Reader Debate: Party Employee Personal Views

I just got off my sickbed, the causalty of a man's refridgerator and eating items of questionable age. (Now I know why my wife always throws stuff out after a while).

I have to say, despite feeling like crap, the discussion regarding the new co-communications director at the SDDP calling herself an animal activist is pretty interesting.

Jackson continues to swat at me for saying it's not a good step for SDDP and his comments give the impression that he thinks I'm being a dick. Corey Vilhauer, whom I respect and enjoy his blog, says we shouldn't judge her because we don't know where she stands. As he puts it:
There's a difference between those who believe farm animals shouldn't be smashed into cages and forced to live in incredibly inhumane locales and those who feel that anyone who eats meat should be shot.
O.K., Good point. I'll agree with that. Except, I think the spectrum is wider than he states. There is a difference between someone who actively supports the humane society, and someone who believes farm animals should not be held in cages, and those who feel that anyone who eats meat should be shot. I think someone who espouses either of the latter two are not going to be received well in this state.

I'm not saying at all that Elesha Peterson Carr does not have the right to believe what she believes. More power to her for having ideas that are not in the mainstream. But politics being what they are, I don't know if it's that simple as asking where in the spectrum she falls. She (and her aspiring author/composer husband) have been hired to represent an organization that must appeal to a very broad base of voters.

I've said before, each side is going to get about 20% who will vote for each party no matter what or whom they run. But then you are faced with that 60% who have to be convinced.

In this state, many of those wonderful voters are involved in agribusiness pursuits. When someone comes along representing a political party who says they are an "Animal Activist" it's generally going to get a hair trigger response. Do you think the South Dakota Stockgrowers are going to welcome someone like her? Or the Pork Producers? I suspect they're going to paint the whole SDDP with that paintbrush, and possibly be vocal on it. That's bad for the people running under the Democrat banner.

I'd like to hear some more on this from readers. Here's my points on the matter, as coldly and clinically as I can state them:
1. The South Dakota Democratic Party continues to hire people staff members with little/no political experience with the expectation that they will somehow assist their efforts at winning elections.

2. Hiring someone who calls themself an animal activist for a key staff position is going to alienate voters , not win them.

3. As a result of points #1 and #2, the South Dakota Democratic Party could face a continued drought in electoral success.
What I'd like the faithful readers to do, is directly E-mail me your thoughts on all of this, AGREEING or DISAGREEING with my points on the matter. Don't add your thoughts as post comments, that will kill all the suspense. I also want a return e-mail address on all of this (and I will withhold names upon request) for a reason.

I will post the winning points on either side of the debate (as judged by me) later next week. What's the carrot for your participation? I have to make a few more anyway, so for the best pro and con points (1 each) you will be rewarded with an official SD War College t-shirt. I'll even ship it at my expense.

So put on your thinking caps, and let's continue the debate. (I'm going back to bed)

Comments

Anonymous said…
don't need a shirt or a prize --please see the press release put out by the democratic party on the new hires--make me puke!!

Popular posts from this blog

KSFY: Advance copy of abortion measure in hand

Wikipedia strikes again. Not Stephanie, but the Argus gets it this time.