STATE of Denial . . . Literally

I like to keep things professional in Pierre. I never tell my male counterparts when I am going to the bathroom.

Grandpa Cheapskate Denny still stands by his assertion that South Dakota voters are too stupid to pass laws but somehow seem to be smart enough to continue to elect ignorant Republicans that pass stupid laws we must amend and appeal through the initiated process. Someone is certainly stupid here, we just don’t know who it is;

22 was repealed by the legislature with the governor’s blessing. I asked him, over a year later, if he still believes repealing a vote that was the will of the people was the right thing to do and he says…..yes. “It’s really hard for a voter to look at a 30 page bill….30 page initiated measure and draw a conclusion about whether it’s good or bad.”

The governor says changes for transparency should be the result of the legislative process working….not the result of an initiated measure which the governor says doesn’t allow much room for change or modification. “That doesn’t exist in an initiated measure. All you’ve got is a yes or a no. You can’t amend it. You can’t shorten it. You can’t add to it. It’s yes or no.”

First off, when it comes to anti-corruption rules in Pierre, we certainly can’t wait around for the Republican controlled legislature in both houses to act, that is why the voters came up with IM 22. And secondly, the legislature didn’t amend IM22, they annihilated it. It’s easy for Denny to talk so openly about how stupid South Dakota voters are, he doesn’t have to worry about re-election. Oh, and speaking of transparency Denny, are you going to ever tell the public why you terminated Jason Dilges? Better not, it might smear the clean and wholesome view you and Michaels have of your fine city.

Speaking of being clean and wholesome, Deb Peters backs up Lt. Gov. Michaels assertion that Pierre is Mayberry on steroids;

The woman credited with facilitating an upcoming sexual-harassment training session for legislators, state Sen. Deb Peters, told the Journal that recent sexual misconduct scandals in state government are isolated incidents and are not indicative of a cultural problem.

“It’s not acceptable behavior and never should be acceptable behavior,” said Peters, a Republican from Hartford. “But do I think it’s systematic of the system? No, absolutely not. It’s an anomaly.”

Then this married woman with children admits she doesn’t hang out at the bars or hear stories about the incidents. First off, if you are not present when these incidents are taking place, how can you call it an anomaly? Secondly, how many male lawmakers are going to tell you about all the sexual harassing they were doing the night ? Peters really lives in some kind of bubble.

This line made me laugh the most;

Peters said Wollmann was “sent out to the wolves.”

I wonder if the wolves took him in?



7 comments ↓

#1 Emoluments Clause on 12.26.17 at 12:29 pm

The easiest way to solve or reduce this problem in the short run is to elect more women to the legislature.

Although, harassment of this type is not unique to men as the predators, they are usually the problem far more than women.

So send our President a message, heck send Pierre a message too, next fall and vote for the women….

Oh, and I have also noticed that the Democrats have a lot of women running in 2018….. Hey, there you go….. 😉

#2 Mark on 12.26.17 at 12:46 pm

That is a disgusting caption under Ms. Peters photo. It does nothing to add to the debate. And you seem to forget that 22 had been found unconstitutional by a Circuit Court Judge and would have likely found the same fate int he SD Supreme Court. By why let the facts alter your message. I often agree with you but at least be honest about your presentations.

#3 l3wis on 12.26.17 at 12:58 pm

You are right, it is disgusting, but Deb doesn’t seem to think so, because it happened so long ago and Campbell never pressed charges, and leadership did nothing, blah, blah, blah. But I will change it to something less disgusting, but more funny.

You better check your facts, Barnett said ‘parts’ of IM 22 ‘could’ be unconstitutional. In other words let the SDSC review it then let the legislature know which parts are so they can amend them -not rip up the whole document and throw it in a burn barrel.

#4 Emoluments Clause on 12.26.17 at 3:58 pm

Mark,

The Judge, who claimed IM22 was unconstitutional, is also a past partisan, who once ran for governor and was a former Republican AG.

I am sure Fox News would go nuts if “Judge John Kerry” ruled a Republican Congressional act unconstitutional. What do you think?

#5 Mark on 12.26.17 at 6:57 pm

Have you seen the rulings of the 9th circuit and fbi people regarding favorable treatment to Demonrats! I guess they are above partisan politics unlike Judge Barnett. Give me a break

#6 Emoluments Clause on 12.27.17 at 11:43 am

I don’t care who they are. No past known partisan should ever be put on the bench. There is a reason that judges change their voter registration to Independent after having been appointed to the bench and that same logic should apply to a review of past partisan activities before choosing prospective judges.

As far as the 9th Circuit, have those judges served in public office before as Democrats? Most likely not, they are career court lawyers before going to the bench. And their legal philosophy naturally speaks of the majority view of the 9th Circuit. Just as I wouldn’t be surprised or offended if South Dakota judges generally took a conservative approach, but let us not allow that inevitability be a blanket to conveniently cover partisan cooperation, however.

Plus, the 9th is often overruled by a more conservative/moderate Supreme Court, which is demonstrative of a “checks and balances” within the court system itself. That “checks and balances” doesn’t exist in the South Dakota court system, because of a willingness to put partisans on the bench and the adjoined realities of a one party state.

#7 Emoluments Clause on 12.27.17 at 12:12 pm

Oh, and as far as the “fib people,” well, Comey’s reopening of the Clinton investigation just before the election was definitely not a favorable Democratic thing to do, was it?

And since when are Republicans into attacking the FBI? That’s definitely a new one, huh? You guys will do anything to stay in power, won’t you? You have no shame, none whatsoever.

If a Democratic President attacked the FBI, like the Donald of Orange is doing right now, you guys would be looking for the nearest tree with Fox breaking in to cover it…..

Leave a Comment