doesn't run.

If Jim Seward starts showing some balls and gets in the ring, rather than waiting for an engraved invitation and red carpet, he's got the potential to be a super stud. He's got the resume, ability and character. Seriously, he just needs a Joel Rosenthal to guide his start (not mom and dad) and to get him on task.
Anonymous said…
whoever Rosenthal backs, I'll support the other guy...when will that sleazebag retire?
Anonymous said…
Maybe Georgia Hanson will be available for Jim Seward. She has one heckuva track record, and she is always desperate for another client.
Anonymous said…
Joel is EVIL, and so is his wife Susan. Even Randy Frederick was a better chairman than Joel. Good riddance, Joel.
Anonymous said…
bravo, 12:05. Weed at midnight often leads to inspiration.
Anonymous said…
Why do we always hurt the ones we love?
Anonymous said…
12:05 was too good to just dump like that. Just fun - no harm to anyone. Put it back up!
Anonymous said…
Poster 2:53

It still amazes me that people do all the assuming!

You are so far off tract it stinks.
Nope didn’t name all those “wife’s periods”. I am the wife, I am the poster!!
You got it I am a WOMAN! New age WOMAN too boot!!!

While you are opening your mouth and inserting your foot; get this; I have lost a few babies during pregnancy and the fact is my body rejected the fetus/babies! I know of many who have had this happen to them also.
So your comment while snide and the fact that I have been able to move on after such a loss I can set aside your comment ALMOST. It still hurts a child is a child!
As a medical fact there are more pregnancies than what people (women) know due to loss of child during a cycle during the (simple terms) the first part of the cycle.
The thing is most women don’t even know they are/were even pregnant to begin with.
So does this equate murder? Put it this way the body and a female body in particular is very complex and the sad part is this is whole posting is true so you tell me what you really think.
So are you a male or a female?
Have you walked in those shoes or not or anything similar?
If you are a woman don’t kid yourself, men may not admit it but, when they lose a child through spontaneous abortion (medical term for losing a child (self) non-abortion procedure) they feel the loss also.
One more thing a spontaneous abortion is generally the body’s way of saying that something was wrong with the child. Maybe not in all cases but in most and no I do not have the percent due to the fact most are lost and the woman doesn’t even know she was pregnant!
If you wonder if I am correct ask your doc or a nurse. Don’t rely on my statement or those of all the organizations ask a professional.
PP said…
8:12 and 8:43, you might have differing opinions on 12:05, but his continuing spamming is just going to get me to lean on his ISP.

I give huge amounts of latitude, but it isn't adding anything to the debate.
Anonymous said…
11:03a you are CRUDE!

Get a life because the one your working will take you to place Ibet you don't want to go!

jezz.
Anonymous said…
So 2:53/9:28, will you answer 3:25?
Anonymous said…
2:05 Poster

Hum, hard decision but, I think i will let 3:02 answer that one. THey are so good at assuming I am sure they know all the answers.

Those i did answer 3:02 in a serious tone for a serious subject.

I can joke with the bst of them. Sometimes it's not a joking matter, if you know what i mean.

Since the conversations between the above are very serious in nature and a hot button issue for so many people.

So if you #2:05 would like to throw you hat/comment in the ring i say GO FOR IT!
Anonymous said…
2:05 here. We don't call Dykstra and Kephart "Senator" until they are senators. We don't call a baby a baby until it's a baby.

But I want to see you flail around trying to dispute the reasoning of 3:25. You can't do it and you're afraid to try. You have been beaten.
Anonymous said…
Thats right a Baby is a baby from conception!

DNA proves a baby/fetus is a seperate individual from the get go!

Also, i was being serious and do NOT find the topic a joke!
Anonymous said…
You're not a serious person. You don't possess the capacity to reason and defend your position. You've been reduced to simply repeating yourself.

According to your logic, A senator is a senator from the conception of their campaigns - even if they don't win. Start referring to Senator Kephart and Senator Dykstra.

You see, even if there's no guarantee they will win, they're already senators, because if they do win they can trace it back to when they entered the race. If they hadn't entered the race they wouldn't have won, right?

I'll throw in this indisputable fact to sweeten the pot, to try to spark your competitive spirit. DNA doesn't guarantee birth any more than being a candidate guarantees victory.

Write back soon, and try not to sound like a parrot.
Anonymous said…
I didn't say that DNA guarantees birth. Stop the spin.

No Kephart is not a senator However, Dykstra is a Representative for the state of SD, so he has earned that title by election.

It is not granted at conception nor birth. Nor should someone whose family has been elected to office be guaranteed nomination nor election on the "just because" factor.
This is one of the stupidest conversations I have had. This is not a serious conversation. Like I said I can joke with the best of them however right now I don't have time to waste on meaningless conversations as this. Besides one has nothing to do with the other topic!
By the way:
Do you need a cracker or is your changed weld shut? Tell them to let some air in so you can have some oxygen.
But have a great weekend it's been fun.
Anonymous said…
hummmmmmmmmmmmm
Anonymous said…
I still don't have the answer - I just keep hearing inconsistency repeated back again and again. I'm trying to understand your logic or lack thereof.

If life begins at conception instead of birth, why doesn't a senate career begin at the campaign kickoff instead of the election?

Clearly, not all fertilized eggs will be born and not all candidates will win, so why do you insist on tracing one back to conception and not trace the other back to conception? To be consistent, wouldn't you have to say that if a fertilized egg is an baby (as you said at 9:21) then an announced candidate is a senator?

I'm not seeing the distinction you are creating, and you haven't done anything to explain it. When do we trace something back to the very beginning and when do we not?

Consistency could be found if you would admit that both a candidate and a fertilized egg represent potential that may or may not be reached. A fertilized egg is not a baby, but a potential baby. Just as a candidate is a potential senator.

Back to my position for purposes of this discussion. A baby is not a baby until it's a baby.

I'm afraid that after so many promptings you will never choose to examine your inconsistent beliefs and square them with each other.

Unless you come up with something new, I think we're done here.
Anonymous said…
10:38 AM

A unborn baby has unique DNA (which science then says that unique DNA indicates a unique individual).
An unborn baby has a beating heart, fingers, toes, nose, feet etc.
Looks like a baby to me and looks like a unique human to science.

If I am right that the unborn are alive and have a "right to life" then to stop the beating heart by abortion would be murder. About half the people in the USA believe that the unborn is alive and has a right to life.
Lets error on the side of safety and stop abortions.
Anonymous said…
Now we've moved on to the next step of the debate - though you haven't reconciled your inconsistency yet.

So by your new logic, if about half of the people think that Dykstra should be a senator, then let's pass a law and require all 100% to vote for him. So much for the right of people to make decisions for themselves. Since Dykstra has unique DNA and is a unique candidate (despite the fact his senatorial hopes are entirely dependent upon voters), we must make him a senator no matter what the situation of any individual voters. Bravo!
Anonymous said…
1:37 PM

Lets deal with issue of the unborn baby. Your comparisons of the unborn right's to life and Dykstra's right to be called a Senator are a stretch and illogical.

Is it your position that a unborn baby 5 minutes before birth can be killed and you would be okay with that, but you believe it would be murder 5 minutes after the child is born?
Anonymous said…
We're not talking about Dykstra's right to be "called" a senator. Following your logic, he actually is a senator from the time he kicked off the campaign, just like that fertilized egg washed out with the period is a "baby". You still haven't clarified in what circumstances we trace something back to the beginning and when we don't.

As to your "5 minute" scenario, the supreme court has adressed this issue in terms of giving states the ability to regulate. In short, viability is a key date.

But you've asked questions without ever answering any. You show no interest in addressing your inconsistency. We could have had a real debate if you had chosen to (yes, you have free will unlike the embryo or the fetus), but I'm finished trying now.

It has been fun but not that fun. Feel free to add your parting comments.

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