Is Marking eating sour grapes?

B Thomas Marking calls Noem the 3rd best choice of the candidates.

?I think that was probably the third-best choice,? Marking said this week of the winner, Kristi Noem.


Marking said he will not run for national office again unless the rules change and there is public financing of campaigns. Having $10,000 to compete with millions just isn?t worthwhile, he said.

?Not until the rules change and there?s a chance for a fair fight,? Marking said. ?There?s no point. It means a lot of good people who could be representing us in D.C. don?t bother running.?

Read It Here

22 Replies to “Is Marking eating sour grapes?”

  1. Bill Fleming

    We have two systems, at often odds with one another.

    One is the marketplace where money flows, deals are made, and people— by birthright, good fortune, blind luck, and yes, sometimes even diligence and hard work — rise to great heights and enjoy far more opportunity than others.

    The other is the body politic, where we are all presumed to be equal.

    While Marking may not have garnered the most votes in either context, he does present an interesting question.

    What if each candidate had equal access to the same campaign resources. And what if we were just allowed to contribute to the process instead of the candidate?

    Are we really selecting our best and brightest leaders? Or just choosing from among an already pre-chosen few with the best market connections?

  2. Mike the Archer

    I agree with Bill (I think) in that I am not a big fan of the 2 party system. It is basically set up so that you have to be endorsed by a party to win. That certainly isn't how the system should work. But then again, we shouldn't have career politicians nor politicians that care more about reelection than serving their populous.

    My appologies to Cory, too. I didn't see he had covered this topic earlier today.

  3. caheidelberger

    And there are no sour grapes here: Marking is noting the inherent inequality of opportunity in the system. Only people with lots of money get to play, and lots of money is not a proxy for good leadership (as the RSS feed title right next to me as I type, another squeal from Bob Ellis about George Soros, would seem to agree).

  4. Duh

    Marking had no shot and had to have known that. If he didn't, then he shouldn't be in politics because of his dillusional state. I don't fault him for trying. This is America and he should be able to run for anything.

    What I do fault him for is his lack of realism and his knee "jerk" reaction to the inevitable. That is right up there, for instance, if I was pissed off that I didn't win Powerball last week even though I have a better odds of getting hit by lightening in the nuts. Who was he closer to in ideology SHS or Kristi? There's no contest, he's just on the perceived fringe of Kristi and he calls her in third. Despite his age, he's still an immature politician that will hopefully not be heard from again.

    Elections are a function, for the most part of the more qualified candidate having the ability to raise more money. More "people" want that candidate, so they give them money in order to get their message out. Be a quality candidate, say something cognitive, not alien and the money should come. Be a loon and sit there with a constipated look during debates and get bumpkiss. The guy really had no discernable ideas, mere quips and his main point was that he wasn't involved in the debates. There's a reason for that Marking.

    I say "people" in that those are the ones that should give the vast majority of the money. Not like SHS's abortion PAC who gave her probably 1/3rd ($900,000) of her total money raised. If she didn't have that in the bank, her fundraising figures would have been an embarrassment.


    Chris Nelson was a better candidate than all 3. He served his state well and did a GREAT job. I don't think anyone disputed that. But, because he wasn't "handsome" enough he did not get the nomination. We all talk about wanting to change the way things are being done. But, then we nominate someone based upon their looks and their gender. While its true that only another female candidate could stick it to SHS without looking mean towards women, we (the GOP) could have nominated the BEST person for the job and not just the prettiest. Does anyone think that Kristi even gets the nomination if she were 150lbs heavier with a bad complexion? I am so freekin happy she beat SHS. But, SD could have done better.

  6. grudznick

    Mr. Nelson is very handsome. He's just not dynamic, Mr. GOPDAD. Mr. Nelson is very competent but he should have kept the 'stache. Shaving that just made him even more manilla.


    Exactly my point, who gives a crap how someone looks? We should be much more concerned with how they will represent us and what their qualifications are. All I am saying is, we are South Dakotan's, we should be smarter than this. How will we EVER change DC without sending our BEST there!

  8. Duh

    GOPDAD. I don't think SD is preoccupied with looks too much. Look at Pressler, Abnor, Janklow for instance!!

    On the flip side, your condemning Kristi because she isn't troll-like. Nelson wouldn't have even been a factor. There's no WOW about Nelson, and I'm talking in the oratory sense. Nice, guy, but we need leaders, those that take command of a room when they enter, good or bad like Janklow, Thune, Mickelson. That's who I want leading me, someone that I admire, want to be like, NOT have a beer with or feel that I'm superior to or could match. Nelson would have been one of another zillion white, balding men with the same views.

    There is so much more to Kristi other than looks. If there wasn't I doubt that she would have had the impact in D.C. that she has had almost immediately. Kristi will represent SD better. You did point out that Kristi is a woman and was the only one who could attack SHS without being mean. EXACTLY!!! Your goal should be the success of the GOP, not an individual mandate. Neither Curd or Nelson would have had a chance against SHS merely because of the testosterone issue. SHS is history and it was primarily because of Kristi. Give her a shot.

  9. Troy Jones

    Two comments:

    Whether Marking thought KN or SHS was the best candidate, I couldn't care less. His opinion on the matter is worth less than than Bill's or mine. Each of us put more time on the SDWC than this guy appears to have put into his campaign.

    According to the FEC, he raised $2,156 and spent $2,859. He only reports one named donation for $200 so we don't even know where he got 90% of his donations. Granted, who gives a rip about $1,800 but you get my point.

    What really offends me is his statement on public financing of campaigns. He got to indulge in his personal ego trip and sit at the debates, spout off on his idea to be a Congressman run by computer and whatever else drivel he thought of (some interesting and some moronic) and thinks somehow we should finance his self-indulgence.

    Seriously, he didn't have 50 friends who would help him raise money to run even the slimmest of a campaigns? If I wanted to run for dog catcher, I'd raise more money than him and so would everyone here on the SDWC. At least those of us with more than 5 friends.

    On this site and Madville, I defended his candidacy because I believe in the process, elections, and the right for anyone to run for office. But, when I drill down and see his obvious lack of effort to do anything besides show up at the debates and put up a website, clamor for taxpayers to fund his campaign, I couldn't care less about his thoughts on anything. I consider the nuttiest poster on here as having more credibility.

  10. Troy Jones


    I liked him being in the process until his cry about his financial disadvantage made me look up how much money he raised. And, you have a ways to go to be the nuttiest poster here.

    In the end, he just took up space. Even if his only purpose was to give protest voters a place to vote, he ought to respect us enough to give minimal effort.

  11. Bill Fleming

    Troy, let's look at the numbers again, okay? Marking got around 20,000 votes.

    We have more or less established elsewhere that the baseline straight ticket Dem (or anti- Republican, take your pick) vote was probably about 80- 90,000 votes. (Thune's undervote and Karpen's votes against Dusty.)

    Now, subtract that that 90,000 from the number of votes Heidepriem got and you get 32,000 votes for which Heide paid what, a million bucks or so?

    In other words Marking, spending nothing earned 20,000 votes and Heide spending a million or so, earned 32,000.

    If for no other reason, I would think you would congratulating Marking on his fiscal efficiency. ;^)

  12. ip

    Wait a minute. ip is the nuttiest poster here. Marking represented none-of-the-above like a champ! He should consider running of leadership of SDDP.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.