He had me at "I don't know that I'm ready to change parties." But then he had to keep running his mouth.

It looks like the Stan Adelstein story is the BIG political news today, quickly garnering coverage by the Associated Press and picked up by the Argus, KELO, and The Rapid City Journal.

I would note that this article starts out with the soon-to-be-former Senator actually sounding reasonable as he states:
"I don't know. I've had some people talk to me, and that's about as far as I am on it," Adelstein said Thursday. "I have been thinking about it."

However, Adelstein said he doesn't know if he wants to change political parties.
And that's ok, I guess. I can accept that someone made the suggestion, and he agreed to give it some honest thought. For a moment, I thought I'd actually be writing a retraction saying "I was wrong, and too quick to judge harshly."

Silly me. Of course I was right. As Adelstein continued to run his mouth, he proved my twinge of regret was completely and utterly misplaced:
"I narrowly lost a campaign based on a single issue that ignores the real issues of the state of South Dakota," Adelstein said. "But I don't know that I'm ready to change parties. The campaign was unfair and dishonest, and I lost narrowly. Does that mean I change my party over that? I don't know."
Stop right there. "The campaign was unfair and dishonest?" By who's standards? He must have been measuring that one on the "Stan Adelstein anything but a win is unacceptable" ruler.

Gripes about the campaign having a single issue focus? He's the one who started off the campaign season accepting a national planned parenthood award. I seem to also recall some large donations to pro-choice PACs. But of course, he called himself pro-life. It was almost schizophrenic to watch.

Maybe he didn't like the way his colleagues in the State Senate rushed out to Rapid City to stand with his primary opponent. Did he ever pause to think that it's possible they might have grown weary of Stan calling them "Right-wing extremists who should be thrown out of office" during the legislative session? (Or at least weary of him spending tens of thousands to defeat them.) I'm sure he can't imagine why they might have grown tired of that.

Or, maybe he thought it unfair that when questioned if each would support the other after the primary, his opponent said she'd support the Republican. Of course, at that time, he refused to support her, and claimed she was not nice. I'm sure he can't wrap his mind around the fact that a statement like that might have lost him some support.

Oddly enough, I think whether he changes parties or not is really immaterial. I don't think a change of parties is going to bring victory to this sore loser. Sure, there might be some short term comfort that if he drops anther 100g's in the race it might make a difference.

Who knows? Maybe it will. More than likely, it won't.

But if he does flip parties to run... At the end of the day another race is not going to cure the character flaw of blaming others for one's own misfortunes.

PS - CHECK OUT THE POLL ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE RCJ HOME PAGE on this decision whether or not Stan should run as a Democrat

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

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