I get queasy when Bob Ellis agrees with me. I noted a few days ago Governor Daugaard's insertion of himself into the local District 31 GOP Senate primary. Arch-conservative Ellis takes much greater umbrage at the Governor's exertion of influence:
Today we learned that apparently Daugaard is willing to take the war on the Republican base to the next level. I heard about some of this over the weekend, and the Rapid City Journal reports today that Gov. Daugaard&ndashin a move I cannot recall a governor ever making before&ndashhas endorsed one Republican over another Republican in the primary. As unusual as this is, one might consider it understandable if the governor had endorsed a Republican who solidly supports Republican values over one who has made a mockery of Republican values. Unfortunately, in several cases, he has clearly chosen the one who makes a mockery of Republican principles over the one who best reflects Republican principles. What's more, I thought party officials (and unless I'm mistaken, the governor is a member of the Republican Party executive board) were prohibited from showing favoritism in the primary.
...The common thread among these "favored ones" of the governor seems to be that they can all be relied on to play ball with the governor's agenda. Whether they are good in some areas or not, when compared to their primary opponents, it's apparent that the governor's favorites are those who can be relied on to go along with little or no protest. The governor's favorites have made it clear that they will not rock the boat, that they will go along with whatever the governor wants to do...whether it sells out GOP principles or not, whether it throws the freedom of the people of South Dakota under the bus or not [Bob Ellis, "Gov. Daugaard Brings War Against Republican Base into the Open," American Carrion, 2012.05.22].
I'll leave it to Ellis and his fringe to redefine "Republican base" with their wishful shouting. I will simply note that the three Daugaard endorsement recipients named in Kevin Woster's RCJ article—Sen. Tom Nelson, Sen. Bruce Rampelberg, and Sen. Deb Peters—all voted for HB 1234, the Governor's flagship education reform bill. Hmmm....
It's a tough one for sure: kiss of death or handshake of death.
It doesn't raise conservative ire. It is raising the ire of those who can't play well with others and call people names. And, they then don't like their conduct having consequences.
Troy, some of the wiser heads in the SDGOP might want to step in and make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes to what conservative means. Just guessing that your definition might be different than...well like Stace's definition.
I know I'm dating myself with this analogy, but if I read between the lines correctly, Troy is saying that this a contest between the SDGOP's Eddie Haskell wing and Foghorn Leghorn wing.
This is the new face of conservatism
Let's tally the crazy up from the Iowa GOP proposed platform:
- They went birther
- Voted to investigate/outlaw ACORN
- Get rid of government including: Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Labor, and Commerce as well as TSA, FDA, ATF, EPA, National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.
- Expressed sufficient paranoia for Agenda 21 demanding a definition of sustainable development
- Support constitutional state sovereignty including nullification of federal oversteps...including the Supreme Court
And so much more! (Cory will love their section on Education)
You might ask what was missing from the GOP platform...JOBS!
Read it all here for a taste of what will surely make it's way west to South Dakota:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94367949/Iowa-GOP-Proposed-Platform#
Get rid of TSA? Well heck, sign me up!
It sounds as though the Iowa Republican Party wants a return to the Articles of Confederation.
Articles of Confederation? I had that conversation with a neighbor last month. He signed my HB 1234 referendum petition, then asked if I was a Democrat. When I acknowledged my nefarious liberalism, he said I must believe in socialism. He said our Founding Fathers didn't want bigger government. I told him the whole thrust of the Constitution was to create a more robust central government than their first try, the dismal Articles of Conferderation. Had today's Tea Partiers been around in 1787, they would have protested the Constitutional Convention as a conspiracy to increase government power.
"Just guessing that your definition might be different than…well like Stace’s definition."
Yes Troy what is the definition of conservative? Could it be following the Constitution. What does a governor stepping into a legislative primary say about the separation of power? Or a governor sending his executive branch cronies to the legislative floor saying vote for the governor's bills if you want a future in the SDGOP. Sounds like he is making good on those threats. Separation of powers? Sorry Tory for not playing the game the way the SDGOP Establishment wants it to be played, I did not drink the Kool AId.
Jana,
I don't even know how much disagreement I have with regard to what is a conservative, broadly, I have with some of those others.
But, I do think there is room for discerning what is the best conservative priorities, where in an effort to govern and get "a half a loaf" compromise is necessary.
I am also open to the possibility with regard to a particular policy I might be wrong. I aspire to understand the rationale of a liberal as well as I understand my own rationale and to do so without deeming the liberal as inherently evil or demonic.
Steve,
I agree the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, including the fact the Governor's free speech rights didn't end when he became Governor. If he wants to endorse you or Mike, that is his perogative and not a violation of the Constitution, strictly or liberally interpreted.
I also find it hilarious we suddenly would become shocked when a President or Governor uses his position to drive a legislative agenda. Ronald Reagan was a master. Was he too an anti-constitutional whatever?
Defining a Conservative as following the Constitution would be at once ironic, paradoxical, and arguably false. The Constitution was written by Liberals, just after they finished making revolution. The 'conservatives' were the Tory loyalists. They should consider themselves blessed, as should the conservatives of the Confederacy, because their enemies were liberals and allowed them to keep their heads and get on with their lives. ;-)
Jana,
Republicans in South Dakota agree that this is what a conservative is supposed to be: http://southdakotagop.com/pdf/2010_SDGOP_PLATFORM_FINAL.PDF
Troy,
Conservatives don't compromise their principles, nor should they have to do so in the fashion that you prescribe when SD conservative "Republicans" are supposedly in the majority.
Nelson:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=122039
Schoenbeck:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=5340
(...the overarching definition of a conservative is 'defender of the status quo and traditional values.' They are not change agents.) Neither Sibby nor Stacey strike me as conservatives. They seem more like radical extremist ideologues who want to change everything to better fit their ideology. They have both admitted as much here, so what I'm saying shouldn't be anything shocking or new. Just the facts, ma'm.
... I'll even go so far as to assert that I myself an more conservative than either ibby or Nelson are.
Well, my day is complete. Having Bill spout his usual rubbish topped me off and compells me to get some fencing done so we can at least contain the BS around here, since we are unable to do so on here.
Okay, here's an idea Stace. How about I put together a list of 10 or 15 conservative values and demonstrate to you how much more conservative I am than you are? Maybe I'll even publish it online. I promise you it will be far more philosophically convincing than your buddies' Birchite scorecard. Wanna?
Bob Ellis excoriates Daugaard for "making a mockery of Republican values."
Talk about a pot calling a kettle black!
maybe more like the Pillsbury Doughboyâ„¢ calling Hans Frank black....
"Conservatives don’t compromise their principles, nor should they have to do so in the fashion that you prescribe when SD conservative “Republicans†are supposedly in the majority."
The first part of your quote I agree with Stace. The far right don't compromise and thats the problem. As a liberal I don't feel I should compromise my principals but there comes time when compromise is needed. Take McGovern and Dole. To move the country or in your case the state forward there has to be compromise.
Unfortunately the far right think their way is the only way and that the more moderate Republicans are somehow liberals. That's a crock.
and that what has to change not in South Dakota but in Washington.
" he wants to endorse you or Mike, that is his perogative and not a violation of the Constitution, strictly or liberally interpreted."
Troy, ever hear about the separation of powers?
"Okay, here’s an idea Stace. How about I put together a list of 10 or 15 conservative values and demonstrate to you how much more conservative I am than you are?"
Fleming, it was the so-called progressives who stole the label liberal and started calling liberals conservatives. Now that you guys trashed the liberal label, you want to be call conservatives. Why don't you guys call yourselves what you are...collectivists, statists, tyrants...take you pick.
What should we call ourselves, then, Sibby?
@Owen How is the teacher's pay raise & state control everyone got in the HB 1234 "Moderate Republicans'" compromise working out? Guess I should have said the heck with principles and bargained my vote away for political favors like others, and "compromised" at the teachers' expense, instead of trying to fight for what was right. Good to know.
Yep, the minority Republicans in DC these last 4 years are the problem in the country. Those rotten little road bumps!
Carter, how about we call ourselves 'Americans'?
I'm with Troy on the Constitutional point. There is no separation of powers question on Governor Daugaard's endorsements. There isn't even a statutory question. It's purely a matter of in-party protocol. Denise Ross on SDPB Dakota Midday said she found the endorsements very unusual. I don't want Ben Nesselhuf or my local Dem party officials telling me whether I should vote for Barth or Varilek on June 5 (and the way things are going, I may wait until that day to decide).
Steve, I believe you are right to be displeased with gubernatorial endorsements in the primary. I just don't think you can justify that beef with a Constitutional argument. You don't have to shoehorn every issue into the same old talking points.
The "Tea-Partiers" actually WERE around in 1787, Monsieur Cory.
They were known at that time in history as the "Anti-Federalists".
And they were VERY concerned that a stronger centralized government would lead to a degradation of state sovereignty and eventually take the country down the inexorable path to tyranny.
I'm guessing that even a quasi-socialist such as yourself has probably heard of some of those Anti-Federalists (who were arguably the "tea-partiers" of their day).
Here's some of the most prominent ones:
- Patrick Henry
- Samuel Adams
- George Mason
- Richard Henry Lee
- George Mason
- James Monroe
- James Winthrop
and last, but certainly not least, John Hancock.
At the time the Constitution was being debated, George Mason was actually quoted as saying that he would "rather chop off my right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands."
I strongly suspect you won't find the above quote in too many modern-day history books.
At any rate, thus endeth your history lesson for today Cory. This one was free. The next time, I'm sending you a bill for my time.
TNSTAAFL, you know. ;-)
Cheers !
Wait a minute...you mean the Sons of Liberty that inspired the Tea Party changed their name to the Anti-Federalists? Who'd have thunk.
So Jack are you saying that the current crowd that glommed onto the Tea Party name just didn't like calling themselves the Anti-Federalists. More the pity as that would be more accurate.
If I remember correctly, weren't the Anti-Federalists 'against' a national military and 'for' paper money? Has that changed or is it kind of a Chinese menu where you get to pick from a list of what you like.
Just for fun Jack, since you have obviously studied this Tea Party subject, tell us why they dressed like Native Americans. Were they also protesting the horrible treatment and theft of real property of indigenous peoples? Or was it they were just cowards enough to try place the blame on others...you know...people different than themselves.
This is some good stuff CAH and time for a mirror check for all of us. Truly if we all sat down and wrote what we thought were liberal and conservative tendencies we personally lived in our daily lives some of us would change our tone of expression. For instance when I look at what I spend on food, fuel, stuff for the kids, dinner at restaurants, auto-maintenance, beer, minerals and salt for the hooved animals, it becomes a liberal libation of spending large chunks of cash. But when I look at what I spend on entertainment, personal care, recreation, travel, new equipment, or sports events I truly look like a rockstar conservative. Going out there publicly with a few of the items and how I voted (spent money) could give the impression Charlie B. gets the SD Conservation Award. But in reality if every vote (dollar) is added I'd look pretty mixed in the tank of purity for conservative persuasion. The problem I see moving forward for the Tea Party is that the normal South Dakotan does not see themselves as being subjected to harsh and unusual punishment from the current Republican party members and if anything sees South Dakota as a very healthy and safe place to live with low taxes and a very high standard of living. (I know CAH you would like to see more of it in your back pocket; and so would I --go ahead call me a liberal!) It will be interesting to see if the divide currently being expressed so blatantly by a few comes to fruition at the polls or if; as I suspect, backfires as did the party infighting of about 10 years ago.
Caveat Emptor!!
[Jack, you can send me that bill after you click the Madville Times tip jar. :-)]
Jack is talking about a very different flavor of Tea. The Anti-Federalists took a very dim view of the Constitution. The current Tea Party treats the Constitution (not entirely incorrectly) as a sacred document. And I sure don't hear the Tea Party calling for the dismantling of the military (hence the confusion that ensues when some of them cheer for Ron Paul). Maybe they need the history lesson... and should start handing out copies of the Articles of Confederation.
Mirror check: that's what I'm here for, Charlie.
The Constitution is a compromise, if course. I'm thinking that should not be left unsaid, Cory;-).
above...OF course... Sorry.
"I’m with Troy on the Constitutional point."
Not surprised you liberals (Big Government statists) would stick together when it comes to tearing up the Constitution.
Steve, I'm not tearing up the Constitution. It is one of the greatest, most durable examples of political statecraft and compromise. But that compromise was a movement toward more central government, a repudiation of the anarcho-libertarianism a lot of Tea Party members think they are preaching with their Constitutional fundamentalism.
Ha! tearing up the Constitution. Give us a break Steve. You want to throw the whole thing out completely. Just as you do with religion, you cherry pick the parts you like and want to ignore or eliminate the rest.
That's fine. You're free to think and believe as you please. The constitution guarantees it.
But don't go accusing the rest of us of wanting to rip our constitution to shreds. That's your position not ours.
Besides, you're the one who is running for office, and if elected, supposedly will swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. And not just the parts you like. All of it.
If you can't honestly do that, you should just say so and drop out of the race. Otherwise, you are running in bad faith.
Steve,
C'mon. Words mean something. There is nothing statist in any of my views. I am a civil libertarian. Know the difference.
I know this one! I know this one! They dressed as American Indians because that was basically standard protest gear at the time. American Indians were considered by people to really have it better than the Westerns, so it was like saying, "We want to be more like them!"
Believe it or not, people running off to join American Indian tribes was not just common back then, but it was actually a huge, huge problem, since it happened all the time.
Er, that was to Jana. My page wasn't refreshing right and didn't show all the new posts...
Niall Ferguson presents some interesting ideas in a video today on PBS. Part 2 coming next week I think.
Anyway, as CBS This Morning says, Long Story Short, Ferguson suggests progress in the US and Europe resulted because of the separation of church and state and in the US, widespread ownership of property and voting. Islamic world got far behind because of religious control of government and attacks on science and printing. Spaniards in South America brought in a corrupt systems of governance which made the plutocrats rich and then richer and left the church to manage the peons.
If we can take anything Ferguson suggests seriously, we should be doubly concerned with the effect of mixing religion and government and also with mal distribution of wealth and crony capitalism or kleptocracy.