Consultant Jordan Mason attacks Republican Legislator for not following GOP Principles… while suffering convenient amnesia

@SoDakCampaigns

So this is kind of funny.   On liberal Democrat Cory Heidelberger’s blog this morning, consultant Jordan Mason issued a screed attacking State Senator Lee Schoenbeck for supporting candidates of his choice in the GOP primary as somehow not being in line with his own noble Republican Principles.

Mason started looking like an idiot by trying to conflate Schoenbeck with xenophobia because (seriously) he comes from Watertown, which is the same area that Neal Tapio comes from.

But sadly, this is an ongoing trend with Senator Schoenbeck from Watertown, an area of our state which also brought us the xenophobic and Islamo-phobic Senator Neal Tapio just a few short years ago, and comes as no surprise.

Read that here.

But it gets better!  (Realistically it gets much dumber, but better in that it’s more laughable.)  Because here’s the money quote:

Unlike Senator Schoenbeck, I for one, as a Republican, will continue to adhere to our foundational principles…

Read here as well..

So, Jordan Mason is crying to the state’s Democrat Blog making claims that unlike Schoenbeck, as a Republican he’s going to adhere to foundational principles?  Like when Jordan worked with Democrats this year to put recreational marijuana in the State Constitution?

That’s pretty laughable.

Apparently as we’re also supposed to forget Jordan’s long history of working with SD Gun Owners and his own PAC he uses to attack Republicans?

Realistically, the fact Mason sent an op-ed crying to the Democrat blog about Senator Schoenbeck is more about the fact that several candidates that Lee supported soundly defeated candidates that Mason was working for.

Such as when Schoenbeck sent money to Senator Jessica Castleberry, who utterly destroyed Mason’s candidate and Pennington County’s Most Wanted Kevin Quick.

According to Jordan, it’s bad if Lee supports Republican candidates of his choice, but we should forget about Jordan attacking Republicans, working with Democrats to put marijuana in the constitution, and crying about Schoenbeck on a Democrat blog….?

Okay. Got it.

21 thoughts on “Consultant Jordan Mason attacks Republican Legislator for not following GOP Principles… while suffering convenient amnesia”

  2. Everyone is a RINO but me. Pat is a RINO, Jordan, Lee, Troy. All RINOS. I am the only true republican.

    The purity tests will never end and we did it to ourselves.

    1. I agree. Primaries are built into our system for the party members as voters to select their candidates. And, it is those who vote in primaries who determine who the candidates are. By definition, one isn’t a RINO if selected by the people who make the decision.

    2. I agree. I had a number of those who I supported who won this election, and a few who didn’t win. That doesn’t make the winners or losers RINOS like some people claim. Just means that the candidates who ran a better race won.

      Jordan trying to claim that he’s “holier than thou” because Lee is open about supporting candidates he agrees with, when Jordan has a long history of attacks in primaries, is laughable.

      1. Or is a better candidate or is a better Republican. Plus, it is easier to run a good campaign if you are good campaign with positions that resonate with the voter.

      2. So if Jordan Mason wanted to place an order with the Campaign Store, would you do business with him?

  3. Pat,
    Jordan Mason would sell his own kid if he could make a buck. Seriously though (sort of), Mason tries to capitalize monetarily on the souls of those seeking some kind of “help” with their campaigns, most of which have already failed out of the gate due to ineptness, past histories or just plain old not ready for prime time. Lee, along with all of us, has the right to support whatever candidate he wants. If we can use our money and our influence to get that candidate we want elected, then so be it (it’s called Democracy folks). I see no need for Mason to air his dirty laundry in public. It garners no sympathy, just gaffes and ridicule and fewer future clients.

    1. Black Hills Bob – lots of yikes factor. Sometimes doing what is right means parting from the party line.

      I think meaning is lost in the personal attacks.

      The way the parties are situated in SD, there is little hope to be elected as a D, so folks capitulate and shoe-horn into the R hoping for daylight and a little luck to push Neocon, Neolib agendas.

      Conservatism doesn’t map to either party platform right now, but more R than D.

      I like the conservative, nationalist movement we’re seeing right now and what it means for technology workers, especially.

      THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM A DISPLACED AND PERSECUTED TECH WORKER!

      KEEP HAMMERING.

  5. Sincere question from one who never joined a party: what foundational Republican principle(s) does a person counteract by advocating recreational marijuana?

    1. Caleb – I think you’re making a very significant mistake in reasoning by thinking that there are steadfast Republican principles.

      The one mistake I made in this article that Pat very graciously published (I need to remind myself of Pat’s generosity when I get hangry and grumpy and shoot my mouth off) was that drafts of the US Constitution were written on Hemp paper (not the final version, which is written on animal skin).

      As it turns out, I believe strongly that legalization is the conservative position, which is typically associated with the Republican platform and many blue-dog Democrats. I still think this holds water, although the NASD approach to legalization was not mine.

      https://dakotawarcollege.com/five-questions-with-john-dale-cannabis-consumers-for-liberty/

      1. I did not believe in any steadfast Republican principles existed, but instead was questioning the article’s implication that working with a Democrat to put recreational marijuana on the ballot would go against any such principles. You have answered that question, and I thank you for that. I’m also pleased to see your answer and receive the link, as I’ve long wondered why so many “conservatives” oppose cannabis.

      2. Legal marijuana is consistent with a libertarian argument. It is not conservative.

        There is a difference. Republicans are both a individually and collectively a mixed bag of conservative and libertarian positions (which probably match 80% of the time).

        Personally, I’m probably 90% Libertarian which means I’m 50%-50% on the conservative positions which are not libertarians. Legal Marijuana is one of my conservative positions.

        1. How is legal marijuana consistent with a libertarian argument but not a conservative argument? When you say legal marijuana is one of your conservative positions, do you in that case mean “conservative” in a different way than you do in your first claim that it is not conservative? Sincerely trying to understand,Troy.

  8. On liberal Democrat Cory Heidelberger’s blog: Outdated

    On Socialist Cory Heidelberger’s blog: Updated

Comments are closed.