RC Weekly News - Adelstein may run as a Democrat

Tom Lawrence at the Rapid City Weekly news breaks a big story in Rapid City - That Stan Adelstein may run as a Democrat (after blowing 100g's losing to Elli Schwiesow):

Stan Adelstein may get another shot at Elli Schwiesow.

The Republican state senator was defeated by Schwiesow in the June 6 primary, but he is now considering switching parties and running in the Nov. 7 general election as a Democrat. For that to happen, Tom Katus, the Democratic nominee for state Senate District 32, would have to step aside.

Katus said Monday he would do so if a poll shows Adelstein has a better chance of winning.

“Whoever is the stronger candidate,” Katus said. “I would clearly support whichever of us has the better chance of winning.”

The RMA Research polling firm of Sioux Falls is conducting a poll in District 32 right now to determine which candidate would run stronger, Katus said. An answer should be reached within the next few days.

If it’s Adelstein, the state Democratic Central Committee would have to accept Katus’ resignation as a candidate and ask other candidates to step forward. Adelstein could then have the spot if he so chose. Other candidates could apply.

“I’m willing to gracefully accept him into the party and support him,” Katus said.

He said the deadline to switch candidates is Aug. 5. Adelstein cannot run as an independent; the filing deadline for that was June 6.

Adelstein narrowly lost to Schwiesow in the primary; he had defeated her in a close match in 2004. He was one of several moderate Republicans to go down in defeat in the 2006 primary.

One of them, state Sen. Clarence Kooistra of Garretson, switched his registration to Democrat last week.

Read it all here. This would be marginally interesting, as it would virtually guarantee that if he possibly could make it back in, Stan would actually become more of a political pariah, and even more ineffective than he is now. And as opposed to being a political money candyman marginally in demand, it would ensure his funding would be even more of a poison than it was during this past primary.

And more so than anything, this type of party jumping would once again confirm that it's not about leadership - it's about narcissism.

Comments

Joel Rosenthal said…
I'll stand corrected but I believe the only way a defeated candidate can run for the same position they previously lost in a primary is to replace the winning candidate in the primary.

ie. Stan can only run for the Senate if Elli is off the ballot and then the GOP puts him on in her place. I believe he is prohibited from otherwise running for the Senate. The Dems or others could put him on the ballot as a replacement for the House but not the Senate.
Anonymous said…
Is there anything a moderate republican can do to make you people happy? Is it simply to sit in the back of the bus and vote the party line? All I’ve seen for the last few months is how bad these people are for the party and how it would be better if they just left. It looks like they got the message so what is your problem? You wanted to drive the moderates out and you succeeded. Congratulations.
Anonymous said…
Anon:

Make sure and put PP's words in context. He's a political junkie by way of being a flunkie. Sure, he does grunt work for candidates, and that wins him some favor. But, its hard to believe he has any kind of insight into our system, given his staunch backing of the conservative message.

He's just a mouthpiece. He has time to devote to a blog, so he does. People feed him information so he can put it up on here, and he does.

He's only a pawn in their game - he's not a player.
PP said…
And someone got up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning...

Anon 6:50 - I know and enjoy the friendship of many moderate Republicans. I don't always agree with them, and I'm not afraid to express that opinion. (That's why it's called debate). I think the GOP is richer for their presence.

In this instance, the liberal Republican (there's no moderation here) lost when the peope made their choice. Now he's utterly abandoning the GOP because it stands in the way of his continued power. That's not statesmenship. It's just plain old fashioned greed and coveting power.

And anon 6:59 - Neverminding the fact I've been involved at all levels in SD for now 18 years running, and I am a mouthpiece for no one.

I just happen to lean conservative because I've been in business for myself at times, as well as the fact I'm trying to raise a family. Those things alone demand a conservative view of government.

And if people were feeding me stuff, you'd think I'd make more money off of this.

I'm at the point in my life where whatever I do is on MY terms.

Can someone who has to post anonymously say the same?
PP said…
Joel -

Actually, this scenario as Stan is trying to do is a legal loophole which works, as long as he can get the Democrats go along with it.

Used to be, he could have ran for the House as an independent, but the filing deadline was moved back.
Left O'Dmiddle said…
So Adelstein supports your party with thousands upon thousands in donations over the years and you say things like "it would ensure his funding would be even more of a poison than it was during this past primary." You conclude with, "And more so than anything, this type of party jumping would once again confirm that it's not about leadership - it's about narcissism."

It must be great to be a moderate SoDak Republican these days. You either toe the anti-choice/abstinence-only line or end up banished to the political wilderness. And after enduring that injury, you’re treated to the insult of PP the blogging hack attributing all of your motivations to narcissism.

Oh, wait. While I was writing this, you clarified Adelstein’s position on the political scale. He is a liberal you say. Well, no wonder you don’t want his likes hanging around in your party. In fact, this sounds like my kind of party—liberals are out, moderates are tokens and social conservatives rule. I’ll change my name to “Right O’Dmiddle” and join up with folks that understand the importance of ideological purity and aren't afraid to cleanse there group of any wayward thought. By the way, will you be furnishing the robes or do I have to buy some white sheets and learn to sew?
Anonymous said…
You've got it right, PP -- narcissism at work here! What a sore loser! On the other hand, it's probably the most honest thing Adelstein has ever done. and maybe the best. He will lose, and maybe, just maybe, he will FINALLY ride off into the sunset.
nonnie said…
Nobody in the GOP kicked Adelstein out - he ran in a primary, got defeated, just like many others this year. He's got a right to his opinions, and if people didn't prefer him, they had a right to vote for his opponent. That's the way the system works.

As for him and Kooistra who switched parties, that's their right too. Maybe their philosophy is just more Democrat than Republican; maybe it's changed over time. I grew up Democrat but am now Republican; it happens. The Dems didn't kick me out. I chose to register with the party that most reflects my thinking, as did they. Get it, it's THEIR decision. The GOP didn't kick them out.

But I do think it's low down politics to make the declared candidate step aside so that the sore loser can take another run at the same seat. It shows the type of person Stan really is, and it's NOT outSTANding.
Todd Epp said…
PP, I've detected a certain "don't let the screen door hit you on the butt on the way out" in some of your posts about moderate Republicans leaving the party. Seems unseemly to complain about the moderate Republicans then criticize them when they leave, which appears to be the SDGOP agenda. We'll happily take folks like Cradduck, Heidepriem, Kooistra, and Adelstein. All good, smart, people who are proven leaders. Do you have a list of other moderate Republicans you'd like to send us this fall?

And I too have been and am in business for myself and am raising a family. Seems the "natural" choice for me is to be a Democrat. That's the great thing about democracy though: different paths to the same goals.

And to those on my side who consider you a "hack," I disagree. You are pretty darn independent (particularly for a Republican in this state: I fear for your safety at times (grin)!) but you obviously support your own team. Nothing wrong with that either. But you're nobody's pawn. Wrong at times, but no flunky. (grin)

The game is afoot! Keep blogging and we'll keep reading.

Todd
scimitar said…
Democrats will gladly take:
1)everybody in the mainstream coalition;
2)the 45+% of Republican primary voters who chose moderates over conservatives;
3)all those independents that you consider too wishy washy to commit to the GOP hardline radical agenda;
4)all the voters who believe that 13 year olds shouldn't be having their rapist's baby;
5)the 60% of voters who think that George Bush has done a lowsy job running the country into the ground;
6)the 70% of voters who believe that the GOP congress has ADD - spending wildly, working 3 days/week, forgetting the big picture and getting constantly sidetracked on things like Terri Schiavo, movie ratings, baseball.

GOP, Who's that leave you?
Anonymous said…
It leaves Leslee Unruh.
Anonymous said…
Stan,
You lost the election. Get over it. Move on. Let it go. It's over. Shut the light off on the way out.
How do you get the message across to him. It is a simple concept. It's called losing an election. Exactly half of everyone who runs loses. They all got it, why can't he?
Anonymous said…
Annon 12:23:

Primary versus general. Different elections. Different voters. Learn about it. It's a pretty important concept.

You got what you wanted. Stan's leaving the Republican party. Or did you want him to go away? It's called free speech and free association. Learn about it. Another pretty important concept. You can't make someone go away just because you don't like him.

Let's see if the second time is the charm for the Stan man.
Anonymous said…
anon 12:34

Yes you can make someone go away if you don't like them. We just did it. Thanks.
Anonymous said…
I don't know any of the candidates personally but Mr. Katus certainly seems gracious. If it were me I would be ticked off. Mr. Katus is the party candidate and here comes Mr. Adelstein, who selfishly wants to push someone aside for his own gratification. And I wonder. Who is paying for the poll? Mr. Adelstein?
Anonymous said…
The Republican Party stood by quietly while a sitting member of the Executive Board challenged an Incumbant Republican Senator. Not even making a peep the entire time.

No bylaws prevented her, but the Chairman or the Governor should have.

It should be the goal of the Exec board to get Republicans elected, not run against them. I can't see how the party leadership loses sight of this. Love him or hate him, Stan wore the "R" and gave alot of his money to others that did. And the Party chose to throw it all in his face.

It would serve us as Republicans right to lose a seat in the heart of Republican Rapid City just to wake up the leadership of this party.

Time to take a close look at your house Mr. Frederick.
PP said…
Anon 3:38 - har de har. Very funny.

I'm currently allowing anonymous posting, and there's tons of latitude as to what's permitted. But posting as someone you're not will not be allowed.

Be nice, so you don't spoil the playground for everyone.
Anonymous said…
I believe Joel Rosenthal is correct. State law doesn't allow Stan to run as a D for the Senate.
Anonymous said…
OK PP, this is 3:38. Certain member of the GOP still ran Sahr out, got Elli to run and would through Knudson out in a flash if they could get the votes in SF. You should have just struck my fake posting as Sen. Shoenbeck since he is and was neck deep in the Sahr and Adelstein matters and would like to see knudson gone by 2010.

Besides, no one who read what I posted would have believed Lee to be the poster. See Flint v. Falwell.
Anonymous said…
5:43 and Joel are wrong. There is nothing in state law that would prevent Stan from running as a D.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over