The Mitchell Daily Republic's Tom Lawrence provides some sharp observations from last week's Davison-Hanson County Republican Lincoln Day Dinner that anti-Establishment candidates may find instructive.
The Davison-Hanson County GOP includes two of the biggest anti-Establishment candidates in the state: Rep. Stace Nelson of Fulton and Steve Sibson of Mitchell. Both men made their party-bucking inclinations clear at last Thursday's event. Rep. Nelson conspicuously chatted with other attendees and stepped out of the room during gubernatorial chief of staff Dusty Johnson's speech. (Remember: Nelson is 6'7"; I'm not sure he can do anything inconspicuously.) Yet according to Lawrence, when Nelson later took the podium for a few minutes, "he received a louder ovation than Johnson did."
Then came Sibson, who still doesn't know how or when to send his message:
Another speaker drew modest applause, and was clearly agitated as he returned to his seat.
Steve Sibson's speech had been edited before he was allowed to speak, he told me, and he later gave me a copy of the speech with the words that he was not allowed to say.
Sibson is challenging state Sen. Mike Vehle in the District 20 GOP primary. In his prepared remarks, he said Vehle received "his marching orders from the globalists" and worked for "corporate socialists" who are allied with "the Democrats' Marxist socialists."
Sibson said he was told he could speak as long as he did not mention Vehle, and he was also told not to bash Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
"I wanted so badly to tell you the truth, but I'm not allowed to," he said as he wrapped up his speech [Tom Lawrence, "GOP Heads to Election in a House Divided," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2012.04.25].
I understand that Steve imagines he is on a divine crusade to enlighten us all to the secret truths of the oppression under which we labor. But it's ill-timed nuttiness and irrelevancy like the above performance that keeps him from winning elections (and occasionally gets him deleted from my comment section).
Stace Nelson has been able to parlay his big-boy eye-poking into popularity and electoral success. He made his party leaders mad by challenging an obfuscatory state Secretary of Agriculture, but he won a court victory for his neighbors against a mega-dairy many of them oppose. While avoiding explicit identification with the Tea Party, he manages to turn Tea Party principles into pratical legislation that I may not like but which makes many of his neighbors think he's working to address their specific concerns. Nelson's neighbors like him. They pat him on the back. He's building a positive reputation with voters around the state.
Meanwhile, Sibson goes to a GOP rah-rah session and whines about not being able to call everyone else in the room globalizing socialists. He shouts his shibboleths, and when people don't respond, he deludes himself into thinking that he just needs to educate them more about The Truth. The real truth is that voters in a state legislature primary don't care about globalism or socialism; they care about dairies, roads, and school funding.
Nelson gets this. He knows when and how to send his anti-leadership signals. But he also knows how to keep it real. He doesn't have to read out bogeymen from John Birch handouts. He goes after GOP leaders—Rausch, Lust—by name... but he also has the good gosh-darn sense not to waste time doing it at a Lincoln Day Dinner.
Stace Nelson faces a four-way primary for two House seats in District 19. His opponents are veteran legislator Jim Putnam, a young Democrat freshly turned Republican, and one of at least a hundred guys in the neighborhood named Roger Hofer. Nelson's political savvy gives him better than a 50% chance of surviving the primary.
Steve Sibson faces a two-way primary against sitting Senator Mike Vehle. He stands a 50% chance of getting the same number of votes that he got in the 2010 general election... and every time he mentions global Marxism or any of his other hobbyhorse magic words, he drops his vote tally another few points.
Steve, if you want anything like a chance to win, pay attention to Stace.
I'm definitely not carrying the water for anyone, but isn't it curious that a candidate's speech is pre-edited --- or is this a "special" case?
Good question...mark, Mark. Sibby?
Why isn't Stace sticking up for the Sibbonator? Does he think he's the only one who should get to go nuts in public?
Seriously. Part of Sibby's therapy has to be an opportunity to work his way through his delusions in the company of others.
If he won't go to group, group should come to him.
What's the worst that would have happened if Sib would have been allowed to deliver his speech unredacted? This censoring action just reinforces his paranoia. Good for the meeting, maybe, but not good for brother Sibby.
I agree that Sibby's speech shouldn't have been censored. There's no call to censor anyone's speeches. The big boys can stand up for themselves. In my experiences, it's either A) really easy to counter ol' Sib or B) impossible because it's crazy. Luckily, when something is that crazy, no one believes it anyway.
I wish you wouldn't delete Sibby's posts, Cory! I do enjoy reading them. Part of me believes he's crazy, and I think it's funny. Part of me believes he's just trolling the entire world, all the time, and when he's finally on his deathbed, his last words will be, "I was an atheist communist the whole time! Trolololol!" Either way, the crazier the thing he says is, the more fun he is to read and respond to! He's like the local comic relief.
You're great, Sibby. Keep up the good work!
Nice to see the far-left Marxists on the web site agree with the corporate socialists of the GOP. I have already sent a letter to the Mitchell paper correcting problems with the column. I edited the speech, no body else did. And I was not going to say you Marxists are "allied" with the corporate socialists. I was going to say there is something they have in common...Big Government. And for the record, I sat accross the dinner table with my opponent in late March without any problems whatsoever.
Unfortunately the letter to the editor was already long enough so I could expalin that the Council of State Government conventions that my opponent attends includes Canada. Not only do they celebrate Canada night, they also celebrate Mexico night. It is really sad when you are taken out of context in order to mislead people and marginalize truth sayers. You also have to understand who provides newspaper with their tax-exempt ad revenues. They certainly don't want guys like me to expose their gravy train.
[Editor's note: "expalin"—a Freudian slip. I presume, meaning to expostulate in Palinesque style on non-issues?]
"Either way, the crazier the thing he says is, the more fun he is to read and respond to! He’s like the local comic relief."
Me crazy? It is really funny to watch you Marxist argue that Big Government is the solution as the corporate socialists, that you all hate, use Big Governemnt to line their pockets. Now that is truly crazy, especially after you all have been informed about what is really going on.
So Sibby, why do YOU think the animals ate the pineapple?
https://madvilletimes.com/2012/04/protect-your-kids-from-standardized-test-silliness/
Well, then, Sibby. We're all having a good laugh at each others, and are those not the best laughs to be had?
I think we should nationalize the entire healthcare industry, including pharmaceuticals and research. Also, viva Che, and all that.
Carter, yes the fight between fascism and communism did not end with WWII. Perhaps we should stop laughing.
Oh, I agree. I think Obama's close to being a fascist, and I'm fairly close to a communist (although I'm still on the socialist side of the fence, for now). We do need to fight against the fascists! Not so much the Communists. Stalin and and Mao, by the way, we clearly fascists pretending to be Communists.
Carter, would you consider Romney a fascist?
First off, to point out the obvious. Tom's article was an OPINION piece released several days after the Argus ran a coffee table conversation starter article on the front page, almost a week after the event in question.
I am embarrassed to say that I was hot (yeah, yeah, I know I need to drop weight! Try doing it with a laundry list of worn out parts). I got up and told Phil Carlson (MC for event & an all around good guy) that it was hot and could they turn up the AC. I then walked out of the room to use the restroom. I was also getting up because my bad back was giving me problems AND because I was nervously trying to narrow down the speech I was going to give, in my head.
I sent Dusty an email apologizing for the misperception and I readily offer it again here. No disrespect or snub was intended.
ASk yourself, who do you want to see run for office? Another dead fish handshake mealy mouthed politician that will say anything to get and stay elected? Or someone that has fire in their belly, no political aspirations but a passion to get involved to try and fix the problems they see and serve the interests of South Dakotans?
I do not agree on all of the issues with our host Mr. Heidelberger or my friend Steve Sibson, who are both equally outspoken as to their views and concerns with issues. I would celebrate if they were both elected, not because I am fond of them both for their passion, honesty, and courage (which I am), but because I know they would be fearless public servants that South Dakotans deserve and need.
I believe Steve Sibson would make a great public servant legislator. He was originally told 5 minutes for speech, we were then limited to 3 at the event. That is hard to recover from, especially when someone relies on a written speech. The mistake that he made, was what most people with a passion to serve do. He concentrated too much on the issues he was concerned with when he should have been giving them the information they need to get to know who he is. I am sure he will knock the next one out of the park.
So we have a second piece of testimony that claims the Lawrence piece contained bad assumptions. And yes, I came away learning that I have to convert from an issues guy to a politician. I know I can do that, but the question I would like to put forward for both sides, Why? Shouldn't the political discussion, especially during the primary season, be about principles and policies instead of personalities and how great I am?
Steve, I'm not sure. It's hard to tell until they get into office and pass the NDAA and arrest whistle-blowers. But I would guess he'd do the same.
That said, he's also a 1%er who hasn't shown any real ability to empathize with people less well-off than himself, and he just strikes me as an all-around slimeball.
I suppose seeing most/all the currently elected politicians as terrible people (and possibly as exaggerated caricatures) is something we have in common, after all.
"I suppose seeing most/all the currently elected politicians as terrible people (and possibly as exaggerated caricatures) is something we have in common, after all."
Yes we do. The point that Tom Lawrence failed to make on behalf is that the corporate socialists/fascist like Romney and the Marxist socialists such as your self have in common is Big Government. That should tell us what the problem is, but Cory does not think that the 20% who voted for me deserve their rights.
Guilt by association yields faint (feint?) praise from 800lb. white guerrilla.
Really, we don't really have Big Government. What we have is Big Business. Business runs the government. Even slightly left-wing politicians like Bloomberg crumble can call out their "private army" of police officers to put down the people when Big Business is being attacked.
What we need isn't just "Big Government" but heavy regulation of business and government. Also more free things for people (which can only really be provided by government). Money is generally bad, but it unfortunately necessary in our world.
I would be all for getting rid of government if people we capable of being decent to each other, and helping each other out. But they're not. We've seen time and time again that when people are given the ability to screw other people over for their own gain, they'll do it. If they can only achieve X amount by screwing people over, they'll screw people over more 100 times more in the hopes of getting one more cent, or one more iota of power.
So, regulation is the only thing that can stop people from screwing over other people, and make sure that everyone has enough to survive.
Carter, I agree that it is wrong for people to get screwed. Here is where we differ. There is plenty of research that shows regulation by a government controlled by Big Business will put up walls preventing competition. It is in a fair competition free market system that people who get screwed can have the choice to go to another business. That is why the end-game (of bigger government), government owned monopolies, are so dangerous.
let them eat pink slime....
Unregulated free markets tend to end up embroiled in monopolies, which leaves the people with no where else to go. That's how it used to be with AT&T phone service, and with Microsoft computer software. When businesses are unrestricted, they crush the competition with monopolistic strategies, preventing not only competition, but severly hampering innovation.
The thing with government that people seem to struggle with (and the thing with socialism, I might add), is that it's difficult, and in many cases pointless, to implement just one or two policies. I agree that many regulations would only serve to empower the big businesses, because it's they who pull the strings and create the regulations in the first place.
However, regulations that specifically limit the money in Washington would help free us of that particular problem, to a great extent, and bring in people who actually care about helping the people of the United States to government. It's something of a domino effect. You need regulations preventing the government from harming the people. It's something of a sticky mess, but unfortunately anarchy doesn't work.
Alternative: Instead of the government owning most things, the workers do. Workers are paid fairly because they all vote to decide how much they get paid. Since they're small (by default), we avoid price gouging.
Larry, I like pink slime. To me, it should work kind of like hot dogs. If you want to eat a hotdog for cheap, you buy one made out of gross leftovers. If you want a good hotdog, you buy one made of real meat, for much more money.
Beef can be the same way. If you're buying on the cheap, you can get pink slime meat for basically nothing. If you're up for some luxury burgers, you buy 100% Grade A Beef!
"Unregulated free markets tend to end up embroiled in monopolies, which leaves the people with no where else to go. That’s how it used to be with AT&T phone service, and with Microsoft computer software. When businesses are unrestricted, they crush the competition with monopolistic strategies, preventing not only competition, but severly hampering innovation."
Far more monopolies are created by government than a free market. Yes, a free market can never be utopian, buth nothing else can neither. In a free market, if you don't want an AT&T phone, then you don't have too. You can invite cell phones and put them out of business. With a regulated market, if you can't afford the lawyers and adminstration to comply with the regulations, then you can't set up shop and compete. In addition, big business have lobbyists that provide loopholes for themselves, thus giving them a competitive advantage over the little guys who don't have the loopholes.
Steve, I don't think we should even have lobbiests. They do 10,000 times more hard than good. Lobbiests will always be a thorn in the side of government, and will ruin every good thing that comes.
The problem is, Steve, the government had to break up the old AT&T because they were a monopoly. You couldn't just drop AT&T, start a company, and try to fit in. They could afford to provide things you never could, starting out, and they would stomp you into the ground before you had enough money to compete. They had enough resources to pull in all the good telephone engineers (or whatever they had, back then). They didn't need to provide the best product, or invent cell phones, because no one else could squeeze into the market.
It's the same thing with Microsoft. In the 90's, start-ups had a hell of a time getting anywhere, because Windows provided everything. You got every piece of software you could need when you bought Windows, so no one had a reason to buy anything else. Sure, people had developed software, but no one bought it because they already had software.
The idea that simply having a better product will make you successful is flawed. Dozens of other things factor in, and corporations will beat out the little guy almost every time. Most people don't care about "the best", they want "the most convenient". You can't beat a monopoly or corporation for convenience. They'll get you every time.
Carefully regulated fair markets provide a better market for innovation, and for the people. Sure, the few CEOs don't make as much money, but more CEOs make quite a bit, and people overall end up better off.
Mr. Sibson, Rep. Nelson, thank you both for your clarifications on what happened at the Davison-Hanson dinner. You make some worthwhile points that challenge the impressions created by Mr. Lawrence's column.
That said, Mr. Sibson appears to still be missing the point. His principles as expressed here still seem too abstract to move voters his way or to effectively educate them. Give us more comments, more blog posts at Sibby Online, and by gum more speeches to the home folks tying these principles to specific policies, to specific impacts at home of actions in Pierre, and specific policies you would propose to improve the situation (while keeping the roads paved and the schools open).
I wish young Mr. Nelson had a blog, like my friend Sibby does. That would end all these misconceptions and crazy speculations about who said what.
If Rep. Nelson starts a blog, he'll be beating Dakota War College's daily traffic and comment count within a week.
Some facts:
I have a copy of Steve Sibson's speech that he gave me that night. It shows the sentences and paragraphs he was asked/ordered to remove to allow him to speak. He told me that when he tossed the speech to me; i went over it later with him to clarify.
SS said he was told no mention of Vehle or Romney or he could not speak.
As he said in the speech, he was not allowed to say what he meant.
As far as Stace Nelson's claim, "because I was nervously trying to narrow down the speech I was going to give, in my head" ...
Well, there's a problem with that, since he spoke well BEFORE Dusty Johnson, as did all the other GOP candidates at the church. After Dusty's speech, the pie/cake auction wrapped up the evening.
The column captured the facts and tone of the evening precisely.
Tom,
You are probably correct in the sequence, it has been a week and it was not something noteworthy that stuck in my memory as there was not the intent there you thought. You forget, I had a 3 minute speech in which I could have taken a shot at him if I was of the mind set you thought.
I wish you would have simply asked me if meant to snub Dusty. Heck, Ellis proved that I have no problem speaking exactly what is on my mind.
Additionally, as many have seen during session, I often get up and move around because I have 3 blown out discs in my back that give me problems 24-7.
Incidently, when I was up in the back, I did question Joshua Klumb if he was one of the kids that Dusty spoke of in his speech as having pestered him when he was in the Wall Mart suit. For the record, he denied any involvement.
You will have to pardon me, I am still plenty gun shy from some of the reporting that happened last session in which an innocent CASA charity shoot trophy from '11 somehow got mentioned in a story this last session concocted over lies from several dishonest politicians in which they claimed I "threatened to kill Nick Moser."
Well, gents, we have ourselves a disagreement. Professional journalist Tom Lawrence says X. Politicians Steve Sibson and Stace Nelson say some not-X. Both sides can't be right. Lawrence doesn't have a dog in this fight, does he? What motive would have to make stuff up?
Sibson and Nelson both challenge the content of the original article, and for good reason, since both come out with some negative press from the article (Nelson less so than Sibson).
The main impressions from Lawrence's article are (1) Nelson is thumbing his nose at his party leaders and (2) Sibson is an out-of-touch John-Birch nutcase. If Lawrence came to the event with a preconceived agenda to peddle such impressions, he didn't have to make stuff up to bolster such images; he could just turn on his tape recorder and wait five minutes. Nelson and Sibson both have enough on the record and can be counted on to put more on the record to support such images. Concocting fairy tales are an unnecessary professional risk for Lawrence.
So whose story are you buying?
I don't know which story I'm going to buy, but I think that I will buy some popcorn.
Listening to caterwauling in a chamber pot is always entertaining.