Republican Tide: GOP knows how to take a stand
The State GOP hasn’t missed that some commentators have been chiding the party. And the GOP reminds them that you have to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything. From Republican Tide:
Every year, the Democrats bring outrageous plans that would dramatically effect the lives of normal, hard working, taxpaying South Dakotans and the Republicans take a stand against their outlandish ideas. But that doesn’t often grab the headlines. The Republicans have been the ones who have provided tax breaks for the elderly and disabled, cracked down on sexual predators, meth makers and addicts, increased funding to provide a world class education, and made South Dakota one of the best places in the world to start a business. Republicans have provided good government not by sitting back, but by standing up and doing what needs to be done.
People are Republicans for a reason- because we actually believe in something and do take a stand.
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
A lot of so called “conservatives” spend way more time attacking fellow Republicans than they do criticizing the democrats… such cannibalism is tearing the party apart and only benefitting the democrats. Folks- we only have 97 days left. Put the differences aside and unite for victory…or prepare to suffer the consequences. If we lose- those same Republican bashing conservatives will be the first to blame “moderate” or RINO Republicans when they will only have themselves to blame because they were too busy telling everyone they weren’t conservative enough to be Republican. Give me a break.
“increased funding to provide a world class education”
Since when? SD Republicans, especially Dykstra, have spend a lot of their time in the legislature opposing any increase to education funding. Republican Tide should stick to things that actually happened.
Numbers 2 & 3, is that you Adelstein and Knudson?
As a conservative first and a Republican second, don’t expect me to march to the beat of the Republican drum if I have to abandon my principles for “the good of the party”.
That just ain’t gonna happen…..
After reading that statement, one thing is still true about the party, they still like to pile it on.
#5- I don’t think passing the most stringent abortion ban in the country qualifies as “abandoning our principles”.
….cracked down on sexual predators?????
Would you please get off your High Horse.
Two words – Ted Klaudt!
2 and 3, i hope you’re as critical, or more, of those republicans-for-daschle/johnson/herseth groups that pop up every election.
Yay for reversing lingo and rhetoric. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along?
“Stand for something, or fall for anything.”
Then we’re in agreement!
I’d love to see the GOP return to its roots as the party of conservation, on both a state and national level. The Dems aren’t much better. Yet, this is a place the GOP could shine.
Here in SD, we see the rush to ethanol resulting in much marginal land going back into production, and wetlands being drained simply because they appear to be in the way.
Too many want to see us become another Iowa, a state where I once lived.
When I came to SD back in 1968, I realized and appreciated that I had landed, by chance and some choice, in a fishing and hunting paradise, which is why to many others from other states want to come here…to sample the outdoors good life we enjoy, and too often, take for granted.
the best thing that could happen to conservatino is for the Republican party to make it their choice. And we’d be greatly enlarging the big tent.
Some righties don’t want to see this, and I can’t for the life of me, understand why.
So before we are taken in by the far right leaning “Wise Use Movement” Crowd that represents only what we can take from the land, let’s take advantage of this and restore the kind of leadership Teddy Roosevelt gave us.
Badmouth Nixon all you want, but that President signed into law, the most important conservation legislation of our lifetime, including the Clean Water Act. Today, too many of the GOP leaders want to write that out of our history. Unfortunately, they masquerade under the banner of conservatism.
To me, a true conservative does just that…conserve..and if you drop the “E” and add “a” then vation, you’ve found the key to the future of the GOP.
I forgot to add that in driving through Iowa and my old home of Cedar Rapids the other day, it became clear that much of the flooding there is a direct result of draining nearly all of their wetlands and underlying the entire state with miles of drain tile…which benefits only the drainage contractor and the individual landowner. Everyone else pays. After all, water always flows downhill, and it can’t be in two places at once. It serves the community better if it slowly soaks into the ground, rather than rush through drain tile to a road ditch and a swollen river.
How’s this for an idea on regulation of wetlands. Drain all you want, the caveat being, the water you drain must remain on your property.
My response is too long to put here, so I posted it on my blog.
http://www.sdwingnuts.com/2008/08/a-republican-refresher-course/
#8 be careful there are jerks on both sides of the aisle, all one can do is throw them in jail.
Tony:
This is great, the second time I agree with you in a week. It didn’t take me long to notice that Iowa has very few sloughs. They are drained.
Feasant, also note that the water that once drained and was stored in those sloughs that Iowa once had, are now funneled, via drain tile, moving the water faster, into the nearest road ditch, and ultimately into an already swollen river, to add to the misery of those who find themselves sitting on their roofs.
Look to the Red River of the north, and observe that in a bunch of years out of each decade, floods cause problems in Fargo. To see why, drive up I-29 and all you’ll see along the interstate is a series of drainage ditches, which funnel that water into the Red.
It’s far worse on the Minnesota side, since all of western and southern Minnesota is tile drained, and much of their runoff also runs into the Red.
So why aren’t taxpayers, especially conservative Repubs screaming about this?
I suspect because it’s viewed as some kind of cardinal sin to question anything done in agriculture, which as Clarence Mortenson, a real conservative once told me, “much of the farming in western South Dakota is more mining than farming.” He was referring to huge gullies resulting from erosion.
“People are Republicans for a reason- because we actually believe in something and do take a stand.”
One can actually stand on a high horse? That I’d like to see.
So Tony, just to be clear on your position – you don’t believe that a farmer has the right to drain standing water off his own farmland? He shouldn’t be allowed to get the best and most profitable use from land he owns and pays taxes on? You realize that you just threw out the property rights part of the Republican platform, don’t you?
It figures.
anon. 6:53, you missed the point. If the farmer drains water off his land, where does it go? If it goes on another’s land, hasn’t that first farmer affected the property rights of the owner of the recipient of that water.
And, it isn;t only rural property owners that should be protected with property rights. The normal scenerio is this: The first landowner drains into a nearby road ditch, the water flows downhill which takes it to a river that’s already running high, and then into someone’s basement, if that someone is lucky.
How about those folks who lost their homes in Cedar Rapids. Didn’t the drainers violate their property rights? Or have we reached the point where we’ve accommodated agriculture’s every whim, and given private landowner rights above those of the entire community.
Thank youm, anon 1:20 PM. I’ve just reached a point and am old enough to have seen much of the best fishing and hunting in the world, become threatened, under the banner of property rights.
If we emulate Iowa, no one will come here to fish or hunt…and if anyone thinks CRP contributed to the demise of small towns, wait’ll they don’t see the revenue from visiting pheasant hunters.
Let me get this straight Tony – you’re blaming farmers for the flood in Cedar Rapids? Isn’t that just a tad presumptuous?!? You’ve gotta quit listening to Al Gore and his whackos.
Water is an element like fire. If fire invades your land you put it out to save what is yours. If rain brings too much water, you do your best to get it off your property to save your business. When you drain off the extra water God gave you, that doesn’t make you a criminal; it just makes you a good steward of the land.
News flash – most small towns profit very little from visiting hunters. Small town businesses depend on year around customers and hopefully some of those will begin contributing to the local economy again when higher commodity prices helps farming to become profitable again.
No, I’m not blaming farmers for the CR flood. I’m blaming poor land stewardship and a lack of concern for community because of self-interst.
However, since mostly farmers are doing most of the drain tiling, and obviously did all of the wetland draining, let the blame fall where it belongs.
Small towns are losing their identity mostly because there are fewer farmers on the land, and they are running out of customers.
Read back through what you just wrote. You ARE blaming the farmers. Do you put the interests of others before you own in your business? Not that we can see!
Anyone reading the vituperation and vilification you’ve put out against anyone not agreeing with you and Al Gore, can see how little the interests of landowners, conservatives, NRA gun owners, and the public wanting complete, unfettered access to public land concern you.
Practice what you preach.
23 – Draining land doesn’t necessarily equate to good stewardship. I depends on how, how much, and for what purpose the land is being drained. Wet areas are natural buffers that store and clean water, recharge groundwater, aid in flood control and help prevent erosion. Draining off small areas is often bad stewardship, and if done just to get a couple more acres into prduction, greedy. Some tile systems are so efficient, they’re like open flood gates after even modest rains. I’m with Tony D on this one.
Anooner, remember who bought the land and who pays taxes on that land. Getting the most out of any private business is free enterprise, not greed. If the basement of your business fills with water, do you just shrug your shoulders and abandon the bottom floor or do you get a sump pump and do something about it? Same thing a farmer does to save his business. It’s the American way, thank God.
It is hard to imagine someone thinking it’s OK to drain water off their land onto anothers, and think they’re practicing good stewardship.
Again, what of the property rights of those who pay a heavy, wet price so landowner A can protect his business?
That isn’t Al Gore, DEm or liberal talk. It’s plain common sense and citizenship.
Some clarifications:
1) Tony is talking about the massive installation of drain tiles in Iowa that occurred mostly 100 years ago. It was done at a time when everyone saw benefit and no negative implications. It isn’t really disputed that it hasn’t made flooding issues more problematic in Iowa.
2) It is established law that one owner can’t take action on his land which has material adverse affect on the value or use of another’s land. For instance, generally, one property owner can’t damn up a creek that dries up the water for the neighbors cattle or floods the neighbor’s land so it is no longer able to be planted on. Such action usually requires the involvement of the government either through the government’s assumption of the activity (building a damn and compensating those affected) or in the courts to determine if the impact is material. In some cases via a lawsuit, the courts can determine civil compensation between the two parties.
3) I don’t think that Tony is blaming farmers from knowingly taking harmful action. He is just stating a fact that what was acceptable agriculture/cultivating practice a 100 years ago has had repercussions today.
4) While I don’t think Tony is doing so, if Tony is advocating the destruction of the drain tiles without compensation to the current land owner, he is advocating an action that would be deemed unconsitutional. The Supreme Court has long held that such is effectively in violation of the “takings clause” of the consititution.
5) I disagree with Tony’s statement “How about those folks who lost their homes in Cedar Rapids. Didn’t the drainers violate their property rights?” The construction of the drain tiles happened well before the current owners took ownership of their homes, etc and standards of “as is” includes the prior existance of the flood potential.
Thanks for the clarification Troy. I understand what you’re saying and it clears up some questions I had.
I would hope that Tony Dean would also read this carefully, although this certainly plays havoc with his opinion of the rights of property owners.
Anon 4:40, I have read Troy’s statements carefully and he presented them well. The only point of disagreement is on when all the tile drainage took place in Iowa…only a small portion took place 100 years ago.
What about the current tile draining being undertake in eastern SD. Certainly, they should be aware of the problems it causes.
And I keep hearing about the landowners and the taxes they pay. How about the homeowners who pay significantly more per square foot, with water in their homes?
Just because something was done wrong a hundred years ago, doesn’t justify its continuance today.
Moreover, I will bet that not a single purchaser of a home in Cedar Rapids…or Sioux Falls, Huron, Watertown or Mitchell, even thinks of tile drainage as a risk they are taking when they buy their home.
I know I would these days.
While this article is unclear how much of Iowa’s wetland loss was pre-1908, the bulk of it was accomplished by the 1930’s. Sorry that I was off by twenty years. However, the construction of drainage tiles began in earnest during the settlement of Iowa immediately after the Civil War.
http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html
This too cites the aggressive nature of drain tile construction in the 1880’s as Iowa was settled.
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Portrait/3change/change.htm
And, as this article states, drainage came to Calhoun County (western county of Iowa) at the turn of the century.
Tony,
The bulk of drain tilage in Iowa occurred in the 1800’s with it concluding in the western part of the state in the 1930’s. It might be this western drainage that most affected hunting which is why you assert it occurred later.
Here are some articles that address the issue. I became “knowledgeable” about this out of curiousity on why so many brick and tile companies are in Iowa with many going back to Iowa statehood. In fact the national organization for this industry was started in Ames Iowa in 1907 as all the largest companies were located in the region. Another interesting factoid is that the success of the John Deere’s, Oliver’s, Hart-Parr etc. of Iowa was stimulated by the success of the brick/tile companies as the local tile dealers diversified their business to agriculture equipment. Roughly similar to how the funeral directors and furniture stores started out under the same roof.
I didn’t have the knowledge from the perspective of impact on wildlife as that is your focus.
http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Portrait/3change/change.htm
Calhoun County began to install drain tiles over 100 years ago and being in the western part of the state, it occurred later than what occurred in the east which was settled first.
http://www.calhouncountyiowa.com/history.htm
Yeah. Look at the governor taking a stand for higher ethanol blender pump taxes the legislature rejected – while most republican legislators remain silent.
Look at the governor taking a stand against veterans by putting in a veterans affairs director whose last discharge was not an honorable discharge – while most Republican legislators remain silent.
Let it not be said that the GOP doesn’t stand for anything.