Should we take him at his word?
Ever since reading a recent post over at SD Straight Talk, I've been pondering a post of my own regarding the lecture that USD Professor Bill Richardson gave on the election results.
According to the site's author, former state GOP chair Joel Rosenthal, a good part of the lecture was on what happened in South Dakota this past election and how it affected the political scene.
Now, I've been kicking around the South Dakota Political arena in one capacity or another since 1988. And as far as I'm aware, I've never noted Professor Richardson, chair of the USD Poly Sci Department, to have ever been involved in South Dakota politics.
I mean, Dr. Clem, Dr. Farber, and several others of that department in the past had been involved in state and local politics, and I certainly wouldn't question what younger people might term their "street cred." But being lectured on South Dakota politics by Dr. Richardson? Isn't that like receiving a lecture on sexual education from an avowed virgin?
I mean, if Joel himself would have lectured it might have held more credibility for me. Heck, they could have had Professor Jan Berkhout. At least he's been in a race.
Which bring up a good point for readers. If you're interested in South Dakota politics, get involved in it and it will be the best education you can get. Much better than sitting on the other side of the glass trying to draw conclusions.
According to the site's author, former state GOP chair Joel Rosenthal, a good part of the lecture was on what happened in South Dakota this past election and how it affected the political scene.
Now, I've been kicking around the South Dakota Political arena in one capacity or another since 1988. And as far as I'm aware, I've never noted Professor Richardson, chair of the USD Poly Sci Department, to have ever been involved in South Dakota politics.
I mean, Dr. Clem, Dr. Farber, and several others of that department in the past had been involved in state and local politics, and I certainly wouldn't question what younger people might term their "street cred." But being lectured on South Dakota politics by Dr. Richardson? Isn't that like receiving a lecture on sexual education from an avowed virgin?
I mean, if Joel himself would have lectured it might have held more credibility for me. Heck, they could have had Professor Jan Berkhout. At least he's been in a race.
Which bring up a good point for readers. If you're interested in South Dakota politics, get involved in it and it will be the best education you can get. Much better than sitting on the other side of the glass trying to draw conclusions.
Comments
Which at least gives him a modicum of credibility.
Not that being Kranz's go to guy helps it any.
He has both won and lost elections in Brookings. He's also participated in the grassroots as he was able.
But I find myself in agreement with PP's post. Which is rare.
Bob Burns is the opposite - he is also a very good professor, but he has been very politically active. He is a McGovern Democrat, but also a close friend of Bill Janklow.
And Gary Aguiar is a ranting idiot.
So you just have to consider your source.
His analysis of the election is about what you'd expect from any analyst who looks at #'s and media (including blogs).
I disagreed with much of what Bill wrote as Joel reported in his blog. That doesn't make Bill a bad person, I just think he's coming from a different perspective. While he was saying initiative and referrendum was out of control, I contend it is what helped save the will of the people in the abortion debate. But reasonable people can disagree.
I do agree that politics as taught at the university level and politics as fought at the street level are very different things. I think you have to understand both.
Like anyone who comments on politics, they will have their strengths and weaknesses. Bill's strenghts are his education, his observation of other political situations and systems, and his relative newness to South Dakota to look at things from a different perspective.
I've known Bob Burns for some time and find him to be a delight. I don't think you can accuse him of being a GOP hater. He is a numbers guy with a good insights and a sense of humor.
Bill and Bob bring their differing experiences to their analysis. There's nothing wrong with that. Both have plenty of insights and analysis to offer, whether we agree with it or not. That's what makes politics so much fun.
USD's Pols Department is tops in the South Dakota and extremely competitive in the region.
I would also like to second Silas's comments.
How do you really feel about things? But you left out your position on gun control, helmets, seat belts, drugs and alcohol. Please enlighten us further.
And despite all your hatred, God still loves you.
I hate people who like helmets, seat belts, gun control and medicated marijuana. Jesus told me so. Secular humanists are going to hell. Judjment day is coming.
"Anonymous 9:43 must not have gotten the grades he/she desired."
Yeah, I was shooting for a 4.0, but I had to settle for a 3.9. Got one B in my MPA degree program.
What a waste of time and money that was. The department, the program, and especially its director are all equally worthless.
Signed,
anon 9:43
There are several liberal hacks in that department; however, you would never know that in the class room. They are all excellent in their fields. I don't think Dr. Richardson is an expert in partisan politics.
Defending my own degree, I think the department must be strong. I did well enough to beat anon 4:10 and am now studying at a top graduate school in the field. For me, the experience was far from worthless - it was invaluable.
Yeah, but how does it compare to schools in other states? Not very well. I guess you wouldn't know that if you never left SD. For those who have, it's plain as day.