The “Continueing” Story of Dr. Annette Bosworth. And the never ending campaign of disinformation.

My head hurts from all “the stupid” out there on this case.

And it’s all coming as part of a campaign of disinformation on the part of Bosworth associates who if not are stretching the truth are offering utter fabrications in defense of Annette Bosworth, or in attacking the prosecution. And there’s been a flurry of activity as the trial has gotten underway.

Today’s dose of stupid is coming from Peter Waldron who has set up the “No Compromise group” in a Sioux Falls Post Office Box. We’re not sure if it’s a political group (which would require filing with the Secretary of State as a political organization) or a private business (which would require a fictitious name filing). Regardless, here’s the latest stretching of the truth from he and his allies:

I’m hearing ominous music, lots of innuendo, and the inability to spell “continuing.” The is noted as coming from the “No Compromise Group.” But, I’m also noticing that it’s posted on YouTube by a Jake Baker from Texas, who is also posting the releases from Peter Waldron on his web site.

The “Texas attack” on the Bosworth prosecution also coincides with someone we all know (and are repulsed by) returning to that state – former S&M Pornographer Lee “Pornahan” Stranahan returning home.

Stranahan may have claimed to some that he’s cut ties with Bosworth, but his disinformation machine cranked up again as soon as the trial started with a post on his Dakota Reporter web site, and on his other web site, where he talks about the “Bryan Gortmaker Testomony,” as well as other posts.

All of this begs the question – why? What do these outsiders have to gain by their extensive and unusual interest in perpetrating a campaign of over the top fabrications in the matter? Peter Waldron’s complaint to the FEC and Department of Justice was easily demonstrated to be extreme puffery at best, and a fabrication at worst.

Any guesses? My thought is that afterwards there will be some significant fundraising attempts from the donor list Bosworth has left over from the campaign. And that there’s a group of people lining up at the trough.

14 thoughts on “The “Continueing” Story of Dr. Annette Bosworth. And the never ending campaign of disinformation.”

  1. The blame for all of this lies at the feet of the Boz/Habers. Isn’t that what she tells us leaders do, own it?

    Beyond that, this is Patrick Davis’ doing. He testified this morning she was a naïve, unconnected candidate back in 2013 and that the campaign he managed was chaos, the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. I’ll translate all that… she was clearly not good for South Dakota. Yet he introduced her to those who could raise millions and he stayed with her to the end perpetuating it all, escalating it all. It cannot be said that if Davis Consulting is on board with a campaign that has anything to do with the quality of the candidate. This campaign was only about money and they all pulled in loads of it.

    Losers: Thousands of good people around America who were fed Davis/Boz misinformation so persuade them to send her money.

    Winners: Base Connect for pocketing seven out of ten dollars raised.

    I’m trying to decide if my favorite trial moment so far was them running out of gas in the middle of nowhere on the day of the signature filing deadline,,, or grandma Boz paying for a Super 8 room of Fred-the-Chicago-taxi-driver to fill a seat at the trial and tell the media “She’s a ‘super tremendo’, fantastic leader. She’s everything a person could want in a U.S. Senator.”

    Remember she still owes a Sioux Falls ghostwriter $50,000. Maybe if he doesn’t get paid soon he’ll be irked enough to write some of this craziness into her book.

  2. Steve,

    Come on. You’re better than that. Blaming Pat Davis is ridiculous.

    Annette had decided she was going to run, and hired Pat as her consultant.

    Are you upset because he did what he was hired to do, and is reasonably good at it? It’s like someone trying to shut down gun or ammo manufacturers because they don’t like that people have killed others with guns.

    Are we supposed to blame Starbucks because she bought coffee & filmed devotionals there?

    Let blame rest with bad actors, not businessmen and women who do what they’re hired to do because they’re just trying to make a living.

    1. The Starbucks and guns comparison don’t fit, at all. We need to think about what is best for America, not how to make a living in politics. If a campaign consultant helps someone who they know is clearly a disaster in the making for our country, they need to jump ship. Instead, Davis Consulting just smiled and looked the other way, and more, he swept so much under the rug. Where are the campaign consultants that care about the bigger picture not about putting another unscrupulous warm body in a seat.

      1. Steve – I disagree. Frankly, I find your criticism of him quite unfair.

        Are you saying Patrick Davis doesn’t have a right to feed his family using the skills he’s learned over a lifetime of experience in politics? Should he have been a soothsayer, and know that she was going to run off the rails before he agreed to help her?

        Or are you saying he should have broken the contract he signed with Annette Bosworth to perform a service, setting himself up for a lawsuit?

        When I was working in the Auction business with my mom, I’ve been involved in sales when more than once, my mom signed a contract to do an auction, thinking it was going to do well, only to end up not getting paid because the sale didn’t bring what she’d estimated.

        It might have been the weather. It might have been another factor. but it’s not like she could have just dropped the microphone and left because prices were awful. She’d signed a contract, and ended up working a week or more’s worth of work for free. Everyone else still needed to get paid. But a contract is a contract, and it happens.

        Thinking that Pat Davis had some extra-normal responsibility to society as a whole and assigning blame to him because Boz ended up going off the rails is a real leap of logic. I’m sure he was quite happy to be rid of her, but sometimes you’ve got to play the hand you’re dealt in life, and in business.

        1. Okay, maybe it’s unfair, I know we all like Patrick and we protect our own. What would you be saying about the Candidate and Campaign manager if this was a Democrat train wreck?

          A person can clearly and legally cut ties with someone they no longer want to work for whatever reason. My hope was that someone would stand up and say… hey there are serious problems here and I must disassociate myself from it. Hard to do when $2.1 is being raised. The loser is the good hearted Republican base.

          1. $2.1 million dollars……..chump change compared to what Mike Rounds raised.

            1. “Chump Change?”


              The question is NOT centered around the amount of funds raised for a US Senate race, it’s who they seek to exploit as donors.”

              “chumps” as donors.

              Dr Bosworth was, at best, a “long-shot” candidate.

              Her actions during her campaign raised questions, not only to her viability, but to her credibility AS A CANDIDATE.

              Todd Epp summed up the essential point of this trial earlier: “This should be pretty simple. Were you in the Philippines? Yes. Guilty. Done.”

  3. As entertaining as this has all been, it’s time for SouthDakota to do what other states do: allow candidates to submit filing fees in lieu of petitions.

    1. I agree. Petitions are effectively paid anyway as most pay staffers to collect the signatures. Pay a fee to the party to run on their ticket.

        1. I’ll be the contrarian here, I think if someone wants to run for office they should show enough ambition/initiative to obtain the signatures.

  4. For some politics and political activity is a hobby or labor of love. These people are approaching the politics altruistically to advance their vision of a better society and are often the base of volunteers.

    For some politics and political activity is combat for the hearts and minds of the public. These people are most often those who run for office, are often are blog reader/commenters, or become drawn into politics as a vocation.

    Pat Davis is the latter. But, when he chose to make it his profession, it added a dimension not demanded of anyone else- be professional. A lawyer who takes a case thinking the person is innocent can’t just say “I quit” because they later found out the person is guilty. Professional standards of ethics expects the lawyer to give the person the best defense they can. To some degree (and often a standard formed by the political consultant internally), a political consultant has to decide whether the moral thing (for them) to do is to quit or continue to give best efforts and let the system/voter sort it out.

    Personally, I am sure if I were in Pat Davis’ shoes, I’d have quit. However, I don’t question his decision to finish the job he agreed to do. Its a decision were right and wrong is hard to discern.

    I just left watching my nephew in the state tennis tourney. He quickly got significantly down in his singles match against a much higher seeded player. He was faced with two choices:

    1) Play as hard as he could to try to come back as unlikely as that might be.
    2) Accept the likely outcome and preserve his strength and energy for his doubles match that was soon to be upcoming and where he and his partner actually have a better chance at advancing and winning more points for the school team.

    Choose #1 and he might not face the ridicule of getting smashed, have that as his memory in his last singles match of his career and maybe gain some confidence and momentum for his doubles match.

    Choose #2 and accept a drubbing but maybe be better prepared for doubles.

    In the end, that is a decision only my nephew could make. So it was with Pat Davis. In either case, it is improper for me to question his decision.

    1. “In either case, it is improper for me to question his decision.”

      It’s entirely proper for anyone to question Pat Davis’s decision, Troy, and because you rely on an arbitrary and self-serving double standard as your justification, it’s improper for you to question Steve’s.

  5. First, I said it was improper for ME. Steve is free to do as he thinks proper.

    Second, I remember an ethics discussion where the question was who wouldn’t have killed Hitler if they had a choice. Almost everyone said yes.

    Then we were asked, if we were a doctor and Hitler had a heart attack, would we refuse to treat him. Suddenly, the discussion got more gray and divided.

Comments are closed.