John McCain predicts emergence of 3rd party

Senator John McCain

John McCain is back in the news adding to the conversation about the idea of a third party candidate emerging in the 2012 presidential elections.

Three years after losing his bid for the White House to President Barack  Obama, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is predicting the emergence of a third  political party that he is dubbing the ?Fed-Up Party.?
?Unless both parties change, then I think that it?s an inevitability. We  aren?t doing anything for the people,? McCain said Tuesday at the Reuters  Washington Summit. …
McCain also warned his colleagues in his own party that they  were not doing enough to address the concerns of struggling Americans.
?The party, I think, has got to be a lot more responsive to the plight of the  people,? McCain said, according to Reuters. ?I think we have to weigh in far  more heavily on the side of things like reforming the tax code. If we reform the  tax code, then many of these large corporations that paid no taxes last year ? maybe they would.?

The third party candidate idea is the most likely way for Barack Obama to win reelection in 2012. It is very unlikely Bill Clinton would have been elected in ’92 had Perot not taken 19% of the vote (Clinton recieved 43% and H.W. Bush 37%).

82 Replies to “John McCain predicts emergence of 3rd party”

    1. insomniac

      But McCain is right that a third party could emerge. The real question is does anyone want to guarantee Obama winse reelection?

  1. caheidelberger

    (a) Wild speculation: McCain is positioning himself to run third party, get another crack at Obama, and reclaim his maverick image.

    (b) You are correct that a third party candidacy increases the likelihood of President Obama’s re-election… unless that third party candidate can access lots of indy voters. How about Jesse Ventura?

    (c) You are incorrect in your Perot assertion. Without Perot in the race, a href=”http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640″>Bush might have come closer in electoral votes, but it is unlikely that Bush could have won. 53% of 1992 Perot voters called themselves moderates, 27% conservatives, 20% liberals. One poll found that, if Perot hadn’t been on the ballot, 38% of his adherents would have voted for Clinton and 38% would have voted for Bush. Even if all of the 24% who didn’t state a non-Perot preference had gone to the polls and voted for Bush, the popular vote would still have swung for Clinton, 52.4M to 51.3M.

    1. Jake

      Cory,

      Everyone in their right mind knows Perot took votes from Bush not Clinton.

      Bush won a landslide bigger than Obama in 1988 and would have at least held a sizable protion.

      Clinton never recieved a majority of the vote in either of his presidential elections.

        1. Rapid City

          “To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992. Bush won Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 54 percent, 55 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, in 1988. Bush/Perot garnered 56 percent, 59 percent, and 54 percent of the vote in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, respectively in 1992. All in all, Bush?s share of the vote from 1988 and the Bush/Perot share of the vote from 1992 seem to overlap significantly, and this holds true in every region of the country and in most of the nation?s largest states. As such, it becomes difficult to argue that Perot hurt Republicans and Democrats equally in 1992. What Perot did was shatter the Reagan/Bush coalition, allowing Bill Clinton to pick up the pieces.”
          http://race42012.com/2011/04/20/did-ross-perot-elect-bill-clinton/

            1. Anonymous

              Looks clear to me that the votes for Perot hurt Bush.

              Though I’m one who believes most of the pro BT Marking voters would have voted for SHS if he had not been in the race. Reasons for believing that are…1. anyone who wanted to change things in DC wasn’t going to throw their vote away and vote for someone who had 0 shot at winning. Lots of people who didn’t like the status quo but didnt’ like Noem voted for Marking in my opinion. He cost SHS the race.

        1. Capt Obvious

          Don’t you hate it when people don’t follow the rules and requirements that you think they should follow in this blog?

          You are aware there are no rules or requirements for posting in this blog?

          Just sayin..

          1. cornerstone

            McCain is probably one of the most disliked Republicans amongst the conservative base but he essentially gave us Sarah Palin as a leader of the tea party movement. Very ironic if you think about it.

  2. Charlie Hoffman

    Yeah but Cory the absolute killer is that if Hillary runs against O in the primary she kicks his patute and can win the general. O gets beat by a wet frog with an “R” hanging from his leg.

    The only “I” to swing votes away from an “R” and give O the victory would be if Governor Palin does so. But then if the “R” is not a solid conservative one can easily see her win the whole thing.

    1. Anonymous

      I think I saw Sarah Palin’s face on a milk carton. Where’s she been?

      The real risk is if Ron Paul takes his ball and online polls and makes one last great stand.

      1. caheidelberger

        Charlie, Obama is stronger than you suggest. He may have low numbers, but against a specific and underqualified candidate (i.e., anyone but Romney), Obama wins easily. Obama isn’t Carter 1980; he’s Nixon 1972.

  3. Steve Hickey

    If Romney floats to the top, I’d like to see conservatives run a third party. At some point in our history it’ll succeed. Maybe now is that time. Independents who were wowed by Obama in ’08 aren’t anymore and I’d think they’ll easily shift away to Romney. Romney easily loses conservatives to a 3rd party person and a decent three way race is on. And, I’ve been forecasting Obama will dump Biden and pick a Caroline Kennedy to give his reelection efforts the Palin-boost we saw with McCain. For what it’s worth, I hope Palin jumps in and before ya’ll jump down my neck for that thought, go see the Undefeated documentary on her and I’d think you’ll be impressed with how she stood up to big oil and corruption and cronyism in her own party and what she accomplished as governor. And, I’ll stoop to vulgarity here for a moment – I had the thought during the Clinton years that one of these days I’m going to vote a strict no-penis platform because I’m sick of the sex scandals.

      1. insomniac

        I’d vote for Nikki Haley but can’t think of another woman I’d want as VP right now… Oh Condi Rice would be great!

  4. Rapid City

    Ron Paul said he won’t run third party probably because it would ruin any future for his son Rand.

    Michael Bloomberg is probably the one person I would watch closely. It would be a Democrats wet dream to see Bloomberg get in the race.

  5. Perot = little mans disease

    Perot ran on a fairly moderate to liberal platform. Bloomberg lines up well with the Perot positions of the day. If W was in office right now I think Paul would run as an independant but with Obama in office I find a Paul 3rd party candidacy extremely doubtful.

    “With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, a firm pro-choice stance on abortion, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, support for gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, advocating the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via “electronic town halls,”

  6. Anonymous

    McCain/Trump 2012!

    Palin/Paul 2012!

    Clinton/Bloomberg 2012!

    Bloomberg/Swarzennegger 2012!

    McCain/Bloomberg would be an interesting play.

  7. Anonymous

    wow Just pick Mccain and palin again you republicans do an awesome job of somebody who can see Russia.

  8. Spencer

    Rather than wasting all of this talk about a conservative third party, I would suggest that you just vote for Obama, instead. A third party candidate anywhere between the Right and the Center would only split the vote against Obama in 2012. Some of you sound like Nader enthusiasts milling around only kidding themselves (Florida 2000 anyone?).

    Perot would have needed another 5% in the national vote just to win his first electoral college votes in 1992, and yet, we have people who think a third party is nationally viable. Rather than run a conservative third party, maybe we should just call off the 2012 presidential election and stop wasting our time with this delusion.

    Come on all you third party enthusiasts; chant with me: FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

  9. J Rae

    I thought the Tea Party was a 3rd party. Isn’t that what they kept saying? As I recall, they were pretty adamant that they were independent of any party and included both D’s and R’s.

    So is the Party in Tea Party just for show? Or did they think that just co-opting the Republican Party and trashing some long time conservatives was just more expedient.

    So Tea Partiers, aren’t you already a 3rd party? Should you pony up the money and run your own candidates, have your own conventions and fund your own party apparatus?

    1. cornerstone

      The Tea Party is best served if they influence the GOP at early stages like primaries.

      Best example is Marco Rubio beating Charlie Crist. Rubio might not be a Tea Partier but they backed him and got him the momentum he needed.

      1. J Rae

        So the Tea Party is best served, how is the GOP best served?

        Forgive me if I’m reading your comment wrong, but there seems to be an admission that the Tea Party is separate and in conflict with the GOP.

        1. cornerstone

          It’s a revolt of conservative and common sense people who felt after the 2008 election they didn’t have a party that adequately represented them. Now the GOP has at least put on the image of going back to fiscal responsibility. – The GOP is best served by walking the walk not just talking the talk.

          I’m not overly impressed with Noem throwing in with Boehner and Cantor though. She should have stood stronger on principles. Conservatives should watch her handling of this farm bill close…

          1. cornerstone

            I think you are putting to much meaning into the word “Party”. Tea Parties are rallies not a political party. They are a populist movement of like minded people but they are not a political party.

            1. J Rae

              Pretty fine line don’t you think on what make it a party? So are you suggesting that the two leaders of the Republican party aren’t far enough to the right? Seriously?

              See, I think that is why the Tea Party is separate from the GOP.

              1. Anonymous

                There are some great Republicans in office and some duds.

                The GOP base is far enough to the right but the establishment is way to squishy. They are not in the mold of Reagan but Nixon, Ford, Dole, HW Bush, and W.

                1. anon

                  The next class of GOP presidential candidates are the ones I’m waiting for. Those people understand conservatism like Ronald Reagan. Jindal, Rubio, McDonnell, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, Christie,

                  Kristi Noem could learn a lot from watching Nikki Haley. Now she is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE!

  10. Stan Gibilisco

    Several of my Republican friends voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

    Anyone who runs on a third-party conservative ticket would have to want Obama to win — or else have an ego so big as to destroy his or her contact with reality.

    Unfortunately, I can think of at least two people who might fill that bill.

  11. Anonymous

    Someone like Jon Huntsman who is eminently reasonable, highly articulate, and could tap his family fortune, could make a credible run as a 3rd party candidate. Add a Democratic Governor as VP candidate – someone like Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer – and they just might peel away enough Republicans and Democrats from the party candidates to win.

    If GOP voters are getting a Mormon Republican either way, they just may vote for the one who wasn’t a pro-choice flip-flopper and who wasn’t for Obamacare when it had his name on it (Romneycare for the dullards on this blog).

    If Dem voters are unhappy with Pres. Obama, they just may vote for a middle of the road ticket that includes a popular pro-gun Democrat, doesn’t deny global warming and science in general, with a guy at the top of the ticket who doesn’t pander to the bat-#### crazies.

    A ticket like that would create some excitement from the fed up majority of voters.

    1. Anonymous

      PS: You think it can’t happen? Brian Schweitzer got himself elected governor of Montana by running with a Republican Lt. Governor candidate. Why wouldn’t he roll those dice again with Huntsman? Read Gov. Schweitzer’s wikipedia – then read Huntsman’s. Those guys are cut from the same cloth, and man are they both impressive.

      1. Anonymous

        Huntsman/Schweitzer would be an interesting ticket for a thrid party. Huntsman already served as an ambasodor to Obama so he is probably a plant to do this.

        I think it would be more likely we’d see Huntsman and Bloomberg team up though. Both billionaires…

  12. Troy Jones

    For us to remain a two party system (which I think has served the nation well), the parties have to be relevant to the process and not just a vehicle for beauty contests for candidates.

    The system has gotten too driven by the cult of personality. Obama beats Clinton mostly because he was the better cult candidate and not differences on the issues. The Republican field has no defined leader as too much is about who is the better cult candidate (Seriously, is there so much difference between Romney, Cain, Gingrich etc. that we have to get tied in knots?).

    Here is a summary of my thoughts:

    1) Both parties have to be more tolerant of non-traditional thoughts and ideas during this stage of the campaign. For instance, we Republicans dismiss too quickly Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman over one or two issues while they might have something to say on another issue we should maybe listen too. I doubt I’d ever vote for either in a primary but I have found them broadening on some issues. Paul with regards to domestic spending and Huntsman on international trade/finance.

    2) We have turned the test of party loyalty from ideological/philosophical driven to issue driven (especially hot button issues). For instance, on taxes, we fight so much on who and what taxes are just, we seldom have room to discuss the bigger question: What is the level of taxation that is best. Again, this is where Paul being dismissed is so unproductive. His first and last focus is we take too much from the people. This also tends to narrow our range of who and what is an acceptable stance preventing any meaningful dialogue both within and between the parties.

    3) We show little toleration of regional differences. Eastern and Southern conservativism is much more statist than populist midwestern conservativism. And western conservativism is much more libertarian. It is wholly possible and good if the party speaks generally with regard to the philosophical ideals yet allowing for these outlook differences to result in some divergence on issues.

    All of these problems result in cult emphasis. As much as I like Cain, his appeal is primarily cult/personality. Or Perry’s demeanor made him attractive early (less his views). Or when I see people arguing over Romney vs. Gingrich who are quite similar on a breadth of issues speak a different language grounded in their background.

    Personally, I think we have an amazingly strong field of candidates. Perry, Bachman, Santorum all have vital things to say on social issues. Romney, Cain, Huntsman all have vital things to say on economic issues. Gingrich and Paul have vital things to say on broad questions of who we want to be as a nation. All can help us discern both these issues as well as impact their fellow candidates for the good.

    But, we as voters have to allow them to go through this process. If we don’t, McCain is right. There will be a “fusion” candidate that tries to borrow from both parties. Unfortunately, none of us will be stronger for it as it will draw on what is wrong and not what is right.

    1. LJDAM

      The Republican party is awash with faux Republicans who claim the (R) in order to get elected.

      What good is it for Republican values to support the idea of welcoming RINOs when they vote against Republican issues just like their honest Democratic relatives?

      Everytime the Republican party allows its Republican principles to be subverted to make the tent larger, we elect RINOs who help defeat the conservative values the party used to represent.

      1. J Rae

        Name names! Who are these people? Like I said, the radical right Tea Party is co-opting the Republican Party.

        I still maintain that Ronald Reagan would have been too liberal (tax increases, immigration, deficit spending…) for today’s extreme ideologues.

    2. Job Creator

      “Personally, I think we have an amazingly strong field of candidates.”

      Troy, I have to get some of what you’re taking. Sioux Falls pain control doctor?

  13. Troy Jones

    Who are these faux Republicans? I hear that all the time. Is it one issue? Two issues that make them “faux?” What are those issues? Are we better if we have over half a legislative body and control the committees or if we just have a few ideologically pure members who can get nothing done?

      1. Troy Jones

        Bill,

        I think they are good as they go to the conservative mind and an approach to issues. I especially love the introduction of wisdom which infers respect to each person’s prudential judgment formed by their own specific experiences.

        It also rejects the mindset of what I call the statist conservative which encompasses what you linked to be the psuedo-conservative. Both parties/philisophies seem to have allowed the statist impulses to be predominant and minimize the common idea of sanctity of the individual.

        I always say the difference between a statist liberal/Democrat and a statist conservative/Republican is the the direction in which they are willing to use government coercion to form society according to their world view. A civil liberty liberal/Democrat and a civil liberty conservative/Republican have a more narrow idea of what is legitimate use of government coercion of the individual and how he/she lives their life.

        Charlie, I agree. I have three tests to get my vote. Are they a person of sound character I can trust to make specific decisions which always don’t get put into simple ideological buckets? Are they a statist or believe in the individual’s primary position in society? Do they have a general outlook toward issues which minimize the use of government?

        Most of the time, the Republican passes this test. When they don’t, I recall something George Mickelson said to me. “90% of what I do doesn’t have anything to do with ideology but is critical to doing the people’s business. But 10% is what gets people riled up.” My experience in government and observing is this is the case.

        If I can’t vote for the Republican as they failed my test (usually of low character or a statist as on hot button issues we usually agree), I ask myself is the Dem of great character, are they a civil libertarian, and how “off” are they on the hot button issues. If they are “acceptable” in this regard, they get my vote. Otherwise, I skip the race.

        The reason this is relevant to this thread is what is hidden in McCain’s comment is the public is frustrated because all that seems to be considered in the nomination process is how people stand on the hot button issues with little regard to how the candidate thinks about individual rights or their individual character.

        Thus, they are open to looking outside their party or ideology. We need the parties (and party processes) to have more emphasis on global outlook and character in who gets nominated and less focus on hot button issues.

        Charlie, this is where you (and your two district colleagues excel which I personally think might be the strongest in the state). I absolutely trust your character, I absolutely trust your respect for the individual. Together, I absolutely trust you will make the best decisions on the 90% that doesn’t fit ideological buckets. And, I agree with you three on most hot button issues.

        In general, our party does a real good job on recruiting candidates who pass the character test. Take the Governor contest, everyone of the candidates were of great character. Or a specific legislative race. Reid Holien was pretty much unknown politically but his character and the corresponding respect a life well lived in Watertown allowed him to beat a formidable incumbent.

        As long as the GOP has a focus on character first, we don’t risk any third party arising in South Dakota. But, if we forget this, we risk much.

        Regarding the freedom index reference and despite the fact I’d have gotten a rating of more than 50% in both houses, it proves my point. It over-emphasizes a few hot button issues (issues selected by one group as what makes one acceptable), allows no respect for individual legislator’s prudential judgment (only can agree with this group) and is silent with regard to individual character.

        Too often, people attribute positive views of character and intelligence if the person agrees with them. Anybody who disagrees with these people are inherently of questionable intelligence and character. This is a fallacy. My “wisdom” and “intelligence” is formed by my personal education and experience which is unique. Thus, how I see things is unique. To not allow me to apply my education, experience, and mind (reason) to discern certain issues and thus make judgment about my character and ability to reason is the ultimate denigration of the individual.

        1. mhs

          Bill, that’s a great list and one I can embrace. As Troy knows, I’m firmly in the western libertarian wing of the party. My heroes of limited government are Barry Goldwater, Reagan and John McCain. I especially embrace the sense of reasoned, limited actions driven by guiding principles it outlines. I can’t stand how the current crop of losers (sorry Troy, I can’t accept your enthusiasm with the seven dwarfs) make us look petty, small and patronizing.

          Perry’s pledge to eliminate the now famous “2 and Ah, . . . ” agencies is a great case in point of the lack of reasoned action those principles require. He takes the easy route and blames agency bureaucrats rather than pledging to do the heavy lifting: going to the mat with Congress to repeal or drastically curtail the plethora of needless regulatory laws congress has passed.

          The day I see a candidate say “I pledge to repeal or drastically overhaul (for example) OSHA, Endangered Species, ADA, ERISA, etc. etc. ad nauseum, then I’ll get excited.

    1. LJDAM

      Well, the first sign is if you have to ask if you are a faux Republican by asking how many departures from Republican principles it takes to be one…

      Radical right co-opting the Republican Party? Hardly. This is the principles that the MAJORITY of South Dakota Republicans stand for: http://southdakotagop.com/pdf/2010_SDGOP_PLATFORM_FINAL.PDF

      Looking at the platform and voting records on some major bills last session, it appears that the Republican Party was co-opted all right; however, not by those scary TEA Partiers.

  14. Charlie Hoffman

    Troy you just asked the ultimate question. Zero rhetoric, zero spin, zero bias; which by the way is your strong point, yet we all sort of miss the mark here in our supremely conservative state we live in. Seldom do we really have to deal with social and fiscal liberals;( OK over on Madville we do but does he really represent more than 3% in SD?) . The question most voters go to the the polls with is who do they most trust to vote the way they would if given the opportunity to place their vote in public. It all boils down to how much does the pol mimic the person.

    For me what it boils down to is does the average voter believe the government is there to always take on our problems or do we as a people of free choice ultimately have to deal with our personal problems?? The answer has always been clear, especially growing up with a grandfather and grandmother who raised my father during the great depression and did not lose the farm.

    If you ask a South Dakotan why they voted for someone or did not vote for them they will tell you it was because they did not feel comfortable around them. Figure that out and you have our next President…………..

    1. Anonymous

      The laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak. Those laws must be resisted, as they could be only through releasing the energies of every citizen. Money holds our politics in a hammerlock, accelerating our divisions of race, class, and power and causes a change in the egalitarian spirit of the American Revolution. reprint of Wilson

  15. BF

    This might be an appropriate read here:
    http://theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-conservative-revolt/

    Excerpt:
    From clinical interviews and thematic apperception tests, Adorno and his co-workers found that their pseudo-conservative subjects, although given to a form of political expression that combines a curious mixture of largely conservative with occasional radical notions, succeed in concealing from themselves impulsive tendencies that, if released in action, would be very far from conservative. The pseudo-conservative, Adorno writes, shows ?conventionality and authoritarian submissiveness? in his conscious thinking and ?violence, anarchic impulses, and chaotic destructiveness in the unconscious sphere. . . . The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.?
    1

    Who is the pseudo-conservative, and what does he want? It is impossible to identify him by class, for the pseudo-conservative impulse can be found in practically all classes in society, although its power probably rests largely upon its appeal to the less educated members of the middle classes. The ideology of pseudo-conservatism can be characterized but not defined, because the pseudo-conservative tends to be more than ordinarily incoherent about politics. The lady who, when General Eisenhower?s victory over Senator Taft had finally become official, stalked out of the Hilton Hotel declaiming, ?This means eight more years of socialism? was probably a fairly good representative of the pseudo-conservative mentality. So also were the gentlemen who, at the Freedom Congress held at Omaha over a year ago by some ?patriotic? organizations, objected to Earl Warren?s appointment to the Supreme Court with the assertion: ?Middle-of-the-road thinking can and will destroy us?;”

  16. Charlie Hoffman

    LJD if I cared about what this or that survey or newspaper clipping said about me I would not be in politics. Most folks are smart enough to not get caught up in useless tools of bent persuasion here in SD.

    Give me a call at 605-577-6530 here at home; I would love to explain every one of them to you.

    1. LJDAM

      Representative Hoffman, first off, thank you for engaging here with your actual name. You are one of the few legislators that do and you should be commended for doing so.

      So, if I am following you correctly, are you saying in your experience that it is not about the issues for voters in your area? It is really as simply about how well a candidate smiles, or engages in small talk?

      I don’t give such reports total sway over how I view someone but clearly where there is smoke, fire can be assumed.

      Some of the bills on that list, that you voted against or supported, went against what is says in the SDGOP party platform.

      Curious, you didn’t vote on the two abortion bills that are on the John Birch Society sheet. Were you gone those two days, or did you not vote on purpose? Political veterans sometimes use an excused vote as a “no” vote, correct?

      Curious, can you articulate how much a candidate/elected official can depart from the SD GOP party platform before they should be considered not a Republican?

      1. Bill Fleming

        “…the two abortion bills that are on the John Birch Society sheet.”

        Is the South Dakota Freedom Coalition in fact a “John Birch Society” group, LIDAM?

        1. Troy Jones

          Cheap shot Bill.

          So if there is a position supported by both some crazy fringe left wing group and the Democrat Party, we should impugn the entire Democrat party of being loony?

          1. LJDAM

            Mr Troy Jones,
            Didn’t you claim you would have fared better than 50% on both the House & Senate bill list? That would indicate that at least half of the concerns were mainstream, correct? What bills do you disagree with on the list that are fringe issues?

            1. Troy Jones

              I dont understand what you are asking. Maybe I wasn’t clear myself.

              But I will try to answer as best as I understand your questions.

              Question #1: Yes, based on what I know now, I would have voted for at least half of these bills.

              But what is with this “claim” crap? It as if you doubt whatever I say. If I would have voted for all or none, my comment is the same. There appears to be no room for an individual to bring their own prudential judgment or experiences to bear on these issues but to be branded either pro- or anti- Freedom as defined by one group. I am not sure Very many voters send their legislators to go to Pierre, turn off their brain and vote purely with any group.

              I don’t agree they are bills that are so cut and dried they are defining with regard to classifying a person as being clearly of one ideology or not.

              Question #2: I have no idea what you are asking.

              Question #3: I never said any were fringe issues or weren’t fringe issues. Again, what are you asking?

          2. Bill Fleming

            It wasn’t meant to be any kind of shot at all, Troy. I’m just asking LIDAM if what he stated in his post above mine was a fact.

            He wrote, “Curious, you didn?t vote on the two abortion bills that are on the John Birch Society sheet. Were you gone those two days, or did you not vote on purpose? Political veterans sometimes use an excused vote as a ?no? vote, correct?”

            I’m assuming he’s referencing the South Dakota Freedom Coalition list, isn’t he?

            Never said anybody was a loonie.

  17. Troy Jones

    OOOPS. This is a repost that got was broader than a reply to just one post. I meant it to be a general response. Sorry for the repeat.

    Bill,

    I think they are good as they go to the conservative mind and an approach to issues. I especially love the introduction of wisdom which infers respect to each person?s prudential judgment formed by their own specific experiences.

    It also rejects the mindset of what I call the statist conservative which encompasses what you linked to be the psuedo-conservative. Both parties/philisophies seem to have allowed the statist impulses to be predominant and minimize the common idea of sanctity of the individual.

    I always say the difference between a statist liberal/Democrat and a statist conservative/Republican is the the direction in which they are willing to use government coercion to form society according to their world view. A civil liberty liberal/Democrat and a civil liberty conservative/Republican have a more narrow idea of what is legitimate use of government coercion of the individual and how he/she lives their life.

    Charlie, I agree. I have three tests to get my vote. Are they a person of sound character I can trust to make specific decisions which always don?t get put into simple ideological buckets? Are they a statist or believe in the individual?s primary position in society? Do they have a general outlook toward issues which minimize the use of government?

    Most of the time, the Republican passes this test. When they don?t, I recall something George Mickelson said to me. ?90% of what I do doesn?t have anything to do with ideology but is critical to doing the people?s business. But 10% is what gets people riled up.? My experience in government and observing is this is the case.

    If I can?t vote for the Republican as they failed my test (usually of low character or a statist as on hot button issues we usually agree), I ask myself is the Dem of great character, are they a civil libertarian, and how ?off? are they on the hot button issues. If they are ?acceptable? in this regard, they get my vote. Otherwise, I skip the race.

    The reason this is relevant to this thread is what is hidden in McCain?s comment is the public is frustrated because all that seems to be considered in the nomination process is how people stand on the hot button issues with little regard to how the candidate thinks about individual rights or their individual character.

    Thus, they are open to looking outside their party or ideology. We need the parties (and party processes) to have more emphasis on global outlook and character in who gets nominated and less focus on hot button issues.

    Charlie,

    This is where you (and your two district colleagues excel which I personally think might be the strongest in the state). I absolutely trust your character, I absolutely trust your respect for the individual. Together, I absolutely trust you will make the best decisions on the 90% that doesn?t fit ideological buckets. And, I agree with you three on most hot button issues.

    In general, our party does a real good job on recruiting candidates who pass the character test. Take the Governor contest, everyone of the candidates were of great character. Or a specific legislative race. Reid Holien was pretty much unknown politically but his character and the corresponding respect a life well lived in Watertown allowed him to beat a formidable incumbent.

    As long as the GOP has a focus on character first, we don?t risk any third party arising in South Dakota. But, if we forget this, we risk much.

    Regarding the freedom index reference and despite the fact I?d have gotten a rating of more than 50% in both houses, it proves my point. It over-emphasizes a few hot button issues (issues selected by one group as what makes one acceptable), allows no respect for individual legislator?s prudential judgment (only can agree with this group) and is silent with regard to individual character.

    Too often, people attribute positive views of character and intelligence if the person agrees with them. Anybody who disagrees with these people are inherently of questionable intelligence and character. This is a fallacy. My ?wisdom? and ?intelligence? is formed by my personal education and experience which is unique. Thus, how I see things is unique. To not allow me to apply my education, experience, and mind (reason) to discern certain issues and thus make judgment about my character and ability to reason is the ultimate denigration of the individual.

    1. LJDAM

      But isn’t it a very telling sign of character if someone runs as a Republican, which is defined by the SDGOP platform, and then they do not support that in their official actions or actually repeatedly go against it?

      Representative Hoffman you said you are for the Republican trait of limited government but if you look just at the report, many Republicans voted for the two Obamacare bills, against private property rights being protected from law enforcement, and for the creation of a new economic development program that interferes with the free market by having the state pick winners & losers.

      Voters get frustrated when they see such things as we don’t understand.

        1. Arrowhead

          LJDAM is right on some of this stuff. Candidates run on platforms that are all about pander and then once they are elected (kristi Noem for example) they start to go Washington and they start to compromise and they start to blur the lines and they start to justify super committee’s, debt deals that don’t cut any spending, sneak farm bills through back door channels… It starts to ad up and look really bad.

          I think all we want is a little honesty and truthfulness. Liberal or conservative or somewhere in between please cut out the games and start just being honest.

          1. Arrowhead

            I don’t support purity tests but I do support honesty and being straight forward with constituents. Noem can’t even hold a town hall to defend any of these positions. Which is totally opposite of what she was like when she campaigned in ’10.

            1. Arrowhead

              All I ask is that if you are an elected official and have a position be straight forward with it and defend it.

  18. Anonymous

    How many people in high positions without power have been disposed of in the middle of the night because they did not follow the line dictated to them by the hidden power of a few with lots of $$$$$$$$. It makes no difference if they are a D or R or I. Sometimes they are just dismissed other times they are moved to the hinder land and other times they just die quietly.

  19. Charlie Hoffman

    LJD; I just got home from a meeting in Doland with a multitude of groups trying to increase the economic austerity if wetlands USA which Eastern SD is smack dab in the middle of. It was one of those meetings I will think about long after I am but a picture on the big board going into the SD House floor.

    To answer your question about the bills not included with my preference placed upon them; and before reading everything after your comment about my SD Republican Value shot, we don’t to vote on Senate bills if they get killed on their side. Just a guess???

  20. Charlie Hoffman

    Sorry about the misspellings and loss of certain needed words. (Honestly I was typing and having a conversation with my wife.) Hopefully it all made sense and I stand behind my words.

    LJD a great friend of mine who lives over in the Doland area told me when I was a green representative that it matters not how you vote on any bill; but being able to explain that vote to your consituents is always crucial to your sustainability in office. That said I stand by every one of my votes and can explain them to you if you can think outside of your own purity context with reason.

    Thank you Troy for those high standards you gave all of us in District 23. I am honored and somewhat made nervous by being in the middle of two guys who really do have the two most solid perspectives on moving SD into the national spotlight politically and economically whom I have ever met.

    1. LJDAM

      Representative Hoffman,
      I am sorry, your first post was too disjointed to understand. With all due respect, how can every vote not be important?

      It is not purity to expect an elected official to stand by their word.

      You claim, as the party platform indicates, that you as a Republican are for limited government & private property rights, but the major bills that deal with the issue you voted for more government and against private property rights? Not dissing you, just confused and interested to understand why you and your fellow Republicans did so in these circumstances?

  21. Charlie Hoffman

    LJD this is my last post on this subject as now you are putting things out there that are not true and my grandfather taught me to not do business with liars or thieves. And yes I just called you a liar and a thief for you are stealing my content of good nature turning it into negative spin for your own self worth and lying about what I actually said for the purpose of promoting yourself in your own throne of perfection.

    Good day Sir.

    1. Anon by any other name...

      Huh? Claim you’re ready to answer every question about every vote, claim that you support small government, then a tantrum of “I’m taking my ball and going home!” when you get asked to explain your votes making government larger? Not cool, dude.

  22. LJDAM

    Representative Hoffman, I am truly sorry that you took my question as an insult. You said you were able to answer questions about each vote so I took that as your willingness to provide them.

    I don’t know you, you don’t know me, all we have to go off of is the words we type here.

    Voters are tired of people saying one thing to get elected and then doing the opposite once they are elected. I am sorry you felt the need to shoot me for asking yourself to explain.

    1. Anonymous

      You’re just a heckler. An anonymous heckler. Nothing wrong with anonymity or snarky comments on a blog, but you’re sounding more like a yippy little dog now. I think Rep. Hoffman just kicked you. Yiiipe!!

  23. BF

    LIDAM, speaking of asking someone to explain, above you wrote, ?Curious, you didn?t vote on the two abortion bills that are on the John Birch Society sheet. Were you gone those two days, or did you not vote on purpose? Political veterans sometimes use an excused vote as a ?no? vote, correct??

    Are you saying the South Dakota Freedom Coalition is an organization based on ? or comprised of members of ? the John Birch Society? Or am I misreading what you wrote? Can you please clarify?

    1. LJDAM

      I am not sure to what extent they are involved. I do know they have some part in sending it out. I might have overspoken as to the extent of their involvement.

      Regardless who put the sheet out, many of the bills on there were of interest to many people. Curious as to Representative Hoffman’s unwillingness to shed light on his decisions after he indicated he was ready to justify each vote.

      Asking for answers from a legislator though is now heckling.