Sibby versus Adelstein over at Mt. Blogmore

(HT to Sibby online)

Right after I got back to Pierre, I went and checked the blogfeeds, and the first thing I noted was a post that Sibby did on how he and State Senator (for about 50 more days and counting) Stan Adelstein are getting into an argument over at Mt. Blogmore.

Basically, it all started when commenter DL Emerick offered the view that:

I’d dare to say that Stan Adelstein agreed with much more than 80% of Reagan’s agenda. If that is the litmus test for being a conservative Republican, then Stan more than qualifies.

Somehow in reviewing Stan's record, Sibby found grounds to dispute that opinion:

Stan Adelstein is no where close to be 80% of Ronald Reagan. Maybe 8%.

And aside from some side chatter, Soon-to-be-former Senator Adelstein disagreed. (Note - spelling is his, not mine, but I did edit some of the repetition in the passages, because it made no sense.).

OK Sibson - he called you on another lie. Where did I differ from Reagan?? I have been in public life longer than you have lived so it’s all out there. I am interested to hear what you have to say!! Come on tell me some of that 92% that you claim I opposed. It is those dishonorable name callers, - intolerant, foolish, and yes dishonest that has come close to destroying our party.

I have been a Republican and ALWAYS a Republican since I voted for Eisenhouer in 1952. That is longer than you have lived (or lied). 22 of those years I was a party officer - sometimes pretty flunky type - but still working.

Now let’s look at some of my positions and activities during his Presidency that constituted the “80%” that my friend stated above.

Defense - Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army; outspoken advocate of the ABM defense system; (you probably do know that stands for Anti Ballistic Missile defense system)(one of the key parts of the program that accomplished Reagan’s demand of Khrushchev - “tear that wall down…” a member of the National Defense Executive Reserve; honorary unit Commander at Ellsworth;

By the way now let’s look at some of my positions and activities during his Presidency that constituted the “80%” that my friend stated above.

Defense - Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army; outspoken advocate of the ABM defense system; (you probably do know that stands for Anti Ballistic Missile defense system)( one of the key parts of the program that accomplished Reagan’s demand of Khrushchev - “tear that wall down…” a member of the National Defense Executive Reserve; honorary unit Commander at Ellsworth; many more but the hour is late - and I bet you would not know of what I speak anyway.

By the way, have you ever worn the uniform? If so which one, and where?

But, let’s go on: supported and actively campaigned against Federal intervention in State’s Rights issues. This included Medicine (I was chairman of ST John’s Hospital Board); Education - served on a national advisory panel; Civil Rights - and even more.

Political - Was a member of the executive committee of the President’s Business Advisory Campaign Committee; and oh yes - as you and other phony economic “liberals” protest - spent large amounts in contributions to his campaigns, fund raising locally and nationally, and all of that stuff which you choose to criticize. Member of the Republican Senate Trust

And another question or two - In which Republican candidate’s campaign did YOU drive stakes, go door to door, organize telephone calls, work at Party headquarters, etc etc - I can think of at least 10 - before, during and after Ronald Reagan. REAL Republicans work locally, prove government should not be in our faces, intervene in our lives, or make our choices for us,

Oh yes again - I do not remember seeing your contributions on any Republican contributor list - or is that beneath you?

Finally - as he was deciding to run for President - while still Governor of CA - he referred to himself (before the stupid oversimplification of terms)as one who believed in a woman’s choice - yes CHOICE - both at a private meeting I attended and publicly.

But, let’s go on

Supported and actively campaigned agains Federal intervention in State’s Rights issues. This included Medicine (I was chairman of ST John,s Hospital Board); Education - served on a national advisory panel; Civil Rights - and even more.

I am tired, you are a phony, I do not know why I bothered with this.

Finally - as he was deciding to run for President - while still Governor of CA - he referred to himself (before the stupid oversimplification of terms)as one who believed in a womnan’s choice - yes CHOICE - both at a private meeting I attended and publicly.

Stanford Adelstein
SD State Senator, f District 32

Read it all here. And there were some replies from Sibby to some of these points which one can go read for themselves .

I think what I would focus on is not so much how his agenda might or might not parallel Reagan's. Why? Because I simply don't care.

My concern is how much he has contributed to the internal infighting among Republicans, and his direct attacks on the GOP. I'd make the statement that rather than the percentage of time he's supported Reagan, I'd ask the percentage of time he's supported the Republican party. Now that's something that I think is indisputable.

What might Stan have done? Let's see....

When you use PACs to fund primary elections (to avoid normal spending limits) against your Senate colleagues, creating discord, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When at the same time you claim "I have never, ever spoken in public against a fellow Senator unless it was in debate or discussion with that Senator present." and the evidence shows you call one of your fellow Republicans 'an ultra-conservative extremist' and note that many others 'should be thrown out of office', there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When you allegedly try to use your financial resources as a tool to demand preferential committee assignments over other Republican Senators, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter. (and you might get called a 'cancer on the caucus' to boot)

When you act like a big sore loser, you stand with and actively campaign for the Democrat running against your primary opponent, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When after your primary loss, you publicly and overtly float your own name as a running mate for the Democratic Candidate for Governor, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When you drop tens of thousands of dollars directly into Democratic races to defeat Republican candidates, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

I could go on (and on, and on), but it doesn't serve much of a purpose. If Stan says he followed Reagan 80% of the time, fine. I don't care.

But if he ever tries to imply that he's a strong supporter of the South Dakota GOP? Now that's something I can take issue with.