The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Poll on Newland non-candidacy

The Dakota Poll finds that 57% of District 30 voters think the Secretary of State should investigate Newland's citizenship before he is allowed to form an exploratory non-commission to provide reasons for him not to run for the statehouse.

In an exclusive interview with Decorum Forum, Newland invited readers to provide dialogue for the figures in the non-campaign poster above.


Duffer said...

Devil's advocate here . . .

Say you do "fall in to" an endowment for this effort . . would you affiliate with the SD GOP, or maintain your Libertarian alliance?

Given either situation . . what would your platform look like?

Say you were elected by District 30 voters to ascend to Pierre in January . . . what, specifically, do you believe you could accomplish - other than possibly rage against the machine?

From your knowledge of the existing conditions surrounding the two political parties - do you believe the potential exists for a similar minded caucus around your platform?

All this within the understanding that this is a non-candidacy.

Bob Newland said...

In order to effectively defend against the groundswell that demands I run, I would have to take certain steps in the course of the non-campaign. The surest step in that course wouldn't be not to register as anything but a non-Republican.

Then, as insurance against that not working, and recognizing that one's non-effectiveness in the legislature is largely due to one's financial success in life combined with how much the ladies like him and the gentlemen respect him while he's on the campaign trail, a person looking for non-election might, on the non-campaign trail, say some really outrageous things.

One might not ask, "Other than sign off on a budget so everybody can get paychecks, what has the legislature accomplished of value during your lifetime?"

One might not ask, "Why are we putting people in prison at the rate of five or six a week for hauling marijuana through South Dakota that would never have seen the street in South Dakota?"

One might not state the simple fact that the preceding condition does not prevent anyone who wants good weed in South Dakota from getting good weed at prices comparable to prices elsewhere. One might not suggest there's a better way.

Since almost no one has ever had his mind changed by a logical argument, there's no way I wouldn't suggest any of this in any form of non-candidacy.

Machine? What machine?

Is this non-campaign going negative?

taco said...

Run, Newland, run!