Watch out, Ken Santema: Senator Shantel Krebs agrees with us that Secretary of State Jason Gant must go... and she may seek the job herself. Check out this letter, which appears to be a mailing from Sen. Krebs to SDGOP delegates:
The key passage is paragraph #3:
As Republicans, Ronald Reagan always said stay the course and never switch horses midstream. But sometimes that has to be done. The integrity of the Secretary of State's office has been damaged and much of the public have lost faith in it. I believe it's time for a change and I am considering the nomination for Secretary of State [Sen. Shantel Krebs, letter to SDGOP delegates, 2013.08.27].
Sloppy grammar be darned: Rep. Shantel Krebs, a key player in the GOP mainstream, finally says what's been obvious to critics like Senator Stanford Adelstein (R-32/Rapid City) and others for well over a year: Jason Gant has violated the public trust and should not be Secretary of State.
Now note that Krebs seems primarily worried that Gant's malfeasance imperils the party's goal of maintaining the party's lock on statewide offices, not that he's been disenfranchising Indian voters, pimping his office for political favors, and violating notary law to benefit GOP pals.
Nonetheless, the Krebs declaration is significant. It suggests Jason Gant has no political capital left and no support for his continued tenure as Secretary of State.
Why not spare the state, the party, and yourself any further grief, Jason? You can't be having fun any more. Call in the one favor you may have left, land a nice quiet private sector job, and resign now. Hand your keys to Patty Miller, and leave your failure and those bothersome Indian voters behind you.
The integrity of the office damaged. Strong language, but true.
Mr. Gant went from being a pretty good and effective legislator to being completely hapless and inept as SOS. He's just going from one self-made disaster to the next in this role with little hope of turning it around. Poor judgment over and over again. Makes me wonder who he's taking his counsel from, if anyone. Sad state of affairs in that office. How many TARs could have taken the reins in that office and with competent staff done a better job than Mr. Gant? All of them?
So how about this trade-off: Gant resigns and moves to Sioux Falls. Governor appoints Krebs to SOS, then appoints Gant to fill Krebs's Senate vacancy. Does that properly realign everyone's job skills?
Gant's resignation would offer a flicker of redemption. It is past time for him to go.
If her husband is Rounds' senate campaign press agent, just as he was when Rounds was governor, and if Gant is persuaded to resign and she's appointed by Rounds' former Lt. Gov. to be in charge of elections, would that not stink as a conflict of interest? Dick Wadhams couldn't ask for a better gift.
She was a shrewd right wing partisan when she was in the legislature. What you'd get is the same Gant policies, but with a more attractive face.
I expect nothing more, Rick. Her candidacy wouldn't be about protecting voting rights or anything like that; it would just be taking a serious liability off the election table.
" land a nice quiet private sector job"
I suspect that's the basis for the fear of losing the job. What's he gonna do, hang out as a shill on Pat Powers' blog?
Four candidates for the US Senate, Republicans taking Republicans to court in Lake County, and a possible convention fight over the Secretary of State's
office, I love it. Now we just need someone from the Howie crowd to challenge Daugaard with a primary fight. Maybe 2014 will be one of those "Tom Dewey" years for the South Dakota GOP.... I sure hope so.....
Perfect, She is for common core and dumbing our kids down, she is for SB200 and taking the people right of Freedom of speech and she is for taking our due process rights away with the text band. There are already laws on the books for that. She fits right in with the republican or democratic power just rolling along. We do not need you, we need someone looking after we the people and believe what it means
Do you know why Democrats don't win anything? Well, at least if many are like me, I read that whole "100%" Republicans in office and thought, gosh, that's not a good idea.
What happened to a balance of parties...I guess the Republicans are just being practical and admitting that a balance of parties no more gives the citizens a balanced government than one party or the other.
Yikes. Maybe I'm okay with being a Modern Whig.
Winston, that would be great. Now we just need our Tom Dewey.
Stephanie, is the route to keeping Shantel and Jason out a big takeover of the GOP convention or formation of a third party?
Tasi, I'm okay with your being a Whig, if only you could organize several thousand other people to be Whigs with you and run for office!
During the year long Sioux falls season of flying petitions, Shantel let us know in no uncertain terms on one of her trips to the Minnehaha County Admin building, she does not believe citizens should use the petition process. She flat out told us we should not be redressing our grievances or forcing their decisions.
What happened to a balance? The only time there was anything close to balance is a short window of time where open government was allowed in the pre-Janklow years. In a one party state we the citizens must have the ability to rise up and force our electeds and bureaucrats to listen to us.
We are not here to do what they want, we are here to make them do what is right. Protect the Constitution first, protect the underprivileged and do not build a privileged caste.
The first thing is to get on the ballot. I am going to consider working on this personally, actually.
Trading in one ALEC for another, just what we need to open government up.
Excuse me. Was that directed at me or something else?
ALEC members in good standing: Krebs = Gant
Makes you all a bit misty-eyed for Chris Nelson.
Ah. Thank you for clarifying.
Chris and all, I personally will never miss Chris Nelson. He was ALEC bought and paid for. Why do you think he was given his job on the PUC? He was term limited in SOS so now can do more ALEC inspired harm for us there. Don't let his, Gants' or Shantel's glad handing fool you.
What we need are major house cleaning parties in Pierre to begin the process of clean - open government.
What does treating people fairly have to do with partisanship Stephanie? I know it would be nice if everyone agreed with us 100% but wouldn't it be best to have someone who treats Tim Begalka and Lora Hubbel the same way Val Rausch and Deb Peters were treated or David Mitchell the same as Brian Gosch?
Most of the issues you talk about are not a part of doing a good job in the SOS office.
Mike would you please explain what you mean. Stephanie is more clear.
Stephanie named off a bunch of issue that really don't have a great deal to do with the Secretary of States office. The most important thing is that the Secretary of State (Nelson, Gant, Krebs, Nesselhuf) treat people fair and the same.
I want someone who treats Begalka, Hubbel and Mitchell the same as they do Gosch, Rausch and Peters.
Equality toward all citizens is what we are discussing. Ideology has taken the most important seat at the table and equality is the kitchen help. I haven't seen equality out of the SOS office since Kundert.
Kundert was a rabid Republican hack. When Kneip was Governor, she would hold up checks to Democratic appointments for weeks past when they should have been paid. She could not comprehend the value of seatbelts until she herself was in a crash.
Krebs thinks electric cars and cars with good gas mileage should be paying a special tax since they don't buy enough gasoline to really pollute the air.
If that is the best idea she can come up with, the SD GOP picking her is in a world of hurt.
I know the story of her service a state Auditor because I used to go to her office and 'visit' with her about it.
When she was SOS, we did not have near the issues we cold have had. Also at the time she was SOS, there was a closer chance for two party government in SD. The fear of doing something over partisan could have easily hurt her own party she dearly cared about.
Democrats could have a greater voice in state government, why don't we?
Former Gov. Kneip, Sen. George McGovern, Sen. Abourezk, Rep. Herseth/Sandlin and Sen. Tim Johnson all had one thing in common. Each campaigned hardily on Native American reservations and got the vote out.
As a youngster I recall seeing and visiting with George and Jim with regularity on the Pine Ridge Reservation, the were always well received and got the votes when needed.
It is past time that South Dakota Democratic Party take the Native American vote seriously and establish satellite voter registration/education locations on reservations.
We may not win every election with the Native American vote, but we could make them a lot more competitive.
Gov. Reagan used chemical weapons on Berkeley students:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/may/23/berkeley-what-we-didnt-know/
To answer your question Mike, I want someone in office, who first and foremost follow God's law then the following
1. Secretary State Gant and Brian Gosch broke the rule of law. As a people, I did not get my right of due process of common law and proper jurisdiction in a court of record given to me and enforced by the Law of the Land-[MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 61.] by the United States Bill of Rights, Amendment V.-"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law " Look to the S.D. Constitution Article VI Bill of Rights- Sect 1 Inherent rights- " defending life and liberty, pursuit of happiness, To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent, consent, consent, of the governed." Sect 2-Due Process "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process." Sect 4-"Right of petition and peaceably assemble-The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble to consult for the common good and make known their opinions shall never be abridged." Sect 5-"Freedom of Speech-Truth as defense-Jury trial.-Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. In all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends shall be a sufficient defense." "Sect 18-Equal privileges or immunities-No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens or corporation, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations", "Sect 26-Power inherent in people-All political power in inherent in the people, and all free government is founded on their authority, and s instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right in lawful and constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government in such manner as they may think proper.." "Sec 27-Maintenance of free government-Fundamental principles.-The blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, virtue, and by frequent recurrence to principles." We the People have a question to ask ourselves. Do we want our God given Inalienable rights of Faith, Morality, Law, Education, and Liberty. The Forefathers Monument in Plymouth, Massachusetts gives us our precepts for American Exceptionalism and our Free-Market Enterprise. I am sharing things from New American Standard Bible The Founders' Bible The Origin of the Dream of Freedom by David Barton, Brad Cummings, & Lance Wubbels. God help us