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."
Ouch.
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.
Check out what was in today's edition of the Rapid City Journal's "The good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
THE UGLY:Read it all here.
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.
Ouch.
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
Comments
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?
Too bad the party he supported in general was the Democratic Party.
Maybe you ought to reread Julius Caesar