Does Judy Olson wear pearls when she goes dumpster diving?

This election year keeps getting weirder and weirder.

On primary night, the anticipated night of incumbents election ended up being the night of conservatives (Yeahhh!!). Shortly thereafter, we have the Argus Leader derailing a strong Republican incumbent on the PUC who was being looked at for higher office by talking about an investigation against "someone for something."

The latest? Shortly after the Democrats fill fewer constitutional offices than the Libertarian party, their chairman openly talks about going dumpster diving for Republicans who were defeated in the primary.

Check this out from today's recap in the Rapid City Journal of the Democrats going after Stan Adelstein rather agressively:
Judy Olson Duhamel thought she had a new recruit for the South Dakota Democratic Party Thursday afternoon. But Republican state Sen. Stan Adelstein wasn’t ready to make the switch — at least, not yet.

Olson Duhamel — the state chairwoman of the Democratic Party — said it was all but a done deal that Adelstein would become a Democrat. The question, she said, was whether Adelstein, who lost to Elli Schwiesow in the District 32 Republican primary, would agree to replace Democratic District 32 Senate candidate Tom Katus in the general election.

“Stan has made the choice to change his registration, as far as I know,” Olson Duhamel said. “He has yet to make the choice on whether to run. I’m hoping that he will.”

During a late-afternoon interview, however, Adelstein said he was still a Republican and hadn’t decided whether to change his party registration. In fact, he described himself as reluctant to reconsider another run.

“I would really rather not be a candidate again,” Adelstein said. “I am flattered and touched that they asked.”

In addition, other Republican legislators who lost primary elections last month are considering switching parties, Olson Duhamel said. But Adelstein’s was the most high-profile defeat, and the possibility of his party switch has so far attracted the most attention.

“She’s wrong. I absolutely have not made a decision,” he said, referring to Duhamel.

and...

Thursday, Adelstein said he was seeking an opinion on whether he could appear as a Democratic candidate on the ballot without actually changing his party registration.

“Frankly, I’m waiting for a legal opinion on whether I have to be a Democrat in order to be the Democratic nominee,” he said. “I don’t know what the answer is there.”

In the meantime, the Democratic Party is conducting polling on his potential candidacy, and Adelstein said he expects that party officials will share that information with him when it is available.

The key to his decision, however, would be whether he could be part of a swing in power toward the Democrats in the 35-member Senate, he said. With a more substantial minority, the Democrats could join with moderate Republicans to work on education funding, property-tax concerns and other issues apart from abortion, he said.

“I’ve gone carefully over the (Senate) candidates, and if I could win, it looks to me like the Democrats would go from 10 to a minimum of 15 or 16,” he said. “It takes 18 votes to pass a bill. So if Democrats were relatively solid, it would take only a few moderate Republicans to get something meaningful done.”
The Democrats are actually spending money on polling to see if this is feasible? To me, this really bolsters the thesis that the Democratic Party is dying in South Dakota. When the best chance to beat a Republican is to recruit another, you have to wonder where their heads are at.

In fact, take notice that even Stan recognizes that going Dem isn't much of an option:
“Frankly, I’m waiting for a legal opinion on whether I have to be a Democrat in order to be the Democratic nominee,” he said. “I don’t know what the answer is there.”
It sounds like even he's reluctant to consider doing it. He'd rather run as a Republican on a Democratic ticket than paste the scarlet letter of "D" behind his name. Why? Because Democrats don't win elections at the state legislative level in South Dakota.

If I were a Democrat voter in this state, I think I'd be a little insulted that my party couldn't find quality candidates within it's own ranks. It's not like they didn't have time. What have they been doing the past 18 months where a Republican coming off of a loss is more attractive to the party leaders than a Democrat preparing to run a hard race?

Now with all that said, even if the D's talk Stan into taking the step into switching parties, his colleagues aren't predicting he'd be better off. In fact, one says that he's not going to have much fun:
Republican Sen. Bill Napoli, a frequent Adelstein adversary representing District 35 in Rapid City, predicted that switching parties would eliminate any political power for Adelstein.

and...

“All the money in the world won’t make up for the fact that he’s from the opposing party. He had an open door to the governor. Stan was right there, part of the inner circle,” Napoli said. “That would end, whether he’d win the (District 32) election or not.”
Read it all here in today's Rapid City Journal.

Comments

mjb said…
Pretty soon they're going to be recruiting libertarians.
Anonymous said…
Actually, Stan says here that the Senate as-is can't get anything meaningful done.

He's been involved in South Dakota Politics a long time, and even he sees how ineffective the majority party is in getting anything accomplished.

All they do is grow state government, invite education lawsuits, refuse to reform healthcare and keep us as a poverty state.

Good job Republicans!
Notla said…
Some time ago, before the primaries, wasn't there much discussion on the inabilities of the Democrat Party to find candidates? And didn't one the writers to this blog with Dem affiliations strongly say that the Dems would find candidates? Eh, what happened to that bold statement?

One other thing, PP, you hit at Kristi Noem pretty hard about her 4x8 signs costing $100 and she had said only about $33. Since the primary is now over, did she ever contact you to show you her receipts or where she got them so you could check the price? Who was right?
Notla said…
Candidates for the constitutional offices is what the discussion was about.
mjb said…
looks like notla must be Kristi. Or her mom.
Anonymous said…
You have got to get over this idea that the Argus Leader derailed Bob Sahr. The GOP inner circle took him out. You've admitted as much before, so stop your blame shifting. I believe you even responded to a previous comment by stating you weren't blaming the Argus. Try to be consistent.
Anonymous said…
Being a Republican didn't help Adelstein with Napoli, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that back stabber's opinion.
Bob Newland said…
That would make some sense, mjb.
Anonymous said…
PP - Nice title on this post. I also thought that a dumpster was a good place to keep a republican.
Anonymous said…
This is great. The democrats recruiting liberal, defeated republicans. Finally, these folks will be right at home. I encourage Adelstein to become a democrat. It is just too bad he didn't realize his true colors before he ran as a republican.

Let's encourage other jackasses in elephant's clothing to help themselves and the republican party by just doing what they truly know in their heart they must do. Come on Stan, come out of the closet!
Anonymous said…
The big tent thing is kind of a joke now isn't it?

Plus, all these posts on limited government being a republican ideal, well I'm a republican and am disgusted with the expanding government we witnessed lately, under republican control, both in size and scope. Who’s paying for this? I am with my taxes for the rest of my life.

What does the Republican Party stand for? Sorry, I'm too smart to buy "family values" and "limited government" when the former is code or at best sophomoric and the latter is a lie at this point in time.

Help me out here. But this party, my party, is leaving me quickly. I'm not a dem., but the people you are running out besides Stan, Sutton, Sahr, Kooistra include people like me. People who work for a living, contribute to the GOP and are having there stomach turned by an agenda that deals only with 1215 and the origin of species and silly platitudes about values.

We are becoming the party of ideological small-mindedness and "you all" are getting hard for the likes of me to defend. We always joke that it’s good the Dems are so disorganized, well, maybe in the long run it isn’t good.

Pat Powers, being a republican isn’t like being in the member of a family, gang or fraternity; you don’t defend like this just because you belong.
Anonymous said…
I think 12:58 misses the point. Stan's defection isn't about 1215, but rather an overall philosophy. I also disagree with 1215 because of the lack of exceptions, however, I vehemently disagree with Stan on virtually every other issue. He's for Tom Daschle, building a new university in Sioux Falls we can't afford, give-aways of taxpayer's dollars for public broadcasting and colleges that are not accountable to the state. These are but a few. Throw in his support of gay marriage and gun control, and I can't STANDYA, Stan.

The bottom line is he's a liberal and liberals should be in the liberal party. This isn't rocket science. Apparently, there are others who are also in denial of their democrat ideologies.

If you don't agree with the majority of the policy actions of the national, state and local republicans, and agree with the majority of the democrats' policy actions, then it is time truly search your soul and decide where you truly belong. Quit pretending!

I disagree with much of what is being done in Pierre, but I know I'm a republican because of the policy actions by republicans in Washington, D.C. (except the misguided amnesty proposal), the local level, and the potential new majority in the state senate. I don't believe the reasons I am a republican has anything to do with why Stan is a republican.

He's probably only a republican on the income tax issue. He simply doesn't want to pay his fair share. Also, he knows that if he had been a democrat all those years, he couldn't have pulled the levers of power so easily by throwing his money around. Macivellian, isn't it.
scimitar said…
I would very much like to hear more about what Anon 3:47 has to say. It sounds like all of those tales are worth telling.

PP, no doubt you have access to this information, and probably already have heard these stories being a Pierre native and insider. Put on your investigative reporter hat.
Oldguy said…
Is there any truth to what anon 3:47 says?
PP said…
Of course it's was still up. I had to work. But now it's down, down, down.
PP said…
Posters, some of those alleagations you are throwing about either have no basis in fact, nor has any facts on an investigation shown if allegations are true.

Just like other recent investigations, no facts are publicly available. So please refrain from hanging anyone from a yardarm until they are.

Last I knew, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty.

On top of that, when you're posting anonymously, it's pretty hard to accept moral condemnations.

And c'mon.. Young Republicans in Pierre having wild drunken sex parties? That's just laughable.
Anonymous said…
Laughable, but true PP. They sunk sahr on nothing, this is something but unfortunately all involved are equally culpable and none have an ax to grind and hanson and shoenbeck have nothing to gain in knocking out the suspects. Of course, that could change.
Notla said…
I would consider that a complement MJB, but wrong gender. What about it PP? Your silence indicates that Noem's signs did cost $33.
PP said…
notla, No, I haven't seen a receipt yet. Only assertions.

And what on earth does that have to do with Democrats recruiting GOP losers?
Notla said…
Nothing, but since I was bringing up past comments I brought that up too.

I knew where she got them from and the cost. Just wondering if you would have corrected a mistake when shown otherwise. I believe you were told where the signs were purchased and could have checked to find out, especially since you made such a big deal about the cost prior to the primary.

You do an excellent job in digging into things and bringing facts to light. But if I'm going to critize the liberals, to be fair I have to do it to you too when I think you are wrong on your facts.
PP said…
Notla -

Can you explain why it's my responsibility to chase down something when I offered a momentary off-the-cuff opinion as to cost? Especially when it doesn't matter to anyone.

Back several months, I merely estimated based on my personal experience in the 2002 campaign, and moved on. Some people... well, one at least, decided that in the big scheme of things, it mattered.

And I responded with the basis of my reasoning. In other words, I merely explained why I thought as I did.

The key here - I offered opinion, (with the basis for reaching it) not fact.

Now, months later down the line, I'm getting an e-mail with the same assertions as before. And I responded to that, just as I did before.

And now you're stating "I believe you were told where the signs were purchased and could have checked to find out." And you're making that statement seriously.

I would compare it to an editorial appearing in a paper saying "In this editor's opinion, global warming is fake." and then someone comes along to the editor saying "No it isn't. Al Gore made a movie on it and you have to go watch it and tell everyone that I'm right and you were wrong."

Because that's exactly what you're demanding. And it's that silly.

In the interest of allowing you the remote possibility of doing "the superior dance" for a moment, I'll meet you half way.

If you want to go get an actual receipt, scan it, post it on the internet yourself and show how with art, material, screen charges, etcetera, a person off the street can purchase four color signs for $16.50 per side ($33 total) in a quantity of 100 or less, I'd be happy to link to the image of the reciept, and let people know where they can get such a hot deal.

And please note that the assertion that "I can't do that - then the Dems might know where they can get them" is just plain goofy. The business in question does signs for them too. If you know where to get them, so do they.

So, there it is. The ball is in your court.
Anonymous said…
If you want to see the pulled post go to SD Straight talk, under the PUC article.
Notla said…
PP, so you were told where the signs were bought. Quite possibly you also know that you were wrong, so why should you take the time to check. A simple phone call to the company would have verified the cost.

I would not have made anything of it if you would have simply acknowleged the correct price when you were informed about it after the primaries. You were the one who basically accused a candidate of lying about the cost when she had responded to your comments.

Sorry to have struck such a nerve, because I do enjoy your site and your postings.
PP said…
Notla - no nerve was struck, and I still don't believe myself to be incorrect.

Last I knew, I wasn't the one who brought it up several months after the fact.

Regardless, the offer still stands. Until then, I'm considering any assertions that I was wrong more "talk" than "walk."

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th