Gee, what a shock. Someone get the CPR paddles.
(yes, that was sarcasm)

Denise Ross is writing over at the Hog House Blog that *gasp* Stan Adelstein will try to run for his old seat against Tom Katus. Please. Someone pick me up off of the floor. I can't believe it. (sorry, that was sarcasm if you didn't get the inference over the keyboard).

Katus said Stan’s made it clear that he, too, is interested in that Senate seat, but he just shrugs. He repeats that he and Stan had never been close friends or even political allies, despite the public perception of a sort of Wonder Twins partnership. After Stan lost his primary to Elli Schwiesow in ‘06, he provided some help to Katus’ campaign against her, say in the form of some polling, but it was no cabal. They haven’t been close, nor unfriendly, since Katus took office, he said.

Stan and I had an interesting meeting about a month ago. He said, “I’m not inclined to run against you. You’re doing such a good job.”

And in vintage Stan rationale: “Of course, I wouldn’t run against you. I would run for the seat.”

After you go get your barf bag, go read it all here.

I don't think I've ever made it a secret that I hate what Stan has done to the GOP. I'm not referring to his many charitable works, and the noble things he's done. I'm talking about his political machinations. Because they haven't been for any great and pure purpose. It's just been in the name of shameless self-promotion.

He took a simmering division and threw gasoline on it
, and then when he didn't get his way, he cozied up to the Democrats as he offered himself as a possible Lt. Governor for them, as well as being little more than a whelping (use your favorite euphemism for a female dog here) in funding their legislative crusades in Western South Dakota this past cycle against the GOP.

For gosh sakes, getting money from him actually cost people their race in 2006. Now he's going to run for the seat and expect everyone to get behind him as the alternative to Tom Katus? Bleaugh. No thanks.

I think I'm the same as many Republicans. I'll wait for door #3 to open up.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Do you really think taht Bob Ellis is a source for any creditable information? Anyone who beleives the earth is 6000 years old is clearly not.
Anonymous said…
Stan, God love him, will never be allowed to win a GOP primary in Rapid City again as long as the pro-lifers run the local structure. He's too big a donor to Planned Parenthood and certain liberals to be allowed back in. Any right-winger who can fog a mirror will keep him out of the general election ... unless he runs as an independent.
Anonymous said…
In 2006, the enemy of Stan's enemy was Stan's friend. In 2008, the enemy of his enemy may again be his friend if he loses a primary, or may be his enemy if he wins a primary.

Stan will probably run as an independent so he doesn't have a primary and won't need a majority of the vote to win the seat. Or maybe he'll run for the house.
Anonymous said…
Stan can't lose under this scenario.
Either he wins or Tom does. He's probably cool
with that, but I bet you thumpers aren't.

Can I get an Amen?
Anonymous said…
Well look at it this way when you clai to be an R and you give financial backing to lots of D's how does that sit with the party?
For all you D's just do a reversal and you have it then.
So whom hung whom or could it have been self in this case???????
Anonymous said…
Consider this maybe Stan is really an independant???? Look at party platforms and then decide.
Stan Adelstein said…
Interesting - "I hate Stan for what HE has done to the Republican Party" Who did what? Who defeated 4 Republican Senators - who were replaced by Democrats - Stan being one of them tried to get all of them elected!

Who said that Stan sought to be the Democrat Lt Governor. I happen to know that he did not. Lies were the specialty of the opposition to him in the last primary. Most of them - if no all - broadcast from Spearfish by that "Republican" - barf indeed!! Ted Klaudt and his allies Apa and Napoli.

Speaking of that paragon virtue, Klaudt (who admitted that "I might have done something wrong") Adelstein did assist his opponent in the general election. Otherwise this blog - and those who think likes blog would have had to decide what to do with a pervert and child molester in the Republican Caucus.

(By the way don't talk about the presumption of guilt - find me the person who discounts his admissions, and who thinks that OJ Simpson was innocent.)

As to the fact that he will "never be allowed to win a GOP primary"
First of all no one yes no one!! absolutely no one!!! has to "ALLOW" the voters to make a choice - not yet - those who think that way - ran their candidates against seated and elected republicans in the last primary - and gave, yes gave their seats to Democrats.

Secondly, Stan lost the primary by 172 votes - his primary opponent lost to the PEOPLE by many, many more votes. Next time - no Klaudt on the radio, the lies will be seen for what they were. He will win the primary against an extremist - and win the general in a district with a 3,500 Republican majority.

He will run as a Republican - as he has been since 1952, when he turned 21. He will run as a Republican for the same reason he served in the So Dakota Republican State Central Committee for 17 years - half of that as an officer. Some time look at his web page and see what he had done for the Grand Old Party - and compare that to Klaudt, Apa and Napoli!!!

Oh yes - for all of those timid "any mouses," who do not have the courage or decency to use their name - My name is

Stanford Adelstein
Anonymous said…
Stan: You d+a man.

Count on lots of (R) votes from the fed up masses.
Anonymous said…
PP, it's good to see you still champion the small tent Republican Party.
PP said…
That would be the same Stan who took up primary challenges against his fellow Senators.

That would be the same Stan who approached Lee Schoenbeck and (according to Lee) demanded position because of how much money he'd throw to a Lee campaign. And was turned down flat.

It would be the same Stan who - during session - called his fellow Republicans extremists who needed to be defeated in the next election.

That would be the same Stan who spent tens of thousands to defeat Republicans. And that's tens of thousands more than he spent in the cycle to elect Republicans.

That would be the same Stan who is the poster Child for South Dakota PAC Abuses.

And I can go on and on...
nonnie said…
Stan's reputation will precede him at any future elections that he chooses to run in, and people will remember.

Sorry, Stan, but throwing money around does not make necessarily make one more lovable or electable.
scimitar said…
Stan still referring to yourself in the third person? Get a leash on that ego. You are your own worst enemy. If you didn't have so much money people would have long since stopped listening to you altogether.

PP, you keep spinning. First, there is no evidence that Stan offered to be the Dem. Lt. Gov. candidate. He talked to Billion, but alot of people talked to Billion. You don't know what they talked about. The fact Stan wouldn't rule it out doesn't mean he offered it up.

Second, you keep claiming that Stan took up primary challenges against his fellow Republican senators. Who specifically are you talking about? Stan supported Patty DeHueck THE INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN when she was challenged in a primary. Stan supported Duane Sutton THE INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN when he was challenged in a primary. And Stan may have even supported Clarence Kooistra THE INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN in his primary, though I am not sure about that one. Since when is it a sin to support incumbent Republican colleagues in primaries? Name some names of incumbent senators who Stan opposed in primaries. None come to mind.
Anonymous said…
Stan lost the primary because he was ineffective! period- the district obviously didn't want the pro-life extremist, but they would prefer that over someone that can't get anything out of committee.
Anonymous said…
"That would be the same Stan who approached Lee Schoenbeck and (according to Lee)..."

This is where you lost me.
Anonymous said…
To run for the LG spot, Stan would have had to change his registration to D.
To call PeePee honest would be a vivid exaggeration said…
PP - you are full of beans.

First of all Schoenbeck - not known for his honest recall lies.

The only conversation that I had with him about appointments was held with Majority Leader Bogue present - to avoid just this kind of thing.

I do not remember exactly what I said, but the gist was "how can you so deliberately insult someone old enough to be your father by my appointments." He replied that he resented my primary support of my house colleague who was term limited (Republican) Claire Konold. Claire and I had tried to turn around the reduction of funds for "Technical Education," and I had hoped we could be more successful in the Senate - since Schoenbeck did not give much of a damn about education - if it was not for Law.

The one thing I do remember is my closing remark to him "sometime in the quiet of the night, ask yourself what _______ (his foster mother when had been sent to Rapid City) would say about your insults."

Obviously and logically there was no "Lee campaign," to which I could "throw funds" -- the election was over, and he had just become President Pro-tem - so the suggestion of "thrown funds" is a calendar impossibility.

Since he was not the PPT in the campaign, I could not have asked for an appointment - no one knew he would ever have such authority - and most were sorry when he did.

Funny, how PP can repeat an obvious falsehood.

I NEVER said what you claim "during session - called his fellow Republicans extremists who needed to be defeated in the next election." After the session, long after, at a rally in Rapid City for the referendum on 1215 I said "if you are angry about how some voted on this bill - do not send them back" I NEVER referred to "Republicans" and never would have. Whatever I said, as quoted above was on camera and NOT during the session. Once again there was no referendum until AFTER the session.

"tens of thousands" show me the record. That again is baloney. Except for Napoli and Klaudt I did not oppose seated Republcans -- I did not repeat -- DID NOT.

I like and enjoy honest discussion disagreement of principle - but you PeePee - have chose to put into print at least three obvious falsehood. Do you have sense of integrity as Blog Author - any sense at all?

Stan Adelstein

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over