MAINstream Coalition shows signs of life, comes out on ballot issues

(Big HT to Tim from a Progressive on the Prairie who wrote on this on the No on E blog.)

The MAINstream coalition, which has been surprisingly quiet over the course of the past few months, came out recently with a number of position statements on various issues. As written on by Russ Keen in today's Aberdeen American News, They oppose Amendment E, as well as several other issues:

Abortion measure: The coalition is against the near-total ban on abortions because it doesn't make exceptions for incest and rape, Olson said.

While the measure approved by the Legislature allows women who are raped to take the so-called morning after pill, Olson said that's not adequate because most cases of rape and incest aren't reported. The law has been referred to a statewide public vote.

Amendment D: The so-called STOP (Stabilize Taxing Our Property) constitutional amendment should not be approved, Olson said.

Amendment D would change the way property is assessed, basing it strictly on sale value. Under it, a property that sold for, say, $100,000 would be valued at $100,000. The current system, known as equalization, uses comparable sales of property to determine values.

The change would lock people into property because moving would mean they have to pay higher taxes, Olson said. And, he said, it would make it difficult for young South Dakotans to buy homes or for farmers to buy more property because it would shift more of the tax burden to them.

Amendment E: Known as the JAIL amendment, if approved it would allow judges, county commissioners, city council members, school board members and others to be given jail terms or fines because of their decisions. Coalition members think it should be defeated.

and..

Olson also said the Mainstream Coalition has issued three opinion papers. One says that school should not start until after Aug. 31. Another opposes a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, and the third favors South Dakota legislative Article 3 that, simply put, makes it unnecessary to pass a law that can be handled by common law.

Review all of this MUST READ article here.

The article also briefly mentioned that several of the group's founders took it in the shorts this past primary election:

The three Mainstream Coalition incumbents who were challenged in Republican primary races on June 6 lost. In Aberdeen, Isaac Latterell beat Sen. Duane Sutton. And in Rapid City Eli Schwiesow defeated Rep. Stan Adelstein, and Dennis Schmidt downed Rep. J.D. Duniphan.

Olson said low voter turnout had a lot to do with the results. He also said the far right does a good job of staying on point on issues such as abortion and is good at activating its base. Now, Olson said, middle-of-the-road politicians need to do the same with their supporters. If that doesn't happen, he said, "extremists" will continue to control the party.

I'd disagree with Ed on a couple of points here. Aside from the "far right" crack simply being the so called MAINstreamers adopting the terms of the Democrats, the losses weren't a matter of some organized effort of the "so-called right." The incumbents lost because their opponents ran better campaigns. That's how it works.

In Aberdeen, Duane Sutton focused primarily on advertising, while Isaac focused on his yard signs and a strong door to door effort.

In Rapid City, Stan Adelstein used a shotgun approach to his advertising, while Elli focused on holding her base, and moving those that might have stayed home in the previous matchup. Stan's pre-race publicity as Planned Parenthood's legislator didn't help him in this district as much as he thought it would.

Also in Rapid, Schmidt's race was highlighted by his going after parts of Duniphan's voting record which were not in tune with her district.

In the end, the stronger campaign won. Isn't that what primary elections are about?

Regardless, even though I disagree with the MAINstream thing because I don't see where holding hands with the Democrats makes the GOP stronger, The article does note that Ed is leaving the ED position of the coalition.

I wish him the best, as even though I might disagree with him on this, I will always consider him a thoughtful legislator and a gentleman. Ed, good luck in your endeavors.

Comments

Haggs said…
I disagree that the MAINstream Coalition was "adopting the terms of the Democrats." I see it as adopting the position of the majority of Americans (y'know, the moderates).
Anonymous said…
PP,

Maybe the members of the Mainstream Coal ition care more about the well being of the State. They don't think your party is taking it in the right direction.

Yes, the GOP has the largest percentage in registration, they are NOT the majority. If you add all the Democrats, Independents and other together, the GOP would have the minority.

I contend that the Mainstream Coalition does care about the future of the party. The right wing is a fast moving train that is about to over the cliff and they want to slow it down. They are truly the ones who care about the future success of the party.

If you think the average South Dakotan agrees with the far right, you are only talking to conservative bloggers Talk to the working guy. They don't really agree with the right or left. They want someone in the middle.
Anonymous said…
Challenge to you MainStreamers:

Name one issue that separates your group, the MainStreamers, from the extremist.

Then explain to me why your position is MainStream and the opposing position is extreme.
Anonymous said…
The MAINstream web site says
Our Purpose

To preserve the traditional American values of separation of church and state, freedom of religion and speech, pluralism, individual rights, the importance of the family, quality education, and tolerance...

So how is calling people you disagree with "extremist" tolerant?

Aren't you the MAINstreamers violating your own purpose by name calling?

Where is the tolerance of other views?
Anonymous said…
2:41, you don't understand what tolerance means. Tolerance is allowing people their own beliefs and actions. The right wing is forcing its beliefs on everyone, i.e. abortion ban, abstinence-only education, civil union ban, etc.

Tolerance means live and let live, which the Mainstream coalition is advocating. You can have your extreme views if you want. Just don't force them on everyone. You can make your hand into a fist if you want. Just don't punch someone with it.

I may be intolerant if I protest your beliefs. But I'm not intolerant if I protest when you force those beliefs on me. I'm tired of the right calling people intolerant for just standing up for their rights. When the mainstream coalition starts trying to take away your rights then you can whine about intolerance.
Anonymous said…
3:12

You say "You can make your hand into a fist if you want. Just don't punch someone with it"

I agree. You can do what you want with your body. Don't smoke and drink as the unborn baby has to smoke and drink with you.

Also don't abort the unborn child so that you can finish your senior year of college.

My right to swing my fist ends where someone else's nose begins.
Anonymous said…
"Live and let live."

Really -- what about me paying for an inefficient education system, regardless of whether I want to send my kids there? You seem OK with requiring me to do that.

What if I want to home-school my kids, but if I have to work so that I can pay the high taxes you want me to pay? Are you letting me live as I want?

And if my kids get taught information I don't approve of, are you letting me "live and let live?"
Anonymous said…
Good riddance, Special Ed. Another Downstreamer flees from the scene.
Anonymous said…
5:07, your right to tell others what to do stops at the constitutional right to privacy.

6:57, you sound like an anarchist except where it comes to telling others what to do with their body, which right you apparently reserve to yourself. Your education questions, like the issue of abortion come down to choice. Nobody's forcing you to use the public school system if you choose not to. As to taxation to pay for public schools, that goes back to the constitution too.

And by the way, where in the 3:12 comment does it say that the commenter is for high taxes or inefficient education? Where does it say that "tolerance" means high taxes or inefficient education? Do you have to make false stuff up to make your point?
Anonymous said…
7:24

I just finished reading the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights and did not find any mention of "right to privacy".

Can you give me the sentence that grants us this right?

I don't expect you to find it soon as it took the Supreme Court one hundred and fifty years to find the "right to privacy" in the United States Constitution.

Roe V Wade depends on the made up “right to privacy”. That is one of many dirty little secrets of Roe v Wade.
Anonymous said…
Why is the word Freedom absent from this conversation. The Freedom to do with one body as they wish to do. The freedom to live ones life the way they want to (without infringing on someone elses persuit of happiness) Make a law to were a seat belt? How does a driver not wearing a seat belt infringe on anothers life? I am sick and tired of politicans making laws to dictate how I live. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous said…
From an Trauma Nurse--don't wear your seat belt and you may well get death!

And since you may well croak after a lengthy hospital stay, my insurance price or taxes increase to pay for YOUR stupidity, your choice, and your freedom.

THAT infringes on MY pursuit of happiness--and my ability to feed my family AND pay to send my children to a school that isn't full of a bunch of Democrat teachers.
Anonymous said…
7:46 Do you not believe that the right to privacy is implicit in the constitution, in our whole system of government? Why is there a 5th amendment right against self incrimination if there is no right to privacy? Why is there a 14th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures if there is no right to privacy?

Do you really believe our founding fathers envisioned a nation in which individuals had no right to privacy? Weren't our founding fathers trying to escape the all-powerful government of King George? The fact is, if you want no privacy you can give it up. You're not taking my privacy.
Anonymous said…
7:46 - If the police would force their way into your home to search for something, I bet you would yell about your right to privacy really fast.
Anonymous said…
11:44

You said the “Right to privacy’ is “implicit in the constitution”

The definition of “implicit is “capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed”

You have agreed with my point the “Right to privacy” is unexpressed in the United States Constitution. The “Right to privacy” is not written in the Constitution.

What is in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) is ….nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;….

So Roe v Wade was a choice between that which is not in the Constitution (Right to privacy) and that which is in the Constitution (Right to Life). That is why the pro-aborts are nervous. Roe v Wade is built upon shifting sand.
Anonymous said…
9:07

You are right I don’t want the police breaking into my house. Neither did the founder fathers so they explicitly wrote

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is no need to make up a “right of privacy” as there is a right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the US Constitution.
Anonymous said…
2:28, why did you edit the word "person" out of the constitution when you quoted, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"? Where does the constitution say that a cell, blastula or zygote has rights and that those rights are paramount over a person's liberty interests?

What about a woman's liberty interest? Websters defines liberty as "freedom or release from slavery", but you would deprive women of liberty and make them slaves.

As many right to lifers claim, fertilization establishes personhood. But thousands of eggs are fertilized every day in this world that never implant in the uterus. Murder, you say? Better name that period on the way out and have a funeral?

Our courts have recognized the woman's liberty interest, which they balance with a fetus's life interest. Even Roe and its progeny recognize that the more developed the fetus becomes, the greater the interest of the government in regulating.
Anonymous said…
5:27

There was a time that African Americans were not recognized as a "person". There was a time that Native Americans were not given the right of personhood. There was a time that women did not have all the rights of a person.

Most aborted babies have arms, legs, head, brain waves and a heart beat. Logic says that this could be a person and could be entitled to a "right to life". If in doubt lets give the benefit to life and not death.

Here is the complete amenment.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Anonymous said…
All of the founding members of the Mainstream coalition voted consistently for abortion and gay marriage.

The Mainstreamers are fiscally conservative secularist. They want to diminish Christian values in government. They prefer atheist values such as men can marry men and 814 abortions per year in South Dakota are acceptable in the name of separation of church values and government laws.
Anonymous said…
Anon 2:35 - I took government classes too. What I was referring to are situations where the police screw up the address and raid the wrong house. If you follow the news at all, you know those things happen.

And regarding your comparison of a fetus to Native Americans, African Americans and women, and their quest to be recognized as a "person," those people were and are able to breathe and think on their own.
Your argument has some merit if you are talking about a fetus in the last trimester. But a fetus at three months is two inches long!
The irony of using women in your "personhood" example is that women will lose one of their rights as a person if they are denied the freedom to make decisions regarding their own bodies. And they can breathe - and think - on their own.
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:35 - Our forefathers fled England because of religious persecution. Are the women, gays and lesbians who live in South Dakota going to have to flee the state for the same reason?
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:35--I'm pretty sure SD never voted on Gay Marriage...they voted to ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and "quasi-marital" relationships for two people regardless of sex. Although in 1996 the state legislature did vote to define marriage between a man and a woman.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th