Contending with a “sibbyish” state of mind.
As you probably notice below, I had to stop and count to ten before I responded to one of Steve Sibson’s most recent postings. And before I could do so, I find myself having to respond to another. When I read them, I kind of found them irritating. And I gathered from his on-line musings that Steve was flying off the handle. (Just a bit.)
As Steve wrote….
I am started to think that Pat Powers believes that I am bad for the South Dakota GOP. He pretty much came right out and said it last week by comparing me to the MAINstream coalition.
and…
And Pat Powers thinks that I should, even though he doesn’t think Todd Epp has to disclose his source in the post I mentioned at the top. Kranz doesn’t name names all the time neither. Where would Watergate gone without Deep Throat? Common folk who blow the whistle on the powers end up attacked if their identities are not protected.
Today, I am beginning to understand why most people want to stay away from the political arena. It is a place where the truth doesn’t matter. It is a place where there are two sets of rules. One set for the common folks, and none for the ruling elites.
I read that, and my immediate thought was “what brought that on?” I mean, I disagree with Steve on a couple of points – not ones I thought were terribly contentions – and I get a whole post or two from Steve devoted to “I did this” and “you sided with people on that.”
Steve goes after me for not taking Todd Epp at SD Watch to task for not revealing his source on people being in attendance in a meeting. This is in comparison to a statement I made calling it “a bold claim” of Steve’s that Argus Leader reporter Dave Kranz tried to stop the distribution of a book in Sioux Falls. In case the distinction has been lost, Steve is taking umbrage at the fact I might consider there is a difference between people attending a meeting, and an act which could impact someone professionally despite Steve’s claim about “not about destroying Dave Kranz.” And Todd never really came to mind when I wrote it.
The second part of Steve’s rant has (according to Steve) that I supposedly believe that he’s bad for the GOP and that I’m comparing him “to the MAINstream coalition.” What was my crime here? I wrote about Steve being involved with the SDCAC.
Despite the accusation, My point is (and was) the same for this fledgling splinter group as it was for the MAINstreamers – dividing up the GOP doesn’t help us win elections. It’s what the Dems want us to do. So, god forbid, I was consistent, despite my love for the conservative point of view and basically said “That’s nice, but I’m not sure how it benefits the party.”
Not exactly a thrashing, was it?
And because of those two points I made, Steve seems to be increasingly convinced of his other bone of contention – that I think he’s bad for the GOP. Which leads me to wonder if that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
First, I think “the ruling elite” would disagree that they have anything to do with me. Last I knew, I tended to tweak them from time to time as an agent of change. It certainly didn’t earn me many brownie points under the last GOP Chair. Second, Steve needs to realize that not everyone is out to get him. We’re allowed to be Republicans and disagree with one another. You know, you have opinions, I have opinions, and majority rules.
But there’s part of his rants that are irritating me more than the rest:
So how would it work out if I switch to Independent? It doesn’t look like I am getting any support from the SD GOP, so what the heck. At least I won’t be going as far as the MAINstream coalition and join in with the Democrats. I can say the leadership of both sides are not out for the little guy, myself included.
And if the Democrats want to thank anybody, thank Pat Powers, Lee Schoenbeck, Larry Rhoden, and Kranz’s anonymous sources. (from here)
and…
This is all getting me to think about my current political status. If I have to walk in lock-step with the powers that are in the SD GOP, then I am done. Perhaps I should go back to being an Independent and see how that changes the District 20 Senate race in 2008. (from here.)
Remember that part where I wonder if Steve is making self-fulfilling prophecy?
We have someone who first wants to run for office under the GOP banner, and because (in his mind) a couple people he perceives as being high up in the party might disagree with him on a couple of minor, even silly points, he wants to bail out, register independent and infers he wants to be a spoiler in the race?
Steve, I hadn’t thought this until now, but you’ve changed that. Don’t bother running. You don’t have what it takes.
You talk tough on the keyboard, but when it comes to true intestinal fortitude to possibly face a tough election, you’re saying it isn’t there. Because some people in the GOP aren’t bending over to kiss your rear-end, you’re bailing out. Someone doesn’t like me so I’m going to run as an independent. Someone doesn’t like me, so I’m going to make sure the GOP loses. That’s the exact same behavior I accuse Stan Adelstein of. You raised the roof earlier over any possible comparisons to the MAINStream, and now you’re exhibiting the same behavior.
Does that make you proud?
All it shows is that politically, it’s not about making South Dakota better – it’s all about the attention that you can get. The people I see running and encourage to run for these offices have something you don’t. They have the courage of their convictions. They’re the people who despite tough odds, give it a go because they believe it matters. Everyone writes them off, and yet win or lose, they still persevere. They don’t ask for an easy race to be handed to them.
Brock Greenfield did it in several elections. Isaac Latterell almost did it this last election, and even though he lost, he’s probably going to give it another shot. Or how about Dennis Schmidt, Arnie Hauge, and the others who took on a tough fight this last election. They didn’t worry about who liked them. They did it because they believed it was important enough to fight for.
Steve, you whine that someone in the party doesn’t like you. Well, tough sh*t. That has a tendency to happen in politics. The rest of the world lives with it. The bottom line is that either you have what it takes, or you don’t.
By your comments and behavior today, I tend to believe the latter.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
PP – you pathetic, godless, secular humanist, liberal, drive-by blogger. Sibby is the Godfather of the conservative South Dakota blogosphere and you should be kissing his ring and his ass. Don’t you get it?
The fact that you spent as much time as you did contemplating the idiocy that is Steve Sibson is actually quite troubling.
But please don’t discourage him from running. It looks like 2008 is going to be a rather quiet cycle. Having Sibby on the ballot would certainly change that. And it would give both he and you an opportunity to see where the rank-and-file Republicans in his community felt about his brand of conservatisim (or maybe that’s what he’s really afraid of).
But alas, he won’t run. He doesn’t have the guts. For all his talk about conviction, values, and courage — in the end, he’ll blame you, the party leadership, and everyone else under the sun and say they were out to get him and that he couldn’t run. Ironically, in the end, he’ll want us to believe that he’s a victim. That’s the sad thing about his brand of conservatism — it’s a conservatism of conspiracies and victimization.
Ronald Reagan would not be proud.
Sorry Jack. I didn’t actually spend that much time on it. I’m working today as well.
This Sibson NTAC is afraid of losing, plain and simple. It’s much easier to zing arrows from the sidelines than it is to actually put some skin in the game…or in Sibson’s case, some excessive hair. Grow up, you baby.
Here is the problem. Steve sets himself up an easy mark for the libs and Dems — and some Republicans. As long as he is seen as a voice for the GOP in SD — kind of the Unruh of the pro-life movement — we have a bit of a problem. Steve is as shrill as some of his lib Dem counterparts, and it does not reflect well on him or the party… Don’t get me wrong. It’s not so much (well, at least some of the time) what Steve says — it is how he says it. Sadly, he’s a caricature of what the libs love to target. That being said, there are a couple of people who post on this blog whom I consider to be articulate voices for SGOPers. One in particular is Troy Jones (? I think), whom I do not know, and know nothing about (I haven’t been in SD very long). I just like what he says and how he says it. In my opinion, as someone who has observed and participated in politics in a number of states, that is the sort of commentary we need. One of the reasons I came here is because I thought SD was a conservative Red State. I am beginning to doubt that, and am hoping that some credible, articulate people will come forward to run for state legislative and federal offices. Otherwise I might have to find a conservative Congressional district someplace, since there don’t seem to many entire states that are reliably Red.
All is not well in My Creation when two of My most trusted disciples clash like this.
Kiss and make up or I will transform your solar system into a Black Hole.
Remember, I am in control here. Smite not lest ye be smited.
Shame on both of you for acting like Rush Linbaugh and Hillary Clinton.
Get back on topic with some good political insight and stop the trash talk.
You are just not that important. Keep it up and your readers will read something else, just probably not the Argus.
7: You are right on…Sibby is just way to easy of a target. I know – I’ve done my best to stir him up a time or two just for the joy of watching him freak out. For the first six months or so I read his blog, I thought it was some kind of elaborate joke (like http://www.landoverbaptist.com). Then I realized that the guy actually bought into what he was saying. I didn’t know if I should laugh, or take up a collection for therapy. The best thing that he could do for the GOP is to leave(as a Democrat, I hope that he stays…but for your sakes, he should leave). Much like Rosie O’Donnell in my party – there are some people who should just STFU(acronym for Shut the Furry-bearded-mouth Up). They hurt far more than they help.
#7 — I do agree with you on Troy Jones and while I’ll not agree with him on some things, I do respect him and his voice here. (Hey, he brought about George McGovern Bobblehead night, I’m still smiling over that night.)
I also agree with you regarding Sibby and the caricature analogy and wonder how any of you can take some of the extreme views so seriously. I also feel a bit bad for the guy, it’s gotta be awful to have this “either you are totally with me or you are evil” and “secular humanist” conspiracy type world view. If he did run, I really don’t know if he’d like the results or seeing the percentage that DON’T buy into the Limbaugh/Weekly World News, er whatever that publication he cuts, copies, and pastes from. I kinda hoped that the times he opened up his comments, he’d be open to listening or at least reading other viewpoints. Maybe hearing these viewpoints and wisdom from fellow members of the GOP is a good thing.
I always said that Sibson was the puppy the right never kicked…Way to go PP! Its about time someone REALLY put Sibby in his place!
Comment #7 has it right. Sibby has experienced multiple vicious attacks as does any outspoken right winger in SD. It tends to get very old and most of us eventually give it up. We have found that self imolation of the left (such as Hill’s example last night) is sufficient to keep the blue team in check.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 
Cheers! Sandra. R.
Wow!