Who defines a conservative? I can tell you who doesn’t.
I see this morning that Sibby is once again devoting entirely too much time to me. Good gosh, it must have taken him an entire hour or so to cut and paste that article, as he tries to continue his spin against my asking a few simple questions about the SDCAC.
First, I’m apparently part of a decades old master plan by former Governor Janklow to split the GOP. Then, I’m part of a more recent plot by the South Dakota Blog Watch Man to split the GOP because he poked at Steve (Sibby’s heated reactions to being called a hillbilly could be downright hilarious).
And of course, add to the invective against me as springing forth from the imagination of Steve that apparently “I did this, and I did that, etcetera.” And BY GOD the SDCAC will be the determinant of who IS and who ISN’T a conservative in South Dakota.
Please. Give me a break.
So, we have an out of state transplant, a former Democrat who calls everyone secular humanists or worse, and a mayoral candidate who allegedly wanted radiation shelters built as part of new Sioux Falls housing construction.
And according to Sibby, that’s who is going to tell me I’m not a conservative? Again, give me a break.
You see, I think you have to consider the source of such criticism. And in the case of Sibby, I have considered the source. And found it very, very lacking.
When I have substantive discussions of what constitutes both conservative and liberal ideologies, I look to leaders in the movements. I look to elected officials, and people who have been involved with the Republican party for decades. And that’s decades.
We agree, we disagree, we might even strongly disagree to the extent we have to cool off for a few days before talking again. But at the bottom of it, there’s a mutual respect of each other’s positions, and their basic goodness. No matter how misguided I might think they are, because I’m ALWAYS right (yes, that was a joke). They have their position, and their life experience, and I have mine.
That’s why I consider Sibby’s invective and pokes at my conservatism (or lack thereof) the moral equivalent of farting into the wind. He’s only been a Republican for a few years. To my knowledge, he’s never held a position in the party. God knows he’s never ran for anything, and the one time he indicated he might, he became a weak sister before the contest even began, turning tail to run (away, not for office).
It’s a matter of what you might term “street cred.” And as far as politics are concerned, Steve really doesn’t have much.
The latest round of sustained invective from Sibby comes as a result of my asking ten very straightforward, simple questions of the group who indicated that it is their intent to “define those who are true conservatives and who are not.”
If their intent is to try to be leaders in the conservative movement in South Dakota, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request to ask who they are, what their qualifications are to make determinations of who is or who isn’t a conservative, what their organization is going to do for conservatives, and what they’re going to do for the GOP?
To this point, those ten questions have sat, mostly unanswered. Steve’s form of response has been evasion and invective. We’ve heard fluff and bluster. We’ve heard questionable spin, and bullsh*t. But not answers. Which keeps me wondering – why are these questions so tough to answer?
The thing is, conservatives are by definition not fools. We want the best value for our dollars and investment of time. If Sibby wants conservatives in South Dakota to consider his group, he needs to stop the attacks, and give us reason to believe in the SDCAC. He needs to give us straightforward, direct answers. Something that has been lacking to date.
The ten questions are still out there. If Steve can’t or won’t answer them, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for conservatives to look elsewhere for leadership.
Because they sure aren’t going to get it from him.
(p.s. – I didn’t cut and paste more than a sentence of this)
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
Adapted from “Slingblade” screenplay:
Karl to boy’s mother (to cheer her up):
‘There’s these two ol’ boys a pissin” ofn’ a bridge. One of ‘em says “the water’s cold.” T’other’n’ says “it’s deep.” Umm Hmm.’
I suspect Sibby gets more reading from this site than he does his own. I am not sure why you even bother with answering him. The sooner you ignore him, the sooner people will not be reading his blog in any numbers.
#1, I couldn’t agree more. They are nobodys. Just a couple gun nuts that have way over stayed their internet 15 minutes of fame. They’re an embarrassment to anybody who has been a Republican for more than the 15 minutes Sibby has.
PP, time to cut them off. You only are making yourself look bad engaging with them. Candidates and policy wonks don’t respond to Sibby, they post here. Give them the respect they deserve for standing for election by running a real issues forum. Leave Sibby & Co. with the JAIL & black helicopter crowd where they belong.
As a friend reminded me privately, Yes, I know you all are right, and I should ignore Sibby. His moral authority on conservatism is as substantive as Lynne Spears parenting skills.
(Oops! I did it again, didn’t I.)
It was probably the supposition that they’re now going to “judge” who is conservative and who is not that got me cranky before I got my coffee. Just a little too self-righteous to let go when I should have.
Thanks for the reminder.
Just when I thought Bruce was about to challenge Sib-dilly-ding-dong as the wackiest ship in the navy, Sibby orders full steam ahead into the Straits of Jackass.
PP – Just make a rule that you will NEVER mention SDCAC or Sibby again. I think the other posters are right – they only get attention because you talk about them. They are free to set up whatever organization they want, and you are free to ignore it.
PP-I don’t think the organization is going to “judge” who is and who isn’t conservative. They may get involved and donate money in races (including primaries) where the party won’t via a PAC. The groups determination will be reflected in which candidates they support. Obviously it is still to early to determine since not everyone has announced their intentions.
Hmm. This is how I see it.
PP used to go on record supporting Sibby – not his ideas, per se, but his right to express them. And while PP still doesn’t say Sibby shouldn’t be allowed to express his ideas, he doesn’t have the same defensive tone he used to take when he stood up for the Sibster. I mean, he said it was good that Sibby was running on the Republican ticket. PP said that.
Seems PP changes his tune now that Sibby’s tone – which hasn’t changed one bit – is now focused on PP, instead of somewhere else.
Does NO ONE else see that Sibby is making the same charges against PP (that he’s a liberal, that he’s divisive) that PP makes against Stan and the other mainstreamers?
PP criticizes the SDCAC for wanting to be the authority of conservatism – but, apparently, that’s the right of PP. PP is qualified, apparently, because he’s been involved in the GOP for decades.
How about the Duane Sutton’s and J.P. Duniphans of this world – the REPUBLICANS who were defeated by “more conservative” republicans in the last election. PP was happy to see that go down. He did tallys and all that jive.
How long have they been involved in the Republican party? Do they have street cred, or just PP? Who decides who has the right amount of street cred to be good enough for PP.
PP, you have a right to be arrogant. Your run a great blog, and lots of people read you. But, when provoked, you attack – you bring the wood and argue with the best of them. There little diplomacy in your calls for revenge.
Your aguments now against Sibby reflect your two-faced stance on who is and who isn’t allowed to be a Republican, as well as who is and who isn’t allowed to form a definition of what republicans are.
And, Sibby’s right… the SDCAC’s foundations are almost directly from the Republican Party’s platform.
Why aren’t they working from within the party? Well, my guess is…people like you.
I see CAC has a sign up on a building in Pierre. Wonder how long that will last. The way I see it the only way they’ll make it past next summer, is if they’re cashing checks from Steve Kirby. I suspect that’s more likely than not. Leave it to Steve to run with the whack jobs.
I disagree that PP shouldn’t talk about the SDCAC, and that his criticism of Stan prevents him from criticizing the SDCAC. Those who speak on behalf of our movement — either elected Republicans like Stan, or self-appointed organizational leaders like Sibby, Breard and Lora — have a profound impact on how Republicans and conservatives are perceived in the state. There ought to be a robust debate as to who the public leaders of our movement should be.
I don’t think Stan should be an elected leader of the Republican party because he’s too liberal for my tastes (and that’s why we have primaries). I don’t think Sibby, Lee or Lora should be spokespeople for the conservative movement because (and I’m not trying to offend), I think they lack the talent to be the public spokespeople for conservatives in South Dakota. They started this organization without any record of achieving results — Lee’s behavior in the 2006 election was despicable and his campaign could hardly be called successful (even Bruce seems to agree). Sibby hasn’t done anything besides register for a free blog at blogs.com, make some outrageous comments, and get himself banned from the Rapid City Journal’s blog. Lora couldn’t get even get 3% of the vote in her own hometown. They might all be nice people (although given Lee’s wikipedia charges and Sibby’s endless venom, I wouldn’t bet on it), but they’re simply not qualified to speak on behalf of me, or any other conservative in South Dakota.
For any political movement or party, image matters. Corporations spend millions to enhance and protect their brands, and if you care about conservative politics in South Dakota, you ought to care about who is out there purporting to represent you. I’ve never had a problem with Sibby so long as he was just a bad speller with a cut-and-paste problem spouting his own opinions. After the wikipedia thing, I thought we’d never hear from Lee again. But when these guys started claiming that they represented conservatives in South Dakota — people like me — that’s when I’m going to hold them to a higher standard. If you want to claim to speak for me, you’re damn right I’m going to make sure you’re up to the job.
Let me be clear, I’m not advocating that we willy-nilly kick anyone out of the party, or kick anyone out of the conservative movement based upon loyalty oaths or litmus tests. Primaries are a wonderful way for Republicans to decide who we want to represent us on the ballot(see Ellie vs. Stan). The party convention gives all Republicans a chance to select our party’s leadership. Membership organizations with elections are a good way for members to select leaders of particular groups. Winning a primary, winning a party chairmanship, or being elected by members to represent an organization gives you legitimacy. Merely claiming to be a leader does not.
I hope Sibby, Lee and Lora get involved in primaries, and let their opinons be heard. But we ought to be thoughtful about choosing our leaders, and we should never just let someone be a self-proclaimed leader and public face of our movement “just because.”
If you want to step up and claim be the spokesperson for all conservatives in South Dakota, that’s fine — but you better be prepared to prove yourself qualified to lead… especially when your track record raises more questions than answers.
Sibby, Lee and Lora have every right to start the SDCAC. Pat has every right to question them (even if they stonewall on getting him answers). And I have every right to comment when someone purports to represent me.
They have a nice sign. I might have to go check out the office. See what sort of literature they have. I wonder if Steve will be lobbying this year.
I see Steve still can’t answer the questions:
http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2007/12/wolves-in-sheep.html
And my offer still stands. I’ll show him mine, if he shows his first.
Answers that is..
Hey Pat…I just wanted to comment in hopes of you reading it and taking it to heart. I am a very loyal reader. I read your blog almost every day. I love the coverage you give to state politics. I do, however, find myself checking it less and less every week. It is because half of the articles written are bickering between you and other bloggers. I don’t know about the rest of your readership, but I am sincerely disappointed in your coverage lately. Maybe I’m alone here, but I don’t care much about Sibby and the 4 other bloggers that visit his blog. Please return to covering the topics of our state with the passion and wit you once did. That’s what brought your readers here in the first place.
Anon, I’m not insensitive to your likes and dislikes. And yes, I’ll quit talking about the hillbilly.
Well said, PP. The biggest problem with the CAC (pronounced “cack”) is that it’s leadership (or lack thereof). The only reason anyone in the state knows who Steve Sibson is because of the weird things he writes on his blog. Lee Breard’s claim to fame is spreading lies about Stephanie Herseth Sandlin being knocked up by her Chief of Staff. Lora Hubbel is local political gadfly best known for being one of the most unpopular candidates for mayor since that guy with the homeless guy with the hot dog cart ran against Gary Hanson. Even Skippy Blechinger has more support in Sioux Falls than Lora Hubbel.
Sibby is a nut. His greatest political accomplishment was to sign up for a blog (the same claim to fame held by something like 100,000,000 high school sophmore girls), and to to violate copyright laws by stealing content from World Net Daily and Rush Limbaugh’s website. Breard led a Republican candidate to getting 30% of the vote in a Republican state, made a fool of himself in the process, and his former boss is publicly disavowing this little venture. Hubbel is the nutty political gadfly that is always hanging around city hall, and when she finally did run for office, she pulled in a whopping 2.2% of the vote. Had she doubled her vote total, she still would have ended up with less than 5%.
So these are the self-proclaimed leaders of the conservative movement. A guy with a blog, a discredited former campaign manager who ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the state, and a candidate for mayor who pulled in a whopping 2.2%
Where do I sign up?