The Rapid City Journal has an extensive profile this morning on State Representative Scyller Borglum as they detail her background and explain her strategy as she challenges United States Senator Mike Rounds in the race for Senate:
“I believe a real conservative says, ‘Government stays out of people’s business unless there’s an absolute, demonstrated need to get into it,’” Borglum said. “That’s what a conservative is to me. That’s how I was raised.”
and..
Borglum, with her challenge to a sitting senator from her own party, has alienated members of the Republican establishment. And with some of her votes in the Legislature, she may have estranged herself from voters perceived to be in the party’s far-right wing.
She estimated that those two factions each control about 10 percent of the party. She hopes to pull support from the other 80 percent, which she described as the “exhausted middle.”
What do you think? Is that a winning strategy? The comment section is yours.
The Tea Party cohort (or whatever you call them) is more like 15-20%.
I’m not sure what she means by “members of the Republican establishment” as a faction. A candidate wins establishment support by being able to win broad support. Rounds base in this primary is much higher than 10%.
The entire Borglum campaign is bizarre.
She has never answered why she is even running. Why would anyone vote for someone that can’t answer the why?
If Tapio runs against Dusty I know (other than just ego) the why.
But I don’t know the why with Borglum.
If you listen to her Facebook videos, she explains why:
1. Rounds doesn’t represent SD values – she does.
2. Rounds doesn’t show up to work – she will.
3. She’s dreamed of being a US Senator since she was a teenager.
Those are quite the reasons for wanting to run. She does NOT represent Republican Party values. Her votes are very, very liberal. I question Rounds not showing up for work. I have never heard that. The last reason is a real kicker. Dreaming something does not make it so…she has little to no experience at all. In fact, the third reason makes her sound very immature.
I don’t blame her for dreaming of the US Senate. Many teens cherish grand hopes. Why not? I encourage bright, talented kids to think big & hitch their wagons to a star. But when asked point bank about that *exact* topic, back in April, she said: “Oh, I haven’t even considered running.”
You haven’t even considered pursuing your lifelong dream??
Do you represent Republican values? Do you support Donald Trump? If so you are not a Republican. Trump is pro union and anti-free trade; a classic Republican plank in their platform since Ronald Reagan.
The foment within the SDGOP is good for South Dakota.
“Government stays out of people’s business unless there’s an absolute, demonstrated need to get into it.” — SJB
“Sure!” each tyrant agrees: “I accept those terms. Because once I’m in office, I’ll decide when a NEED arises.”
Does South Dakota NEED transgender people in women’s bathrooms, a situation most voters oppose?
The ‘enlightened’ few sigh and admit: “yes, yes, many deplorable, unwashed voters oppose this measure, but the government simply *must* act because there’s an absolute, demonstrated need.”
Back in 2006, The New York Times lambasted George W. Bush for his “grandiose vision of executive power” and his “foul scheme” to sidestep congress. “Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break,” the Times thundered, “Bush announced 17 recess appointments—a constitutional gimmick.”
And what did the august NYT say when Obama used the same gimmick? “Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive power to make recess appointments and keep federal agencies operating.” The difference? Apparently, in Obama’s case, there was an absolute, demonstrated NEED for action. Whenever decisive government action is NEEDED, Obama explained, “we’re not going to sit and wait for congress. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive and administrative actions.”
Obama’s pen wasn’t idle. While the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, exclusive authority “to declare war,” Obama unilaterally declared war on Libya in 2011. He appointed multiple high officials without senate approval, and he overrode clear federal law forbidding illegal immigration. Yet, Saint Obama’s chorus of adoring worshipers saw nothing wrong with these abuses of power, for though it smacks of tyranny, Dear Leader Obama did nothing more than what was “absolutely needed.”
I’ll be happy when she is gone from SD politics. She is a liar.
She looks like she may be a little looney in her fb posts. Doesn’t look like anyone really watches them. My guess is since Rounds has the support of Thune, Noem, Johnson and the vast majority of the 80 percent of Republicans borglum wants, Borglum won’t last 6 months. Jim McCintosh will have helped end her entire political career with this run. Do some research on that dude, he likes to go after married women in South Dakota and tear apart families. Hiring him speaks to her character. Not good.
Tracey, it is one thing to attack the the candidate. Borglum chose to run for public office, you can attack her record, and choices all you want. But it’s an ultimate low to attack someone who is “allegedly” helping her (can’t wait for the FEC report)..on a personal level. YOU clearly haven’t done your research…or checked your emotional intelligence…or learned a thing about being a “Christian”
The best part of her running for US Senate is she can’t run for the SD legislature next term.
i’m waiting for the resumption of the silly argument about establishments being brick buildings, from a few years ago when i argued trump was antiestablishment to a degree, and some countered with “duh what’s this establishment of which you speak”
Anyone that follows SD politics knoews Phil Jensen is alt-right crazy. But he doesn’t lie about it.
Borglum, on the other hand, is alt-left crazy. But she isn’t honest about it. She wants people to believe she is a conservative. Well, look at how she votes. She’s no conservative. She’s just a fast talking self-centered salesperson. She doesn’t give a rip about South Dakota. This is all about . . . HER and her liberal agenda!
What really disgusts me about her are all the lies. I heard her at LDD asking for money. When asked if she was running for Senate, she outright said NO! When asked if the money for her campign, she outright said NO! When asked why she is driving all over the state she said it was to rasie money for OTHER people! What pile of crap.
i’ve lost all resect for her. She the worst of the worst of politicians.
I guess the middle has been good to Rounds and Dusty.
Why does she say she is conservative but then say she wants the middle?