In the Odd Duck Department, if it waddles like a Democrat and quacks like a Democrat, it's a Democrat, right?
Nope—it's Sioux Falls Republican and Reverend Representative Steve Hickey!
Rep. Rev. Hickey says he sent this flyer to every Democrat in District 9. The card implies an endorsement from House Democratic Minority Leader Bernie Hunhoff (D-18/Yankton). Hickey pulls the Hunhoff quote from a December 29, 2013, news article on Hickey's need for a lung transplant:
His legislative colleagues on both sides of the aisle are cheering him on.
“We’ll give Steve all the support we can,” said Bernie Hunhoff, the Democratic leader in the House. “Especially Steve — he’s just a caring fellow. You look at the list of the bills he’s carried and you can see, even though we’re of different political parties, just how deeply he cares about other people. I think he’ll see some of that caring bouncing back at him” [David Montgomery, "Rare Disease Sparks Defiance in Legislator," that Sioux Falls paper, 2013.12.29].
I will not call into question how much our favorite pastor-pol cares about his flocks. But I will question whether kind words spoken by a member of the opposite political party about an ailing Legislative colleague constitutes a reason to vote for members of that party to jump ship and vote for that ailing colleague.
Rep. Rev. Hickey then pitches Dems a laundry list of political positions that could indeed induce Democrats to vote for him:
- He leads the effort to repeal the death penalty
- He opposes the Keystone pipeline and uranium mining in the Black Hills
- He leads the effort to cap interest rates and stop payday/predatory lenders from exploiting the poor and elderly
- He has led bankruptcy reform helping financially struggling people recover
- He has broken rank with state leaders to get Joop Bollen and EB-5 out in the open
- He opposes corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and bank bailouts
- He's well regarded by Native Americans for his efforts to alleviate suffering, pursue justice and right wrongs... [Steve Hickey for State House District 9, campaign mailer to Democrats, October 2014].
Any Democrat in South Dakota could run on exactly and exclusively the above platform in complete consistency with the Democratic platform.
But District 9 Democrats, if you're looking for a Democrat to vote for, you have two Dems on your House ballot, Rep. Paula Hawks and Becky Jaspers.
Alas, Jaspers's pre-general campaign finance report suggests she's not trying too hard ($150 in from Soy PAC, $150 out to the Hawks campaign). Check with Jaspers first, but if she really isn't too enthused about going to Pierre, then District 9 Dems do face an interesting question. Should they cast just one vote, for rock'em-sock'em incumbent Rep. Hawks and let the Republican chips fall where they may? Do they take Rep. Hickey's love letter to heart and give him their vote as well to foil arguably more Republican Bob Deelstra's return?
Or do they pose the supplicant Hickey this challenge: Sure, we'll vote for you... but if you're going to walk and squawk like a Democrat, then you need to go whole duck and re-register as a Democrat.
Are you game, Steve?
I represent Dems too so I thought I'd let Dems in my district know I'm with them on some issues. There are more than ones listed there- oppose tax on food, etc. Aren't we sick of blind stubborn hyper partisanship? My first campaign mailer in 2010 said I'm not beholden to the left or the right. There is nothing odd duck about targeting a mailer to the interests of a particular demographic. I put quotes from Jon Schaff and David Montegomery on my mailers as I did here with Bernie. I don't figure they read as endorsements.
I'm not a Dem because my Republican list is a bit longer, namely on social and fiscal issues.
Pastor Hickey,
I am tired of hyper partisanship; I am also tired of people misrepresenting themselves. You are a democrat on this site; and over at SDWC you rail against liberal bias and other real or imagined deeds done by democrats. I expect a politician to talk out of both sides of their mouth. I just don't expect them to do it so amaturely.
If the pitch is vote for me because Berie Hunhoff thinks I'm a nice guy, then that is fine. But don't act like District 9 democrats are oblivious to how much you do NOT have in common with them.
Mike you misrepresent me. Consistency is a conscious thing for me. I get bashed as much on War College as I do here. Soft on immigration, wants to give free medical care to pregnant illegals, rino, rino. Look hard at my record and statements and I think you'll find I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth. Republicans in District 9 are likely already voting for me. The conversation I need to have is with independents and democrats. Every group can find reason to vote for or against me depending on what your main issues are.
like marriage equality, for instance?
Larry, Hickey is evolving. He doesn't believe that he is, but he is anyway. LOL
Certainly i did on the death penalty. Time for you all to come around on the humanity of the unborn and the injustice that is abortion .
Capitalizing Democrats Could Help Hickey With Democrats
Should he get a vote from moderates when his church doctrine is:
WE BELIEVE that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine and conduct.
Human life is a precious gift from God, sacred and to be protected from the moment of conception.
WE BELIEVE that other religions and ideologies are not alternative paths to God, and that human spirituality, if unredeemed by Christ, leads not to God but to judgment, for Christ is the only way.
Should he get the gay vote when he writes:
"Somehow the message we are presently getting from the medical community is that eating at McDonalds will kill us but the gay lifestyle has no side effects. Truth be told it seems self-evident the list of side effects would read far longer than anything we hear on a Cialis commercial."
"This indeed is a matter of being on the wrong side of history considering that historically, homosexuality has been a notable marker of the downfall of past civilizations, not their rise."
If you understood evolution, and biology a little better, Steve, you'd have your answer on that issue. Let's do discuss it sometime.
Suffice it for now to say that it's a whole different animal than the death penalty issue. Not nearly so cut and dried. And good for you for your stance against it. Thank you!
p.s. if all that's keeping you Republican is the abortion issue, that's not a good enough reason. Because sex and human reproduction is non-partisan. ;-)
John there isn't anything radical in the statements you posted. They are widely help views across our state on both sides of the aisle. In fact, even our President held most all of them until a couple years ago.
Widely held views
When I think of Steve Hickey it reminds me of the last scene from the movie the Devil's Advocate where the Devil played by Al Pacino says his favorite sin is Vanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGXvj2BjZLA
Vanity = "Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity
These seems to be this constant craving for the spotlight where being a pastor of a church is not enough, it's not enough to hang out with the good ole boys in the legislature but one of the things that gets me is stating comments that are hurtful to certain segments of the population knowing it will once again bring all kinds of attention national and local both good and bad to Rep. Hickey and South Dakota Did he take the time and think of the consequences before he made these statements? Maybe and maybe not.
2014 was almost a competition of who could say the most outlandish statements between Phil Jenson and Steve Hickey which reflected badly on our state and further reinforced it's reputation as backwards, redneck and was called the Alabama of the North.
I would strongly urge those voters in district 9 to vote for the Democratic candidate who will unseat Rep. Hickey. What he preaches and encourages at his church is one thing but as a state lawmaker he has a track record that crosses the line and he is an extremist masking as a moderate and when he is out there advocating for Natives or another group I would proceed with caution and ask yourselves "Is he really doing this for us or Steve Hickey?"
Lynn it's a political year and the game is to put yourself out there and let voters decide. Don't mistake confidence for vanity. While I'm in office I'll try to lead the conversation. Frankly I wonder sometimes if some of the people we elect ever have an original thought. I hear nothing from many in office. Maybe you prefer the quiet types. If I get voted out tomorrow my ego will be bruised until noon the next day and I'll be back doing all do. My identity isn't in Pierre.
Bill Fleming wrote:
>"If you understood evolution, and biology a little better, Steve, you'd have your answer on that issue. Let's do discuss it sometime."
I'm a certified high school science teacher who tested out of my first six credits of college biology and aced (100 percent) a 300-level course in evolution at SDSU. I'm also a young-earth creationist:
https://madvilletimes.com/2014/11/pressler-end-game-shake-hands-talk-issues-read-psalm-109/#comment-362821
My impression is that Pastor Hickey probably understands the relationships among biology, evolution and abortion better than any of his detractors here.
To me authoritative word and perfect rule for faith are fundamentalist views while the promotional materials to Democrats highlight moderate positions. Most believers struggle with their line between faith and reason but the Statement of Faith on your church web site comes across as very literal. One interesting question I've heard asked people of strong faith is if they would kill their own children if God asked them to do so. I am curious how you would respond to that question. It may help answer the question if your faith is absolute.
Like I said, Kurt, let's discuss it sometime. It could be interesting and enlightening for all of us, no doubt. But not right now.
p.s. I voted for you this morning, brother Evans.
Jesus F. Christ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Bill Fleming wrote:
>"I voted for you this morning, brother Evans."
Thanks, Bill. :)
Larry Kurtz posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Wikipedia is about as honest about creationism as CNN is:
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/10/25/the-rest-of-the-story/
After Rep. Hickey made the infamous comment regarding the one way garbage truck for gays there was another subject in the news about transgender student athletes in South Dakota high schools.
After Steve Hildebrand met with you to try and help educate there was another person who had about 30 plus years in dealing with a different part of the GLBT community that took a risk not affiliated with any GLBT organization and visited with you to help eliminate the fear behind bills being proposed in the legislature by Phil Jensen and others that supported it.
That meeting was to once again help educate and break down barriers, stereotypes and stressed the availability of a resource for future questions so ill thought out hurtful statements would not happen again since at the time you were getting death threats and all kinds of negative press. That one hour meeting was hardly enough time to cover various bases regarding that subject. Everything seem to end well with a trust established.
A few months later Rep Hickey tweeted a study that reflected negatively on the very subject of that meeting. He didn't even contact the person who offered to be a resource and ask about it before tweeting it. The subject of that study is a small part of what is considered and the doctors who commented in that study represents a very small opinion within the medical community.
After that surprise tweet the person who offered to be a resource e-mailed Rep Hickey a response to the tweet but there was never a reply from Rep. Hickey. How did this person who came forward with the best intentions as a peacemaker to help everyone affected feel? Used! Used to advance Rep Hickey's own religious and legislative agenda with limited, isolated data that does not reflect the results as a whole.
It really comes down to trust and that trust was broken.
Kurt, tell it to NASA:
http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/
Rep. Hickey, I really appreciate your views and efforts on the death penalty. To me, that says a lot about the quality of your character.
I don't understand, however, your views on what you call "the injustice that is abortion." Surely you are aware that women who want an abortion will take whatever steps are necessary to obtain one, regardless of illegality. Please take a look at this link:
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/impact-of-illegal-abortion/
Among other things, we learn that:
"Historically, women around the world have tried to end their unintended pregnancies whether abortion is legal or not, often jeopardizing their safety and health by self-inducing or seeking a dangerous illegal procedure."
"While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety."
I have no reason to, or basis to, question these factual statements. Believing that we should do everything we can to preserve life leads to one conclusion: Assure that women who decide to terminate pregnancies are given the best quality health care and full access to safe procedures. The bills coming out of the SD legislature do not do this. Instead they seek to stop all abortions by making it as difficult as possible for a woman to access safe medical care.
Ultimately, Rep. Hickey, how can someone who believes in the sanctity of life work so hard to prevent safe health care for women, and force them back in the dark alleys, use of coat-hangers, or dangerous self-inducing drugs? I find such a position deeply troubling and totally inconsistent with any pro-life belief system.
Hey, BCB, good to see you. I've been wondering you're familiar with a book entitled "The Two Million Year Old Self"? I'm reading it again after aging 20 years or so and am finding a lot more in it than I did the first time through.
http://www.anthonystevens.co.uk/two_million_self.htm
Lynn, I remember the tweet and never promised anyone I'd consult them before speaking on a topic. I remember the email and obviously neglected to reply. There are times I'm not current on personal correspondence and move on to the next thing with no intention to slight anyone. If people don't get a reply, which is atypical, email again. I didn't use anyone.
Hey Bill, thanks for the heads up - I'll check it out. Funny how re-reading a book after many years brings out some ideas missed in the first reading. Right now I am plugging through G.W.Hegel's "Phenomenology of the Mind," and have be getting so much more out it than the first time.
Rep Hickey,
That person never asked or required a promise. It was simply a courtesy. When you make statements whether by tweet or some other media it has an effect on others and it doesn't help if you used data than is not fully accurate to push an agenda. Your actions meaning statements this past year have caused harm to others directly and indirectly.
I appreciate your position on the KXL pipeline, Pastor Hickey. We'll make a democrat out of you yet!
If Oregon can have effective end of life medication why can't capital punishment be humane?
Larry, what? To heck with the right cocktail why can't it it be abolished!? I get your point, but day-um. Compared to Hicky's position, that would be devolution, mon.
I hope he says extremist on that point. It should never be left up to the state to decide when somebody has to check out.
Bill, in my view people convicted of capital crimes should get the option of life in prison or euthanasia.
Okay, I see. Thanks Larry. I can live with that. Just remember, Hotel California, brother... you can check out anytime...but... LOL.
Some have stated that the Prohibition of alcohol resulted in people buying their booze from the Black Market, and that there were crimes were being committed by people brewing/selling/distributing moonshine and other forms of alcohol.
When abortions were illegal women either went to the Black Market, or if they had enough money, they had a "D & C."
When alcohol was made legal again, the Black Market and the related crimes decreased.
When abortion was made legal, the number of women resorting to the Black Market decreased.
Abortions will always happen, and have been since men and women figured out how to do it.
Instead of putting so much time, energy, and money toward making abortions illegal, spend that time, money, and energy toward preventing unwanted conceptions.
Be truly pro-life by helping to make sure that people do not have to go through the sufferings that can be prevented, such as housing, helping former prison inmates find places to live and work, do the same for veterans and individuals with disabilities. Make sure that everyone who resides in a nursing home has his/her own advocate who is independent of the nursing home.
Don't we have a lot of rocks older than 6,000 years? Maybe some bones too.
If I lived in Pastor Steve's district, I would actually be conflicted on my vote.
On the one hand, he embraces a theology where women need an asterisk to get around a literal interpretation of what the Bible says about women and the church. But gays and the science of conception to life is cast in stone.
On the other hand he is almost the lone voice in Pierre to stand up to the sins of gambling and usury. God bless him for that. I've always found that when our state motto is "Under God the people rule," these vices of funding would be seen as hypocritical by the GOP dictate.
Maybe we need to have legislation to put an asterisk on the motto...because I don't think God would approve of two of the sins our state's rulers have put in place to fund the rest of their Godliness.
Or maybe rather than embarrass God, we either get rid of state sanctioned gambling and usury or take God out of our motto.
Pastor Steve. I think this is your strategy going forward in getting rid of the sins of usury and gambling.
The state condones and encourages gambling because it brings in revenue, so I do not think Steve H., or anyone else will be able to convince the legislators or the governor to reduce or end gambling.
What the state can, and should do, is do like what it is doing to discourage the use of tobacco products, and provide more assistance to those who have problems with gambling, and their victims.
The flyer is missing "anti-Neo-Marxist" Steve's favorite word for Dems. Clergy need to role model Christ teachings. Judgement is between oneself and God. If you are against abortion, then don't do it. If your fellow sister does, feel her pain and grieve. Do not judge, for you will be judged.
I support Hickey on each point he made on his flyer. The use of the Hunhoff quote, considering the context, is underhanded.
His problem comes from his fundamentalist, selective liberalism reading of the Bible. That's a common conflict for fundamentalists.
Selective Literalism" is about taking some parts of the Bible literally as translated in the 500 year old King James Version. Elizabethan English has a lovely sound, especially the first part of the Gospel of John. So lyrical and lovely. Nonetheless, later translations are significantly more accurate. I cringe at those who swear that the KJV is the Word of God! Sigh.
Anyway, Hickey does a good job of living according to the Beatitudes, to an extent. His theology limits him. Still, that's what he believes, and like any American, he is free to believe whatever he likes. He does not need to agree with me.
Except - Hickey wants to use his own, particular religious beliefs as the basis for laws controlling the citizens of SD. It's clearly a conflict.
Hickey wants to live according to his own religious beliefs, and he wants the rest of SD to live according to his religious beliefs too.
I'm not a fundamentalist, nor a KJV person. Don't work so hard trying to fit me in your boxes.
I moved to District 9 in June. I am SO PUMPED to get up tomorrow and vote against you, Pastor Homophobe.
rocky,
Any politician that has an obsession with male feces is not fit to serve the public.
I've given Steve, heck over the years but I've also seen great change in the man and contrare to DG's opinions, our beliefs produce who and what we are regardless of our position in life. Steve doesn't enjoy my words more often than not but his right actions balance or outweigh his wrong actions according to my beliefs. I also know the unsatisfied purist attitude played a large part in unseating SHS, Rocky. I doubt Steve is a homophobe, but as with most of his battles, he minces few words. He will sin till he dies as we all will.
It's not hard at all Hickey. I just read your comments. You are pretty clear about your belief system, even if you do use different words to describe it.
I see Rep. Steve Hickey is still reading comments here. I really would appreciate some response to my earlier factual observation that women will attempt to terminate an unwanted pregnancy whether legal or illegal, and whether intentionally making laws to make it unsafe for these women is really pro-life in any way, shape or form.
NARAL fabricated stats pre-Roe which influenced Roe on how many coat hanger abortions were actually going on. We can love both patients in every pregnancy. It is unjust to kill one simply for back up birth control. And the manner in which it's done is ISIS-like. We wouldn't dismember a living little bird - it's basic human compassion
Steve H., what is the SD legislators doing to help men and women to use medications or devices to prevent conception?
The state puts advertisements to discourage people from using tobacco products, and programs to help people to stop using tobacco products.
Why not be just as active in promoting behaviors, and techniques to prevent unwanted conceptions?
My typing error, I meant to type "The state pays for, and puts out advertisements......"
So, pastor Hickey, I didn't want to get into this, but you keep pressing the point.
1.Are you saying that you aren't really opposed to abortions per se, just the way the surgery is performed?
2.Or are you one who believes fertilized eggs in Petri dishes are people?
Now please, no long answers. Just say #1 or #2 so I can know where you're coming from. I really can't tell from your rhetoric.
Bill, #2. Science tells us they are biological human beings, aka people. Stage of development, level of dependence, deformity and depravity don't determine humanity. There are not some biological humans who are more human than other biological humans. When a pregnant woman goes to the doctor early in her pregnancy the doctors treat two patients and are very conscious of it.
I'm sorry, but it's that 'little birdy' kind of baloney that keeps all these kinds of conversations so far removed from reasoned discourse.
If Hickey accidentally inhaled a live little birdy into his windpipe and it was going to kill him if somebody didn't cut it up and get it out, I really doubt he would spend much time thinking about whether or not he should let them.
As I suspected Steve. Thank you. You are a hardliner. Good to know. We'll talk later. :-)
Yeah a hardliner that can't be trusted and should not be an elected official. Let's hope the voters in District 9 vote him out. We can do better than this! It's not that hard!
Just so you know, Hickey works for those who control both parties and are working toward a One World government. Hickey's apostate mentors call it creating Heaven on Earth. Google New Apostolic Reformation, C Peter Wagner, Chuck Pierce and check this out:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/chuck-pierce
Steve, is Steve H., also not a "true" Christian?
You tell em Sibs! lol
Main man Sibby. A SD Classic. He never disappoints.
Lynn, you don't trust Right Wing Watch?
JeniW, do your own research starting with the tips I provided.
"He opposes the Keystone pipeline and uranium mining in the Black Hills"
Now line that up with what Hickey says here about oil being a blessing from God:
https://stevehickey.wordpress.com/tag/chuck-pierce/
Rep. Hickey, so this is your only answer to my question on why any pro-life person would seek to deny safe termination procedures to a woman? - "NARAL fabricated stats pre-Roe which influenced Roe on how many coat hanger abortions were actually going on."
Are you saying that you disagree on the number or percentage of women who would attempt to terminate a pregnancy if such action were unlawful?
This seems a lot like the "plug my ears, la la la la la" response to factual information you simply don't want to hear. Why would NARAL fabricate stats, and how do you determine that it did so? And the link I cited quoted information from the the Guttmacher Institute - are they lying too?
Is the statistic that "One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year" a lie too?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html
If so, what number of women would you think should die because if the law denies them access to safe abortions?
Steve S., I do not judge who is or who is not a "true" Christian.
I thought since you like to judge who is or is not a "true" Christian, you would provide that information. But, if you decide not to do so, that is great!!
JeniW, I don't judge, the Word of God does. You should read it often.
Steve S., that is fine that you do not want to answer my question. Since you are no longer going to say who is or is not a "true" Christian, I see that as making positive progress.
JeniW, I answered your question. The Bible says there are apostates, false apostles, false prophets, and false teachers. The Bible says that we need to figure out deception. I gave you some tips so that you can do that yourself. You should not just rely on what others are telling you.
Christians tend to disregard everything before and outside their religion. Bart Ehrman is a respected biblical scholar that talks about its history and how even Jews once believed in multiple gods. Jesus wasn't considered a savior when he lived until portrayed this way in later books. Ehrman explains his journey from fundamentalist to more liberal until eventually being Agnostic. Quite fascinating to hear him lay it all out. Some of his videos are on You Tube.
The textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction written by Bart Ehrman is historically inaccurate and lacking in objective scholarship. Either the author intentionally distorted the facts or he lacks the objectivity to write such a book.
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/bible-questions/answer01074-new-testament-historical-introduction-bart-ehrman.html
Hawks wins the recount:
http://www.argusleader.com/story/jonathanellis/2014/11/24/hawks-holds-on-in-district9/70046990/