Who’s our radical Republican of the weekend?
Is it former District 19 Representative and U.S. Senate candidate Stace Nelson, who promulgates the efforts he ascribes to fellow South Dakotans to drag him back into South Dakota politics?
Is it Gordon Howie, who, like Senator Betty Olson, perpetuates pernicious lies about the President of the United States as just a joke?
No, the real radical Republican this weekend is Black Hills denizen and longtime blog friend Stan Gibilisco, who makes his first Dakota Free Press appearance with this manifesto on his radical Republicanism.
Stan is clearly still a Republican—just look at his proud display of carbon emissions behind and to his right! In this video, Stan says he believes in real personal responsibility, but he also contends that we need to rethink our views on drugs laws and health insurance:
Glad to have you thinking and webcasting, Stan! Keep those videos coming!
After going to a Cracker Barrel yesterday I feel more then ever that what we need in Pierre isn’t more conservatives like Stace says. What we need is more progressives. This state has been under the control of the conservatives and the Republicans for decades and now we’re reaping what we sowed.
Yes Stace is more conservative then most Republicans, but the right wing will cause more problems then they’d solve.
South Dakotan’s have to steer clear of the far right try to lump moderate Republicans with Democrats. The problems we have in this state were made by Republicans-moderate of far right and not the democrats
Owen, is Stan sufficiently progressive for you?
And how was the crackerbarrel? Care to play special correspondent and submit a report?
If Stan is serious he should run for mayor of Lead, for the seat Tim Johns is likely to leave for a position in the state judiciary or for the seat Bob Ewing is warming.
Stan is ok. lol. The Dist. 19 Cracker Barrel was held in Corsica. Sen. Van Gerpen explained how the 2 percent for education was going to be reached. The Governor wants to take the .5% that are paid to the sparsely populated (west river) and put that in with the rest of the education spending. It’s more then a little complicated. He roughly used the percentage paid by the state at 53% and the counties at 47 percent. It was something he wasn’t for. He felt that once the legislator received the report on how much money they have it’s a good bet the schools won’t get a 2% increase. He thought it’ll be a little less then that.
He talked about how little money nursing homes could pay their workers compared to what they pay for in Minnesota and he called it a crisis. I pointed out the same problem exists in the teacher shortage in South Dakota and he agreed. I also said what South Dakota needs when it comes to the teacher shortage is leadership and not a blue ribbon panel. Nothing said.
The bill that was killed that would have let cities add a penny tax to pay for certain projects came up. Ven Gerpen said he was against it because if he went to Sioux Falls or any bigger city and they had the tax on he didn’t want to pay for it.
I told him I understand that but as a member of the Alexandria City Council you took away are chance to pay for something that might be needed for our town because you didn’t want to pay for Sioux Falls project. I thought it was a good bill. A city could increase only for a specific project and once paid for would end. I also believe it has to go to a vote of the people first. I heard that farmers were against it because they wouldn’t have a say in it. So much for helping your fellow man.
Most of the talk was about counties problems which really is a big problem. Never enough money to go around. There is a bill that would give counties grant money to help with roads and bridges. But the county has to have a wheel tax and a 5 year plan to improves their roads and bridges.
Stan is on to something when he talks of the “rebirth” of the radicals in the Republican Party. After the breakup of the Whigs, the Republican faction was driven by its radicals and Lincoln had all he could do to maintain some control over them. The radicals forced the end of slavery, the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments, and the success of Reconstruction until the 1877 end of Reconstruction due to the dirty dealings of Rutherford Hayes to buy the presidency. Absent these radicals, our country might still have some variation of slavery! For a great read, check out “Lincoln and the Radicals” by T. Harry Williams. You go Stan!
Hey man, that’s a gas (methane) stove! Not much carbon, lots of good heat.
I stand corrected! Thanks for the technical update, Stan!
The word is “altruism”, Mr. Gibilisco. United States of Altruism, so spurned by Ayn Rand. Why would you associate with the Republican Party when you’d be so welcome and helpful in the birth of Democrat politics in South Dakota? If it thinks like a Dem and talks like a Dem, it’s a darn Dem. Grow a pair and quit caring what anyone thinks of you and follow your heart. We can see the light within you, sir. Repubs are about plain old fashioned selfishness as are the terms liberty, patriot and self-sufficiency. There’s little of these in you … just confusion about where you belong.
Stan, that’s a hoot! Thank you.
BCB, if those were the “radicals” of the GOP, and Stan their contemporary incarnation, how do we classify the extreme “conservatives” on the other end of the GOP spectrum? You know, the ones who call all Repubs who don’t agree with them “RINOS.” Are we noting there that the GOP river of ideology essentially cleaves into 3 main tributaries, with the “Whigs” comprising what we now call “Establishment” Republicans?
Bill, here is my amateur analysis:
Back in the mid-1800’s I think the extreme Whig conservatives or Tea Party types formed the “No-Nothing Party” or “American Party.” The comparison to today’s extreme Republicans or Tea Party types seems apt since the No-Nothings focused on anti- immigrant policies just as today’s hard line right wingers advocate for harsh anti-immigrant policy.
The Whigs who became Republicans, but who were not as radical as the “Radical Republicans” on the slavery issues, lasted beyond Reconstruction and turned their focus to economic policy rather than civil rights, while the pro-civil rights Radicals gradually lost influence.
Radicals arguably resurfaced during the Teddy Roosevelt years as “Progressive Republicans” but by the mid-20th Century started disappearing again. Once the so-called Republican “Southern Strategy” began to recruit southern Democrats into the Republican fold, radical/progressive Republicans gradually moved to the Democratic party.
Hi Porter …
I have a lot of trouble typing these days, but yammering at an iPad comes out like diarrhea of the mind. So I’ll respond to you in this way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ai44UgiM5U
I plug your new site too, Cory.
This is the only blog I ever visit, let alone comment in.
Aloha!
RIP, Stan.
Regret that you did not allow comments on more of your amateur radio YouTube videos. You made some grievous errors and omissions and you probably lead a lot of new hams astray but for the needed correction.
More’s the pity.
k6whp