ALEC Repugs in Pierre have NO time for Progressive politics (Guest Poster)
l3wis A sorry movement has been growing over the last couple of years at a feverish rate. The people have voted against FAUX News and Rove even after the vote fix was in. Something must be done. Consider what is happening in Pierre and other state capitals as the elected and appointeds work to figure out how to roll our nation back to the 1800’s. Senator Stan’s Adelstein’s proposal to have direct primary nomination election of constitutional candidates in South Dakota is a throwback to the Progressive Era our current ‘leaders’ wish to destroy.
DWC – Pat Powers’ recent rants to continue his destruction of all things related to Senator Stan. We must not forget Pat’s job loss was a result of last May’s expose’ of SOS Jason Gant and his ethically challenged / legally questionable activities. South Dakota was in the center of the nation’s Progressive movement. Much of what we currently have as average Americans is in no small part because of what happened in Sioux Falls and South Dakota. Governor Lee, Peter Norbeck, Governor Tom Berry through Abourezk and McGovern were prairie progressives who believed in the average person. Only the rich, selfish or wish to be selfishly rich have fought the ideals of expanded rights for all people.
So when I read about more idiots who wish to roll back the Progressive Era advancements, the more I want to remind everyone of our collective history. The absurd right has it wrong on all counts, how can we go back to something that never existed in the first place? So we have reactionaries like Pat Powers who lost his job to save a leader of South Dakota RSLC – ALEC. Jason Gant had to be saved. Jason has funneled funds and support to many of the right people to make sure Keystone XL pipeline destroys the ecology of South Dakota. The John Birch Society controlled RSLC – ALEC will never let the common person have any say in the affairs of governing. It is not in their plan. Pat Powers is only a mouthpiece. A person who proudly boasts either way, he makes money. Remember this, he is a mouthpiece for the rich, selfish or wish to be selfish rich. Here is another example of what ‘conservatives’ want to do for voters;
National Review Blogger Calls for Repeal of Women’s Suffrage
By Amanda Marcotte
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:15 ESTThanks for getting arrested, but since your forebears chose to use their rights to get more rights, all rights have to go.
Michael Walsh of National Review Online called for the termination of women’s right to vote last week:
Nevertheless, you’re on to something I’ve been advocating for years now. And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called “Progressive Era†amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, which were passed between 1911 and 1920.
One of those has already been repealed—the 18th amendment, which ushered in Prohibition—which Walsh admits. That’s not really what he’s on about anyway:
The income-tax amendment was a self-evident attack on capitalism and led to the explosive growth of the federal government we currently enjoy today. (Without it, there’d be no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment.) Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state. Prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime and its unholy alliance with the big-city Democratic machines. And women’s suffrage . . . well, let’s just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.
I suppose we’re supposed to imagine it’s a “jokeâ€, because he takes a jovial tone for the last one. But if so, it doesn’t make sense. He’s dead fucking serious about the other two—three, really, because he only seems to be against Prohibition because he believes it gave Democrats a leg up, which is one of those deaf-to-historical-change moments that lead Republicans to imagine that Lincoln would have anything to do with the modern version of their party—so, as a joke, it falls completely apart. If he hadn’t rolled it up with the other amendments initially, the “joke†defense he clearly has in his pocket would be an easier sell. Something like, “I’ve long advocated for the repeal of 3 of the Progressive Amendments (though one has already been repealed), and hey, ladies, sometimes you make me wish to repeal all four.†It would still be a misogynist joke, but easier to sell as a joke, even if not a very funny one.
As it stands, it’s clear he’s doing what Al Franken calls “kidding on the square“, where you say something you mean but pretend it’s a joke so you don’t have to take responsibility for it. Franken has some fun with it in his books, calling himself out for it and therefore turning a typically unfunny bit of passive-aggression into a for-real joke, but I’m guessing you all know that because of course you’ve read his books. Kidding on the square is a favorite tool of sexists, who want to say sexist things, but are too cowardly to say them directly. Walsh is just a particularly obvious example. And no, none of the other National Review bloggers argued with him on this point.
I’m trying to imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if a feminist dare say men should forsake their right to vote until they shape up and start voting correctly. It certainly wouldn’t slide under the waters, like this did.
