In another uninstructive and maliciously deceptive post, Pat Powers claims that Ashley Heacock, manager for Democrat Corinna Robinson's U.S. House campaign, is not proud of the Constitution.
This is another of the headline lies and ad hominem distractions that are standard on Dakota War College. Here's the fact-checking that is standard on the Madville Times:
- Powers cites a September 19, 2013, tweet from Heacock that reads, "Having the world's oldest written constitution is not something to be proud of".
- Heacock was reading and links to this September 18, 2013, Foreign Policy article in which Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks responds to the Washington Navy Yard shootings in her city by arguing that gun rules written over 200 years ago may not adequately address modern gun issues.
- Brooks offers a useful analogy as to why the age of a document does not equate with merit:
I teach constitutional law, I ask my students if they're happy that they live in a nation with the oldest written constitution in the world. They all nod enthusiastically. Then I ask them if they'd be equally pleased if our neurosurgeons operated in accordance with the oldest anatomy book in the world, or our oil tankers steered using the oldest navigational charts in the world, or NASA's rocket scientists used Ptolemaic astronomy to chart the path of the Mars Rover.
Frankly, having the world's oldest written constitution is not something to be proud of [Rosa Brooks, "Blood on the Constitution," Foreign Policy, 2013.09.17].
- Pat's headline shouts that Heacock is not proud of the Constitution.
- But Heacock makes no such statement. Her tweet (79 characters, plus the link) only repeats Brooks's statement about the merit of having the oldest Constitution.
- Powers says he is "stunned that Robinson seems to think this is the kind of person she wants running her South Dakota Congressional campaign."
- Pat claims to be an expert on running campaigns, despite, like me, never winning one.
- Pat should thus be stunned if Robinson didn't pick a person like Heacock to run her campaign. Check out her résumé: speaks six languages; worked in Africa, the Middle East, and Washington, D.C.; writes e-books about entrepreneurship in developing countries and conflict in Mali; interned for Senator Johnson, paged for Rep. Herseth, and coordinated legislative campaigns; got into Harvard for grad school—good grief! She's ten times smarter than Pat and two times smarter than me. Why wouldn't Robinson want someone like that running her campaign?
Pat's snide attempt to malign Robinson and Heacock by misrepresenting a single tweet demonstrates how his partisanship blinds him to a remarkable list of achievements and experiences... a list all the more remarkable in that they've been gathered by a South Dakotan who graduated from high school just eight years ago.
But hey, because she read and quoted a pointed, emotional, yet intelligent critique of the U.S. Constitution, she must be a witch. Burn her at the stake!
If they are tossing trash at Robinson this early, they must have something to worry about. I wonder if they are worried democrats are running legit candidates and repub are running, well...repubs.
Ashley and her family are long time friends. Anybody who would try to badmouth this brilliant young woman (she's off to the Kennedy School to get her MPA) is pretty much clueless and merits pity, not scorn. Regardless of political persuasion, Ashley is among the best that South Dakota has to offer. This guy Powers has reason to be embarrassed by this vindictive and spiteful attempt at character assassination--as do his political patrons, if he has any. If somebody wants to C & P this response and post it on his pathetic excuse for a blog, please do so, and don't forget to mention my name, John Tsitrian
Mr. H you know darn well there are no real witches, only pretend ones that worship trees and rocks. I assume you are joshing us but your point is interesting anyway. I think Mr. PP just wants to laugh at how many different staff people this Ms. Robinson has had and how she really doesn't even plan to win just to fatten up her resume' and dance back to libbie-land.
Powers did say South Dakota needed more pols of John Thune's caliber to run for office. I figure you have way more than you'll need for like forever. Time to upgrade from Trog to Neanderthal man.
The republicans own information must show the Noem is in trouble. Hopefully Noem can ride that horse full time we see in those same campaign ads.
Wait till after the primary. Right now Powers is concentrating on going after conservative Republicans for the establishment.
Pat, and his party, exhibit a combination of anti-intellectualism and junior high mean girl pettiness
Reading this in Krugman's op-ed made me think a little closer to home.
"— the Bundy fiasco was a byproduct of the dumbing down that seems ever more central to the way America’s right operates."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/krugman-high-plains-moochers.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
SDWC seems intent on proving professor Krugman to be correct.
Stop lumping us all into the same bucket, Ms. Jana. I, for one, think highly of the young lady.
So stop calling me names, OK?
Sorry Grud...
Tim is right. If this is how they are starting to campaign this early, they've already BOMBED B I G time.
Powers is of the caliber that used to cower under the sliding board on the playground chanting encouragements to the playground bully who intimidated and insulted the little kids. Anyone who survived the fifth grade knows the mentality. But that's all the GOP has. It comprised the entire campaigns of Thune and Sandlin. The disgrace is that it works among the state majority.
Exactly what is a Pat Powers? Certainly not an energy drink, maybe a laxative, I just don't know.
Pat Powers is a real American hero, just a small business owner surviving by his own wits but graced by the all powerful will of God. His gun always shoots straight, just like his sense of justice, sexual orientation and probably, direction.
If you ask him about white privilege, he'll reply he doesn't wear that color of pants past Communism (Labor) Day.
If you try to buy him a drink, he'll respond he only drinks vodka a Rounds brewed..
Pat Powers, just an all-american kind of guy.
Snowgrifter Snoozie,the half-gov,quitter from Arizona by way of Alaska and five colleges is a witch,the way she mesmerizes testosterone-laden adolescent gun nuts trying to look up her skirt. Who ever would have thunk you could bring old timey religion to redneck hillbillies and extend an olive branch to Muslims by threatening to baptize them in the name of national security. It takes a whacky witch from Wasilla to pull that off. Witches are real,Grudz,they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the far out right.
Ms. Robinson's credentials look similar to those of Heather Wilson's: maybe they should do lunch.
Nice article,Jana. Thanks.
Miss Heacock has a bright future but the professor she tweets about is living in bizarro world. The U. S. Constitution is the greatest document ever written by man. Without it we would all be serfs to some Euro aristocrat.
Pat Powers is deleting post that challenge about the validity of his story, why isn't that unusual?
Thad, Ms. Heacock's professor poses a legitimate question that requires some real thinking, I don't believe she said anything negative about the Constitution, she merely points out that the framers could not envision the government and laws we have today.
Sam, Tim, G, I'm not sure if Pat's attack signals that the higher-ups in the party sent him a message about a need to fire or if it sprang entirely from his personal partisan pettiness.
Thad, I'm inclined to say Prof. Brooks goes a little too far in suggesting the Constitution is just a "a 226-year-old piece of paper". But in using that phrase, she is making an intellectual point: worshipping the Constitution as an inviolate document, a holy artifact, may miss the spirit of the document. The Constitution was created to help a nation thrive for generations. It was amended immediately, suggesting the Founding Fathers expected changes to their piece of paper.
I practice some of that quasi-religious reverence for that 226-year-old piece of paper (and the younger pieces of paper stapled to it over the ages). I do not lightly propose amending the Constitution, given his supremacy to every other law and to the checks and balances of the three branches. But I am willing to do it, because I recognize that originalist Constitutional integrity is not the supreme value in our democracy. The Constitution is a means to achieve the principles enunciated in the Preamble; if we find a way to make our Union more perfect, we may change the Constitution.
Cory, I would think Corinna's military service would be a huge boost to her campaign?
It looks like Rosa Brooks is channelling her inner Ward Churchill.
By now it should be obvious that the state GOP prefers a rather bovine electorate easily aroused by non-factual noise and happy to put their hands over their ears when they hear something that upsets their epistemic all had posed world.
It is also readily apparent that far too many South Dakotans have happily subscribed to the "Rockwellian-Orwellian" world constructed by the GOP, aided by the utterly embarrassing disarray of the state Democratic Party. This year, the Dems have fielded some strong candidates for the first time in a long time. One hopes for a different outcome this time around.
Thad, when I was at UCLA I eagerly sought out and studied Communist theory under the tutelage of Angela Davis. I literally went from killing Commies in Vietnam in my '67-'68 tour of duty as a Marine grunt to studying Communism in the classroom of America's most visible Communist in 1970. I consider it to have been an important element in my education that laid an intellectual foundation to my commitment to Republicanism. I believe that professors as "out there" as Davis, Ward Churchill, Rosa Brooks and probably more than a few others have an important place in our academic culture because they open up the discussion to evalutating our most basic values and assumptions. The Constitution and other founding documents in our country can stand to be analyzed and criticized, and should be, regularly. I wouldn't give two cents for a so-called education that excluded these tests of basic American philosophy, mainly because it doesn't amount to an education in any concept of the word as I understand it.
John makes a good point, Thad: challenges to our faith make us strengthen our faith... or recognize that we need a new faith.
Brooks makes another provocative point: as other democracies put together new constitutions, they have been following the model of the U.S. Constitution less often than they did following World War II. Citizens and lawmakers from other democracies are rational human beings, pretty much like us. They want to create stable governments that establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. They would not choose to govern themselves by an inferior document, yet they are rejecting more of the wording of the document we claim is the best. Brooks says there is apparently increasing sentiment worldwide that one can do better than the American Founding Fathers of 1787. Those modern foreign framers may be mistaken, but they can't all be stupid tyrants. They and their very serious choices show there are grounds for intelligent, liberty-minded people to debate the merits of provisions of the United States Constitution. To dismiss someone who debates those merits as unfit for public office or for helping someone campaign for public office is thus illogical, anti-intellectual, and mean-spirited.
In short, the stupid tyrant in this case is Pat Powers.
Pat Powers just does as the GOP always seems to-----malign, make up lies and wrap themselves in the flag with the Bible sticking out. The sad thing to me is, that one of the major parties in our country would act so and still attract the numbers of ignorant people who so trust the liemakers!!!!
The Constitution has had some interesting things spoken about it. I wonder if anyone remembers this take on it from 2005.
"Doug Thompson, publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, says he’s talked to three people present last month when Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush in the Oval Office to talk about renewing the Patriot Act. That act, passed by legislators who hadn’t read it, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (when most people were shell-shocked and lawmakers in particular disinclined to use their brains), has of course been criticized as containing unconstitutional elements. All three GOP politicians quote their president as saying: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
That seems somehow interesting to me that one could be so blatant, as I found and one could be so vague as we are writing about.
I certainly remember Ollie North telling America that there was a higher law than the constitution he swore to uphold and protect. The constitution seems relevant for wingnuts as a tool to beat Libs over the head with or for wiping their posteriors with. Dumb bass dubya also said he talked with his father, not his sire,before going to war.
Wasn't GHWB opposed to attacking Iraq?
The Constitution needs work, but not to give citizen rights to fetuses or provide machine guns to teenagers, or make Christianity the official US religion. Those prospects deter sensible modifications of Constitution.