Last updated on 2012.05.05
Next up: what the District 31 House candidates said at last night's Lawrence County GOP forum here in Spearfish! Text is mostly straight from the horses' mouths [my comments are in square brackets].
John Teupel emphasizes his experience as a legislator from 2001 to 2004. He held the seat from which Rep. Chuck Turbiville is now retiring. He says he's in "bidness" and is completing an MBA at BHSU [and George W. Bush showed us how effectively MBAs can manage the national economy].
Gary Coe goes to the lectern and reminisces about attending country school near Slim Buttes and meeting his sweetie at Newell High School. He speaks of his extensive travels, the "First Landing" cross in Virginia and the "blood... shed for our freedom" by "conservative God-fearing men." He also says our Founders worried about socialism.
Tim Johns trumpets 38 years of experience in local and state government. He was a county and city attorney, long-time circuit court judge, and now serves on the Board of Minerals and Environment. He says he is committed to public service [which means this guy as one of those useless lifelong government employees, right, conservative neighbors?].
Fred Romkema, the only incumbent in this pool admits his California birth, then notes he was raised on an East River farm, then moved here to Lawrence County in 1972. He spent 36 years running non-profit to help adults with disabilities and has served on all sorts of boards.
Question 1: Should South Dakota consolidate college campuses? (No, I did not submit this question; I just have my finger on the pulse of local Republicans!)
Gary Coe opens with "I don't have an opinion on this" [Noooo! Take a swing!] He manages to recover with some relevant comments on how he looked into getting a master's degree and found folks can take all sorts of classes from South Dakota's universities online. In a way, Coe says, online classes are like consolidation.
Tim Johns asks the million-dollar question: which campuses to consolidate? He's not for it: he says the state never sees the benefits. When Janklow closed the Springfield campus in the 1980s, the state turned it to prison, so there were no savings. We build more prisons, says Johns, who has sent people to those prisons, but we don't get good education. Johns acknowledges that he needs to study the issue more [but unlike Coe, he doesn't headline his ignorance on the issue].
Fred Romkema says be careful what you ask for! He recalls a 1972 push to consolidate Black Hills State and the School of Mines and the ensuing ruckus. Romkema says Spearfish doesn't want to lose BHSU. Education's our future, and we must emphasize higher education. Romkema expresses his confidence in the current Regental system.
John Teupel says consolidating campuses is not the solution to saving money. He speculates that we wouldn't actually close any institutions; we'd just combine small campuses with large campuses administratively, have satellite campuses that would lose local control, and spend as much or more. On Springfield, Teupel says Janklow had courage to close it. We needed to expand our prison facilities, so closing Springfield was the right thing to do. Still, Teupel says no one has felt safe safe walking into Bon Homme County since. Teupel acknowledges that the only reason Springfield was targeted for closing was because it was a small town with the least political pull.
Teupel says that if we were to close a campus, Dakota State in Madison would be the logical choice. However, Janklow gave them the tech mission, and DSU is fulfilling that mission well, so it doesn't make sense to Teupel to close DSU at this time. Teupel notes that the Regents have already allowed more crossover/credit transfer and are doing a good job expanding offerings at the Sioux Falls and Rapid City university centers.
Question 2: What is the most important issue facing South Dakota?
Johns says it's education. We need quality education for national and international competition. But of course he assures the Republican crowd that he's not necessarily talking about spending more money. He says that back when he went to parochial school, all they had was books, and they still learned more than the public school kids. Johns declares himself a fiscal conservative and says we shouldn't have any more government than necessary. Getting just a bit fuzzy, Johns drifts to talk of not always needing to raise new taxes and instead raising revenue through pro-growth policies and building new businesses.
Romkema says job #1 is to balance the budget. He says education is critical. He says the Homestake laboratory is a big deal but that it has to spend $48K/ounce on uranium from Russia. He said he knows some folks by Whitewood who say they can produce uranium for half the price [at which point I want to know where the heck people in Whitewood are getting uranium!].
Teupel says the biggest issue is economic development. We need it to allow young people to stay here and find jobs and bidness opportunities. We must "think outside the box" [haven't they thrown that phrase out of MBA classes yet?]. Teupel says we have an opportunity in western South Dakota to capitalize on North Dakota oil dollars by building support industries here. Teupel says we need to be proactive in trying to attract those bidnesses, maybe start bidness incubators.
Everything stems from jobs, says Teupel, but we still must protect constitutional rights.
Coe says an unnamed veteran Congressman told him there's no common sense left in Pierre. Coe says he is a common-sense conservative. We "need leaders who will back up and take a look"... [you know, at stuff!]. Coe says some bills are passed without allowing debate, others are passed just to pass bills. The most important thing, says Coe, is to get hold of state government by getting conservatives in there [because that's a heck of a lot simpler than forming a coherent position and educating voters about specific policies].
Question 3: Do you support an Internet sales tax?
Romkema says that's the $104-million question. He notes that we lose $500M in sales tax exemptions right now. Last year's summer study didn't come up with any changes; Romkema calls that a missed opportunity.
Romkema says 20-30 states are exploring an Internet sales tax, but we need uniformity in sales tax applications. Big states are opposing the tax, small states are supporting it. The lack of Internet tax is unfair to local Main Street businesses [not bidnesses].
Teupel says he served on the streamlined tax project with a national legislative group during his previous terms in the state House. The lack of an Internet sales tax is a disadvantage for local bidnessmen. However, the problem is that, given the great diversity of local and state tax laws, the only solution will come from the feds pushing it. Then the feds will get the revenue and, given their track record, they'll blow it! There is thus no practical way to implement an Internet tax across states and municipal governments.
Coe says he does lots of business online. He frets that figuring out all these taxes would put serious burden on state government. Disbursing Internet sales tax to counties and cities would be complicated. He says he buys stuff online that he can't get locally, just like lots of other folks. He notes that some outfits charge sales tax and some do not.
Johns says the other candidates have pretty much covered everything. He says the lack of Internet sales tax is certainly unfair to local businesses, but it will take federal intervention to enforce such a tax. The way things are going in DC today, says Johns, he doesn't foresee such a tax happening. He says Democrats and Republicans both poo-poo each other's good ideas. We need common sense, says Johns, to noteworthy applause [though common sense would dictate that Gary Coe simply tally up his online purchases and remit 4% to the state and 2% to the City of Lead].
Question 4: Do you support a state income tax?
[I should be able to simply write "No!" four times and move on. Remarkably, most of the candidates said more than that to this easy crowd.]
Teupel says South Dakotans don't support an income tax and rejected the last ballot measure on the topic by an 80-20 margin. Teupel served on the taxation committee (which figures out how to take your money, then sends it to Fred Romkema's committee to decide how to spend it).
Coe is opposed to income tax totally, even federal income tax. He says growth is happening here because the people coming don't have to pay income tax. [The lady next to me leans over and says lots of people aren't actually here but simply maintain voter registration here to avoid taxes. Yup.]
Johns says "there's an argument for both sides" [I'm still trying to figure out the Republican rationale for saying this line in front of Lawrence County Republicans]. He says that wage-earners end up paying the personal income tax. An income tax of any sort would just create another level of bureaucracy. Johns is thus not for it. Johns asserts that the lack of income tax brings an awful lot of businesses out of Minnesota and Iowa, which is good for South Dakota.
Romkema's complete answer: "Just say no."
Question #5: Do you support the proposed gold mine in Spearfish Canyon?
Johns reminds us that he is currently on the BME board, which will rule on permits for the proposed Deadwood Standard Project and thus cannot take a position. He promises to make an informed decision.
Romkema says he believes in local control. He hopes we won't deal with it in Pierre and assumes the county will decide. If it comes to Pierre, Romkema will give it consideration. He notes that gold helped develop Lawrence County.
Teupel says the mine is not in Spearfish Canyon, but on the edge of canyon. He doesn't know if he can answer now, and he's not sure if it's legislative decision. He says the mine decisions should be decided by the county and the BME. Teupel notes that his ancestors worked in the mines. Gold has been good for the Hills. Wharf has had mining operations near the canyon and protected natural resources. Teupel doesn't want mines to pollute our water, and we need to avoid any situations like the Brohm mine left us with.
[Whoops! I was so struck by what sounded like reasonable environmental concern from a Republican bidnessman that I missed Coe's comments!]
Question 6: Will you stick with the GOP platform?
Johns says "I'll have to see it first." He says he's not totally familiar with the platform. "I believe in supporting my party... I will support my party when I think it's right." However, "I live with my conscience." [This answer sounded quite heartfelt.]
Romkema said he hasn't reviewed the platform. He said his core values are economic growth, limited government, and free enterprise. "I vote my convictions," says Romkema. He notes he's voted with and against the governor. He says constituents are most important to him. He says he's dealt with 2000 bills; most should be killed. Romkema says he will follow the GOP platform if it's right. He then says that in general we must educate the youth and balance the budget.
Teupel asks whether the question means the state or national platforms and notes that he's helped draft both. He calls himself an "unabashed party war horse." He's been to three national conventions. Teupel says he wants low taxes, economic development, pro-life policies, 2nd Amendment rights, private property rights, and balancing the budget. He won't support platform if is doesn't support constituents, but usually the platform fits this very Republican county.
Coe: "I'm a Republican.... I was raised in a socialist home... steeped in it by close family." Coe says he found the GOP and GOD after the Vietnam War. He says he recognized Obama's rhetoric early as socialism. Coe says "progressive" means you've gone past Constitution, Ten Commandments, and the Bible. He says everything is black and white: he follows the Constitution and right and wrong. "I have no compromise in my life whatsoever."
Romkema says, "I'm pleased with what's happening in Pierre." He sees a common sense conservative government in Pierre. "The longer I'm there, the more I'm impressed with it." He says we've fixed hard budget problems and this year were able to add some money back into budget [but is that last part what these Republicans want to hear?].
Teupel says he's eager for another opportunity to serve. He's guided by solid GOP principles and the Bible. He claims a strong record of keeping taxes low.
Coe takes time introduce wife [but we're not voting for her]. He says "I've seen the moral thread of this nation slip" and says we can't deny that slippage creeping into South Dakota, too. Coe claims he has a "mandate in my heart to affect this nation and state from Lawrence County." He says the "heart of God is right here."
Johns says his job first of all is to go to Pierre and ensure a fiscally sound balanced budget. Second, we must analyze all that legislation, do a cost-benefit analysis, and only pass bills in which benefits greatly outweigh the costs. He refers to the oath he took as a judge to uphold statutes and the state and federal constitutions, and he says that if elected, he will take the same oath.
Whew! The House debate was the most evenly matched of the night. Later today, I'll bring you my notes on the Senate debate, as well as my full evaluation of the performances!
I've met John Teupel before and am not a fan of his attitude...
omg, mike: having worked with John for several years i can tell you that the stories surrounding the Teupel family are myriad. two words: anger management.
Question #6 Mmmmpf! Mmmmpfff! Mummpff! Mummpfff! (Biting my tongue) http://www.sdrepublican.org/2011SDGOPVoteReportByPercent.pdf
Is it heresy if I cite that proclaimed un-godly document? Worst case scenario I get another lame anonymous note at my desk and another chicken heart advocating in caucus for a written motion on the House floor to have me kicked out. :-D
Are you still waving that dog turd around Nelson? Isn't that the P.O.S. that proves Democrats are more Republican than Republicans are? LOL.
Just because the Creator endows us with certain inalienable rights doesn't mean she loses them for herself. Agenda 21 protects the Creator from her offspring.
"Isn’t that the P.O.S. that proves Democrats are more Republican than Republicans are? LOL."
The SDGOP platform is based on conservatives principles. And yes, there are Dems who are more conservative than RINOs.
That's not what the chart says, Sibby. It says "Republican." In fact, it doesn't say "conservative" on that page at all. Not even one time.
One would think that if that was what they meant, they would have used that word.
Beyond that, you guys need to get it that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.
So Sibby, can we now agree that the scorecard is moronic?
I was surprised to hear such strong rejection of the platform as basis for scoring Republicans from this field of candidates. Coe rambled away from the thrust of the question to do Glenn-Beck karaoke, but the other three were surprisingly frank in saying the platform is a guide, not a document dictating their every vote... or even a document they read much. Is the platform really that irrelevant to most Republicans?
Could someone show me where the SD Gop has ever actively supported private property rights other than just saying they do???
Sure sounds good, doesn't it, Bret? I don't think I heard any candidate last night follow-up that slogan with a specific example of either serious threats to property rights or specific policies required to better secure said rights.
@Billy You keep mocking that dog turd, buddy. South Dakotans vote Republican because they think the candidates are answering those Gallup polls like them, meaning 49% of the state says they are Conservative. Voters equate conservative in SD to mean Republican. The platform reflects those conservative South Dakotans who make up the grass roots part of the party. Sadly, most South Dakotans are not aware that many of the Republicans candidates/elected officials do not care what South Dakotans understanding of what a Republican is.
Until they do, Bill's political liberal-moderate political leaning will be the majority of those that sneak into office. It will also be the cause of even more South Dakotans to question what really the difference is between the two parties.
@Bret Click on the little eagles to the right, some Republicans do support your private property rights as promised: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?Bill=1178
Stace, yes some republicans support property rights all the time. The SD GOP has the support of private property rights in their party platform but very seldom if EVER do they vote as a group that way.
To Steve Sibson, The SD GOP platform is based on conservative principles but obviously they think all they have to do is just say it regardless of whether they ever follow through with it.
The reason your scorecard is a bust, Stace and Sibby, is because, by your own admission here in this thread, it doesn't communicate anything.
In one breath you are saying that there are Democrats who are as "conservative" as a lot of Republicans are, and in the next, you are trying to impugn a lot of Republicans for acting like Democrats.
Which is it?
Your dog doesn't hunt.
It's not even a dog.
Just something the dog left in the yard.
You guys should clean it up, round up your hounds, and put them back in the kennel.
The problem with the scorecard is:
1). The bills selected are too often not significant or defining where one can see windows into ideology.
2). The bills selected are too often able to be rationalize the true conservative position is the side.
3) They scorecard relies too much on the views of the preparers for what is the conservative position. Unfortunately the preparers won't divulge their names.
4). It has some Republicans less conservative from flaming liberals. Any rating that has a pro-life, spending and tax hawk, pro-gun, anti-regulation legislator less Republican than Angie Buhl is only nonsense.
5). It has the clear appearance of bills having been selected not for their windows into ideology or significant issues where the platform is clear with regard to "core Republican values" but to make some particular "friends" look good and others bad.
If the preparers (who insist on not disclosing who they are) were honest, they would acknowledge the shortcomings and start over. But, they continue to promote it as some great window of clarity when it is not. And that my friends is what they claim to be fighting.
That's one good way to look at it, Troy. Here's another "Dem's Eye View" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEvCWotXQr8&feature=related
Right on, Bill and Troy: it's a faulty instrument.
Troy, point of order. According to your characterization above, when someone is really, really liberal they (we) "flame." So what is the proper participle to use when referring to someone who is really, really conservative?
e.g. squirming, nail-biting, shivering, laxative-taking? LOL.
paleolithic conservatism.
Fleming do you understand logic?
1) The SDGOP platform is based on conservative principles
2) The The scorecard is based on the SDGOP platform
3) The scorecard is based on conservative principles.
"It has some Republicans less conservative from flaming liberals."
Don't blame the scorecard, blame the RINOs.
Ah! Knuckle-dragging. Of course. Thanks Kurtz.
nutso conservatism....
"It has the clear appearance of bills having been selected not for their windows into ideology or significant issues where the platform is clear with regard to “core Republican values†but to make some particular “friends†look good and others bad."
Not so. The bills included were the ones not supported by a Republican dominated legislature. The scorecard points to those who are outside the conservative principles found in the platform way too much of the time.
"Which is it?"
A far-left Marxist Democrat carrying water for the far-left RINO establishment of the SDGOP.
rotting conservatism....
Bill, fervent?
Steve, if those bills are a window into conservative principles, you obviously must be asserting Angie Buhl is a moderate. Please confirm this is your definition of a moderate.
Again, Sibby, just because you say it, doesn't mean it's true. Don't believe everything you think.
Troy, "fervent" is okay, but it's just an adjective. I'm looking for a participle (a verb used as an advective) like "flaming." If liberals "flame" when they liberate, what do conservatives do when they conserve? "Molt?"
Bill, your command of language is much better than mine. Coruscate?
"Angie Buhl is a moderate."
No such thing as a moderate. Her score would have been lower if she voted on all the bills. I recommend that excused votes are given half weight. Would that improve the scorecard?
Bill, so I should become like you and say what I think is not true. Sorry, I pass.
Ooo, that's nice, Troy (had to look it up).
"Scintillating" might be sexier ;^)
Now, if you can just make 'em believe it.
Sibby, go peddle your papers. You wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up behind you and bit you in the ass (which it pretty much routinely does.)
Another personal attack by Fleming. When are you going to learn?
oh, bill: i have a bead on sibby's nards....
WAP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU9j5Y_lmRc
Sibby, yours was the personal attack, mine was the rejoinder. You need to pay attention and keep track if you're gonna try to argue with the big boys. Otherwise, you'll get laughed out of room, buddy. And we all know how much you'll be hatin' that.
"The last thing that patients need is to find out they have to deal with health professionals who are “Quixotic jousting†instead of trying to find a “common ground†to understand and treat them." The Psychiatrist.
Yes, Larry, see also:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/freuds-radical-talking/
Especially regarding discussions of "extended pointlessness."
Excerpt:
"What Freud proposed, and what remains revolutionary in his thought today, is that human beings have the capacity for real change, the kind that would undo the malicious effects of our upbringings and educations so as to obviate the need for “breaks from real life,†both voluntary and involuntary.
What is paradoxical in his proposal is that this revolution requires less “work,†not more. There is a premium today on “doing,†as if we are now suffering, amidst astounding productivity, from an essential passivity. Freud’s conversation is, of course, a kind of work that is often very taxing. Yet it is always and inevitably what the classical economists called “unproductive labor.â€
Against our culture of productivity and its attendant subculture of “letting off steam,†Freud hypothesized that the best way to refashion our world for the better is to adopt a new way of speaking to one another. Above all, this radical way of talking is defined by what appears to be extended pointlessness, something we are increasingly incapable of tolerating as the world around us moves ever faster."
"Sibby, yours was the personal attack, mine was the rejoinder."
Thanks for proving you have no sense of reality. I was responding to your personal attack with a rhetorical.
@Brett According to Mr. Jones, Republicans voting against such things is not really voting against such Conservative principles so much as your own view that they are not voting with the SDGOP platform, which is your personal opinion and not really reality... It didn't sound any better when he tried the BS above either. The truth is, you are correct.
Contrary to what Billy & Troy try to espouse above to cover the liberal-moderate tracks of the legislators that they support, we are not talking about rocket scientist math here.
You have sitting "Republican" legislators admitting the have never read the SDGOP platform which correlates to their voting record on the report card showing they don't vote with the platform AND what is witnessed in the actual legislature. Unless Jones & Bill think you magically get voting instinct on Republican issues through the simple magic of changing party registrations? Normally you need to read the stinking map in order to get to the destination that your party wants to get to.
Translation: If Stace doesn't have a manual, he doesn't know how to think. i.e. He would rather be a person who follows than one who leads.
Stace,
Why engage in an ad hominem attack? Why don't you address my comments direct? Or do you not have a response and a personal attack is your only option?
@Billy Yeah, you got me! :-D Ever the faithful lamb following the goats! :-D
@Troy Go back and read your goofy comments about my genitelia and your threats to physically assault my groin. Then come back and lecture me for my short curt responses to your lame jedi mind trick comments.
So Bill, what guides you, you, yourself and ....
Sibby, I thought you'd never ask:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-wl2qqD7Y
http://www.bartleby.com/142/19.html
Stace,
You keep mentioning that but you fail to mention I also said "but you aren't even worth bothering to kick." Trust me, I really believe you are an insignificant snivelling little man.
does sniveling have two ells?
RT @ColbertReport: I'm a Catholic, it's okay. I go to confession, it will be fine. Thank you.
http://thepage.time.com/2012/04/25/clinton-and-colbert-at-the-time-100/#ixzz1tmAQSHzS
Troy,
Even you have the common sense at points to realize you are not man enough to do anything but snipe from the shadows.
Get used to seeing me around SD politics. If I lose the primary, I will be even more active in party affairs and will ensure I ALWAYS have a voting position at state committee. Out of office I will have the opportunity to campaign for other non-rino candidates unassociated with you and your ilk.
Your last comment is simply projecting. Now scurry off I am tired of all your whining.
meow.
"snipe from the shadows" ?
Troy's not the one who sock puppet trolls, Stace. Just sayin'.
Of course, there's always the possibility that you yourself are the puppet.
In any case, the wording, phraseology, syntax etc. are far to similar between your posts and others' to be mere coincidence. Plus, you and Sibby have openly admitted to assisting an anonymous group of goofballs in their efforts to smear those in their own party.
Somebody's projecting here alright.
But it doesn't appear to me to be Mr. Jones.
Anyway, I should let you go now.
You no doubt still have a lot of memorizing to do, fearless "leader." LOL.
Billy, LOL!
I have always said you are smart enough to see past the simple (mis)indicators of ideology such as (R) & (D). You faithfully support those that align to your way of thinking regardless of the letter they choose to get into office. Thus you and Troy's overflowing love for me.
Now who needs to go see a head shrinker? You and Troy are seeing a broken down ulgy old Marine around every corner! I would agree with you that there is a handful of anon posters out there that hawk DWC, both pro or con us; however, they don't have my big ugly mits darning their socks for them. You two seem more obssessed and frustrated by it than anyone. I can understand that with your political leanings and type of personalities.
Have a good day Bill, don't let them socks on the floor trip you up! :-D
Correct, Stace. Troy and I have been around long enough to recognize both tools and fools when we see one... especially when they are embodied in the same shell.