« NRSC RELEASE NEW WEBSITE AND VIDEO ABOUT FRANKEN | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN ATTACKS REAGAN AS DRAFT DODGER »
ATTACK FROM MN PUBLIUS ON GOP CANDIDATE IN HD 28B SPECIAL ELECTION DEAD WRONG
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 30, 2007
A recent post by Sean Broom on MN Publius made the claim that Steve Drazkowski failed to pay child support:
"Could it be that Drazkowski has a checkered past where he failed to pay child support,…: Source: MN Publius, July 30, 2007
Below is a screen capture of MN Publius' false attack:
The reality is that Steve Drazkowski has never missed making a child support payment. Don't believe me? Click here for an signed affidavit which states that Steve Drazkowski never missed making a child support payment.
I posted a comment on MN Publius asking Sean for a source to back up his statement that Drazkowski "failed to pay child support", but Sean has yet to respond.
MN Publius has a long record of posting inaccurate attacks on Republicans and it seems their newest blogger, Sean Broom, is keeping this tradition alive.
UPDATE: After being asked to provide a source for his statement that "Drazkowski has a checkered past where he failed to pay child support", Sean has changed his inaccurate post.
It no longer reads that "Drazkowski has a checkered past where he failed to pay child support…". MN Publius once published this line:
"MN Publius will always recognize when we were wrong, and this was clearly one of them;" Source: MN Publius, August 24, 2006
It appears those days are over.
This was a disgusting false attack on a family and Sean Broom should be embarrassed.
UPDATE #2: Sean has now noted the error in his post on Steve Drazkowski:
"The terminology indicated above was a change in the third paragraph from 'failed to pay child support' to 'avoided trying to pay child support'. This was my error, and my error alone. I should have caught this mistake and changed it before posting this morning." Source: MN Publius, July 30, 2007
Topics: Uncategorized | 23 Comments »
23 Responses to “ATTACK FROM MN PUBLIUS ON GOP CANDIDATE IN HD 28B SPECIAL ELECTION DEAD WRONG”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
MN Pulius!
They have really become a joke in the blog world.
Broom is almost as big a hack as your friends on MN Matters.
Feckke, Broom, Matt, and other liberal bloggers are proving they will never let a fact stop a good mud slinging story.
It must just be due to the fact the entire liberal philosophy is based outside of reality that these jokers take themselves seriously.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Here’s the rest of it:
Now, why could that be? Could it be that Drazkowski has a checkered past where he avoided trying to pay child support, insulted the party leadership, and even sued Republican party employees? Could be.
It sounds like he’s asking a question. As if creating a suspicion or asking a leading question is something that Republican operatives and communications folks have always avoided. Right….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The blog equivalent of push-polling.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
How do you “avoid trying to pay….”?
That doesn’t make any sense. I guess grammar and simple sentence structure comes in second when rushing to hide your embarrassment.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Lokel Yokel can also tell us the fine talking points of being “kind of” pregnant.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
How much did the GOP pay her to sign that nice little nugget?
July 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
cheaters……
July 30th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Broom is still wrong. It’s bad enough to publish something that is patently false. But then to recapitulate and then reframe his boo boo with another inaccurate characterization is even worse.
The underlying problem is that the theme of the lit piece is wrong. Draz never turned his back on his daughter. Draz never tried to avoid child support. He simply petitioned to reduce his payments in accordance with the law.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Sean Broom’s behavior is an embarassment to the blogosphere. Having Andi Aplikowski on the right is pretty bad….but Sean has taken it to a new low (even for the left) with his latest post and attempted coverup.
Stay vigilant, MDE.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Drew’s right. Drazkowski simply petitioned the court to seek a reduction in child care support payments because of a reduction in his income. I hardly find that to be an attempt to “avoid” his child care support payments.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
What about the rest of the posts points Michael
July 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Libruls lie. Period.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Ghost of MN Publius Says:
“…but Sean has taken it to a new low (even for the left)”
There is no “bottom” with the left. They just keep sinking deeper and deeper into their own muck of lies.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:53 am
Well Drew, you would recognize published lies.
Try reading the document mr family values. He asked for relief not a reduction. In legal terms, that’s asking the court to excuse from its previous order telling you to pay support. That would be avoiding child support.
You hold yourself up to be on a certain moral ground and yet this Drazkowski issue has shown you to be nothing but a political hack.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:01 am
If Drew is a hack, you’re a fully coughed out hairball djz.
LOL!
July 31st, 2007 at 9:19 am
djz:
Just so I have this straight here…
Because he has child support payments (that he never missed) he is not allowed to run for public office?
Does that mean anyone who has ever had child support is not allowed to run for office?
Just trying to grasp your “logic”.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
Liberals don’t really have logic. Their operating rules are basically:
1) If it feels good, do it.
2) Everything is justified if I like the outcome.
It’s an incredibly pointless and selfish existence, liberalism.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am
Sure you can run for office but, you still have to meet your committments.
Did he also ask for relief from his cable bill, car and home insurance, mortgage, energy bill and water bill?
No, he didn’t.
The reason many of us don’t run for office is because we can maintain our financial committments while running for a job that pays a portion of what we currently make. Unless your young and very early in your career, expect a loss of income. That’s the non-partisan truth.
Running for office is a privledge not a right. You have to decide if you can handle it. Drazkowski’s request to suspend his support committments suggested that he could not afford to do so.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:48 am
Actually, djz, running for office is a right, not a privilege. In fact, I think it’s one of those rights that’s actually written in the Constitution… not that liberals know what’s in that document.
It’s a driver’s license that’s a privilege not a right.
That said, you’re right, one does need to keep his commitments. And by every measure, this candidate DID keep those commitments.
Maybe not the best move to ask for temporary relief while he ran for public office, but it’s far from neglecting his responsibilities.
And it’s a little beyond the pale to listen to liberals carp about anything related to children. If you had your way, they’d all end up in the dumpster behind the Planned Parenthood factory.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:22 am
1) If it feels good, do it.
2) Everything is justified if I like the outcome.
Chestnut, you nailed the Bush administration exactly!
July 31st, 2007 at 10:43 am
Chestnut, I’ve got three young kids and one wife, I like them all right here with their mom and dad, not in some dumpster. That’s the way I’d like to see things but, I can only control my life and my decisions.
What about you? What number wife are you on? How many of your kids are being raised by ’step-fathers’? That seems to be the conservative way. Hypocrites to the end (which is coming around again next Tuesday).
While running for office is a Constitutional Right, it does not absolve you from your commitments like say, military service would.
The point was/is, he put running for office over his court ordered commitments (probably because other bills can be paid late without much of a public penalty).
If he was politically astute, smart- if you will, he would have taken out a small, short term loan for the child support payments during the months he was running. There are a couple of Republicans and Democrats in the legislature who have done just that. But, since he’s been a dick to YOUR party, its chair and its staff, sound advice is probably not coming from their end to him- if any.
This is the best you Republicans got to offer?
July 31st, 2007 at 11:26 am
To your question, I have an amazing six-month-old being raised by my wife and myself. The idea that conservatives are prone to have their kids raised by “step-fathers” is a howler.
Most liberal kids don’t know who their real father is, and your kid is apparently luck that his parents got married in the first place… most liberals don’t.
Most liberals believe if a woman is stupid enough to get pregnant, just send the sperm catcher to the factory to have that sucked out.
Still, the truth is, this candidate DID fulfill his obligations, and IS a good father.
Though, I agree, he should have taken out a loan as you suggest, versus what he did.
The other fact is that this DFL mailing is a disgrace.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I don’t know what is better seeing a Democrat actually take Sviggum’s seat or having Draz win and become the new Mark Olsona pinata of the House. It’s a win, win!