Dems are now trying to say that they are the big tent party. (If that's so, why can't they get any of the clowns out in the ring?)

SDDP issued their response to the GOP's press release on the South Dakota Convention. And here's a snippet of what the ringmaster, Judy Olson, had to say:
The South Dakota Democratic Party truly is the big tent party, a fact reaffirmed at our successful state convention. I encourage all South Dakotans uneasy with the status quo that puts a narrow focus on personal social issues and ignores the meat and potato concerns of education, health care, and good paying jobs, to give us a chance to lead by voting for Democrats in November.
Both the South Dakota Democratic Party and the South Dakota Republican Party held their state conventions last weekend. While the Democratic Party passed a ‘Unity Resolution’ (see below) the Republican Party adopted a resolution supporting the controversial anti-abortion bill, HB 1215. The aftermath of such a move has been considerable.

Of course, there was the inevitable continued crowing about Clarence Kooistra not having to pretend anymore just for the sake of getting elected:
On Wednesday, former state Senator Clarence Kooistra changed his party affiliation to Democrat. Two Democratic candidates for the legislature, Scott Heidepriem and Rebekah Cradduck were also former Republican legislators who found room in the Democratic Party for their views.
(emphasis on former). They then posted their infamous Unity Resolution that some of the bloggers were grumbling about my friend Todd Epp in regards to:
WHEREAS, The South Dakota Democratic Party is united in the purposes of creating a better South Dakota for all of its people and electing Democratic candidates to government at all levels.

WHERAS, the South Dakota Democratic Party is united in our recognition that Constitutional Amendment C, pertaining to the definition of marriage, as well as Referred Law HB 1215, pertaining to the prohibition of the abortion procedure, are matters of personal conscience and personal faith.

THEREFORE LET IT BE KNOWN, We encourage Democrats to study thoroughly and reflect carefully on each, and we further encourage Democrats to vote as their conscience may dictate.
What did some of the more vocal Democrats observing this process have to say about the Democratic convention? Well, Clean Cut Kid had this to say:
Ever wonder why so much of the public sees Democrats as weak wafflers?

It's because we refuse to take a stand on controversial issues. Even issues that involve constitutional rights and radical legislation.

I wasn't at the convention this past weekend as I was out of town for work. But I see the delegates have decided to reinforce the public image we have as wafflers.

This is why we lose elections. We waffle. We're seen as weak and without convictions.
Read it all here - especially the comments. And Chad makes a good point - yes, the public does notice that in Democrats' attempts to please everyone, they end up standing for nothing.

Standing for something and making clear policy distinctions are important. There's a quote that's very important to me, and following it has gotten me into trouble on occasion. But they are some of the truest words that people (and political parties) should live by:
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."-- Alexander Hamilton
With candidates, it's less important to me what they believe as much as they have a firmly held belief system. They need to stand for something. If you spend all of your time trying to be Mr. Happy, pleasing everyone all the time you generally accomplish nothing, and make everyone mad. What Dems need to do is ask themselves "How far has this attitude brought South Dakota Democrats up to this point?" And the answer is not one they're going to want to hear.

So Democrats, please. Please keep trying to be the party of making everyone happy. Which will mean my party will sail into office once again.


Anonymous said…
The democrat mantra continues to be...."We feel strongly both ways."

Get off the fence and take a stand.

Hmmmm. I guess "We're the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun political party" doesn't exactly resonate with the electorate. I guess I would have to agree with them that fence-sitting is a safer bet. Sure beats being opposed to motherhood and apple pie (not to mention traditional marriage and gun ownership).

Congratulations on the "successful state convention." How many candidates did you manage to scrape up for the fall election? How many of them were not named Ron Volesky?
Haggs said…
"With candidates, it's less important to me what they believe as much as they have a firmly held belief system. They need to stand for something."

So a candidate that wants to deny rights for gay people who are in loving, commited relationships is okay just because it's something he/she believes?
Anonymous said…
Exactly what rights are gay people being denied? The answer is none. They have the same rights as everybody else. Of course there are some out there who want to give them MORE rights than everybody else has.

Should people who have loving, committed relationships with their dogs be able to enter into marriages with their dogs? Why not two married couples who wish to "expand their horizons"? How about three? Why don't we allow the polygamist, Warren Jeffs, to have his compound and sixteen or sixty wives? I'm sure they're all in loving, committed relationships. Why confine it to two people? All we have to do is become a more enlightened society and homosexuality, bestiality, and polygamy can abound.
Anonymous said…
Gay people are being denied the right to marry their chosen same-sex adult partners. They are also being denied all the other benefits that go with marriage.
These are rights and priveleges that heterosexual people have, and gay people do not. Equal rights are not extra rights or special rights.

I would be interested to know what extra rights or additional rights gay people would like to have.

Your talk about people marrying dogs and fifteen other people and whatever is firstly a logical fallacy and secondly ridiculous. The only thing that gay marriage and civil union advocates are discussing is marriage between two men or two women. Stick to discussing the pros and cons of that, please, or you sound silly.
Anonymous said…
Anon 12:27

What is it with you guys and animals, eh? You go off on people getting married to their animals, and the President - in the State of the Union Address! - talks about human-animal hybrids?

You gotta love it...Huge debt, no body armor, no health insurance for millions, the donut hole quickly approaching...

...and you guys want to talk about Manimal and prosecuting Boy Scouts for desecrating the flag...

Oh by the way...

9-11 changed everything.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:15:
Homosexual marriage is just as ridiculous as marriage to animals or more than one person. Let those who engage in the destructive lifestyles pay the social costs on their own. Society, those who do not engage in destructive and costly lifestyles, should not be legally forced to pay the medical and other bills for the wrong-headed decisions of others. So yes, anon 6:15 the entire discussion of gay, dog or plural marriage are all ridiculous discussions. They are one in the same--disgusting.
Kelsey said…
Anon 1:52:

Wow, that's a really great argument…where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! That's the exact same argument racists used to use against miscegenation and inter-racial marriage and it hasn't gotten more convincing now that it's coming out of the mouths of homophobes.

There's nothing 'destructive' about a same sex relationship. There's no difference between a relationship between two men and my relationship with my husband. Some relationships work, some don't. Some are healthy, some aren't; it's a variation that exists within all interpersonal interactions. Denying marriage to a couple because they're the same biological sex is just as ridiculous as denying it based on race.

The "marrying animals" argument is such a stupid and offensive distraction from the real issue. Last time I checked, no non-human could enter into any kind of contract, marriage or otherwise. Nor are they able to give any kind of consent. But people like you don't make that argument because it makes any sense; you bring it up to degrade gay people.

Hmmm...comparing people to animals...where have I heard that before?
Anonymous said…
Some gay people have destructive lifestyles. Most don't.

Some straight people have destructive lifestyles. Most don't.
Anonymous said…
"There's no difference between a relationship between two men and my relationship with my husband."

Then I guess you'll never get pregnant.

You liberals ought not even play the race card. The party of Lincoln--the Republican Party--is the one who freed the slaves. The dems still have a former card-carrying Kleagle (one of the highest positions) with the KKK in the US Senate, in Robert Byrd.

Certainly you can distinguish between a man and a woman of different ethnicities having relationships with one another, as opposed to men having sexual relationships with men.
Anonymous said…
PP, please tell your friends in the SDGOP that their website is pathetic. And I am a proud Republican. I hate to say this, believe me, but the Dems have a sophisticated, up-to-date website. I think our GOP leadership and top staff are just sitting on their you-know-whats. Thank goodness for SDWC for meat and potatoes convention stuff 'cause the official GOP website coverage is nothing compared to what the Dems did. Looks like Howard Dean's money is working for them!!!!
Kelsey said…
Anon 5:48 PM:

Then I guess you'll never get pregnant.

Whether or not I can bare children is no business of yours. But they didn't test my fertility before I got married, so I guess the government doesn't care.

Certainly you can distinguish between a man and a woman of different ethnicities having relationships with one another, as opposed to men having sexual relationships with men.

Explain to me the obvious difference I'm missing.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.