So, are all Dakota Scout debates going to feature Jon Hansen?

@SoDakCampaigns

That tweet comes from South Dakota Democrat activist Briggs Warren, as he took after Dakota Scout co-founder Joe Sneve over his objectivity with regards to State Rep. Jon Hansen this past February because of what he perceived as bias arising from their close friendship.

Why do I bring this up?  I just received an e-mail story from The Dakota Scout about the debate they had been advertising that they’re co-hosting tonight, which notes in part…

“…having a conversation with key players from both sides of the issue will help our friends and neighbors learn more about this consequential topic,” said Joe Sneve, co-founder of The Dakota Scout. “So we’re grateful to both Rep. Hansen and Ms. Burns-Thompson for their willingness to answer question in the open for everyone to hear.”

Read that here.

Well, reporting the facts of a story is one thing, but featuring him in an event they’re sponsoring?

When it was originally written by Briggs, you take it with a grain of salt. But 6 months later when the Dakota Scout is sponsoring a debate featuring the same person one of the co-owners had previously been tweaked for his close personal relationship with, it kind of leaves you wondering if maybe Briggs had a point.

Are all Dakota Scout debates going to feature Jon Hansen?

27 thoughts on “So, are all Dakota Scout debates going to feature Jon Hansen?”

  1. Hi Pat,

    The South Dakota Federation of Republican Women and The Sioux River Republican Women lined up the participants in this debate without input from The Dakota Scout.

    Joe

    1. This is a chicken/egg issue. The Sioux River Republican Women was created by people opposed to the CO2 pipeline, who wanted to provide Jon Hansen with a forum. Without Jon Hansen, it is unlikely the group would have been organized. Many, if not most, of its members have not participated in past Republican Party events.

      1. Many people opposing the pipelines just say Hansen doesn’t help organize or do anything unless he can speak. He shows up and gives a speech and leaves. They aren’t impressed.

        1. The reality is that speaking is all Hansen can do. The PUC has heard the public testimony, and that window has closed. It’s all over but the grandstanding, which will likely continue after the PUC makes their decision.

          Utilities are private corporations created to make money, and they have always used eminent domain to deliver their products. Electricity, water, natural gas, oil, telecommunications, all use eminent domain. While in a few municipalities the water and electric service are supplied by city-owned entities, that is not the case elsewhere. Most of us purchase our utilities from private corporations or co-ops. These organizations have benefitted from government grants and tax incentives but they are still privately owned and profitable.

          The only way to stop this is to stop the grants and tax incentives. They’ll still use eminent domain to transport their products in the markets that will be profitable, but will leave the unprofitable ones in the dust. It’s kind of funny that the blog post that immediately follows this one is about rural broadband, and a government grant to get it to everybody in the state, even if that means laying cable across property owned by people who are afraid of it.

          1. agreed: let’s stop the tax, subsidies and government mandates supporting the ethanol industry and get back to $2 corn as fast as we can.

  2. That’s exactly what Hansen is hoping for, I’ve never seen a state representative who so desires media attention, and that’s saying something.

    1. Like Governor Noem said “Hansen chasing headlines and trying to tell businesses what to do.”

  3. As a pro lifer we need a new leader who can effectively stop abortion from taking over SD. Hansen has alienated way too many people to be a good leader.

  4. Pro lifers should be terrified that Jon Hansen is leading this effort. He is not competent to lead such an effort.

    “Weiland’s perspective is that South Dakotans want the voters, rather than the Legislature, to decide whether abortion should be legal. He cited a Mason-Dixon poll that found 65% of respondents preferred a public vote. “So we know we’re on solid ground in terms of letting the people decide,” Weiland said. He expects to file about 60,000 signatures in mid-November.

    We’ve raised enough money to sort of fulfill our mission today,” he said about the Life Defense Fund’s finances. “If they do make the ballot, you can assume millions of dollars from pro-abortion groups will flow into the state, and we’re going to have to match that” [Bob Mercer, “Life Defense Fund Fights to Keep Abortion Off SD Ballot,” KELO-TV, 2023.08.17].”

    35k signatures are required. Raised enough money to challenge petition signatures? Get a clue. This is not a serious effort.

    2. Maybe the autocrats need to be more selective in the fight to remove individual freedoms. You have abortion and are immediately turning to getting government involved into more medical decisions. Regardless of how you justify it, people don’t need to consult with a legislator if they go on medication or have procedures done. Pick you battles….

  5. The “decline to sign” campaign has been an in sane waste of money and effort. An issue like a portion is going to easily exceed the signature threshold, and to no one’s surprise, Weiland has indicated that they will have far more signatures than they need.

    Every dollar spent on that effort is a dollar that can no longer be spent on the actual campaign next year.

    2. It is amazing how many people will put their names and addresses on petitions which will turn into mailing lists sold to anybody who wants to send them junk mail.
      If you stood in front of Walmart and just asked “may I have your name and address?” to everybody who walked by, somebody would likely call the police about a creepy random guy in the parking lot. But shove a piece of paper on a clipboard in somebody’s face and they are happy to provide that information. Go figure.

    3. Imagine if the decline to sign faction had spent as much energy lobbying for say, paid family leave, more grants for daycare operators to hire and retain staff, improved access to contraceptives, or other general things that are actually pro-life and pro-family. But sadly they’re the more iron-fisted, Bible black tyrant types than actual pro-life.

      1. Anonymous at 11:15, try this: add up your payroll taxes (don’t forget Social Security is12.4%,) income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and you will see that if half your household income were not going to pay taxes, one parent could just stay home and take care of the children. Nobody would be in need of paid parental leave or daycare.
        As for access to contraception, if you don’t know how to find any, download the Walmart app and it will show you where the condoms are; at the Brookings store they are in aisle G-32. I just looked it up. See how easy that is? You don’t need the government to do this for you.

  6. Sneve & Goss are mouth pieces for the crazies. I can’t speak for Ellis. The former will ruin his newspaper. It’s not unbiased reporting.

  8. I think this is a bit unfair. Hansen was the natural choice from the anti-pipeline contingent to be their representative in a debate.

    Briggs Warren is not a credible source on this, Pat. He’s got an axe to grind with Sneve.

    3. Hey,

      There was a time when I looked up to Sneve and wanted to be like him. I told him that much years ago. Those days are long gone. There are basic principles in journalism that you are taught when you get a journalism degree, which Sneve has. One of those principles is to avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived and to disclose unavoidable conflicts. He has failed to do that.

      Everything in my thread came straight from court records. I chose not to include others who were involved, one individual does now work for Dakota Scout after being let go by their former employer. You can view me as not credible as a person but the thread is sound.

      I was tipped off to this information by a former news producer with KELOLAND. I can’t speak to their motives.

      1. Briggs,

        You’re welcome to release the letter I wrote re: Joe’s character. It would paint a much fuller picture than the smear campaign you initiated, and have now unfortunately (but predictably) been given further platform on months after the fact.

        Every word I wrote in it is true- Joe is one of the best fathers I have ever met in my life. He is a caring person and a good friend. I’m incredibly blessed to have him in my life, and I know that his kids are too. If I didn’t believe those things, I wouldn’t have written them.

        I wrote that letter knowing that it would be available to people like you and others with the same intentions. I don’t care. Feel free to share it.

      2. Briggs,

        I’m not ashamed of the letter I wrote re: Joe’s character. I am proud of it.

        Joe is one of the best fathers I have ever met. He adores his kids, and I know he would go to the end of the world for them because I have seen him do it. To boot– he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy friends I have ever had. There is a saying, 1 good friend in a storm is worth 1000 in the clear. If that is the case, I would argue that Joe is worth 5000 friends in the clear.

        Its unfortunate that your smear campaign has been given new life several months later here on this website. But I wrote my letter for Joe knowing it would be available to people with negative intentions.

        You’re welcome to release it. I don’t care. In fact, I think it would provide a much more honest perspective of the person Joe is than the portrayal that you and this blog post have attempted to push.

Comments are closed.