I think he might have been at the wrong dinner...

My sources tell me that former Senator Adelstein was very visible at the Pennington County Lincoln Day Dinner this past weekend.

Given how much he spent to defeat Republicans this last election (as well as his blatant self-promotion of himself as a Democratic choice for Lt. Governor), I would have thought he'd be as comfortable at a Republican event as the devil in a cathedral.



Anonymous said…
Would. You. Please. Stop. Posting. Crap. About. Stan. Adelstein.

We get it already. Give it a rest, please. I'm begging you.
Anonymous said…
Please keep posting slams against Stan Adelstein!!!!

He's bankrolled Mike Rounds with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Bill Janklow too. He spread a little money to the Democrats, but only a tiny fraction of the payola for the GOP.

If you keep insulting him, maybe he'll wake up and realize that the GOP Big Tent is still a facade. Come home, Stan, to the party that actually believes human beings (women and men) deserve personal rights. The Jesus Party doesn't want your kind around. Just ask lexrex.
Anonymous said…
Next thing you know, Rudy Guiliani will start showing up at Lincoln Day Dinners...
Anonymous said…
Yep, according to powers, ever republican has the same exact ideology on every issue. No room from debate in your party, pp?
Anonymous said…
Stan just came for the cocktails.
Anonymous said…
I was there but didn't see him. But he did buy an ad in the Lincoln Day program.
Anonymous said…
PP, please do not stop exposing RINOs like Stan Adelstein. Keep it up. Let's make clear to everyone in the state that we don't want people who think abortion should be an option for the victims of rape or incest. Let's make clear that we don't want people who don't share our evangelical Christian belief system on social issues (especially if they aren't even Christians!). Let's make clear that we are a religious conservative -- not a small government/libertarian conservative -- party.

Everyone else should get out. We don't want their participation, and we don't want their votes. Onward to victory!
Anonymous said…
The majority of the posters don't get it. You can not claim to be one party and work with/for the other side! The tent is big most of you just focus on ONE issue.
You know there are Dems who DO NOT believe in Abortion! So they must not have a voice in your tent.
Abortion is public debate and reality must be faced now more than ever. Seems almost every small particle is open for debate anyway.
Brock Greenfield said…
I believe the devil is very welcome in cathedrals.
nonnie said…
10:32 anon gets it. The problem is that Stan spent lots of money on the Dems in the last election. That's not the same as having different opinions on issues within your own party.
PP said…
10:32 - you hit it dead on. It's not about having a different ideology.

It's about claiming you support the GOP and then crapping all over them because you're a sore loser. And then coming back to them because you want them to support you.

NEVER again.
wwppd? said…
Nonnie, I don't recall Stan saying "I'm not a Republican," but I certainly remember a lot of posters here and on other blogs saying that Stan wasn't a "real" Republican, was a Republican-in-name-only, should leave the party, etc.

Look at the title of PP's post, saying that Stan shouldn't have been at the Lincoln Day Dinner! It's pretty clear that there are a lot of Republicans who then, and now, say that Stan shouldn't be in the party. Of course he's going to work against the people who ruthlessly attacked him during the session when he was a Republican elected official. If I were Stan, I would have hit back three times as hard.

And it's not like he hasn't given to Republicans or the party. I'll bet he's given more to Rounds than everyone on this board combined. And I'd love for Pat, nonnie, and anyone else on here to show us the ad they paid for in the Pennington Lincoln Day Dinner program. Here's a guy who cuts a check to his local party, and what does he get for it? Pat Powers saying that he was at "the wrong dinner." That's a big tent? (Not to mention, PP, for someone who claims to be an expert in campaigning, you seem to be forgetting about donor maintenance...)

If you want an ideological litmus test for the party, great. Join up with the rest of the nutjobs on places like LifeNews.com and bitch and moan while the two frontrunners for the GOP nomination for President are (or at least were) pro-choice. Or maybe you try to get Fred Thompson in the race (who was, earlier in his career described as pro-choice).

I suppose you zealots will want to kick them out of the party as well.
wwpd? said…
Romney, Giuliani and Thompson were all pro-choice at one point or another (if not still).

McCain can certainly be accused of "working with the other side," which is new litmus test raised by 10:32 and endorsed by PP, and so-too should Thompson for working with McCain to pass McCain Feingold.

When the top four candidates for your own party's nomination don't meet your ideological purity test, maybe you need to ask yourself who is outside of the mainstream?
Anonymous said…
"What does it mean to be a Reupblican?" Or better said, "What does it mean to be a South Dakota Republican?" If I am not mistaken, PP has posted this, as well as on the SD GOP website you can see the reasons why the majority of us are Republican.

Stan Adelstein's actions have proven his lack of commitment to the issues the Republican Party stands for in South Dakota.

His use of funds in the last elections prove his lack of support. He even felt the need to send his funds through a series of PACs to support many candidates.

If he does not mind supporting Republican candidates, why doesn't he just write the check out himself? Like he did with many state-wide Democrat candidates in November?
PP said…
WWPPD - You're forgetting that Stan DID hit first as he used his bank account to attempt to mold the senate into the version he wanted as he was coming into it.

A slight breach of protocol? Sure. At it might have even been forgivable.

Then you have the Mainstream coalition which did it's best to paint the GOP as having a bunch of extremists. The Dems loved it - because Stan and others were forming a group to trash their own party.

And you have Stan going to the new President pro-temp and said he'd "need his money if he ever intended to run for Governor," so this new officer was supposed to give him the committee assignments he wanted. The best part? He was turned away and given the opposite.

Stan has called members of his own party "extremists" during session.

He's tried to garner an invite to be on the Democratic gubernatorial ticket.

And this last year he continued and expanded his campaign of hate against the GOP with his EXTENSIVE support of several Democratic candidates - far more than he ever considered supporting Republicans.

In an off the cuff review I did recently (including his PACS) Stan spent 22k supporting the GOP in 2006. And over $150k to beat it.

And this next election, he's going to want the GOP to come home to him.

I actually take some hits on my website because I am a big-tent Republican. I welcome the debate and the give and take and introduction of new ideas on how and why we do things.


You'll just have to forgive me if I don't get all warm and fuzzy because Stan bought a $250 ad. Because it doesn't even come close to making amends for all the damage he's caused to the party.

So, do I think he had no right attending? Absolutely. And to that, I'd add that he's not even fit to clear the tables after a Republican function.
wwppd? said…
Don't you use your blog, your checkbook and your energy to "mold the senate into the version (you) want?"

Don't you attack certain Republicans and work against them (like Stan Adelstein)?

Haven't you worked to paint the Mainstream Coalition in a particular light?

And, regarding your point about the Dems liking what Stan was doing... wouldn't the Dems MUCH rather see your faction win than Stan? I'll bet they'd do anything to see an Unruh for Governor campaign (either one, it doesn't matter).

Stan believes that his party has been hijacked by people with a different view of conservatism (religious extremists). You think people who don't share your brand of conservatism (Mainstreamers/Stan) are trying to hijack your party.

The very definition of "small tent" is kicking people out who don't share your brand of ideology. That's exactly what you're advocating. At least own up to it...
Brock said…
To answer anybody's questions before they arise, no, 10:42 was not me.
Anonymous said…
You have taken what i said out of context! I am not talking about a new litmus test..working for/with the other party.
Stan has proven in the last election he wanted to be a Dem, my gosh he wanted to be suggested as Lt. Gov. for pete sake!
Members of ANY party can and will disagree on many issues. That is where the the party needs to go back if needed and look at the party platform. There is a difference and I don't care what anyone may say EACH Party needs to look at their platform. They are different!
In my view you can look at the 2 major parties and compare the two to Psychology and Sociology the study of one vs the study of all.
Now I bet I'm going to start of fight.
Anonymous said…
You fault the guy for backing GOP incumbents DeHueck and Sutton in their primaries by saying he opposed Republicans. Well, just because he chose sides in a primary like everyone else doesn't make him disloyal. I didn't hear PP calling Schwiesow disloyal for opposing a GOP incumbent.

Then you fault Adelstein for backing Katus - but that was personal rather than political. Because of his history with Schwiesow, you can't blame him for backing her opponent.

One thing we know. Adelstein gave Rounds $50,000 and Rounds told Adelstein that he couldn't even use a photo of them shaking hands in a campaign ad. Thanks for your help. Now here's a kick in the ass!

PP talks out of both sides of his mouth. He says if you want to make a difference in the party you have to get active. Adelstein gets active and puts his money into the mainstream coalition and tries to put his stamp on the party, and PP whines like a puppy and says it just ain't right.

And all of these right-wing harpies going after Adelstein deserve it when he backs there opponents. You reap what you sow.
COJones said…
Hmmm - so many anonymi - so little time. Stan hedges his bets. He gives money to everyone so there will never be an office-holder who is not beholden to him. For him it's about power and control, not ideology. If there were more registered Democrats than Republicans in South Dakota, he would, no doubt, register as a Dem.
Ellie Schwiesow and other good, hard working Conservatives were the victims of his "leverage". He's not stupid; just self-important and unscrupulous. You don't have to be particularly religious to understand that.
Anonymous said…
Some of you "Republican" posters and certainly Stan should read the National and State Republican Platforms. This is where we stand as a party--if you don't stand there--OK--you can still be inside the tent--but quit trying to tear up the "floor." If you destroy the foundation, the tent will fall. Stan has cause enormous damage to the party by his lack of understanding of this principle.
tom said…
What is this big tent gibberish?? Stan is ONE man. One narcissistic old man with some inherited cash. The tent will be just as big without him, smell better, too.

He couldn't care less about the people of South Dakota let alone the Republican party. Besides, he probably attended the dinner to look for a new squeeze, as well as cocktails.
Anonymous said…
actually he attended the dinner only after making sure Schwiesow would not be there. Doesn't sound like he is ready to make nice.

Also please LOOK at the ad in the Lincoln Day Program. Stan wasn't being generous and donating to the party. The ad states that he hopes the people in distrist 32 will have the priviledge of letting him respresent them again. Shouldn't that be the other way around Stan? Shouldn't you be priviledged to represent the fine people in 32? Again it's just another example of him being self serving. Please- We don't want you anymore. As a Republican I would rather have Katus. At least he acknowledges he is a democrat.
Anonymous said…
Pat, your boundless loathing and contempt of Adelstein is the type of thing what drives many otherwise qualified people away from public service. You announce free admission to the "Big Tent" but I'm afraid if I take a peek through the canvass I'll get kicked in the face. Politics is no longer about good government. It is about power, fear and demonizing the opposition. There are many good and bad things that grow in both pastures. It is no secret that many SD dems are coastal conservatives. I like limited government, I'm a fiscal conservative, but culturally progressive. I simply have grown to trust republicans less than the dems (see GW). Your party is sunk in 08 unless it can come to the center ring under the Big Top. Flag burning and gay marriage is a sideshow I'd need to be higher than Rush to go see.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long