They just don't know when to give up, do they?

This morning in Dave Kranz's Argus Leader column, the Judicial Accountability crew showed why I'm glad I haven't shut down and gotten rid of my "anti-jail on judges blog." Because they're making noise that they're coming back this next election:

They are accusing the South Dakota Legislature of corruption, the State Bar Association of deception and Attorney General Larry Long of misrepresentation.

And they suggest that their issue was a victim of election fraud. But Long says his critics need not blame, but instead credit South Dakota voters for studying the issue and making up their own mind.


"As Arnold would say, 'We'll be back!"And next time, thanks to the lessons we have learned, our new Judicial Accountability Amendment will be bulletproof. And for good measure, we will also put on the ballot an amendment to outlaw computerized vote counting. And just because they have peeved us off, how about an amendment to require judges to inform the jury it has the right to judge the law as well as the accused's guilt or innocence? I think so!"

Accusations of voting fraud focus on the machines where ballots are then fed into Diebold computer machines that count the votes.

"I have no doubt that the vote was manipulated using the Diebold computers," Stegmeier said.

Ron Branson, a California resident who launched the idea and targeted South Dakota as the first place to test the amendment, uses an Internet Web site to blame Long for what he sees as a problem in the way the issue was handled.


Says Branson, "Folks, there is no way to avoid this - except we now, as soon as possible, teach Larry Long a lesson, namely, that you do not fool around with perverted and false explanations for ballot issues."

Long says he didn't aid the defeat of the measure, known on the ballot as Amendment E.

"The South Dakota voters took their obligations seriously. They educated themselves and concluded that Amendment E was bad law and bad policy and voted it down," Long said.
Read it all here.

You know, if you go read this whole article, you can see one of the problems with this holds many of the same elements of their other odd beliefs. Just like the trade center attacks, and other wild-eyed theories, they require thousands of people working in concert at once.

Any nobody ever breathing a word of it.

Let's give the voters credit where credit is due. They read it, they heard both sides make their arguments.. And the voters went running for the door away from this insanity.

Bringing it back makes about as much sense as bringing it in the first place did. None.


Jack said…

You're right PP, "They just don't know when to give up."

Just like Gordon Howie, Leslee Unruh and the rest of the people who lost their ballot initatives, but refuse to admit that they lost.

And then they come back and waste our time again.

The anti-abortion crusaders sound an awful lot like Stegmeier and his crew...
Anonymous said…
Which part of 90% NO didn't they understand?
chad said…
jack beat me to the punch, but yes ..

"they just don't give up, do they?"

Hunt and Unruh just can't keep their noses out of everyone's pants. They won't give up until everyone is wearing a chastity belt.

When are they going to realize that people just want them to go away?
Anonymous said…
Can someone offer a ballot initiative to send Stegmeier, Unruh, Howie, Hunt and the rest of the right wing wackos who refuse to listen the majority of voters out of the state?
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said...

Can someone offer a ballot initiative to send Stegmeier, Unruh, Howie, Hunt and the rest of the right wing wackos who refuse to listen the majority of voters out of the state?

9:18 AM

I would circulate petitions for that!

If they try to put another issue on the ballot people need to make sure the public knows the deal before they sign. Too many people just signed it or didn't understand what it was. If nobody signs it they can't put it on the ballot.
Think of the conversations Leslee Unruh and Bill Stegmeier could have? ! I nominate Sibby to moderate them.

Todd Epp
Witty Repartee Editor
S.D. Watch
Tomar Highlands said…
Jack and Chad are comparing an amendment that lost 10-90% and one that lost 44-56%. There is probably middle ground in the Abortion debate that a MAJORITY can agree on in this state. There is no middle ground on JAIL, it's pretty black and white. There were many who believe abortion should be legal in all forms. There are some who believe it should be illegal outright. There are many who said they voted against the amendment becuase of lack of exceptions who would have otherwise voted for SOME type of amendment. Gentlemen, there is a big difference. There is a lot of gray in the abortion debate. There is 9 of 10 people in this state saying NO, we are not going to sue judges. This is my analysis based on the election results not personal feelings!
Anonymous said…
12:26 Good point. Now if only the judges could be held in such high esteem by the voters when they render their opinions on abortion and women's rights to privacy for the umpteeth time.
Anonymous said…
Your old friend Bonnie Russell's back

By the way: did Stegmeier ever file his financial disclosures?
Anonymous said…
8:42,9:18,10:02 and 10:35..
"It never ceases to amaze me how every single thread and topic on every single blog is somehow distilled down to the abortion issue...and you wonder why the voters of SD are fatigued over the issue????"

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long