The prince of the ozarks returns…
I see the Sibmeister has returned from his vacation just in time to take a couple of pokes at me. Apparently, I’m not his favorite person anymore because I disagree with portions of Initiated Measure 10.
Acting as the propaganda wing of the SDCAC, the Sibinator persists in trying to convince us all that we should ignore that huge pile of cash behind the curtain, and that in fact it is of such nobility that we should in fact consider it “Hamiltonian” that the SDCAC is prostituting itself out to some unnamed out-of-state interest, and acting as their conduit to buy the election on this measure.
Sorry. When 0.5% of the donations to a campaign are from legitimate, identifiable South Dakotans, and 95.5% of them come from a mystery source that likely originates from out of state, it’s anything but “Hamiltonian.”
If Sibby and the SDCAC want government to be “open and clean,” they need to lead by example. And that means acting open and clean themselves.
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
1. I am no fan of Sibson and have never read his site, but what business is it of yours how is site is funded? Initiated Measure 10, yes, that’s our business. A private enterprise, no.
Sibby,
Ohhh yes, now it’s coming together. It took awhile I admit. “PP” at the South Dakota War College is Pat Powers I bet!?! I write to alot of different bloggers and I respond to SDP a lot. I like Ken, Jon, and Jason. They are truly professional in their responses. Once, or should I say a few times, I left comments at the South Dakota War College. I remember getting one back from this “PP” and the response was anything but professional. It was childish and egotistical to say the least and much like the man you describe, this Pat Powers. Mr. Blanchard at SDP has always been respectful in his responses to my critiques, even when he disagrees. But not “PP.” Sibby, is “PP” this Pat Powers you’ve been railing against? I want to make darn sure I’m talking about the same person. If not, just disregard this message. Please let me know if “PP” is Pat Powers than I what you say makes perfect sense from the encounter I got months ago on this silly little blog called South Dakota War College.
Mondak
[You just figured out that my full name is "Pat Powers?" No wonder I had no respect for you.]
Dang it – will you kids quit yer fussin’ and stick to picking on liberals? Knockin’ each other over the head does nothing to help the conservative cause and it just gives you two bumps, bruises and black eyes! Quit it!!
Sibby is right.
Pat Powers is against open and clean government. He wasn’t when the measure was first announced, but the GOP overlords bought his vote and his voice by giving him 2 minutes of limelight.
I have to jump in here. It is not that Republicans and i feel safe to say this includes PP are not against open government, the problem is the way they were putting the measure together. The measure was restrictive to free speach to a large segment of people. That is wrong.
PP, Sibby, why can’t we all just get along?
Todd Epp
Politics and Rodney King Editor
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
When Sib used to peddle his insanity over at Blahgmore, he loved to rail against the “anonymous chickens” who had not the courage of the Great Sibson – speaker of truth, lover of pudding, and God’s most favoritest little nutjob. Now when he wants to defend his small clutch of like-minded whackos as they flail about the fringe of reason, he touts anonymous speech as constitutionally paramount to shield against tyranny. So what came first: the chicken or the tyranny? By the way Sib san, the Culture of Pierre you hate so badly has been nurtured for the last 30 years by your party. I’m sure if he twists his mind around it long enough he can blame that on the dems, communists or (gasp) secular humanists. I’ve sadly been exposed to enough of his lunacy that nothing he comes up with really shocks me. Its kinda like a crazy relative you know exists but avoid. Wait, there is one last thing that would shock me: if Sib started wearing his hair in a bun, I think that would do it.
i still stand opposed to this intitiative, though i’m open to hearing the arguments in favor.
however, i do agree with some of the principle behind it.
whether opposed to or in favor of, let’s remember this quote from an unverified source (likely de tocqueville):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.”
or from Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, the 18th century Scottish jurist and historian:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
I think you can be for “open and clean government” and oppose the “Open and Clean Government Act.” Not only because this campaign is funded by undisclosed sources. Also because it is one of the worst written and overbroad pieces of legislation I’ve ever read. Every time I read it I find something else that is terrible. You can agree with the general goal but oppose the actual measure because of its language.
Lexrex – If you like McCain-Feingold, you are going to LOVE Iniative 10. Twice the restrictions, twice the fun.
thanks anon. that’s my initial impression, too. as i said, i still stand opposed.
however, i find myself looking for reasons to change my mind, because it so resonates with some of the basic principles i hold, such as limited government and my growing yet undetermined belief that those on the government dole ought not be able to vote themselves more $$, a la denny hastert and his real estate deal.
i haven’t found any reasons yet to change my mind, but there are some parts of it that intrigue me. i’d love to see a point-by-point refutation of the initiative. if there’s one out there, i’d like to see it.
It’s the “Open and Clean Government” Act, people. Get a grip on yourselves. How can you be against that?
Ohhh, yes I’m sorry, I should have known your full name to begin with. I should have reaized sooner that the world revolves around the Great and Mighty Pat Powers. Will you ever forgive me your Royal Highness?
Mondak, Considering you’ve been reading and commenting since last Spetember, and my name is constantly mentioned all over the website, there’s at least one or two rotating ads with it, AND the fact that I basically do nothing to hide it, your powers of observation are stunning.
Otherwise, I think this Schaff quote sums it up the best:
“(Mondak’s) passion is matched only by his lack of grasp on the facts.”
If it’s really for open and clean gov’t, how come they aren’t open about who is funding this? Maybe it’s really not so open and clean after all??!
After seeing the photo of Sibby’s “ride,” I now have “The Beverly Hillbillies” theme song stuck in my head. Thanks a lot.
And this coming from Pat who now thinks that there is a grand conspiracy over why Stephanie didn’t show up at the Convention…Yes, you used other people’s quotes, but, you still bothered to waste space on your silly little blog to entertain several ideas on the “Stephanie Mystery,” so yes I can grasp the facts your Royal Highness.
20, i understand the desire to know who is funding this initiated measure — i do. i agree that groups intentionally set up as ballot committees, which this group appears to have done, should reveal their donors.
maybe i’m wrong. maybe i can be convinced otherwise, but i believe that wanting to know how voluntary donors spend their own money is entirely different than wanting to know how the government spends our tax dollars.
it kinda feels like this is all about attacking the messenger rather than the message. and it’s not helping those of us who really want to discuss the merits of the proposal.
I CAN get on SDWC. I CAN’T get on Sibbys’ sites, SD Politics or SD Watch for that matter.
Must just be the pop-up blockers.
Only ones I can’t get on so far.
Who puts up the money for Sibson’s web site? Whose political payroll is he on?