Is the Councilman trying to knock Stan off of his pedastal?

Is it just me, or between the reaction to the articles on this website, in the Rapid City Weekly, the Rapid City Journal, and on Mt. Blogmore, and again today in the Rapid City Journal, is City Councilman Mike Schumacher going to overtake former Senator Stan Adelstein as the most vilified politician in Rapid City?

Check out what was in today's edition of the Rapid City Journal's "The good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Something stinks. Does this mean that Schumacher requires partisan funding to come to the “correct” decision on an issue, or does this mean his position is for sale? Has he ever heard of the concepts of ethics or integrity; how about conflict of interest? Answer: It doesn’t matter. This is outrageous; the man has no business being an elected representative.
Read it all here.


But if you think about it, the reason they've both drawn so much fire is quite similar. At the end of the day, a lot of it is about PACs and money and how it's moved from one place to another to benefit a candidate, and how betrayal plays into the situation.

Part of it has to do with the public's squeamishness with PAC formations simply to get around campaign finance limits, as opposed to them being an association of many people seeking a common goal. The other part? Don't forget Mike mentioned that he has "a Judas label" hung around his neck (which he probably shouldn't have mentioned himself) , and this past year Stan turned his back on the party he claimed to represent in a big way.

Money and betrayal. If you think about it, that was the same theme in the movie "Fargo." The husband betrayed his wife (and had her kidnapped) over money. The kidnappers betrayed themselves over money. It's very Shakespearean - and dare I say - even a biblical morality play.

No one is going to end up in the wood chipper over this one, but in both cases, you wonder what is going to happen to two political careers at the end of the day.
"So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don't you know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day."
- Police Chief Marge in Fargo


Anonymous said…
Democracies/republics require open debate--a forum where the people can espouse the merits of their views, followed by debate and then decision. And subsequent elections.

As far as I can tell, Stan Adelstein has: 1) cared enough to be involved (even though he didn't have to); 2) supported candidates whom he believed in; 3) supported the party in general; and 4) spent his own money in support of 1), 2) and 3).

Perhaps you Stan-haters should re-read (or read) Shakespeare's "Julius Casaer." Marc Anthony's eulogy rings true for Stan.

C'mon folks. Stan has had the audicity to care about our state and put his money where his mouth is. What are you if you think this is so wrong?
Anonymous said…
Stan "supported candidates whom he believed in; 3) supported the party in general".

Too bad the party he supported in general was the Democratic Party.
mr. mentor said…
No one can top stan for complete political self indulgence and corruption. Mike is peanuts, but making his own way. Concerning stan, Machiavelli would be more appropriate reading. He is no great statesman. He cares only for himself.
Anonymous said…
Using your own money to support your position is one thing. Shelving your priciples, betraying your friends, flip-floping on issues, for money, is another matter entirely. Tho I dis-agree with Stan A on a couple things, Schumacher sickens me. His political career headed for the wood chipper.
nonnie said…
What I don't like about Adelstein is that he used his money to buy elections. There should be a limit to how much one person can donate, PAC's should be sent to never-never land, and campaigns should be shortened enough so that there is only time for the candidates to state their positions and debate their opponents but not enough time to turn people off with lo-o-o-ng campaigns and not enough time to descend into negativity and personal attacks and lies.
Anonymous said…
So, you don't like Stan because he "buys elections". I suppose that Hamilton is ok because the elections he buys are then given to republicans. I think I understand now.
Anonymous said…
for the good of Rapid City and the entire state of South Dakota, I seriously hope Schumachers is finished. He should not be re-elected this spring
nonnie said…
I don't know Hamilton. I don't like anyone who throws his money around to buy elections, whether they are Dem, Rep, Independent, purple with black stripes, whatever. It's not fair to the other worthy people who never get a chance simply because they don't have access to Stan's or Hamiliton's wealth.
Anonymous said…

Maybe you ought to reread Julius Caesar
nicholas Nemec said…
Do you mean pedestal?
Bob Newland said…
Or pederastal?
Anonymous said…
The Rapid City Journal should do some investigative journalism on this one. Woster should take some time off of his puff pieces written by and for the GF&P and get at some real issues, like the Rapid City councilmen, mayors and judges for sale.
Anonymous said…
The problem is Jim Shaw's manipulative behind the scenes activities.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long