Good gosh. You’d think Stace Nelson wanted to be a Republican or something, with all the complaining he’s doing about the Republican caucuses pointing out there’s one caucus for Republicans and if they want to compete against it, they’re going to have to make a choice.
KELO Radio is writing about Nelson’s continuing complaints this evening, as Republican House Majority Leader Lee Qualm explains the situation for those who don’t want to be Republican Caucus members, and prefer to create their own minority caucus:
“In the Republican National Committee rules as well as the South Dakota party platform, it states explicitly that we believe in open government, that we believe that people are supposed to be involved in the process,” said Nelson, who is from Fulton.
House Majority Leader Lee Qualm says the letter just lays out guidelines of normal expectations of all caucus members. He was also concerned about the formation of the Conservative Republican Caucus by Nelson and other conservative Republican legislators.
They “were forming their own caucus and a related PAC (political action committee) to support only their caucus members (who) would be invited to join based on a score of 60 or higher on the cherry-picked scorecard done by Citizens for Liberty out of Rapid City,” said Qualm, from Platte.
and…
“If a candidate did not want to participate in the majority Republican Caucus it was their decision and they chose to not sign the memorandum and return it,” Qualm said. “It would be unusual for either the House or Senate Republican PACs (associated with the caucuses) to support financially someone who is a member of an organized minority caucus and does not want to be a member of the Republican majority caucus.”
I’m not sure how the caucus saying “go ahead” impedes government or closes the process. It’s a pretty simple concept. Either Senator Nelson wants to be a member of the Senate Republican Caucus, or he does not. He’s free to do whatever he chooses.
What Stace seems to be ignoring in the midst of his bawling to the media is that he’s already formed his own exclusive caucus that limits it’s membership to people that do well on his list of bills for his cherry-picked scorecard. He’s spoken of how they’re banding together to appeal for money, and he’s spoke of it’s exclusivity. If he thinks he can accomplish a greater purpose by creating an exclusive group that pushes out people he doesn’t agree with, he can certainly do so, and the caucus has stressed that he’s very welcome to form his own minority group.
In fact he openly has. If you look at the filing the group made for their PAC, they expressly note that they consider themselves a minority caucus:
They declare that they consider themselves a group of “minority conservative Republican legislators” as they seek to go off on their own.
But, kind of like a teenager who declares they’re an adult and they can do what they want, the complaints seem to grow louder as Nelson starts realizing the actual Republican caucus isn’t going to support those who aren’t members of the actual Republican Caucus.
Apparently actions do have consequences.
Can someone please explain how Stace can call himself the most conservative Senator in SD while sponsoring the following bills this year:
SB 143 authorize any contributing member of the state retirement plan to be a participating member of the state health plan.
SB 177 require an annual increase in certain state employee pay by an increase in the consumer price index.
The cost to the state would have been in the millions if the RINOs had not killed them.
Stacie is only look out for himself with these type of bills. Typical politician that adds no value to our political system. Stacie is what they call in the military a true “oxygen thief.”
Greenfield and Haugaard should give an opinion.
Why?
Both have indicated they don’t like the letter.
Losing votes like Stace makes it more likely Partridge will defeat Greenfield and losing the right wing caucus in the house is more likely to cost Haugaard.
I believe this is less about Stace and more about electing different leaders.
Maybe that is Stacey’s intent.
It sure is Stace’s intent…he is the one that led the revolt away from the traditional caucus to form one that he set the rules for joining.
Stace Nelson is a Democrat operative through and through.
I agree why? everyone got to make their own decision..isn’t that what we elect them to do?
Stace won’t let either of them join his caucus, so they have no opinion
I wish stace was better at picking his battles. He is often right.
Mr. Nelson was trying to legislate free money for nothing and mandatory tax increases. Socialism, I say. That it was stomped is no surprise as I bet he was using French Math and just trying to pound the table.
Messrs. Greenfield and Haugaard should step up and pin on a pair of Stace’s plastic elephant gonads and say something.
Who is in the conservative caucus and who is in the Republican Caucus?
Shouldn’t we know as elections approach?
Yes we should. In District 13, if any of them signed on for this useless caucus I will campaign against them.
What is interesting is that the conservative wing of the party largely the reason Rep Qualm was elected in the first place. Without their support, I would not be shocked if he is ousted. I have heard that many representatives, regardless of philosophy, are very disappointed in this fiasco.
On the heels of EB5 and gear up commercials gong after Jackley, this makes the GoP look even more corrupt.
Everyone else in SD has to follow open meeting laws but not the GOP?!
Aside from the weird obsession this blog has for Sen. Nelson, the rest of SD looks at those who sent/signed this and are asking WTH?!
None of those who signed this are proudly declaring so. Matter of fact, they are all dodging this issue as they are getting beat up over it.
None of those that did not sign are not stepping forward either…except Stace who needs attention constantly
What’s worse is that Kristi hasnt proposed any financial accounting system to stop corruption in government. Neither did Jackley. Neither is Billie.
What corruption? and speak with specificity please not the broad brush.
Totally agree. What’s the obsession?
This is a fiasco the so called conservatives are only going to once again help the moderates take control of the leadership positions….short sighted and stupid….but they will be pure and the only true conservatives as they accomplish NOTHING once again….
Someone posted this on Facebook a bit ago. Seems relevant here especially considering the fact that Nelson couldn’t even make 90% or better conservative rating on an unbiased, National scorecard.
But what does it mean to be the most conservative Conservative if none of the items you were the SD Senate Prime Sponsor for became law? For example, SD Senator Stacey Nelson touts his status as the most conservative of Conservatives in the SD State Legislature and uses the SD Citizens for Liberty scorecard to prove his claim.
However, look at each item listed on the 2018 SD Citizens for Liberty (SDCfL) scorecard.
Senator Stacey Nelson was not the "most" conservative in 2018 according to the SDCfL scorecard; Senator Lance Russell was.
Senator Stacey Nelson can claim he is the most conservative using the averaged score of 2017 & 2018. That does put him "back on top."
On the SDCfL 2018 scorecard there are 26 "graded" items; 14 originating in the SD Senate and 12 originating in the SD House.
Senator Stacey Nelson, the most conservative Conservative, was the Prime Sponsor of 6 of these items; 5 originating in the SD Senate and 1 originating in the SD House.
Of the 6 items Senator Stacey Nelson was the Senate's Prime Sponsor his results are:
Failed – 3 (SR2, SB181, and SB182)
Deferred to 41st day – 1 (SB112)
Tabled – 1 (SB116)
Vetoed by Governor – 1 (HB1268)
Senator Stacey Nelson, the most conservative of Conservatives in the SD State Legislature, had a 0.00% success rate with anything he Prime Sponsored that was picked by the SDCfL 2018 scorecard for things they determined most important to Conservative ideals.
What does an individual Legislator's vote mean once you learn that what that Legislator sponsors fails to become law? Effective Legislators, any leader for that matter, must be able to build teams, coalitions, and gain agreement to get things done. Personal votes matter little if they don't translate to law.
The SDCfL scorecard is a good reference tool but it does not tell the whole story. What should matter is did the selected Conservative item become law or not. Of the 26 items "graded" on the SDCfL 2018 scorecard 11 were signed by the Governor. 2 originated in the SD Senate (SB20 and SB110) and 9 originated in the SD House (HBs 1007, 1029, 1056, 1067, 1081, 1099, 1177, 1311, and 1320).
This is a 42% success rate for the items selected by the SDCfL 2018 scorecard in a Republican dominated House, Senate, and Governor's office. I understand the RINO comments but the "most conservative Conservative" Legislator, Senator Stacey Nelson, had a 0.00% success rate on the 2018 SDCfL scorecard items while all the RINOs working together had a 42% success rate.
Perhaps being a team builder, coalition builder, agreement getter is more important to advancing Conservative issues in SD than being a, "fearless, principled, public servant and…recognized as an outspoken leader on conservative issues" if getting Conservative legislation passed into law is actually the goal?
I figured out why Nelson doesn’t just call his group the Freedom Caucus like they do in DC and open it up to anybody who wants to join. Because so many legislators would join it that they would elect someone other than him to lead it. So for Nelson to be a leader of something he has to create his own fake scorecard and have his group be limited to handpicked people who pass his fake scorecard. Then he makes the scorecard so that only his buddies who will let him be the leader are qualified to join the group.
After the election the Republican caucus should kick him out of the caucus for being a constant troublemaker. They should seat him in the senate if he wins his race, but not assign him to any committees.
Very true assessment. What I am amazed at is how brain-washed some people can become. I mean some actually think he is humble and honest in being a servant of the people. Actually, he appears to be a power monger who has the capabilities to groom people for his own purpose. Truthfully, I fear his dictatorial tendencies.
At some point, it has to be recognized that these people are knowing collaborators with the progressive Democrats..
These people have endless suspicion and contempt for conservatives, and yet endless latitude, trust and sympathy for their dear progressive friends.
That tells you where they are politcally. It doesn’t matter what they claim their policy preferences are.
Which, by the way, they lie about
They repeat leftwing media hype and eagerly retweet their #FakeNews.
They’re always willing to believe the worst of their fellow Republicans, and so believe every slur their leftist friends hurl, because they are anti-Republican operatives themselves.
They do not trust conservatives.
That tells you where someone really is as far as their true political affiliation.
You nailed Stacey Nelson.
Finally, more people are recognizing what I have been saying for years.
Stace Nelson does as much to further the Democratic liberal’s agenda as Nesiba.
Troy, who voted for the liberal sales tax increase and who did not?
“Nelson starts realizing the actual Republican caucus isn’t going to support those who aren’t members of the actual Republican Caucus”
Pat, I realized that the GOP Establish does not support conservatives a long time ago. I was among the first to bring that to Mr. Nelson’s attention to explain why I ran as an independent in 2010.
yet you came back as another opportunist in this years precinct elections
Steve,
You mean the GOP platform consistent plank to provide quality education or the plank about infrastructure broadly expected by the citizenry? Both of which are basic conservative roles of government.
I am trying to find out what is conservative and in the platform which would create an unfunded liability with the retirement system and state employees.
Steve: You do your best work and contribute the most when you talk about ideas. When you deign to define specifics of what is conservative or who is conservative, you become a tool of people who just need to feel important to compensate for their deep-seated personal inadequacies.
You are better than that.
Troy, how many Democrats voted for that sales tax increase?
So we didn’t have a quality education system before the sales tax increase, but we do now?
Steve,
In my opinion, South Dakota has a quality education system. In fact the US news reports ranks SD 17th in the nation for overall education. Many of our scores are middle of the road with the exception of 2 year college graduation rates which ranks #1! The sales tax increase may not have improved our education system, but it damn sure didn’t hurt it.
So it is OK to tax the citizens when there is no favorable impact from the increased governmental revenue? Is that a liberal or conservative position?
How about we quit arguing whether a position is liberal or conservative and argue whether it was the right thing for SD. Personally I think investing in Educating our youth is the right thing to do. Also Steve how do you know there is no favorable impact?
“The sales tax increase may not have improved our education system”
Blake, you said there was no favorable impact. And the point of this thread is in regard to conservative vs liberal Republicans. The question is, what defines conservative. Implementing liberal tax and spend programs is not conservative.
Interesting that we do not want to talk about the number of Democrats who voted in favor of the sales tax increase.
So is Stace’s Exclusive Caucus holding secret meetings or can anyone join? Is that a stupid question? Is he in favor of open government, or not?
no…you cannot join unless you meet the criteria he set out and he cherry picked to make sure he controlled the membership list
Steve,
Whether the education system was of sufficient or in sufficient quality, whether more money was needed to improve or sustain the system and whether a sales tax increase was or wasn’t the best way to finance more money are all legitimate questions to discuss. The answer is not necessarily a liberal or conservative determination.
What percentage of Democrats voted for it? That will help make the determination.
Never raising taxes is not fiscally responsible all the time either.
Steve,
First, your question & assertion it defines ideology is a logic fallacy ad hominem.
Second, because you have reached a position on an issue and then assert your position is consistent with a particular label/ideology,you additionally imply some additional logic fallacies including: begging the question, circular reasoning, cherry picking, and red herrings.
Third, so again, the issue goes back to the three questions I outlined above. Asserting it is a clear ideological position with literally over a half dozen logic fallacies is not convincing and is by definition irrational.
Troy, by your refusal to state the percentage of Democrats who voted for the liberal tax and spend policy is an example of ignoring facts. Ignoring facts causes irrational and illogical fallacies.
So all of you who just defended the 12.5% increase in sales tax that all but one Democrat voted in favor of are tax and spend liberals. Why should conservatives vote for those Republicans, who also voted for that tax increase, based on a campaign lie that they are against increasing taxes? Yeah, that is why Pat and the SDGOP Establishment are so much against scorecards and are blowing more smoke at the voters by calling the exposure of votes…cherry picked. And anybody who uses past votes will be accused of negative campaigning by the Fake News propagandists.
This isn’t fake news.
CONSERVATIVE ratings by an uninfluenced, national conservative organization out of VA with no specific interest in SD. You can see who is conservative based on facts not twisted bill manipulation criteria.
“Yes, we produce annual legislative scorecards for all 50 states and all 7,400 legislators.
Here is our South Dakota legislative scorecard: http://acuratings.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/SouthDakota_2017_web.pdf
And here is the link where you can view all our other state scorecards as well as Congress: http://acuratings.conservative.org/
This data is from the American Conservative Union Foundation out of Alexandria Virginia. An independent party who evaluates all legislators for the benefit of Voters like us.
The ACU is not a reliable judge of what is good for America or what should be considered conservative:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/141605/disturbing-event-american-conservative-union-raymond-ibrahim
Seriously? You draw that conclusion from an article that wasn’t even cited correctly from 2012? Which the content has zero bearing on their scorecards. So yes I will put much more stock in their scorecards than one made up buy a legislator who just so happens to be on top when it’s finished and also passed no real legislation.
Supporting Islamic Jihad is not a conservative nor pro-American position.
Steve,
First, I assess the merits of a position based on my understanding of the issue. I don’t determine my position based on who is for or against it. It is a logic fallacy to do so. I might listen to their reasoning but I don’t defer my judgment to anyone. It is wholly possible two people to make the same conclusion for wholly different and unrelated rationales. Thus, the percentage for and against is a “fact” irrelevant to me. What is relevant is their rationale.
Second, do you even understand what a logic fallacy is? It is a description of a line of reasoning that is false/faulty. Facts are wholly distinct from the line of reasoning but are pieces of information applied to the line of reasoning.
Good facts and bad reasoning results in nonsense. Bad facts and good reasoning leads to poorly informed decisions. There is a difference.
“I don’t determine my position based on who is for or against it.”
Troy, you tied Mr. Nelson to Bernie Sanders on a previous thread, so you sure enough do base your position on who is or is not.
“Bad facts and good reasoning leads to poorly informed decisions.”
That I agree with. Ignoring facts also leads to poorly informed decisions. So what does all but one Democrat voting for a 12.5% tax increase tell you?
And the only reason the Chamber of Commerce approved was because the business sector got a property tax reduction. Does anybody consider that corrupt?
I guess I’d say that tells me that Democrats and Republicans alike are interested in our children’s futures by trying to attain and to retain qualified teachers.
Steve,
I don’t base my position on an issue on Stace’s view of the issue. So, whatever you referring to, the context is obviously different.
The reality all but one Democrat voted for the tax increase tells me all but one Democrat found a compelling reason to vote for the tax increase. I have no idea what information they had available and what rationale’s they used to do as they did but, as I said before, I reach my decisions based on the information I have and my best reasoning. It would be absolutely ludicrous to let people using bad information and bad reasoning who happen to reach a conclusion consistent with my information and reasoning and then do the opposite just because of their conclusion.
Steve
If you believe in the constitution or are a capitalist, you had to support the investment in education in South Dakota.
Facts are that we both weren’t attracting educators in the marketplace and weren’t attracting students to education baccalaureate degree programs in sufficient numbers to meet the market demands. Those are facts. You can ignore them, sort of the bill Clinton thing where truth is an option but not an imperative . But they are still facts
So on the constitution, which every legislator swore to uphold, when you could no longer recruit teachers we had to either honor our oath or be (like you are)
As for capitalists , if you aren’t competing in the marketplace but think somehow you are entitled to something (quality educators) you’re either or a socialist, a communist or an idiot (maybe more than one).
Steve, there may have been other ways to make the investment, but there were no other real plans (Russell had a spend same dollar twice thing like liberals do, but there was no other)
So steve, you can just be your little socialist anti-capitalist self, but leave the field to people willing to do the heavy lifting of looking out for South Dakota
Lee,
A conservative approach to the problem would be to increase teacher by making it a priority without raising taxes. Funding economic development, only to create a labor shortage should not be a priority.
“If you believe in the constitution or are a capitalist”
I believe in a free market with a limited role of the government. That role is to protect the market place from corruption. Sadly, that role has been reversed via public/private partnerships that has legalized corruption. If that is what you mean by capitalism, then I do not support it.
Lee,
Does the premise that a capitalist is automatically conservative supported by the idea of obtaining cheap third world labor via refugee resettlement:
http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2018/02/recent-audit-of-the-lutheran-social-services-of-south-dakotas-handling-of-the-refugee-resettlement-p.html
Interesting way to solve the workforce shortage problem created by governmental economic development programs to create jobs via public/private partnerships. Could this be following the same trend established by EB-5 and Gear-Up? Except, nothing will be done about the audit deficiency until there is a suicide?
And of these costs should take priority over teacher pay? The only option is to raise taxes?