District 3 House candidate and Blogger David Newquist gives a lesson: What to say in SD when you don't want to be elected.

Hat tip to CCK and SDP:

Northern Valley Beacon blog author Dave Newquist is no stranger to saying controversial things on his blog. But as SDP points out, this comment from him on CCK's blog is particularly worthy of notice since he's a candidate for the legislature:
David Newquist, Democratic candidate for the state legislature, questions whether the American flag is even worth saluting anymore:

A flag is a symbol. It symbolizes our history, our aspirations, our values. Of course it is upsetting to see someone desecrate our national symbol. But the Bush administration would like to get the nation in a raging furor, while it quietly erodes, undermines, and desecrates our Constitutional rights and protections.

When the New York Times published a story on tapping into international financial transactions, the Bushites railed that the newspaper was endangering the nation and that the 3,000 people killed during 9/11 were being violated. Of course, they never mention the 2,500 of our finest troops sent to slaughter in a war that the Bush administration cannot find a reason for.

In totalitarian societies, it is a practice to criminalize those who protest by committing acts against cherished symbols. The state rages against the desecraters, while it desecrates the values of freedom, equality, justice.

And if the flag in fact represents what this nation has become under George W. Bush, well do you really want to salute it?

For someone who is quite educated, I'd argue that Dave says a lot of things that leaves many people scratching their heads, and asking themselves "He's really running for office in South Dakota?"

Is the flag worth saluting? Absolutely. You never saw a single Republican asking that question when Clinton was in office enjoying pleasures of the flesh. Because it's a symbol of our entire nation, not just one man. Whether you agree with the president or not, respect the flag, the country, and the citizens who fought for it so we could live in freedom.

As we approach our nations' Independence day I hope you all can not only salute it once but twice. Once out of personal respect, and another time to make up for Dave's inability to do it.


Anonymous said…
Did you even read what he wrote, aside from the last line?

I liked the pre-election season PP a lot better than the one we've seen lately.
Anonymous said…
It gets getter.

David Newquist blog said "However, that tactic still works in McPherson County, which a campaigner from the last election says is a hotbed of intolerance and repression."

First we call the voters names and then we ask for their vote. Chad did the same thing yesterday when he said "I don't have a problem with Catholics. I have a problem with the guys who wear the collar and the fancy robes.
I have absolutely no respect for an organization that looks the other way to sexual molestation for decades and then decides they are going to tell their members to vote "values" or they are going to hell."

The liberals strategy is to call the voters names and then ask for their support. The liberals will continue to be a minority as long as they continue this strategy. They are blind to this failure of stategy.
Anonymous said…
How about this quote:

"Democracy is failing, and Aberdeen is a case study of how and why."

Aberdeen American News 4-27-04
Anonymous said…
(Newquist quote, that is)
Left O'Dmiddle said…
PP, you might be well advised to read Dave's last two lines carefully before making your assertions. The second to last says: "The state rages against the desecraters, while it desecrates the values of freedom, equality and justice." I believe that is what Dave is saying Bush Administration policies do. He is basically saying they use Orwell’s writings not as cautionary tales of pit falls that could destroy democracy, but as guides for ruling and consolidating power to whatever ends they deem appropriate.

Then consider the last line: “And if the flag in fact represents what this nation has become under George W. Bush, well do you really want to salute it?” That is to say, do you wish to salute the flag as a symbol of those running an Orwellian state--as a prop offered up by an administration that subverts principals of freedom, equality and justice as it seeks to rule unfettered by a free press or constitutional separation of powers.

I’ll spare you the list of Bush administration power grabs PP, but consider this. You mention Clinton’s sexual indiscretion as though it in itself was some momentous event. In fact it would have affected Americans not at all had Republican’s not connived to entrap and impeach him. But what this administration has sought to do in terms of redefining (eroding) American democracy could affect us all for years to come.

Dave has long advocated we fight back to save America’s democratic traditions from this administration. Read him in context and you will get a true understanding of what he is saying here and elsewhere—he fears for the democracy our flag should truly represent.

You may believe that is an overreaction. If so, you should make your case. But to read into his post disrespect for flag and/or country and to accuse him of such is a deceit. It appears you are trying to discredit the messenger in order to bury his message. I would hope you believe your readers deserve better.
Silas said…
I am not sure whether falsifying a rhetorical question by turning it into an assertion that was never made is a failure of mind or a deliberate attempt at falsification. Whatever the case, any reader can see that no one is advocating disrespect for the flag, but is asking if the qualities that the flag stands for are still there. To a majority of Americans, those qualities have been compromised. You may not like Dr. Newquist's stance, but that does not justify shystering his words. People in my profession get fired for it. A professor named Ward Churchill just did.
Anonymous said…
Even if our Irish friend Mr. O'dmiddle has it pegged, Dr. Newquist is still making himself look more like someone that people would rather have sitting at his computer blogging than sitting at a desk in Pierre.

Isn't it the Democrats that have been telling us people want to hear more about education/health care/economic development ("meat & potato" issues)? I'm not sure a quasi-philosophical diatribe about what the flag may or may not stand for at this point in time is going to win over too many voters.
Anonymous said…
Have we taught you people nothing?? well obviously. If so, you would know that a soundbite lasts forever. Political Candidate School 101.

It doesn't matter what comes before or after ... but only that little blurb that sticks in the mind of the voter at the poll or in the mind of that journalist as he is trying desperately to figure out what that candidate is blathering about. So blather away Mr/Mrs. Candidate ...I found a sound bite and that's the only thing that matters in your speech / letter.

But since the only hacks ignoring this advice are ones who actually read and agree with Newquist ... good for you. ;) Keep up the good work.
PP said…
Ike gets it.

When Dave's opponents send out that postcard, do you think they're going to include the entire posting? Or is it going to be the soundbite?
Anonymous said…
"Dr." Newquist asked this regarding the flag: "do you really want to salute it?" It's very simple. Despite his apologists on this blog trying to downplay what he said, there's no denying he said it. Face it Dems, the guy is the reason you keep losing elections--deep down, many on the left simply despise what America represents. And people don't like to vote for candidates who despise the country. If the normal Democrats in this state had any sense, they'd boot Newquist off the ticket this fall. What is this guy a "Dr." of, anyway???
Anonymous said…
It appears now that you are advocating that people do not read complete sentences or complete statements. You really are working hard for a brain-washed society that can respond only to the trigger phrase and what the party has conditioned it to. Happy 1984!

You've earned what you have worked so hard for.
Anonymous said…
erin - wake up and smell the brew. PP is not advocating this ... (read the whole post - take your own advice) ... but is pointing out a small factoid or a principle of campaigning. It's really not the context of the poorly written sentence, it's the fact that people can and will focus on just that sentence. nothing else.

Using Soundbites to a candidates advantage is not a goal - or what might be - it's what it is, now. and frankly, it's been going on for YEARS!! "the buck stops here", "chicken in every pot", "walk softly & carry a big stick", "remember the alamo"; not a new concept in politics.
Anonymous said…
Hear hear Silas!

"I am not sure whether falsifying a rhetorical question by turning it into an assertion that was never made is a failure of mind or a deliberate attempt at falsification."


I'd like to think it was a falsification, but based on what I have seen on this site, my guess is that it is a mix between ideological blindness and failure of mind.

I believe I quit trying to find intellectual stimulation at this site when Pat used of the term "irregardless" in a post.

Now I just check to see what the wingnuts who are slightly more savvy than the Hillbilly are thinking.
Erin said…
The fact that you and PP believe that people only remember "soundbites" demonstrates your belief that the people are capable only of mindless response to non-content stimuli.

God, what PP would have to rant about if he was around for the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

You're right. Campaigning has changed. And politics has become a contest of who can put up the most stimuli to get all the dogs out there to salivate.

Got your drool bibs on, babies?
Anonymous said…
Anyone recall a glib "I'm a D.C. resident" resonating with SD voters?

This blog has a lot of campaign strategy posts - I think PP's just saying be careful what you say and/or write when you're campaigning. Regardless of how sophisticated you think (or want) voters to be, little things like the 2nd half of a rhetorical question will at the very least cause problems.
Anonymous said…
Newquist's opponents aren't going to have to send out a postcard with his comment. He wasn't a credible nor viable candidate even before his blogging days. His blog just makes public the comments that only his poker buddies would otherwise hear.

His opponents should take out an ad that gives his blog address. The more he writes, the more he marginalizes himself.
Anonymous said…
I wonder if those who are making such personal, disparaging comments realize how patent they are. It does not take a propaganda expert to identify who the verbal fingerprints belong to.
Kritterk said…
I read and appreciated what Dr. Newquist wrote. It's amazing how people can allow a president to lie about a war, kill thousands men, women, children... and call a president villan because he lied about a blow job.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

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