An article in the Rapid City Journal is showing a fuller picture of how nasty and negative things are out there this primary:
During the run-up to Tuesday’s primary election, the party’s two factions have seemingly grown farther apart and more contentious than ever before. The result has been a spate of aggressive and sometimes vicious campaign tactics, principally in the form of colorful, over-sized postcards sent by a handful of behind-the-scenes political operatives to the mailboxes of thousands of Republican voters.
And…
One of the bills listed on the postcard as receiving a supporting vote from Haverly, Senate Bill 150 during the 2015 legislative session, was actually never considered by any of the Senate committees that Haverly served on, or by the full Senate.
Haverly sent out her own postcard to debunk the claims about her voting record. Referencing the dubious math used to add up the number of her supposed pro-tax votes, Haverly’s postcard offered this advice to voters: “Check your mailbox for false attack ads that don’t add up … literally!”
And…
Retribution arrived in mailboxes Friday when District 33 Republicans received a postcard that asked, “Who’s behind Jacqueline Sly?” The postcard identified two people as the supposed masterminds of Sly’s campaign: Adelstein, whom the postcard described as a “left-leaning millionaire,” and another man described as a Democratic political operative. The postcard claimed that the operative, among other things, was a customer of the Ashley Madison website that serves married people seeking to have extramarital affairs.
In the postcard’s fine print, it attributed the Ashley Madison claim to a website where email addresses can be searched to purportedly determine whether they were in a batch of hacked Ashley Madison accounts.
And…
By waiting to form his PAC until after last week’s deadline for pre-primary campaign finance reports, Ryness will escape having to disclose the source of his PAC’s money until after Tuesday’s election; in fact, he apparently will not have to file a campaign finance report until October. When the Journal asked him Friday to voluntarily disclose his PAC’s funding source for this news story, he refused.
Negative campaigning has been around as long as American politics have, partly because it can be effective. But not as many might think. What it tends to do is to drive down turnout, as opposed to wooing people to the other candidate.
And at this rate, we should not be shocked if nobody decides to show up for June 7!
Tupper is lying (or sloppily mistaken) when he claims I did not send him step-by-step instructions on how to validate the Ashely Madison claims made in the mailer. I sent them to him at 2:55pm on Friday. See my facebook page for more details.
So where is the money coming from Rip?
yeah rip
is the name soros anywhere on it?
lol “where did the money come from?” Never mind the character of the candidate mentioned in the mailers or the proof behind the claims.
You’re attacking the person funding and the designer of an advertising piece and are trying to say it applies to the candidate’s character… Yet you won’t say who is funding your own?
I think we know who is lacking character.
There were two mailers. I was referring to the other one.
Senator Haverly was accused of voting for the tax increase in HB 1120. The problem is, 1120 provides an EXEMPTION from the sales tax on dyed diesel for the timber industry. The smear mongers have failed to read the bill. Just one of many many falsehoods presented in the despicable postcards fouling voter’s mailboxes this cycle.
here’s hoping some ultras get in again. i cant wait to see 200 different
versions of the same bill like this: “we hereby enact the elimination of (thing we hate), we make it illegal to do (thing we hate) and any future lawmaker who votes for a bill with (thing we hate) will be instantly banned forever from the legislature.”
I hope that not one single voter supports these lying b—-ds . The S.D. GUN OWNERS are all a bunch of losers .
I just apologized to Seth Tupper for falsely accusing him of lying. The Journal’s spam system blocked my email. He has just received it. Lesson learned. Nevertheless I did email him step-by-step instructions at 2:55pm Friday and would be happy to provide those same instructions to anyone that would like to verify the claims made in the mailers.
The Journal’s “correction” is little better than the last falsehood.
“the Journal could find no independent verification of the allegations against them regarding the Ashley Madison website”
This is a false statement. I personally know several people and I’m betting the Journal has technical staff that could have easily done it using the step-by-step instructions I sent the.