Despite the goal of keeping Democrats in control of the US Senate, the race in South Dakota to replace retiring three-term Sen. Tim Johnson, a Democrat, has gotten almost no attention until recently. Now, with former Republican governor Marion Mike Rounds facing persistent questions about economic scandals he had probably hoped he could keep quiet until after the election, his assumed easy win has become a candidacy struggling to maintain a lead over not one but two candidates. The first is populist Democratic candidate Rick Weiland. The second is former three-term Republican Sen. Larry Pressler who lost to Tim Johnson in 1996. Since then, Pressler has seen the light and moderated his positions on some issues. He even endorsed Obama twice. He is running for the Senate as an Independent. Now some polls show that the three-way race between Rounds, Weiland and Pressler (ignoring a fourth RWNJ candidate) would, if changed to a two-way contest, show Weiland still trailing Rounds, but Pressler leading Rounds.
There have been several recent posts reporting the awakening interest in this race. There have also been several comments to suggest that based on this polling, Weiland should drop out of the race and support Pressler. I'll tell you why this should never happen.
Pressler voted for Obama so he would support Obama now.
Larry would like to have Democratic voters think so.
He... is filled with regret over the fact that he was too much of party-line man and “played ball” in order to move up in the GOP when first in the Senate and offered voters “a mea culpa” for doing so.
I am a personal friend of Obama's and I don't want to make too much of it, but I think I could work with Obama and bring him the South Dakota input. I think Obamacare is here to stay and I want to help fix it.
At the same time he says
this:
I would have voted against Obamacare if I had been in Congress. In any event, here is my problem with the typical Republican position on this. It is true that we would like to repeal it, but we (emphasis added) can't repeal it. It is in place and the president of the United States is going to be in office for two more years. If both houses of Congress voted to repeal it, he would veto it. So, now we need to repair it.
He's talking about having health care delivered by locally controlled cooperatives, not about including a public option or medicare for all. And he's from SD where local control raises worrisome possibilities. I also wonder about his use of the word
we to describe Republican positions.
And his support for Obama into the future is less clear.
He endorsed Obama in both 2008 and 2012 but has since become disenchanted with the Democrat’s presidency.
Pressler would caucus with Democrats.
I've never seen any evidence to support this. Pressler himself said
he would likely to follow the model of Sen. Angus King (I-ME), who didn’t decide which party to caucus with until he got to Washington. But whichever party he picks, he still might change his mind. “It seems to me that one can change, as Lieberman threatened to do once or twice,” Pressler said. “If you play that right a lot of things we need to get done” can happen.
Pressler is a liberal. (Because he endorsed Obama, would caucus with Democrats, has left the Republican party to run as an Independent ...)
Pressler is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.
Seizing on his new role as a maverick
Judging by his campaign push so far, Pressler will market himself to conservative Republicans as a budget hawk eager to shrink the size of government, a civil libertarian opposed to much of the government’s surveillance efforts, an isolationist on foreign policy, tough on crime, supportive of school vouchers and an opponent of both the 2010 health care law and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
At the same time, he will sell himself to liberal Democrats as a supporter of abortion rights, gay marriage and expanded gun buyer background checks — and as someone who would raise taxes on the rich, cut defense spending and slow the growth of Social Security in the cause of deficit reduction.
And while I welcome the evolution of his positions on such issues as abortion rights and gay marriage, it remains true that his past record was certainly not liberal, left of other Republicans, or representative of Democratic voters:
• Pressler voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. (1988)
• Pressler voted against the Minimum Wage (1988)
• Pressler voted multiple times against parental leave (1988, 1992, 1993)
• Pressler voted against limits on campaign finance spending (1992, 1994)
• Pressler voted against greater disclosure requirements for lobbyists (1994)
• Pressler voted against benefits for same sex couples. (1992)
• Pressler voted against discrimination based on sexual orientation (1996)
• National Education Association: Pressler voted against their positions 100% of the time.
• National Council of Senior Citizens: Pressler voted against their positions 90% of the time.
• NARAL Pro Choice America: Pressler voted against their positions 100% of the time.
• Human Rights Campaign: Pressler voted against their positions 100% of the time.
• National Public Health Association: Pressler voted against their positions 100% of the time.
• United States Students Association: Pressler voted against their positions 100% of the time.
• Children’s Defense Fund: Pressler voted against their positions 89% of the time.
(
summarized by former Democratic Senator Jim Abourezk.)
Now if we had to choose between an incompetent at best and criminal at worst Republican candidate like Rounds and an experienced, socially evolved, and mature version of the "nice young man" (as my grandmother described Pressler back then) who won office as the first Vietnam vet to do so, who is respected for being the only person to turn down the Abscam bribes, and who is correct about the dysfunction in Washington, maybe we should be having this conversation.
But we're not in that situation.
And we have a candidate in Rick Weiland who is a true progressive from the beginning. In fact, because he was not only ignored but publicly dismissed by Reid and the DSCC, until the recently announced financial support, supporting Weiland goes beyond electing a Democrat. It is a means to support the process of taking our government back. It allows a candidate who was written off from the very beginning to travel his state, visiting every town, talking to voters and listening to their concerns, to develop a competitive race with a popular Republican despite his "too liberal" positions. In fact, win or lose, Weiland has accomplished an awakening of the process. Remember, South Dakota's last US Senate race left Republican John Thune uncontested in his 2010 reelection bid.
Rick has done the background work and will be able to benefit from the financial infusion now coming his way. He can win. Let's work to elect him, not to settle for second-best.
Contribute to Rick at ActBlue here
9:58 AM PT: from Jeff Singer's updated post yesterday: Holy crap! DSCC is set to spend $1 million in South Dakota, putting the seat in play for Democrats
(David Nir): Daily Kos is very excited to announce that we're endorsing Rick Weiland, so please contribute $3 to his campaign to help him expand the playing field!
You can also check out his answers to our questionnaire here. You won't be displeased.
10:41 AM PT: Just in - THANK YOU KOS and MB and Navajo: Here's how we're going to help win South Dakot on the front page