District 14 GOP House candidate calls out District 14 Senator who could be an opponent over House Bill 1057

House Bill 1057 which proposes to ban Transgender surgery and other procedures on minors seems to be a flashpoint for some in the legislature, especially after the measure’s defeat in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

This issue seems to have so far been one of the most divisive issues facing the Legislature this year, as evidenced today when District 14 State House Candidate Brad Lindwurm took to facebook, and while not using her name, called out District 14 State Senator Deb Soholt, Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee for joining with the majority in the committee and voting against the measure. In part:

Lindwurm was particularly pointed in his criticism of the Senator, going so far as to poke at both the Senator and her employer.  While Lindwurm called out Soholt as a “so-called Republican legislator,” the issue does not seem to be addressed in the State Republican platform.

Being termed out of the Senate this year, Sen. Soholt might choose to be done with the State Legislature. But, there is a distinct possibility that she might run for the House, meaning Lindwurm might have picked a fight with someone who could be his opponent for one of the two House seats in District 14.

Agree or disagree on the issue, Soholt has proven to be a formidable opponent for all comers in the District, and only in her first election year in 2012 received less than 60% of the vote.

Going on the attack might not have been a prudent action for Lindwurm if he wanted to encourage the Senator to stay out of the race, as he might find he’s bitten off more than he cares to chew.

42 thoughts on “District 14 GOP House candidate calls out District 14 Senator who could be an opponent over House Bill 1057”

  1. Soholt hasn’t worked for Avera for a little while now. It’s important to be accurate, especially with posts like this one.

  2. I don’t know the gentleman, but in that district he’s probably poking a bear he didn’t need to poke

  3. It doesn’t take a high-dollar political strategist to know you don’t go after a very well respected legislator for no reason. Especially completely unprovoked.

    “Bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off.” https://youtu.be/9HVejEB5uVk

  4. The fact that this guy can reconcile his love for god with his love for Trump tells me everything I need to know.

    1. There have always been folks who go around saying Donald Trump, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Mike Pence, or Kristi Noem isn’t Christian enough to merit their support. I admit, no mortal is perfect. But 99.99% of the time, in real life, the people who make these claims turn around and support the most sinful hard-core pro-abortion folks on the planet, such as Hillary and Bill or corrupt Joe Biden or the Lenin-admiring atheist Bernie Sanders. At least Tusli Gabbard had the decency to state that she’s against late-term abortion. Biden thinks it’s just peachy.

      Trump is no saint. He’s a mortal man: Human and flawed. He’s twice divorced. He exaggerates, insults people, and uses foul language. But unless and until the democrats nominate a saint, I don’t care.

      1. Anonymous at 6:04, abortion is a civil rights issue.
        The pro-abortion belief that the soul enters the body with the first breath and leaves with the last is an ancient Egyptian belief which has no place in the formation of public policy. You are free to practice an ancient religion and you can even mummify your dead cats, but don’t try to impose your beliefs on the law.
        Medical science has determined that life begins and ends with electricity; that’s why all fifty states have brain death laws. It has nothing to do with breathing. People have been resuscitated after full respiratory arrest and their souls haven’t gone anywhere. Medical science has shown that unborn children are living human beings whose lives should be protected by law. Unfortunately our laws are still being made by people who worship cats.

        1. >You are free to practice an ancient religion…but don’t try to impose your beliefs on the law.

          It’s funny because that’s exactly what Christianity is, and exactly what Mr. Lindwurm is doing. Legislators should be doing what their constituents want and not their interpretation of what their guy in the sky wants.

          1. He can use his religion to argue anything he wants but I don’t think that’s a good approach. I agree that this transgender issue shouldn’t be decided by religious beliefs.
            Science has determined that if you have a Y chromosome you’re a male, and if you don’t, you’re a female. It doesn’t matter what your external appearance is or what’s on your birth certificate. It’s a binary choice, not a social construct. And religion has nothing to do with it.

    1. Steve, it’s not about the bill but a discussion about the propriety of Brad calling her out so strongly, when she might run against him.. considering she’s beat her opponents in recent years by 20% or more.

  5. Deb Soholt has always been a Democrat in Republican clothing. Brad would probably have been better off toning down his criticism, but the voters in District 14, which is my district, need to know the truth about Soholt’s worldview.

  6. This was a personal comment on my personal Facebook page, not a political comment for all to read. I guess I’ve learned my first valuable lesson in politics (thank you, Pat) as we became Facebook “friends” after the GOP Candidate School. I do do not disagree with everything that Deb has done (nor was this a jab at Avera, either, as I have never had a negative experience from anyone there and it’s come to my attention she hasn’t worked there for awhile.) The only reason I mentioned Avera is because I would hope that someone who had worked for a healthcare provider (no matter who the provider is) would especially understand the trouble with performing these procedures on minors. Next time I will speak with Deb about it directly, however, which I think would be the better course of action anyway. But when I lead with a Biblical argument, it is because faith is what is most important to me. Or, as Pence says, I’m a “Christian first, etc.”; I am like a “nicer version of Trump” who isn’t afraid to call things how I see them, though. If some people get upset by that, I understand (yet I value EVERYONE’s input) and therefore I have respectfully removed the post from my page. I am not looking to “pick a fight” as I believe the fight’s already been picked in this case but in the future I would appreciate being contacted directly before pulling something off my personal page and turning it into a “story” (and omitting the most important part of my post which explained my reasoning.) I have not even submitted my petition to be on the ballot yet at this point so please check your sources before . If you want to speak about propriety then how about checking with me before running the story. It’s also come to my attention that Deb is a client of yours, Pat, so I am wondering if a conflict of interest prompted this article. Please advise…

    1. I can’t believe any Journalist/Blogger type person would take something off someones FB page, pull in the juicy parts, and slant a story to fit an agenda, I am shocked, NOT. Pretty low rent if this is what happened but, I cannot say I am surprised in this day and age. Drama, sensationalize, and being first is more important than accuracy, facts, telling all sides, and being impartial.

      1. Anonymous person, please let me know what was “pulled in” as “juicy,” not factual, or slanted, please.

        Because as far as I know, Brad made the statement, and I just noted that it didn’t seem prudent to do against a fellow Republican who might be a fairly strong primary opponent.

        1. Pat – I was simply taking Brad’s post for face value when he stated

          “I would appreciate being contacted directly before pulling something off my personal page and turning it into a “story” (and omitting the most important part of my post which explained my reasoning.) I have not even submitted my petition to be on the ballot yet at this point so please check your sources before”

          Point 1 – It “appears” you omitted part of the story
          Point 2 – He stated he has not even submitted his petition to be on the ballot
          Point 3 – Checking sources before you post was another beef he had
          Point 4 – I personally find it disturbing you are posting people’s personal FB posts before they have even decided to run.

          After reading Brads response to this post I provided an opinion that maybe you wanted to post something juicy and sensational. If he is incorrect and there was nothing more that should have been reported, then state that. If his facts are wrong on not submitting his petition, etc, then state that. Point is, get your facts straight, ensure he is running, post the WHOLE side of the argument you are framing then its fair game. If he is not yet put his “name in the hat officially” then your commenting off a private citizens FB post who you got from someone wanting to spread gossip in the hopes maybe you would post something, who knows (Disclosure- yes I am speculating on this point)

          This is why everyone hates politics, politicians, and those who do their bidding because most of this stuff adds no value and its clickbait. So unless what he stated was FACTUALLY incorrect, it appears you are in the wrong. If he is wrong, state facts to refute, or maybe you should stop posting junk like this to stir up dissension

          1. If one politician is attacking another in social media, that is newsworthy in and of itself. There is no assumed obligation to contact him, and ask “if he really really meant it.”

            Considering how long his original post was, as editor, I reserve the right to present the applicable portion, which was his attack on the current Senator. If he wanted the full post out there, perhaps he should not have taken it down.

            If Brad is going to make those types of statements on as public a forum as Facebook, he should not be shocked when people send it off elsewhere.

            You (and Brad) may also want to climb off your high horses, about not turning in petitions yet….considering the fact he already announced his candidacy months ago.




            1. Pat – I am not on a high horse as I don’t know anything about him or you for that matter. I am simply reading your story and Brads comments. I only stated that if his facts are WRONG, refute them, simple correct?!?!
              Far too often people are posting the juicy tidbits they like and Brad stated you only took part of the story and this happens WAY too often anymore and many readers are questioning motive and intent, especially on political newsfeeds, blogs, articles, etc. Sometimes context matters would you not agree?

              – Am I shocked someone screenshot a critique of someone and sent it to you, hell no. No on is refuting that in any way shape or form
              – Is FB a private place, NO and I am not refuting that
              – I am concerned when I see someone who the article was about refuting facts in the story. Do you normally run stories or write about people without asking them if they have any input or would like to clarify points you are going to make. Maybe I am confusing you with a journalist but, you appear to be acting as one when you use the word “editor” in your retort.
              -If you are just a guy who is on here giving opinion pieces all day long and this is only a blog, then so be. It appears you have skin in the game on some of these articles and if your going to talk about people maybe the decent thing to do would be to answer their questions or allow input on the stuff your writing about them.

    2. The sincerity of your apology and lessen learned. Speaks well of you.

      Defending or advocating an issue on its merits is better than a personal attack, especially when you don’t disagree on everything.

      In politics, if you permanently break relationship with someone over an issue, it will take you about two weeks to be a caucus of one.

      1. I hope he learns to advocate on issues with scientific facts instead of religious dogma, too.
        There are scientifically established criteria for determining whether somebody is dead or alive, male or female.
        Leave the mummified cats at home, Brad.

        1. Mummified cats? Say “what?” To Anne (and the individual you replied to earlier), I was not “advocating” on an “issue” but simply stating a biological fact. That I quoted from the Bible initially does not mean it is “religious dogma” or automatically refute my point. In fact, right after that I clearly stated that you don’t have to believe in the Bible to understand biology. And I do not even personally believe in “religion” per se (because, by definition, that means someone trying to “reach God” on their own merit, which I don’t believe is possible.) That aside, if you read my previous post, I was simply making a personal comment on my own personal Facebook page to be read by my “friends,” not making a “political” argument. Pat’s decision to snake that off my page (and omit the second half of my post) speaks more about him than me. But to automatically assume that the Bible is not a valid place to find truth, just because some people do not believe in it, would also be erroneous. My desire is to uphold TRUTH, whether in the private or public sector (based on facts), not get into “religious” debates.

          1. 1). If you are running for office, your Facebook posts will be as public (more so in reality because they are in easily distributable form) than being overheard in a public place. Facebook is social media where any presumption of privacy is ludicrous.

            2). Stating fact in discussion is advocating.

            3). I have no idea what your “by definition” religion sentence even means because you seem to be conflating religion and particular theological concepts surrounding salvation/justification/sanctification.

            4). It is nonsense to think you can use your beliefs about God and your source of Revelation as the source of Truth and think you haven’t just started a religious debate.

            You should have just stuck with your apology which I originally thought was sincere but am now having second thoughts.

    3. Actually Brad, it was sent to me, despite your blocking.

      Otherwise, I do business with a lot of people. However, that does not influence editorial content. Saying that is as disingenuous as me saying as a legislator, you would strictly take your marching orders from SDRTL.

  7. So, let me get this right….

    You posted a Facebook tirade knowing others would read it — that’s the point of Facebook. So that others will see it.

    Now, you’re upset because Pat re-posted your intemperate comment to a wider audience which, by the way, wouldn’t be a problem if you’re always willing to stand behind what you say.

    Are you 100% sure you want to be a public official? Or might you prefer to remain a private citizen, free to vent without consequences? Beware the price of fame, sir.

  8. “That I quoted from the bible does not mean it is religious dogma.”

    Uh… that’s exactly what it means, Brad.

  9. It’s amazing how anti-christian this country has become in such a short period of time. The comments on here are very alarming and there seems to be little tolerance for Christians any longer, even on Conservatives Website. Seeing comments relating it to mummified cats or Dogma folks are showing their clear disdain for Christians.

    1. How is saying that a guy quoting the bible is religiously dogmatic anti-christian?

      Go on, we’ll wait.

      1. I was speaking about the comments folks have made on this post that Christianity is Dogma or Anne Beal above stating Brad should leave mummified cats at home or some strange post. This is just one website and one post but, I am surprised at how often people zing Christians anymore in this country. I think it’s a good indicator of where we are as a country when even Conservative Blogs and websites have so many folks who are anti-christian. That is all I am saying and it’s a little shocking

  10. Anonymous 4:59,

    As a fellow Christian (as is Anne), you need to buck up.

    1). In addition to being in relationship with Christ, Christianity is dogma (a set of beliefs and principles regarding, faith, morals etc.

    2). In addition to the Bible, God reveals Himself in his Creation and the Natural Law written on our hearts when He created us. While Scripture tells us a little bit about the genders, Reason and Science tells us more. Thus, using His more detailed and easily discernible revelation is the best argument, even more so when in the political realm one is trying to convince more than Christians.

    3). Anne’s advice maybe was a bit blunt but it was good advice if Brad is serious about running for office.

    1. Troy
      I understand what you are trying to say, the point I am trying to make is there is increased intolerance of Christians more and more in this country and I am amazed how often they are attacked or belittled on even Conservative blogs or media.

      This is MY belief but, I look around and very few Christians anymore seem to stand for REAL Biblical truth but, often cling to secular beliefs hoping not to offend anyone. I often listen to JD Greear and he has a way of reaching folks and bringing out Truth. One thing he speaks of often is the Bible has been offending people since the beginning of time and at times were very unpopular. This gender issue in this country is such an interesting topic. Biology and Science state there are only 2 sexes and the Bible backs this claim up numerous times yet I see Christians attacking Christians for stating this truth when the lean with the Bible first vs science. I also know we need to love everyone and treat others with respect but, I guess not speaking the truth is not what God has asked of us. The path is narrow and I know its hard and I personally struggle with it daily as I am sure many do.

      1. Do you believe the United States government should implement your biblical beliefs on the rest of the nation, even those who may not worship the christian god?

      2. First, if you intend to assert increased intolerance of Christians, you’d be more effective using real examples vs. jumping all over Anne who gave Brad good advice.

        Second, to the extent there is more intolerance of Christians, it is exactly what Christ said would be the price of discipleship. We are promised the Grace to handle it so handle it with an attitude of courage and not victimhood.

        Third, yes we are to speak the truth but we are to say the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason because Christ wants us to be effective vs. loud.

        1. Fourth, if you’ve announced as a candidate for office months ago, and start throwing rocks at someone you might be running against, don’t pretend to be shocked when it gets noticed.

Comments are closed.