Author: @SoDakCampaigns

I’ve had a couple people forward me what’s hitting mailboxes across the state this week. And among our first entries in the general election are a couple of non-Republican candidates.

What else do they have in common? Both of their cards leave a lot to be desired.

First off is a card from District 13 Candidate Norman Bliss. Can you tell what’s wrong with it?

As I’m known to remark to my designer and others “Words words words words…”  Good gosh. As it travels between the mailbox and the trash, no one is going to read all of that.  The mail panel side isn’t bad, but we go from 7 bullets on that side to huge blocks of text on the other.  I know I’m accused at times of being verbose, but this was too much.  When it comes to mail pieces like this, less is sometimes more.

On the front we pair a fair head and shoulders shot with a long distance picture of the dude holding a notebook.. because people want to know he can read from a notebook.  But let’s make it weirder, and just shove it off to the side.   I mean, it has elements that could be ok if they arranged them a little better, but they’re trying to jam too much in, and then shoving the logo, one of the important parts (because it’s the basis for the candidate’s branding) off to the corner.

Speaking of branding.. We have 2 logos going, and one of them (in the address block) is inserted as a logo within a logo in the top corner. I can only ask.. Why?

This card went to a Republican from the Democrat candidate, so he spent some money to hit far and wide with this badly done piece.

From District 13 in Sioux Falls, we zip out west to District 35 Independent Brian Gentry as he blasts this mail piece from Ohio to Rapid City:

First off, coming from the same minds that brought us Kevin Quick’s awful material in the primary, once you see it – you can never unsee it.  With that weirdly non-centered lettering up top, and the slash in front of South Dakota, what does that logo resemble?

 

It’s a frowny face logo. His entire campaign branding is based on an emoticon.

But that’s only the start.  Most aren’t going to catch that spelling error in stepfather (unlike others we’ve seen), and I probably would have missed it if this next error didn’t just jump out and grab me….

He knows “the importance of keeping our family’s safe..”  Um.. Because that’s where we put important papers?  That misuse of “family’s” versus “families” kind of changes the meaning a bit.

Then we go to the frowny logo on the front, paired with a darkly lit head and shoulders shot, and a word soup of pretending to be more Republican than anyone.. except omitting the part about not being the Republican in the race.

It’s basically yet another cookie cutter piece like we saw used in the primary, and hardly worth the money that Gentry paid for it.

And the campaign keep rolling on!

(Get a card in the mail? Send me a copy and keep those cards rolling in!)

 

Rounds, Colleagues Urge Protection for Law Enforcement Officials

WASHINGTON– U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) joined Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) in a letter to Attorney General William Barr concerning the recent rise in individuals willing to justify targeting law enforcement officers for harassment, assault and deadly attacks.

“Over the past three months, our nation has been in the midst of a vital debate about the relationship between law enforcement and our communities,” wrote the Senators. “All of us agree that this is a crucial debate, which is why each of us supported Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act to provide for more accountability and transparency in law enforcement. But while we seek to support law enforcement, this debate has also exposed the radical voices of those who would “defund” our police departments.”

“The brave men and women in our law enforcement community are essential to public safety and stability. We know that you and the Justice Department are doing everything you can to protect the lives of law enforcement, and to prosecute violent offenders who assault and kill law enforcement officers,” the Senators continued. “However, given the attacks we are seeing against law enforcement officers, we believe it is time to consider whether your Department needs additional authorities, resources, and tools to combat this activity.”

Read the full letter here and below.

Dear Attorney General Barr,

Over the past three months, our nation has been in the midst of a vital debate about the relationship between law enforcement and our communities. All of us agree that this is a crucial debate, which is why each of us supported Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act to provide for more accountability and transparency in law enforcement. But while we seek to support law enforcement, this debate has also exposed the radical voices of those who would “defund” our police departments. Scenes from across the country have shown Americans the dangers of defunding the police.

While peaceful protesters have rightly called for justice and reform, demonstrations have been exploited by extremists interested only in their radical views. We need look no further than the protests in Portland, where peaceful demonstrations by day turn into skirmishes at night. Each evening, law enforcement officers are placed in physical danger while trying to safeguard lives and property from violent assaults by these agitators. The American people understand that what is happening in Portland is a precursor to what life would be like if we defunded the police.

The rhetoric employed by those who support defunding the police has deepened the divides in our community. It has also encouraged hostility to the men and women who protect public safety. As a result, we are increasingly seeing individuals willing to justify targeting law enforcement officers for harassment, assault, and deadly attacks.

This is a dangerous and unacceptable state of affairs. So far this year, there have been 36 law enforcement officers killed in the U.S. This is an increase of 20% during the same time last year. Of those, 8 were ambushed in premeditated attacks, 2 were victims of an unprovoked attack, and the other 26 officers were killed in the line of duty. During the past three months alone:

• In St. Louis, former Moline Acres Police Chief David Dorn was shot and killed when he attempted to stop looters;
• In Las Vegas, an officer was shot and critically wounded when protests turned violent;
• In Oakland, a federal officer was shot and killed while protecting a federal building;
• In Buffalo, a demonstration at the Police Department became dangerous when two officers were hit by a vehicle, and another run over;
• In New York City, there have been multiple attacks including an officer who was struck by a vehicle, an officer who was stabbed in the neck, and two officers who suffered gunshot wounds; and
• In Salt Lake City, a police officer was hit in the head with a baseball bat following a demonstration.

This list is merely a sampling of the violence which is being committed against our law enforcement community each and every day. There are countless other examples of major and minor injuries which have resulted from attacks by the anarchists who seek to use peaceful protests as a means to their violent ends.

The brave men and women in our law enforcement community are essential to public safety and stability. We know that you and the Justice Department are doing everything you can to protect the lives of law enforcement, and to prosecute violent offenders who assault and kill law enforcement officers. However, given the attacks we are seeing against law enforcement officers, we believe it is time to consider whether your Department needs additional authorities, resources, and tools to combat this activity. Accordingly, we ask that you answer the following questions by no later than October 9, 2020:

1. Does the Department believe that enhanced criminal penalties for purposefully targeting law enforcement officers would be helpful in stemming this violent conduct?
2. If the Department believes that enhanced criminal penalties would deter targeted violence towards police, how would the Department recommend that Congress enact such penalties? In other words, should Congress enact a new statutory crime for direct targeting of police, or would other changes to existing law or sentencing policies accomplish the same goal?
3. What resources does the Department currently dedicate to combatting targeted crimes toward law enforcement? Does the Department need any additional resources or tools to combat these enhanced attacks?
4. Outside of new statutory authorities or financial resources, is there anything else the Department needs from Congress in order to more fully deter crime against law enforcement officers?

We thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you to continue to protect our nation’s brave law enforcement officers. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

###

You have to wonder if this is the decorum that Jeff Barth plans to bring to Pierre, as captured by the Argus Leader:

Read about it here.

So when Mayor TenHaken won’t give Jeff his way when the county hasn’t asked about placing ballot boxes, some in Sioux Falls this morning are saying Sioux Falls County Commissioner Barth is calling him a p*ssy from the dias.

Apparently his campaign message for his District 25 House race must be “we need more name calling in politics.”

Update: 

Under the comment section, Barth (or someone claiming to be him) notes he was not calling the mayor names, but he used the term “bull***t.”

I would say that the narrative around Sioux Falls this early afternoon was the former story, with people saying “did you hear what Barth said,” and not referring to Barth’s explanation.  Lacking the ability to read lips, I can’t say either way.

But really, should they have had to bleep anything at all?

This message was left under my facebook group on the post for the SDSU Collegian story on being quarantined on the SDSU campus under threat of disciplinary action, which I have the feeling is going to be the official company line as media outlets pick up on the tale of confinement:

If you read the story in the Collegian, it certainly doesn’t sound as if it’s an issue that took place in Mid-August, but I’m sure we’ll hear more in the coming weeks.

I’ve spoken with a couple of legislators about the story this afternoon, and it sounds as if they’re going to be asking about it.

If you haven’t read the South Dakota State University newspaper article about the COVID Quarantine camp on the South Dakota State University’s campus, you need to do it now, because this does not sound like a good situation:

“They brought a case of water in for the weekend, but when there’s nine or 10 people, a case of water is not enough. Especially people who might be sick,” Johnson said. “We didn’t know if we had it yet either, so I was really trying to stay ahead on my water in case I did have it.” 

After direct complaints to administrators, styrofoam boxes were replaced with microwavable paper boxes and food portions increased from one box a day to two. 

and…

In addition to a lack of shower curtains, students reported not receiving any bedding, masks or thermometers. Another student could not fit between the concrete walls on either end of their mattress due to their height and was required to put their mattress on the floor to sleep. 

“We ran out of toilet paper on Saturday and we didn’t get any more till Monday,” Johnson said.

According to those in QIH, the administration was holding the students to a higher standard than the space they were housing them in. They received an email from the university stating that, if they did not abide by the strict mask policy, they would be subject to behavioral probation.

“It’s just not effective. It can’t be effective if you’re sharing a space like the bathroom with people,” she said. “You can’t threaten me with behavioral probation because I’m exercising without a mask, then make me share a bathroom with other girls. That doesn’t make sense.”

Read the entire story here.

What is going on up at SDSU? It’s bad enough that SDSU’s president Barry Dunn is demanding that the city institute guidelines to his liking, but now we’re finding out about his running a COVID quarantine camp up at the campus?  And particularly one where they’re forcing students to live in, but not taking care of them.

Again, wow.

This is one of those situations that Regents and State Government need to interject themselves into. Now.

Governor Noem Outlines Framework for $400 Million in CARES Act Funding for South Dakota Small Businesses

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem laid out a framework for up to $400 million in Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) to assist South Dakota’s small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“South Dakota is in a good spot as we rebound from COVID-19, but some of our small businesses were still hurt by this pandemic,” said Governor Noem. “These folks are the lifeblood of our communities and economy. When I asked folks to adjust their way of life to help us flatten the curve, South Dakotans exercised their personal responsibility and responded.That adjustment significantly impacted the day-to-day operations, customer traffic, and supply chains of a number of small business owners across our state. It’s my hope that this proposal will help folks stay open and overcome the unprecedented times we’ve faced these last several months. I’m looking forward to discussing it with the legislature.”

Under Governor Noem’s proposal, businesses would qualify for this grant if they are located in South Dakota, have at least $50,000 in gross revenue in 2019, and have had a reduction in business of at least 25% between March and May as a result of COVID-19. The calculation for “reduction in business” can be found here.

The proposed application period for the program would open on October 12 and close on October 23. Grants would be rewarded once all applications are received. Following the initial reward period, a second allocation of funds would be considered if additional funds are still available. Under current federal law, all funds must be distributed by December 30, 2020.  Grants would be awarded up to $100,000 per qualifying business.

To learn more about this framework and the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in South Dakota, please visit COVID.sd.gov.

###

Bear with me as I make some site changes to see if I can finally resolve some of my speed issues on the site.

I seem to be under continual attack (story of my life), so I’m going to see if I can pep things up by filtering out some of the traffic that is bombarding my server with port flooding and root attacks.

—–

Update:   It might be a while before it propagates out to all of you, but that seems much better!

The Brookings City Council met last night, and pushed through a slightly watered down ordinance to tell people what to do and how to behave, or else they would face sanctions. Mainly because they wanted to, and despite a fairly significant show of people telling them no.

This comes a couple of weeks after Barry Dunn, president of SDSU went to the Council and demanded City action because he found he couldn’t control his own students. So of course, the city needed to restrict everyone. (of course)

Brookings City Manager Paul Briseno gathered information from other states and tried to tell people how they were to behave in their own homes, and the Council started to rubber stamp it… until citizens came unglued at the last city meeting, showing up in force.

The City backed off, and regrouped, making the demands of the mandate a little less onerous, and moving the venue of the meeting to be less intimidating, passing them last night after a three hour meeting. People opposing the measure showed up and spoke about rights, they spoke about businesses suffering, and ultimately, it only swayed two councilors that rights are not less important in the face of a crisis.

In fact, the problem is that some of those disagreeing are downright patronizing about it.  And what was their justification?

“I respect your right to maintain your own opinion, and to share them this evening and in other meetings,” Councilor Nick Wendell said to the public. “But in the midst of a public health crisis, I believe it’s irresponsible for us to equate those opinions with scientific evidence and fact.”

As quoted in the Argus Leader.

The problem with some councilors dismissive attitudes towards those who have been suffering for months under coronavirus restrictions and coronavirus related economic damage is that they don’t make these decisions to impose restrictions and limit people’s civil liberties in a vacuum, and for every action, there is a reaction.

When it comes to reactions, I can’t help but point out something that caught my attention with the city council in the midst of all these conversations:

(Mayor) Keith W. Corbett’s term is from May 1, 2018 – May 1, 2021   (R)
(Deputy Mayor) Patty Bacon’s term is from May 1, 2018 – May 1, 2021. (D)
(City Council) Nick Wendell’s term is from May 1, 2018 – May 1, 2021. (D)

With hundreds of city residents angry over this issue, and likely not to abate anytime soon, three of the five votes to put tougher restrictions on Brookings residents all find themselves up for election in a few months.

I’ve already heard that recruitment efforts are afoot, so we’ll see if people continue to be unhappy over the course of the coming weeks.  A couple of hundred people upset about municipal overreach can be a good motivator for getting people involved in elections.

Governor Noem: Modeling Isn’t Reality

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem issued the following statement on the grossly misleading San Diego State CHEPS study regarding COVID-19 cases following the Sturgis rally:

“This report isn’t science; it’s fiction. Under the guise of academic research, this report is nothing short of an attack on those who exercised their personal freedom to attend Sturgis,” said Governor Noem. “Predictably, some in the media breathlessly report on this non-peer reviewed model, built on incredibly faulty assumptions that do not reflect the actual facts and data here in South Dakota.

“At one point, academic modeling also told us that South Dakota would have 10,000 COVID patients in the hospital at our peak.  Today, we have less than 70.  I look forward to good journalists, credible academics, and honest citizens repudiating this nonsense.”

For more data on COVID-19 in South Dakota, visit COVID.SD.GOV.

###

From the President’s campaign: