Steve Sibson lost another election last night. Incumbent GOP Senator Mike Vehle whooped Sibby 65% to 35%.
But have to love our favorite representative of the wingnut wing of the South Dakota blogosphere when he says this about his performance:
"I got 20 percent the first time and 30 percent this time, so I'm gaining ground. Maybe third time's a charm" [Steve Sibson, quoted in Anna Jauhola, "Vehle Fights Back Inner-Party Challenge from Sibson," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2012.06.05].
I love you, Sibby.
Actually, Sibby, you got 35%. You broke 40% in Aurora County. You won White Lake! Not bad for someone who calls democracy socialism and declares women's suffrage and the Constitutional prohibition on slavery unnecessary. Liberals and conservatives alike stand a-tremble in anticipation of your next campaign.
But for now, Sibby tells his people to vote wisely... and vote Democrat:
Sibson also feels bad for the rural people who are more conservative, he said. He's hoping Democrat Quentin Burg is more conservative and gives the rural population a conservative to vote for.
"I hope the people who supported me will consider supporting him," Sibson said of Burg [Jauhola, 20120.06.05].
There you go, Quentin! Sibby just delivered you over 1000 Republican votes! Ride that wave! (And come buy ads on both Sibby Online and the Madville Times!)
This will endear him to the 65% of the GOP that voted for Vehle and pretty much eliminate his opportunities for elected office.
When Vehle is more liberal than every Dem in the Senate, Burg looks like the man to me. Now if we can just get him to understand that the liberal SDGOP gets their power from a big government and stop talking about adding an Income Tax to make the government even bigger thereby handing more power over the SDGOP corporatists (Chamber of Commerce).
And PS: I am not voting fro Romney.
Troy, don't forget that there are a log to GOP teachers that are not happy with HB1234. The 65% who voted for Vehle ignored his liberal voting record. So what I proved yesterday the myth that Republicans are conservative. If consrevative Republicans will boycott all RINOs, vote with the Democrats, and then add the Independents...then RINOs like Vehle are toast in the general.
War has been declared on RINOs and I am not dead yet.
If there's anything to be said about Steve it's that he's tenacious. The man sticks to his guns, which is respectable. They're crazy, paranoid guns that fire conspiracy theories instead of bullets, but he sticks to them, which is more than I can say for most politicians.
I hope Steve never, ever wins that election. The man's clearly insane. But I really do admire his tenaciousness and honesty. Keep it up, Steve. At the very least, other politicians should look to those qualities as something they should take up, themselves.
Congratulations on doing so much better than last time.
I used to think Steve was a glass half empty guy but after that "there's a pony in here someplace" comment I've decided he's a glass half full guy.
Guys, we need to stop fighing as Dems vs GOPers. The battle is the Big vs the oppressed. See Proverbs 16:19:
Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.
See, Sibby, I've agreed with you all along on that. The difference is in who you and I see as oppressors, and our solutions to the problem. You'd make a wonderful socialist, if only you could see the light!
We have liberals on here saying they need to be more radical, we have Steve willing to help them get elected, we have conservatives on the War College saying they need to be more radical.
In the meantime, the average voter says everyone is crazy.
Hang on to that party love, rampaging bull as long as you can, Troy. You have the wave. The wave always crashes.
Our tent's a helluva lot bigger. Disorganized, no clear message and frustration festers. But we're not narrow-minded, demanding the group thinks one way, trashing individual liberties, and sucking the corporate body parts I won't say here. We will never decide we're so power hungry we lose The People and forego all humanity to win. If we do that, we're just GOP.
"We have liberals on here saying they need to be more radical, we have Steve willing to help them get elected"
Troy you and the rest of the SDGOP establishment are liberals. The Marxist Democrats are the liberal radicals. I am trying to get the rural conservative Dems to understand that they need to team up with conservative GOPers, and vice-versa...with a big dose of Independents, who are the voters who think the two parties are crazy as they fight like cats and dogs.
Steve,
Do you ever consider how truly insulting you can be? And, how your anger comes through.
I know you lost a tough election where you put your heart and soul into winning. And, it isn't fun I'm sure.
But, Steve, the while the South Dakota Democrats are certainly more conservative than their East Coast brethren, they aren't as conservative Republicans. Democrats are Democrats because they identify with their principles. If they are Democrats because the Republican Party isn't "pure" enough, you are basically asserting they are irrational.
Republicans are Republicans because they identify with GOP principles.
Independents are Independents because they choose to not identify with either.
Does that not mean there are not issues where Republicans disagree with some Republican principles or the same with Democrats or Independents sometimes lean one way or another? Yes.
But, the idea you can build a majority by only allowing "purists" on your side or by tricking Democrats into voting for a "pure" Republican will not work. And, to do so with a tone of anger, is especially off-putting.
Final comment: I know you consider me more liberal than you. But, I am not a liberal. And neither is Mike Vehle. Quentin might be more conservative that most Democrats (I have no idea) but he certainly isn't more conservative than Vehle.
Sibby, you have taught me more about the crimes and history of the Catholic experiment than nearly anyone has: thank you.
"Republicans are Republicans because they identify with GOP principles."
Troy, my race proofed that to be false, and I am not angry about it. Sad maybe. The Mitchell Republicans (and the SDGOP Establishment) are driven by the Chamber of Commerce which has rejected the fair and competitive free market system in favor of having governmet create the jobs. If Democrats disagree with that, then the are more conservative and more Republican than the Chamber of Commerce Republicans. And it was Bob Mercer who called Vehle the Chamber of Commercer candidate.
If that insults you that is only because the Holy Spirit is convicting you. Don't blame me and make false allegations.
Steve, say what you will but 65% of the people who identify with the Republican party voted against you. And, the local Chamber of Commerce is free enterprise. You really need to analyze your bogeymen.
"And, the local Chamber of Commerce is free enterprise."
That is a myth. Remember the South Dakota chamber took $1 million from the ultra-liberal National Education Association to protect their corrupt political system in 2008? And 65% who vote for a flaming liberal are identified liberal Republicans, and/or they care more about big government lining their pockets with money than they care about conservatives principles.
And Troy, would conservative Republicans be concerned about the massive increase in federal debt amassed during the Obama administration? How much and by what percentage did the Republican dominated South Dakota state government increase federal spending since 2008, the year Obama was elected as president?
Sibby, give me a list of the RINOs. Vehle, Peters, sure... now list the rest who are running for Senate and House. Then hook me up with your network of conservatives in those districts. Give me a chance to talk to them and convince them of the wisdom of voting for the Dems in their districts to shake up the RINO power structure and pave the way for your and Howie's ascent.
While you're at it, point me toward the Marxist Democrats. I might want to attend one of their meetings. The regular Democrats I hang out with aren't always so thrilling. ;-)
Cory, first we need to get HB1234 on the ballot and use it and Referred Law 14 to show conservatives that their SDGOP leadership passed legislation that violate conservative principles. You did a post about that a couple of days ago.
Fleming is an example of a Marxist Democrat. And with all due respect, you are too. I only want a chance to show you that the government is not the solution for the oppressed. What ever happened to the Reagan Democrats, the JFK Democrats...don't ask what the government can do for you...?
Again, I'm with your on the referrals. Daugaard's endorsement failure showed his weakness; our chances of winning the referrals just increased 10%. I'll stay on the same page with you there: we have not yet begun to fight!
Gack. It seems to me that liberals can be pocket-book conservative when that means not wasting government money or handing $billions to the undeserving very rich.
Conservative retrograde Republicanism doesn't work. The last Bush administration and the Reagan Laffer curve and other economic mythology did not work as claimed.
The current mix of GOP social issues and tax dementia should mean the end of the Grand Irrelevancy.
Reality and Republicanism don't mix.
My friend Bill is a Marxist? I hope that does not mean it is dangerous to have breakfast with the young fellow.
Doug: liberals as fiscal conservatives? Indeed! I remind the court that as President of the Lake Herman Sanitary District, the Democrat author of this blog cut taxes 60%. You want your rural conservatism, Sibby? I can speak that language. I'll bet Charlie Johnson can, too. Come help him beat RINO Russ Olson!
Grudz, having breakfast with Marxists is as safe as breaking bread with Sibby. We've all got to eat. Pass the syrup, comrade!
Grudz, I would be more concerned that Bill is a Venusian than I would that he's a Marxist.
You don't need to pass the syrup, Cory. You know what they say: In Soviet Russia, syrup passes you.
And I don't think it should be surprising that we liberals can be fiscally conservative. We want wealth spread around more evenly, sure, but we don't just want to start throwing money in the streets (a little known fact). We too like to see our money spent wisely, and thriftily.
Careful there Carter- Your going to get the conservatives swarming when they smell you ripping at those old worn out stereotypes that they hold so dear.
Oh, sorry, Barry. That was actually a typo. What I meant to say was "I am jealous of all the money the successful people have because they don't pay taxes. We should take all their money and put them in government death camps while aborting all the babies."
"I’ll bet Charlie Johnson can, too. Come help him beat RINO Russ Olson!"
Show me some of Charlie's more conservaitve policy positions and i well consider it.
"We want wealth spread around more evenly, sure, but we don’t just want to start throwing money in the streets (a little known fact). We too like to see our money spent wisely, and thriftily."
Carter if you believe in the little folks, then let them spread the wealth in a free competitive market place, not a market determined by central planners (fascism or Marxism).
Steve, have you missed the results of your free market economy? It always, always results in a few giant corporations crushing the little guy to tiny little, non-competitive bits.
It would be a really, really wonderful world if we could trust the corporations with lots of power to just do the right thing so everyone had a shot at money, but as we've seen many times, we simply can't. We can't trust them to do the right thing in the US. We can't trust them to do the right thing in other countries. Corporations need regulation to keep them in line, and to keep them from stamping out every tiny thing they see as competition and then charging us whatever they want for their products.
Example? Gas prices. Oil companies are still making record profits. Closer to home? Sunshine foods. I just bought a box of Apple Cinnamon Cheerios in Brookings for $2.79 or somewhere thereabouts. Cost for the same thing here in Madison? $4.79. That's the result of your free market, Steve.
See also, Chiquita Banana. I ate a fair trade Turbana banana just today, and it made me smile. Irony: I bought it at Wal-mart.
"We can’t trust them to do the right thing in the US."
Then you can go to the little guy in a free market, you can't in a government developed monopoly.
Just a side comment to Carter and Steve:
Steve's comments seem closer to Chesterton's economic views (Distributism) vs. Smith/Hayek free enterprise views.
As much as you might desire it Carter, Distributism opposes your concepts of Socialism/government intervention as Smith/Hayek.
The thing people don't seem to understand is that very, very few liberals actually support the old State Socialism/Communism ideas. In case you aren't clear on it, Troy, distributism is also against an unregulated free market.
I never said we should get rid of capitalism, or that the state should own everything. The state should regulate everything. I don't want a state-run economy, I want a fair, regulated economy that forces large corporations off the backs of the little guy.
Seems pretty straight-forward, to me. Laws prevent the big corporations from stomping out all their competition.
This actually speaks to the central problem with many non-liberals. It's not that they necessarily oppose socialism. They don't know what it is, in a modern sense. There's this view that we're all Communists who want the government to run everything by itself and for people to just be along for the ride. Very few people actually want that. I doubt anyone here does.
I think maybe what Carter is trying to say is that our nation should rediscover the economic principles of Teddy Roosevelt and the Trustbusters.
(Hey Carter, would that be a good name for a ska band or what? Teddy & the Trustbuss'.)
"Corporations need regulation to keep them in line"
Carter, those that control Corporations control government and the purpose of the regualtion is to stop out competition. It goes back to the railroads. Here is a book you should check out:
http://www.amazon.com/Railroads-Regulation-1877-1916-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0393005313/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339093780&sr=1-3
Sibby, the trouble with that view is that so many of the ideas for "fixing" the system is coming up with solutions for specific problems without fixing the source.
It's a bit like fixing leaks in something holding back a lot of water pressure. The water needs somewhere to go, so every time you fix a leak, another one will show up somewhere else. Our whole system is broken, so trying to fix the corruption and money-making in one place is just going to push it to another, and nothing will really be fixed.
All your problems with the government come from money. The corporations control the government through money, the government is influenced by the powerful people because of money, etc.
I agree with you that none of the regulatory solutions will really work, but they would work if we took the money out of government. Possible solution: Corporations cannot donate. Individuals can donate only up to $10,000 ($100,000?). That way, you don't have people like the Koch brother donating millions and millions of dollars and people like you and me can donate in a meaningful way to candidates. Get rid of PACs and Super PACs, too.
Food for thought: Direct democracy would also take the money out of government.
" agree with you that none of the regulatory solutions will really work, but they would work if we took the money out of government."
Carter, we completely agree on the problem. Possible solution: reduce taxes, eliminate entire governmental departments such as the Dept of Ed. Ban governmental bribes to private sector.
And instead of a Direct Democracy how about each state legislature picking a person to put into a hat. Whichever name is drawn first is president, second is vice pres.
The Dept. of Ed. is necessary to ensure that all schools are somewhat equal in teaching. Without it, you run the risk of getting some schools that choose to only teach the Bible, without any math, science, reading, writing, etc., for example. And in most places, people don't have any other option than their local school. If they want their kids to learn something outside what that school teaches, they're SOL. Some degree of uniformity and requirements is key to a prosperous society.
Lowering taxes only works in some areas. Lowering the taxes (slightly) on the lower and middle class (or at least the middle class) will increase the buying power of the economy. Lowering taxes on the very wealthy ($500,000 - $1,000,000 per year +) will take significantly more out of the economy and the well-being of society than it will add to it. Not raising the capital gains tax is insane.
I worry more about private sector brigs to the government, but any real "bribes", or things that could be construed as bribes, should be banned. But I won't make a statement on that because I'd like you to give me some examples of what you consider a bribe to the private sector.
"The Dept. of Ed. is necessary to ensure that all schools are somewhat equal in teaching."
And that would mean dumped down.
"examples of what you consider a bribe to the private sector"
Giving park land to a credit card company. The Chamber of Commerce Mayor of Mitchell threatened to sue me for publically being against the idea.
I had a sticker on my computer that said, "I work hard and pay taxes so rich people don't have to." Had a great conversation in a coffee shop with two orthopedic surgeons who didn't like the sticker. It was fun, interesting, and respectful.
I've replaced the sticker now, after more consideration of their comments. The one I have now says, "I don't mind you being rich. I DO mind you buying the government." I think I like that one better too.
I've also added this one, "Corporations are not people. Money is not speech."
I agree with Sibby on this. Regulation favors the big companies to the detriment of small/medium companies and the working lower class. Just look at how much the "too big to fail" banks have grown since passage of Dodd-Frank, increasing the odds and severity of the next meltdown. We have seen nothing yet.
Carter, I well understand distributionism as I not only am a fan of Chesterton but investigated as a philosophy for myself.
I don't mean to be insulting but many of your statements wouldn't pass an Economic 101 class taught by a liberal teacher. You want to literally destroy millions of jobs for the working middle class and retirement savings of everyone, raise the cap gains tax? There is a reason Obama has essentially quit talking about it except in some political context to appeal to latent class envy.
He has been told reality: Capital would flee our shores at the speed of light with the job loss going by train.
Sibson exonerated:
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/easy-street/libor-mortals-easy-explainer
"Anyone who thinks socialism failed in America has never spent time on a military base."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/19/welfare_state
Larry, anyone who thinks socialism failed in America has never spent time learning about the National Football League.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/goodell_admits_nfl_is_socialist
My steel-jacketed .30-06 cartridges would have stopped him, Bill.
Socialism failed in America? Maybe only in the heinous teacher unions and with my social security.
I still support Mr. Sibby, except in his insane Howieism and hatred toward Kiwanis.
"The Republic for the United States is the largest sovereign citizen movement in the U.S. The basic philosophy is that our current government is a de facto government, and that the Republic's version is the legitimate one."
http://snellville.patch.com/articles/senate-candidate-joins-alternative-u-s-government
Bill, is the pizza at the Ale House any good?