PDA

View Full Version : Daschle Just Lost His Re-Election Bid in SD


Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 09:20 AM
Personally, I don't back a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage...unless activist judges make it absolutely necessary....

However, Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader from SD cast a "no" vote on the bill yesterday. In a state where over 60% of voters support the Amendment, and in a close election with a talented and popular former Republican Congressman as his opponent....

If it we were NY or MA or Hawaii, he'd be just fine. But not in SD; I'd be willing to bet he just signed his own pink slip. :shake:

He just LOST re-election; and he will become the poster boy warning politicians of the serious "fall out" of opposing the voters in conservative states....where this controversial and divisive issue WILL matter.

Cochise
07-15-2004, 09:21 AM
cool.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 09:26 AM
cool.

As a Democrat, I'll be sorry to see his "influence" as minority leader be "lost" for SD.

However, ever since he became minority leader, he's moved from being a DLC-centrist Democrat who was occasionally a maverick in the party (a good thing in my mind,) to being a bleeding-heart, NE brand, wacko liberal of the Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin mold.

Many in the state needed a good excuse to get rid of him. And he just gave it to them. So much for the trappings of "power" we've enjoyed for the past several years.... :shake:

mlyonsd
07-15-2004, 09:26 AM
I'm betting you're wrong SD. The editors from the Argus are Daschle's personal buttboys and will find a way to cover his arse.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 09:31 AM
I'm betting you're wrong SD. The editors from the Argus are Daschle's personal buttboys and will find a way to cover his arse.

You could be right....you are right about the Argus. I just think this will be the excuse people need/wanted. That and Herseth's winning the House seat also will play a role...there will be SOME who say, "hell, we can't elect three Congressional members who are Democrats." Perhaps it's wishful thinking...but I think, together, that will be enough to have John Thune edge him out of the seat. But, I could be wrong. We'll see.

Thune's ads are already out--can you believe it? ROFL

Cochise
07-15-2004, 09:34 AM
Guy's a moron.

But, you're right about him veering sharp left. I guess if you want to get ahead in the party you had better do that so you can hobknob with people uberLibs like Teddy and Lurch.

Your boy Daschle's all grown up.

whoman69
07-15-2004, 09:54 AM
If this is true then the ploy by Bush worked. He found his issue that even though it was destined to fail straight up but in more conservative states like SD could bite those who voted against it in the butt.
The whole idea of a Constitutional amendment as an anti-rights bill is repugnant. Its all a political tool.
The whole matter could be solved this year if it was said that gays could not marry but could have civil unions that have the same force in law. Right now there are states that have civil unions but have no force in law behind them. Insurance companies don't have to recognize them. I don't believe its the courts that need to decide this issue or mayors overstepping their authority to break state law.

KCTitus
07-15-2004, 10:03 AM
The whole idea of a Constitutional amendment as an anti-rights bill is repugnant. Its all a political tool.

I have to agree and it is sad that the only recourse to judicial activism is to mar the constitution with this stuff...I would prefer it stay within the states but that's just not feasible given the fact that couples could move from one state to another and then file for divorce or contest a will or whatever in a state that does not recoginze the union...

beavis
07-15-2004, 10:17 AM
He just LOST re-election; and he will become the poster boy warning politicians of the serious "fall out" of opposing the voters in conservative states....where this controversial and divisive issue WILL matter.
I don't know if I buy this or not. From everything I've heard, a lot of people don't really give a damn about it. I guess we'll see though.

Cntrygal
07-15-2004, 12:29 PM
This would make my mom happy... She can't stand Daschle and likes Thune.

Logical
07-15-2004, 01:13 PM
While that would be good news for America(the end of Daschle's run) it would be horrible for the state of our Republic if by doing the right thing and not accepting this ignorant move to change our constitution he was penalized.

I am torn on this one because in this case he did the right thing.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 02:34 PM
While that would be good news for America(the end of Daschle's run) it would be horrible for the state of our Republic if by doing the right thing and not accepting this ignorant move to change our constitution he was penalized.

I am torn on this one because in this case he did the right thing.

I agree he did the right thing--at this moment in time. However, if the judges continue their assault on "marriage" then this could be inevitable. I'd prefer we leave it to states to decide, but the courts seem bound and determined to force this issue...

In South Dakota, this issue will lose him some significant votes; my wife for one. I know of at least six others, personally, who will now vote for Thune. Maybe my circle is not representative of the overall mood of the state, but I think Daschle underestimated it's importance in this state. I could be wrong; guess we'll see.

Sometimes Congressmen should vote their conscience. Doing so in this instance just may cost the minority leader of the Senate his job.

DenverChief
07-15-2004, 02:41 PM
I agree he did the right thing--at this moment in time. However, if the judges continue their assault on "marriage" then this could be inevitable. I'd prefer we leave it to states to decide, but the courts seem bound and determined to force this issue...

.

If you want marriage to remain a term of one man and one woman in the CHURCH that is your perogative....but to tell the rest of us what it means outside the church (i.e. in the civil definition) is simply selfish and irresponsible

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 03:01 PM
If you want marriage to remain a term of one man and one woman in the CHURCH that is your perogative....but to tell the rest of us what it means outside the church (i.e. in the civil definition) is simply selfish and irresponsible

We are rehashing old ground here, friend; call it "civil union," or "domestic partnership." Otherwise, you are gonna piss off a lot of people, and while you may win the battle....you jeopardize the war.

JMHO. :)

HC_Chief
07-15-2004, 03:08 PM
If SD is so 'conservative', why in the fawk did you guys keep voting that weenie into office?

Logical
07-15-2004, 03:11 PM
We are rehashing old ground here, friend; call it "civil union," or "domestic partnership." Otherwise, you are gonna piss off a lot of people, and while you may win the battle....you jeopardize the war.

JMHO. :)
Jeopardize the war? Me thinks you are being ridiculously overdramatic. In the scheme of things the term marriage is one of the most minor issues I can imagine.

DenverChief
07-15-2004, 03:17 PM
Ok I can see that Vlad posted again but it won't let me open pg 2 to read his post....WTF?

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 03:26 PM
Jeopardize the war? Me thinks you are being ridiculously overdramatic. In the scheme of things the term marriage is one of the most minor issues I can imagine.

You forgot to add, IMHO. :p

Many moderate and conservative American Christian families disagree, and are willing to "die on this hill" if necessary...the question is, is the other side willing? :)

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 03:28 PM
If SD is so 'conservative', why in the fawk did you guys keep voting that weenie into office?

Because he didn't USE to be; and now, as a long-time incumbent, especially as "minority leader" he has real power. That is important for small states like SD. Many have overlooked his turn to the left because of that.... :shake:

Logical
07-15-2004, 03:29 PM
You forgot to add, IMHO. :p

Many moderate and conservative American Christian families disagree, and are willing to "die on this hill" if necessary...the question is, is the other side willing? :)

WTH does "die on this hill" mean in this case. Are they going to throw a temper tantrum? In general except for a few wack job Abortion clinic bombers the religiious zealot crowd tends to be pretty darn passive.

DenverChief
07-15-2004, 03:30 PM
You forgot to add, IMHO. :p

Many moderate and conservative American Christian families disagree, and are willing to "die on this hill" if necessary...the question is, is the other side willing? :)"die on this hill"? Are you Effin kidding me? aren't there more imporatnat issues woth "dying" for? Abortion? and what happens if you do die? does that mean you give up your faith? ....I think you are being a bit melodramatic about this

Logical
07-15-2004, 03:31 PM
"die on this hill"? Are you Effin kidding me? aren't there more imporatnat issues woth "dying" for? Abortion? and what happens if you do die? does that mean you give up your faith? ....I think you are being a bit melodramatic about this

ROFL ya think?

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 03:43 PM
"die on this hill"? Are you Effin kidding me? aren't there more imporatnat issues woth "dying" for? Abortion? and what happens if you do die? does that mean you give up your faith? ....I think you are being a bit melodramatic about this

"Dying on this hill," I mean politically speaking....abortion and this, together, will be reason enough for many Christians (some of which now vote Democratic now) to abandon the party entirely. Many left the Democratic party entirely on the abortion question; more will leave on this question....

It's another sign of the Democratic party marginalizing moderate Christian voters who don't like the extremism of the "Moral Majority" but who no longer can stomach the extremism of the Democratic party either.

Forced to make a choice, many such moderates will increasingly and overwhelmingly vote Republican. The Democratic party, in many ways, has written off men--especially white men. Are they now ready to write off and marginalize Moderate Christian citizens....if favor or the radical egalitarians who are setting their agenda?

Time will tell. :shake:

HC_Chief
07-15-2004, 03:43 PM
I still don't see what the big deal is. The 'sanctity of marriage' argument holds no water with me... FFS the divorce rate in the US is outrageous. Doesn't that defy the 'sanctity of marriage'?

If it's about putting a leash on activist judges, then I say there are more worthy topics to fight them on.

Taco John
07-15-2004, 04:18 PM
We are rehashing old ground here, friend; call it "civil union," or "domestic partnership." Otherwise, you are gonna piss off a lot of people, and while you may win the battle....you jeopardize the war.

JMHO. :)



This post is proof of how ridiculously stupid this debate is... What does it matter what it's called? Personally, I'll call it "Gay Marraige" because that is pretty much what they are trying to accomplish, and it's lot less clunky than trying to toss in the PC "civil union" or the even more PC stupid "domestic partnership.

(insert joke: Gay Marraige just rolls off the tongue, eh?)

the Talking Can
07-15-2004, 04:35 PM
"die on this hill"? Are you Effin kidding me? aren't there more imporatnat issues woth "dying" for? Abortion? and what happens if you do die? does that mean you give up your faith? ....I think you are being a bit melodramatic about this

According to James Dobson and many evangelicals this is in fact a "war"....Dobson compared it to D-Day....I still don't know quite what they mean with all these war metaphors. I'm pretty sure this isn't like the real war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I agree with most on this thread that this is the biggest non-issue ever. I'm trying to think of an issue that has less impact on the day to day lives of heterosexual voters, but I can't. You really have to be paranoid to think that a couple of dudes wearing wedding rings will destroy your marriage or (cue scary music) "society".

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 04:53 PM
... You really have to be paranoid to think that a couple of dudes wearing wedding rings will destroy your marriage or (cue scary music) "society".

You guys really don't get it, do you? (That's okay; I don't get it apparently either....) Unless you are a regular and at least somewhat serious member of a relgious denomination, it may be hard to understand. Just as it's hard for me to understand how an issue so profound as changing the societal definition of an institution like marriage is so "irrelevant" to many of you.

You really need to talk to moderate to conservative Christian friends you have. Dobson's rhetoric resonates with many of them. Of course, there are some liberal Christians who've bought into this; but the majority of Christians have not--and will not.

Its a question of whether or not you are willing to write of 20-25 million votes potentially. If so, then fine. But in the past, some of those votes went to Democrats.

This issue, along with abortion, and other "social issues" that Democrats continue to cave-in on...Democrats can kiss nearly all of those 25 million votes "good-bye" and for a long time.

Watch it happen if you don't believe me. :shake:

Taco John
07-15-2004, 04:58 PM
How is this profound at all?

I fail to grasp the profundity of it.

jspchief
07-15-2004, 04:58 PM
The whole idea of a Constitutional amendment as an anti-rights bill is repugnant. Its all a political tool.
The whole matter could be solved this year if it was said that gays could not marry but could have civil unions that have the same force in law.

Sounds like "seperate but equal" to me. The only way it will work is if the government removes the word "marriage" from all aspects of this, gay or straight. Call it a legal union or civil union or whatever. But the marriage liscense that me and my wife sign will not be called the same thing that Bob and Tom sign. If "marriage" is such an important term in regards to religion, it shouldn't be used as a legal term anyway.

All I know is that this won't go away. Whether it's tommorow or ten years from now, gays will eventually have the same rights as straights. Gay lifestyles have become an accepted part of today's society. Maybe not to some, but I'll guarantee that most teens and young adults have become accepting of it, and they are the ones that shape our society, not the old crusties trying to hang on to "in my day".

jspchief
07-15-2004, 05:02 PM
You really need to talk to moderate to conservative Christian friends you have. Dobson's rhetoric resonates with many of them.


Returns to my point about the government screwing up by using the word "marriage" in legal terms to begin with.

And moderate to conservative Christians are a dying breed.

Taco John
07-15-2004, 05:03 PM
Sounds like "seperate but equal" to me. The only way it will work is if the government removes the word "marriage" from all aspects of this, gay or straight. Call it a legal union or civil union or whatever. But the marriage liscense that me and my wife sign will not be called the same thing that Bob and Tom sign. If "marriage" is such an important term in regards to religion, it shouldn't be used as a legal term anyway.

All I know is that this won't go away. Whether it's tommorow or ten years from now, gays will eventually have the same rights as straights. Gay lifestyles have become an accepted part of today's society. Maybe not to some, but I'll guarantee that most teens and young adults have become accepting of it, and they are the ones that shape our society, not the old crusties trying to hang on to "in my day".



Pretty much, this is exactly dead on.

If religious PC zealots want to keep the word Marraige as a sanctimonious term only available to themselves, they need to petition the government to remove the term "marraige" from itself and replace it with a more secular, PC term.

But none of them will be doing that. They'll instead pretend like this is about the "word" marraige, and not the fact that a bunch of homos are getting hitched up.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 05:17 PM
And moderate to conservative Christians are a dying breed.

You KEEP believin' that; and wonderin' why your candidates keep gettin' their azzes kicked too. :)

Calcountry
07-15-2004, 05:19 PM
If this is true then the ploy by Bush worked. He found his issue that even though it was destined to fail straight up but in more conservative states like SD could bite those who voted against it in the butt.
The whole idea of a Constitutional amendment as an anti-rights bill is repugnant. Its all a political tool.
The whole matter could be solved this year if it was said that gays could not marry but could have civil unions that have the same force in law. Right now there are states that have civil unions but have no force in law behind them. Insurance companies don't have to recognize them. I don't believe its the courts that need to decide this issue or mayors overstepping their authority to break state law.
Now if only we can get a few more electoral votes in SD.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 05:19 PM
....All I know is that this won't go away. Whether it's tommorow or ten years from now, gays will eventually have the same rights as straights. Gay lifestyles have become an accepted part of today's society. Maybe not to some, but I'll guarantee that most teens and young adults have become accepting of it, and they are the ones that shape our society, not the old crusties trying to hang on to "in my day".

This may be true in the GORE states; but not the Bush states.

Keep dreamin', friend. :)

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2004, 05:20 PM
Now if only we can get a few more electoral votes in SD.

Two Senators each from each of the 30-35 other states that share our values and view....will do us just fine. :thumb:

jspchief
07-15-2004, 05:36 PM
You KEEP believin' that; and wonderin' why your candidates keep gettin' their azzes kicked too. :)

Haha. My candidates? Maybe you should go back and read some of my posts on other topics. I don't think you have any idea who my candidates are. And I'm positive you don't have a clue what drives my voting preferences.

Don't be so quick to pigeon-hole. It's whats wrong with our political system right now.

Velvet_Jones
07-15-2004, 05:38 PM
If you want marriage to remain a term of one man and one woman in the CHURCH that is your perogative....but to tell the rest of us what it means outside the church (i.e. in the civil definition) is simply selfish and irresponsible

It has nothing to do with church or religious beliefs. It has everything to do with forcing acceptance of an immoral lifestyle through activist judges instead of through the people. The people have spoken in every state that these waters have been tested and the result is a resounding "No". For liberals, "No" doesn't really mean no so they get some activist judge to override the will of the people. That my friend is not democracy. That's doing exactly what the Bishops and Cardinals did in Europe that eventually resulted in the US. It's the same thing without the religion. Except of course for it being accepted by liberals. It's hypocritical.

Velvet

Cochise
07-15-2004, 06:01 PM
It has everything to do with forcing acceptance of an immoral lifestyle through activist judges instead of through the people. The people have spoken in every state that these waters have been tested and the result is a resounding "No".

Exactly!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap:

The people in large part have spoken on the issue and the answer has been NO.

I dont care if you want to be gay. I don't even care if you want to dress up all fancy and have a gay wedding. But when you can't pass the laws like you're supposed to, don't circumvent the legislative process to accomplish your agenda.

For liberals, "No" doesn't really mean no so they get some activist judge to override the will of the people. That my friend is not democracy. That's doing exactly what the Bishops and Cardinals did in Europe that eventually resulted in the US.

That's exactly freaking right.

Libs are, to their credit, more than happy to try the proper channels first. But the problem is that if the will of the people is against them, they don't let that stop them.

They use the courts in ways they were not intended to work, with activist members of the judiciary making law from the bench. They are fine with following the rules as long as they get their way, but if they don't then they're still more than happy to take a crap on separation of powers.

It's complete horses##t and one of the reasons there was an American Revolution to begin with. Oligarchy, rule by a few. Exactly the kind of thing a war was fought and a Constitution was written to prevent.

Taco John
07-15-2004, 06:13 PM
It has nothing to do with church or religious beliefs. It has everything to do with forcing acceptance of an immoral lifestyle through activist judges instead of through the people. The people have spoken in every state that these waters have been tested and the result is a resounding "No". For liberals, "No" doesn't really mean no so they get some activist judge to override the will of the people. That my friend is not democracy. That's doing exactly what the Bishops and Cardinals did in Europe that eventually resulted in the US. It's the same thing without the religion. Except of course for it being accepted by liberals. It's hypocritical.

Velvet



We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The reason we live in a republic is because sometimes the will of the people is not the best and most fair way to rule.

The best and most fair way to rule involves making certain that there are equal rights among people regardless of age, sex, gender, religion, etc.

In this case, there is an injustice because two citizens are allowed tax break because they unionize under the banner "marraige" while two other citizens are not allowed those same breaks.

These "activist" judges don't check with the Bible before they make their rulings. They check with the constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone crying about "activist judges" in this instance is a big pussy doing nothing more than crying and blubbering that the constitution doesn't allow them to discriminate against gays.

HC_Chief
07-15-2004, 06:22 PM
I can't believe I'm actually typing this but, g'damned man, that was a great post TJ! :D

DenverChief
07-15-2004, 06:25 PM
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The reason we live in a republic is because sometimes the will of the people is not the best and most fair way to rule.

The best and most fair way to rule involves making certain that there are equal rights among people regardless of age, sex, gender, religion, etc.

In this case, there is an injustice because two citizens are allowed tax break because they unionize under the banner "marraige" while two other citizens are not allowed those same breaks.

These "activist" judges don't check with the Bible before they make their rulings. They check with the constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone crying about "activist judges" in this instance is a big pussy doing nothing more than crying and blubbering that the constitution doesn't allow them to discriminate against gays.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: Rep Rep Reppity Rep

the Talking Can
07-15-2004, 06:29 PM
Exactly!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap:

The people in large part have spoken on the issue and the answer has been NO.

I dont care if you want to be gay. I don't even care if you want to dress up all fancy and have a gay wedding. But when you can't pass the laws like you're supposed to, don't circumvent the legislative process to accomplish your agenda.



That's exactly freaking right.

Libs are, to their credit, more than happy to try the proper channels first. But the problem is that if the will of the people is against them, they don't let that stop them.

They use the courts in ways they were not intended to work, with activist members of the judiciary making law from the bench. They are fine with following the rules as long as they get their way, but if they don't then they're still more than happy to take a crap on separation of powers.

It's complete horses##t and one of the reasons there was an American Revolution to begin with. Oligarchy, rule by a few. Exactly the kind of thing a war was fought and a Constitution was written to prevent.

These are the stories conservatives tell themselves so they can sleep at night while Bush sets a match to the constitution they supposedly hold dear.

It's a simple matter of equality before the law...no one cares if you like it, and the State, operating through the courts, doesn't care about the history of the term "marriage," as the religious implications of that have no legal standing (if they did conservatives wouldn't be trying to re-write the constitution). There is no legal basis for denying consenting adults the same rights regardless of their union being homo/hetero...and in relatively short order (5-10 years?) this will be resolved, in favor of some type of civil union, regardless of how many jihads the evangelicals promise.

And they'll have to find another enemy to spend their lives crying about. Maybe James Dobson will call his "soldiers" to "war" against fat people next, who knows?

What would they do without something to hate?

the Talking Can
07-15-2004, 06:30 PM
These "activist" judges don't check with the Bible before they make their rulings. They check with the constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone crying about "activist judges" in this instance is a big pussy doing nothing more than crying and blubbering that the constitution doesn't allow them to discriminate against gays.

damn, for the second time ever....I'm forced to give you rep :deevee:

DenverChief
07-15-2004, 06:34 PM
What would they do without something to hate?

Implode

Logical
07-15-2004, 06:39 PM
These are the stories conservatives tell themselves so they can sleep at night while Bush sets a match to the constitution they supposedly hold dear.

It's a simple matter of equality before the law...no one cares if you like it, and the State, operating through the courts, doesn't care about the history of the term "marriage," as the religious implications of that have no legal standing (if they did conservatives wouldn't be trying to re-write the constitution). There is no legal basis for denying consenting adults the same rights regardless of their union being homo/hetero...and in relatively short order (5-10 years?) this will be resolved, in favor of some type of civil union, regardless of how many jihads the evangelicals promise.

And they'll have to find another enemy to spend their lives crying about. Maybe James Dobson will call his "soldiers" to "war" against fat people next, who knows?

What would they do without something to hate?

Please use the "religious conservative" modifier with posts like these. There are a ton of conservatives who find the idea of modifying the constitution over an issue like this abhorent. Including this one.

the Talking Can
07-15-2004, 06:49 PM
Please use the "religious conservative" modifier with posts like these. There are a ton of conservatives who find the idea of modifying the constitution over an issue like this abhorent. Including this one.

Yes, actually, that is an important distinction. My understanding of the "movement" is that it seems to be largely evangelical. I should make that clear, that is who I connect with this issue.

jspchief
07-15-2004, 07:02 PM
It has nothing to do with church or religious beliefs. It has everything to do with forcing acceptance of an immoral lifestyle through activist judges instead of through the people. The people have spoken in every state that these waters have been tested and the result is a resounding "No". For liberals, "No" doesn't really mean no so they get some activist judge to override the will of the people. That my friend is not democracy. That's doing exactly what the Bishops and Cardinals did in Europe that eventually resulted in the US. It's the same thing without the religion. Except of course for it being accepted by liberals. It's hypocritical.

Velvet

What an absurd comparison. So what you're saying is that the Cardinals and Bishops that persecuted people because of religion were bad. But our political policies that persecute people for religion are good. WTF?

alanm
07-16-2004, 01:50 AM
Because he didn't USE to be; and now, as a long-time incumbent, especially as "minority leader" he has real power. That is important for small states like SD. Many have overlooked his turn to the left because of that.... :shake:If you would be so kind. Explain to me exactly what it is he has done for South Dakota? Being here in Nebraska so close by you'd of thunk we would have heard something of positive value he's done. But off the top of my head I sure as hell can't.:shake:

Taco John
07-16-2004, 03:41 AM
If you would be so kind. Explain to me exactly what it is he has done for South Dakota? Being here in Nebraska so close by you'd of thunk we would have heard something of positive value he's done. But off the top of my head I sure as hell can't.:shake:

Daschle has been an admirable advocate for the people of South Dakota, particularly Veterans who find themselves at odd with the beauraucratic VA. In fact, Daschle has built his reputation fighting for South Dakotans against clunky governmental bureaucracies.

He didn't get to his leadership position by sitting on his thumbs, though the way he votes, I sometimes wish that's exactly what he'd do. But despite his liberal tendancies, there is no doubt in my mind about his patriotism. He may not come across as tough, but one thing is damned sure, he is smart.

The bottom line for South Dakota is that Tom Daschle has used his position to weave the agenda of the state into the national agenda. He's not going anywhere, so long as he retains his position as a party leader. I don't expect he'll ever be president. Too genteel for that, and he'd get hammered from all sides. But the guy isn't going to lose his re-election bid over this... Though it would be hilarious to see South Dakota to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2004, 07:38 AM
Daschle has been an admirable advocate for the people of South Dakota, particularly Veterans who find themselves at odd with the beauraucratic VA. In fact, Daschle has built his reputation fighting for South Dakotans against clunky governmental bureaucracies.

He didn't get to his leadership position by sitting on his thumbs, though the way he votes, I sometimes wish that's exactly what he'd do. But despite his liberal tendancies, there is no doubt in my mind about his patriotism. He may not come across as tough, but one thing is damned sure, he is smart.

The bottom line for South Dakota is that Tom Daschle has used his position to weave the agenda of the state into the national agenda. He's not going anywhere, so long as he retains his position as a party leader. I don't expect he'll ever be president. Too genteel for that, and he'd get hammered from all sides. But the guy isn't going to lose his re-election bid over this... Though it would be hilarious to see South Dakota to cut off their nose to spite their face.

I hate to admit it, but TJ is right in most of what he says here. Daschle has also brought home a good bit of pork barrel projects (not necessarily a good thing in my view, but popular,) and he has been an effective advocate on key issues for this state, things like agriculture, ethanol, military base cuts, the Missouri River issues, and federal funding for state water projects.

The one point TJ fails to address is South Dakotans have a history of getting antsy....of booting guys from Congress once they become too "comfortable." Abbner, Aboresck, McGovern, and Pressler are just a few examples. This vote will supply many in the state with the excuse they need--especially against a popular and young Republican candidate, and especially when we don't currently have a Republican member of Congress....ironic, really. Whether it will REALLY cost him the election or not, time will tell. However, I'm certain of this--the race WILL be much tighter than it needed to be, and he could lose--simply because Daschle decided to vote "his conscience" on an issue that his constituents are absolutely clear about. JMHO.

mlyonsd
07-16-2004, 11:35 AM
I hate to admit it, but TJ is right in most of what he says here. Daschle has also brought home a good bit of pork barrel projects (not necessarily a good thing in my view, but popular,) and he has been an effective advocate on key issues for this state, things like agriculture, ethanol, military base cuts, the Missouri River issues, and federal funding for state water projects.

The one point TJ fails to address is South Dakotans have a history of getting antsy....of booting guys from Congress once they become too "comfortable." Abbner, Aboresck, McGovern, and Pressler are just a few examples. This vote will supply many in the state with the excuse they need--especially against a popular and young Republican candidate, and especially when we don't currently have a Republican member of Congress....ironic, really. Whether it will REALLY cost him the election or not, time will tell. However, I'm certain of this--the race WILL be much tighter than it needed to be, and he could lose--simply because Daschle decided to vote "his conscience" on an issue that his constituents are absolutely clear about. JMHO.

Hey SD, have you even heard a Thune commercial? The radio stations I listen to in the far SE part of the state haven't played one Thune commercial that I know of.

I hear Daschle spots several times a day. I was just wondering cause it doesn't seem like Thune is even still alive.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2004, 11:51 AM
Hey SD, have you even heard a Thune commercial? The radio stations I listen to in the far SE part of the state haven't played one Thune commercial that I know of.

I hear Daschle spots several times a day. I was just wondering cause it doesn't seem like Thune is even still alive.

I've been hearing them for a couple of weeks now.... :hmmm:

mlyonsd
07-16-2004, 01:46 PM
I've been hearing them for a couple of weeks now.... :hmmm:

Hmmm. I don't get it. And I watch a lot of Sioux Falls network tv.

Cntrygal
07-16-2004, 02:13 PM
Hey SD, have you even heard a Thune commercial? The radio stations I listen to in the far SE part of the state haven't played one Thune commercial that I know of.

I hear Daschle spots several times a day. I was just wondering cause it doesn't seem like Thune is even still alive.


Granted I'm in the SW part of the state... but we've been hearing some Thune and Daschle ads here (Radio and TV). Thankfully, they aren't flooding us with them though (yet).

mlyonsd
07-16-2004, 02:20 PM
Granted I'm in the SW part of the state... but we've been hearing some Thune and Daschle ads here (Radio and TV). Thankfully, they aren't flooding us with them though (yet).

"Yet". How many times can you watch the same commercial? We're also going to see our share of Deidtrich/Hereseth commercials again.

Velvet_Jones
07-19-2004, 03:14 PM
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The reason we live in a republic is because sometimes the will of the people is not the best and most fair way to rule.

The best and most fair way to rule involves making certain that there are equal rights among people regardless of age, sex, gender, religion, etc.

In this case, there is an injustice because two citizens are allowed tax break because they unionize under the banner "marraige" while two other citizens are not allowed those same breaks.

These "activist" judges don't check with the Bible before they make their rulings. They check with the constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone crying about "activist judges" in this instance is a big pussy doing nothing more than crying and blubbering that the constitution doesn't allow them to discriminate against gays.

I can't believe that no one brought this up so I guess I will. We are a republic for logistical and reasonability purposes not because sometimes someone else knows better in discrimination issues. Were in the hell did you come up with this sh!t?

As far as being a pussy, why are the Dems blocking all the judges that are of conservative persuasion?

I didn't respond to this earlier because I had to leave on business for a few days. I have more reasons to not accept gay marriage than I can count but my biggest problem is forcing issue and changing the definition of marriage is just a baby step to bigger things to come. Kinda like the smoking in airplanes has blossomed into a nazi like hatred for people whom are doing something that is currently legal. Yep, bigger and better attacks are normalcy are in the works and we will have no weapons to fight it if we don't fight now.

Alan

Taco John
07-19-2004, 04:56 PM
I can't believe that no one brought this up so I guess I will. We are a republic for logistical and reasonability purposes not because sometimes someone else knows better in discrimination issues.


Think about what "logistical and reasonability purposes" are, and where discrimination falls under that umberalla and get back to me... ROFL

Velvet_Jones
07-20-2004, 08:46 AM
Think about what "logistical and reasonability purposes" are, and where discrimination falls under that umberalla and get back to me... ROFL
See, your problem is you see this as discriminatory and I do not. This is a moral issue that is not advantageous for anyone except the pillow bitters. Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. It's a privilege that you can have when you do the right thing. Using your logic, people that people who have a lot of car wrecks, or DWIs, or are a general azzhole when driving are discriminated against too. Give me a fuggin break. I'm beginning to agree that with Red Forman, you're a dumbazz.

Apparently you have forgotten that the foundation of the representative republic was instituted when travel and communication was not readily available. "Logistical and reasonability purposes" means that is was, and still is, unreasonable to have a all persons vote on all issues. It does not mean that our representatives should take it upon themselves to push legislation that is against the will of the people. Remember "of the people, for the people".

This is the only reason that America is the powerhouse that it is. We elect people with like values that will provide unwavering support of our core values. Not the values of some special interest group and bought off judges that use law to bludgeon the masses into accepting this behavior as normal.

I'll ask you again, why are the Dems blocking judges that have a backbone and can't be bought off? I'll give you a hint. They know that this BS that is char aiding as discrimination would get nowhere with them. Judges are to interpret law without concern for popular opinion. Dems, gays, and environmentalist groups use the courts to force their agenda. I'm tired of fugg ups, like yourself, supporting this in the name of discrimination.

Support your point or shut your pie hole.

Velvet

Mr. Kotter
11-03-2004, 02:28 PM
Personally, I don't back a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage...unless activist judges make it absolutely necessary....

However, Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader from SD cast a "no" vote on the bill yesterday. In a state where over 60% of voters support the Amendment, and in a close election with a talented and popular former Republican Congressman as his opponent....

If it we were NY or MA or Hawaii, he'd be just fine. But not in SD; I'd be willing to bet he just signed his own pink slip. :shake:

He just LOST re-election; and he will become the poster boy warning politicians of the serious "fall out" of opposing the voters in conservative states....where this controversial and divisive issue WILL matter.


Damn, Rob....YOU NAILED it, back in July.

MAJOR REP, buddy. :thumb:

Chief Henry
11-03-2004, 02:41 PM
KUDO's and a big right wing rep heading your way for bringing this one back up...

Mr. Kotter
11-03-2004, 09:24 PM
Values, values, values....the pundits and experts are scratchin' their heads at WHY this matters.... :shake:

DUH! :banghead:

Fairplay
11-04-2004, 03:50 AM
Daschle lost. That was the best news of the day for me.
We needed to get the democratic ringleader out of there.
If only Ted Kennedy would be gone.

Mr. Kotter
11-04-2004, 08:38 PM
Daschle lost. That was the best news of the day for me.
We needed to get the democratic ringleader out of there.
If only Ted Kennedy would be gone.

And Hillary Clinton. :thumb: