Press "Enter" to skip to content

Rep. Jon Hansen Endorses Ron Paul

District 25, beware: Jon Hansen backs Ron Paul.

With the GOP Presidential primary race over, with Mitt Romney assured of the nomination, and with all of the other once faintly viable candidates in surrender and debt, Rep. Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) decides now is the time to publicly endorse Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's consistency and integrity goes unmatched in today's political environment.

As a state representative in South Dakota, I know Ron Paul understands the proper role of the federal government, and will restore the proper constitutional balance of power between Washington, the states, and the people.

I truly believe Ron Paul has the heart of a servant, looking to the best interest of all Americans rather than to his own self-interest.

To restore our country to its constitutional foundation, promote life, support the free market, fix our monetary system, and end war, we must elect Ron Paul for President in 2012 [Rep. Jon Hansen, press release, Ron Paul campaign, 2012.05.18].

Thank you, Jon, for demonstrating your political irrelevancy. Ron Paul failed to gain traction in the Republican primaries because he keeps flogging unworkable and downright destructive policies:

Republican rivals criticize his anti-war, isolationist approach to foreign policy as dangerously naive, and object to his plans to slash the Pentagon's budget and pull back U.S. troops from overseas.

Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.

"Paul appeals to people whose knowledge of major issues is superficial (and) he sees conspiracies where there are none," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, an analysis firm [Andy Sullivan, "Paul Builds Campaign on Doomsday Scenarios," Reuters, 2011.12.26].

If you want to aspire to Republican leadership, you'd better stop following Ron Paul, whose crazy policy stances have kept him from advancing at all in the GOP.

The Paul people play up Hansen's youth in their endorsement announcement. Indeed, Ron Paul is lots of fun for the kids. But eventually the kids grow up. They realize Ron Paul's "libertarianism" is just a big word cloaking childish selfishness.

District 25, you'll want to tell Jon to grow up... and to do it somewhere other than a House seat in Pierre.

Bonus Political and Fiscal Notes: Rep. Hansen also appears to be a nullificationist. He highlights the following statement on his States Rights page:

I think it's important for us to remember that the federal government has little authority to tell the states what to do. It was the states that gave the authority to the federal government in the first place. We now have a duty, if the federal government is overstepping its given authority, to rebuke them and ignore their laws. [Jon Hansen, Speech to voters group, 2010].

Rep. Hansen also makes the following laughable statement:

I oppose having South Dakotan's federal tax dollars taken from them in order to bail out other failing states and businesses who can't manage their own budgets [Jon Hansen, campaign website, 2012].

...laughable because, as we all know, South Dakota is a welfare state, receiving $1.58 from Uncle Sam for every dollar it pays in to the system. So tell me again, Jon: who's bailing out whose failing states?


  1. larry kurtz 2012.05.22

    As if Willard Romney has any grip on reality: the saddest part of Rep. Paul's quixotica is that it leaves a huge segment of the electorate without a champion in the earth hater party stranding a rabid element armed to the canines.

    Good for us: Newland sez Gary Johnson will circle those loose cannons into a win for the President, maybe even including the chemical toilet in the 47 state landslide strategy.

  2. Steve Sibson 2012.05.22

    "Ron Paul failed to gain traction in the Republican primaries because he keeps flogging unworkable and downright destructive policies"

    Cory, great job carrying GOP Establishment deception. Ron Paul failed because his constitutional policies are a threat to the wealthy ruling elite. You know, the ones that take from the poor and give to themselves.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.22

    Oh yeah, and that gold standard does such a wonderful job of protecting the working class from a full-tilt economic collapse.

  4. Steve Sibson 2012.05.22

    What gold standard? I thought the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and the Great Depression started in 1929.

  5. Carter 2012.05.22

    They call that post hoc ergo propter hoc, Steve.

  6. Daniel Willard 2012.05.22

    I find it funny you that you go after one of only a few honest people in all of DC. Also Romney is the same as Obama oh and if he has it locked up how is it Ron Paul is winning the majority of delegates at the state conventions? Next time know all of the facts before running your mouth.

  7. Carter 2012.05.22

    Uh? Romney has ~897 delegates, Ron Paul has ~120. How, exactly, does he have a majority?

  8. larry kurtz 2012.05.22

    The Ron Paul voters have been abandoned by the earth hater party even as it eats its young.

  9. larry kurtz 2012.05.22

    Romney's sluggishness on veep announcement suggests that the short list has all flunked the test: maybe South Dakota's junior Senator, too.

  10. Daniel Willard 2012.05.22

    @ Carter try and look at the actual outcomes of the state conventions and not what the lame stream media is reporting because its wrong. They say in Iowa Paul will get 1 delegate well we already know that Paul will have a minimum of 15 delegates from Iowa from congressional conventions oh and the whole GOP in Iowa is run by Paul people now. Minnesota and it's 40 delegates well 32 of them Paul won. So once again know the facts before you speak. You might also note most states haven't had conventions and the actual delegate count that is for sure right now Paul is leading.

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.22

    And isn't there something rather unseemly about making up for failure in the public vote with technical machinations at conventions to annul the popular vote?

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.22

    Who says Ron Paul can't take the nomination away from Romney? Ron Paul's campaign manager Jesse Benton:


    “Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination,” Benton noted. “Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond. All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.”

    Maybe Ron Paul's people need to get their facts straight before they speak.

  13. jana 2012.05.22

    Cory, you ask: "And isn’t there something rather unseemly about making up for failure in the public vote with technical machinations at conventions to annul the popular vote?"

    See Bush v. Gore if you are looking for precedent. ;-)

  14. jana 2012.05.22

    But of course I would be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to our very own Sibby for getting the Right to Life endorsement over Mike Vehle in District 20.

    You all can draw your own conclusions as to how highly the SD Right to Life values...well anything...

    Congrats Sibby!

  15. jana 2012.05.22

    Here's the proof:

    Just goes to show that you can be banned and panned by blogs and still find someone who agrees with you...

    Bill, should I be worried about a rabbit hole here shortly?

  16. Steve Sibson 2012.05.22

    "Maybe Ron Paul’s people need to get their facts straight before they speak."

    Like I said in another thread, the mob rule of the democracy has erased minority rights of a Constitutional Republic, including freedom of speech.

  17. Steve Sibson 2012.05.22

    "I would be remiss if I didn’t give a shout out to 'our very own' Sibby"

    Jana, thanks for accepting me into the fold. I hope we all can continue to learn from each other.

  18. LK 2012.05.22

    I read this statement on The League of Ordinary Gentlemen: "We all know comment threads are eternal, churning whirlpools of rancor and discontent"

    It seems to answer Jana's rabbit hole question in the affirmative

  19. Carter 2012.05.22

    Okay, so I'm a bit confused here. Someone help me out.

    Larry's been going on all day (Sibby's thrown in his two cents, in a way, as well) about Ron Paul being excluded from the GOP like it's some kind of terrible form of oppression. Is it not the same as Kucinich not getting the Democratic party nomination in '08?

    It's not "oppression" or "discrimination" or "disenfranchisement". It's the way the two-party system works. Kucinich was too far left for the Dems. Ron Paul is too socially liberal for the Republicans. They will never get the nomination because they don't fit into the mold.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.22

    Sibby, minority rights are great, but minority rights do not include co-opting a nomination process through procedural trickery to supersede the will of the majority of voters, does it?

  21. Steve Sibson 2012.05.23

    "Ron Paul is too socially liberal for the Republicans"

    Romney is as socially liberal as they come.

    Cory, minority rights is allowing Chirstians to raise their children in an environment that does not promote sin. Sin by definition is not a God-given right.

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.23

    There's a difference between promoting and tolerating sin (unless you take the absolute "with us or against us" line). On the issue of Ron Paul's convention tactics subverting popular votes, I don't see how your statement applies.

  23. Steve Sibson 2012.05.23

    "On the issue of Ron Paul’s convention tactics subverting popular votes"

    Are they "popular votes" or those paid for by the plutocrats?

  24. Daniel Willard 2012.05.23

    Once again know what you are talking about I cited to states outcomes and their is even Romneys home state of Massachusetts which Ron Paul won the majority of delegates. Also maybe you all should take a history lesson the US does not elect party canitdates or presidents by popular votes. Nominations come from delegates and presidents win from the electoral college. In fact the founding fathers said only an informed educated electorit has the right to vote, you seem to be neither. Open a book and learn a little bit of history it is very interesting also MSNBC caters to nuts like you as does Fox News on the right. Step out of the bubble and see the light

  25. larry kurtz 2012.05.23

    Exactly, Steve: Tim Pawlenty's early exit was the handwriting on the wall.

    Willard beat the Kobayashi Maru.

  26. Barry Smith 2012.05.23

    @ Mr. Willard I may not be part of the " educated electorit." but I am a white property owning male does that count? :-) .

  27. Carter 2012.05.23

    I like how Willard talks about "educated" and that Cory is not, while failing to use correct punctuation, or even paragraphs. He does use run-on sentences, though.

    "Step out of the bubble and see the light" is a very mixed up metaphor. I kind of like it.

  28. Steve Sibson 2012.05.23

    Carter, nice way to attack the form in order to ignore the substance.

  29. Carter 2012.05.23

    I already shot him down yesterday, Steve. He's saying the same thing. Fact is, Ron Paul is losing big time, and would not get the Republican Party nomination even is Yeshua Ben Yosef himself can down from the sky in his Heavenmobile and said he should be.

    There's no need to refute the same point twice. It's just redundant.

  30. larry kurtz 2012.05.23

    of course i meant willard romney...not dw above.

  31. Daniel Willard 2012.05.23

    @ Carter, Sorry I'm not using perfect grammar while I text this from my iPhone. Also Ron Paul supporters have taken over the GOP in Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Washington, Maine, Minnesota, Colorado and more states to come and how is that losing when the main goal is to great a movement that changes the mindset? One last thing I've shown several times now like in Iowa how te media has outright lied about the delegate count yet you have shown no proof so why is that?

  32. Daniel Willard 2012.05.23

    @ Barry Smith they never said you had to be white or a landowner. The states said that and not all of the states required that so once again know what you are talking about. I bet you are really a bigot trying to wish you weren't so you make everything into a race issue and claim everyone else is racist to cover your own racism up

    Editor's Note: Witness here the classic wing-nut tactic. Daniel has certain arguments he wants to make, regardless of the facts and the actual people involved in the discussion. He thus concocts an absurd spiral of words that baselessly casts someone who disagrees with him as a racist. At that point, Daniel can go back to the comfort of debating the bogeymen in his head. How very convenient. —CAH, 21:28 MDT
  33. Carter 2012.05.23

    You haven't shown, you've said. You continue to use the idea that all the media everywhere is lying (I don't know what supremely trustworthy source you get your numbers from) as if it is fact. Your entire argument is based on a facetious assumption. That's bad research.

    Every single credible (and the less credible ones) give Paul only Minnesota and Maine as "Ron Paul states". He certainly has delegates in other states, but even if you assume the mainstream media is only crediting him with 50% of the delegates he actually has, he still would only have ~240. If all of those extra delegates were taking from Romney, Romney still have ~777 delegates.

    So no, unless you want go so far as to say that Paul has something like 750% more delegates than the mainstream media claims, he is not winning.

  34. Daniel Willard 2012.05.23

    @ Carter, Look at Iowa fool even MSNBC has said he won it and they even make jokes on how Paul beat Romney in his home state of MA. You need to get out of the bubble you live in and step into reality. Also the popular vote is a beauty contest they mean nothing for the Dem's or Republicans only delegates count and those are won in the Cacuas system even in South Dakota. Try and know the facts like I've said numerous times before but I guess you have trouble opening a book and learning facts but instead just watch TV aka the boobtube

  35. Carter 2012.05.23

    Yes, because candidates ahead by 750% lose all the time in elections. The delegates are certainly going to vote precisely opposite, because that won't result in a tremendous public outcry that would result in Ron Paul losing all support he has entirely.

    I understand supporting Ron Paul, and I understand being upset that he's not winning, but throwing all logic to the wind and screeching that Ron Paul is winning doesn't make it so.

  36. Daniel Willard 2012.05.23

    @ Carter what you fail to understand is that these delegates are Ron Paul supporters and they have a saying NO ONE PUT PAUL so yes they will vote and only vote for RON PAUL!!!

  37. Dan 2012.05.23

    Thanks for deleting my comment, Cory. However, it doesn't surprise me that another liberal is trying to take away more of my basic freedoms.

  38. Barry Smith 2012.05.23

    Mr Willard - better buy yourself a good bottle of whiskey- Your going to need it on August 30th - if for no other reason than just to numb the confusion :-).

  39. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.23

    Daniel, quit shouting and show me numbers. I don't think I cited MSNBC above. I don't watch MSNBC. I cited a quote directly from Ron Paul's campaign manager saying Ron Paul can't win the nomination. Are you telling me Ron Paul's campaign manager is lying?

    [Dan: quit crying, read the comment policy, check your e-mail, and tell me who you are.]

  40. jana 2012.05.23

    So we have the Paul rebellion, the Tea Party rebellion, a Governor endorsing in the primaries, the Stace rebellion, Gordie's purity, my, my... seems like the Republican party is in disarray. Add this to the lukewarm endorsements for Mitt and it could be a fun year.

  41. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.23

    But then why, Jana, don't they sound like they're having fun? Daniel seems awfully cranky. I guess it takes a lot of effort to sustain fantasies.

Comments are closed.