A sorry movement has been growing over the last couple of years at a feverish rate.  The people have voted against FAUX News and Rove even after the vote fix was in.  Something must be done.  Consider what is happening in Pierre and other state capitals as the elected and appointeds work to figure out how to roll our nation back to the 1800’s.  Senator Stan’s Adelstein’s proposal to have direct primary nomination election of constitutional candidates in South Dakota is a throwback to the Progressive Era our current ‘leaders’ wish to destroy.

DWC – Pat Powers’ recent rants to continue his destruction of all things related to Senator Stan.  We must not forget Pat’s job loss was a result of last May’s expose’ of SOS Jason Gant and his ethically challenged / legally questionable activities.  South Dakota was in the center of the nation’s Progressive movement.  Much of what we currently have as average Americans is in no small part because of what happened in Sioux Falls and South Dakota.  Governor Lee, Peter Norbeck, Governor Tom Berry through Abourezk and McGovern were prairie progressives who believed in the average person.  Only the rich, selfish or wish to be selfishly rich have fought the ideals of expanded rights for all people.

So when I read about more idiots who wish to roll back the Progressive Era advancements, the more I want to remind everyone of our collective history.  The absurd right has it wrong on all counts, how can we go back to something that never existed in the first place?  So we have reactionaries like Pat Powers who lost his job to save a leader of South Dakota RSLC – ALEC.  Jason Gant had to be saved.  Jason has funneled funds and support to many of the right people to make sure Keystone XL pipeline destroys the ecology of South Dakota.  The John Birch Society controlled RSLC – ALEC will never let the common person have any say in the affairs of governing.  It is not in their plan.  Pat Powers is only a mouthpiece.  A person who proudly boasts either way, he makes money.  Remember this, he is a mouthpiece for the rich, selfish or wish to be selfish rich. Here is another example of what ‘conservatives’ want to do for voters;

National Review Blogger Calls for Repeal of Women’s Suffrage

By Amanda Marcotte
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:15 EST

Thanks for getting arrested, but since your forebears chose to use their rights to get more rights, all rights have to go.

Michael Walsh of National Review Online called for the termination of women’s right to vote last week:

Nevertheless, you’re on to something I’ve been advocating for years now. And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called “Progressive Era” amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, which were passed between 1911 and 1920.

One of those has already been repealed—the 18th amendment, which ushered in Prohibition—which Walsh admits. That’s not really what he’s on about anyway:

The income-tax amendment was a self-evident attack on capitalism and led to the explosive growth of the federal government we currently enjoy today. (Without it, there’d be no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment.) Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state. Prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime and its unholy alliance with the big-city Democratic machines. And women’s suffrage . . . well, let’s just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.

I suppose we’re supposed to imagine it’s a “joke”, because he takes a jovial tone for the last one. But if so, it doesn’t make sense. He’s dead fucking serious about the other two—three, really, because he only seems to be against Prohibition because he believes it gave Democrats a leg up, which is one of those deaf-to-historical-change moments that lead Republicans to imagine that Lincoln would have anything to do with the modern version of their party—so, as a joke, it falls completely apart. If he hadn’t rolled it up with the other amendments initially, the “joke” defense he clearly has in his pocket would be an easier sell. Something like, “I’ve long advocated for the repeal of 3 of the Progressive Amendments (though one has already been repealed), and hey, ladies, sometimes you make me wish to repeal all four.” It would still be a misogynist joke, but easier to sell as a joke, even if not a very funny one.

As it stands, it’s clear he’s doing what Al Franken calls “kidding on the square“, where you say something you mean but pretend it’s a joke so you don’t have to take responsibility for it. Franken has some fun with it in his books, calling himself out for it and therefore turning a typically unfunny bit of passive-aggression into a for-real joke, but I’m guessing you all know that because of course you’ve read his books. Kidding on the square is a favorite tool of sexists, who want to say sexist things, but are too cowardly to say them directly. Walsh is just a particularly obvious example. And no, none of the other National Review bloggers argued with him on this point.

I’m trying to imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if a feminist dare say men should forsake their right to vote until they shape up and start voting correctly. It certainly wouldn’t slide under the waters, like this did.

7 Thoughts on “ALEC Repugs in Pierre have NO time for Progressive politics (Guest Poster)

  1. Guest Poster on February 22, 2013 at 9:15 am said:

    For those who need an animated version of the story, watch and listen to Ed Asner as he voices a Schoolhouse Rock version of our current situation: Tax the Rich: An animated fairy tale.


  2. Pathloss on February 23, 2013 at 9:45 pm said:

    Whoosh. Get to the point and keep it simple. What concerns me now is the federal government has lost control of state and local government. We are equal. It’s why we live alone and watch minorities propogate so they can fund our social security.

  3. Pathloss on February 23, 2013 at 9:52 pm said:

    John Birch society is more prominent than you think. I encountered one of their annual confidential conferences in Pensacola. I explained city government to someone on a recent flight. They are well aware of the attack on democracy and are giving attention. For those not aware of them, they are a confidential group of wealthy individuals who seek to preserve democracy subliminally through the media and supporting political candidates.

  4. I wonder if SOS Gant holds John Birch Society get-togethers at his home? You know where he invites friends and neighbors over to listen to “JB’s Greatest Speeches” on a 78 LP.

    Well, I bet at least the food is great and plentiful. (Hey, I am invoking the Franken priviledge here, okay? Remember, Even Letterman and Christie are friends now too.)

  5. Winston on February 24, 2013 at 3:17 am said:

    Well, now to a more serious observation. Why are we in this mess? At the state level, it exists because we lack a relevant South Dakota Democratic Party. Sure, the SDDP has done a credible job beating up the South Dakota GOP with referendum successes in recent years, but as a party with a philosophy which can be transcended to its candidates with electoral success, and thus the enactment of their legislative positions, they have been a great failure.

    And why is this? Could it be because they do not field candidates for the US Senate? Or is it because they nominate historic Republicans and call them Democrats, and then allow them to brag in their commercials about how they have a 100% voting record with the Chamber? Or is it because we nominate candidates for Congress who take pride in voting against Obamacare, or who drop the ball when it comes to raising the Medicare issue? And let us not forget, how the SDDP also allows overzealous Democratic operatives to fund and promote “non-partisan ticket” legislative candidates in post card campaigns. If a party does not stand for anything, it is not relevant. It becomes merely a clique of people who enjoy the game of politics.

    With the absence of a competitive SDDP, our republican form of state government (and I truly mean republican with a small “r”) still innately requires a two party system to function, and in the absence of the SDDP, our state governmental process mutates into a two party system out of the SD GOP itself. Thus, pitting moderate Republicans against Tea Party Republicans, which given the less involved and monitored party nominating process allows politicians at the fringes of a party, at times, to not only be nominated, but also to be elected to office in a state like South Dakota where the opposing political party is not and cannot be competitive.

    What can be the result of this? Well, realities like the election of political leadership with an agenda calling for a return to the 19th century so that their political electability can be assured into perpetuity.

    At the Federal level, we have a far more vibrant two party system. But it is a system which historically has had a see-saw cyclical balance of power between the left and right over the years, where historians claim each cycle has a shelf life about 32 to 36 years. If you accept the premise that the dominance of the right began in this country in 1968, most recently for them that is, then the movement to a center-left electorate is becoming more evident now through the election of the Democratic Congress in 2006 and 2008, and Obama in 2008 and 2012. Now you may ask, what about the Republican electoral successes in 2010? Those successes are merely a historic aberration similar to the Democrats successes in 1974 and 1976 during the early years of the last right cycle.

    Now why am I elaborating on this history of the left and the right in America? Because I am going to allege that during the last cycle, which was a right cycle, the left evolved into a party of Democrats who over time did not offer an alternative, but rather become a “kinder gentler” right. They did this by punting on issues like supply side economics, free trade, the weakening of the Glass-Steagall Act , and unfunded and unjustified conflicts, as key examples.

    In addition, the advancements in political technology over the past few decades have empowered Democratic candidates to become parties within themselves, while the dominance of the Republican Party made it less necessary for Republican candidates to seek such alternative electoral solutions. Thus, empowering Democratic candidates over time with their own agendas, their own philosophies, and their own identities. These “mini-parties” over time sent a mixed message to the electorate, which allows the dominate party, the Republicans, to not only get their way, but it also allows them to have the debate literally held in their political arena.

    Then, when a Party like the Democratic Party comes out of a cycle, where they were the minority party before and their message was mutated, it makes it harder for them to properly lead in their time or cycle and to fend off the other Party’s advocacy against once assumed and reverend enactments like those passed in the Progressive Era. Because the new mutated dominate Party upholds the tradition of a two party system in name only, it allows the fringe of the last dominate party to be the new right and the moderates of the past dominate Party along with the new mutated dominate Party to become the new left. Thus, potentially perpetuating the issues of the last dominate Party, in this case the right, and shading light and credence upon 19th Century values in a 21st Century world.

    So what is the answer to the problem presented through current right wing Republican policy positions and strategies? The answer is found not only in recognizing the backwardness and disenfranchisement policy positions of many Republicans today, but also it is found in challenging the Democrat Party to be its own Party, and not “mini-parties” nor a “kinder-gentler” alternative. And Then, and only then, will we no longer have to ask the question coined roughly ten years ago …. “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

  6. Winston, are you sure you are not Craig?

    BTW, I talked about ‘limiting discussion’ on the KELO interview that is televising tonight. And how having ANON commenters helps the conversation, not sure if it will make the final cut, and can’t wait to see it. Tune in tonight at 10 PM, can’t wait to see how the interview plays out.

  7. Winston on February 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm said:

    DL, not Craig just Winston. Long winded? Yes!

Post Navigation