« “NONPARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE LAUNCHES PARTISAN ATTACK ON MDE DURING AIR AMERICA INTERVIEW | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN DESCRIBES OWN BOOK AS “GRATUITOUSLY MEAN” »
“NONPARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE LAUNCHES PARTISAN ATTACK ON MDE DURING AIR AMERICA INTERVIEW #2
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 27, 2007
I again want to correct one item from Secretary of State Ritchie's attack on me during an interview last evening on Air America: I am not currently an employee of the Republican Party of Minnesota, nor have I been since July 2005. I was a part-time consultant to the Republican Party of Minnesota from October 30, 2006 to November 7, 2006.
This must be the new DFL talking-point.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 42 Comments »
42 Responses to ““NONPARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE LAUNCHES PARTISAN ATTACK ON MDE DURING AIR AMERICA INTERVIEW #2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:27 AM
When working as a subcontracting press consultant and opp researcher, did you ever work for a company that had contracts with the Republican party, and if so, did you service those contracts?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Sean, my disclosure page is accurate. But to answer your questions, no. I haven’t been an employee of the Republican Party of Minnesota since July ’05. I was a part-time consultant to the Republican Party of Minnesota from October 30, 2006 to November 7, 2006.
Ritchie’s comment was inacurate. I am not an employee of the Republican Party of Minnesota.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:10 PM
So between July 2005 and now you have only recieved paychecks for your work with Mark Kennedy and Michelle Bachmann?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Sean, my disclosure page is accurate.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Sean, you always lose at the arguments you pick. You’re getting so tiresome. Go away with Fred Garvin and Roving Reporter and Brian Hanna. You all deserve each other for your weak comments.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:49 PM
No it’s not Michael– you worked for the ‘Campaign For St. Pauls Future’ which is not listed on your disclosure page. (remember, it was while you were working as their spokesman that you accidentally posted your name and phone number on this blog)
Now, if you, having incorporated as yourself, contracted your services to Campaign For St. Paul’s Future, it is only on a technicality that you can say that you didn’t work for the Campaign For St. Paul’s future, but rather the company you worked for did.
As well, it’s been widely disseminated that you worked for Weber/Johnson, which you’ve never denied. You just repeat that your disclosure page is accurate. Accurate doesn’t mean complete and accurate doesn’t mean that your “ethics” are anything to spout off about.
Meredith– where is Mike’s tenure as spokesman for the Campaign for St. Paul’s Future? Oh– what you can’t answer that? Then shut up.
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 2:02 PM
In fact Mike– you earned 4,000$ in August of 2005 for your work on the Campaign for St. Pauls Future– where is that?
[Click here for link]
February 27th, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Sean: This is from my disclosure page:
“In closing, I will repeat that what my friends in the liberal blogosphere fail to recognize is that since I have chosen to work in politics I can’t hide how I make a living. My life is one big disclosure.
You are able to attack my work for Mark Kennedy, because FEC rules require expenditures to be publicly reported. You are able to see that I was paid a one-time fee from Bachmann’s campaign, because it was publicly reported. You are able to attack me for my work with the Campaign for St. Paul’s Future, because it was publicly disclosed.”
It’s been disclosed – on my page. Last week, another DFLer made similar attack and eventually apologized:
“Michael,
My apologies, I missed the sentence on the Campaign for St. Paul’s Future. I am obviously a liberal idiot.”
February 27th, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Sean, once again, this is from my disclosure page:
“You are able to attack me for my work with the Campaign for St. Paul’s Future, because it was publicly disclosed.”
I’ve also posted articles on MDE about my working for the Campaign for St. Paul’s Future.
It’s been disclosed.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Sean and Ritchie must not have received the memo that they are not supposed to participate in this site or engage MDE in anyway.
Do we have an accurate count of how many DFL bloggers (MN Publius, etc.) have taken MDE’s link down from their sites since being instructed to?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:08 PM
So, you were so ashamed you decided to leave that off the CV?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Sean, it’s on my disclosure page, btw I need to correct the link you inserted in the last comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Sean: Where was your outrage last week when it was disclosed that MN Publius was publishing pro-Franken posts while one of the bloggers was working for Franken?
Folks, as I wrote back in September, liberals have no interest in policing liberal bloggers about their lack of disclosure.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Jon-David didn’t post about the Senate Race while a paid employee of the Franken campaign.
Unlike you and I dunno– the Campaign for St. Paul’s Future.
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 2:28 PM
This whole line of commentary is exasperating.
What is Sean’s obsession with this St. Paul’s future deal, and what is it about the name that doesn’t allow him to read it on the disclosure page.
Sean, it is there. Can you not read that particular line? Or an you not read, period?
And again, why are you obsessed with it?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Because Michael’s ‘disclosure’ page isn’t complete. His time as spokesman for the Campaign For St. Paul’s Future isn’t included on his CV. His positions and the amount of money he recieved are incomplete.
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 2:41 PM
sean, you are an idiot.
Take your head out of Mark Ritchie’s asscheeks for a minute and re-read the record you’ve left in this thread.
Are you ashamed now? If the answer is yes, there may yet be hope; if no re-reference the greeting above
February 27th, 2007 at 2:43 PM
But, now that we have that out of the way– You’ve only been paid a paltry 4000 dollars for your work on the Campaign For St. Paul’s Future, a one time payment from Michelle Bachmann, and a monthly paycheck of about $4500 from Mark Kennedy since July of 05, correct?
You have not recieved any other payments for political work as an opp researcher, or in any other capacity since then?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Sean: But, MN Publius was publishing pro-Franken posts while one of the bloggers was working for Franken. Two bloggers = two disclosure issues. Matt could have disclosed that JD was working for Franken. But he didn’t. MN Publius was publishing pro-Franken posts will one of the bloggers for MN Publius was working for Franken.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Because they plug into the matrix at night and sync up?
And that doesn’t change the fact that you were posting about the St. Paul mayors race while a paid political operative.
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Sean: My disclosure page is accurate.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Sean, you are an ugly idiot.
JD and Matt are both MN Publius until they let us know he was not. And they (being Publius) were posting Franken material.
Please tell me you don’t work in either the political, legal, or communications field as are the worst debater in MN.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Cry a little louder Sean it just shows your bias as you sure do not seem so concerned with Jon-David or Matt doing what they are doing.
Then again who really reads their drivel anyhow?
Jon-David is just so easy to upset and fluster it almost makes you feel sad for the little fella. Matt I hear is just an egomaniac who again fits the classic keyboard warrior stereotype.
Both wish they had half the credibility of MDE.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 PM
With readers like Sean, who needs a proctologist?
Are non-sequiturs the only tool you liberal cowards have at your disposal?
The bottom line is: Ritchie lied about Michael being an employee of the Republican Party. What that has to do with the rest of Sean’s horse shit, I’ll never know.
Pull your head out man.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Dear Meredith,
After calling me an ugly idiot, and saying I “are the the worst debater in MN.”
I think that you calling me the worst debater in MN is up in the air.
Mike– that doesn’t answer whether or not you’ve only been paid by the Campaign For St. Paul’s Future, Michelle Bachmann, Mark Kennedy and breifly for the RPM for political work since July of 2005. It’s not that hard.
I’ll even make it multiple choice for you.
A. Sean, I have been only been paid by Michelle Bachman, the Campaign For St. Paul’s Future, Mark Kennedy, and very briefly by the RPM for political activities including but not limited to opposition research and press consulting since July of 2005.
B. Sean, I have been paid by more than just Michelle Bachman, The Campign for St. Paul’s Future, Mark Kennedy and the RPM for political activities including but not limited to opposition research and press consulting since July of 2005.
So, which is it, A or B?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Sean: Michael did paid work for the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2006.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Sean,
Why don’t you follow the directions of your central committee and act like the little lemming that you are and quit posting on this site. You need to follow your party.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Sean, I think he’s been trying to tell you that his disclosure page is accurate.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:52 PM
“Sean: Michael did paid work for the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2006.”
Really? Because as of right now it’s not listed on his disclosure page.
And BTW Mike– I saw this on your disclosure page:
“I believe there are liberal bloggers with undisclosed professional connections to campaigns. I know there are liberal bloggers who fail to post disclaimers on posts discussing their clients. I strongly believe there are numerous nervous liberal bloggers tonight who are worried about similar posts attacking their lack of disclosure. Don’t worry, you won’t be reading any posts attacking you Minnesota Democrats Exposed.”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2007/02/21/franken-event-draws-large-crowd-in-mankato-mn-publius-blogger-works-for-frankens-campaign
Funny.
Meredith– Go bugger off. I’ll leave when Mike asks me to, or when I chose not to come any more.
But I’d really appreciate if he answered A or B.
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Kyle– accurate doesn’t mean complete, and I thank you for your interest in this matter!
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Kyle– accurate doesn’t mean complete, and I thank you for your interest in this matter!
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Sean, you are like a four year old child who keeps repeating, “I know you are but what am I.”
Each of the things you say are not on that page are listed very plainly and clearly.
Repeating over and over again that the information isn’t there won’t make it disappear, and certainly won’t make it so that it never existed.
Were you dispatched by the people who are demanding MDE’s liberal counterparts quit linking to him? Were you dispatched to pretend to be four years old today?
You make sensible, well reasoned comments every so often Sean. But this display should be embarrassing for you.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Crazy– Check that out.
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=MICHAEL+BRODKORB&Cmte=NRCC&cycle=2006
Wild. Your disclosure page accurate Mike?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 4:15 PM
BTW– I guess that would mean “B” Mike.
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I don’t see you mentioning that 5,500 from the NRCC on your disclosure page, or in any posts from 10-20 to election day. All the while you are posting extensively on the Congressional races around the state.
Is this a good example of your ethics Mike?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Sean: As Steph mentioned, the NRCC is listed on my disclosure page and it has been on my disclosure page for months. Aside from being listed on my disclosure page, I did an interview with MSNBC and disclosed my work for the NRCC in the interview. The article was published on October 31, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15498843/
“Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed. The Senate campaign of Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., has paid Brodkorb nearly $4,600 a month for press consulting since May, he said in a telephone interview. He also received one-time payments of $5,500 each this year from GOP House candidate Michele Bachmann and the National Republican Congressional Committee. He offered press advice to Bachmann and did opposition research for the NRCC.”
February 27th, 2007 at 4:35 PM
From Michael’s disclosure page
I’ve been hired by the following campaigns/political parties for opposition research and press consulting in 2006:
* Michele Bachmann for Congress – August 2006
* NRCC – August 2006
* Mark Kennedy for U.S. Senate – July to November 7, 2006
* Republican Party of Minnesota – October 30 – November 7, 2006
Sean, is there an adult in the room that can help you with this?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Mike– Why didn’t you announce it then? Link to your self-aggrandizing article in your blog (you do that enough now)? Why didn’t you put a disclaimer on your posts?
Did you put the NRCC on your Disclosure page before or after the election?
Sean
February 27th, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Sean,
Who pays you to publish your opinions? I’d like to know because I want to ask for a refund. Honestly, how Michael Brodkorb makes a living is none of your business. I commend Michael for disclosing that information, but I also don’t think it’s prudent on his part knowing that Minnesota bloggers on the left don’t disclose where they get money from.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Sean, what the hell is your problem. You’re dense even by DFL standards.
It would appear that the heaviest element on the Periodic Table is Sean.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Sean, why don’t you go ask Eva for a referral to good psychiatrist. Clearly, these postings indicate that you are not only obsessive compulsive, but bi-polar.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:53 AM
“why don’t you go ask Eva for a referral to good psychiatrist” – Meredith
Wow! How insensitive, Meredith! You blind partisans sure know how to make yourselves and your parties look good! If I were you, I would apologize for that comment immediately. Or at the very least, you could apologize for how your “words were misconstrued.”
Darren