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..

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.’

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?