Sibby Online

Coup versus Coop

Todd Epp has taught me something yet again, the difference between coup and coop. Blog Watch Man, I am using the Webster’s Dictionary:

Coup: a sudden successful stroke, blow or stratagem.

Coop: a box, cage, pen or enclosure for poultry, small animals etc.

So what is a stratagem: a subtle piece of planning designed to or gain an end; a ruse; one to deceive the enemy in warfare.

In my previous post I referred to Epp’s web site as a chicken coup. Todd thinks I meant chicken coop. He is right, but deceive the enemy is something anonymous chickens do. So Todd’s webs site is a chicken coop of chicken coups…like Blog Watch Man.

I thought he was the David Kranz of the SD blogosphere, but he then makes this claim:

I'm a conflicted Republican. I know the party doesn't ALWAYS do what's best for the American people, but I believe they are right more often than their brethren on the other side of the aisle.

David Kranz is not a conflicted Republican, he is a hardcore Democrat. So what kind of Republican would be anti-Thune, and anti-Thune bloggers, and have such hatred for Sibby. Well, BWM did leave me a hint:

South Dakota War College has another fascinating post today, this one dealing with party affiliation. He discusses Don Frankenfeld's appearance in the Daschle commercial last year…

Oh yeah, the Republicans for Daschle group. Joseph Bottum helped me understand that it was the Bill Janklow supporters who were likely the most ardent Republican Daschle supporters:

During his many years as governor, Bill Janklow was always good at this game, too, culling fiscal conservatives from the Republican party and remaining close friends with Daschle. Janklow never got along with Thune, and persistent rumors suggest Janklow may announce in October that he's voting for Daschle--an unlikely scenario for Daschle to want, given that his manslaughter conviction left Janklow one of the most unpopular men in the state, and Daschle's boast of Janklow's friendship produced titters in the audience at the Dakotafest debate. More, Daschle's appearance as a character witness at Janklow's trial would make the endorsement seem a cold-blooded repayment.

Still, Janklow's associates and friends--particularly Kris Graham, who recently appeared in an anti-Thune ad--are said to be playing key roles in the Democrats' "Republicans for Daschle" campaign, which aims to convince voters that it's all right to split their ticket and vote for both President Bush and Senator Daschle.

Perhaps this is why BWM is so preoccupied about car wrecks.

Epp’s chicken coup

  Todd Epp’s web site is more like a chicken coup than a web site. In today’s "must read" post, Epp says this about the David Kranz of the SD blogosphere:

Epp's favorite blogger tells off Thune's Apple Dumpling Gang.

Todd, remember giving Charley House crap and AVT crap for being anonymous? Here is an excerpt from the link Epp provided to his favorite anonymous chicken:

I could sympathize with the frustration of the Apple Dumpling Gang during the election last year regarding the continued charge that they were being paid by Thune to blog.

While it appeared that way -- Jason Van Geek and Jon Lauck were paid consultants to Thune, landing those gigs AFTER they started their blogs -- it would probably be difficult to prove if in a court of law, especially if they were prosecuted in southern California (see also O.J. Simpson, Jacko, William Blake, etc.)

Note how an anonymous chicken, who is afraid of disclosing his real name, can poke fun at another blogger’s real name.

And Todd Epp, who made a huge deal out of disclosure of paid bloggers…how are you going to tell that a blogger has been or is being paid if they remain anonymous? Why are you being a total hypocrite about this. If the anonymous chicken receives compensation from a politician, it certainly won't be listed as Blog Watch Man. Sounds like there is a loophole in your plan to regulate paid bloggers, isn't there.

Epp's chicken coup includes another anonymous source. This one is a DC one, and Epp highlighted this point made by the DC anonymous chicken regarding the role of Tim Johnson on the Ellsworth issue:

Tim: Sits on the Appropriations Committee with infrastructure improvements to Ellsworth. Tim dealt with the part of the equation he had control over. Funding for Ellsworth infrastructure improvements. From the news stories following the BRAC hearing , it doesn't appear to be any dispute that the last few years has seen significant improvements to Ellsworth's infrastructure.

That’s exactly the reason why Ellsworth is on the chopping block. It costs twice as much to maintain the infrastructure of two bases instead of one. If it is true that Daschle got Ellsworth off the closure list for only political reasons, then you can thank Tim Johnson for increasing the deficit by spending money on a base that Clinton should have closed. Isn't the idea of closing bases an effort to save these kind of future expenditures? I would think so. Johnson's point is more likely to keep Ellsworth on the chopping block. Think about it Epp.

But the above would not be true if the risk of putting all the B-1’s at one base is too large for America’s national security versus the increased cost of having two bases. That is what John Thune is saying, and gave an example of a tornado smacking into the Texas base. And all Epp could do is make silly anti-war and anti-religious snipes about Thune’s point.

Come on Epp, let’s start blogging on the merits of real issues and stop running a chicken coup.

Thune on C-SPAN

From the Rapid City Journal:

Senators must weigh what is best for the nation and their state in the military base closing process, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told a national television audience Thursday.

Thune appeared on the C-SPAN cable network and fielded questions about the Defense Department's recommendation to close Ellsworth Air Force Base near Rapid City.

One caller noted that after the May 13 announcement, Thune had threatened to withhold support for some Bush administration initiatives.

Thune, a freshman senator, said he has made it clear from the start that he would do everything possible for Ellsworth.

"That obviously means using the tools that you have, the powers you have at your disposal as a United States senator," he said. "Clearly, I'm going to do what I think is in the best interest of my state of South Dakota as well as in the best interest of the country [unlike the Dumped Daschle Disciples] because I think that's our responsibility as senators."

Thune said he is making his argument with the administration, the Pentagon and his colleagues in Congress. "We're not going to go down without a fight, that's for sure."

Ellsworth's fate was part of the 2004 campaign that unseated former Sen. Tom Daschle. Thune, who earlier said he had the advantage of close ties to the Bush administration, was asked if his political future is in jeopardy if the base indeed is closed.

It was Daschle who raised the Ellsworth issue during the campaign, Thune said, adding that his response was, "If, in fact, there was a political component that was part of this process, that yes, I would be able to make the case to this administration."

The Bush administration has taken a hands-off attitude and allowed the base-closing process to work, Thune said. "They have not tried to influence the decisions that were made by the Pentagon."

Still, the Ellsworth decision is wrong, he said.

"I was surprised like a lot of people were" when it was announced, the senator said.

More on Durbin versus Lott

From WorldNetDaily:

At today's White House news briefing, WND asked presidential press secretary Scott McClellan whether or not the White House had praised the apology of Sen. Trent Lott after he made controversial comments in 2002, as it did this week in commending Sen. Dick Durbin's apology.

On Tuesday, Durbin apologized for his June 14 Senate remarks, which included comparing U.S. treatment of prisoners to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings."

WND: Scott, yesterday you, as the president's spokesman, warmly commended Senator Durbin for his apologizing for what you called the reprehensible and Mayor Kelly called a disgraceful statement about our U.S. troops. But I can't remember any such White House commendation of Senator Lott for his apology in 2002. And my first question, did you or Ari Fleischer ever publicly commend Senator Lott for his apology, and what did you say if you did?

McCLELLAN: Les, that matter was addressed long ago and I don't think there's anything else to add to it.

WND: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, I've got a follow up. Mississippi Republicans who did so much to lead a great Bush re-election victory in their red state are surely aware of the enormous difference between what Senator Lott said was "totally in jest" at Senator Thurmond's 100th birthday party and what was reprehensible and disgraceful. Will you now warmly commend Senate Rules Committee Chairman Lott for his apology in 2002, or won't you?

McCLELLAN: Les, this issue was addressed back in 2002, and –

WND: He still is with us.

McCLELLAN: – and we're focused on how we move forward.

Ain’t this the truth

South Dakota Magazine [who I just added to my blog roll] has a great post titled, "Success Sells Better Than Poverty""

Elsie Meeks is a Lakota woman who would prefer to work with her husband, Jim, on his ranch on the Pine Ridge. She’d rather be on a horse than in a business suit. But when she realized she had "people skills" that could help to improve the lives of her poverty-stricken neighbors she (sometimes grudgingly) became one of Indian country’s top economic development leaders.

Elsie had an interesting comment the other day. She says the reservations have found that poverty became a commodity …. something poor communities could sell for money. But she says success would be a better commodity.

Elsie Meeks, who is now the executive director of the national First Nations Oweesta Corporation, recently received a $2 million grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to spur growth of private business on the Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River reservations in South Dakota and the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming.

"We’re all first-generation entrepreneurs," Meeks said during a Four Bands event at Eagle Butte. "In a way, we sold poverty. Tribes sold poverty, because that’s how we got our funding."It takes a shift in thinking to sell success, and it can be a painful transition from relying on poverty to get grants and program money to relying on individual economic development to develop a community, tribe and reservation, she said.

"We can only have a better economy than we do now … by teaching our kids about business and finances," said Meeks, who has spent two decades in programs aimed at developing business in Indian Country.

Her thoughts probably apply not just to Indian communities, but to rural America in general. Some of the most practical people we know are continually seeking federal government answers (as in money whenever they or their community experiences a bad break. Maybe if we emphasized success more often than "selling" failure for our own short-term gains, our own people (especially our young people) wouldn’t have the idea that you have to leave rural America to succeed.

It is exciting to see that there are a moare and more Native Americans realizing what the Pilgrims learned in 1600’s:

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

The Democrats continue to push their socialism in an effort to eliminate poverty. But they are severely in error. The Pilgrims and now Elsie Meeks learned the hard way that socialism creates poverty. The Democrats are not for the poor, they are for keeping the poor…poor. And there is nothing liberal about that.

Mainstream, moderates, centrists

Today’s David Kranz column is titled, "New GOP moderates ready to speak up":

Seven state senators have formed the South Dakota Mainstream Coalition, and they want to be heard, not discredited.

Sen. Ed Olson of Mitchell is the executive director of the group, whose members are fanning out across the state to communicate their message and look for like-minded people to join them.

Other charter members are Tom Dempster and Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls; Stan Adelstein, Royal "Mac" McCracken and J.P. Duniphan of Rapid City; and Duane Sutton of Aberdeen.

For anybody who has followed South Dakota politics, "New" is not the correct word to describe these members. I will also argue that moderates do not correctly describe the above folds. The Clear Cut Kidder uses centrist…that is wrong. Even worse, the group calls itself "Mainstream". That is completely false. Here’s why:

The battle over the life and death of Terri Schiavo was a catalyst for action, Olson said.

"I thought it was so inappropriate," he said. "There is a lot of libertarian in all of us. Government is really getting into areas where it doesn't belong."

So why doesn’t the group join the Libertarian Party? Because the Party don’t have enough membership to provide the support needed to win elections…and that is suppose to be "Mainstream"?

So libertarian would be a correct label. And Stan Adelstein provides insight on another label that would more correctly describe the group:

In some ways, it comes down to religion, Adelstein says.

So secularists are another label that correctly describes this group. They belief that Americans should not be allowed to voice opinions that are faith based. I don’t believe that is what the Founding Fathers had in mine when the promoted the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

Too often political labels are only two-dimensional. Right versus left. But it is more complicated than that. Instead of being in a line between right and left, we should look at the environment has a square whose four corners represent the degree of government involvement in two areas…social issues and fiscal issues.

For some they belief that there should be less government in fiscal issues (lower taxes), but we need government involvement in social issues. This corner of the square would represent what the MSM refers to as the Christian right Republicans.

There are others who belief that their should be government involvement in fiscal manners, but not so regarding social issues. This corner of the square would represent what I call the far-left Democrats. There are a lot of socialists here.

We then have those who believe we should have less government in both fiscal and social issues. These folks are the above mentioned libertarians.

And last, there are a few who believe in government control of both fiscal and social matters. This corner of the square would represent communists.

Just because you do not represent the Christian Right Republican or the far-left Democrats doesn’t make you a moderate or a centrist. You may be just another extremist, but in another corner of the square. And until Libertarians or Communists start winning elections, they should not be considered "Mainstream".

Coming clean

Todd Epp made this comment in response to my post holding him accountable for statements he made regarding John Thune’s role in the BRAC hearing held in Rapid City on Tuesday:

I hope the check is in the mail from the your boy Johnny.

I can say that I never received a red cent from John Thune or his campaign. Also, I have not given one red cent to John Thune or his campaign. Now since Todd Epp is so concerned about paid bloggers, when is he going to confront Chad Schuldt for refusing to answer questions about his financial backing? Jon Lauck, Jason Van Beek, and now myself have answered questions about financial backing. Schuldt refuses to publicly disclose whether or not he is receiving money form political organizations. The Clear Cut Kidder sould come clean.

I also think Todd Epp has forgotten about the time I came to his defense when Charley House issued a personal attack. I also remember Todd Epp and I was on the same [side] of the argument regarding anonymous bloggers. So why isn’t Epp giving the SDBWM, the David Kranz of the South Dakota blogosphere, hell for not coming clean? What’s wrong with SDBWM? Is he this:

Durbin versus Lott

Here is Dick Durbin’s apology (?) and Rush Limbaugh’s response:

DURBIN: Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies.

RUSH: There you go. "Some may believe my remarks..." They did cross the line. You're not taking it back. You didn't erase the line. The line's still there. Your words are still over the line, and you're apologizing to people for making them feel bad. Now, I know what you're saying, Rush, can't you just let this go? Come on, Rush! Come on, Rush, he apologized. Can't you just let it go? This is only gonna -- see, you're just going to make everybody think the right-wing is just a bunch of wackos and freaks. Stick with me on this, folks. Stick with me. You have been with me long enough to know that we don't do anything here without a major point with a big exclamation point to be followed, and that's what's going to happen here. So just stick with me before you say, "Come on, Rush! Be nice, will you? Be big about it. Be bigger than Durbin, accept the apology." I just want to show you how Washington works here and I know how short memories are.

Then Rush brings up the Democrat's reaction to Trent Lott’s apologies of a couple of years ago:

So why doesn't Durbin have to go on an atonement tour like Trent Lott did? Why doesn't he have to go to sensitivity training? Why doesn't he have to go meet Abraham Foxman? Why doesn't he have to apologize to all the different Jewish groups in person like Lott? Lott had to show up on Black Entertainment TV, for crying out loud and sit with some of those stone-faced anchors who didn't care that he was there and weren't going to accept his apology no matter what. Lott apologized five times and they never accepted it once. And after he apologized five times the White House dumped all over him, and they took his Senate leadership position away from him and created an enemy out of him from now on until Bush leaves office. Five times Lott apologized -- not once was it accepted -- over a remark he made at a birthday party, and yet this that Durbin did was courageous. We're not finished here. Do the Republicans demand that he resign his leadership post? Do they refuse to accept the apology? No, they accept it and move on. This morning on Fox and Friends, Mitch McConnell was there, and E. D. Hill says, "Some of have suggested that he should be canned from his job as minority whip. Do you think that's going too far?"

McCONNELL: You know, leadership posts are up to the Democratic conference. That will be for them to decide. I think we're probably going to move on from this point and to other issues.

RUSH: Yeah, we'll get back to Bolton and the filibuster. Hubba hubba. Yes siree bob. Now, folks, don't misunderstand me. I don't care whether Durbin resigns his post or not. I'm just trying to show you the differences in these two parties. I'm trying to show you a party with gonads and a party with linguini spines and you tell me which party is which. I'm trying to show you which party's got the guts to act like winners, which party has the guts to act like they have spines and which party, despite the fact that they lose, still acts like they run the show. As far as Durbin going or staying, I don't know. If he stays, fine. I think he's a poster child here for the Democratic Party, and I hope he keeps talking, and I haven't changed my mind, and whether he apologized or not is irrelevant to me. I'm just pointing out to you I don't think he did.

Rush Limbaugh points out that Trent Lott was forced to apologize five times and that still wasn’t good enough for the Daschle Democrats. For more on what the Daschle Democrats did to Trent Lott after he apologized for a statement made at Strom Thurmond’s 100^th birthday party, check out this December 2002 Fox News report:

Prior to Lott's conversation with Hannity, who is co-host of Hannity & Colmes on Fox News Channel, and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle came out for the third time this week to comment on Lott's remarks.

"It is profoundly disturbing that Sen. Lott's statement last week was not an isolated incident. Such statements were unacceptable in 1980, and they are no less so today," Daschle said in a written statement.

"In light of today's news and the growing controversy, Sen. Lott should come forward with a fuller explanation and apology. The question Sen. Lott needs to answer is, if he did not mean to endorse segregation, what did he mean?"

Rush Limbaugh’s comments today also included Tom Daschle’s role in the Trent Lott episode:

Now, let me go to our Nexis research. I'm holding here the Gannett News Service, essentially USA Today, from December 11th, 2002. Here's the headline: Democrats Reject Lott's Apology. "Republican leader Trent Lott's apology for saying the country would have been better off if elected a pro-segregation president in 1948 fell flat with many black lawmakers and many Democrats on Tuesday and some called for him to give up his leadership post. Kweisi Mfume, 'Senator Lott's statements are the kind of callous, calculated, hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of Congress. His remarks are dangerously divisive, certainly unbefitting a man who is to hold such a highly esteemed leadership role as the majority leader of the Senate.' Tom Daschle said Monday he accepted Lott's explanation that the Republican had not intended to endorse Strom Thurmond's then ardent support of segregation. However, after the critical comments from Maxine Waters, Daschle issued a second statement saying his acceptance of Lott's explanation does not mean that I found the statement appropriate. 'Regardless of how he intended his statement to be interpreted, it was wrong to say it. I strongly disagree with it.'" Maxine Waters helped me get my mind right on this. Maxine Waters spanked Daschle; Daschle went out and took back what he had said.

When Trent Lott made a similar statement that Durbin made, Daschle as leader of the Democrats, flip-flopped, and then proceeded to attack Trent Lott. Now today, should we accept Durbin’s quasi-apology? Yes. Should we move on? Yes. Just because Democrats are not compassionate and tolerate enough to accept apologies, not even five of them, doesn’t mean they deserve to be treated in like kind. Instead we should thank Dick Durbin for telling us what the far-left really thinks…Democrats are more important than America. And to Tom Daschle, Democrats were more important than compassion for a man who apologized.

I know await apologies from those Daschle supporters who defended Durbin's anti-American statements.

Sibby goes from hillbilly to doctor

Thanks Todd Epp for elevating my hypothetical status from hillbilly to doctor. But check the comments left at the post if you want some laughs. Since I am now a doctor, I think Dumped Daschle Disciples can know be upgraded to Delusional Dumped Daschle Disciples.

It was the David Kranz of the South Dakota blogosphere that first pointed that South Dakota hillbillies are not capable of communicating. SDP has more from the elitist:

Johnson did claim to have enough influence to keep Ellsworth open, but I'm sure that the senior senator never expected the leader of the senate Democrats -- Daschle -- to be beaten in an election. It's like the kid with the tough older brother a couple years older than him shoving class bully and saying, "you'll be sorry if you keep this up." ...

No matter how much finger pointing the Apple Dumpling Gang does, it's going to be very hard for them to advance the notion that Johnson -- in the minority party and in the party without White House ties -- can be blamed for the Ellsworth closing.

SDP, who the anonymous chicken called "the Apple Dumpling Gang" provides analysis of the above point:

Nobody blames Johnson for closing, as BWM asserts, but it's worth noting that Johnson ran TV ads saying he could keep the base open. Thune never ran TV ads on Ellsworth, but Daschle ran at least a few. And Thune never guaranteed that the base would stay open. He simply said something very close to what BWM says about it being better to be in the GOP than in the "minority party and in the party without White House ties," i.e. that it would be better to have some compatibility with the President instead of constantly blocking everything he wanted to do.

So why won’t an self-proclaimed objective blog-watcher apply the same point to John Thune that was made about Tim Johnson? Why doesn’t the blog-watcher go after Todd Epp for his "President’s ear" rants? Because the blog-watcher is the David Kranz of the SD blogosphere. There are two sets of rules, one for Republicans and none for Democrats.

Todd Epp has lost it

The hatred toward John Thune has totally consumed Todd Epp. First he makes this statement:

Again, I hope Ellsworth does not close. But if that is going to happen, it is going to take place behind closed doors with the major players hasing it out and not on the basketball court at the Rapid City Civic Center.

18 minutes later Epp posted this:

Johnny, last year you told us what clout you have. Now it's an "uphill climb." Where's W's ear again? Will you show the BRAC commissioners the President's ear at the Rapid City hearing? Let's hope so!

When you see him use "Johnny", that is a hint that the anger has set in. Within 18 minutes Epp goes from saving Ellsworth "is going to take place behind closed doors with the major players hasing it out and not on the basketball court at the Rapid City Civic Center" to "Will you show the BRAC commissioners the President's ear at the Rapid City hearing? Let's hope so!"

Which way is it Epp? Will it be behind closed doors or on the basketball court at the Rapid City Civic Center? Seems like you have lost all sense of logic. You want it one way, but then 18 minutes later, your want it the other way. Looks like the anger form the Dasche lost has consumed you.

There is no doubt that if it is concluded that putting all our B-1s at the same base is not in the best interest of America’s national security, and Ellsworth is taken off the base-closing list…Todd Epp and his fellow Dumped Daschle Disciples will be devastated. And I doubt they will give John Thune any credit. Instead they will give all the credit to Tim Johnson. At least that is what they did recently on the ethanol issue.

Besides, the anti-war Todd Epp could care less about military spending. Playing politics to avenge Tom Daschle’s loss is his motive. SDP has the confession:

Where Hildebrand insists his criticism is policy-driven [ha!], Epp acknowledges a component of revenge in his own.

"I think there was considerable bitterness about what happened to Tom," Epp says. "I think as Democratic activists have looked at ways to try to do something about it, this has been one of their outlets. I think it is for me."

After the Epp 18 minute flip-flop, Epp showed us how his anger had over taken him by making a silly analysis of John Thune’s testimony at the BRAC hearing yesterday:

Sen. John Thune sounded extremely angry during his presentation. I guess I'd be ticked too if I lost the President's ear. The funniest moment for me was when he said Dyess AFB could be terrorized by godless tornados, all the while showing a photo of a Al Qaeda-loving tornado that struck close to McConnell AFB near Wichita, KS.

Wow, I was betting the MSM would be all over Thune talking about an Al Qaeda-loving tornado that was godless. But that is not the account reported today:

Thune said it doesn't make military sense to place all B-1s at one base, "particularly in the heart of tornado alley." Weather and terrorists with unconventional weapons are a bigger threat if the fleet is at one site, he said.

One of the BRAC commissioners said the one-base risk factor was "very valid point". But Todd Epp could care less about that, and instead he makes a childish statement about one of South Dakota’s leaders who were making that "very valid point". Again, Epp could care less about Ellsworth. He only wants to poke fun at John Thune. In Epp’s own words, "And it's good sport, it's fun."

But back to yesterday’s 18 minute flip-flop on consecutive posts. Any unbiased blog-watcher would be all over this. But the only self-proclaimed blog-watcher in the South Dakota blogosphere seems to be just another of Epp’s fellow Dumped Daschle Disciples…and an anonymous one who claims to be a right of center conservative. Any hillbilly can see that is total BS. I would take you to the scene of that car wreck, but it is too gruesome.

UPDATE: Just after I put the above post together last night, Todd Epp provided us with more evidence that the anonymous blogger who is trying to pull off the - I am an objective journalist who sorts out the right versus left politics and report it - is in reality a Democrat shill. Instead of holding Epp accountable for his flip-flop, he and Epp are having a love feast. Looks like SDBWM is the David Kranz of the South Dakota blogosphere. In fact it could be David Kranz himself, except Dave is actually a good guy, so I doubt it is him.

Another Update: And note this comment the anonymous chicken left on Epp’s web site:

I promised my therapist that I would not read a Sibby post EVER EVER EVER again, for fear that it would cause my head to explode.

A self-proclaimed South Dakota blog-watcher who can’t read Sibby Online…now that is incompetent for a blog-watcher, but still qualifies the jerk to be a hate-filled deceitful Democrat shill.