Another Day, Another Fake Obamacare Horror Story

FRIDAY UPDATE #2: Brandon Rittiman of 9News with an equally sharp critique of the ad:

A new TV ad tells a tale of woe about Obamacare using a local woman's story.

Trouble is, the story doesn't really hold water the way the ad presents it.

—–

FRIDAY UPDATE: MSNBC's Steve Benen:

The ad from Karl Rove’s attack operation is online here, but the key takeaway is the degree to which this is familiar – the story of the ACA “victim” that just doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny.
 
For example, the Crossroads ad suggests to Colorado viewers that McKim “had to go back to work” because of health care, but she told a local news outlet, “It wasn’t the Affordable Care Act. It was just a financial burden, having a single income for so long.”

…Colorado, it’s worth noting, has seen a sharp drop in its uninsured rate thanks to “Obamacare.” It would suggest that in reality, health care reform has helped families in Colorado – and all of them would suffer, needlessly, if lawmakers repealed the ACA.

—–

FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports, a new ad from GOP-aligned Crossroads GPS goes after Sen. Mark Udall using another anecdotal "personal story" about the horrors of Obamacare.

Which, like other ads from GOP message groups on the same theme, appears to be completely bogus:

[T]he woman in the ad, Richelle McKim, is actually an employee of an energy company that is among the biggest donors to Udall’s opponent, and her story, which seemingly contradicts information on her publicly available LinkedIn profile, is at least more complicated than the 30-second version hitting Colorado’s airwaves starting Thursday.

In the new spot, titled “Richelle”, McKim is sitting at her kitchen table with a cup of coffee talking about how “policies coming out of Washington really do affect us here at home.”

She describes her husband’s decision to start his own business.

“We knew we needed to find healthcare,” McKim said. “Because we were a single income family, we couldn’t afford our plan.”

On the screen, text appears that reads: “Richelle had to go back to work.”

But as Stokols continues, that's not the whole story by a longshot:

Reached by phone Thursday afternoon at her office, McKim explained that she went back to work in 2010 because it was too tough making ends meet on her husband’s income.

“It wasn’t the Affordable Care Act,” she said. [Pols emphasis] “It was just a financial burden, having a single income for so long.”

As it turns out, Richelle McKim has been employed since well before the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, even took effect, or took could in any way affect her family's health coverage:

McKim’s own LinkedIn profile shows that she has worked constantly since July 2008 — four months before President Obama was elected.

McKim worked for her husband's company until 2010, when she went to work for Anadarko Petroleum. Today Mrs. McKim is an engineer for Noble Energy. Stokols astutely notes that both Anadarko and Noble Energy have given tens of thousands of dollars to Sen. Udall's GOP opponent Cory Gardner.

Obviously, the ad relays none of these facts to the viewing audience. The ad doesn't say when McKim had to go back to work in order to afford health insurance, but plainly attempts to link her story to Obamacare–even though it's not related. When questioned by Stokols, McKim tells a convoluted story about how her husband previously had "the freedom" to not have insurance, and that's why she thinks Obamacare is bad, even though the ACA mandated coverage for her husband's high blood pressure. That was the reason McKim gave for her husband wanting the "freedom" to go uninsured. In short, the ACA fixed the problem McKim's family had with health insurance.

Bottom line: this is yet another example of a deceptive Republican attack on Obamacare falling apart under even casual scrutiny. McKim gamely tries to defend her story in this ad to Eli Stokols, but it's obvious as soon as she says the words "it wasn't the Affordable Care Act" that this entire ad is a deception. As with the previous ads from Americans for Prosperity and others we've seen, the strategy seems to depend on viewers never finding out that the story they're being told is either fictional or indefensibly misleading.

If it was our face in this ad, we'd have trouble showing it now. But maybe we're quaint like that.

118 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DawnPatrol says:

    Eceptionally weak, and supremely lame.

    Hasn't anyone told Herr Rove that these hilariously staged, utterly bogus, GOP operative-filled anti-Obamacare ads are like, so last February?

    • Old Time Dem says:

      Nothing has been brought forth indicating that McKim is a "GOP operative."  She works for Noble Energy, as do many other people, and that appears to be coincidental. Further, Noble Energy's PAC is not listed as having contributed to Gardner–in fact, its only Colorado contribution is to Udall. Noble's executive's have contributed to Udall as well.

      • horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

        Noble Energy has contributed $ 12,300 so far to Cory Gardner in 2013-2014 according to open secrets.

        • Old Time Dem says:

          Wrong.  From the Open Secrets website:

          The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

          That should be obvious, since one of Udall's top contributors is the Universty of Colorado–obviously, CU doesn't make contributions, but people who work for CU do.  In fact, Noble Energy's PAC has contributed to Udall only–you can check that on the FEC's website.

           

          • JBJK16 says:

            Omg

            this is a good catch, and a valid point.

             

            ps, the reason they donate to Udall, is they know he's going to win

          • horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

            Thank you for the clarification Old Time Dem – you are correct. 

            It seems strange to me that if an individual contributes to Udall or Gardner and happens to work for Noble Energy, that the contribution is listed under Noble Energy.  I have given to a lot of campaigns and where I am employed never came into the picture, but I am not very familiar with how that all works.

            • Progressicat says:

              There is a reason.  I worked for a defense contractor once, long ago, and the practice was to invite mid to upper management to the chief's house for a barbeque and to then "suggest" that they donate to this or that candidate.  By "suggest," of course, I mean "give or get fired."  This was a way to contribute a good chunk of cash while (a) avoiding campaign donation limits and (b) making it look like individual donations rather than corporate donations (individual donations are more seemly, as they look less driven by barefaced greed).  Gathering donations by organization helps point out these patterns.

              • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

                Doesn't pretty much any campaign contribution require thedonor to provide their employer info theses days? It's probably intended to ferret out what you're talking about Progessicat 

      • DawnPatrol says:

        You appear to be incredibly naive. And rather defensive as well.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        When you say, "Old Time Dem"…what do you mean?

        • ct says:

          Do 'coincidental' and 'Karl Rove' go together?  

        • Old Time Dem says:

          Why?  Do you question my bona fides because I point out something that's true?

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:


            OTD, I don't question your bona fides, but the  financial and anecdotal data can be interpreted differently.

             Gardner has raised almost 5 million in the last year for his Senate bid.. Anadarko and Nobel have  contributed  $23,000 and $30,000 of dollars to Cory Gardner this year.- Both via individual employees, and by their PACS. This is a link to an excel spreadsheet, which anyone can download from the influence explorer site, showing the individual and corporate contributions.  The McKims aren't listed.

            Nothing in that says anything definitive about the McKims, or how credible Richelle McKim's ad against Obamacare is. Others have researched her claim that she had to go back to work because of the ACA, and found it to be false. She went back to work for more money, duh.

            Mark Udall, sadly, is indeed the top recipient of Anadarko dollars ($6,000) in the last year, although the company gives to Republicans 90% of the time. This unfortunately probably explains Udall's stance against the two anti-fracking ballot initiatives.

            However, Ms. Mckim is definitely a lady with a conservative agenda (thanks, Pcat for linking to a meetup group McKim is a member of, on which she writes:

            I'm a true-to-the-core conservative and value small government. I want our Republic back.

            So McKim is a strong conservative, and has an axe to grind against the Affordable Care Act.  She is not credible as some random suburban mom.  From her FB page, McKim is also training as an "Industry Ambassador", which means that she will eventually move on from advocating against the ACA to advocating for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. By the way, I find the Anadarko and Noble money contributing to anti-ballot initiatives to be the real scandal – I haven't copied the TRACER data here, but you're talking millions, not thousands, of dollars.

            I would guess that McKim's political contributions probably go to some Republican or Tea Party PAC – because of Supreme Court decisions, we may never know.

            Stokol's reporting is valid, as far as it goes. He just needs to hire Pcat or myself as research staff.  I don't know why you folks are being mean to each other – seems like pole vaulting over mouse turds.

             

            • Old Time Dem says:

              According to the FEC website, Noble Energy's PAC has given only to Udall.  Nothing to Gardner. Noble employee's have given to both Udall and Gardner.  Do you dispue either of those facts?

              The question isn't whether she is credible or not–obviously, her entire story is bogus.  The question is whether it is accurate to describe her as an "operative"–which she is not, and whether Stokels got his facts right on contributions.  He did not;  to quote directly from his article:

              "Noble Energy has given Gardner’s campaign $36,000 to date."

              The page he links to shows no such thing; in fact, it makes clear that Noble's PAC hasn't given to Gardner, and all contributions are from employees.  It also misrepresents by omission, since his article doesn't point out that Noble has contributed–in greater amounts–to Udall.  That is certainly a relevant fact, but somehow he missed it.  On the point of contributions, Stokels reporting seriously misleads.

               

            • Old Time Dem says:

              BTW, the data in the Influence Explorer website is only through the fourth quarter of 2013, which makes it somewhat dated.

              • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                1. Open Secrets shows $12,300 to Gardner from Noble employees in 2013-2014. (line 12) Influence Explorer shows $23,700 from Noble employees and PACS to Gardner during 2013-2014. Why you're making such a big deal about the distinction between corporate PACS and individual donors I have no clue.

                2. Stokel's link doesn't show what he says it shows – that may be a link problem, not a source problem. He should correct it, if so. It does show 29K from individuals, 7K from PACS, from Anadarko, for Gardner, in 2013-2014.

                3. McKim's training as an Industry Ambassador makes her more of an oil and gas operative than a Republican party operative – however, that's almost the same thing, these days. She is attractive and sympathetic, and I expect her to be a rising GOP media star in many more ads for favorite Koch-approved talking points. Whether that makes her an "operative" by your definition, I don't really care to wrangle over.

                4. Senate candidates don't have to do realtime electronic filings- so Gardner and Udall will always be a bit out of date on the FEC site. However, it definitely includes 2014 data- if you click on the links in my comments.  you'll see 2014 data.

                 

                • Old Time Dem says:

                  Why draw a distinction between individual donors and a company?  Because it is a pretty crucial distinction.  As I noted above, employees of CU have given a lot of money to Udall.  Does that make CU a Udall contributor?  I don't thinks so.  Employees can, and do, have beliefs independent of their employers, and vice versa.

                  That Stokels' link doesn't show what he claims is not a minor issue.  He has made an assertion that he didn't back up, and his assertion cannot be backed up because it's false.  That is not good reporting, even if he got the rest of it right.

                  There is nothing that shows any Noble Energy PAC contributions to Gardner.  On the Influence Explorer page, that would show up as a dark portion of the graph.  On the Open Secrets page, the total under "From Orgs" (which would be the PAC) is zero for Gardner and $2,500 for Udall.

                  Your conclusion that a bit of PR training is evidence that this twit is going to be "rising GOP media star in many more ads for favorite Koch-approved talking points" after her debut has been so thoroghly trashed seems unlikely. But then again, Republicans are drawn to some pretty strange spokespeople.  Further, what she wants to be isn't what she is now, so even if her goal in life is to be an oil and gas industry flack, that doesn't make her a GOP operative now.

                  As for the data, the Influence Explorer pages are quite clearly labelled as current throught the 4th quarter of 2013.  Perhaps their detail is more up to date.  Open Secrets seems to have more current data.

                   

        • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

          Old Time Dem = Dixiecrat = New Republican.

          Not fooling anyone.

      • Progressicat says:

        She certainly has some political feelings that predispose her to ACA hostility, at any rate.

        • horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

          We should be ashamed to be even remotely suspicious of this crap !

        • Old Time Dem says:

          True.  But one of the criticisms of previous AFP/Rove ads has been that the subjects were actually Republican "operatives"–i.e., part of party leadership or family of such. Richelle is clearly a RWNJ and likely kind of racist ("I want my Republic back" and her weird comment about illegal immigrants sound racist to me, anyway), but so far there hasn't been anything brought forth to indicate that she actually hold any party leadership position. To the extent that that shows that AFP/Rove are trying to improve their ads, that's interesting–but the fact that the best they can do is this Palinesque dimwit doesn't bode well for their message.

          • Curmudgeon says:

            I think you may be defining the term operatives a little too narrowly. When it comes to the phony horror stories (and so far, all of them have been phony), there's always been a clear connection between "victim" and the GOP (far beyond "Registered Republican"). 

            • Old Time Dem says:

              That's my point–there is a difference between "holds crazy right-wing views" and "operative."  The latter generally refers to a political professional–i.e., someone paid by candidates or a party, or, more loosely, it could mean someone who holds a party position (such as on a party committee).  The farthest reach of the term would be to include anyone who volunteers on behalf of a party–but that is really a stretch, and I have never heard anyone referred to as an "operative" merely because they work a phone bank.

              In any event, it has not been established that there is a connection between Richelle and the GOP other than she's a RWNJ (it hasn't even been alleged that she's a registered Republican, which wouldn't be surprising–although given her views, she might be registered with the ACP or some other right-wing third party).Stokels tried to connect her to the GOP by claiming that her employer was a GOP, and specficially, a Gardner, contributor–which, according to FEC records, they are not since their PAC has contributed only to Udall in Colorado. Not to repeat myself, but Stokel misread Open Secrets' reporting by failing to distinguish between contributions by Noble Energy's PAC  (all of which have been to Udall) and contributions by Noble Energy employees (which are split between Udall and Gardner).

              • Curmudgeon says:

                From the article: "McKim said she was connected with Crossroads GPS through “a friend of a friend” and that she’s pleased with the ad’s portrayal."

                C'mon, OTD… really? 

                • Old Time Dem says:

                  That explans how she came to be in this stupid ad, but knowing someone who knows someone at GPS doesn't make her an "operative."  Insisting otherwise is ridiculous.

                  • Curmudgeon says:

                    Pretending that she's not acting on behalf of GPS, through "a friend of a friend" is disingenuous.  She is promoting their agenda in a demonstrably false ad. I'm not saying she's on their payroll, for crying out loud. Lots of people work for other people's agenda's free of charge. Do you really think her and her husband's employers won't be appreciative of her "service"? 

                    • Old Time Dem says:

                      Whoever said she isn't acting on behalf of GPS?  She's in their ad, for crissakes!  The point is that she was not an "operative" and that Stokels' reporting on contributions is seriously flawed.

                      Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, you folks are twisting yourself in circles trying to avoid the obvious:

                      1. Richelle was not an "operative" under any reasonable definition of the term; and,

                      2.  Stokels' article misleads on campaign contributions because it affirmatively misstates that Noble Energy has contributed to Gardner (it has not) and it omits the very relevant fact that Noble Energy, through its PAC, has contributed to Udall.

                       

                       

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      SO, you concede that she is acting on their behalf, but she's not an "operative".  WTF do you think an operative is? 

                    • Old Time Dem says:

                      For some reason there is no "Reply" button on your comment below, so I will respond here.

                      Prior AFP/GPS ads used people who were "operatives" before they appeared in ads–i.e, they were actually party officials (or former officials, or related to them).  One of the criticisms of those ads was that they tried to represent the subject as a "real person" or "just folks," when in fact they were not.  This ad is a bit diffferent in that, so far, nothing indicates that Richelle was an "operative."  She is just a run-of-the-mill RWNJ.

                      Your argument that she is an operative because she appears in the ad is boot-strapping, and proves too much; under your theory, no one who appears in an ad could ever be a "real person" because, once in an ad, the subject becomes an operative.

                    • Progressicat says:

                      There's a maximum comment "depth."  Once you reach it, you can only reply to the first comment that hit that mark (no more indenting or reply buttons).

          • ct says:

            You're actually a sanctimonious, bitter, weirdly sensitive, over-reactive asshole.  But maybe that's just my take.  Suicide is not a matter to be taken lightly and I think you are worth no more of my time.  

  2. BlueCat says:

    Nothing is perfect and every new program does have some people for whom it causes problems rather than providing solutions. So why can't the Republicans ever seem to find one? 

    In ad after ad we get a story that is quickly debunked, usually with the poor "victim" turning out to be better off with the ACA reforms, sometimes only no worse off than they were before. But their sob stories never check out.

    If she wants her high blood pressure husband to have the freedom to be uninsured with the potential of all kinds high blood pressure related health issues for which his fellow citizens would have to pick up the tab, that isn't evidence of ACA's failure. It's evidence that her husband prefers taking risks that others will have to pay for if they turn out to be bad ones. The public thanks him.

    Maybe the reason every one of these ads ends in debunking is that the number adversely affected really is very small compared to the much larger number who benefit. If we want everyone to benefit we need a basic, quality national health coverage package. But many more people are better off as compared to the number for whom this isn't working which is the best we can do in the absence of the civilized 21st century guaranteed health care all the other modern industrialized nations have for a lot less than what we have to spend for inferior coverage.

     

    • DavieDavie says:

      As far as I know, the only people demonstrably hurt by Obamacare are those unfortunate to live in GOP-controlled states that didn't extend Medicaid benefits.  So they are caught it a legal gap where they fall below the income level to qualify for ACA coverage rebates, but since they can't get Medicaid either, they are hit with the full cost of their private insurance bill.

      Courts won't help them out and the GOP is laughing their asses off that the ACA assumed all states would sign up for the Medicaid expansion.  They think it's fun to fuck with the poor and powerless.  Rick Perry's advice — Suck it up Peasants!  What other use is there for power, right?

      Nationwide, about 5 million people are in the "coverage gap," according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In Texas alone, the number is 1 million.

      http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/21/news/economy/obamacare-medicaid-coverage-gap-texas/

      • nota33 says:

        The GOP are getting desperate. They need to lie because that is all they have,

        • Republican 36 says:

          The Voters Need to Destroy the Republican Party Through the Ballot Box

          Enough is enough.The Republican Party doesn't believe in governing and has descended into an institution made-up of individuals, consultants and power brokers who think objexctive facts are irrelevant. In the movie Animal House when John Belushi said: "We didn't give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!" it was funny, but in real life the truth and objective facts matter but Republican dogma dictates that anything goes, including lying and ignoring facts.

          The truth and objective facts have real consequences in the world and to ignore them or conciously lie like this TV ad does can only mislead people into making decisions that make no sense. For a political party that claims traditional morality as one of its cornerstones, the Republicans have abandoned it for whatever reason, but their motives don't really matter. The fact they prefer lies to the truth and their cavalier attitude toward credibility disqualifies their candidates from holding office. Let's be done with the Republican Party. Voters across the country need to send them into the history books.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        D, Your "as far as I know" lead in are not words of limitation.

        The premise of Obamacare was to hurt a lot of people by raising their rates and taxes to pay for benefits to relatively few.

        Any younger American who is not being subsidiezed is "hurt" because their rates are higher than required in order to subsidized older folks.

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      75% happy (very or somewhat satisfied) – that's the latest obamacare satisfaction numbers I've seen, from the Commonwealth Fund Study. 58% better off, 9% worse off. This includes 3/4 of Republicans.

      • BlueCat says:

        Yeah but the people who have insurance through their employers and got to keep it, in other words most people, don't know anything about it and don't particularly care that people who don't have decent insurance through their jobs now have affordable protection. They don't want anyone to get subsidized so they can Never mind a lot of those people wind up in the ER at the expense of the same people who don't want them to have subsidized coverage. That's what those who don't need the exchange for coverage and only know what they hear from the lying righties about it are dissatisfied with.The overwhelming majority of people who do need it and went through the process know how much better off they are. Neither ACA nor  Benghazi, now completely debunked by a Repubican majority committee as a scandal or cover up, is going to save  AC's buddies from the not so slow moving glacier of dempgraphics that's going to erase them as a national party if  they continue down the wacko rightie path. 

        AC,You may very well be doing a happy dance (nationally but not here in Colorado) after the 2014 election. Enjoy it. You won't be doing much happy dancing in 2016 or beyond.  Gerrymandering and voter suppression schemes are increasingly being shot down by the courts and that's really all you've got. You certainly have no record of success for your completely discredited economic or geopolitical or "scientific" theories and you can't get your bigots to stop insulting soon to be majority non-white voters and women. Young people aren't going to be swayed by your anti-gay, anti-choice rhetoric. Without suppression and gerrymandering, you'll have nothing left, sooner rather than later. Good riddance. 

  3. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Nice Ad.

    As more people experience Obamacare, more people dislike Obamacare.

    That is what the polling shows.

    Time for some payback.

    • Curmudgeon says:

      So, it's a "nice ad", despite the fact that it's completely false, or because of it?

    • nota33 says:

      Andrew, more people dislike the GOP. 2 days ago, a new WSJ poll came out showing the American people give your party a 19% approval rating. Also in the poll, a overwhelmingly majority of latino, women, black, and young voters disapprove of the GOP. That is what the polling shows. Time for some payback.

    • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

      AC-  I'd believe if you really had anything you'd be more than pleased to quote from, cite,or link us all to the "poll" you mention but, as usual for wingers,you didn't. Is that wingnut "Payback"in the form of people not having health insurance? Now that I'd believe.  I suspect I could administer a "poll"showing that a significant number of people regard conservatives as idiots and assholes.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        Lang,

        Back by popular request the Kaiser Poll:

        July_2014_email_alert_chart_FINAL

        • Curmudgeon says:

          And again, you left out the important parts, you lying, cowardly, unpatriotic chickenshit. 

          • DawnPatrol says:

            He is a worthless, despicable, amoral jackal, isn't he?

            • Curmudgeon says:

              The best and brightest of the GOP trolls, I guess. I really do believe he thinks he's "stickin' it to the Libz", in whatever sick, sad, world he lives in, where he can justify the most vile positions, falsehoods, and bigotry, all the while telling himself that he's fighting the good fight.  

              • DawnPatrol says:

                I've yet to meet so much as one of these demented racist Teabag chuckleheads who didn't think (s)he was the smartest, most informed and most clever person in any room. Their grossly inflated sense of importance is only exceeded by their insufferable elistism, arrogance and self-righteousness. God help anyone not just like them who has to live with or near them.

                • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                  Hell, I was married to one! winkOperative word="was". We're friends, of a sort, now.  We just have to strictly limit the conversation topics. 

                   

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  So, Dawn Patrol, I'm a lifelong, traditional, conservative Republican. Last time I checked, I'm not demented. I'm not racist and I'm not a "teabagger." I don't think I'm the smartest person around, most informed, or most clever (altho I do have a rather sardonic sense of humor at times). I don't have a grossly inflated sense of importance. And I don't subscribe to being an elitist. And, by the way, I don't believe in what I assume is the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god that you quote.

                  How do you like those apples?

                  Regards,

                  Conservative Head Banger  (AC/DC Rules !)

                  • DawnPatrol says:

                    Actually, I don't fancy those misplaced apples at all.

                    The key word here is "teabagger." You're not one, I know that. You're a thoughtful, articulate, reasonable, conservative Republican. (I miss those, and always appreciate your input.) Thus, my post was not meant for you, or in any way aimed at you, capice?

        • Cogito says:

          So what does it say about the credibility of a poll where the total percentages exceed 100%?

           

    • BlueCat says:

      Except for the people who got insurance on the excahnge, most of whom like it.

    • BlueCat says:

      The people who experience it are not in fact the ones more prone to disapproving of it. As usual, AC is a bottomless pit of misinformation. There is a difference between lying anecdotes from a few people and stats on the group that has attained insurance through ACA. Just like there's a difference between finding a few African Americans to put on a GOP podium, and stats on how most African Americans vote. Also just like picking a raging rightie wacko with an X chromosome to try to pull votes from disappointed HRC supporters isn't the same as finding a way to appeal to women on the issues important to the majority of women. 

      Anecdotes (99% false) and look…. here's a fill-in-the-blank minority, proving that the GOTP isn't the party of bigots are all they've got.

      • The realistThe realist says:

        Yup – as in the example I mentioned recently – a local Repub Party chair declared to the friendly crowd that having a woman as candidate for Lt Governor proves there is no Repub War on Women, and having a Congressional candidate of Chinese descent proves there is no Repub bias against immigrants. I think the vast majority of them buy into this version of "logic."

  4. dwyer says:

     

    Eli Stokols is one bright light in the fading universe of journalism.  I hope he stays in Denver.

  5. Curmudgeon says:

    Well, maybe Elliott can chime in with another Totally True Personal Obamacare Horror Story that completely falls apart under scrutiny.

  6. CaninesCanines says:

    OK, I just clicked back onto this thread–about the poorly-executed advertisement–after putting Pols to bed late yesterday afternoon.

    What have I missed?

  7. ct says:

    What  is or is not a political "operative," and whether employee contributions can tell us anything about whether oil and gas generally, or specifically Nobel Energy, loves them some Garder and Udall more–as opposed to only formal electioneering organizations (your PACs and the like).   Oh, and if OTD has his boxers in too tight a bunch puzzling over such heady matters.   

  8. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    @OldtimeDem: Tweet to @elistokols

    He also has his own website, http://www.elistokols.com/, with all kinds of ways to contact him.

    We need Moderatus' "dead horse" gif here, but the main thing I saw wrong with the way he quoted the opensecrets page was the numbers: It should have been $12,300 for Gardner from Noble in 2013-14. Influence explorer showed a total of 23,700 for all years. Stokols quoted it as $36,000, which coincidentally is the sum of the two amounts above, so he may be looking at another source or ????

    I don't care if "Richelle" is an "operative", or just an oil and gas shill looking for media exposure, which is what I think that she is. Stokols, BTW, didn't call her an "operative". Neither did Steve Benen of the Maddow Blog, which re-posted the story. Neither did Pols, for that matter, in the OP. So your beef is with Dawn Patrol.

    Where's that damn dead horse gif when I need it?

     

     

    • Old Time Dem says:

      Can you even read?  Nowhere do I ascribe the "operative" term to Stokels.

      • Curmudgeon says:

        No, moron. She was pointing out that your caterwauling about the term operative had nothing to do with Stokols' article; that it was screeching about a term we used. 

        There's more to reading than just reading. There's comprehension

        • ct says:

          I wonder why disclosure rules require employer then over a certain amount (lots of 'retired,' family embers, spouses — not necessarily in this case, I have not looked into it, but often) if such identification and correlation is useless?  

          I think the fact that such disclosure is required is an indication that–at the least–many people do think the information relevant.  Perhaps the original article could have been written more specifically, but I think calling it false and getting so warped over it is odd if not disingenuous.  

          • Old Time Dem says:

            The elements of Stokels' article that were incorrect were:

            1,  He lumped employee contribtuions with company contributions.

            2.  He failed to note that the company had made only Udall contributions in this cycle.

            3.  He failed to note that employees had made Udall contributions during this cycle.

            The article was written so as to imply that McKim was somehow doing the bidding of her employers–a highly suspect claim, given that her current employer doesn't seem to be actually favoring Gardner with their contributions in this election.

            I don't think it is "odd" for me to respond to attacks on me–attacks that are "oddly" personal, given that the points I raised are clearly factual.

            As to why campaign contributors are required to disclose their employers, it is in part because it may be relevant to discovering if a company is trying to unduly influence an election with contributions channeled through employees.  In this case, top executives of Noble in Colorado appear to also have given to Udall (you can verify that by looking at the linked in profiles of Udall contributors), which isn't surprising given that Udall was working the anti-Polis, anti-anti-fracking side of he aisle.

        • Old Time Dem says:

          Seriously, your posts have descended into sheer idiocy.  My original comment was a direct reply to Dawn Patrol's post and questioned his use of the term.

           

           

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.