If he talks like a liberal and votes like a liberal…..

In the comments on another post someone said Tim Johnson was voting more and more liberal — so here’s another log for that fire…..Johnson vowing a filibuster to save federal money for abortion.

From the Planned Parenthood Action Fund website for Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota

Senator Tim Johnson has been a long time supporter of women?s rights and health care both in South Dakota and the rest of the country. His latest action pledging support to the women and families of South Dakota is a vow to oppose ?any bipartisan spending bill that includes an amendment to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood.? Senator Johnson, along with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and thirty nine additional senators signed a letter promising to filibuster. According to The Hill, ?It?s just large enough to sustain a filibuster to block any spending bill that cuts Planned Parenthood funding from passing the upper chamber.?

Notice that even Planned Parenthood calls it bipartisan….but that’s not good enough for them or Sen. Johnson.

50 Replies to “If he talks like a liberal and votes like a liberal…..”

  1. MOSES

    You guys sent your best against him and you still couldn’t beat him .Johnson will retire undefeated what a blow to the republican machine,Now cry now and tell me how Johnson stole the election any one need a towel.

    1. Name

      In your mind, you yourself must know that he did steal it or you are wouldn’t bring it up. You figure everyone knows it and it just has to be a hot topic. Hmmm, wasn’t in ’08 that I can recall.

  2. Truthinator

    WOW! I know this is off-topic here, but I just saw Kristi on the evening news saying something about a “mandate.” haha

    My point is how HOT she looks. Those DC handlers have her down at the beauty salon. No more crappy $6 haircut. Really nice makeup that doesn’t end at her jawline anymore. I mean she looked good – almost as good as Bachmann! It took SHS several years to get into the glamor mode. Kristi is a quick study – already way ahead of SHS.

    She was saying something about a mandate….

    1. Name

      Ever notice how when a Republican woman is serving in Congress, apparently it’s ok to talk about how “hot” and attractive the woman is? Whereas if a Democratic woman is elected to Congress, did you know that if you bring up the word “hot”… you’ll be labeled as a sexist and a misogynist? Pretty big double standard if you ask me…

      1. duggersd

        There is probably a reason you do not use the word “hot” with Democrat women in Congress. Rush’s Undeniable Truths of Life #24. Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

    2. donkephant

      For sure, she even got hair extensions in the last month.
      It’s really interesting when Noem says she believes the GOP is open to agreements, compromises, everyone at the table sort of thing. It’s just ironic since she never practiced that sort of thing in SD.
      Take a look at some of her youtube news clips; the tone of voice is becoming more similar to Palin’s with every passing day!

  3. Name

    Johnson won re-election last time based on a sympathy vote and the fact that he seems to be a nice guy. There was no way any candidate could wage a decent campaign because any attack on Johnson’s votes or policies was translated into “picking on someone who is ill.” I didn’t vote for him based on his policies and his voting record. Too bad that many voters fell for the sympathy line. Now we are stuck with his votes for the next four years. This just reinforces that fact.

    There is no way that we should be funding PP. Let them pay their own way. But of course Johnson can’t see the well is running dry; he thinks the money will continue to seep in to pay for the expanding gov’t programs and costs. Maybe he really does want the economy to collapse just like Obama and his cronies have expressed in order to “fundamentally change America.”

  4. anon

    I forgot Johnson was a Senator. I only remembered Thune. I look forward to Noem giving us some real representation in DC as a Senator. Thune and Noem in the US Senate would look good for SD.

  5. oldguy

    I voted for TJ last time but never again. I hope he runs again just so I can vote against him. I wonder how many people feel like I do?

  6. Bill Fleming

    last I checked, advocating for human rights was not a liberal position. In fact, I think it’s part of the Republican platform, isn’t it?

    1. duggersd

      Just how is funding Planned Parenthood who claims to offer all kinds of services, but women cannot get such as a mammogram a “human right”? Just which human right is it that PP protects? I did not know ripping a human baby from the womb of its mother was a human right. Some human right advocate!

      1. Bill Fleming


        The above link takes you to a list of services offered at the Rapid City Planned Parenthood office. As far as abortion goes, polls show that an overwhelming majority of people believe that abortion is necessary in some instances. There are only about 15-20% who feel it should be illegal in all cases. The whole issue on both sides of the argument is decidedly a human rights issue. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous. Simply put, it’s a debate between authoritarians and libertarians with libertarians clearly in the majority.

        1. DDC

          Taking money from someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for abortions is not a libertarian position.

          Taking money from someone to pay for something is not a human right.

    1. DDC

      Those two things aren’t exactly a good direct comparison to taking money from people to pay for abortions (government bodies don’t exactly have human rights).

      I would simply argue that the government shouldn’t be executing or torturing people anyways. Where they get the money to do it really doesn’t matter.

      Not providing taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood does not violate anyone’s rights. Executing and/or torturing them does. Pretty clear distinction.

    1. Bill Fleming

      Moses, let’s just say that I understand the reasons why some women may have to prevent or end their pregnancy far better than I understand the government’s supposed right to use my tax dollars to torture and execute people on my behalf.

      1. PNR

        Whether women have a legal right to abortion or not is distinct from the assertion that they have a legal right to somebody else paying for it. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any cogent historical, theoretical, or philosophical basis for the assertion that government is the proper agent for such services even if you assume it is merely a medical procedure and not murder.

        Maintaining a military for national defense, however, has *always* been a primary purpose of gov’t going back to the days when the chieftan was the clan’s best warrior.

        Which is why Planned Parenthood should be defunded, but not the military.

        1. Bill Fleming

          So, no government assist for any medical procedures then? Trying to get your point here. As far as my position on the military, I believe most people would consider it an extremist, idealistic stance. I’m okay with that.

          1. Bill Fleming

            Well said, perhaps, except that there is indeed a law that enables such services to be publicly funded (not abortion, the other services.) It’s the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, which is an amendment to the Public Health Service Act. Abortion services are specifically excluded. That’s why I don’t quite understand the point PNR is trying to make and have asked for clarification.

  7. yoyoyoyoyo

    Maintaining a military for defense is always a primary purpose of the fed, but i think the founders would be rolling in their graves at the exepense and scope. And we could debate all day between standing armed forces vs an armed citizen militia. Either way, I dont see any guarantee for the health care of soldiers either.

    Now, from a purely fiscal standpoint, funding Planned Parenthood is probably a a sounde economic idea. Preventing unwanted pregnancies through birth control from people without insurance or other means to afford it, saves the rest of us tax $$ for caring for the children through various entitlement programs. And really, state payment of abortion (which is only something like 5% of what PP provides) again is fiscally sound. Im going to bet the majority that use PP are low income with no insurance. An abortion costs $500-600. Birth of a child, which we will all fund with medicaid, costs $7000-$8000 if all goes well. So right there we are looking at thousands of dollars in savings.

    1. duggersd

      yoyo, please check the link I made above. You claim only about 5% of what PP provides is abortion. Abby Johnson says in her article:
      “Planned Parenthood?s bottom line is numbers. And, with abortion as its primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. I know this is true because I worked at one of their Texas clinics for 8 years, two as the clinic director.

      Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood?s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion. But of course they do. Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding and performed more than 650,000 abortions between 2008 and 2009. An abortion is expensive. Its cost includes pay for the doctor, supporting medical staff, their health benefits packages and malpractice insurance. As clinic director, I saw how money affiliate clinics receive from several sources is combined into one pot, not set aside for specific services.

      Planned Parenthood?s claim that abortions make up just 3 percent of its services is also a gimmick. That number is actually closer to 12 percent, but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 ?visits? per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit. The resulting difference between family planning and abortion ?visits? is striking.”
      Read about who Abby Johnson is. I suggest that your 5% number is probably backwards of abortion to other services.

  8. Lee Schoenbeck

    An interesting debate, but Yoyos comments leave me shaking my head. It is condescending – and unfortunately too common of an opinion – that poor people should have abortions. It assumes that there children will all be a burden to the public. It assumes that economic status in life has some equivalency with moral worth. It assumes a mechanic?s kid is worth less than a doctor?s. On behalf of those of us who grew up in less than economically privileged households, Yoyoyoyo — just think a little bit about what you wrote – you can’t believe what you wrote — sometimes it?s too easy to hit ?send? in these discussions (been there, done that)

  9. Name

    Is Kristi referencing the duck ad from Pressler’s 96 campaign for the title here? That was one of the dumbest ads I have ever seen, which is probably why I remember it 15 years later.

    1. Kristi Golden

      Why yes I was….You may not have liked it — but you remembered it. Most advertising execs would call that a success — and by the way — I had a hand in writing that commercial and I still like it! QUACK QUACK

  10. Les

    Lee, yo yo while stating only fiscally, is right on according to PP and the other advocates for abortion through PP. They will state we(defunding) are taking the rights of the poor away and forcing them into back alley abortions while the rest of us can afford those kinds of practices.

    Flems statement of………””Moses, let?s just say that I understand the reasons why some women may have to prevent or end their pregnancy far better than I understand the government?s supposed right to use my tax dollars to torture and execute people on my behalf.””………..in a nutshell says to me, ” those we have elected, have fallen to a point the choices they give us, are not acceptable in the least, and are treasonous in the worst”.

    We wage war to steal natural resources and we no longer protect our youth and our elderly.

    Lord help us when it becomes this casual.

  11. East River Cowboy

    All of this commentary is hilarious. Johnson wins because he represents South Dakota. I am proud republican who voted for him since I first registered. I vote and will continue to vote for him because he has consistently has spent his life fighting to protect our states interests. He works hard to protect farmers and ranchers and thats all that matters to me.

    1. YMOUS

      You should change your party then because he’s as liberal as you can get. If you vote for him purely on his ability to “get you money” that is the reason this country is in the shape its in. We all need to try and get this ship to stop taking on water. We are drownding in debt and Tim Johnson while I believe he’s an honest man, his politics and votes are putting my kids and this countrys future on very very unstable ground. Its about what we can afford. That is all. Not what lines your pocket “Cowboy”.

  12. civil rights

    Discussion is underway with tribes to build womens’ clinics on non-contiguous reservation land that will be immune to state law. This is seen as an economic development opportunity for mid-level healthcare providers looking to reduce loans incurred at graduate and medical school.

  13. William

    Senator Johnson is yet another example of the unintended consequences of the 17th Amendment. Unaccountable once elected to a six year term, he no longer represents the will of the people or the state legislature he supposedly represents.

    Only 18 States and the District of Columbia currently have mechanisms in place to recall a US Senator (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin).

    While I personally favor recalling the 17th Amendment, we should at least make South Dakota the 19th State to allow a recall election.

    No one, from either party, should be in a Federal Office for a term of 6 years and be totally unaccountable to the constituency they represent.

    Regardless of any questions of health or ability to do the job, I don’t think Senator Johnson represents the state as a whole, as the state wishes to be represented at the Federal level.

    If I’m not mistaken, we still have an opportunity to recall Senator Johnson before his term ends. Off the top of my head, I don’t think there’s an off-year 2011 election that could pass a referendum to recall a US Senator, but it could be on the ballot in 2012. If the referendum passed, a special election could be held for a recall before the end of his term in 2014.

    Even if Senator Johnson could not be recalled, I would support modifying the SD Constitution to allow recall elections of US Senators, so we’re not placed in this position again in the future.

  14. Les

    Easy does it Mike.

    A few years back I was witness to a known bogus lawsuit in which the plaintiff(victim with his arm in a sling for 5 years often seen slinging square bales with that arm) was finally given the opportunity by a very tired of the battle insurance adjuster to settle. I’ll give you an education, tell me what degree you would like. “I’ve always wanted to be a helicopter pilot” said the disabled and sight impaired victim. Needless to say, the adjuster at that point was given her second wind to fight the fight and give the scoundrel exactly what he deserved, nothing!

    My point here Mike, true victims of disability are entitled to some sympathy and sympathy we did give Senator Johnson while recovering and serving the remainder of his term. At the time of him running for re election, he became no different than the scoundrel wanting to become something he was not capable of. Unfortunately it also showed that we think more with our hearts than our minds in SD.

  15. Name

    The Democrats should just take a few moments to figure out they cannot not defeat Kristi Noem. They can try but they won’t succeed. She is a great public servant and a good person.


    Not a word written in the Argus about Johnson threatening a filibuster over Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the War College for posting the stuff the paper of record doesnt want people talking about.

  17. venture

    percieved and actual power. you are all fools if you think kristi and john can even hold johnsons jock strap when it comes to influence in DC