Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Kristi Noem Vetos Bill that Bans Males from Destroying Female Sports
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has vetoed (twice) the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. But she’s claiming that she didn’t veto the bill. The very constitutional provision she cites in her letter (the right) states that what she did was veto the bill! “Bills returned shall be treated in the same manner as vetoed bills.” But she seems to be pretending that the legislature vetoed the bill by not complying with her demand to allow men to compete in women’s college sports. Or something. I’m somewhat confused!
But one thing’s for certain: She’s pretending she didn’t veto the bill, even though she did. It’s not enough to throw girls and young women under the bus, she’s gaslighting her constituents (and the rest of us).
What a disappointment. What is she thinking?
Published in Politics
I don’t know what she is thinking. But those of us who’ve previously thought she was reasonably rational to this point (relatively speaking) might want to give her a listen to find out.
Frankly, I’m exhausted by the tintinabulations of those who’ve “loved” a person while she was demonstrating iron-clad adherence to their own world view, but who are willing to chuck the same person under the bus when she deviates in the slightest instance from same.
I think, if you’ve thought that Kristi Noem was worth listening to up until now, and if she’s recently made a decision you disagree with, then you owe it to her to hear her out.
As a foreigner, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, other than that I’ve been pretty clear about where my loyalties lie, and that I’d love the USA, and the western civilization I think it stands for, to succeed.
Now that’s a word!
PJ Media has published a number of pieces on this situation. This one, I think, does the best job of examining Noem’s position and her weak defense of it. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/03/24/no-kristi-noem-is-not-playing-4-d-chess-on-womens-sports-heres-how-we-know-n1434811
I smelled a rat when she hastily announced a website and an effort to build a coalition….which already exists. Too bad, because I thought highly of her prior to this.
[Perhaps some of you (including, likely, Barfly) might find it surprising but] I agree with @barfly here.
People: Please get past this “On My Team”/”Off My Team” attitude. Noem may be a dud. Or she may be a upstanding demonstration of sanity in a world that’s gone mad.
And perhaps, if that’s the case, an 80% friend may not be a 20% enemy. (Lord, I think I said that before, somewhere. And in going back and reflecting on that post, I haven’t changed my mind.)
Either way, I cast my vote with clarity of mind.
I didn’t phrase it as her being for or against me.
I think she has weaknesses that may make her unsuitable for what we need. We can disagree, but you don’t need to characterize it as we suddenly see her as a lefty shill.
Certainly, people make mistakes. But we don’t need any Pope Francises of the Republican Party right now. If she can’t communicate candidly, bluntly, and stand by convictions, she isn’t likely to succeed right now. We need clarity and not people who add confusion and obfuscation.
You are right that we need clarity. I went back and watched her interview with Tucker Carlson, and it wasn’t a scintillating performance on her part.
My comment wasn’t directed primarily at you, just at the sense I got from a few comments that some have labeled her gutless and a loser, and think that her political goose is cooked going forward. As you say, we all have weaknesses and we all make mistakes. And she may be showing some of both here. But she’s been very gutsy in leading her state’s response to Covid, and has been outspoken and swimming against the politically correct tide on a number of other issues. I would hate to see her written off at this point, for all of the reasons given in some of the other comments on the thread.
The fact that she is playing that game means she knows how bad it looks to veto this bill, but she is hoping to play both sides of the issue, but that won’t work.
Unfortunately, the base has been strung along and lied too way too often. You pick a champion and then hope they don’t go too far off the line. What it feels like is that those in power are not fighting the culture war.
Anyone you vote for will disappoint you in some ways. It is a given. Sometimes, it is too much to take, and you drop support for that person.
It is interesting though, that I see members complaining about dropping her. I am old enough to remember when I was told as a Trump supporter, not dropping Trump for something he said showed I was in a cult. For those who want the culture war fought for victory, or want sanity restored, it seems we cannot win. Either they support someone no matter what, and are chastised for it, or they question support for someone who is failing, and are chastised for it.
One thing Andrew Klavan mentions all the time is if people believe something is truly wrong, they should stand up for what’s right, regardless of the consequences. It’s too easy to say, “But I need my job to put food on the table.” Fine. You can always get another job.
People today are unwilling to risk “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” With that unwillingness, we sacrifice our freedom. What would the Founding Fathers say?
The Founding Fathers did it together.
I am sorry, but do not ask me, with two kids nearing college, to put it all on the line while the rich and powerful (which is who a lot of Founders were) stand by and do nothing. Do not ask me to sacrifice everything in a lost cause, while the well to do reap the benefits of my fight.
This woman has more power and influence, even if voted out of office, and money and wealth than I will ever have in my life. If she cannot stand up and do the right thing, then there is no chance I am going to throw my life away.
People say foolish things all the time. The word “cult,” like the word “socialist,” and the word “Nazi” is the “grown up” (LOL) social-media equivalent of the playground taunts of old. Ignorant people, spewing words they really don’t know the meaning of: They know only that those words have high impact, and invoke parallels to undesirable people, things or events. Thus, anyone to the right of Mitt Romney is a “Nazi,” anyone who advocates for even a reasonable approach to medical insurance is a “Socialist,” and anyone who supports Trump is a “white supremacist” and part of a cult. (More of those words. I highly doubt that the great majority of the people who use any of them, or others, have any idea what they actually mean, or what it means to live with, or under, any of those situations.)
All true, but I seem to have muddled my point.
The point I was making is that supporting Trump has been castigated. There was a constant drumbeat from the right of “Now you people should drop Trump because he did X”. Here we have someone doing “X” and being told “You should not drop her, you need to support her” seems funny to me.
I’ll support who I want, when I want, and for the reasons I want. The Gov caved to financial pressures. She should be honest about it. Her dissembling if far more problematic to me than her caving.
I suspect the Founding Fathers would have been divided on this, as they were on a lot of things.
Some of them would probably have said “This is wrong! It deprives young women of their right to compete successfully in athletics whatever their educational level. No compromise or concession is possible.”
Others might have said “This is wrong. However, there are thousands of students half way through their college educations who depend on federal student loans to complete their degrees, and they will be in jeopardy if this goes ahead. Accept half a loaf and live to fight another day.”
As I said, I’d rather she had supported the bill. But I still like her.
This is right out of the r’s playbook. Talk tough and then cave when the going gets rough. Maybe uif SD,TX,FL, etc would hang together and not let SD go it alone, something may be gained.
Um…no. Small jockeys are to keep weight down for the requirements of Thoroughbred racing. That is all. Racing is one area where tremendous upper body strength is needed, and while most racing jockeys are small men, there are plenty of female exercise riders and a good number of jockeys.
There are a whole host of equestrian sports where males and females of all ages compete against each other in both professional and amateur competitions and there is no advantage or disadvantage for anyone. It is the element of teamwork between horse and rider. It is one of the reasons why equestrian sports are so popular. It is also why I thought it a poor example for Noem to cite. Keeping boys and girls separate at the 4-H level just means there are more classes and opportunities for kids to get prizes. Equestrian sports are about as level a playing field across all disciplines as you can get. She just didn’t think this one through.
I guess I am viewing this in a very results oriented manner. How do voters view this issue and what was the ultimate out come. The voters (especially Republican ones) want sports divided by biology. The end result of the governor’s actions is that sports are not divided by biology.
Her actions allow biological men to compete against women. I don’t know how this is saving women’s sports.
The easy wins in politics are where your party and independents largely believe the same thing and your opponents are split on the issue. Regardless of the actual policy matter (taxes, transgenders in sports, immigration ect) it is bad politics (not good for a future candidate) to ignore what voters want. If this had passed in South Dakota, other states would have followed, Noem would have been seen as a leader.
There is time and there are other issues that can come up, Noem may still be viable, but right now she had failed the leadership test.
Noem is splitting that hair so much it looks like a whisk broom!!! She was showing so much promise—letting her citizens decide for themselves how to handle the Wuhan Flu, not closing down the state’s economy—but buckling under to whomever is applying pressure indicates, to me, she’s not as strong as we need in a future president.
There was an active movement in SD to squelch/limit the participation of biological males in women’s sports. Noem appears responsible for it turning into a nothingburger.
Still, I don’t see any evidence that her Republican counterparts in other states are putting the weight of their office behind similar initiatives, regardless of whether there are bills under legislative consideration. Sometimes you have to lead. So Noem dropped a hot potato, but no others of whom I’m aware show any sign of picking one up. Difference?
As we all should.
I am not suggesting that people need to support her on this issue. Clearly, a lot of people do not support her actions on this. I don’t expect anyone, especially a politician, to get it right on my terms every single time. And I was also in favor of calling Trump out on his poor impulse control and sometimes counterproductive and seemingly self-harming words and deeds, and his tendency to step on his own achievements by starting pointless Twitter spats which overrode many of the good things he’d done.
None of those things means that I could not “support” or “prefer” either Noem or Trump to almost any alternative, or that I think the country will do better under Biden than it would have under Trump. I do not think that.
But I do believe that a lot of people who were a bit squishy on Trump–I’m not talking about the Billy Kristol’s of the world : Lord, I liked him so much better in When Harry Met Sally–could have been moved into voting for him again, or for the first time, had their own criticisms of Trump not been so roundly denounced as betrayals, and had they not been called “traitors,” and “Quislings,” and “turncoats” merely for not agreeing with Trump on a particular thing. And I think that same thing is true, in terms of support, within what passes for the power structure in the Republican party itself.
Yes, I don’t like the needle-threading either.
I know there are some truly heinous YouTube clips but how many times has this actually happened or been a problem?
I’m pretty nope on Noem but is this a cancellable thing for something that is mostly an extreme of the extreme outlier?
The thing is this: is she caves to pressure, she caves to pressure. That is a sign of character that goes beyond this particular issue.
Trump, like Patton, might be a SOB, but he fights and does not back down often.
I didn’t see Governor Noem on Tucker Carlson but I heard her being interviewed on the Glenn Beck Show. I agree with your take; it is a question of strategy. This isn’t about her objecting to the goals of the legislation, it’s about trying to craft legislation that won’t be overturned in court. Has anyone here ever been in charge of a small business or any sort of organization? Have you always been able to implement a plan that was exactly what you wanted?
For the people saying she was a viable candidate for the presidency in 2024 but now is not, I ask who possibly could be? Ron DeSantis looks good right now and based on what I know of him so far I would be happy with him as the Republican nominee. But does anyone really believe that he can go 2.5 years without ever having an issue where he appears — and I say “appears” — to break with conservative orthodoxy? Held to this standard, there is no office holder who will be deemed suitable. It’s one thing to be a pundit and offer opinions and declare that your simple solutions would always be optimal. It’s another to actually be in charge and be responsible.
I don’t say all this because I’ve made up my mind that Noem is the best candidate. There are lots of Republicans who might be a good candidate. But if we start ruling everyone out who isn’t a rubber stamp for every piece of legislation that seems good (without examining the details) there will be nobody left except those candidates who have never actually been in office and signed their name to a bill.
That is a weird analogy. Any time I have had to be suboptimal, I don’t have a hard time explaining why. She did. That is the most damning thing she did. If someone is in the right, they don’t slit hairs to prove it. It is easy to explain.
I don’t think you will like my answer.
Again, it is all about someone who fights. That includes the Chamber of Commerce.
The candidate has to be willing to fight. It is not a rubber stamp on legislation.
Different questions for @bryangstephens and @randyweivoda:
First, Randy: I didn’t her Governor Noem on Glenn Beck. On Tucker’s show she referenced but did not describe in detail the kind of legal analysis she had been reviewing. I don’t blame her for that given the length of television segments, but I would have liked to have heard more to confirm or refute my suppositions about her thinking and strategy. Did she get into that more with Glenn?
Now, Bryan: Clear and simple explanations are best. But I have had times when there was a lot of background and history that you would have to review with someone for them to understand the “simple” explanation. If everyone is sharing the same history and general understandings then it is easy to focus on the one or two things that you might disagree on but can state clearly. It is easy, for example, to explain how Wickard v Filburn was a phenomenal expansion of federal power and constitutional overreach (federal government can regulate the amount of wheat a farmer plants to feed his animals). Now explain how you put the genie back in the bottle utilizing the court process and not the political process. Well, first you have to have a case and controversy between the federal government and a person with standing, actually more than one person because you need multiple court decisions and multiple federal circuits (for disagreement of law between federal circuits — the most likely basis for granting Supreme Court review), followed by decisions relying on constitutional as opposed to regulatory or statutory defects which cannot be resolved without addressing the constitutional issue, and a court willing to expressly and clearly overrule prior precedent as wrongly decided. And that is just a summary of the wickets. If you think the transgender genie is not out of the bottle, you haven’t been following the news. Those that control the commanding heights of culture, academia and government have decided that not only is it lawful to discriminate against women, it is mandatory.
Maybe they do things differently in South Dakota. In my neck of the woods if the Governor supports an issue but not the specific language of a bill, the Governor works with the legislature to negotiate something agreeable to both sides. If that does not work, the Governor states that he does not support the bill. (sometimes this is done publicly or sometimes it is behind the scenes) everybody in the legislature knows where the Governor stands.
I think the Governor handled this issue poorly. I have not completely ruled her out in the future, but I never really thought she was a viable candidate before this.
I don’t think the small business analogy works. Yes I have been in charge of a small business. How that runs and how laws are made are completely different.
Bingo!
“It ain’t over until it’s over”. Governor Noem has issued two executive orders to implement the provisions of the legislation that was vetoed and will call a special session of the Legislature —
More to come…
It’s not about orthodoxy. Bryan hit the nail on the head here. It is a matter of conviction. I add clarity to that.
It is possible DeSantis will step in it, but he has been attacked over and over again and has shown no issues with acting and deciding in the manner that best benefits his constituents in keeping with his ideology and he defends his actions, choices, and words.
Trump was not where I wanted him in several places, but he was remarkably consistent on federalism and he stood by that almost to a fault (where the BLM riots were concerned). Unlike Marco Rubio who campaigned on one thing and got roped into the exact opposite. Rubio is still not well liked and even his own state didn’t prioritize him. Rubio plays to the media wind. Trump marched to his own drum. With Rubio, we might as well elect the media to office.
Noem is governor. Not the NCAA. Not the media. If she is convicted that she made the right choice, she needs to stand up and defend it. Otherwise, it just looks like she’s willing to capitulate to people not elected to represent us.
I don’t think the electorate is as fickle or inconsistent in the GOP as is imagined. Your just not looking at the situations the same.
I am well aware the genie is out of the bottle. There were those in the great SSM wars who made arguments about slippery slopes. Here we are.
I have already given, in this thread, how to fight the issue in clear and simple ways. Not in the courts, which is a fool’s errand. This is the only way to win this fight. The courts should not be used, under any circumstances, to defeat the political process. The solution to the courts is to ignore them, as Hamilton intended. That is true leadership.
Wickard v. Filburn was wrong. It has always been wrong. It is wrong on the face of it, when explained. Almost no American thinks the Federal Government should tell them what crops they can grown on their own land for personal use. If put to a vote, it would lose. That is the way to wipe it out. Here is why that won’t happen: The government likes it power.
Now, here, there is no argument at all. The law should have been signed and they move on. If there are court challenges, ignore them. Just ignore them. Then what? Is the Federal Government really going to do anything? They don’t on drug laws. Every state that has legalized drugs is in violation of Federal law. The States need to just start ignored the Federal Government. But they don’t because elected leaders are cowards. They crave their power and popularity. They are unwilling to take the hard choices.
“Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor”
The one person I know of, who entered the national scene in the last 2 decades, who was willing to lose money, ignore death threats, and let his reputation be wiped out.
One.
She had an opportunity. She blew it. Abbot had an opportunity to defend Gab, he blew that. Over and over, conservative leaders don’t stand up for what is right.
The problem (too) many people had and still have with Trump was/is they let their distaste for his tweeting etc override the practical issues.