It's one thing for tax cheat and conservative mischief-maker Gordon Howie to use the brewing Legislative ethics controversy to foment primary (or third-party?) challenges to legislators failing his Christian purity test. It's another to try to drag Governor Dennis Daugaard into the fracas. Under a photo of Illinois laughingstock Rod Blagojevich and a question-marked allegation that South Dakota has "caught the 'Illinois virus,'" Howie attempts to implicate our fair Governor in covering up violations of legislative confidentiality:
Representatives from the Governors office have stated that neither he nor any of his staff had any knowledge of this situation, or involvement with it. During the Legislative session, leaders meet with the Governor and his staff on a daily basis. Having served in the Legislature, I can testify that the halls have ears... there are no secrets, or at best, very few secrets. Can someone issue a public statement from the Governors office that gives us assurance that the Governor and his staff had no involvment and no knowledge of this situation? [Gordon Howie, "Political Trouble May Run Deep in South Dakota," The Right Side, 2011.12.26]
That's funny: unless I've missed something (please submit your corrective links in the comment section!), the Governor's office has remained wisely silent on the question of whether the GOP House leadership has abused Legislative Research Council policies. At no point have the six complainant legislators suggested the Governor or his staff have had anything to do with the alleged confidentiality violations. Their latest missive limits allegations of wrongdoing specifically to fellow legislators.
Yet Howie unwisely casts his net further. He suggests that all must acquit themselves of his allegations, a "guilty until proven innocent" tack that smacks of Joe McCarthy. He reaches for a political figure who is not up for re-election this coming year. This swipe at the Governor has less chance of boosting Howie's crusade against corruption and more chance of provoking a gubernatorial response against Howie's fledgling legislative mischief. The Governor may tolerate a little primary mischief against legislators who a fair investigation can show overstepped their authority. But unnecessarily drag the Governor's name into the mud, and the well-liked, well-connected chief executive may send out a few calls that could make donations, candidates, and enthusiasm for Howie's insurgency dry up instantly.
Pick your battles, Gordon. Focus on a few key legislators, and you can wage an amusing and potentially instructive fight. But start throwing unsubstantiated mud at Dennis Daugaard, and your sideshow will collapse before it opens.
"But unnecessarily drag the Governor’s name into the mud, and the well-liked, well-connected chief executive may send out a few calls that could make donations, candidates, and enthusiasm for Howie’s insurgency dry up instantly."
Yeah, control us with the money. There can't be any corruption in this kind of an environment. Right?
Sibby, are you making campaign ads or leveling specific charges for a legislative investigation?
Cory, I am doing neither. I am making the point that the money sets up an environment that invites corruption. As I just got done saying in another thread, the secrecy makes the process of investigations meaningless. The solution is to reduce the amount of money involved by going back to the principles of a limited government.
Steve: good eye. Are you making a point for unicameral legislature? The chemical toilet is 50th in ethics. eliminating one chamber would cut the number of people on the take significantly:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/top-stories/article_5608cae4-093d-5b96-8dab-f7ca0f01e7e9.html
In the immortal words from "Cool Hand Luke," what we have is a failure to communicate. And, if their had been some communication among friends, this tempest would have been avoided.
Howie: "I can testify that the halls have ears… there are no secrets, or at best, very few secrets."
Maybe this experienced former legislator should have told a freshmen legislator there is no real confidentiality.
Howie: "Representatives from the Governors office have stated that neither he nor any of his staff had any knowledge of this situation, or involvement with it."
Similarly, the same freshman legislator with law enforcement experience could tell this former legislator that repeating hearsay is not "knowledge."
So Troy, since "there is no real confidentiality", why don't the SDGOP leadership admit it and tell us what has been going on behind the doors of the LRC?
Would getting rid of the LRC make everyone happy?
Troy's right: Howie seems to be trading in innuendo and hearsay. Let's stick to the facts.
And Steve, are you really suggesting that the investigation Reps. Russell, Nelson, et al. are calling for is a waste of time? Are you calling on Howie and his friends to end their calls for an investigation and just focus on fielding primary candidates?
No, Michael: getting rid of the LRC is a terrible idea. The LRC provides valuable services to legislators and citizens alike. Bloggers would be lost during session if it weren't for the LRC's session bill list and other online services.
Serving bloggers is not a state government function. If the LRC is full of corruption then it would seem that we need to make drastic changes.
"Serving bloggers is not a state government function."
Providing information to citizens, whether they blog or not, is a government function.
Also, LRC may have played a questionable political game, but there's no evidence it's "full of corruption"
The more I read of the charges, the more I believe that those who making the charges are like broken clocks–they may be right, but they will be right only twice a day.
"Are you calling on Howie and his friends to end their calls for an investigation and just focus on fielding primary candidates?"
Cory, if the LRC is in bed with the SDGOP leadership to shut down Democratic legislation, should you not be interested? So instead you are defending SDGOP Establishment because they are the enemy of your enemy? Do you really hate Chrsitian consrvatives that much? Ot is it that the SDGOP is supporting your Marxist ideology, you just have to pretend that arn't so that the Hegelian dialectic process can be maintained?
Will you be happy if Christain Conservatives are successful fielding candidates, take over Pierre, and then use the LRC to shut down any kind of Marxist/Atheist legislation?
So what do you want Howie to do, field candidates or push to support an investigation into the process in Pierre?
How would doing both suit you?
No, no, no: the LRC is not the problem. LK pegs exactly what the LRC is there to do: serve the citizens with freely available information about pending and enacted legislation. Serving bloggers and the professional press is an LRC function, in that we help filter, highlight, explain, and disseminate that information to the general public.
Steve, you didn't answer my question. I'll answer yours without any jargon: I want Nelson, Russell, Hubbel and other interested legislators to press for a formal hearing of their complaint. I want them to produce the evidence that the GOP leadership has exerted undue pressure on the LRC staff to violate its promises of confidentiality. And I do want Howie to field candidates to challenge the GOP leadership. Now stop confusing people with your irrelevant bloviations about Hegel and Marxism and focus on the real issues.
Your words are jibberish and make NO sense. Your point is therefore MOOT.
We don't need fancy words Mr. Sibson.
Precisely, Mr. Black.
Steve should sequester his sesquipedalian, soporific, Sibbyonic sophistry.
Hegelian dialectic = moderates = the radical center. It is the path to serfdom. So Michael, you can pick any of the words you want, it doesn't change the truth.
So Cory, you have now switched to be on the same page that I am on.