Pat Powers loves using old social media content against his political opponents. So surely he will celebrate this blast from his friends at Prairie Country PAC, who use some fabulous photos from District 19 GOP Senate candidate Caleb Finck’s own proud online postings to cast him in a negative light against his righteous primary opponent, former State Rep. Stace Nelson:
Prairie Country PAC, which consists of Brown County Republicans Richard Hilgemann, Lon Carrier, Drew Dennert (himself a young Republican fighting a legislative primary battle in District 3), and Travis Schaunaman and Libertarian blogger Ken Santema, feature Finck’s good-time-Charlina photos from various SDSU Hobo Day revels. Why Republicans have such a beef with men wearing women’s clothes, I just can’t figure.
If anyone receiving this slam card gets past the salacious pics to the fine print, they’ll find Dennert and friends smearing Finck for thinking that guns on college campuses are a bad idea. These conservative PACkers stretch reality to claim that endorsement by furious conservative Bill Van Gerpen makes Finck a “tax & spend establishment moderate.” No, fellas—it’s Finck’s allegiance to Mike Rounds that makes him an establishment pawn. Get it right, Right!
I won’t say any of these attacks are fair. But I told you that’s how I told you the District 19 primary would play, with red-in-tooth-and-claw Republicans savaging Pat Powers’s preferred District 19 candidate with Pat’s own tactics. Ugly, ugly.
“Why Republicans have such a beef with men wearing women’s clothes, I just can’t figure.”
Cory, you correctly answered your own question:
“Ugly, ugly.”
The party of no can’t even tolerate a person’s right to entertain and have fun.
Did Stace approve this?
I think the side of the ad about Stace is really good.
I think what they put on Caleb’s side negates it.
First, many (I think it might be almost all) sons who come back to the farm live at home until they get married for two reasons:
1) Unless the place has an empty home on the place, it is close to work, farmers don’t put in standard 8-5 hours (especially if they have livestock).
2) They can get paid less cash and earn equity in the farm relative to siblings who are not on the farm. This is exactly what my uncles did to own more than their sisters when the grandparents died. And, everyone accepted the non-equal distribution of the farm assets.
Second, I don’t think primary voters (more informed and likely know VanGerpen & Putnam) will appreciate the shots at them even if they were inclined to support Nelson. Certainly won’t bring more people to Nelson and will likely drive some away.
I’m all for college students having fun. I had plenty myself. That said, I think the postcard is very effective at drawing a comparison between Stace Nelson and Caleb Finck. It serves to remind people that Finck is just a young college kid who is not ready to step up to the role of a state senator. That’s exactly the point Stace wanted to make, and he made it by using Finck’s own photos of himself posted on Facebook.
Finck presents himself on Facebook as young and immature. Nelson points that out to voters before they vote. The adult vs. the juvenile. Highly relevant. Highly effective.
Ror,
You might be right on the photos. It’s a new world with Facebook. However, let’s be honest: Caleb doesn’t have the physique for the clothes he is wearing. Not sure if he gets more points for courage or poor attire selection. :)
But, on the substance, I think it works against Nelson net-net.
Wait till the postcard comes out asking which bathroom Finck will use in the capital building. That one will be a net negative for Nelson.
If Nelson or his supporters come out with another postcard of Finck in drag he/they will have overplayed their hand. The next postcard will start costing Nelson votes and adding to Finck’s vote total. Nelson would be well advised to focus the remainder of his electioneering on his own positives.
Slamming Bill VanGerpen and Jim Putnam!!! Don’t know if I ever wrote a check to that PAC in the past – do know that it would never happen again.
I wouldn’t call Van Gerpen and Putnam tax and spend moderates. Putnam is the epitome of establishment though. And Van Gerpen was invited into the GOP party establishment as the chosen one to take out Frank Kloucek after the establishment gerrymandered the hell out of Frank’s district. So Putnam and Van Gerpen “establishment” – yes.
Lee, you should not send them money. They are too conservative for you.
“I wouldn’t call Van Gerpen and Putnam tax and spend moderates.”
You are right, there is nothing moderate about tax and spend liberals.
“I don’t think primary voters (more informed and likely know VanGerpen & Putnam) will appreciate the shots at them even if they were inclined to support Nelson.”
Sad that the truth is considered “shots” and “negative”. That myth has certainly been repeated enough by the Establishment and their media propagandists. And they have enough money to repeat it often.
Steve,
In your OPINION, they are as described in the ad. Your OPINION is neither a fact or the truth.
Also, at the end of the day, this piece was intended to help Nelson. If I were Caleb, I would make sure that every Republican in the district who has an affinity for VanGerpen and Putnam saw this piece. I don’t think it serves the purpose intended.
Is this Caleb an LGBT supporter? If he is, he could be a voice to the many LGBT of South Dakota that are shamed every year in the legislature. A GOP voice for SDs LGBT – I like that.
Cory, correct me if I am wrong, but were you not the one who fed the cross-dressing story to various interests on this site only to stand back and watch it explode? Blaming the PAC or anyone else for picking up on your story seems a little odd. It is questionable whether this PAC ad would even exist without your initial promotion of this issue.
I suspect young Caleb is as anti LGBT as every other Republican elected to office in South Dakota. Have to play to the masses and trot out the social issues to distract from the real problems here in South Dakota.
If Caleb sends out postcards requesting a campaign contribution, I’ll happily send him some.
Pretty sad that Nelson has to resort to the negative campaigning. If he’s so confident in his voting record and constituent supporter as he claims, there’s no need to bash the other candidate. Also, has he not realized yet that Putnam and Van Gerpen are not even running for candidacy this year? Why does he continuously feel the need to bash two people who won’t even be on the ballot? Insecurity of possibly nobody voting for him or he can’t come up with anything positive about his own political career. He’s hurting his campaign more than anything by using these negative attacks.
Nelson’s claim that VanGerpen backed out because he was running is getting very old. If the media and Nelson would look at how it all rolled out, VanGerpen’s first interview with the media occurred before Nelson declared candidacy. If anyone was scared it was Nelson waiting to find out if VanGerpen was going to run. Nelson had plenty of signatures to turn his petition long before the deadline, so one would ask why he waited until VanGerpen’s announcement before submitting?
Nice spin Robbie. You saw how many signatures Nelson collected, right? His strategy was obviously to collect as many signatures as possible before turning his petitions in, and he did that in unprecedented fashion for a legislative candidate. Nelson wasn’t waiting around scared about Van Gerpen. He was out collecting signatures. Hundreds and hundreds of them.
You have to admire Nelson’s work ethic also. It was earlier reported that Finck sent his dad out to collect his signatures for him.
Not that I have to defend Cory-he can do it for himself better than I can-but Spencer you’re wrong.
Cory did post those pictures but it was the PAC that choose-there’s that nasty word-to run with it. Right or wrong it’s the PAC that has to take blame if blame is needed.
@Nick. You’re absolutely right. “Distract” is the key word.
““I wouldn’t call Van Gerpen and Putnam tax and spend moderates.”
You are right, there is nothing moderate about tax and spend liberals.”
you have no clue Sibson, not a clue
The ad comes from Prairie Country PAC, whose five members I name above. Ostensibly, Stace Nelson did not approve this ad, and Prairie Country PAC operates independently from the Nelson campaign. However, Dennert campaigned quite actively for Nelson during his 2014 U.S. Senate run.
Prairie Country PAC’s Facebook text accompanying the card makes clear this card is advocacy for Stace Nelson:
If the image PCPAC posts is the complete postcard, it appears not to include the following disclaimer language required by SDCL 12-27-16 stating that “the communication is independently funded and not made in consultation with any candidate, political party, or political committee….” Failing to include that language is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The above disclaimer language makes clear that PACs are not supposed to coordinate with candidates. Legally, Nelson should have had nothing to do with this postcard. However, as I scan the statutes, I don’t see any state-level penalty for such illegal coordination. Federal candidates can get in trouble for coordinating with PACs; does anyone know if similar state-level penalties exist?
PCPAC has 48 hours to file a statement with the Secretary of State telling us how much they spent on this postcard.
Since 1999, the FEC has conducted a total of three investigations into alleged coordination between a candidate committee and an individual or organization making “independent expenditures.” Two of those probes resulted in fines totaling $26,000, according to a
Wisconsin had a statute forbidding coordination and after Walker and his hand picked Court quashed the John Doe investigation into illegal coordinating,Wisconsin passed a law legalizing campaign coordinating with Pacs.
Center for Public Integrity investigation.
Owen,
Don’t you think Sibson would look pretty darn cute in a peek-a-boo teddy?
Arrg Roger. terrible picture. lol
Jenna Haggar lived at home with her parents during her first two election, maybe three unless she recently moved out, does this PAC like her?
No, I think the Caleb Finck cross-dresser post was meant to get back at Pat’s treatment of various Democratic candidates. Now it is being used against Finck after Cory did all of the oppo. research and posted it in a nice neat little package for all the world to see. It would be sad irony if Caleb Finck really did turn out to be transgendered or genderqueer. The more of his SDSU friends that come to his defense with their pictures, the more I start to wonder if this really was just SDSU “tradition” or a prank and not something more. One of his friends had so many questionable pictures of him with her, she immediately upgraded all of her security settings. I wonder how Cory would feel about it then? All of the tar and feathers ends up hitting Caleb Finck completely missing Pat Powers. Congratulations.
Blue, I don’t know if Prairie County PAC is on record about Jenna or Don Haggar, but I suspect their values align quite well. Besides, Jenna would wear Caleb’s outfits much better.
Spencer, your comment doesn’t cohere well. The idea that Prairie Country PAC would do anythign to avenge Dems who’ve been mistreated by Powers is absurd. I also was not doing oppo research for PCPAC; I was focusing on Pat’s selective vision. As I said in my original post, “Whether it’s Hobo Days or just another Friday night, everybody’s entitled to have some fun. But if Finck’s frolicry is fine with Powers, then he should get the heck off Jay Williams’s case.” Don’t wonder, Spencer: look at the photos in context or talk to any SDSU alum, and it is clear Caleb’s dressing up was part of Hobo Day activities.
As I allude in the above post, PCPAC’s use of the photos does underscore the conservative GOP anti-trans bias. So tell us, Spencer: do you condemn this attack as dirty pool?
” Your OPINION is neither a fact or the truth. ”
Troy, but the SDGOP Establishment opinion is stated as fact and promoted by the media who makes money running campaign ads. And now Cory, a member of the Democratic Establishment, wants to use campaign finance laws to shut down true conservative political messages. Again we learn that the true purpose of such laws is not transparency for voters. It is a tool by the establishments of both parties to find out who their enemies are, so they can execute retaliation.
And if calling someone a tax and spend “moderate is negative, then it should be so because it is a lie to call a tax and spend policy moderate. It is part of the radical left.
I have to chuckle at some of these comments. It must be tough to be so high on that pedestal of righteousness that you have lost sight of what is important up in those clouds. The higher that pedestal you have placed yourself on, the greater the fall potential.
This kind of advertisement/campaigning style is something that South Dakotans have always viewed in negative light. If I were Stace Nelson (and I am not), I would release a statement condoning this sort of thing. By not releasing any sort of statement, it can viewed that he supports this message, even if its not approved by him. I always thought we has more of a stand up guy then this (even though how political viewpoints differ), and didn’t need these kinds of mudslinging ads to win a primary.
The anti-truth propaganda campaign continues. Sad that South Dakotans have been conditioned by the Establishment.
Steve, isn’t taxing and spending the very mandate of government? Isn’t that the whole purpose – to manage the resources of the citizens to provide the kind of society and social institutions those same citizens demand? I don’t see how doing the fundamental work of “We the people” is “liberal.” It seems to me that is central.
What the ins “conservative?” Is it to neither tax not spend? Isn’t that be necessity the end of government and a communal society? That idea seems far more radical to me.
Steve,
I’m unable to understand what you are saying.
“isn’t taxing and spending the very mandate of government”
That process within the scope of the enumerated powers of the Constitution is a conservative principle. Taxing the poor in order to give to the wealthy in the name of economic development is a “Progressive” policy that both party establishments are implementing. “Progressive” is what the propagandists use to mislead “we the people” and disguise their collectivist agenda that the Master Class uses to control us as a Slave Class. Sadly, “we the people” buy off on the falsehood that these programs and social institutions are for our “common good”. The increasing wealth inequality proves that falsehood.
Troy, I am saying that both political parties work together to shut down the political aspirations of true conservatives. Calling us radicals who are “negative” plays right into the propaganda issued by so-called “progressives”. Tradition is negative, progressing into a centrally controlled society is positive. But instead of being up front and straight with “we the people”, you guys call it “economic development” or “education”.
I have time but for this one response.
#1 I challenge all to relook at this postcard and truly examine the outrage and gnashing of teeth. The postcard I am looking at is neutral. There is no endorsement nor condemnation of either candidate, and everything on it appears to be factually correct from my understanding.
#2 Since there is no judgment expressed on either candidate on the postcard, and the factual circumstances are in themselves neutral, the judgments expressed that it reflects poorly on my opponent, are the judgment and views of those persons herein.
#3 For those on the Left: if the pictures of my opponent are of a proclivity, why the outrage? If the pictures are in fact of institutional mocking of women and transgenders, where’s the outrage?
#4 Tax & Spend: used to describe a party, government, etc. that increases taxes in order to spend on public services: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tax-and-spend
Senator Van Gerpen led D19’s young legislators 2015-2016 in voting with Democrats to expand property taxes, increase vehicle excise tax +33%, vehicle registration fees +17-20%, fuel taxes +27% & +75%, license plate fee +20%, motorcycle registration fee +24%, motor home registration fee +20%, wheel taxes +25% & +275%, title fee +100%, lien registration fee +100%, title transfer fee +100%, boat license fee +200%, sales tax +13%*, numerous other administrative fees +33-100% (2015’s SB1, 2016’s HB1005 & HB1182* VanGerpen voted for in committee, then voted against on floor after learning in caucus it had votes to pass), and increased budgeted state spending by OVER $306,683,875.00 (2015’s SB55, HB1208, and 2016’s SB172).
In 2014 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $168,691,472.00
In 2013 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $84,321,916.00
In 2010 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $144,511,597.00 ($88 Million Deficit)
In 2004 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $219,303,306.00
($3 Million Deficit)
In 2003 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $179,181,305.00
($18 Million Deficit)
In 2002 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $34,590,936.00
In 2001 Voted to increase SD govt/spending + $203,328,340.00
Since he has a similar record, and was so outraged at the factual reference to Van Gerpen & Putnam’s tax and spend records as tax and spenders, I would ask Rep Schoenbeck what is the proper reference to Tax and spenders like he, Sen Van Gerpen, and Jim Putnam who claim to be fiscal conservatives but who are actually tax and spenders. Transpolitical?
#5 It is not my place to approve or disapprove of their organizations’ decisions. From my understanding, everything appears to be factual. The only people responsible for the information provided on the postcard are those that created the circumstances highlighted on it. How the information on the postcard is perceived, is determined by the values of the person perceiving it.
@”Robbie Fish” I ran against Bill Van Gerpen because of his tax and spend liberal record above. By the time he dropped out of the race, I had already been campaigning hard for 3 months and had told over 3,000 people in our district I was running because of Van Gerpen’s record. I personally spoke with him and chastised him for his crappy record, for not being available to constituents, and told him those were the reasons I was running. He told me that the reason he endorsed my opponent was because I was being “dishonest” about his record, That comment and the rest of the conversation, made it clear he declined to run because of my campaign against his record.
You are free to believe that he dropped out to spend more time with his family, but that he may come back in several years, because he really wanted more time to spend with his family in January-March.
GOP is all about “Borrow and squander” which has too little to do with constitutional taxation and appropriation processes in the public interest.
Stace,
Are you really saying with a straight face a group that has endorsed you sent a neutral card? Just the pictures alone aren’t neutral but were picked to impact perception. It is ok to admit it was intended to further your campaign.
On a side note, one of my favorite “groups” which dressed in drag for charitable but mostly for creating excitement for their favorite team is the Hogettes. They were hilarious. Loved their team but had a way to that showed win or lose let’s have some fun.
https://nfldotcom.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/hogs.jpg
Troy, you and the Establishment SDGOP continuing to carry water for the transgender movement (including Daugaard’s veto) is not helping your case to say you are “conservative” or “moderate”, but it does say the SDGOP Establishment are truly far-left radicals that extreme Democrats could even appreciate. Sad that the party leaders will support transgender causes and then call conservatives “negative” for exposing those truths.
Tax and spend is fiscally responsible behavior. Cut taxes, cut social programs and spend like there is no tomorrow is what got America into cluster Obama and Dems are dragging Wingnut USA out of.
I may not agree with Mr. Nelson on all of the issues, but he does seems like a straight shooter type. Clearly he didn’t design or pay for the mailer, and thus I can’t really hold it against him.
I really have to agree with Rorschach here – this mailer just draws a distinction between the candidates and that distinction is maturity. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have fun, but when it comes time to pick someone to represent you in government, I’d tend to side with someone who is more mature and expresses a more mature view of the issues. I have nothing against younger candidates if they can express views which I find reasonable, but like it or not for many things there is no replacement for experience.
All that said, when someone runs for office, the first thing they should do (before filing) is scrub their social media profiles. Something might be acceptable when taken in context, but you can never assume your opposition (or those who support your opposition) will care about context if they can use something against you.
By no stretch of the imagination is that postcard neutral between the two candidates. To claim it is neutral is disingenuous. Let’s go there:
Did Finck not have 3 solemn photos to choose from on his facebook page – like the group used for Nelson?
Is calling Finck’s GOP party legislative supporters “tax and spend establishment moderates” neutral language in a GOP party primary?
Is making favorable statements about Nelson and unfavorable statements about Finck neutral?
Is the omission of Finck’s leadership/public service at SDSU while highlighting Nelson’s leadership/public service neutral?
Neutral huh, Mr. Nelson? Just look at the frickin’ postcard!! Not neutral. Not neutral.
The postcard does not say who to vote for. It is as much neutral as today’s media reports and blogs who don’t have to comply with campaign rules. Do you think Cory has to put a disclaimer on every post as he glorifies liberals and attacks conservatives?
Steve,
What the heck are you talking about? Are you asserting that Caleb dressing up in drag in a long-time tradition for a charity is promoting the transgender agenda? I know I have some of the details wrong but I remember for a charity event in Pierre in conjunction with I think Linda Mickelson’s birthday, four or five male members of the cabinet serenaded her with what if I remember right was her favorite song by a four person women’s group. The place was in stitches as they tried to hit the high notes. At some point, sometimes we can step back and say let’s not take everything so serious and have fun. Not everything in life is life or death. Sometimes its just living.
” Are you asserting that Caleb dressing up in drag in a long-time tradition for a charity is promoting the transgender agenda?”
Seems like the liberals on this web site are. You are also normalizing men dressing up as girls. And since the governor vetoed the transgender bill, does these so-called charity minded men have the right to go into the girls’ bathrooms? So is it a conservative principle for men to dress in drag.
Steve,
If you want to link what Caleb did to some big conspiracy to undercut society, I guess we can just agree to disagree. Humor and satire takes many forms and remains just humor.
And tell me this isn’t funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYmCC4OfmLY Barns on fire.
Steve: “You are also normalizing men dressing up as girls.”
Well, lets not forget our founding fathers commonly wore wigs while conducting official government business. Let us also not forget that by the visual depictions of Jesus Christ I commonly see in churches and sculpture, and descriptions used to explain his image, tell us he had long hair, wore open toed sandals and clothing which by today’s standards would only be known as a dress.
It is all relative Steve – what offends us today may not be important tomorrow.
Steve: “does these so-called charity minded men have the right to go into the girls’ bathrooms?”
That’s simply an ignorant statement. Men ACTING or portraying women who do not themselves identify as women are totally different than actual transgenders who may identify as a gender and who have taken steps to transition to a gender which differs from their biological sex.
Your statement is the equivalent of saying because Tom Hanks portrayed a WWII Army Captain in the film Saving Private Ryan than he should qualify for VA benefits.
@Mr Jones I am saying that the postcard is bereft of judgment on either candidate either way. Point to the verbiage in which it specifically advocates pro or con. There is none. The factual circumstances of the postcard speak differently to each person who views it based off of their own values and judgment. Whether it is pro or con depends on the individual’s perception. Republicans believe in personal responsibility, my opponent is responsible for the circumstances factually portrayed on the postcard as well as myself, Van Gerpen, and Putnam for their appropriate recognition as establishment tax and spend fiscal liberals.
@Craig My opponent, through campaign material produced by Pat Powers, is pretending to be a conservative Republican who supports gun rights. I have no problem with the postcard and would have put something out similar if they had not.
@Rorschach (Huge irony addressing “Rorschach”) As with the test of the same name, the postcard is neutral in the sense that it does not express a position. Any position pro or con that has been prescribed it is solely from the opinion of the content by those viewing it. Any claims to the contrary belie reality.
Of note, a formidable Democrat in my district explicitly expressed that the cross dressing would be made an issue in the event that I lose the primary.
Stace, if want to assert those who prepared the postcard did so with an objective to be neutral, go for it.
“visual depictions of Jesus Christ ”
You are mistaken Craig. The Bible says men are to dress as men, and women as women.
Today we have a very visible transgender movement that is part of a larger transformation of society based on the monism (both genders become one) found in pagan/New Age religious thought. It is a huge mistake to take this issue lightly. I say that as a warning to all who consider themselves Christian. The rest of you can ignore my warning and go ahead and have your fun.
“I have time but for this one response.” Stace Nelson – 3 responses ago.
I said some favorable things about Mr. Nelson’s work ethic, and I stand by those. But his repeated claims that the above postcard is neutral call into question his honesty. The postcard is effective precisely because it presents Mr. Nelson as an adult who has served his country honorably, while presenting his opponent as a cross dresser. Of the 5 Finck pictures, 4 of them (80%) are of him in drag. The only way one could say the photo selection of Mr. Finck is neutral is if he cross dresses 80% of the time.
@Mr Jones, No such assertion is implied or expressed. Your concoction of it is a disraction.
I find it humorous that you and Rep Schoenbeck find the wherewithal to gnash your teeth over the factual circumstances of his postcard after years of gleefully manning the establishment conservative slime machine. The irony is enough to require tetnus shots for all spectators.
“You are mistaken Craig. The Bible says men are to dress as men, and women as women.”
The Bible also says it is a sin to wear clothing of mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) but I see a lot of polyester / cotton blends worn by Christians these days. As with pretty much everything, Christians pick and choose which portions of the Bible they wish to adhere to when it benefits them or allows them to chastise others.
It is a book commonly wielded as if it were a sword.
Stace,
This is a election piece distributed by a group that has endorsed you. I endorse and defend their right to communicate to the people of District 19. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I think the people who prepared this did a good job of promoting you. I think the portion dedicated to Caleb negates the good they did. And, in the end, will not have any electoral impact. That is my opinion of the piece. Nothing more and nothing less. At SDWC, similarly I commented on a piece against Sen. Jenson by Stan Adelstein which I think is also at best ineffective but more likely actually helps Jenson.
You appear to think it is helpful to you. That is your opinion as well.
” I think the portion dedicated to Caleb negates the good they did.”
Troy, so you must think there are a lot of Republican primary voters in District 19 who would support an anti-gun rights, tax and spend cross dresser. You could be right.
Here we are Troy being dragged into Stace Nelson/Steve Sibson crazy land, where up is down and black is white and conservatives are liberals and nastiness is virtue. Let us not feed the trolls anymore. They’re your trolls though, so do as you wish.
@Mr Jones I am a torn man. My family did not want me to run again, and I cannot say I am thrilled about any prospect of jumping back into the viper den to fight the damn tax and spend RINOs and corruption that is the establishment political agenda de jour. I am satisfied that the FACTS are being presented to the voters. If they chose my 23-year-old establishment choice, and I stay put? As long as they do so knowing what they get. My duty to offer my self to serve them to go to Pierre to stop the taxing, spending, and corruption, is served, and my conscious is clean.
@Rorschach I would challenge you to support that statement with some comparative examples. The facts I cited above of the deficit spending, the massive increases of spending and state government, the massive increases in taxes and fees the last couple years to pay for it, are ample factual examples that Van Gerpen, Putnam, and Schoenbeck are establishment tax and spenders. While they may claim they feel they are fiscal conservatives, their records show that they are simply “transpolitical.”
Craig writes:
The Bible clearly indicates that those statutes were for Israel, not for Christians.
Occasionally yes. Generally no.
I think it’s a sad commentary on our political system that this type of advertising is used to promote a candidate. If I was running I’d feel uncomfortable with it.
I’d hope there would be more talk on the issues and that’s the rub. I’m in District 19 and even though I’m a Democrat and won’t be voting in the Republican primary I’m still curious about where Mr. Finck stands on the issues.
Is he a ammosexual or his he for common sense gun control? Is he for investing in infrastructure so we can maintain our roads and bridges? Is he for investing in education to attract quality teachers to teach our children and grandchildren and end our teacher shortage? Will Mr. Finck support Medicaid expansion to help more people get insurance?
We know where Stace stands on these issues and I’d like to know where Mr. Finck stands.
The fact that he had some fun in college and dressed as a woman means nothing to me. Sibson, of course, calls him a cross dresser. I doubt if that’s true. But if it is-so what.
What we need is more discussion as we do here with Troy. Troy is a Republican and it’s refreshing to be able to have a good discussion with someone who we might disagree on most things without being drawn into a name-calling contest.
@Owen and yet you are totally fine with killing an innocent child before it ever has a chance to draw a breath, but you draw the line at a postcard that portrays factual images and representation of two candidates on the issue of gun rights.
You know where I stand on the issues because as an actual conservative, I can speak confidently as one on the issues. My opponent appears to have decided not to answer conservative organizations on where he stands on the issues. He appears to be employing theproven tactic of the 5 “Ds” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zw1ejmPmXY
I haven’t heard where Finck stands on guns or anything and that’s on him Stace.
When been down the abortion road before. What about the baby AFTER it’s born?
To be honest with you Stace I’d like to see if Finck has the balls to mixed it up with you will he go into the fetal position.
“I’m still curious about where Mr. Finck stands on the issues.”
The SDGOP Establishment tells their puppets not to talk about the issues. Instead concentrate on name ID. The postcards expose the person on the issues, and that is why the establishment attacks them as “negative” ads. They don’t want the cat out of the bag. Another piece of propaganda that is used against conservatives is to call them trolls.
That young Mr. Nelson jerks his knee so high and so fast over such things as the recent Conservatives with Common Sense scorecard showing him as one of the least effective in the legislatures is very telling
That he attacks fellow staunch and effective Republicans like Putnam and Van Gerpen and Mr. Lee is even more telling.
Panic from a former Marine. A shame.
I rarely agree w/ u grudz, but appreciate your “larry kurtz” cutting at the knees you just administered, severely. I do not like to see cruelty, but stace does provoke and invite severe responses. imo.
So how is cross dressing funny? Is it because men usually look ugly as women? I don’t get it. What are the mechanics of the joke? I get Carrot Top’s sight gags and puns, I just don’t get how dressing as the other gender is so funny to people.
@Owen In this day and age, with birth control more readily available than gumballs in gumball machines? There is no damn reason to be murdering innocent babies in the womb. It isn’t a Constitutional right, it is an abomination and an affront to everything thing this country was founded on and supposed to represent.
@Grudznick Your antics would be laughable if they weren’t such contrived moronic establishment hackery. They only one in a panic is you hiding like a cockroach after you launch your chicken excrement comments. :-D
You don’t like your establishment RINOs being called out on their crappy voting records and their hypocrisy? Address the problems at the source, stop pushing RINOs on the GOP base and claiming their conservative gun rights supporters when they love dressing in women’s clothes, acting like they are transgender, and opposing law abiding citizens 2nd Amendment rights.
@Barry Freed Thank you! The “tradition” mocks “homely” women and/or transgender people. If this was a tradition where people dressed up as blacks, Natives, etc., and mocked them? Every decent person on here would be screaming. I’ve been to a lot of charity events and volunteered at them. Not an excuse for acting the fool or enjoying dressing in women’s clothing year after year.
Mr Nelson, in this day and age what right do you wingnuts claim that allows you to dictate women’s reproductive choices like they are chattel?
Don’t give me the bs line about protecting innocent lives of babies because everyone knows a wingnut doesn’t care about those innocent lives after they are born. Your actions,along with the majority of your party, speak louder than your words.
Things sure have changed in the last 50 years or so. The small town in PA I graduated from high school in the early 1960s had an annual fund raising for the Rotary Club. It was held in the high school auditorium. The fund raiser was a beauty contest where all the contestants were male members of the Rotary Club dressed as women. There were evening gowns, swimsuit, and talent contests. The “bosoms” were enhanced by oranges, grapefruit and in some cases water balloons which were sometimes removed by the contestant and thrown at hecklers in the audience. The contestants were business people, doctors, lawyers and elected officials.
The auditorium was always packed and the contest was hilarious. Today a similar event would call for boycott of the contestant’s business or resignation from elected office. I think we are regressing instead or progressing.
“I have time but for this one response.” Stace Nelson – 7 responses ago.
“male members of the Rotary Club dressed as women”
That does make sense for the Establishment’s test for loyalty club. But the Bible calls it an abomination. So do abominations only apply to Israel?
In 1st Timothy, Steve, it also says that women should not braid their hair. Where is your stance on that topic. Should women be allowed to wear pants? Should I attend church in proper attire, that would be sandals, turban, cloak and tunic? Do you think that might create a stir, but it is outlined as the proper attire for church. Should women as outlined in 1 Corinthians also be veiled when speaking?
madman, the answer is found in John 17 beginning with verse 14:
14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
Show me the religious test to be elected in America,Sibby. It does not exist.
What is it in genetic makeup that makes you wingnuts so obsessed with other people’s sex parts? Is it the fear that everyone of you is secretly GAY??? Like the song sez-if gawd was here he’d tell you to your face, man,you’re some kind of sinner.
(Tip of the hat to Jerry Corbetta and 5 Man Electrical Band)
@Mike from Iowa In this day and age, what gives you the right to murder an innocent child like the Nazis won WWII? Read the Declaration of Independence and then the US Constitution especially the part where the US Constitution says “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” SD’s law that says unborn children have rights under the SD Constitution, and then lecture me how I am absolved of the oaths I took to defend the liberty of those innocent babies. If I could stomach putting my life on the line for Leftist malcontents like you who wish to subvert the US Constitution, for 23 1/2 years, why would you think I wouldn’t extend the same dedication and fortitude to an innocent babe. Stuff your ignorant liberal talking points about conservatives not caring about kids after they are born. I raised 6 of my own, help my kids with theirs, AND I have supported an orphanage in Northern Vietnam since 2005.
@Rorschach 1st Amendment, its not just for those who wish to subvert the Constitution.
Stace, what gives the SD GOP rights to discriminate against transgenders every year in the legislature?. Transgenders deserve the rights of liberty also but is not your party going against the US constitution when you put out anti-transgender bills every year?
If you want to argue the Constitution, LGBT supporters on here could say that the SD GOP is violating the US Constitution. Thankfully, Daugaard understood this and rightfully vetoed the anti-transgender bill (which was probably more about the fear of states boycotting SD) but he understands in this day and age that LGBT rights will not go away.
Nelson-wah,wah wah! Cry me a freaking river. You took an oath to defend the constitution which includes women,Gays,Transgenders,Lesbians and leftist malcontents like me. Your oath doesn’t give you any exceptions.
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, does not give you the right to dictate women’s healthcare decisions, nor does it give you the right to decide who gets to marry whom. You need to get that through your thick noggin. Abortion is a constitutional right as adjudicated by the Scotus. Get over it and you bad self.
You self-righteous wingnuts are surely some of the poorest excuses for kristians I have ever seen. Your faith doesn’t trump the CONSTITUTION!!!
@Jenny Please explain to me what Constitutional rights are being violated.
@Mike from Iowa November Sierra, Batman. I did.
What part of a baby is a separate human being is hard for you to get through your head? Abortion is NOT a Constitutional right, read the SCOTUS decision. Regardless, SCOTUS sided with you Democrats for over a hundred years saying slavery was legal. It took us Republicans putting our feet down and stopping it to free our black brothers and sisters.
You know what I’m talking about, Stace.
Stace, you are overcompensating.
@Jenny Consider me to be as ignorant as Grudznick and walk me through your rationale on the transgender in the bathroom of their choice. On the marriage issue, big govt lovers caused the problem when they got the state involved in sanctioning marriages. I see the argument there.
@Dana P …and your latent. Isn’t this Cracker Jack box psychology doctorate thing great.
“You took an oath to defend the constitution which includes women,Gays,Transgenders,Lesbians and leftist malcontents like me. Your oath doesn’t give you any exceptions.”
Except preborn babies, wingnuts, and Christians.
“You self-righteous wingnuts”
You hypocrite.
Stace,
Your comment on marriage confuses me. State-sanctioned traditional marriage has its roots our Judeo-Christian heritage and is a traditional conservative position. Do you have more libertarian blood (and less conservative blood) in you than you let on?
@Troy Maybe for big govt loving faux ‘conservative Republicans” who look to the state for everything; however, for actual conservative limited government Republicans, marriage is the domain of God, not the state. Conservatives attempted to get SD out of the business of licensing marriage; however, the tax and spenders were to addicted to the revenue from the licenses issued and thusly SD is now fully embroiled in the Constitutional arguments.
“I have time but for this one response.” Stace Nelson – 10 responses ago.
“I have time but for this one response.” Stace Nelson – 11 responses ago.
Here’s a campaign message Caleb Finck can use:
For a big guy, Stace Nelson is amazingly petty. Extremely thin skinned. Obstinate. Does not play well with others. Ineffective as a legislator. Disingenuous and obtuse. Nothing more than a bomb thrower who throws most if not all of his bombs at his own team (there’s a visual that would make a great campaign postcard for the GOP primary – a marine throwing grenades at his fellow Marines). A platoon leader that nobody will follow. A sad, pitiful person who spends all of his time arguing self-righteously on blogs about political purity.
Stace,
I’m not getting personal nor am I arguing with you. But, you are articulating a Libertarian perspective vs. a conservative one.
This is the history. Libertarians have advocated getting out of the marriage business for decades. It leaked into the GOP among libertarian-minded Republicans about 20 years ago in conjunction with civil unions. It has been opposed by conservative-minded Republicans. And, even prior to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, conservatives when presented with a compromise along these lines considered it a capitulation of our Judeo-Christian heritage and bad for society/families. I’m pretty sure Ted Cruz does not support getting out of the marriage business. But Rand Paul might.
@Pat! (Rorschach) You really do have a problem with the 1st Amendment. Beautiful word salad though! Last time someone threw out the Alinsky lie of me being ineffective, I was shown to have been more effective than the clown who made the comment. So wow us with your effectiveness as a legislator and then let’s compare my 4 years.
Tax and spend RINOs are not on my team, and for crying out loud… you make that idiotic comment on a post about conservative Republicans putting out a postcard highlighting my race? ? Kind of guts your sour grapes all to heck.
Fetus isn’t a separate viable human being until it is separated from its host at birth. Unless and until then,a fetus is 1,000,000,000% totally dependent on its host.
Abortion is constitutionally protected, not that your side cares about the constitution.
@Mr Jones You are going to get me in trouble with Pat… errr Rorschach again for responding.
You will have to excuse me, there are so many occasions over the years of your personal attacks that it may be a conditioned response to you now.
I support states rights to define marriage between one man and one woman. Conservatives default position is that more government involvement is bad for everyone concerned and marriage is another example. There is nothing the government does in support of marriage for the tax of a marriage license. It in fact adds a layer of difficulty to couples looking to get married which in itself does not support or promote marriage. From everything I have read, conservatives believe that marriage is an institution of God. It is the liberals and the moderate “Republicans” who believe marriage is an institution of the law.
You even concede that point by referencing one of the top rated conservatives in the USA, Senator Rand Paul’s position on the issue. Senator Cruz, the other top conservative Republican has similar views. No where in any of his positions does he support the taxation of marriage or government sanctioning of marriage. He does support states rights the same as Sen Paul.
But please, since this is your claim. Please provide the supporting information for the supposed moderate “conservative Republican” argument that you assert.
@Mike From IOWA I’ve read both the SD & US Constitution numerous times. I see in SD law unborn babies have the same rights as we do and I see in the US Constitution where we secured the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; however, not one place in that glorious reflection of our rights from God do I see a place where you have the right to rip an innocent BABY apart.
Stace,
I am not asserting an argument but summarizing history. If you think it has been a long-held (prior to the Supreme Court hearing) that conservatives advocating getting out of the marriage business, I can’t recall anyone ever saying it. Can you?
It is my understanding that both Paul and Cruz support the state’s defining what is marriage. Cruz has never said he thinks the state’s should not be sanctioning marriage. Please reference where he has. The following from his Presidential website indicates states should define marriage not get out of the business.
* Authored legislation and a constitutional amendment in the Senate to prevent federal courts from further interfering with any state’s authority to define marriage.
* Introduced legislation to protect the right of states to define marriage, without intrusion by unelected federal judges.
Unless you can explain this position (defending state’s rights to define marriage) is a position to get out of the business and show evidence he has advocated it, it appears you do not hold the same position as Cruz.
It was only my guess that Paul’s Libertarian views would entertain getting the state out of the marriage business and I found this which makes it clear he does. http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/
Together they go to my point: Libertarians advocate getting out of the marriage business. Conservatives do not (or at least didn’t before the Supreme Court ruling).
Finally, I believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God. Some religious conservatives use your language. Pretty close from a practical perspective but some theological distinction. And, there is no inherent conflict (and for religious conservatives often an obligation) with God’s Law and man’s law being in conformance.
P.S. Cruz signed the National Organization for Marriage Pledge. And, they endorsed Cruz over every other GOP candidate. NOM’s fundamental purpose is to protect traditional marriage (includes state sanctioned) in both law and society.
@Mr Jones Sorry, you are stating an opinion about what you think is the history.
You are conflating to separate issues in regards to marriage and state government.
I 100% support state’s rights to define marriage. Getting states out of licensing and taxing marriages is a total separate issue and the onus is on you to make the case that supporting state involvement in taxing marriage is a conservative position, not mine. The state can 100% be involved in recognizing marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman; however, there is no reason, nor conservative support, for the state to be involved in taxing it.
@Mr Jones P.S. Again, not sure where or how you are confused. I 100% support protecting traditional marriage (includes state sanctioned) in both law and society.
Marriage taxes and licenses are a separate issue and there is no conservative support for what is only a tax.
Rep. Nelson was able to pass a few insignificant bills in his 4-year tenure along with the 34 bills that failed with him as the prime sponsor. Who knew that POW/MIA day is now a working holiday?
We need guys like Stace in the legislature to fight corruption Rorschach! That’s what I like about him, he’s not one of the cronies that will stand by and just let it happen. I believe he’s honestly serious about it!
Stace,
First, your original position was you wanted the State to quit issuing licenses. Now you say your 100% for state sanctioned marriage. I’m confused. How do we sanction it in law without a process of knowing who is married and they are eligible to be married under the law without a license?
Further, the cost of a license in SD is $40. There are roughly 6,000 marriages a year in SD generating roughly $240K in revenue. Since it the fee is likely not sufficient to cover the cost of administering the program, it is a user fee subsidized by the taxpayers. If you get rid of the fee altogether, it will be 100% subsidized by the taxpayers.
I’m not sure the distinction of what is conservative is as clear as you seem to assert. Thus, conservatives of good will can have a difference of opinion on whether or not a user fee is appropriate.
Troy, the economic benefits of gay marriages (weddings, purchasing houses) more than make up the difference of whatever expenses the state has had to deal with in regards to administering a few more licenses to gay couples.
stace, this may be your belief but it is not really a fact is it? :
“in that glorious reflection ‘of our rights (the fed constitution) from God'” (emphasis added, mine)
the rights we have in the constitution did not all really come from God did they? I suppose a few say that in the constitution. I don’t have the exact language at my fingertips. i’m not a student of the constitution but have been trained in my education and experience with a limited working knowledge.
so if its not really true, you are not excluding non-Christian believers from the constitution’s umbrella, are you by your statement? There are a lot of them. That broad statement is something Fox News would say.
Stace Nelson-show me the word gun, guns, assault weapons in the constitution. You can’t because those words aren’t in there.
Show me the word god in the constitution. You can’t because that word is also not in there.
The Scotus determined the 14th amendment give women a right to privacy which is where the abortion right comes from-
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.html
@ “Pat” Rorschach Now you’re just being obtuse. My first term I was more successful than the other clown that claimed I was ineffective: http://madvilletimes.com/2012/03/rep-stace-nelson-shells-sdpb-over-schoenbeck-blasts/ Come on, you’re more intelligent than such weak intellectual dishonesty. Especially since you have 0 legislative accomplishments you care to share and apparently have 0 acumen to gauge effectiveness.
@Mr Jones Stop being obtuse. It insults both our intelligence. State licensing and state recognition of 1 man 1 woman marriage are two separate issues. I know that weaning you big govt loving “Republicans” off of government is scary to you; however, let me assuage your fears. SD got along just fine before 1939 when it didn’t have marriage licenses issued by the state.
No, conservatism is not a complicated rocket scientist math equation. It is very simple. Its only those who wish to support their love of big govt that claim its complicated.
Why does the state have anything to do with it anyway? They can’t “sanction” personal relationships between two adults. It’s a personal agreement. Besides lifetime marriage is nothing more than a religious hangover and works for maybe 15% of the population tops. Most old couples from earlier generations can’t stand each other they are just tied by tradition. The world has moved on live your own life.
Stace,
I’m not arguing with you and I don’t care if you want to insult me or my intelligence. I’m just trying to understand your position.
Are you advocating the State stop issuing licenses or just not charging a fee?
If you are advocating the State stop issuing licenses, how will we know who is subject to the marriage laws (and divorce laws)? How do we distinguish cohabitation couples and married couples?
And, if the state is not issuing licenses, how do we recognize 1 man and 1 woman marriages?
These are just questions.
Stace,
You are incorrect when you said the state didn’t issue licenses before 1939. It does appear they changed marriage law in 1939 and reorganized the statutes. However, in the very first session of the legislature, the law with this title was passed within the first month of the convening of the initial legislature: An Act, Providing for a Marriage License.
You can find the legislation here on page 257 & 258. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32437122770908;view=1up;seq=337
I can’t find our Territorial Laws anywhere but I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t have marriage licenses then but I don’t know for sure.
Rep. Nelson used the shotgun approach to legislating. He put a lot of bills in the air figuring a few would pass. Less than 20% of the bills he prime sponsored passed in a legislature having a 2/3 or larger GOP party majority in both houses. That’s a lousy average for a majority party legislator.
But then, this is a majority party legislator who does not play well with others, throws a great many bombs – mostly at his own team, and spends all of his time arguing self-righteously on blogs about political purity.
We have 11 Initiated Measures on the November ballot, it would be great to have some of these issues debated during the primary season to see where candidates stand. It won’t happen though, marriage licenses, anti-abortion fights, and pro-gun opinions are much more important than the daily concerns of South Dakotans.
The decades of republican corruption and in particular the most recent Gear Up scandal and Mike Rounds EB-5 scandal still have not been fully addressed and likely won’t be. But those issues aren’t important either, South Dakota republican voters will rubber stamp their approval of corruption in this state and send the same people back to the legislature.
and with these subjects that have been raise how does Mr. Finck stand on these issues?
I don’t know because I haven’t heard anything from Mr. Finck.
Or should I take the word of Prairie Country PAC?
Troy- http://tinyurl.com/jg5nwbp
mentions marriages for both North and South Dakota as territories. The original link has 294 characters.
@ Mr Jones Yes, how on earth could any state not fall into anarchy if their was not enough government to tell people how to live and how to marry? http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx
@”Pat” Rorschach Still waiting for a list of any legislation you ever carried or passed. What you are pointing out, despite your best efforts to disparage my “effectiveness” is that I carried a lot of bills for constituents and causes that South Dakotans wanted addressed. Any legislator can cherry pick bills to bring to try and get something enrolled that they can claim is a success. I brought bills on weighty issues. To put your petty tirade into perspective, I know of “Republican” legislators that are on their second terms, who have never gotten a bill passed. How about doing a spread sheet on the legislators I served with showing what everybody carried and their successes? Put up or… You get the idea.
Stace,
Those are not hard questions. If they threaten you, I am sorry. I just thought you’d want to let us know your position.
If your position is to get rid of licenses and have common law marriage, that is your position. And I will consider your position. Just not sure what it is.
@Mr Jones Please spare me the theatrics and the juvenile misstatements. I’m not threatened even when you throw a temper tantrum and threaten to kick me in the groin again. I’ve made it clear that I 100% support states rights to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman and that marriage is the domain of God. I also made it clear that I do not support the state taxing people getting married and I pointed out that the current licensing process is a hindrance with no benefit to the institution of marriage. I pointed out that states that even have common law do just fine without the big govt that you so love. If you have any further legitimate questions, you have my number. Any other deviations from those statements are your own so please adopt them as such and leave me out of your games.
Stace,
All I asked were some simple questions and all I got is a lot of words without an answer. The funny thing is I might be inclined to support where you might be going if I understand how it will work, its implications, and what unintended consequences might arise. There have been a lot of societal and legal changes on this matter which at minimum call for a fresh look. Oh well.
Stace,
I asked some simple questions but got alot of words but no answer. The funny thing is I might support where I think you are going. There have been alot of societal and legal changes which at minimum deserve a fresh look. However, I want to understand how it will work, its implications, and any unintended consequences before I make up my mind. Oh well.
@Mr Jones You got straight answers that you couldn’t play idiotic games with, you admit as much with your comment that “I might support where I think you are going.” I am aware of previous legislation that was proffered, as you should be to as an establishment big govt tax and spender. I’m not in the mood for the down the rabbit hole endless what ifs discussion you seek to engage in. Yes, “oh well.” I’m sure you will survive.
How about doing a spread sheet on the legislators I served with showing what everybody carried and their successes? Put up or… You get the idea.
This conversation is about you and your legislation- not everyone else. If your accomplishments are so outstanding, then they can survive stand-alone scrutiny.
Marriage licenses for South Dakota territory were issued by Clerk of District Court and cost $1.
I’ve had a little fun with Mr. Nelson. He doesn’t play well with others, throws a great many bombs – mostly at his own team, and spends all of his time arguing self-righteously on blogs about political purity.
But I have to concede that passing 8 bills in 4 years is actually pretty good. Better than many. Fair is fair.
He also monopolized the time of LRC staff having them write literally dozens and dozens and dozens of commemorations and toothless resolutions – which also wasted a great deal of legislative time. If everybody emulated Rep. Nelson LRC would have to hire 10 more staff during session to process all the peripheral BS.
“I have time but for this one response.” Stace Nelson – 20 responses ago.
Stace,
Three simple questions:
Do you support the state stop issuing marriage licenses?
If so, how will we know who is subject to marriage and divorce laws?
@Mike from IOWA Well then toughguy, get to scrutinizing. Flapping your gums and expelling CO2 mixed with BS isn’t scrutinizing.
@Rorschach If you repeat a lie often enough… You don’t like our checks and balances in our political system? May I suggest some countries where all the politicians nod in unison like Vietnam? China? Venezuela?
It was more than 8, and I wrote all of the commemorations and resolutions myself to include posthumous commemorations for every South Dakotan that was killed serving in the Middle East. But who am I to interrupt your ignorant pontification about matters you don’t have a clue about.
So wow us with all your legislative accomplishments, I have 2 seconds to spare.
@Mr Jones Please don’t be so obtuse. It is neither a simple question nor a simple answer to adjust such a major statute. You offer no legislation only an open ended question without substance.
I always support looking at ways to cut taxation and government interference with peoples lives. If there is a solution that does so in this circumstance, I am happy to consider it.
No Mr. Nelson. There were exactly 8 bills you prime sponsored that passed. 6 house bills. 2 senate bills.
2011: HB 1085, HB 1162, SB 139
2012: HB 1230
2013: HB 1067, HB 1122, HB 1158
2014: SB 171
As I said, that’s pretty good. You need to practice accepting both compliments and constructive criticism.
Each of your resolutions and commemorations required LRC staff to get them into proper form and prepare them for introduction and for the commemorations to make multiple copies and bind them. The resolutions took up legislative time as well because you forced discussions on a whole bunch of things the legislature had no authority over – which is why they were resolutions and not bills. Once again, if everyone did as you did LRC would have had to hire extra staff and the session itself would have had to be extended to talk about all of the meaningless resolutions.
And who could forget about you wearing out your welcome within your own party? Maybe you should be running under the Constitution Party banner, since there are precious few officeholders in the GOP party who would associate with you.
Stace,
I admit I’m dense as I’m having a hard time grasping what your position is.
In one breath you say “Conservatives attempted to get SD out of the business of licensing marriage” and in the next you say “I 100% support protecting traditional marriage (includes state sanctioned) in both law and society”. They seem to be in conflict because the current method of “state sanctioned” is the license, the license is the mechanism under which there is certification the couple is married according to state law, and it is the base under which falls under both marriage and divorce laws (we don’t have common law marriage here).
Maybe there is a conceptual mechanism other than a license where we know who is subject to marriage and divorce laws. I just can’t imagine what it might be (if it walks like a duck it is a duck) other than a license. So, even a bit of concept of what that might be would be helpful.
I’m only pursuing understanding.
Nelson-you jabber-jacking wingnuts have no use for B asic S cience.
I guess doing science stuff with crayons is pretty hard.
Troy, I would be more worried about Mike Rounds not being aware of the widespread corruption going on with EB-5 than piddling around with Stace’s statements.
It is more important for South Dakotans to ‘pursue understanding’ of how SD’s junior Senator Rounds was unaware of serious crimes taking place under his tenure.
Elect Cory and Stace, they will fight against the GOP machine.
@ Mr Anonymous Internet Troll known as Rorschach – Not sure who the bigger fool is here, you for presuming to lecture me about what I did, or me for responding.
In my freshman year this “ineffective” legislator managed to accomplish something no other legislator is ever noted to have accomplished before, or since. At the behest of a constituent, in 2011 I managed to get HB 1256 entered AFTER bill submission was closed AND walked the orphan bill through both chambers as the undocumented sponsor AND got it passed into law.
I am not sure the total number of bills that were passed into law as a result of my efforts to serve my constituents, which doesn’t matter as I have already shown your assertions to be wrong. Regardless, as you have already alluded, contrary to asinine claims that I was “ineffective” the opposite was true when looked at in proper comparison context with other legislators.
In regards to you and others ignorance about the importance of resolutions. Such comments show an absolute ignorance about US history and the legislative process. The US was started from the Lee Resolution. Without that resolution? The USA would arguably never have occurred. The process of state resolutions arguably had more impact before the 17th Amendment; however, as the attached explanation explains, they are still an important legislative tool regardless of your ignorance on the matter: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/resolution
Please cite all the commemorations that I typed up that you feel were a waste of the 50 seconds it tool LRC to print them out after I compiled them. Whining that I wasn’t an effective, diligent, and productive legislator while bemoaning the fact that I was? Frankly, is moronic. As I pointed out repeatedly before, the legislature gavels in and out on half days on so many occasions, and rarely stays in session passed 5, that your claims session would need to be extended is ridiculous.
Still waiting for your stellar legislative accomplishments.
Ze truth, she hurts, no?
HB 1256 is a committee bill. The name Rep. Nelson appears nowhere on it.
98 commemorations in 4 years! Submit that one to Guinness Book. For a guy who wants to honor so many and bask in their reflected glory you should be more thankful to the LRC staff whose time you commandeered for this effort. You cannot possibly believe you took less than 82 minutes of their time total on all of these commemorations? That’s an absolutely ridiculous and despicable assertion. You should apologize for belittling LRC staff and the massive assistance they gave you, which was far beyond that asked by any other legislator in sheer volume alone! You are an ingrate!
Of 276 House commemorations during your 4 years you brought 98 of them. If everyone had brought 98 it would have totaled 6860 and required additional LRC staff.
As one representative out of 70 you brought 14 toothless House Concurrent resolutions in 4 years – out of 74 total during that time. The staff and legislator time you squandered was to score ideological points, glorify yourself, and point out the RINOs, so it’s all good – right?
@Rorschach Obviously the facts matter naught. The recordings show who brought the bill and who got the orphan bill entered past the deadline and passed into law.
Amazing how you have the world all figured out from your little internet bully troll chair in your granny’s basement.
Get back to me when you accomplish anything in life in which you have the courage to put your name to it.
Anyone who wants the facts will have to look to my posts to get them. You certainly haven’t presented any, Mr. Nelson. Nor have you refuted any that I have presented. I have given credit where credit is due, commending your work ethic in gathering signatures and commended your effort in passing 8 bills.
I have also pointed out that you don’t play well with others, throw a great many bombs – mostly at your own team, and spend all of your time arguing self-righteously on blogs about political purity. You have chosen not to refute or dispute any of those claims – but rather to exemplify them with your comments on this thread. Doesn’t matter who I am. The fact is, you burn a lot of bridges because of your arrogance and self-righteousness. You cloak yourself in false humility. You degrade the value of others – like LRC staff – in your success as a legislator. And you refuse to listen or learn because your comments demonstrate your belief that you know it all already. Here’s something you don’t know. There are Democratic legislators that did as much or more than you despite their party having less than 1/3 of the votes in the legislature, and without getting kicked out of their own caucus.
I have tried to paint an accurate view of Mr. Nelson and his legislative service, and he has attacked me for doing so without disputing anything I said, except claiming to be the prime sponsor of a bill that doesn’t have his name on it.
Going forward I will refrain from highlighting any positives of Mr. Nelson and allow him to be his own promoter. The most I will do for Mr. Nelson is that when someone says he eats s— sandwiches I will say he likes his bread separate or not at all.
And apparently that postcard we’re talking about here that Mr. Nelson obtusely claims is neutral has raised such a backlash among District 19 voters that Mr. Nelson has caught a lot of spread for his breadless sandwiches. Enjoy, Mr. Nelson!
Indeed, Mr. Rorschach. You have painted a good picture of Mr. Nelson. I might have stressed that Mr. Nelson’s infatuation with wasting taxpayer money and time with meaningless declarations and certifications that carry no weight and are intended only to make a scorecard point are what really makes him the second most ineffective in the South Dakota legislatures, ever. In the next 10 years grudznick bets that Mr. Nelson could not get a meaningful law bill passed. Full on breakfast bet. Never happen.
By the way, scorecards show that the only scorecards that matter are two: the one issued by the Conservatives with Common Sense*, and the one in your own heart.
* full disclaimer: grudznick is a nationally syndicated author and a past president of the Conservatives with Common Sense, although he does not vote on planks in the organizational platform to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest.
I’m sorry, Mr. R. You did cover Mr. Nelson’s ineffectiveness in totality. Your blogging at 13:55 clearly outlines that and I apologize for not seeing it. You are indeed correct, sir.
I will go back and try and read more in case you already covered the hiding in the bathroom issues and how Mr. Lust outsmarted Mr. Nelson…