Segue way into more Stan; A little image rehab advice for Stan (amongst us Republicans)

As if the continuing saga that is soon-to-be former Senator Stan Adelstein couldn’t get any weirder, it did. The front page of the Rapid City Journal has the headline “Rounds: Adelstein confirmed support in phone call.”

Governor Rounds is quoted by Kevin Woster in the article as saying

“Stan actually called me and said that he really was supportive of me,” Rounds said. “He said that he did not want to involve the governor’s race in that (legislative) race out there, but that he did not think he had been that non-committal in his answer.”
Read it all here.

Towards the end of the story, in an unusual turn, Adelstein declined further comment saying “he would allow the Governor to speak on the issue.”

After deciding to stick with the GOP, this is the second smart thing he’s done.

Far be it from me to say that debate and dissent is a bad thing. I’ve been known to disagree with my party and question things from time to time. And this blog debates many issues.

But Stan’s outright and continual rejection of the party and its candidates has made him little more than a pariah out on the fringes, barely able to hang on to the tent flap with one hand, as opposed to the leader of the moderate wing of the party as he envisions being.

Unlike a few commenters here on this website, I’ll state unequivocally that, yes, there is room in the tent for Stan. Sure, I might be softening previous statements, but I believe in redemption and forgiveness, and the ability for people to change if they want to.

So, if Stan doesn’t want his name to only be a Republican campaign liability (as it was this election), and someday possibly be congratulated for standing for what he stands for, there are some things that I’d suggest he change:

You lost. Move on. The people made their choice. Congratulate the winner and continue the battle another time and another day. Trying to intimate there was monkey business just makes you look like a disappointed little leaguer who never learned about sportsmanship.

Stay out of the papers for just a little while. Being in the paper day after day talking about yourself isn’t being a leader. It is narcissism, and that hasn’t earned you any respect. Lay low for a while and let things cool off while you reinvent yourself. It’s not like your philanthropy is going to go unnoticed, and it’s not as if you can’t buy back your name ID if you make another run for office.

Quit going negative on your fellow Republicans. (That’s why you’ve got me on your rear for one.) We put a lot of time and effort and sweat into the party and the candidates who run under its banner.

Don’t support some current candidates? That’s fine, and that’s your choice. But spend your time focusing on the positive for the people you do support, instead of calling someone else’s Republican “a right-wing extremist who should be thrown out of office.” It tends to be a bit inflammatory and if you haven’t noticed, gets you similar treatment in return.

Choose your battles wisely. In supporting candidates, you’ve picked wrong nearly every time. And you’ve gone to massive lengths in giving them money.

Wondering why that gets people miffed? It’s not the open seat races that get you into the most trouble. (Except for the candidate), people don’t care because it’s an open seat. It’s those races against incumbents that have earned you more than a small share of ire. Especially since you were a legislator at the time.

Once you started it, and broke that taboo in 2004, it got you similar treatment in return, especially this year. You can’t tell me you liked all those legislators campaigning against you? That’s how they felt. I didn't see any of those you kissed and made up with run to your defense.

One PAC only. Tracking your money is actually easy if you know how. And every political reporter in the state knows how. So why filter it through multiple PACs? And why have 4 or 5? It just makes everything look icky. Go with one, and stick with one. Transparency brings comfort.

Quit flirting with Democrats. You’ve already said you won’t marry them, so why take them on a date? It just gives the wrong impression. Again, as said above, the rest of us put a lot of time and effort and sweat into the party and the candidates who run under its banner.

If, as you claim, you’re not a Republican solely focused on the issue of abortion, then quit talking about it to the total exclusion of anything else. Good gosh, if you want people to believe you’re a business-oriented Republican, then make BUSINESS your focus. Right now you’re viewed as extreme (or more so) than those you criticize.
This stuff isn’t rocket science, and isn’t much more than a live and let live philosophy. Want to be a Republican elected official again someday, well, then be a Republican. Quit bashing the conservative wing, and you might find that they will get off your tail during election time. Agree to agree where views coincide and agree to disagree where they dont. The majority will rule at convention no matter what anyone says.

So, if Stan wants to recapture the status he once enjoyed with the party, a little consideration for the rest of us fighting elections under the GOP banner will go a long way into getting some consideration back in return.


Anonymous said…
"Quit going negative on your fellow Republicans. (That’s why you’ve got me on your rear for one.) We put a lot of time and effort and sweat into the party and the candidates who run under its banner."

Kettle, this is the Pot calling. Come on PP, in the Lee S./Randy F. era of GOP politics in SD you saying this is nothing short of a joke. Scary thing is you likely believed it when you typed.
Anonymous said…
i thought you didn't want to give stan anymore airtime? yet it seems like you talk about him every other post (seems, i said).
just b/c stan is in the news d/n mean you need to talk about him. if he loves the attention, as you claim, then aren't you just helping him gain more attention?
just a thought...
PP said…

Yes, once he lost the election, I was hoping was out.

But, then they pulled me back in...
Anonymous said…
Enough about Stan.

PP, there has to be more interesting topics, I'm tried of reading your posts blashing Stan.
PP said…
This was bashing him?

I thought this was telling him how he might find he could have a place at the GOP table again while not compromising his beliefs.

Just like when other candidates are in the newspaper, I'm going to try to pick up on it and at least mention it.

I can't help it if he's in the paper every gosh darn day.
Aaron Lorenzen said…
See Stan is the kinda guy you need to talk about becuase it makes you so upset that he calls himself a republican it fuels the good republicans out there to go out and do their job better, keep it up PP, the man if like a bad penny he just wont go away, but hopefully we can throw this penny in a fountian someday and forget about it.
Anonymous said…
Interesting, given the fact that Stan said his "words were chosen very carefully. I didn't say that I was (supporting Rounds) and I didn't say that I wasn't."

Both Friday and Saturday, he was non-committal. Monday, he all of a sudden decided to support Rounds. Maybe he conducted a poll on Sunday to decide which position was most beneficial to him.

This guy flips and flops as often as the democrat currently running for Attorney General. Anything for a headline.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.