Friday, June 09, 2006
The South Dakota War College blog doesn't get it: "Stan lost one of the
most liberal legislative districts in Rapid City. And not only she still
bashing his opponent, he's bashing his voters for rejecting him."
Let's see if I have this correct: Republican Stan Adelstein lost in a
liberal district against another harder right Republican? 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 Libertarian / 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 (and back under their rocks).
Should all Democrats kill themselves because a woman whose broad smile
on the election results cover photo on the Rapid City Weekly News (where
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 even 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
Friedman 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 legislator to vote for, as its language
banning "quasi-marital" relationships affects renters, non married
elderly couples, cases of domestic abuse where the "wife beater" is not
a "husband" and the issue that died with legislative hoghousing 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.
most liberal legislative districts in Rapid City. And not only she still
bashing his opponent, he's bashing his voters for rejecting him."
Let's see if I have this correct: Republican Stan Adelstein lost in a
liberal district against another harder right Republican? 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 Libertarian / 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 (and back under their rocks).
Should all Democrats kill themselves because a woman whose broad smile
on the election results cover photo on the Rapid City Weekly News (where
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 even 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
Friedman 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 legislator to vote for, as its language
banning "quasi-marital" relationships affects renters, non married
elderly couples, cases of domestic abuse where the "wife beater" is not
a "husband" and the issue that died with legislative hoghousing 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
