The Crossroads…

This summer, GOP conservatives were not just exuberant – they were giddy - over their prospects coming out of the June election. Several members of the MAINstream coalition, who had divided the party by deriding party conservatives as extremists, found themselves out in the street.

A conservative surge of energy had continued and seemingly swept up the GOP at convention, culminating in a platform plank endorsing the anti-abortion measure HB 1215. While that was not entirely unexpected, another measure endorsing the teaching of creationism as an alternative theory to evolution also flew through the chamber with little opposition – a measure which I believe has not been included on the platform before (at least not since the 50's)

This wave of energy continued through much of the fall elections, and many Republicans were excited with the prospect of the shape a leadership coalition would take next session.

But it all came to a crashing halt on election day.

On election night, conservative candidates started dropping like flies. Latterell. Johnson, Earley, Arnold, Klaudt, and others who were expected to be winners came up short. Some by just a hairs’ breadth.

Shortly thereafter, you could add to that accusations of favoritism on the part of the party for some candidates over others. I’d even heard talk today of a “do not help” list that was allegedly in existence (although I can’t seem to find a copy).

And after the Senate caucus election it looks like the more conservative elements of the Senate find themselves further demoralized. The election of Senator Bob Gray to the position of President Pro Tempore was not considered a dark spot, nor was the election of Jim Lintz to whip. But some of those farther to the right see the majority leader and assistant leader election of the team of Knudson and Dempster as anything but friendly to those who identify themselves with a firm conservative label.

When I asked Senator Brock Greenfield of his reaction to the caucus elections, I got a quote which gave me pause to ask “are you sure you want to say this?” If you can't tell, Brock was not feeling excitement towards his new leadership team at the moment he gave me this:
“The caucus elections are proof that there is virtually no difference between the two parties. The leader of the Democrat Caucus is a former Republican, and the leader of the Republican Caucus is a former Democrat. For the next two years, it will be hard to tell where one caucus ends, and the other begins.”
Not mincing any words there, is he?

But it's illustrative of the hard feelings and divide that exists within the party. The conservatives are fed up with being called extremists by their own party members, and the moderates/liberals feel that they're being marginalized as well.

If we were to characterize these political battles in terms we can all relate to, I’m going to channel my inner SF geek, and pick a ‘Star Wars” analogy.

In the first act this summer, after months of initial grumblings and intra-party sniping, and being characterized as extremists who were out of touch during the legislative session, the conservative rebels struck out against more liberal elements of the party who wished to put them in their place. (al la “Star Wars: A New Hope”). They put their rebellious grassroot troops on the ground and within the party structure and made their surprise victory happen.

But in a startling turn of events, the more moderate to liberal elements within the party hunkered down and used their control over the process to rally their own efforts. Their strength came in their strong influence in money and the upper echelons of the party structure to give the rebels a good rousting, and to let them know they don’t yet control as much as they think (just like in “The Empire Strikes Back”).

And that’s probably a good analogy for where things sit today.

Where do we take things from here? Yes, the more conservative elements of the GOP might hope for a “Return of the Jedi” rout in the next two years, but I don’t think they’re going to get it.

So where does that leave Republicans? Well, consider what the two sides have going for them.

Conservatives dominate – and I mean dominate – the Republican ground game in South Dakota. The success of Yes on 6 is testament to that.

Yes, I know they lost, but you have to recognize and respect the incredible grassroots effort they had. Campaign for Healthy Families might have put forth a solid run (and won in the end), but I didn’t see them on my doorstep 2 and three times as I did Yes on 6. If that kind of effort was directed at a candidate instead of a divisive social issue, with a proper message it could yank an incumbent out of office. And it overwhelmingly consisted of conservative Republicans.

You also have to recognize that there are plenty of Republicans who might not share some of those same views. They hold many high positions within the party structure and identify with the GOP label because of a GOP laissez faire attitude towards business.

And the elephant’s strong views on personal freedom and government intrusion are good for their business. They might be socially more liberal, but they have money and vote Republican because of their pro-business orientation. They support things with their vote and pocket book.

At this point, what should South Dakota Republicans take note of? Well for starters, we need each other. And secondly we're not that much different.

Our country may have been built on religious freedom, but a business oriented ‘American Dream’ is also what made our country great. And instead of each side beating each other up, maybe it’s time for our party to get back to a point where we respect each other’s differences. And I mean that – specifically, “respect.”

It gets back to why I would give the MAINstream people a hard time on occasion. I didn't beat on them because of their views. I beat on them because the movement hurt the GOP. It said that being a Republican was less important than promoting their agenda. The exact same thing they accused their conservative counterparts of.

Because it was (and is) a divisive thing that didn’t make the GOP stronger. Instead of having these discussions in-house, it was a brass knuckle fight that spilled out into the street, and both sides went away mad. And from there it devolved into a game of one-upsmanship.

At some point, Republicans are going to have to realize that both sides of the argument are going to have to swallow their opinions and sit at the table if they want to win elections.

Moderates and liberals are going to have to stop calling conservatives “extremists,” and realize that they need the conservatives, because when they’re motivated, it’s tough to win an election without them. They are an army unto themselves, and there are plenty of times that they can just go it alone.

But conservatives are going to have to realize that they need the moderates and liberals as well. Their financial support is invaluable, because every dollar they can give is time you can devote to other tasks. And most importantly, when the dems are against you in a general election, you need their vote.

This isn’t too terribly difficult. We just need to realize that we need each other. And that mission should start with our legislative leadership.

Why? Because that’s where much of this animosity spilled out of. It’s chief architect is no longer in the Senate, and if we're lucky, might not be in the party anymore. So, this might just be a chance to start anew. A fresh opportunity. And I think there's examples that it might actually happen.

I heard early today that one conservative legislator was going to be stripped of his chairmanship after the day's elections. But by early evening, not only did it not happen, they stood together. Instead of another instance of taking revenge, the new leadership took a step. It might not be a big step, but it should be recognized as a step nonetheless.

So at this juncture, lets reciprocate, and give the new leadership a chance before we start casting dispersions. Yes, some of us may have had a person or two people we'd rather see in. But it didn't happen. So let's move forward with a tenuous truce. And we might be surprised. I hope we will be surprised, and we'll see fewer issues becoming personal vendettas.

I think our party’s New Year resolution and the task for our new leadership, whether it's at the legislative level or our state party chairman, whomever that is, should be a simple one – one of respect and tolerance for our fellow Republican.

We at least owe each other that.


Nicholas Nemec said…
As a Democrat admittedly I'm watching all this from the outside but, it would seem to me that being called a Godless baby killer by the conservatives, ie supporters of RL6 would be kind of irritating to the less conservative or libertarian members of your party.
Anonymous said…
Tolerance...unless of course you are a Godless heathen gay-lovin' baby killer. In which case, there is no tolerance.
Anonymous said…
I wish you would quit calling the social fundamentalists "conservatives." There's not much that is conservative about their theocratic agenda. True conservatives, like me, want the government out of our lives. They seem to want the opposite!
Anonymous said…
Moderates and Liberals will stop calling Conservatives extremist when the conservatives stop trying to push an extremist agenda that hurts the state.

The GOP selection makes me proud to be a South Dakotan. Did Dempster and Knudson hurt the party this summer? Yes. Did it help create a new SD legislature that will focus on solving problems together instead of using wedge issues to tear our state apart? YES. What's good for South Dakota should be good for both parties (and we need to have both in order to function like a true government).

Good for Dempster. Good for Gray. Good for Knudson. Good for Heidepriem. and Good for South Dakota, I hope.

I hate to say this because you seem like a decent guy, but sour grapes to you. Your post was well written but the pointsyou made only highlight why the conservatives were beaten in 06. When you start caring more about "the party" than what the people of the state want, then the people will vote you out. Happened to the"Extremist Liberal" Dems in 94, and it happened to the "Extremist Conservative" GOPs in 06.

Oh, and as someone who has been involved in grass roots politics far longer than you - let me tell you that the Yes on 6 campaign ran one of the worst ground campaigns I've ever seen. Yes, they did have passionate volunteers, but they did do nearly as much work as the quieter No campaign - which successfully identified the undecideds and focused 90% of their resources to sway them with a very direct and uncomplicated argument. The Yes folks had the energy, but their leadership and targeting tactics were horrible.
Anonymous said…
So is Dave Knudsen Darth Vader and Bob Gray Luke Skywalker? Does that make Dave Knudsen Bob Gray's dad?
PP said…
sorry 6:17, but I disagree.

More than anything, I worry about the GOP winning elections. When the GOP is divided and chewing each other up by name calling, etc, it will affect how well we do.
Yoda said…
Nice post. I think you miss the point. If you are truly trying to heal the party, I think the Star Wars analogy doesn't help as you equate the Mainstreamers, moderates and liberals with the "evil empire". As I recall the Dark Side of the force was caused by hate. What can be more hateful than calling all yes on 6 people baby-killers?

The problem with the party is the far right fundamentalist wing. The Republican party is not the "moral police" party. Take a look at Newt Gingrich's contract with America. No mention of abortion.
lexrex said…
pp, well said. thanks for pointing out that the liberal wing of the party is just as divisive as they claim the conservative wing is.

anonymous 5:50, with all due respect, i think you misread what the founders thought about government.

it was clearly understood that state's had a police power to protect the "health, safety, and morals" of its citizens, which included subjects from health codes at butcher shops to abortion.

as a social and fiscal conservative, though, i do agree with your sentiment that the government has gone way too far in interfering in our lives.
Elephant's Memory said…
I remember Barry Goldwater when I was in grade school get shellacked against LBJ. He brought on a new breed of cat, including Richard Viguerie, called the conservative movement. Goldwater, the Godfather of the Modern Conservative Movement, believed government was best managed as a minimal factor in daily life. Was he also pro-choice for exactly that reason?
Anonymous said…
"...because that’s where much of this animosity spilled out of. It’s chief architect is no longer in the Senate, and if we're lucky, might not be in the party anymore."

Is Lee Schonebeck leaving the Republican Party????????????

Did you pay attention last session? Who was running the show? Stan was on the back burner, Lee and the W. River crew were in charge.

Now you got spanked and you preach reconcilliation? Please. If your laundry list of nuts and unqualified thumbsuckers had won you'd be calling it a new day. 6 would have passed, Apa would be pro-tem, McNenny Majority Leader and Leslee Unruh would beat Herseth in 08? Sound Crazy?
mjb said…
The problem with the GOP was Adelstein tearing it apart. Before he started trying to defeat his own teammates, there was never this type of divide.

there will always be political gaming and scheming, but he declared open warfare with a bottomless checkbook.
Anonymous said…

I think PP is referring to Stan A.
Anonymous said…
elephant's memory:

so from all your posts yesterday and now this morning: this is all about abortion for you isn't it?

Remember this is the big tent party and just because you don't like the party's platform on abortion is no reason why you have to keep dividing us.

Last time I checked most South Dakotans want to end abortion on demand, most want to get rid of it, with the exceptions of course, and they want to do away with gay marriage, and support judges who are constitutionalists. Those all things that a majority of South Dakotans support. Do you?
Anonymous said…
Both sides are missing the real reasons for the Democratic gains in the Senate. Those gains in turn greatly altered the power balance in the Republican Senate caucus and increased the chances for Dave Knudson to win as majority leader. The victory by Scott Heidepriem and his selection as Democratic Senate leader clearly affected the thinking by some of the Senate Republicans in choosing Knudson. Further, the difficulties that the governor faced in the Republican Senate the past four years made clear there were competing agendas. Fourth, while many South Dakota legislators in both parties wanted to push forward with an abortion ban, many anti-abortion leaders at the national level strongly believed the effort was ill-timed and therefore ill-advised. So it's somewhat off-point to let the discussion of the Republican Party's current and future status center on abortion and labels such as conservative, moderate and RINO.

As to what led to defeats for Republicans and victories for Democrats on Nov. 7, consider these points:

1) Republicans were over-confident. They failed to recognize the gamble being taken in the purge of pro-choice Republican senators in the primaries, which opened safe-Republican seats. They failed to recognize that retirements of established incumbents opened seats. Open seats are much more vulnerable to take-over than seats where incumbents are running for re-election. Here are four such examples: The ouster of Duane Sutton in Aberdeen in the primary by Isaac Latterell led the Democrats to shuffle their line-up and replace Ted Kneebone with Al Hoerth as the Democratic candidate. The voluntary retirement of Lee Schoenbeck in Watertown, who was unopposed two years ago, opened the way for Democrat Nancy Turbak to run; meanwhile Dennis Arnold had to spend valuable resources including political capital to beat Claire Konold in a Republican primary, only to lose narrowly to Turbak. Likewise with the term-limit retirement of Eric Bogue in the Great Northwest district, where there not only was a Republican primary between Ted Klaudt and Ken Wetz in a Democratic-registration district, but Democrats had a solid candidate in Ryan Maher. Republicans have felt confident about that district because Democrats tended to under-vote there. That didn't happen with Bogue's retirement and Maher's victory in a Democratic primary. Add to those situations the decision by Stan Adelstein to back Democrat Tom Katus after Adelstein was narrowly beaten in the rematch with Elie Schwiesow in a soft-Republican district. Booom: four Democratic pick-ups.

2)On the ground a month before the election, Democrats appeared to be running the more aggressive campaigns in many of the districts. They also clearly aimed for the middle with slogans such as "It's about people, not politics." Turbak looked better organized than Arnold in Watertown in early October; while he caught up, she made a strong first impression. There was almost no presence of a Latterell campaign on the streets in Aberdeen as mid-October came, while Hoerth had his signs in yards, in a race where name recognition was important. In the Brown County half of District 2, there was almost no appearance a month before the election of a campaign by Brian Johnson, the Republican challenging Democratic incumbent Jim Hundstad, while Hundstad's signs were out on the farm-to-market roads. Out west, Democrats openly labeled the Maher-Klaudt race as their sleeper contest and they were right. For whatever reasons, Democrats seemed to have a better idea where their potential wins were than Republicans did.

3) This battle over who is truly a Republican, and who should be blamed for Democrats gaining five Senate seats, misses some real success stories. Cooper Garnos won in a Democratic district by working hard. (Given his natural abilities, is he a future candidate for Congress?) Arnie Hauge turned back a solid Democratic opponent in Mike Kroger in keeping Clarene Kooistra's seat in the Republican column, again by working hard. Dennis Schmidt won by a solid margin in Rapid City in a district where he should have won, and did, in replacing J.P. Duniphan. Jean Hunhoff captured the Yankton seat that was held by Senate Democratic leader Garry Moore who had to switch to the House because of term limits. Without Garnos, Hauge and Hunhoff, Republicans would be arguing about who the Senate minority leader should be.

4) The defeats of Bill Earley and Dick Kelly were painful for Republicans but really weren't surprises, even though they were good candidates and solid senators. Bill has been in tight races before. That's the nature of his district and the Democratic efforts in Sioux Falls. Scott Heidepriem, an experienced politician from both legislative races and his 1986 run for U.S. House, took on Kelly and worked very hard. Democrats put bulls-eyes on Earley and Kelly and took them out.

5) Voters were in a mood to slap "Pierre." That was clear in the referendum on the abortion ban and the initiative on the governor's personal use of state airplanes. Obviously voters are open to quality Democratic candidates, as shown by not only the legislative gains but by Congresswoman Herseth's huge win. Herseth called 1215 "extreme," yet it seems many pro-1215 voters also voted for her.

As for Knudson, he is a good public speaker, a smart legislator, knows a lot about school funding and property taxes and understands how state government operates. He has long favored the repeal of video lottery: Does that make him a conservative, moderate, RINO or liberal? On that issue, he likely shares the same view as many people who favored the abortion ban. His work as chief of staff for Janklow twice, even though he was originally a Democrat, suggests his personal views are in the camp of limited taxes, efficient government, effective use of limited resources, free markets and strong law enforcement. Knudson came out ahead in the end in a competition with another very good legislator, Ken McNenny. It is very likely that Knudson will value McNenny's counsel. Neither one is a rash man.
VJ said…
Well, this is what I heard this morning: "Our “stop abortion” and “save marriage” values have been weakened by the election of these dividers! The terrorists have won!”

I just don’t think a lot of you realize just how many Republicans (and legislators) truly believe that it’s our MAIN responsibility to “save marriage” and “stop abortion”. Everything else in politics is secondary!

We talk about the "high moral" values of the Republican Party. Well, this is it!

Thank you Senator Brock Greenfield! Thank you for standing up and fighting these dividers!

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out!
Anonymous said…
PP, you are absolutely incorrect about the 6 campaign. If you were one of the No campaign's targeted voters, which you apparently weren't, you heard from them way more than three times.

No didn't win by accident.
lexrex said…
the republican party was founded upon two pillars: inalienable rights and the institution of marriage.

then, the issue was whether governments were formed to secure the inalienable right to liberty, to abolish slavery. today, the issue is whether governments are formed to secure the inalienable right to life, to abolish abortion.

then, the issue was how to define marriage, whether to defend it as the union of one man and one woman. today, the issue is the same, whether to defend it as the union of one man and one woman.

the republican party platform 150 years ago even referred to polygamy and slavery as the “twin relics of barbarism.”

today, homosexual marriage and abortion are our twin relics.

i think it's fair to say that those shouldn't be our only issues. i, for one, would like to focus on education, taxes, health care for awhile. but you party leftists shouldn't go about denying the history and the platform of the party.
Anonymous said…
lexrex, haven't you left yet? Keep pumping the issues you pump and it will be Scott Heidepreim majority leader in 09.

I'm a RINO to you, but don't want the dems in power, PP in his piece identified many of the party accurately, so please, lex, brock, others, please stop or at least MODERATE a bit.
Elephant's Memory said…
Anon 8:17

You missed the point. I was responding to PP's implication that the abortion issue is what critically divides conservatives from moderates and liberals. Historically, it does not. The business people in Sioux Falls and elsewhere who cling to their GOP identity do so because they want to eliminate government intrusion to America's free enterprise system. They especially object to government intrusion to their personal lives, especially what goes on above their knees and below their waistlines. They view this obsession with abortion as a religious doctrine shared by an angry minority that is being shoved down their throats by political hacks, and that causes them to hesitate about writing big checks to narrow interpretations of the Bible.

I know you want this to be about the abortion issue. But what I am seeing in this blog are the footprints of a movement which seeks to ram a minority opinion into law and to intimidate anyone who disagrees away from the political process, i.e., power.

I respect this dialogue and Mr. Powers' commitment to a forum. I also respect your beliefs. What I don't want is to see our former big tent party shrink-wrapped to accommodate the wishes of a hostile take-over by a minority share of Republicans. That would be a disaster which would cost us the legislative majority, the governor's office and redistricting in 2011. This is about winning as Republicans, not winning as the Right to Life Movement. If you wish to be committed and narrowly focused on the latter, Mr. Regier's organization is looking for new recruits, and I hope you have a good time doing it.
lexrex said…
you miss my point, 10:43. the history and the platform of the party give credence to attention paid to those issues that you seem to despise.

all i'm asking is that if you want to be a part of the republican party, don't get upset when republicans act like, well, republicans.

and when tom dempster comes up with a good idea about health care, we should work together. or, when scott heidepreim comes up with an interesting idea about spending freezes, we should listen.

what i don't get is when republicans open up their tent to those of you who ignore party history and platform, you soemhow feel entitled to demand your hosts do the same.
Anonymous said…
I love the VJ types, the nonnie types, the ones who only care about abortion and gay marraige. Like it or not, they're the base of the modern Republican party, and they're going to be responsible for tearing the party in two, both nationally and locally here in SD.

It's already begun, and it's a hoot to watch from the non-politically affiliated sidelines.
Anonymous said…
As a Dem, I really don't have any business injecting an opinion here, but am I the only one who thinks Lexrex's justification of "we did it this way 150 years ago" is a little weak for continuing down the path that the extreme right-wing has led the GOP on?
Anonymous said…
If you are pro life -pro gun and a democrat you are called moderate

If you are pro life-pro gun and a republican you are called extremist
Anonymous said…
I agree that conservatives are base on the GOP and the key to the ground game. I also think that Rounds and Thune are conservatives. I think that a huge majority of the GOP support Rounds and Thune more than Napoli and Greenfield. We happen to have this small (now smaller) cadre of very conservative legislators from safe GOP districts. They need to realize that, just as the center of gravity in the GOP is probably not Knudson, so is it no Napoli. They tried too hard to pull the party to the right - and when they lost their grip, it swung to the left. Here's hoping it settles back in the middle of the party - right back with Rounds and Thune.
Anonymous said…
Oh, and as for Greenfield, Napoli and Apa - boo hoo. I hope you are all moved from Approps to a committee that more adequately meets your qualifications - maybe Transportation.
Anonymous said…
12:34, you're right on. I could not have said it better. Democrats want to have it both ways.
Anonymous said…
So pp, who is going to pay for a new Death Star?
lexrex said…
Anonymous 12:22 said...
"am I the only one who thinks Lexrex's justification of "we did it this way 150 years ago" is a little weak for continuing down the path that the extreme right-wing has led the GOP on?"

that's closer to my point. if for 150 years the republican party has stood for certain principles, which continue to be "codified" into the present-day platform, what justification is there for liberal republicans to enter the tent and demand wholesale change?

should those who respect the history of the party and adhere to the platform automatically roll over for those who reject the history and the platform?

likewise, should those who adhere to the democrat platform roll over for the the conservative bluedogs? i wish they would, but i understand why they might not automatically do so.

it's like joining a golf club and demanding that your fellow members stop playing golf and start playing tennis ... and then throwing a conniption fit because the golfers insist on playing golf.

or, you can let the golfers play golf, build a tennis court, and hope that some of the golfers join you in a match.
Anonymous said…
What would you know about a golf club...I thought you weren't a member.
In any event, do you really believe that the "pillars" of the republican party include the protection of marriage? I think the pillar of the republican party is that people should be free to choose how to live their lives with minimal government intervention. As I see you and the far right wing of the party, you are trying to us how to live our lives. In the history of government, this doesn't work.
Lets get back to fiscal and personal responsibility.
lexrex said…
anonymous 4:27, i have history to back my claim about what the pillars of the party are (e.g., the original party platform). what do you have to back your claim?
Anonymous said…
Oh I am sorry lexrex you are all knowing. There must have been only two parts of the platform.
Oh and by the way, I got my infomration from GOP.COM. Figured they may know a little about it.
VJ said…
Anonymous 11:47 AM “Like it or not, they're the base of the modern Republican party,”

YES WE ARE! You asked us to be a part of the Republican Party. From President Bush down to my State representative all wanted our support! You needed our support and of course our money! You did everything you could to make sure that we “Christians” understood that the Republican party was our party! Do you think we are just going to let you walk away from us now that the election is over? Do you really think that will happen?

WELL, HERE WE ARE! Now what are you going to do? If you don’t like it, well, then just remember that sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for! We are here and we are not going to let you forget it!
Anonymous said…
PP's original post was pretty good. then 8:54 am really hit the ball over the fence; wish i knew who that writer was...he or she would get my vote and money.

fact is, in the vast majority of disctricts, there is only ONE way dems win in this state.... when we repubs start wars on each other by forcing each other to take sides on divisive issues. we make our candidates run too far to the right in the primary, to get back to the middle in the general election. Or.... we just kill the moderate repub in the primary, because they wont run to the right.

then the bloodied victor (oh, try ellie schweisow, for example) gets beat by a ho-hum democrat who went to the middle and stayed there.

now dont get wound up...stan adelstein was too leftish. but the answer is not bloodbath.

in four years, this will all do an "instant replay" in the govs republican primary. lee will take the hard right no exceptions and i mean NO exceptions abortion ban. the question is whether his opponents take the bait....or agree to be warred upon. its a lose lose choice.

some day, the dems (scotty boy) will be the governor, and if so, he may ONLY thank us, the Rs....who eat our young on an issue the VOTERS HAVE NOW REJECTED ON A STRAIGHT UP VOTE.

there may be moral high ground in losing the governors chair, but doesnt it occur to any of the hard core 1215'ers that their insistence on primary bloodshed, means a pro-choice governor? and means, a D governor?

I am hard core pro-life. But we wont get a thing done...not a thing...if we infight. so PP is right on the MONEY.
lexrex said…
anonymous 6:15, i didn't say marriage and unalienable rights were the only parts of the platform. i said that they were the twin pillars of the platform. an important point, i think.
Anonymous said…
vj wrote:
"WELL, HERE WE ARE! Now what are you going to do?"

I'm going to watch your party implode. From within. And I'm going to laugh the whole time.

Keep up the good work.
lexrex said…
7:52 PM said that ellie schweisow got "beat by a ho-hum democrat."

actually, that campaign proved your point in the opposite. she got by a ho-hum democrat because adelstein refused to support her and even pumped cash into the dem's campaign.

the divisiveness came from the "moderate" not the conservative.
Anonymous said…
Nice argument Powers. What do we do with voters claiming to vote for the man and not the party. The posters on this board are the three percent that attempts to influence the 97 percent and will defend or hide points inline with party stategy.

The national stage gave us an idea of what to expect if we don't teach GOP to vote GOP.

I don't like twenty percent of the GOP State Platform but that doesn't mean I will vote Democrat because results could mean Katus in leadership as is Pelosi in leadership. If I want liberal leadership I will vote Democrat or move to either CA or MA.

The way votes moved across the ballot I would say that SD is purple leaning blue, yet registered more red.

GOP leadership abandoned its platform and candidates. Presumable to protect relationships with big donors or emerging lobbyists seeking power.
Anonymous said…
How many years has the Republican party been working to knock down Roe vs. Wade?
How was the party unity prior to the big push by the Religious Right?
When did the GOP symbol switch from being an elephant to being a cross?
When did lexrex become delusional?
Lincoln C said…
Now that the Dems have won a solid majority in the House and Senate, PLUS holding the Governorship, how will things be different???
lexrex said…
i very well may be delusional, 9:03. that's quite possible. but i've got my wits about me enough to know that you haven't addressed my points about the police powers of the state to regulate the health, safety, and morals of its citizens; the republican party history and its founding; the party platform; and the divisiveness of the adelsteins of the party.
Elephant's Memory said…
VJ and Dr. Regier,

You two sound like schoolgirls who just found out their boyfriends were cheating on them all the time! At least Rob should know better. The people who get elected are P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N-S. Never marry your candidates unless you want to be disappointed when they start embracing others. Their passion is to get elected, stay elected and get elected to something more powerful. It's a career. Your cause is only the means to their end.

Now, my dear boys, grab some tissue and dry those weeping eyes. There, there now. He's a jerk. They're ALL jerks.

Boo hoo.

P.S. - Your historical interpretations of Abe Lincoln's party roots appear cleverly spun to fit your cause, Rob. Don't sound so disappointed if that's not the way the politicians see it. They only care about ideology as far as it gets them elected. And, yes, I don't care so much about ideology as much as getting smart people elected. Smart Republicans, that is. By the way, did you urge the religiously righteous Governor Rounds to return the hundreds of thousands placed in his hands by Mr. Adelstein? Nope? Didn't think so.
lexrex said…
elephant, you said "They only care about ideology as far as it gets them elected."

i'm afraid i agree with you. most do not care about ideals and principles. they care about elections. one senator the other day was already talking about how he can get re-elected in '08. shameful, i think.

i readily admit that ideologues like myself are in the minority.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long