Dick Brown Knee-Capped By Dirty Tricks in District 30 House Primary
I realize that politics is not for the faint of heart. But neither is it supposed to be a blood sport full of dirty tricks.
Frankly, what happened to Republicans Don Young and particularly Dick Brown in the District 30 House primary is disgusting. South Dakota legislative politics is not supposed to be played this way.
And I will say up front that one of my groups that I lead--Equality South Dakota PAC, a LGBT rights PAC, endorsed both Don and Dick. At their request, we did not make our endorsement public but we did report our endorsement and contributions to them as required by law in the May pre-primary report to the SD Secretary of State.
Did EqSD PAC's support prompt some of this? No doubt. Both Don and Dick supported our three issues (anti-bullying, hospitalization visitation rights, and employment non-discrimination). Period. We also felt they were excellent individuals and candidates who would serve their district and the state well. In fact, Dick has already done so as a state representative from Sioux Falls for a number of terms.But the issue is not so much the "gay" issue. It is the fact that Don and Dick got smeared by someone who failed to have a civil conversation with either candidate and actually ask them where they stood on hot-button issues like LGBT rights, abortion, and guns.
In an email to me, Dick says it eloquently:From my perspective the issue that bothers me most is that there never was a contact or discussion with the opponent postcard of any specific issue. I was never asked what positions I might support or might be in opposition. It was a condemnation of a willingness to discuss and listen to the issues. Before one is held accountable for a point of view or position on a public issue then it might be beneficial to have some idea what position a candidate holds. The postcard seeks no answer. It is a declaratory statement with a question mark. We talk a lot about fairness, due process and individual accountability in South Dakota. Unfortunately this postcard respects none of those principles which have made this country great.
And while some have tried to make Dick's defeat sound like a landslide, it wasn't. He lost by just 82 votes. He won two counties--Custer and Fall River--not exactly the centers of liberalism in South Dakota.Apparently there was also someone or some group making calls with a masked number spewing misinformation about Don and Dick.
That is dirty pool and may even be a campaign finance violation. Perhaps the Attorney General and Secretary of State could look into it. EqSD PAC and many other groups play by the rules and disclose their contributions and endorsements. Other groups should too. It has a way of making people and groups think twice.
Dick and Don are successful, mature people. I'm sure they have licked their wounds and have moved on from their close defeats. But the problem with type of scorched earth approach--by either party or any organization--is that it is dishonest and discourages good people from both sides to run for office.
Dick and Don were very close in this election. I hope they don't give up and do try again. And I also hope that next time, their opponents have the balls to come out from under their rocks, into the sunlight of dialog and discussion.
You know, democracy.
Photos: Copies of the post cards sent out against Dick Brown and a letter to the editor that appeared in the Custer Chronicle prior to the primary.
Technorati Tags: LGBT rights, EqSD PAC, Dick Brown, Don Young, District 30, State House, South Dakota, Custer, Fall River, dirty tricks, 2008 election, democracy, 2008 primary
Update on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 by
Todd Epp
Todd Epp
And I’m not the only one who thinks this way. The clipping is from the Edgemont newspaper, in District 30.
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
It was very dirty. I'm all for equality en stuff. I think the lesson learned, unfortunately for your group, is that some candidates might think more deeply before accepting your assistance.
And that's too bad.
But it's what I was trying to point out to you on PP's site a few days ago. With people like PP and the CACjobs digging constantly on the required (and they should be!) contribution reports, it's going to make it harder for you to be (as?) effective. People like that hair-grease dude from Sioux Falls are going to get squeezed tighter and tighter and associated with the entities that contribute to their campaigns.
I'm not sure it's all bad, but certianly the intent of your group being harmed wasn't what was intended. It just seems like a set back. I certainly appreciate that you guys supported some GOPers (save that Landeen guy with the whacky ideas) but geez, this is bad news.
Todd, thanks for sending this out on behalf of my brother Dick. (up front disclaimer here.) Obviously the people who took the time to get to know Dick from Fall River and Custer counties understand the kind of intelligent, fair and quality representative he would make. At a time when western South Dakota needs the leadership of people who will protect their property and their rights, it is unfortunate they would believe crap sent out obviously by those who would benefit from Dick losing (who might that be???). The funniest thing of all is that Dick Brown would ever be listed as anti-gun since he owns more guns and hunts more than any five east river guys I know put together! I think the NRA gave him a bad rating once for voting against plastic weapons that could avoid detection in metal detectors. Another great example of how raunchy politicians and their supporters will spread misinformation to win.A sad day in South Dakota politics for sure. I'm just sorry that District 30 is not going to have Dick Brown in the State House representing them. Unfortunately, they'll never know what he could have done for them. If they are lucky, he'll run again because their land and their rights are on the line.
Todd,
As a former Sioux Falls resident who now lives near Custer, I was happy to see Dick throwing his hat back in the ring out here.
I knew he had a bit of an uphill climb, but he was truly making some headway out here in this race.
There were the "carpetbagger" comments from some quarters which were patently absurd. And, by and large, people weren't buyiing that.
This homophobic attack in the closing days of the campaign was gag-inducing. We hear a lot from South Dakotans about how we march to a different drummer. "You don't understand. It's different here."
It certainly is. This continues to be a place where people can wear their bigotry proudly, as a badge of "honor". And it is a place where this kind of despicable (and misleading) personal attack is winked at-particularly if it comes from the wingnuts of the right.
The gun nuts and gay bashers went after the wrong man-and in the process lost one of the best education advocates Pierre has ever seen. With schools in this area facing huge deficits in the next couple of years, someone like Dick could have been a huge asset.
But then, reading the literature put out by these people in the closing days of the campaign, learning and growing is not big on their agenda.
In the end, Dick barely lost. I hope he tries again. It would be nice for ideas to triumph over the "pink postcard" brand of willful stupidity and ignorance.
These mail pieces look awfully similar. Did the 2 PACs coordinate their attacks on Dick? Who's behind the money and organization of these 2 PACs? Inquiring minds want to know more Todd.
Lucy:
I think the two postcards were put out by different PACs run by the same person. Check http://www.sdsos.gov to review the campaign finance reports.
Todd