Scott Baker is a liar, he knows plently about this group. Kenny Hulshof is a desperate, desperate man to authorize this false add. This is a new low for the whole Hushof team.

Why would Hulshof be desperate? He’s leaving Sarah in the dust.

Nick:

A new low for the Hulshof team? So, let me get this straight, and let’s assume that this group is coordinating with the Hulshof campaign (a far stretch, but let’s just assume): Steelman attacks Hulshof in February. Steelman attacks Hulshof in March. Steelman attacks Hulshof in April. Steelman attacks Hulshof in May. Steelman attacks Hulshof in June, to the point where even some of her friends who happen to serve in Congress tell her ‘Enough is enough.”

This group says, “Steelman is not telling the truth, and let’s point out the groups that have given Hulshof a good grade.” And that, THAT, to you is “a new low” and beyond the pale?

So, your campaign’s mantra would basically be: “Our sticks and stones will break your bones, but don’t you DARE try to hurt me.” It must be nice living in that Obama-type bubble of “I can criticize you, but you can’t defend yourself or criticize me.”

And, to Tony Messenger:

I know this is just a shot in the dark, but if there is no coordination between the group and the campaign (as the campaign and the group have stated), then shouldn’t journalistic ethics require you state something in the headline other than “on behalf of Hulshof”? That headline implies that the group did it at the behest of the campaign. Unless you have new, startling proof, they aren’t doing it on behalf of Hulshof.

Then again, seeing as how I’ve seen your work over the course of a couple of years, it doesn’t shock me.

SMC,

The headline is accurate. While the ad wasn’t coordinated with the Hulshof campaign (according to Baker), it still defends him and was created to benefit his campaign. It’s advocating on Hulshof’s behalf. Had the headline said that it was placed at Hulshof’s “behest” that would be inaccurate. Thanks for reading.

Tony

Here’s the problem, Hulshof defenders. The FACTS of Steelman’s ad are documented and no one has challenged them. Hulshof admits he made the votes, and at least one ad check linked the sites where conservative groups called him “unfriendly to taxpayers”. The votes are real, the ratings are real. What is untrue? Sure, he has complained that he had no choice on the “bridge to nowhere” vote, and his friends in congress, who have earmarks to defend as well, have complained that looking at Hulhof’s (and their) votes on earmarks is “misleading”. But not untrue. Why doesn’t Hulshof just defend his record instead of illegally coordinating an anonymously funded and UNTRUE attack on Steelman.