A Post Wherein I Compliment Republicans For Saying The Right Thing

Given that Donald Trump dominates the political discussion and that his utterances that are not vile, divisive, or dishonest are banal, it's refreshing to hear a few Republican politicians say the right thing.

WNAX posts clips of Republican congressional candidate Dusty Johnson asserting that a free media is important for American democracy. Johnson says, "...we absolutely have to have an independent media in this country...that is what makes the American experience work and an independent media is on a regular basis going to irritate the folks in power. That is a pretty big part of their job." Johnson goes on to say that he would tell President Trump "Mr. President, we don't have a free country without a free media." 

Granted there was a time when such statements would have been considered unnecessary but in the Age of Trump, they become refreshing and vital, especially when a Republican says them.

It's also refreshing to hear a Republican praise the use of reason. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Hayley also makes a statement that veers from the Trump playbook. After asking students at a young conservative conference if they had posted things on social media to "own the libs," she offered adult advice:

“I know that it’s fun and that it can feel good, but step back and think about what you’re accomplishing when you do this — are you persuading anyone? Who are you persuading?” Haley asked. “We’ve all been guilty of it at some point or another, but this kind of speech isn’t leadership — it’s the exact opposite.”

“Real leadership is about persuasion, it’s about movement, it’s bringing people around to your point of view,” she added. “Not by shouting them down, but by showing them how it is in their best interest to see things the way you do.”

Supporting the free press and using reason used to be givens. Now, we need to hope a few more Republicans to use facts presented by an independent media as part of their persuasive efforts instead of copying Trump's bombast, so that political debate can return to what used to be considered a a basic level of discourse.

Can Communities Survive The World of Trump?

I don't get out much. I'm not sure if it's because I took perverse pride in a report card that said "does not play well with others" or because I accepted as a gospel-like injunction Groucho Marx's statement "I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members" without knowing that it was a letter of resignation from a club.

Instead of going out, I spend too much time watching YouTube videos about fountain pens, folding knives, other everyday carry gear, comic books, and books. Many content producers discuss their own wonderful communities. There is apparently, a "fountain pen community," a "gear community," and a "BookTube community." It's unclear whether my buying more than a few pens or pocket knives and my leaving a few comments on random videos makes me a member of any of these communities, so I muse about the term community while I drink too much Koffee Kult coffee, a product that a member of the gear community introduced to me.

As the country has had a month of discussions about bakers baking or not baking cakes for same sex couples' weddings and whether a restaurant should have served Sarah Sanders, I have mused a bit more about flesh and blood communities.

That musing is why this Donald Trump tweet alarms me more than his usual bluster.

A vote for Democrats in November is a vote to let MS-13 run wild in our communities, to let drugs pour into our cities, and to take jobs and benefits away from hardworking Americans. Democrats want anarchy, amnesty and chaos - Republicans want LAW, ORDER and JUSTICE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 6, 2018

If one takes this 280 character missive seriously, then my neighbor who puts a sign for a Democratic candidate for the state legislature in his yard wants to take away my Republican neighbor's job and usher in anarchy. If my Republican neighbors truly desire justice and order, can they break bread at the church potluck with someone who wants to "let drugs pour into our cities"? Is it truly safe to let Democrat who will "let MS-13 run wild in our communities" coach little league or youth soccer? Won't they actively recruit the young'uns into gang activity?

I'm sure good Republicans will tell me this tweet is just campaign rhetoric meant to produce a few liberal tears and nothing more. Hyperbole is, after all, an accepted device for times when an author wants to nothing more than tell a big lie. Yet history is replete with examples of humans accepting and acting upon a big lie about other ethnic groups, religions, or political parties. None of those examples produced law, order, or justice.

Perhaps I have taken to heart too deeply the line from Men in Black "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals . . ." and should trust others more. However, if one reverses the line and decides that a person may become a panicky dangerous animal but people are smart, it took only one person to decide that a pizza parlor was a base for pedophiles to fire his gun inside the restaurant. I am sufficiently pessimistic to believe the next person who acts on hot rhetoric will be a better shot.

There's probably some bad joke about the fountain pen, or in this case keyboard, being mightier than the sword or watching more gear community videos to get my bugout bag or bug-in preps in order, but I'm just going to state I've start worrying that small town or large city community may not be possible when one political party sees itself as the sole protector of law order and justice and believes the other side is actively producing anarchy and chaos.

A Minor Musing About Political Coalitions

In the Rod Dreher column that provided Tuesday's quotation of the day, Dreher opines, "the postwar Republican coalition of social conservatives, economic libertarians, and foreign-policy hawks....[is] dead, or at least dying."

For most of my voting life, those groups have been better known as the Reagan coalition. Since 1980, economic libertarians have fared well. Even after the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, the Dow is over 17, 000. It was at 950.68 on the day Reagan took office. None of those responsible for the recession have been punished. The country club Gekkoites who celebrate greed have little to complain about.

The foreign policy hawks have had plenty of sabers to rattle and bombings and invasions aplenty. One wonders what more Republicans can do for the hawks who represent the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned against.

For a quick summer quiz, other than rhetoric what have Republicans provided for social conservatives who arguably have done more to provide Republicans electoral successes than any other part of the Republican coalition? For an essay question, what good reason do social conservatives have to remain in the Republican coalition?

While Dreher may have been commenting about the national Republican party in general and United States Senate Republican leaders in specific, South Dakota has its own example of a fraying coalition. Steve Hickey, a social conservative of good standing, has forcefully challenged South Dakota's usurers. They have responded by disrupting Steve Hildebrand's business, Hildebrand is Hickey's ally in the effort to limit usury in South Dakota. Meanwhile, the mouthpiece of the South Dakota's country club Republicans chortles.

The Democrat's coalition is  also in flux. The Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing of the party are certainly not fond of Hillary Clinton's Wall Street supporters. Further, one can ask what Hispanics, African-Americans, and labor unions have gained from their unwavering support of Democrats.

Were I to bet, an activity that social conservatives assail, I would lay money that the 2016 cycle will be the last cycle in which the 20th Century coalitions hold. This is not to say that social conservatives will support Democrats, but they may stay home or in state and local elections support third-party or independent options.

Mall And Republicans And Terrorism, Oh My!

I really don't want to pick on John Kasich. In a Republican field that resembles March Madness more than a presidential primary, he stands out rather positively. Unlike Donald Trump, he is not a bloviating rabble rouser appealing to the lesser angels of our nature.  He has a resume that qualifies him to be president; Ben Carson does not. He isn't running because his father and brother held the office and now it's his turn. He also pays attention to detail; therefore, he will not utter "Oops" in the middle of a debate even if he doesn't wear the Clark Kent glasses Rick Perry suddenly favors.

Further, any Republican could have said the following, but since Kasich said it, he will have to own it.

.@JohnKasich on ISIS threat: "Are we going to be safe to go to the mall?" LIVE on @cspan.org http://t.co/wfjTm4Tm5l pic.twitter.com/uaxJ9IwX6b

— Emmanuel Touhey (@netouhey) July 21, 2015

First, it's not clear if shopping has become a Republican sacrament or their cure for terrorism. After all, George W. Bush recommended Americans undertake it shortly after 9/11. What should be indisputable is the fact that the United States has more important reasons to respond to ISIS than allowing Americans to continue to buy overpriced items at Hot Topic and eat at mediocre food courts.

More importantly, the statement reflects a Republican disconnect with the American middle class. People don't go to the mall as as they used to, and terrorism doesn't seem to be a reason as this US News article reports, "More than two dozen malls have shuttered their doors since 2010, according to Green Street Advisors real estate research company, and another 60 are particularly at risk of closure." The article continues, 

“If you’re a middle-class mall, and those are your anchors, what are you going to do?” asks Davidowitz, noting that "dollar stores" and stand-alone discount retailers like Walmart and T.J. Maxx have attracted traditional mall-goers who are now looking for cheaper alternatives. “The combination of e-commerce, what’s happening to the middle class and everything else is really bad news for the malls. It’s a tough business.”

Evidence of a “permanent shift in consumer behavior” is also mounting, says Neely Tamminga, a managing director and research analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. investment bank and asset management firm.

“We talked to a thousand women on a panel every six months to gauge their spending behavior,” says Tamminga, who is involved in an ongoing research project through Piper Jaffray that began in the fall of 2013. “No matter how we ask the question, we are seeing an overall shift away from frequently going to the mall.”

Americans, in general, are not going to the mall because they are forced to look for cheaper alternatives or enjoy the convenience and affordability of e-commerce. Linking the mall to ISIS prevents any discussion about substantive ways to help the economy or contain terrorism.

A Minor Musing About What Happens When South Dakota Liberals And Conservatives Converse

Spending the past few days recovering from debate camp, dealing with the vagaries of international travel, and participating in the annual family gathering with Mrs. Plainsman's family didn't provide an opportunity to keep up with normal blog reading or write a post.

The reading I did provided two narratives about the practices of those who govern South Dakota. The first, if I may be allowed some poetic license, reads as follows:

In the beginning was the Janklow and he came and went as it pleased him and only him. And we said that it was good. Then came Rounds who begat Daugaard. It matters not who Daugaard will beget because the Dusty and the Marty are of the same cloth, the Gant having been shown to be unworthy.

The other narrative is a little less optimistic. South Dakota lacks transparency. It has ceased to be a government of, by, and for the citizens. Rather it is a government that exists to serve those who govern.

Given that non-Republicans outnumber Republicans and the Republicans right flank is dissatisfied, it should be possible to change a few of the players and create a new narrative. There is, however, one major problem: the political left and the disaffected right do not seem to speak the same language.

I think this is what those on the political right hear whenever liberals speak.



On the other hand, progressives hear this every time conservatives open their mouths.


Until those dissatisfied with the status quo learn to hear what is actually said instead of what they believe is being said, the South Dakota mainstream Republican narrative will likely always end with the following sentence:

And yea verily, it shall be this way forever and ever and it shall always be good for us and those like us. Amen.

Wadhams Hire Prompts Curiousity

This David Montgomery tweet and this Dakota War College post report the South Dakota GOP has hired Dick Wadhams as a senior political consultant. Wadhams gained fame as a key member of John Thune's 2004 campaign when Thune defeated Tom Daschle.

That victory notwithstanding, this decision seems odd.  Most recently, Wadhams served as a consultant for Mike Rounds during the 2014 Republican primary season. In that campaign Rounds' opponents were Larry Rhoden, a pale imitation of Rounds; Stace Nelson, a candidate with a concrete low ceiling; Annette Bosworth, a woman whose videos and public appearance made reality television seem to be serious art and Jason Ravnsborg, a candidate who gave new meaning to the term novice. Rounds won easily because of his weak opposition not Wadhams's advice.

In the general election, Democrats did not nominate candidates in the attorney-general, state auditor, and commissioner of school and public lands races.Further, Republicans are heavy favorites in each of the contested races, so Wadhams seems equally superfluous for this campaign

The hire prompts a variety of questions. Are the Republicans so flush with cash that they feel the need to spend some just for the sake of spending? Perhaps Wadhams is demanding a sinecure because he believes he was not properly rewarded in 2004 and the Republicans are obliging him. Neither rationale, however, seems to be one a fiscally conservative party would consider.

Perhaps party leaders are worried about some scandal coming to the fore, but Rounds, the person most likely to be harmed by known imbroglios, is in a four-way race and doesn't need to worry about capturing 50%. Is this an effort to marginalize the party's right wing? Wadhams history with the tea party is complicated to say the least.

Whatever the reason for the Wadhams hire, it illustrates that South Dakota politics is a trip that will get curiouser and curiouser as one stumbles throught the rabbit hole until the November elections

Did Republicans Really Want To Stop Obamacare?

I have to ask because I don't want to commit a logical fallcy. In this instance, it would be the either/or fallacy: Either Republicans let the Affordable Care Act pass so they would have a political issue or they are just politically inept.

The question and the desire to engage in either/or thinking is prompted by this Marco Rubio Fox News editorial. Rubio opines:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is in Tampa today, Monday, January 13, for an ObamaCare outreach event, and she owes Floridians an answer. Why should taxpayers have to bail out health insurance companies in the increasingly likely event that ObamaCare leaves them with financial losses?

The answer should be simple. Whatever larger differences we have about ObamaCare, we should completely eliminate any chance of a taxpayer-funded bailout for health insurers.

Unfortunately, this possibility exists and is growing more likely by the day.

Seriously? It has just dawned on Rubio that the Affordable Care Act could be renamed the Insurance Company Protection Act? When this legislation was originally passed, it never occured to Rubio et al that the country was weary of bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, and an insurance company (AIG) bailout? Instead of using a timely argument, they chose to have Sarah Palin swoop in on her broomstick, shriek "Death Panels" and fly off to Iowa to fail as a Presidential candidate. Did they seriously believe anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun was going to buy that argument?

Now, years after the fact and years after most of the bailout money has been repaid, they decide it's time to warn about insurance company bailouts. It does leave me wondering whether Obamacare is just a political issue not a real policy concern. I don't want to have hard evidence that national leaders are that politically inept.

Quotation Of The Day: Classic Film And Political Foolishness Edition

From this Ross Douthat column:

“THEY told me,” Martin Sheen’s Willard says to Marlon Brando’s Kurtz in “Apocalypse Now,” at the end of a long journey up the river, “that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.”

His baldness bathed in gold, his body pooled in shadow, Kurtz murmurs: “Are my methods unsound?”

And Willard — filthy, hollow-eyed, stunned by what he’s seen — replies: “I don’t see any method at all, sir.”

This is basically how reasonable people should feel about the recent conduct of the House Republicans.

Quotation Of The Day: Conservative Advice Tea Partiers Will Likely Ignore

I may disagree with John Podhoretz, but no one should question his intellect. I fear conservatives will ignore his advice and analogy:

Meanwhile, Boehner is basically the face of the US Congress in the eyes of the public. John Boehner is also the effective head of the Republican Party. And the US Congress is viewed favorably by . . . 11 percent of Americans. 

Eleven percent.

When I interact with these conservatives, they say they don’t care about the GOP; what they care about are conservative ideas.

They’re right not to assign special glory or power to a political organization and to hold ideas above party. But here’s the condundrum: There is only one electoral vehicle for conservative ideas in the United States — the Republican Party.

It’s one thing to refuse to waste your time buffing and polishing the vehicle so that it looks nice and pretty; that’s what political hacks do, and ideologues have every right to disdain such frippery.

But if, in the guise of making the vehicle function better, you muck up the engine, smash the windshield, put the wrong tires on it and pour antifreeze in the gas tank, you are impeding its forward movement. You’re ruining it, not repairing it.

It may not have been a very good vehicle in the first place, and you may think it couldn’t drive worse, but oh man, could it ever. And it’s the only one you’ve got.

Quotation OF The Day: You Can't Get What You Want If You Don't Know What You Want Edition

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

"We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

-- Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), quoted by the Washington Examiner, on the government shutdown.

Quotation Of The Day: The Political Circus May Well Get Weirder Edition

From Reihan Salam writing at that noted left-wing journal (sarcasm alert) National Review Online:

My sense is that the disarray and dysfunction currently on display in Congress flows from campaign finance regulations that have weakened broad-based, national political parties while strengthening solo political entrepreneurs. Many of us hope that some future Republican presidential nominee will be able to impose order on the GOP’s congressional wing. But it is just as easy for me to imagine a popular Republican president facing ferocious attacks from a minority of opportunistic legislators aided by allied independent expenditure groups. [Emphasis Mine}

What's Conservative About Shutting Down The Government Or Defaulting To Repeal Obamacare?

Conservatives claim they respect the Constitution as framed by America's founders. Further, I can remember former President George W. Bush repeating "I trust the American people" as if the sentence were an incantation against all evil.

On ABC's This Week Matt Dowd, former George W. Bush political strategist, points out that contemporary politicians seem to have trust issues:

Well first I want to say after watching your interview with the Foreign Minister of Iran. It's somewhat amazing and ironic that more reasonable and enlightenment is coming out of the Middle East than is coming out of Washington D.C. these days. With everything that's happened with Syria and the chemical weapons and all that, it's like we're now in a situation where we have to look at ourselves and say, why isn't our own act in order?

One of the biggest problems that's going on I think in this country today, this government shutdown, which everybody knows is a bad idea and ultimately will be bad for the Republicans and they only hope it's only temporarily bad.

That is that way is, there's a large part of both parties that refuses to accept what actually is going on. So they don't, if they don't like the result of an election, they contest the election. If they don't like the result of a legislative something passing the Senate, passing the House, signed by the president, which is the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, we actually have a situation, we should accept it.

I have some disagreements with it. I think there's great parts of it. I think there's great parts of it. I think there's some parts of it that could be problematic. But it is the law and we should accept it. But part of the problem is in our politics today is that we refuse to accept our institutions, our legislation and our elections

If Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare, a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court,  there's a simple constitutional way to do it. Win the White House in 2016.

Republicans have gerrymandered themselves a House Majority until 2022. Even if Democrats retain a Senate majority in 2016, that number will not be filibuster proof. With a Republican in the White House, any tea party Republican competent enough to get elected to either the U.S. House or Senate will be able chip away at Obamacare until it's gone.

Until then, the tea party House members need to remember that in 2012 the American people elected Barack Obama, returned the Democrats to a majority in the Senate, and gave more votes to House Democrats than House Republicans.

Of course, it's possible that all of the talk about trusting the American people and respecting original intent is just talk.

Republicans Seem To Have Forgotten Congress Is Not Parliment

Steve Benen provides the following chart about the budget and debt ceiling negotiations.

I'll leave it to partisans on both sides to determine the table's accuracy.

This chart, however, does point to another problem: the Republican effort to treat Congress as if it were a parliament. A couple of weeks ago, Representative Justin Amash (R-M) gave voice to the attitude:

“You have to start with a Republican proposal. We have a Republican majority [in the House] that was elected by Republicans. Let’s start with a Republican proposal.

If the United States were a parliamentary system with a largely ceremonial upper house, John Boehner would be the chief executive. The Republicans would pass their proposals under the Hastert Rule, and no one should complain. However, even my young policy debaters run enough Federalism DAs to know that congresspersons and senators are elected to represent districts and states not political parties. They also know that the Senate is not ceremonial.

The chart indicates a Republican wish list, but, to trot out a tried but true cliche, elections have consequences. Obama defeated Romney quite handily. Democrats control the United States Senate. Republicans may control the United States House of Representatives, but Democrats got more total votes than Republicans did in House races. If Republicans want to pass these proposals, they need to win the White House in 2016 or the Senate in 2014.

When one uses institutions for purposes other than which they were created, the institutions often crumble and lose credibility. Using the House of Representatives as a House of Commons is a huge crack in federalist system established by the Constitution.

Quotation Of The Day: The South Dakota Republican Divide Illustrated Perfectly (Update)

David Montgomery reports that Joel Rosenthal may have misquoted Stace Nelson. I will stand by my post's title: Rosenthal and Nelson do illustrate the South Dakota Republican Party divide between the status quo and vociferous insurgency.

To What End?

That's my question for most Republicans lately.

Shantel Krebs wants to help Republicans win every South Dakota election. Would South Dakota's government really do things differently with a Democrat on the PUC or serving as the state auditor? Would a Democrat in the secretary of state's office expose deep, secret corruption? Gant seems far too incompetent to be efficiently corrupt. What do voters gain with Republicans in every state office?

On a national level, Republicans are promising to defund Obamacare. Will defunding do anything to stop implementation? Will it stop the IRS from producing a new tax form that requires citizens to self-report whether they have insurance just like they self-report their income? It's unlikely that defunding will remove the individual mandate that roused the tea party ire. Once Obamacare is defunded or repealed, is there any plan proposed to replace the program?

We always hear that elected politicians are public servants. That appellation holds only if they seek to serve the common good not merely destroy their political rivals. Since Republican candicates at the state and national level seem more interested in the latter, I'll have to keep asking the same question: "to what end?"

Quotation Of The Day: The South Dakota Republican Divide Illustrated Perfectly

From this Joel Rosenthal post about the Lincoln County Lincoln Day Dinner:

Stace Nelson whom I have never met and only know through his reputation at the highlight of his speech unequivocally said,

“ I am a Christian, Conservative, and a Republican. You can’t be the third unless you are the first two.” 

Such xenophobic logic has no place in our political debate. Taken on its face, since Christ was a Jew, would he not meet the Nelson Republican Litmus Test? – And be denied to be a Republican?

Further I do believe there are elements of Judeo Christian thought that are shared by Republican philosophy. I.e., the Republican Party was founded in part on wanting to eliminate Slavery. Clearly the GOP and true Christians share values. Christians (if I understand correctly) like Jews believe in clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, comforting the afflicted. Many Democrats share these values as well. The difference lie between the parties and yes factions within our political parties as to whether churches, charities, or the government should be responsible.

Does John Boehner Attend Cosplay Conventions As Emperor Palpatine?

Yesterday, before South Dakota bloggers gained status as journalists, many viewed bloggers as people who behaved the way John Clayton does in this ESPN Sports Center advertisement:

Politicians, of course, are far more serious individuals. They serve on select committees, create laws, and determine the course the nation will take. Unless, of course, one happens to be a Republican House member who advises Speaker John Boehner how to proceed on the debt ceiling. Then one can be a member of the Jedi Council:

One example of where the fissure line is: A letter calling on leadership to use the CR to defund Obamacare authored by Representative Mark Meadows split the “Jedi Council,” a secretive group of top conservatives helping Boehner sketch a debt-ceiling strategy. Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise signed the letter, while Paul Ryan, Tom Price, and Jeb Hensarling did not.

The group is as secretive as any collection of pop culture enthusiasts who take their obsession one step too far:

The House’s Jedi Council is unusually secretive. No aides are permitted to attend their meetings. At their June 13 meeting, they decided not to give interviews about the group, amid concerns that doing so could interfere with delicate negotiations, after which they did not provide any assistance for this article. Ryan’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the topic at all. In its first two years, almost no one knew the group existed, and nobody could identify anything it had done. In the last Congress, both Hensarling and Price were part of the House leadership team, and Jordan was RSC chairman; their formal positions of power may have helped obscure any coordination among them. 

The lawmaker Jedi wannabes also seem to have a fondness for cosplay:

If the fact that the five lawmakers named their group after a piece of Star Wars trivia doesn’t convince you they are nerds, you may be interested to learn that they once posed for a photograph wielding toy lightsabers.

I seriously wish this were a joke, but the fact that people setting our nation's policy are taking their lead from movie characters who were ultimately defeated and had their beloved Republic turned into an evil empire is somehow disconcerting, especially since some Jedi Council members hastened the Republic's demise by ignoring the central issues facing the Republic. I won't go into the comparisons between corporate cronyism and the Commerce Guild.

Granted, Obi Wan and Yoda went into exile and were able to assist rebels who ultimately defeated Palpatine and Darth Vader. Unfortunately, I don't see any congressperson with Obi Wan's wisdom. Vader would likely observe, "The Force is weak in these ones." As for one of them approaching the level of Yoda, I believe the real Jedi master would say, "Like Yoda none of you are."

As a blogger who has a real job and doesn't live in his Mom's basement, I have only one thing to say the lawmakers who seem to have confused fiction with reality: Grow up, do your jobs, and leave the cosplay to those who know they're doing.

The South Dakota Senate Campaign In 280 Characters Or Less*

It's promising to get ugly before Nelson even officially announces.

@ArgusMontgomery Oppo on @roundsforsenate & @rhodenforsenate #SDSEN fills a phonebook. Don't worry...
— RINO Mike (@RinoMikeSD) August 13, 2013

*Update: I suppose I should point out that correct grammar usage is fewer before someone calls me on it in comments. Less just seemed to fit better.

A Minor Musing About Political Party Purity

Andrew Sullivan points to the following Seth Masket maps based on state legislators' ideology. Based on data compiled by Boris Shaw and Nolan McCarty, the maps show the "location of the most ideologically extreme state parties." Masket writes a state generally has only one ideologically stubborn party; the other is usually moderate:

[T]he typical pattern is for one party to be pretty extreme while the other is pretty moderate. And that pattern shows up more or less where you'd expect it. For example, New York Democrats are very liberal because they can be, while New York Republicans are moderate because they have to be. Flip that around for Mississippi.

The maps use the requisite blue to illustrate Democrats' ideology and standard red for Republicans. The darker shades obviously show a more intensely ideological party membership in a state's legislature.

Granted the shading doesn't provide the most specific detail, but the data show a few surprises and confirm a few stereotypes. Minnesota's Democrats have the greatest ideological purity among the states' Democratic parties; that should surprise no one. I was, however, surprised to discover that Montana's Republican legislators exhibited more ideological fervor than South Dakota's Republican legislators.

The maps confirm another supposition I have had. The Republican and Democratic legislators in the Dakotas have a wider gap between them in terms of their ideological ardor than Republicans and Democrats in neighboring Wyoming, Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska do. Those other states differ by only one shade, but the Dakotas show a two shade difference in ideological zeal.

The maps prompt the following conclusions. First, the charge that the South Dakota legislature is populated with RINOs is specious at best. It may be laughable. Second, the state's Democrats either don't have a left flank, or they have few members willing to run and carry water for the liberal cause. Finally, given the gap in ideological fervor between the parties' members in the legislature, South Dakotans can expect more of the same when the legislature convenes next January.

Do Montana Republicans Plagiarize Their Neighbors' Work?

Everyone should know that plagiarism is taking another's words or ideas without attribution. Some Montana Republicans are apparently paraphrasing Dakota War College comments without giving the authors credit.

For example, some Montana Republicans want Montana Republican candidates to take a "loyalty oath."

As a divided Montana Republican Party gathers Friday in Bozeman for its annual state convention, a former legislator for the GOP is suggesting the party should rate its candidates and officeholders on how they uphold party principles – and perhaps withhold support from those who don’t.

“How many times can you vote against (Republican principles) and still be a Republican?” asks Derek Skees, a one-term state representative from Whitefish who ran unsuccessfully for state auditor last year.

The Missoulian article continues:

Skees, an outspoken conservative, recently sent an email to fellow conservatives within the party, asking whether they’d support a party resolution to create “unity principles” that candidates must largely support if they expect help from the Montana GOP. 

He also said if a Republican legislator’s votes showed lack of support for the principles, he or she could be targeted for defeat in the next Republican primary election.

With all due respect to the Missoulian the proposal sounds more like a scorecard than a "loyalty oath":

Skees, a convention delegate, said he’s still refining his proposal, but the general idea is to choose perhaps 10 basic principles the define Republicans and use them to rate a Republican lawmaker’s votes or what a GOP candidate stands for.

If they vote or disagree more than 20 percent of the time, for example, then they wouldn’t get support from the party – and voters would be informed on the ratings as well, he said.

Skees said identifying the true conservatives will help the party win elections, because a majority of Montana voters are conservatives and want to vote for those who will represent them.

Republican legislators who voted with Democrats on key issues during the Legislature “severely damaged the credibility of the Republican Party in the state of Montana,” he said.

Recent DWC comments have many comments filled with scorecard love like the following:

And as far as what Kristi has said or promised, it really doesn’t mean much. While I listen to the words, it is the ACTIONS that matter and the SCORECARDS DON’T LIE. When you have a legislator with a voting record of around 60% when measured against conservative principles, they are not a strong conservative.

There have also been comments excoriating Republicans who vote with Democrats:

Imagine that, seems House [Minority] Leader Bernie Hunhoff, and EVERYONE of the Democrats in the South Dakota Legislature, agree with Rep Hoffman & former Senator Schoenbeck and want MORE government & MORE taxes:

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bill.aspx?Bill=SCR3

Let the words sink in, “Republicans” advocating for MORE taxes even though there is no identified imperative need for the monies to be taken away from South Dakotans. “Republicans” advocating that MORE government is good, and that we need MORE government involvement in our lives.

DWC commenters also love the Republican platform. There's this comment:

The platform is also what we Republicans say is how we are going to fix the problems that are affecting South Dakotans. If you think raising taxes, increasing government spending, and expanding government is the answer.. then you are working against what Republicans believe is the answer and that is to reduce taxes, spending, and government.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim to be a Republican to get elected? Then vote like one when elected.

If you can’t support the party platform, then run as an Independent.

And this one:

If they promote liberal policies and oppose conservative ones, they are the ones I was talking about. You can read the GOP platform to find out what conservative principles are, in case you are clueless about that. Once you understand what conservative principles are, it’s easy to know who I was talking about.

I think you owe Republicans who believe in Republican values, and are being betrayed by these frauds, an apology–as do those who are betraying those values.

The South Dakota folk even talk about the party making sure that candidates are pure:

Republicans in elected leadership positions governing and legislating like liberals. However, I think we need to be judicious in culling these RINOs from the herd. We cannot just wave a magic wand and have them all immediately disappear.

Some of this has been going on for so long I am not even sure if all Republicans really truly understand what conservative principles and values are. Perhaps if they took some time to study these issues, they may think a little differently when they look in the mirror? Maybe it would even help them govern and legislate a little more like true conservatives?

The most distressing thing is how many in the party treat the far right conservatives. They are driving a wedge between them and the Republican Party that is only pushing them further away. Yes, these conservatives are passionate about their beliefs, but they are not wrong. They may be overly aggressive in their efforts to cull RINOs from the herd, but they are not wrong. And yes they may be misguided in some of the ways they try to accomplish their mission, but they are not wrong. The Republican Party is being taken over by progressive liberals.

Perhaps if the Republican Party was to exert a little “quality control” over who wears the big red “R”, that just might solve all of the problems? But no, I see none of that occurring. Their energy is spent on trying to marginalize the conservatives who are passionate about the conservative values and principles that should be the foundation of the Republican Party. That is what I see as WRONG. 

One would think the Montana Republicans could be more original. If I were a DWC commenter, I'd be angry they were taking ideas without giving credit.

HT: Montana Cowgirl