A note from Stan Adelstein
Here's one that hit the e-mail boxes late last week
From: stanford adelstein [mailto:sma@rapidnet.com]So much for staying positive. What, did Stan even wait a day until going negative on behalf of his candidate?
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:51 PM
To: (list redacted)
Subject: Another campaign that we cannot let go by default
Dear Friends of Women, Progress and a future of equality,
While DIA is enjoying a well earned rest, our opposition is not. Sam Kooiker has a solid backing of the Extreme right that is planning another election assult. They are going to turn out their vote for Rapid City Mayor in less than three weeks. Those of us supporting Alan Hanks do not have a comparable number of volunteers to match them. Their zealots will do what it takes. Fortunately we enjoy a small majority, from our polling and information.
Why do they care about the Mayor? We beat them in November, and they know that they must rebuild - step by step - at every level of political office. How helpful do you think that a Mayor would be for an Elizabeth Kraus as she runs to replace our friend Mac? What kind of a candidate recruiting effort would the city hall in second largest city in the SD be able to mount? You all know the story -- they built a majority while honest, caring people worked for a future for all.
I would truly appreciate hearing from those of you who could give us some hours the next two and half weeks.
Stan Adelstein
Comments
Life by Tommy Boy
If Hanks had an sense at all, and we know he doesn't, he'd be putting as much distance as he can between himself and the little egomaniac.
SAM FOR MAYOR!!!!!
I have enjoyed reading your blog. I understand that you have your favorites and your enemies. However, I don't view the e-mail as being negative. Is there anything untrue in the e-mail?
Which is showing how this whole election is devolving.
Some might not view the e-mail as negatively as I do. That's ok. I'm not completely passing judgment on it as much as noting that it's out there being sent around by never-to-again-be-Senator Adelstein.
You might think it's ok, and at the same time, I also had a call today that viewed it as flat out crazy as in "what is Stan thinking?"
I just put it there and offer my cynical opinion. It's up to you to decide.
The note from Stan is disturbing. Kooiker may be getting Krause, Schweisow, etc. support because he is indeed a devout Christian.
But, he's also a populist, which is why he's supported by the left.
In the end, the next mayor needs more to be a manager than a representative of either the far right or far left or even the middle.
Everyone knows that politics is “win at all costs, but above all win”! Been that way for many years and will be that way for many years to come!
Have any of you ever heard of any type of consequence for political committees or politicians breaking campaign laws? I can’t seem to remember anything like that happening. Everything just seems to get pushed under the rug after the election. Just seems to happen that way.
So, do what you gotta do, as long as you win!
It is the American way!
Why do you keep calling him on the carpet for it? Maybe he came to his senses and said to himself, "What the hell do I owe Pat Powers, anyway? The minute I take money, he'll rod me for it, and it won't matter that I told him early. I am damned if I do and poor if I don't. Screw this!"
Seriously, get over it.
It does not mean Hanks had anything to do with it.
But you see if your read where it is to take the reader.
Which is imho an attack against Sam.
Seem plain and simple to me.
So these means this is how Stan feels which, could place a question in the minds of those about Hank's and Sam also. That is where those who will be voting need to examine and ask questions. It is there right and really a duty to do so or you get what you asked for.
Though we do need to trust and read between the lines of statements.
Lee lost his re-election after that. But Shaw should borrow a page from Schoenbeck's book and move to a different place to run for office after people forget about this unseemly incident.
It's show a real lack of intellectualy ability on the part of some on the left who continue to beleive that convicted murderers have more rights than inncoent unborn children.
The previous comment about due process is spot on. The key difference between the Right to Life crowd and the "save the vicuous axe murderer" crowd is that the murderer had due process of law the innoncent unborn child did not.
A national debate over a hot flash issue like abortion, with its predictable effect on SD politics, is segued into a dire warning of the consequences attendant upon the possible election of a candidate with a wife, some kids and a job at a telecom company.
This logic path is truly bizarre and has all the “tells” of a person who has lost his philosophical bearings.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Kooiker takes the bait. As for Mr. Hanks, apparently he learned nothing from the barely 20% result achieved by long time incumbent Mr. Shaw.
But I guess when you’re not in charge of your destiny, you go where the gold leads. Those with the gold make the rules.
Carnivore opinion
I do have an idea. Vote for Hanks and then vote out Kooiker next year.
Mike Schumacher, you are out of line. This is ridiculous. Why don't you step down from the council? You aren't even living in RC anymore.