September 2008

Do Sioux Falls city councilors represent you or special interests?

According to 2008 campaign financial statements combined of Litz, Jamison, Brown and Anderson the following special interest contribution amounts were made to the four candidates (siouxfalls.org):

Individual  Developer Contributions: $7,500

Housing PAC contributions: $5,750

Realtor PAC contributions: $1,500

Attorney PAC contributions: $400

Telecommunication PAC contributions: $250

Individual contractor/building supplier contributions: $900

Litz got the biggest cut of the money at  $6,100 and Anderson got the least at $500. With Jamison in at 2nd and Brown in at 3rd place.

More Neo-con BS on KCPO’s THE FACTS

Yesterday my buddy FolkArts who hosts the show had on another Republican talking head on his show, even though he claims that he has ‘Republican and Democratic viewpoints’. When was that?

Yesterday’s guest was former Pressler press secretary and everyone’s favorite female SF neo-con Kristi (Stewart) Golden. Her talking points were more like a comedy act.

Like most neo-cons in this state she;

          Complained that Dykstra isn’t getting the attention he deserves (wah) and has a better grasp of the issues then Johnson. (you mean the fact that he worked for big oil?)

          That Initiative Ten would prevent family members to contribute money to campaigns if they work for the state. (flat out lie)

          Initiative 11 is actually good for women because it contains exceptions. (even though those exceptions would be impossible to obtain because of the long drawn out court process)

          And last but not least, John McSame would win by a ‘Walk’ (I had clean coffee off my wall after that statement – and trust me, hot coffee shooting through your nose is not fun).

 

Nothing like a little Sunday morning neo-con BS to get you day going.

The Palin Effect

By Deepak Chopra

Friday, September 5th, 2008

 

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper. She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

 

Look at what she stands for:

 

–Small town values — a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.

 

–Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.

 

–Family values — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don’t need to be heeded.

 

–Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.

 

–Patriotism — the usual fallback in a failed war.

 

–“Reform” — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn’t fit your ideology.

 

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness. Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

My buddy Blanchard put his two cents in on this topic, but one of my fervent commenters (H/T BB) sent me the entire article above, instead of just snippets that Mr. Blanchard could whine about.

Funny tactics? Nope. Cleverly tactical? Yup.

One of the main reasons I pushed for the ethical decision on Friday was because I wanted the story to be in the news cycle over the weekend, and the media has delivered. Though I knew how the politically appointed Board of Ethics would rule in Litz and Jamison’s favor, I don’t think it was a bad thing. Why? Many citizens still think they have a conflict, and the decision reinforces what the upcoming vote on Monday really means. Which councilors are on the citizens/small business side and which are on big business/developers side? We will find out Monday night.

I don’t doubt that the platting fees will pass, but the retail tax increase will be close and comes down to two people; Vernon Brown and Munson. Vernon still has not said how he will vote on the retail tax increase. If he votes for it, Munson will break the tie.

Kelo TV has a story on it.

Argus Leader also puts their .08 cents in on the issue.