Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Dakota War College has the most idiotic premise as to why Stan lost.
"Stan Adelstein lost in a liberal district?" Who are the liberals who got a chance to vote for Stan on their ballots? Put up a Democrat in that district and watch a bucket of water fall on Margaret Hamilton...
It's perhaps better for Democrats for a wishy washy Republican to lose as it makes it easier to monitor the wingnuts on the fringe of the party who are more likely to frighten the Adelstein voters into giving up on the Republicans not only for the national party's missteps, corruption, distractions, poor polling, etc.
That Stan lost when battling "extremists" is not a shock since the extremists had more of a stake in the result.
And it's not so much a legislative gain for the party as Ellie is the carbon copy of her galpal Concerned Women For America's Liz Kraus.
Stan's ads were correct about one thing, he was the "real Republican" and a "Real Conservative" in the race. Ellie is one of the NeoCons of failed war policy, social engineering, and big government of the Bush administration.
Stan is perhaps more a Libertatian / Bill Maher Republican concerned with fiscal health, state business, and changing the status quo rather than a regressive candidate working to return to an imaginary 1950s that only existed on TV.
Is it good for Democrats to have Ellie as the new face of the Republican Party? As beneficial as it is for George W. Bush as president, or the corrupt Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich leading things in congress. It's perhaps better news for Bill (Insert foot here) Napoli and self-declared Pope Roger Hunt to be out of the spotlight.
Should all Democrats kill themselves because a woman whose broad smile on the election results cover photo on the Rapid City Weekly News (where, no conflict of interest, I write) makes Jack Nicholson as the Joker look sane won? No.
The mistake is thinking HB1215 was a one vote battle, which Republican legislators seemed to assume on both it and the 2005 gay marriage matter (which they LOST on in 2004 when it failed to exit committee). We win, you lose and there's nothing you can do about it... oh right, checks and balances? How dare the public not realize we live in a dictatorship?
What gay marriage (the real first muscle flex of the out of state Focus on the Family / CWA / Jerry Falwell wingnuts) and abortion are doing is stoking a new fire in those sick of inaction from the Democratic party. The women of Democracy in Action kicked serious butt with the SD Healthy Families coalition. That more Republicans even had challengers in many districts was a start.
That the Republicans are fighting among themselves over the extremes of their party while the Democrats are fighting to strengthen their party even at the cost of wimpy Democrats (who may have voted with the Republicans on many issues) pushes the teeter totter more toward the Democrats, kids.
The Marriage Protection Act bombed for Bush in congress as conservatives realized it was a smokescreen to try and please the Republicans legitimately upset by big government, a losing war, spy scandal after spy scandal, torture, lying lobbyists, high gas prices, Medicare mayhem, and the presidency of a lamer duck than the movie about Howard. The newly hard right packed Supreme Court refuses to hear cases of anti-gay legislation and many abortion related bills.
Were there reasons not to vote for the abortion ban? Absolutely. It's poorly worded legislation meant purely to raise hell and controversy that embarrasses South Dakotans as much as the people of Texas (who are darned likely to elect novelist, folksinger and curmudgeon Kinky Freidman as their next governor) are embarrassed by hate crimes, energy corruption and the many corporate execs who aren't Mark Cuban.
Similarly the anti-gay marriage amendment was a completely idiotic poorly worded bill for any SD leglislator to vote for as its language banning "quasi-marital" relationships affects renters, nonmarried elderly couples, cases of domestic abuse where the "wifebeater" is not a "husband" and the issue that got it hoghoused in 2004: adoption.
Carelessness and zealousness that not only energizes a lazy Democratic party, but threatens tourism boycotts (see Colorado's Amendment 2 of a few years back) guarantees million dollar lawsuits taking things to the Supreme Court, and strengthens the infrastructures of feminist, civil rights and gay organizations. Perhaps not to the funding and strength of the well oiled Republican machine of moralists but it's a few opening bars to a new anthem.
"Stan Adelstein lost in a liberal district?" Who are the liberals who got a chance to vote for Stan on their ballots? Put up a Democrat in that district and watch a bucket of water fall on Margaret Hamilton...
It's perhaps better for Democrats for a wishy washy Republican to lose as it makes it easier to monitor the wingnuts on the fringe of the party who are more likely to frighten the Adelstein voters into giving up on the Republicans not only for the national party's missteps, corruption, distractions, poor polling, etc.
That Stan lost when battling "extremists" is not a shock since the extremists had more of a stake in the result.
And it's not so much a legislative gain for the party as Ellie is the carbon copy of her galpal Concerned Women For America's Liz Kraus.
Stan's ads were correct about one thing, he was the "real Republican" and a "Real Conservative" in the race. Ellie is one of the NeoCons of failed war policy, social engineering, and big government of the Bush administration.
Stan is perhaps more a Libertatian / Bill Maher Republican concerned with fiscal health, state business, and changing the status quo rather than a regressive candidate working to return to an imaginary 1950s that only existed on TV.
Is it good for Democrats to have Ellie as the new face of the Republican Party? As beneficial as it is for George W. Bush as president, or the corrupt Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich leading things in congress. It's perhaps better news for Bill (Insert foot here) Napoli and self-declared Pope Roger Hunt to be out of the spotlight.
Should all Democrats kill themselves because a woman whose broad smile on the election results cover photo on the Rapid City Weekly News (where, no conflict of interest, I write) makes Jack Nicholson as the Joker look sane won? No.
The mistake is thinking HB1215 was a one vote battle, which Republican legislators seemed to assume on both it and the 2005 gay marriage matter (which they LOST on in 2004 when it failed to exit committee). We win, you lose and there's nothing you can do about it... oh right, checks and balances? How dare the public not realize we live in a dictatorship?
What gay marriage (the real first muscle flex of the out of state Focus on the Family / CWA / Jerry Falwell wingnuts) and abortion are doing is stoking a new fire in those sick of inaction from the Democratic party. The women of Democracy in Action kicked serious butt with the SD Healthy Families coalition. That more Republicans even had challengers in many districts was a start.
That the Republicans are fighting among themselves over the extremes of their party while the Democrats are fighting to strengthen their party even at the cost of wimpy Democrats (who may have voted with the Republicans on many issues) pushes the teeter totter more toward the Democrats, kids.
The Marriage Protection Act bombed for Bush in congress as conservatives realized it was a smokescreen to try and please the Republicans legitimately upset by big government, a losing war, spy scandal after spy scandal, torture, lying lobbyists, high gas prices, Medicare mayhem, and the presidency of a lamer duck than the movie about Howard. The newly hard right packed Supreme Court refuses to hear cases of anti-gay legislation and many abortion related bills.
Were there reasons not to vote for the abortion ban? Absolutely. It's poorly worded legislation meant purely to raise hell and controversy that embarrasses South Dakotans as much as the people of Texas (who are darned likely to elect novelist, folksinger and curmudgeon Kinky Freidman as their next governor) are embarrassed by hate crimes, energy corruption and the many corporate execs who aren't Mark Cuban.
Similarly the anti-gay marriage amendment was a completely idiotic poorly worded bill for any SD leglislator to vote for as its language banning "quasi-marital" relationships affects renters, nonmarried elderly couples, cases of domestic abuse where the "wifebeater" is not a "husband" and the issue that got it hoghoused in 2004: adoption.
Carelessness and zealousness that not only energizes a lazy Democratic party, but threatens tourism boycotts (see Colorado's Amendment 2 of a few years back) guarantees million dollar lawsuits taking things to the Supreme Court, and strengthens the infrastructures of feminist, civil rights and gay organizations. Perhaps not to the funding and strength of the well oiled Republican machine of moralists but it's a few opening bars to a new anthem.
Comments:
Post a Comment
