NEW FEATURE: When Opponents square off - Three shots on Rich Engels Versus Deb Peters

If you recall a few posts ago, I invited Republicans to e-mail me information on promises that Democrats hadn't kept in response to the Dale Hargens article.

While I didn't hear from any Republicans, my friend Rich Engels (Yes, I know Democrats too) sent me a few points he's going to be using as he runs against Republican incumbent Deb Peters. The first thing I asked Rich was "can I quote you on this?" And to his credit, he responded yes.

I think this has the potential to be a pretty good feature on this blog. What Rich is sending me are three valid points where he thinks his opposition has failed. Or, in the case of another candidate, it could be three points where he's better than his opponent(s).

So, for this feature, HERE'S THE RULES: In any instance, as a regular feature, I'd offer the focus of a blog post to any legislative candidate for three points whey they are better than their opposition, or why their opponent stinks, or any general points they'd like to make about their campaign. And that's three - only 3. And you can expect that a blogpost in rebuttal from the opposition will be also granted. It will be Candidate A versus Candidate B (and possibly C), where they take 3 points in preview of their campaign efforts and give us your best shots.

To me, it's a great preview of the strategy that may be employed in a race. Is the candidate sticking to their own record? Are they comparing and contrasting? Are they saying people should vote against the incumbent? It's pretty basic stuff, but infinitely entertaining and informative.

You want to lear how to make a point in a campaign? Watch how people do it, and see how effective it is. You learn by doing.

So, for the first installment, here's what Candidate Rich Engels has to say about his opponent, Deb Peters:
You asked for promises made but not kept, so I delivered without first promising.

Deborah Peters unkept promises and position changes (partial list):

1) In her 2004 survey, Deborah Peters answered an abortion question with multiple choice answers, one of which was "e) abortions should be legal only when the life of the woman is endangered." Ms. Peters did not check that box. Instead, she added in the comment section that "Abortions should not be legislated;" In 2006 she flip-flopped and voted for HB 1215, to ban abortions except when the life of the woman is endangered.

2) In her 2004 survey, Deborah Peters answered a sex education question with multiple choice answers, one of which was, "n) Support abstinence-only sexual education programs." Ms. Peters did not check that box. Instead she checked the box that reads, "m) Support sexual education programs that include information on abstinence, contraceptives, and HIV/STD prevention methods." In 2006 she flip-flopped and voted for HB 1217 - the abstinence-only education bill.

3) In her 2004 survey, Deborah Peters was asked, "Should South Dakota eliminate the sales tax on food?" Her options were: Yes, no, undecided. Ms. Peters answered "Yes". She has neither sponsored nor supported a move to remove the sales tax from food.
Rich did indicate that this is a partial list, so it looks like he's going to be focusing on contrasting his positions with that of the incumbent. And at this time, I'd ask for Representative Peter's rebuttal or positions on her opponent. Deb, take your three shots by e-mailing me here, and I'll get your rebuttal posted as soon as I have it.


Anonymous said…
Voters should be advised to look at Rich Engels record when he was in Pierre. There are potted plants in the capitol that have accomplished more than he did. Voters guides are just that...a guide to the candidates thinking. What you really need to look at is what the person has done once they have the job. Peters has accomplished much for the taxpayers as their representative while Engels just took up space.
Anonymous said…
"Peters has accomplished much for the taxpayers"

Really? Name three things Peters has accomplished.
Anonymous said…
Deb Peters has voted far out of the mainstream for her district. That is a fact.

I think the voters of District 9 are going to get a real education in wingnuttery when her record is put in front of them in black and white.
Anonymous said…
Three things? that's it? Easy - I'll double the dare!
1)HB1070 & 1058 - help clean up the insurance business, lower costs of insurance to regular folks and businesses
2)HB1059 - inform non-custodial parents when a custodial parent is abusing a child. protection of parent rights and children
3)HB 1129 - lower taxes for non-profits. the business incubator rule. complicated law but necessary.
4)HB1177 - limit Employers investment in the future fund - not have investment the same as the unemployment tax
5)she a "go-to" girl. she gets the work done. Tackles extremely complicated legislation and succeeds. Assigned to Appropriations - but does not use the committee for her own agenda.
6)she scares Stephanie Herseth - or at least she should. Smart, competant, down-to-earth, and better looking than Steph.
Anonymous said…
Better Looking? Come on.
Anonymous said…
It was a draw until Stephanie changed her hairstyle. What WAS she thinking? The pictures look like her hair was cut by me!
Anonymous said…
Peters did use her spot on Appropriations to advance her right-wingnut agenda when she voted late at night to cut PBS funding. Then she voted again on the House floor against an amendment to restore the PBS funding. After much public outcry, she reversed herself on veto day and voted to restore PBS funding. There's another flip-flop.
Anonymous said…
If anyone was paying attention on the PBS funding issue during the Appropriations hearing - Peters voted to not do the funding swap from General Funds to Other Funds. She was one of six who voted against Greenfields amendment. But who wants to get the facts right. She was consistent with her vote!!!
Anonymous said…
So when the PBS cut hit the floor in the appropriations bill, did she vote to open the bill and restore the cut which her caucus made in committee? Or did she just go along to get along?
Anonymous said…
So Peters voted in Appropriations to support PBS funding? Then she voted on the house floor not to fund PBS? Then on veto day she voted to fund PBS. Sounds like 2 flip-flops in only 2 working days.
Anonymous said…
told ya'll the haircut was bad. and now that 'mulletography' has become an offical word of the blogosphere- the world has gotten a little better.
SF Guy said…
In the South Dakota Family Policy 2004 voter guide, Rep. Peters said she would "support banning abortion except o save the life of the mother or for the irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

In the same guide, she said that she did not "support completely eliminating the sales tax on food."
Anonymous said…
So no one can change their mind after well-thought out deliberation? Kinda like a Justice Kennedy? Aren't you pissed because Engles wife posts up on a blog or that Roberts voted against school prayer and the pledge of alliegence with reference to God? What a lie that church/state seperation is and Roberts has no clue.

Whoever voted for the abortion bill are very intelligent people who have done their homework on the constitution, Roe v Wade and Justice Blackmun consulting his daughter post-abortion on that decision. Look it up. Or Justice Brennan to Blackmun: "I almost stubbed my toe on that abortion will have to keep me awake!!!" Kinda like Justice Ginsburg snoozing?!?

For those of you who need a civics class 101:

Rep Peters is very intelligent and has voted well and in the best interests of our district. I am glad some of you on here are in District 15 where you socialists all belong.
Anonymous said…
Has Mr. Engels emailed you on Dempster or Roberts? I am very curious.

I would like to see this far left-wing liberal nutcase throw his pot shots on these two also....

Anyone else agree?!?
Anonymous said…
How about that Katy Dressen? She's a flipflopw aiting to happen. Just wait for the double-talk to start flowing when you get her and Peters together.
Anonymous said…
I second that on Dressen.

She is two faced and one very weird duck.....
Anonymous said…
That is complete and utter NONSENSE. You have nothing on Dressen. She doesn't even have a voting record for you to attack. Mr. Engels (aka ANONYMOUS) Why don't you try running a positive campaign and focus on what you can do for District 9 instead of attacking your opponents????
Anonymous said…

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.