Never-to-be-Senator-again Adelstein decides to go toe to toe with Moi

The person who spent so much time and effort trying to pull the Republican Party apart like a child fighting over a prized doll over the past couple of elections just made a fatal mistake. Under a prior post, Stan Adelstein actually is trying to intimate that I might be spreading falsehoods about him.

He's actually accusing me of being "full of beans." The man termed by reporter Bob Mercer as the Republican Frank Kloucek is actually challenging my documentation of his activities? Heh.

Heh heh.

Here we go. First, what Stan challenged me with:
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
Stan, are you ready to rumble?

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

My evidence? From the e-mail sent to the entire Republican Caucus April 22, 2006, and to my knowledge never refuted.
From: Lee Schoenbeck
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:14 PM

To: (List redacted by PP)

Subject: FW: Adelstein

Just saw Stan's message that he left me off of --- he of course didn't tell you the whole story. When I ran in 2002 Stan sent a check and I accepted it. I had supported him for national committeeman many years before and viewed him as a friend. The only thing that changed after that was the pro-life legislation that I supported and he opposed. He then supported my opponent.

After you all elected my pres pro temp - he immediately called and started threatening that he thought I planned to run for state wide office one day and I needed his support - he spelled out certain committees he expected to be on and that he expected to be a chairman (that would be taking positions some of you occupied). As you can tell by the appointments he received, I don't cow-toe to anybody's threats and I particularly am offended by anybody trying to play me off against the interests of the caucus. Stan is a bad thing to have in any caucus - a cancer. I am proud that Jerry spelled it out - it is too bad we didn't use our rules to expel him when he behaved so unprofessionally at last summer's meetings.
Sure, there might be a "he said" situation here. But I feel pretty good quoting one side. Especially when the person refuting it (Stan) is a bit fuzzy on the details, and the other one still remembers it as if it was yesterday.

2. I NEVER said what you claim "during session - called his fellow Republicans extremists who needed to be defeated in the next election."

My response? I don't have one personally. I'll just let the newspaper do the talking.
Rapid City Journal 3/3/2006 (that would be during session)

"A former Appropriations Committee member, he labeled Greenfield as “an ultra-conservative extremist” who helped organize the “last-minute ambush of public radio by extremists.”

and....

“We need to know who voted and how they voted. And we need to not only refer this bill and kill it, we need to vote them out,” he said. “I’m convinced that we have the majority of South Dakotans behind us.”
- Rapid City Journal 3/10/2006 again, before the last day of session
Even more clear than my first point, Stan's refutation was utterly without merit. In fact I would liken it to a male bovine waste product.

Thirdly, and oh, so more sweetly here's the doozy:

3. "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.

Here's his mistake. Because I know his PAC donations probably better than he does.

$10,000 to the Democratic Majority Project from one of PACaStan's many PACs (All South Dakota). And who got the money?

I can pick out at least two or three running against incumbent Republican legislators. Hmm. $10,000 is pretty close to tens of thousands of dollars. But let's keep adding to it to beat my point into the ground.

Here's $25,000 to Focus SD, a Democratic organization that's attacked John Thune and the Governor as coming from Stan's business Northwest Engineering. I suspect Stan funneled that money towards them for Finch, Spry and his buddy Tom Katus.

Oops. Here's another load of cash for them from Stan - directly out of pocket this time.

$31, 469.67. I think that brings the total past $65,000 spent to elect Democrats this past election. But am I done yet? OF COURSE NOT.

The Nix on Six PAC was fronted by Don Frankenfeld and surprise, surprise, solely funded by Stan Adelstein. The amount Stan put into it? $15,000. This PAC was supposedly set up to oppose abortion (ooops - correction here - to oppose the abortion ban. Thanks "Mom"), but how much of that money went towards that?


Of course none of it did. It went to Democratic candidates. $5000 to Katus. $5000 to Spry, and $5000 to Finch.I'm at $81,469.67 for my Stan PAC money to Democrats this past election.

And lest I forget, let's go back to your All South Dakota PAC which gave SO MUCH to the Democratic Majority Project...


Here's a nice little $836 dollar donation to Scott Heidepreim the reigning Democratic Minority Leader. If memory serves me, I think he might have been running against a sitting Republican legislator (Sitting Senator Dick Kelly if you forgot about that one).
So, that would seem to place Stan's rather pronounced statement that "I did not oppose seated Republcans -- I did not repeat -- DID NOT" somewhat into question. And with over $80,000 PLUS spent on his Democratic efforts, I think I'm on pretty safe ground saying that he spent tens of thousands to defeat Republicans.

So Stan thinks he's going to come into my house (or blog) and he's going to call me out on what I'm writing? Stan, your measure has been taken. And you have been found wanting.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Ok Stan baby, the ball is in your court. Kind of hard to refute your own filings, but go ahead and try. This should be good.
Anonymous said…
You guys should arm wrestle, Republimano-a-Republimano. My money's on Stan. Unless you leg wrestle.
Anonymous said…
Stan obviously a COMPLETE LIAR!

the only reason people suffered this old fool for so long is because he was rich.

his biggest problem, like Janklow's, is that he is an EGOMANIAC. it's always about them. they've been bullying people for so long they don't know how to stop.
Anonymous said…
Hey PP, do you dislike Stan Adelstein? I am kind of unclear as to your feelings about him. I mean, you don't talk about him EVERY DAY OR ANYTHING.
Anonymous said…
You know what I don't like about Stan Adelstein? His employee, that girl who posted on the other thread, never returned emails that had nothing to do with asking about money or politics.
PP said…
10:09, actually, I've been happy not talking about him, and letting him fade into his well deserved obscurity. But, he talks about running, and he's a topic again.

More than that, he decides to come here and start posting. Like I'm going to let obvious BS like that go?

Stan's support of things like the arts and humanities is admirable. But there's no doubt about the fact when it comes to his politics, he thinks it's all about him.

And it isn't. That's why I might devote a post ot two to him.
Anonymous said…
I don't know what's worse - someone who thinks its all about them, or someone who thinks its all about a political party.

As far as I'm concerned, Stan and PP are in the same camp - you both care too much about politics and too little about people.
the big b said…
Uh, PP, I hate to have to correct you but it's Male Bovine SOLID Waste Product, or MBSWP for short.
PP said…
10:47, I stand corrected.
Anonymous said…
amen 10:47.

cue someone's wife/mother.
Mom said…
PP
You have a typo in this post--you actually typed that Stan gave money to OPPOSE abortion--you meant the abortion BAN--but I got a hearty chuckle out of it.

You better watch out! Stan is a bag of hot air but he just might sue you for saying something SO TERRIBLE -- Stan oppose abortion?? oh my!
PP said…
Corrected - thanks for the heads up. You get typing that fast, and it happens....
nicholas Nemec said…
Gee wiz Pat give it a rest. This Adelstein stuff is really boring.
Anonymous said…
PP v. Stan - It's like the blind vs. the stupid.
Anonymous said…
stan the man with no plan. Just think, with all his money he could have done something really positive and significant. But he's just another trust fund kid with a lot of self importance and no clue.
Anonymous said…
10:02, I believe you meant to say Republimano-a-RepubliRINO.
nonnie said…
Au contrair (sp?), Nick, this Stan stuff where he is proven to be wrong in what he is saying is what makes this blog so good!

He has been trying to buy elections, doesn't matter which party, as long as he can throw his money around. And it's time he gets called on it and people see him for what he is.

True election reform is needed so that money doesn't buy elections. Sadly, will never happen because those in charge of the henhouse like it the way it is.
Steve Sibson said…
So we have Bill Fleming and Nicholas Nemec defending Adelstein. And they are hard core secularist Democrats. HMMMMM. Adelstein a moderate...NOT.
PP said…
Nick -

I understand you might find this boring, but some of us are concerned over this person who keeps trying to tear apart the GOP.

BELIEVE ME, I'd much rather be writing about someone more important, such as Bert Tollefson, but Stan continues to insist on interjecting himself into the political process, despite being rebuffed in the legislature and the ballot box, again, and again, and again.

Over the past week, he's decided to come to my blog and spout his jibberish.

For example, In this post, he talks about Lee Schoenbeck having a foster mother. I asked Lee about it, and he'd never been a part of the foster care system. So, it's safe to say that facts don't matter in Stan's world.

If he actually runs for office again, I do understand not everyone wants to read about him, (heck, I'm already sick of him and it's 2007). So if needs dictate, I certainly can devote a separate blog to the topic, much as I did with Amendment E.
Anonymous said…
Bert Tollefson, good one PP.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
PP said…
Todd, be nice....
Anonymous said…
Stan!

When will you stop petting the rabid dog?!?!! Your party wants you to leave. They don't care about your money any more. Money can't buy ya love.

The extreme right wing has a strangle hold on the state GOP -- which is worse than the national GOP where at least a moderate has a chance.

The Top 10 Reasons the hierarchy of the state GOP hate you:

1. You're rich and willing to commit large sums to creating a moderate political climate in South Dakota and within the state GOP.

2. You're from the political outpost known as Rapid City.

3. You support Planned Parenthood.

4. You support candidates who believe in a woman's right to reproductive choice.

5. You have influence with Janklow and some other influential GOP leaders in South Dakota and nationally. They are jealous.

6. You are loyal to the tradition of the GOP. An Eisenhower Republican. These people are Christian zealots who view their religious identity with the same fervor and in the same light as their political identity. They are not Republicans.

7. They're paranoid, and you're not. They find that threatening.

8. You are Jewish, and their bigotry is just below the surface in all of their hateful statements about you.

9. You appreciate women as full equals in American society, and they are at war against women.

10. You're rich, and they can't control you.

You don't need to switch to become a Democrat or Libertarian. Just do the credible thing and switch to becoming an independent.

If your party comes home to the real Republican Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower, you can always come back. But stop petting the rabid dog.
Anonymous said…
Ok Mr. Top Ten list, just how are you helping create a moderate political climate? Should we be led to believe that someone who calls conservative primary voters racists or anti semites is just the type of "centrist" this state needs? Adelstein is guilty of exactly the same sins you accuse the conservative right in South Dakota of. When Adelstein takes sides, he is doing what everyone else does when they vote. However, he is even more intolerant because he drops 100 G's on an election to force those out who don't see eye to eye with him. It just so happens he is in the minority with his wacko far left opinions.

Can we also stop calling idiot left wing Republicans like Adelstein and Kephardt Eisenhower Republicans? I cannot think of a more historically inept analagy for these ego driven airheads.

In politics there are winners and losers. Adelstein is a loser, and a sore one at that.
Anonymous said…
Having dealt with both Lee and Stan in the past, I would believe Stan’s version of the story. Stan is too blunt to lie (look at his posts for goodness sake) whereas I’m convinced Lee would stab his best friend in the back if he thought it might get him a few more votes.
Anonymous said…
8:56

As a woman, I think you are full of SH** and you do NOT know me and you do not know what i am about nor what I believe. You offend me as a person, a proud Republican, and as an American who lives in South Dakota.

You are the Rabid one full of hate! I have no idea what party you are or really if you are even part of a party. But you can not think that everyone in your party believes as you do. If so, I feel very positive that you are wrong and I am not afraid to say so!
Mr. Top 10 List said…
Dear Anons 9:39, 9:42 & 9:45 -

Nothing personal, but you've proven my point for Stan's benefit. Again, Stan does not need to keep bankrolling a state GOP that does nothing but scorns and ridicules him. This blog uses every opportunity to wipe its feet on his back. Again, Stan, why do you keep petting the rabid dog? It's time to leave the GOP and let the zealots destroy themselves. Send your cash to those who share your respect for women and fundamental human rights.
Anonymous said…
Lee "kissing bandit" Schoenbeck and Sam Kooiker (where the K stands for 7700K) are cut from the same cloth. I might actually believe Stan on this one, but it would be interesting to hear from Sen. Bogue on this issue (actually, it would be nice to hear from Sen. Bogue at all).
Anonymous said…
Abortion = fundamental women's and human rights?

What kind of political philosophy is that? This is the litmus test liberals use when deciding whether someone is "civilized" or "enlightened" or "moderate". I can understand support for abortion rights, but equating it with fundamental human rights is sick.
bill fleming said…
So this is what a political party looks like when it becomes unhinged. Interesting.
Anonymous said…
10:42, Dems are having the same problem with the looooony left. That's interesting too.
bill fleming said…
That's par for the course for us Dems. Like Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Anonymous said…
What about the gentleman (Holbek?) that ran against Greenfield? Didn't Stan get some money to him, too?
Denny Crane said…
The snapping dogs on War College don't have rabies. They've got Mad Cow.
PP--

I was being nice--and short. Like most political battles in both our parties, the vast majority of the people just don't care. But still, it is kind of fun to sit on the sidelines and watch all this if you're a fan of inside the ballgame politics!

Stan sticks a thumb in PP's eye!

PP puts Stan in a hammer lock!

Ooh, that's gotta hurt!

Fight, fight, fight!

Todd Epp
Fight Club Editor (which I'll deny, of course, as there is no such thing as Fight Club)
S.D. Watch http://thunewatch.squarespace.com
nonnie said…
8:56. Whew, what a post! Hope you got all your pent- up anger out with that one.

First of all, I am a conservative Republican. I am also prolife so don't appreciate Stan's support of Planned Parenthood. That much I will give you. I also support women, being one myself and consider myself equal with anyone else regardless of gender.

I didn't know he was Jewish until you told me. Religious affiliation has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I am not jealous of his having money. I just do not like it when a person, regardless of who it is, thinks he can buy elections, and that is essentially what Stan the Man is trying to do.
Anonymous said…
"this person who keeps trying to tear apart the GOP."

It seems sad to me that people think that in order to be a Republican, you have to act, say, and believe exactly like everyone else in this party does.

Where is this Bit Tent Republican Party I keep hearing about?
Anonymous said…
"Where is this Bit Tent Republican Party I keep hearing about?"

Assuming you mean BIG tent Republican, Stan is trying to pitch it over a bunch of liberal Democrats, but that hot air blowing around is giving him no end of trouble.
Anonymous said…
fleming at 10:32 am,

hilarious.
Anonymous said…
Don't forget...the democrat establishment tried to throw Julie Bartling under the bus last year for her transgressions of being against killing unborn children and being in favor of traditional marriage.

How about an even-up trade. Stan for Julie. (If the democrats want some players-to-be-named-later, there are a few others who come to mind.)
Anonymous said…
4:43. You mean like the time when Nancy Reagan went ass-over-tincup off the back of the stage during a Presidential speech? And all Ronnie could say was, "Well...I told her she shouldn't try to upstage me like that" Priceless.
Mr. Top 10 List said…
Julie rocks! Why would the Democrats do that? Democrats support her and she supports Democrats, but not without the very deep pockets of our grand friend Stan.

What shocks me is how the GOP will whore for Stan's money and then chase him out of the inner circle, and how Stan continues to pet the rabid dog expecting a different result.

Wake up Stan. These goons hate you, just as they hate anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow religious-political manifesto.

They are facists in the most classic sense of the word.
Stan's New Best Friend said…
Stan,

Stop being such a chump. Send the Repubs your walkin' papers and re-register.
nicholas Nemec said…
Steve Sibson, go back to third grade and practice your reading comprehension skills. I asked Pat to give it a rest because this Adelstein stuff was getting boring. I did not defend Adelstein. But, that is about what one can expect from you.
Anonymous said…
Poor Stan, so rich but yet so poor. He's ridden the political fence so long, he may have injured himself. How did he get so rich in his business? Do you suppose it could have been Government construction projects? Need to stay close to both parties if you want those taxpayer dollars coming your way. I'd bet he wouldn't have supported a State Income Tax and be forced to share his wealth with all of South Dakota....just his "chosen few."
Anonymous said…
Sock it to him PP, Stan has every bit of it coming back to bite him. He can't stand truthful facts shown in black and white.
Anonymous said…
The part that PP misses is that Adelstein didn't give any money at all to these Democratic candidates. Stan gave to PACs. Stan was not an officer, director, or anything else of the PACs he gave to.

PP has no evidence whatsoever that Stan directed who the PACs gave money to, or that Stan even had authority to direct who the PACs gave money to. PP's just serving up speculation with no evidence.

PP's been making alot of claims lately that he can't back up with proof. Of course PP will come back with more speculation and call it proof. He'll claim it just HAS TO BE this way because he THINK'S it's this way. Where's the proof Stan directed who the PACs gave to, PP?
nonnie said…
Anon 12:49: Are you seriously telling me that you would give money to a PAC without knowing exactly what that PAC stood for and who it was supporting? I think not. Stan can give money, or I can (except I don't much to give), to a candidate or to a PAC, but you can be sure that he knows and I would know exactly where the money was going.
Anonymous said…
12:49 Frankenfeld heading up a PAC with the only donor being Adelstein proves "direction" enough for me.
Anonymous said…
PP: Put him out for the count! Dig into some State contracts awarded to Stanford and filtered through some of his Corporations. It will probably look just like the money filtered through PACs to pro-abortion, liberal candidates....filthy!
Anonymous said…
So Nonnie's serving up the speculation now too? You don't know anything Nonnie.
Stan's New Best Friend said…
Et tu, Nonnie?
nonnie said…
9:17 and 10:54. Not sure what you mean.

I'll admit I probably don't know much, but at least I will admit it. Sure is fun to pretend I'm the utmost authority on everthing though! Isn't this what blogging is all about?
Anonymous said…
"moi"? Either PP is french, or Miss Piggy.
bill fleming said…
I saw a postcard one time with a bunch of cows in a field all saying "moi", "moi", "moi."

The caption was "Selfish Cows from France."
Anonymous said…
10:03a way towards the top

This is poster 9:45, With my post i was not bashing Stan. I was bashing you for lump summing all Republicans into one basket.

Don't even try to turn this one. You were wrong!

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.