Hey, vote for me, not only do I not believe in a women’s right to choose, I’m not big on BC either.
You gotta love it when born again Christians (hypocrites) run for office;
SH: How did you vote on the issue of abortion in the 2006 and 2008 South Dakota election and why?
SM:Â I voted for Referred Law 6 in 2006, and Initiated Measure 11 in 2008. I will be the most pro life candidate running to be our new Governor. I have voted in favor of life in every election. I believe life begins at conception. I also believe in the adoption option as the real choice for Moms who cannot care for children. I’ve spent my life as a health provider to extend life not to end it.
SH: Do you support the Informed Consent law passed in 2005 and the South Dakota’s efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade?
SM:Â Yes.
So Scott, even though legalized abortion is Federally mandated, and if SD would have made abortion illegal we would be violating Federal law, you still voted for it? Oh, but here is where Scott’s hypocrisy kicks in;
VC: What are your views on legalizing marijuana?
SM:Â I’m not in favor of legalizing marijuana. It is not necessary and any efforts at legalization on a state level would contradict federal laws, causing a jurisdictional nightmare for law enforcement.
I guess we only want Judicial Nightmares when it comes to rape and child abuse victims. Hypocrite.
Up until this post, I thought the only person who could stretch far enough to connect abortion to legalized marijuana on any level was Mr. Fantastic.
Nice going Lewis.
I love how anti-choicers ignore federal law when it comes to abortion but cite it when it comes to Mary Jane.
L3wis IS Mr. Fantastic.
Don’t start with that “anti-choice” crap. You wouldn’t appreciate it if someone tossed out the “pro-abortion” label so don’t fall into that name calling BS.
The fact is, you could say the same about hypocrisy the other direction. A lot of pro-choice people want to cite federal law in regards to abortion, but want to ignore it when it comes to Mary Jane.
So what… that is the way things work. Why should a person not be able to speak out against a law they find unjust? Are you honestly so willing to merely accept all federal law as gospel with no room for discussion?
If someone finds a piece of law they find to be wrong, they should be able to speak out against it. That in no way invalidates any other law or makes them hypocritical. The fact we have the constitutional right to speak our minds is a great thing – and open and honest discussion is what allows us to make changes for the better.
I think you’re way off base on this one Lewis.
I think abortion and mary jane laws should be fought on a federal level. I think states waste to much taxpayer time and money on the issue when we should be lobbying our Washington delegation. My point is that Mr. Munsterman can’t have it both ways. Does he support state rights or federal rights?
The abortion issue is slightly less clear however. The only way to truly challenge the federal law is to enact state law which would then be challenged in court. The pro-life camp knows this, and their goal was never to simply ban abortions in SD… the goal was to challenge federal law, and they were simply using South Dakota as a guinea pig.
Now granted that would end up costing millions upon millions of dollars in legal fees for our state to defend their law, but if someone is truly passionate about protecting life, the cost isn’t a significant hurdle.
So in this case I don’t think this is a case of a person being hypocritical. If someone wished to challenge federal law in respect to mary jane, they would follow much the same process. In fact I believe there are some rumblings right now that California would like to consider such a measure.
There might be other ways to challenge federal law of course, but working up through the state seems like the clearest path. I can’t really fault Munsterman for expressing his views and sticking with them even if I don’t happen to agree 100% with him.
but if someone is truly passionate about protecting life, the cost isn’t a significant hurdle.
Then they should pay for it themselves without reaching into my pocket.
I still believe the easiest solution to the MJ problem is for state and local governments to just quit enforcing laws banning it. If the feds want to spend all the time and resources going after low-level users and dealers, let tehm have at it. Enforceing MJ laws is expensive and futile. How many years has it been illegal? How long would it take your average teenager to buy enough weed to last him and all his buddies a week?
“Then they should pay for it themselves without reaching into my pocket.”
Exactly. And we already have enough fanatics in Pierre.
This statement is also contradictary:
“As a Christian, I believe Scripture is the Word of God and is absolute truth. As a citizen of our nation, I believe that free enterprise and individual initiative are what have made our nation strong.”
So what is it Scott? Individual freedom or theocracy? You can’t have it both ways.
The guy is a born-again-Christian chiropractor that owns a big share of a PPO.
So far I haven’t heard one thing that would get me to consider voting for him.
As a matter of fact: the above is a short list of great reasons to vote AGAINST him.
He seems to be a religious-whack-job quack with a vested interest in keeping our broken health-care system just exactly the way it is: with the table tilted so that lots of money keeps rolling right into his own and his rich buddies’ pockets.
GoD: Then they should pay for it themselves without reaching into my pocket.
Do you feel the same way about all issues that our state spends money to defend? Should the anti-smoking crowd be paying the legal expenses being incurred to enact the smoking ban?
I know it is easy to complain about our tax dollars spent defending laws we disagree with, but when it is something you beleive in I suspect you would feel otherwise.
I don’t want the state to have to pay for the abortion fight either, but that is only because I feel it is a futile effort and will result in millions of tax dollars flushed down the crapper. If I thought it actually had a chance to succeed maybe I would feel otherwise (but that all depends upon specifics of the bill etc, and is a philisophical discussion unrelated to this topic).
I should note that aside from this post I know jack about Munsterman. My comments are meant to be general in nature to explain that I don’t see a conflict with his views. I may not agree with all of them, but that doesn’t mean they are conflicting.
Costner, if you’d like to join the conversation that Dr. Munsterman is having with South Dakota, or would like to find out more, you can download his book “A Vision for South Dakota” for free at http://www.munstermanforgovernor.com/vision.pdf .
Of if you’d like to have a personal conversation with him and ask him questions for yourself, let me know, and I’m happy to help make it happen.
“Of if you’d….” Oops. Can’t type this AM.
OR if you’d like to have a personal conversation with him, let me know.
Yeah, Costner, and maybe you can join hands and have a little prayer session with Mr. Munsterman to.
Puke.
L3wis –
I’d known Scott and worked with him on local GOP stuff for 2-3 years, and I couldn’t have told you what Church he attended before it was in a press release about the time he got into the race.
It’s not something he shoves at others, or quotes in press releases. For him his faith is personal in how he treats people and conducts himself, even those who would call him names without having met him.
If I can tell you anything about that in actual practice, Scott acts with humility and an open mind, and is willing to sit down with those he disagrees with in a spirit of patience and understanding as he believes everyone has value, and their opinions have merit.
If you have a question about where Dr. Munsterman stands on any issue, please feel free to contact him and ask him directly (605.695.3926 is the campaign office phone, and they can get you directly in touchfor a call or a face to face).
Or as I’ve noted, I’m happy to help facilitate it if you’d like.
With regards to the interview, Voices Carry is very much a blog about religion and Christianity as much as it is about discussing the preservation of the unborn, and the interview was conducted and answered in that vein.
As you can read on the Munsterman family’s personal website, http://www.munstermanfamily.blogspot.com/, his family’s beliefs have also provided strength and comfort as his wife, Mary Jeanne, fought back to health from a particularly strong recurrence of cancer which if I recall, was discovered at a fairly late stage, and the prognosis was not good.
If there is evidence of the power of prayer and a belief in a higher power, I think that’s as about as close as you’re going to get to evidence.
Before you automatically categorize him, or put him in a box, drop him a note, and feel free to ask him about his experiences and his beliefs if you want to talk about religion and it’s application to public life.
Right now, you’re more likely going to hear Scott on the road talking about Health Care, Education, the budget, taxes, and returning South Dakota to a position of financial responsibility.
And if you want to talk to him about those, he’s up for that discussion as well.
PP, were you getting paid to write those sweet things you just said about SM? Please STFU..
Funny that this ranting started out about his stance on weed, and his wife’s name is Mary Jeanne. I know, it’s a stretch, but I’m easily amused. About her sickness… despite the warm feeling it gives you to think so, Jesus doesn’t cure cancer.
DL, maybe you could interview SM for a piece on your blog? Ask him real questions about his stance on real issues… like corporate hunting trips and vodka distilleries.
Actually no. I volunteer at this point.
And Scott/Detroit, if you want a face to face in Sioux Falls over coffee, or a phone interview, let me know and I’m happy to arrange.
At what point is that exactly? Aren’t you on the payroll?
PP-
Why would I want to interview someone who is clearly going to lose the Republican nomination? I would rather interview Knudson. At least I agree with him on a couple of issues, for instance his anti-gambling stance. It amazes me that Scott would call himself a Christian yet supports funding government by taxing food and gambling. Last I checked, in order to call yourself a Christian, you have to follow the teachings of the top dog, and his name isn’t Donald Trump.
I volunteer for the campaign as campaign manager. I only say “at this point” because that could change over the next year – based on how much time it takes me away from one of my two paying jobs.
Rather, I’m doing it because I believe that Scott Munsterman is the best candidate for the job. As an outsider, he offers the best opportunity to change the status quo, and to make government more open & efficient, and to change the way state government operates.
Should the anti-smoking crowd be paying the legal expenses being incurred to enact the smoking ban?
Yes. Lord knows they have the resources.
L3wis –
Are you sure about his positions on issues you’re concerned about?
If your question wasn’t a rhetorical one, I’d say that’s why you’d want to sit for coffee and have a conversation, so you’re crystal clear. And he would be very open to that.
Otherwise, don’t be so sure that Dave is going to be the guy. A lot can happen between now and next June. 😉
My thought about abortion is that any government should keep their noses out of it.
It amazes me that Scott would call himself a Christian yet supports funding government by taxing food and gambling.
That amazes me about the whole state, really. We claim to be moral crusaders unlike those heathens on the coasts, but try to do away with video lottery or bring up a new tax on cigarettes and you see our true color – green like money.
Thats why VL will stay legal, we’ll still pull money into the general fund from tobacco taxes, and we’ll always have at least one member of each party in our DC representation – so we don’t miss out on any of that fine pork.
PP-
I don’t need to have ‘coffee’ with Scooter. Does he support VL and taxing food as fair government appropriations? Yes or No?
It’s an easy question, but who knows, as one table said tonight at the restaurant, “I don’t like this Latte, it tastes to much like coffee.”
Pat, I’m sorry to hear about Mary Jeanne’s struggle with cancer and hope she’s doing well.
L3wis –
I’m happy to find that out for you, but the point of making the offer of a conversation is that you don’t have to have it filtered by a campaign staffer.
On video lottery, I believe he’d voted against it’s expansion before, but I couldn’t tell you where he stands on it as a gubernatorial candidate, as well as where he is on the food tax.
That’s why I say it’s best to go to the man himself, and why we’re saying “it’s ok to call him and ask him.”
If you prefer a written response, I’m happy to chase one down, and I have it in the process already. It might take a day, as Scott’s over at the state fair, and I have to wait until he’s at a computer where he can respond.
-pp
PP-
Thanks for the offer, but like I said above, I AM NOT INTERESTED. Munsterman WILL NOT WIN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. I would prefer to interview leading candidates.
As for VL and Food taxes. Limiting VL is one thing, getting rid of it all together is another thing. I truly believe the only way to bring the SD taxation system up to snuff while reducing property taxes and improving education is a 5 prong approach;
– Get rid of VL
– Eliminate food and utility retail taxes
– Make retail tax rates equal on all products
– Raise that tax by .05%
– Implement an Income tax on South Dakotans making over $250K a year
If Munsterman supports all of those ideas, he is my man.
I think you’re more likely to see the income tax from Volesky, as opposed to anyone else.
Otherwise, as I said – it’s a long time until next June.
I got on board with Scott after looking at the people in the race and evaluating them on a personal level in terms of their approach to campaigning as well as what they stand for.
I don’t get myself involved in a campaign to this level unless I think it’s going to happen. The other guys might (and will likely) outspend him. But they will not outwork him.
Scott might be the underdog now, but come June 2010, I think that there will be many doubters who will be surprised.
I appreciate the dialogue – PP informed me about a couple of questions regarding Video Lottery and sales tax on food. Here you go and thanks!
1. Voters have decided they want video lottery and I would not disrespect the voters with my own personal views. If repealed, this income would have to be replaced positioning the state towards an even greater fiscal challenge than what it is already facing. Taxpayers are in no mood for tax increases in the middle of the Great Recession.
2. When the streamline sales tax legislation passed it included food. In response to counter the sales tax impact on low income families and individuals, a rebate program was enacted in 2004. In my book “A Vision for South Dakotaâ€, on Page 136 and 137 I talk about the challenges facing families in their access for help. Here is an excerpt found on page 137:
“Programs exist to help in the battle to reduce poverty; more specifically, the
Federal Food Stamp Program provides the mechanism for direct assistance. Many
times these programs are not utilized for a number of reasons, however.
South Dakota State University’s Horizons Project meeting in Tyndall, South Dakota on
April 16, 2008, focused on many reasons, but three were most evident:286
• Food stamp paperwork is complex and the process deters those who
qualify from beginning to seek aid.
• The stigma attached to “food stamps†deters individuals from seeking
assistance.
• Many needy individuals are unaware that these programs are available.
These circumstances that deter individuals from seeking assistance are not such
a problem that they cannot be fixed. The State of South Dakota must take action
to reach the following goals pertaining to each issue:
• To battle a complex paperwork process, the State of South Dakota should
look at developing a more streamlined process designed for those who
work extended hours in one or more jobs and do not have the time to
fill out complex paperwork during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. workday.
• Deal with the stigma of food stamps through extended extension
education. Many individuals are not aware that stamps are no longer in
use. Cards, similar to debit cards, are now the preferred method, and
they can be used at a variety of locations.
• To transfer this knowledge, the State should direct efforts at increasing
public awareness.
These approaches will help. Food and nutrition are essential for good health,
and federal aid programs help lessen the strain on family household finances (especially
for lower income citizens), subsequently freeing up resources for other basic
necessities.â€
Thank you for your answers. You are right about VL, but I also think this would be the time to look at VL again. I believe the social costs are beginning to outweigh the economic benefits of VL. When you have $250,000 armored vehicles storming little neighborhoods in SF to look for casino thieves it is obviously troubled. 66% of VL revenue comes directly from Sioux Falls. Does the state give us that revenue back to combat crime? Doubtful.
And I don’t buy the ‘help the poor’ in the food tax debate. NO ONE, rich or poor should pay taxes on things that are essential to life, especially on food. And why is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to feed the poor? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with food stamp programs, but it seems so silly to be promoting these programs when the first thing we could do is get rid of the food tax. The simplest solution was introduced last year by Bread for Life in Pierre. Eliminate the food tax and replace it with a .05 cent tax on everything else.
You figure out a way to only tax food which is considered “essential to life” then you let me know. But I will never condone removal of tax on things that fall under the category of food such as soda pop, candy bars, a $87 bill from Foley’s, or a value meal from McDonalds.
Therein lies the problem – if you want to reduce the tax on food and only have it impact those who are really impacted then you end up taxing some items and not others. Then whats next – no taxes on clothing? Surely clothing is essential right? What about gasoline – surely we need gas to take our children to school or to travel to our jobs, so isn’t that essential as well?
Before you know it you have added 500 pages to the tax code and hired 2000 new state employees to track and collect it all.
I’d rather just have a flat sales tax on everything. You buy something, you pay tax on it, it’s just that simple.
Costner-
You realize it is a lot simpler then you think. Minnesota has no tax on food or clothing.
Basically it is groceries. Everything is barcoded, once locked into the system as either an essential or non-essential item the cash register takes care of the rest. Stop trying to complicate it.