The "friendly" Rapid City Mayoral runoff turns negative

I've had a few calls and e-mails tonight on how the Rapid City Mayoral race is starting to heat up and shifting negative.

That didn't look to be the case from the start when the #2 from the contest to winnow down the number of the candidates gave this quote in the Rapid City Weekly news:
Hanks agreed.

“Sam and I have been friends. We served together on the City Council,” he said. “We continue to be friends. This will be a friendly runoff race.”
Or maybe not. Word on the street tonight is that there's a negative push-poll going on tonight to test negative imagery and messages against Sam Kooiker. And given that there's two candidates in the race, and only one isn't Sam, it narrows down the list of who is behind it.

"What?" You might be saying - "Alan Hanks might actually have said one thing, and done another? Heavens no. " Why would we think there's that sort of track record out there?

Promise made. Promise broken. Promise made. Promise broken.

At least the bar of expectations has been set pretty low.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hanks used to be kinder, gentler, and less whiny about stuff. But I'm not sure he's a bald...er...beard-faced liar.
Anonymous said…
It's Stan running the poll.

C'mon, act like you've been there before huh? This stuff really isn't very difficult if you just try.
Anonymous said…
This is the weak spot in campaign finance laws. Everything else needs a disclaimer, signs, radio, TV, mailings and flyers all have to say who is paying for it.

The money spent on polling is huge and they dont have to say who is paying for it ever. Maybe Hanks can help fix that in the legislature next year, since I'm sure he is going back. Hamilton will lie about Sam Kooiker not reporting 7700 dollars and turn around and spend tens of thousands on polls and not tell anyone that he is the one paying for the polls.

IF HANKS IS BEHIND THIS SHAME ON YOU ALAN !!

please tell us you are not
the rapid citian said…
Hanks is just another chamber guy--Shaw lite--if you will. Their second choice. So of course he's got the dirty deed doers, like Adelstein and Hamilton, supporting him. Now their attempting round two on Sam.
Sam represents a real opportunity for taxpayer representation at city hall and I, for one, am taking it. He deserves the opportunity. Vote Sam Kooiker
scimitar said…
What's with the Hanky Panky?

Enough Hanky Panky!

There's a campaign slogan for the kooky one - gratis. I can see the campaign ad already. "Someone's been running slanted phone polls that lie about my record. I say enough hanky panky. Together let's make Rapid City work."

How much would PP charge for that?
Anonymous said…
If Sam's not polling, that's bad, not good, PP. As a campaign manager it seems like you would know that. Instead of complaining that hisr opponant is polling, Sam should be doing his own. Otherwise, his will be the only side who doesn't know what's going on. And that's not a good position to be in.
The only reason not to poll is if you don't care what the voters think. And that's not good either.
Anonymous said…
5:34 AM

I would like to hear your resume', because it must not contain any experience with small town political races. Most time those folks dont even spend, in total, what a poll costs, I know Kooiker isnt. Kooikers "polling" is "grass roots", eye to eye, phone call to phone call, conversation to conversation, handshake to handshake polling. That is the best way to "know" what is going on.
Anonymous said…
It seems to me that Kooiker has been running a negative campaign "under the radar" on blogs all over SD, with your site being first among them, PP. Before it was "Shaw shredding," now it's turned to "Hanks hatcheting." Seriously, who do you think you're fooling kid here, kids?
Anonymous said…
It seems your moral compass isn’t entirely defective, p. It’s more like Capt. Jack Sparrow’s: never quite points north.

Your ongoing assessments of the RC Mayor’s race and the torrent of breathtaking nastiness directed at Kooiker are admirable and insightful.

Too bad you’re blind to the same traits exhibited by your brazen gods in the SD GOP.

Carnivore opinion.
Anonymous said…
Hanks would do well to read Mike Sanborns column. The title was great; "Mayor shaw lost race by a mudslide" Hanks should take the title as a warning.
Anonymous said…
6:47 No, it's a good way to meet people, but it isn't the best way to know what's going on. People will give a pollster a lot more specific information if the poll is conducted properly. And then there are the crosstabs which reveal even more valuable information. This is not new information, and the race for mayor is in SD's second largest city, not a small town. A good manager, which Sam claims to be, would understand this.
PP said…
6:48 - have you ever thought that I may find Hanks objectionable because he flat out lied to me?

He basically asked me to give him the benefit of the doubt on being in Stan's pocket. And I did.

But in the end, he proved that any doubt was misplaced, and he's no more than simply a tool.

Stan's tool, that is - something to be used at PACaSTAN's leisure.
Anonymous said…
7:01. See what I mean? No, you probably don't. You are accusing Hanks of negative campaigning when he hasn't done any. The only one who is doing that is you. It's like telling you you have a speck of food in your tooth, pp. It looks dumb from over here, but how would you know if nobody told you.
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:00 - There are three types of lies - Lies, Damned Lies, and statistics.

and that was from Mark Twain about 100 years ago.
Anonymous said…
7:26. Actually, it was probably Benjamin Disraeli.

Mark Twain's exact words were: "‘The remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” "

See what a little research will do for you?

http://www1c.btwebworld.com/quote-unquote/p0000149.htm
Anonymous said…
You're grasping at straws pp.

First, you tried to spin how bad it would be to let Rounds pick a new legislator.

Now you're trying to spin a push-poll into a negative attack.

You've been around long enough to notice that even the race for dog catcher gets dirty if it's in Rapid City... I'm sure this "awful" poll came as a great shock to you.

You don't need to spin things here, we all know who you're supporting.
Anonymous said…
Wait a minute PP - You claim that Kooiker didn't know about someone being paid to run his campaign. He didn't know about things going on, they were kept from him. In your eyes, he must be telling the truth. A push poll is supposedly being done and Hanks MUST know about it, if he says he doesn't, then he is lying. Your inconsistency is remarkable PP.
Anonymous said…
hellooo 8:26 - you're operating under the false assumption anything having to do with Scum-macher is in the realm of accuracy or truth. Just like his e-mails.
Anonymous said…
Raise your hands. Who here actually knows what a "push poll" is and the difference petween it and one that measures the strenght and weakness of all arguments on both sides. Thought so. My hunch is, it wasn't a push poll at all, that's just more negative PP and Kooiker spin.
Anonymous said…
Kooiker's people probably think it's a push poll because it actually mentions negatives about Kooiker. Krybabble and Napsalot don't think anyone should be talking harshly about the innocent one. Anyone who truly knows Kooiker knows that his image is just that, an image. Politics drive everything he does on that council.
Anonymous said…
PP said, "At least the bar of expectations has been set pretty low."

That could be the SDWC's motto.
Anonymous said…
PP, Looks like Alan Hanks knows he's in trouble and is trying to tear him down. He is also now aligned with Hamilton. Hanks campaign signs are all over Hamilton property. Kooiker is running against all the big boys.
Anonymous said…
8:48 Wait, are you saying Sam is really a poopy-pants and that Kreebs, Naps and Ms.Ellie are his
Pampermeisters? Naughty naughty.
Anonymous said…
9:55 If he does his polling right, Alan will know exactly where he stands. Right now, he knows that both he and Sam are "in trouble" if you want to call it that, since neither one of them garnered 50% of the vote the first time around.

That's the way this thing works, ace. And by the way, both campaigns have their signs up all over town on a lot of peoples property.

What is it with you guys and your signs? You'd think that's all there was to running a campaign.
Anonymous said…
Kooiker has his signs on Schwiesow's property. Says a lot about the people with whom he runs. She is worse than Adelstein, Hamilton, etc.
Anonymous said…
Long ago...in a land far, far away...

SIGN WARS

(Da da da DAH da)

...cue Kook Slytalker fight/flight sequence,
Anonymous said…
so says jabba the Schumacher.
Anonymous said…
10:24 I heard he packed up his light saber and left town. Anyway, I guarntee you he didn't write the SIGN WARS post, but I bet he wishes he did. It was pretty funny, don't you think?
10:24 said…
I might agree with it. It was too witty for special chair mike.
Anonymous said…
All for now from me, gotta fly. I have a hot date with a 3-legged blue hair on Tatooine.
Anonymous said…
9:55 response.

I hate blogger who intentionally lie.

I haven't seen a single Hanks sign on any of Hamilton’s property.

The records show that Hanks has never taken money from Hamilton, and it was Kooiker who has taken thousands from him and approached Doug for support and was refused because Hamilton was supporting Shaw.

I love how PP and the religious right try to spin things.

OHHH I almost forgot, wasn’t it Ellie, the holyer then now candidate that took 27k from Doug Hamilton?

PP is showing that he is anything but fair in his articles.
Anonymous said…
9:55 Well, the "Hamilton property" thing just seems goofy.

For those who don't know, Hamilton owns rental properties all over town — who knows how many, maybe thousands.

Now, do you any of you have landlords who tell you whose political yard sign you can put infront of your rental house or apartment? Does anyone seriously think Hamilton does this?

Goofy.

Further, IF there are yard signs on a lot of "Hamilton properties" it probably means there are a lot of low-to-middle-income folks living in them who support Hanks, since that's typically the kind of property Hamilton owns and rents.

Ok, so, go ahead and accuse those poor hard working people for supporting Hamilton's meglomania with their meager rent money.

Goofy.

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