Sibby versus Adelstein over at Mt. Blogmore

(HT to Sibby online)

Right after I got back to Pierre, I went and checked the blogfeeds, and the first thing I noted was a post that Sibby did on how he and State Senator (for about 50 more days and counting) Stan Adelstein are getting into an argument over at Mt. Blogmore.

Basically, it all started when commenter DL Emerick offered the view that:
I’d dare to say that Stan Adelstein agreed with much more than 80% of Reagan’s agenda. If that is the litmus test for being a conservative Republican, then Stan more than qualifies.
Somehow in reviewing Stan's record, Sibby found grounds to dispute that opinion:
Stan Adelstein is no where close to be 80% of Ronald Reagan. Maybe 8%.
And aside from some side chatter, Soon-to-be-former Senator Adelstein disagreed. (Note - spelling is his, not mine, but I did edit some of the repetition in the passages, because it made no sense.).

OK Sibson - he called you on another lie. Where did I differ from Reagan?? I have been in public life longer than you have lived so it’s all out there. I am interested to hear what you have to say!! Come on tell me some of that 92% that you claim I opposed. It is those dishonorable name callers, - intolerant, foolish, and yes dishonest that has come close to destroying our party.

I have been a Republican and ALWAYS a Republican since I voted for Eisenhouer in 1952. That is longer than you have lived (or lied). 22 of those years I was a party officer - sometimes pretty flunky type - but still working.

Now let’s look at some of my positions and activities during his Presidency that constituted the “80%” that my friend stated above.

Defense - Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army; outspoken advocate of the ABM defense system; (you probably do know that stands for Anti Ballistic Missile defense system)(one of the key parts of the program that accomplished Reagan’s demand of Khrushchev - “tear that wall down…” a member of the National Defense Executive Reserve; honorary unit Commander at Ellsworth;

By the way now let’s look at some of my positions and activities during his Presidency that constituted the “80%” that my friend stated above.

Defense - Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army; outspoken advocate of the ABM defense system; (you probably do know that stands for Anti Ballistic Missile defense system)( one of the key parts of the program that accomplished Reagan’s demand of Khrushchev - “tear that wall down…” a member of the National Defense Executive Reserve; honorary unit Commander at Ellsworth; many more but the hour is late - and I bet you would not know of what I speak anyway.

By the way, have you ever worn the uniform? If so which one, and where?

But, let’s go on: supported and actively campaigned against Federal intervention in State’s Rights issues. This included Medicine (I was chairman of ST John’s Hospital Board); Education - served on a national advisory panel; Civil Rights - and even more.

Political - Was a member of the executive committee of the President’s Business Advisory Campaign Committee; and oh yes - as you and other phony economic “liberals” protest - spent large amounts in contributions to his campaigns, fund raising locally and nationally, and all of that stuff which you choose to criticize. Member of the Republican Senate Trust

And another question or two - In which Republican candidate’s campaign did YOU drive stakes, go door to door, organize telephone calls, work at Party headquarters, etc etc - I can think of at least 10 - before, during and after Ronald Reagan. REAL Republicans work locally, prove government should not be in our faces, intervene in our lives, or make our choices for us,

Oh yes again - I do not remember seeing your contributions on any Republican contributor list - or is that beneath you?

Finally - as he was deciding to run for President - while still Governor of CA - he referred to himself (before the stupid oversimplification of terms)as one who believed in a woman’s choice - yes CHOICE - both at a private meeting I attended and publicly.

But, let’s go on

Supported and actively campaigned agains Federal intervention in State’s Rights issues. This included Medicine (I was chairman of ST John,s Hospital Board); Education - served on a national advisory panel; Civil Rights - and even more.

I am tired, you are a phony, I do not know why I bothered with this.

Finally - as he was deciding to run for President - while still Governor of CA - he referred to himself (before the stupid oversimplification of terms)as one who believed in a womnan’s choice - yes CHOICE - both at a private meeting I attended and publicly.

Stanford Adelstein
SD State Senator, f District 32

Read it all here. And there were some replies from Sibby to some of these points which one can go read for themselves .

I think what I would focus on is not so much how his agenda might or might not parallel Reagan's. Why? Because I simply don't care.

My concern is how much he has contributed to the internal infighting among Republicans, and his direct attacks on the GOP. I'd make the statement that rather than the percentage of time he's supported Reagan, I'd ask the percentage of time he's supported the Republican party. Now that's something that I think is indisputable.

What might Stan have done? Let's see....
When you use PACs to fund primary elections (to avoid normal spending limits) against your Senate colleagues, creating discord, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When at the same time you claim "I have never, ever spoken in public against a fellow Senator unless it was in debate or discussion with that Senator present." and the evidence shows you call one of your fellow Republicans 'an ultra-conservative extremist' and note that many others 'should be thrown out of office', there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When you allegedly try to use your financial resources as a tool to demand preferential committee assignments over other Republican Senators, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter. (and you might get called a 'cancer on the caucus' to boot)

When you act like a big sore loser, you stand with and actively campaign for the Democrat running against your primary opponent, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When after your primary loss, you publicly and overtly float your own name as a running mate for the Democratic Candidate for Governor, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When you drop tens of thousands of dollars directly into Democratic races to defeat Republican candidates, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.
I could go on (and on, and on), but it doesn't serve much of a purpose. If Stan says he followed Reagan 80% of the time, fine. I don't care.

But if he ever tries to imply that he's a strong supporter of the South Dakota GOP? Now that's something I can take issue with.

Comments

Anonymous said…
You go Sibby!

Stan Adelstein is not a nice person, not a good Republican and if he had no money would not figure in anyone's equation!
Anonymous said…
PP, it appears you may have been repetitive in posting Stan's comments,or did he write them like that?
PP said…
no, that's after editing. Go look at the source material. It's much, much worse.
Anonymous said…
"I'd make the statement that rather than the percentage of time he's supported Reagan, I'd ask the percentage of time he's supported the Republican party."

So, blind adherence to the Republican party is desired over criticism when it strays down a radical course? Did you learn that at church?
PP said…
No. I learned that watching the Vikings.

When a few members of the team are screwing up, then the whole team goes down.

We cut Stan from the team with good reason. He forgot that he was playing as part of a team.
Anonymous said…
No "Big Tent" Reagan concept for bigot stan. Only room for those modeRATS.
PP:

Thanks for confirming what I often used to say about the person from Mitchell whose name I no longer mention.

"____ ______, the voice of the S.D. Republican Party." Are you sure you'd trade the guy from Cornpalaceville straight up for Stan? Say what you will about Stan, but he has had a long career in public service. Seems more meaningful than sitting in the basement in your (or my) pajamas. Or Stan's pajamas. Or you know who's pajamas in Mitchell--you know, the cute Minuteman ones with the little feet in them and the toy black powder long rifle with the compass in the stock that comes with said pajamas.

Todd
S.D. Watch http://thunewatch.squarespace.com
Damn, I can't type. Must be a liberal conspiracy or the Argus Leader's Terry Woster stuck an earwig in my head while we were at the Governor Candidates' debate at the State Fair in September. Can't trust the MSM either. But you can't trust liberals even more.

I meant to say "sitting in the basement in your (or my) pajamas BLOGGING."
Anonymous said…
Todd:

get a life and start spending more time working on your clients' cases. Business must not be very good if you have this much time to blog.

There is no room in the big tent for a guy who campaigns against other Republicans. Reagan's 11th commandment trumps any big tent construct you may cite.

Besides Stan's a greedy jerk who lost and now he's "taking it out" on the GOP. That can't stand.
Anonymous said…
Stan needs to re-learn the first commandment of politics: Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.

Sibby, as with most skunks, is best ignored from a long distance. He is bloated, trite and irrelevant, especially to Republicans.
Anonymous said…
So why is it that when people leave the Republican party because of the party's crazy turn to the right, you get upset and tell them they should work within the GOP for change - but when they work within the GOP to change things, like Adelstein, you bash them for causing trouble? I don't get it.

Your dislike of Adelstein is old and getting boring.
sdmoderate said…
I thought Sibby was banned over at Blogmore, I guess he was mistaken...
Joan said…
9:44 AM - Sibby was never banned from Mount Blogmore, but he has been forced to follow some rules and stop spamming. He whined about it for a couple of weeks, but he now is playing the game like the big boys and girls.
Anonymous said…
I'm tired of hearing about both Stan and Sibby. They are both pains in the neck.
Also, one problem with not being an true insider like some of the people on this blog...who is Epp referring to about somebody from Mitchell? I usually could care less about East River but this has me curious.
Joan said…
11:18 am - Sibby lives in Mitchell. I'm guessing he is the person to whom Epp is referring.
Anonymous said…
5:32 Thanks.
sdmoderate said…
Joan said...Sibby was never banned from Mount Blogmore, but he has been forced to follow some rules and stop spamming. He whined about it for a couple of weeks, but he now is playing the game like the big boys and girls.

I understood that Joan, just a bit of sarcasm over the pissing contest he got into with Todd Epp over the whole affair which was the post I linked to in my previous comment.
Joan said…
9:04 PM - Sibby's a dandy, but he provides entertainment when things are slow on the blogs.
shaky jake said…
lil-stan is cracking up. He can't handle the fact that he's a nobody with some cash...that nobody cares about anymore. Not even the democrats. They just used him. And they'll continue to use him as much as he is willing to bend over and let them. He won't face that though. He can't handle the truth.

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