So, let me review this. As part of a think tank group Rounds participated in with several others, including Democrats, they acknowledged that “securing the border” was one of their goals. And candidate Mike Rounds says on his lonesome that securing the borders is his major focus.
And the SCF, who hates Rounds, because he won’t sign their pledges, is complaining that border security should have been the bipartisan report’s “A#1 super priority, with sprinkles and sparklers on top,” But since it wasn’t, they claim Rounds is somehow being contradictory.
The phrase “perfect is the enemy of good” comes to mind. For a think-tank group with a bunch of Democrats in it alongside Republicans, I think it’s noteworthy that border security was included at all.
The SCF’s talking points on this are like saying everyone in the legislature supports a particular position because the body passed a measure. That is the very definition of silliness. Of course a group report is going to have differences with the individual priorities of each person on it.
To think that this was the same person that jumped on the Noem bandwagon that Matt Varilek for being a supporter of Cap and Trade! In fact this was one of the main arguments against Matt Varilek. It turns out that was never the case. In fact the Pierre Capital Journal, and several other publications, reported the truth. Matt Varilek worked for a company that dealt with alternative energy.
The great irony is not that Pat Powers is trying to defend his main man Mike, but that it is a Republican group using the same tactics used by the SDGOP and Pat Powers less than one year ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment