Is SD getting too liberal? (vs, residential, office)

[DannyBanany]

Sorry, I haven't read all the posts yet but I just couldn't wait!

"Is South Dakota going liberal? Especially Rapid City?"

Hahahahahahaha! Um... no! Far from it!

[DannyBanany]

Now that I've had a chance to read over the previous posts, here's my two-cents:

South Dakota is probably the most "common sense" state you will ever visit/live in. There is no foreclosure here because people know their limits. Bankruptcy claims are some of the nation's lowest because people are smart with their money. Unemployment is low here because people are hard workers and they actually enjoy their jobs no matter what it is. South Dakota is far from a "flashy state" like Colorado, Arizona, or California. Those states seem to be going down hill.

With that said, illegal immigrants have barely a chance to get by here. People in other states probably rent and employ illegals because regular people have proven to be unreliable. That's just not the case in South Dakota.

And as for Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, I think she's a fairly decent representative. I haven't seen her do anything outstanding or in bad taste but she does her job. I have no complaints about her. South Dakota knows how to put an officer in office, that's for sure.

[Chris19]

I agree with DannyBanany. I may not agree with everything that Herseth may side with, but that is with any politicians. She is working hard for our state and progressive to a certain degree.

I do not believe that South Dakota is getting too liberal. In general, South Dakota is a conservative state, fiscally and socially. South Dakota government has to operate on a balance budget and has not had the socially liberal initiatives that are going in places such as California and Massuchussets. Many South Dakotans vote for the person who will best represent them in public office. The congresspeople are respectable people and have to be somewhat assertive, with our state being a small state population-wise and we often get overlooked on many things. It would be worse if our congresspeople are not assertive to a certain extent.

The congresspeople work together as a team, putting party and coservative vs. liberal differences aside to work for the common good of South Dakotans. This is admirable and is a must for our small population state. If the congressional delagation do not work together, South Dakotans would not put up with it and would correct the problem when they go to the polls. There are a number of states where the congressional delegations have disunity, party/conservative vs. liberal squabbling, and lack the cohesiveness.

I have a certain amount of respect for our congresspeople and leaders from both parties. Many of the Republicans elected in our state are conservative, but level-headed people who care about our state. This is coming from a Democrat who is fiscally conservative and a social moderate (conservative on some issues, moderate on some others, and liberal on a few).

South Dakota does not have the conservative vs. liberal warzone that is common in most other states. In general, people respect each others' viewpoint. Many are moderate in views. Most South Dakota voters are independent-minded voters and will vote how they truely feel instead of following the line and falling for the rhetoric and nonsense of out-of-state PACs and groups that pretend that they know how we think (when in fact they have no clue and are dead wrong at times). I often vote more to the left on social issues on the ballot and vote a split ticket, but make an effort to understand people who are more conservative and liberal than me. It would be a boring world if everyone voted or thought exactly the same.

How our delegation is set up and our cohesiveness may be hard for some out-of-staters to understand, but makes perfect sense for South Dakotans. South Dakotans are known for their teamwork attitude, especially banding together in tough times. I am proud to be a South Dakotan for this reason and a number of other great reasons (great people).

[Chris19]

The beginning of the post paints liberal as a bad word, but I would like to challenge the author and others to think in a different perspective. It is not completely perfect and is not completely wrong.

From middle school, I can easily recall looking up the definition of liberal. I can remember the anti-Clinton people and the right-wing people such as Limbaugh love to make the word a rather naughty one and distort the true meaning of the word. I wanted to see what the word actually means instead of believing the rhetoric the media. Liberal is progressive and open to change. It is made out to be a naughty word and a dirty label, when in fact the definiton in the dictionary may prove otherwise. Liberal is an alternative view to conservative. Each one has its good points and bad points. People can draw their own conclusions, although I think that some of the polarized minds draw conclusions too quickly. Each one is not completely perfect, the solutions lie between the conservative and liberal thought and the two sides need to put polarized pride aside, be open-minded, and find middle ground. Everything in moderation.

[yyz1]

Originally Posted by Chris19

The beginning of the post paints liberal as a bad word, but I would like to challenge the author and others to think in a different perspective. It is not completely perfect and is not completely wrong.

From middle school, I can easily recall looking up the definition of liberal. I can remember the anti-Clinton people and the right-wing people such as Limbaugh love to make the word a rather naughty one and distort the true meaning of the word. I wanted to see what the word actually means instead of believing the rhetoric the media. Liberal is progressive and open to change. It is made out to be a naughty word and a dirty label, when in fact the definiton in the dictionary may prove otherwise. Liberal is an alternative view to conservative. Each one has its good points and bad points. People can draw their own conclusions, although I think that some of the polarized minds draw conclusions too quickly. Each one is not completely perfect, the solutions lie between the conservative and liberal thought and the two sides need to put polarized pride aside, be open-minded, and find middle ground. Everything in moderation.

Well, the word "liberal" used to be associated with those that promoted liberty. People like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson were liberals in that sense. However, I wouldn't blame Limbaugh or other "right-wingers" for giving the word "liberal" a bad name. I would have to place the blame on those who call themselves liberal all the while advocating and advancing an agenda of high taxes, massive government regulation and the welfare state. All of which work to the detriment of liberty.

[Chris19]

Originally Posted by yyz1

Well, the word "liberal" used to be associated with those that promoted liberty. People like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson were liberals in that sense. However, I wouldn't blame Limbaugh or other "right-wingers" for giving the word "liberal" a bad name. I would have to place the blame on those who call themselves liberal all the while advocating and advancing an agenda of high taxes, massive government regulation and the welfare state. All of which work to the detriment of liberty.

Although I do not agree with you completely, you have a valid argument. There are some liberals who have veered off of the betterment of society for taking rather abstract views on issues.

The liberal arguements such as money to fix and modernize our roads (to improve commerce and travel), education (to make sure that our kids have the tools and different skills to be well-rounded and able to be valuable in society along with giving teachers fair compensation for their efforts), diplomacy (to improve cooperation internationally (which saves money on fighting wars and gives America a positive leadership role in addressing world issues), and environment (recycling to reduce waste, clean energy to protect our atmosphere and health, and alternative energy to less our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our chances of being held hostage by volatile governments such as Iran and Venezuela).

I would hardly call deficit spending progressive. Either raise taxes to adequately cover expenses or slim down our government (which some areas could use it and need to get back to the basics and serve their orignial missions). Deficit spending weakens our dollar, which makes our dollar less valuable thus acting like a tax with higher costs for many things including the oil we import a lot of. Clinton, a Demo crat, with the help of a Republican congress was able to balance the budget.

Liberals do a better job with addressing crime and poverty. Poverty breeds crime. With the inflation, foreclosures, and high gas prices, many households are having a hard time making ends meet and are slipping into poverty. It is causing some to commit crime out of despiration or frustration. An example is the recent rise in gas thefts. It is sad to see it happen. and if the issues for the middle class and lower income are ignored by the current administration and Congress, it may get worse.

Each side is not perfect, but needs to work together with the help of moderates to solve the problems ailing our society. The true solution is not a conservative or liberal one. It lies somewhere in the middle. Cooperation, not polarized bickering (of recent times), is the way to lead our society forward.

[kbarjae]

i think if you vote for someone simply because they say the are conservative or liberal than you miss the whole idea this country was founded on. i vote for someone depending on what they can contribute to the country as whole,this whole liberal ,conservative thing is not good for country and i find it very unamerican

[OMALL26]

I know that this is my first post. I find that the state reps we have in Washington are doing a much better job than that of a lot of larger populated states. I myself am a liberal Democrat from Rapid and I am in the minority so much aroud here that during the election it was hard to find anybody that I could talk anything pollitically till the election was over. I hope that OBAMA can help this country since the last boob in office screwed it up so much. Of course I don't think he could do anyworse. I did vote for Qbama but not because of his being "liberal" but because what made McCain a great politician did not shine in the election. I also look a choices, If McCain had chosen Liberman or Romney I would have changed my vote. Not wanting to sound mean to FREDMAN but are you a Joe six pack or joe the plumber. That is my 2 cents and I hope all a happy new year.

[DannyBanany]

Omall, welcome to the forum! Good to have another Rapid Citian and another DEMOCRAT!

[rjl78]

The only time party ticket should ever play a part in how a person votes is duing the primary election in June.

The OPs remark about the RCJs comments. I figure the comments are made by a few people and not always what all the people of the community think or feel.

I find that I rarely vote party lines in the General Election in November. South Dakota as a whole tends to vote candidate more than party.

History shows that South Dakota votes for republician president, republician governor and state lesislature and tends to side with democrats when we send them to Washington.