John Nichols: If Kelda’s campaign were a vehicle after an accident, it would be considered “totaled” (AUDIO)

During an appearance on WTDY’s “Sly In The Morning” on July 26, John Nichols and Sly discussed the negativity of Kelda Roys’ Congressional campaign, with Nichols comparing Roys’ campaign to a car that’s been totaled following a car accident.

Listen for yourself (The Roys segment starts around 18:45).

On a related note, Democratic State Rep. Fred Clark, who had been the only incumbent Democratic elected official in the second Congressional district to endorse Kelda Roys, rescinded his endorsement of Roys following her airing of a nasty (and untrue) attack ad against Mark Pocan, with Clark calling the ad, “inappropriate.”


Related Articles

25 thoughts on “John Nichols: If Kelda’s campaign were a vehicle after an accident, it would be considered “totaled” (AUDIO)

  1. Untrue? It’s cited dude. I mean, you can argue about whether or not it’s negative (it is) whether or not it’s inflammatory. But it’s true.

    Pocan voted with the Republican majority on those proposals, as did many Dems. However, 10 or so Dems voted no, because they believe it was an unaccountable boondoggle. Pocan did not.

    That’s factual.

    Furthermore, her new Ad on Payday lending is entirely true.

    Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true. I don’t like Genocide, or war, doesn’t mean there isn’t genocide or war.

    1. I’m wondering if you’re aware that the tax credit Kelda Roys is attacking Pocan for voting in favor of was actually a Democratic proposal from the previous session when Democrats controlled the Legislature. I’m also wondering if you were aware that Kelda voted for the very same proposal when it came from Democrats.

  2. Yup, Zach, well aware.

    Doesn’t make her ad false.

    Are you aware that one of those bills, AB 4 (I believe) dumped 25 Million into the fund, which still had millions in it. That 25 million could have gone to anything else, but instead it went to a fund that was not being utilized.

    So, instead of being patronizing, will you admit that you are in fact wrong when calling it untrue. It’s factually accurate.

    You’re entitled to your opinions. You can dislike Kelda Roys, you can dislike her campaign. That’s not my business. You are entitled to those opinions.

    You, however, are not entitled to your own facts.

    Did Mark Pocan vote for Special Session AB 3 and Special Session AB 4, which were bills proposed by Governor Scott Walker? Yes or No.

    The Answer is yes.

    Did that proposal dumb money into an unaccountable slush fund, it did. Does it matter that Mark Pocan created that unaccountable slush fund in the State Budget? No. It doesn’t change the facts.

    1. So you’re saying all that matters is Mark Pocan’s vote this session, not the fact that Kelda Roys voted for the very same thing during the last session.


      1. No, I’m saying your characterization of that ad as untrue is in fact wrong. I was trying to correct you. As you seem to be fond of creating your own facts in this debate.

        I’m sure you have some hard feelings for Kelda, or this Rick fellow you so seem to rip on. But that doesn’t entitle you to create your own facts.

        But you want to keep changing the subject, so you’re not interested in having an intellectual debate.

        That’s your choice.


  3. On a different note, why don’t you ask Mark Pocan why he voted against a hard cap on Payday loans? A proposal he had authored in the past?

    And don’t let him get off saying it was a procedural vote. Dems and Republicans voted in favor of the Hard Cap, including the Majority leader of the State Assembly.

    1. I’ll ask Pocan when you ask Kelda why she chose to attend a fundraiser at a NYC company that helps American companies find overseas manufacturers for their products. I’d think a good progressive like Kelda would want to work to keep jobs in America, not help foreign companies create jobs.

      1. Pivot, pivot, pivot.

        Why’d Pocan take money from Koch lobbyists.

        Pivot, Pivot, Pivot.


        1. Why’d Kelda take money from a PAC affiliated with ALEC?

          The point I’m trying to make here is that for every attack Kelda makes on Mark (voting record, who he took money from) she’s got just as many skeletons in her closet. You seem to want to ignore that fact.

          Pocan’s voting record is there for everyone to see, so that part of Kelda’s ad is beyond disputing, but context is important. Kelda’s attacking Pocan for casting a vote that she herself cast the previous legislative session, and the fact that you’re defending that kind of hypocrisy says something.

      2. I get you’re in the bag for Pocan, but if you want to just ignore having an actual intelectual debate with me. Why don’t you just refrain from responding?

        Your pivoting is tiresome and weak.

        1. You seem to be having a hard time understanding the point I’m trying to make, but hopefully my comment at 3:13 p.m. clears things up.

          On an unrelated note, the fact that Kelda’s campaign has decided to take the race to a new level with its negativity tells me a lot about the lengths Kelda is willing to go to in order to further her own political career, and it’s disappointing.

          1. A new level of negativity?

            Voting against Payday lending reform?

            Listen, Zach, records matter, context matters. You seem to have a hard time understanding my point. Regardless of the previous sessions vote on a similar issue, which by the way she explained, you just don’t care to listen, her vote is her vote. So it’s not an untrue ad. You continue to say things like “Flat out false” and “Untrue” and “Lies” it’s none of the above champ.

            That was my first point, which you seem to have finally acknowledged. Will you take down your references to lies and untruths. Because, quite frankly, they are untrue and hypocritical.

          2. As for her going Negative. Quite frankly, the whisper campaigns from the Pocan camp from the beginning of this thing have been disturbing.

            It’s a pattern that begs question his capacity of being a straight shooter. At Least Kelda levies her attacks in the open and herself, not through whispers, innuendo and personal attack gossip.

  4. On the positive side, both candidates are showing that they are not afraid to fight and that they won’t back down. That is EXACTLY what I am looking for in a progressive candidate. The last thing we need is another milktoast Dem who crumbles like a Starbucks scone as soon as some big-mouthed righty yells “Boo”. I’m just bummed that I have to choose between two individuals whom I know care deeply about Wisconsin’s citizens and will work tirelessly on their behalf.

    As for the discussion between This DJ and Zach, This DJ comes out on top in my scorecard. And while I get Zach’s points in this case, making them still doesn’t get to the original issue regarding actual documented votes. Zach’s arguments would be stronger if the original question were answered factually (e.g. yes/no only). Once each side stipulates that they understand the facts, then interpretation and context can be discussed productively. On the contrary, if one side of a discussion argues facts and the other side argues truths, nothing really gets done. First nail the facts, then deal with the truths.

  5. DJ and Zach, oh pleeeease stop fighting. they are both great democrats , and we have much bigger evil monsters to focus on.

    1. I’m not fighting, I’m just debating. I find that calling people liars for using facts to be unsavory, and incredibly counter productive.

      Democrats sometimes have to run contrast advertisements against their opponents. If those are based in fact, which these have been, they should not be out of bounds.

  6. Let’s get off this pseudo-intellectual playground and cut to the reality. Kelda sounds like a whiny little schoolgirl and she’s going to get clobbered in a few weeks. Nothing This DJj says will change that. Sorry! In the process, she’s torching bridges left and right with people for whom her positive relations are the only thing that’ll land her a gig when she gets dumped off the government payroll in January.

    Kelda would be wise to tread the path of another guy who’s getting dumped from the Legislature and has zero chance of winning his race: Jeff Fitzgerald. Notice how Fitz never says much of anything bad about anyone? That’s because he gets it. He’s not winning, and there’s zero long-term value in terms of his political career by going negative on others. You also don’t see him complaining about the fact that Robin Vos is basically pushing him out as Speaker. And for being a halfway-intelligent team player, Fitz will find a gig in government relations. Because he understands that the key to doing government relations is not having bad relations with the people who are governing.

    Instead, Kelda’s your Mark Neumann ca. 2010. She’s a candidate with zero chance of winning who seems to think she’ll gain street cred by going apeshit on a guy who’s probably been your party’s MVP for the last decade. Pocan’s probably not going anywhere after Congress, so Kelda’s got no near-term hopes there. So maybe she’ll give me my dream scenario: she can run as Lite Guv on a ticket with Tom Nelson in 2014, and I can make jokes about how the two most annoying and disliked people in the legislature on your side of the aisle in the last decade have teamed up to become your worst gubernatorial ticket ever.

  7. Blogging Blue’s coverage of this race has been so antagonistic toward Kelda Roys that I can barely take it seriously. I am a still-persuadable voter, only recently leaning toward Kelda. There are a couple of things that I dont get about this race and I’d be glad to get a thoughtful response to either of these items:

    1. I wasn’t all that impressed by Roys’ nitpicking over tax provisions, but I was very disturbed to hear about Pocan’s relationship with the payday lending industry and that it resulted in an actual policy change. I was very disappointed to see that much-needed legislation fall through and not impressed with the Dem leadership for sidelining it and, generally, for accomplishing so little when we had the majority. Does Pocan have a defense? Is there another side to this story?

    2. While the Roys campaign looks bad for the negativity of its ads, the Pocan campaign looks even worse for airing its own negative ad after pontificating about “clean campaigns”. The way I see it, once you’ve promised a positive campaign, you don’t get to run a negative ad without taking some serious criticism. Pocan hasn’t even acknowledged that his ad is negative! It’s posted on YouTube with the caption, ” Mark is running a positive campaign…” I am also struck that Roys’ ads–while exaggerated and sensational–are factually accurate and rigorously cited, and the Pocan ad is really personal and gets its most damning quotation from a blog, of all sources. Why isn’t he getting any flak for reneging on his clean campaign pledge? Is Mark Pocan so unassailable?

    On a less-related note, I think it’s really silly that there isn’t going to be a public, televised debate. This person is going to represent us for decades, in all likelihood! Maybe if the candidates had the chance to discuss their differences, in person, in a neutral forum, they wouldn’t have to point them out through acrimonious television ads.  This seems like a big failure of local news media.

    1. The great thing about a blog is that we don’t have to be unbiased.

      As to your two points, Reps. Chris Sinicki and Gary Hebl, who co-authored the 2009 payday loan reform bill, have shared their thoughts on Rep. Roys’ attacks on Pocan. As to Pocan’s relationship with the payday loan industry, I’m assuming you’re referring to campaign contributions he received, and I’d just note that Kelda Roys isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue when it comes to who she’s taken money from. I think it’s hypocritical for Roys to attack Pocan when she’s taking money from a PAC that has a connection to ALEC and while she’s raising money at a New York City company that helps other companies find foreign manufacturers for their products – instead of helping them find American manufacturers.

      One other thing….you write that Blogging Blue’s coverage has been antagonistic, and I’d argue that getting a phone call after 10:00 p.m. from Roys’ campaign manager haranguing (and practically screaming at) me about my biased coverage of the race constitutes antagonistic.

      1. Except for, Zach, Rep. Hebl and Rep. Sinicki are wrong. They may have ‘misremembered’ the facts, but I reiterate. You are entitled to your opinion. Heck, you can call Roy’s campaign manager a fucking nazi. I don’t care. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

        The votes are cited. The email he sent appears pretty damning.

  8. I don’t have time to fact check your stuff about CUNA (though I have a hard time believing a credit union is in line with ALEC). Frankly, I’m less concerned with who each candidate accepted money from than with what they have done and plan to do as legislators. Though I know Pocan did a lot of good in the legislature, I have a big problem with the very well documented revelation that Pocan went from supporting lending reform to tabling it after taking money from the industry involved. As to Hebl’s assertion that the assertion that he took contributions is “just not true”, I’d really like to see the alternate version of the documents he looked at… We aren’t talking about 2012 here.

    And as to Sinicki’s remark that “if Representative Roys can’t explain her record or talk about issues that she supports, then she shouldn’t be running,” I would refer her to Rep. Roys and Pocan’s respective websites. Roys’ details specific, bullet-pointed policies she would support on a wide variety of issues. Pocan has, well, nothing to compare it to. He appears to be running on the basis that he has been in the legislature for a long time and owns a business, or more quietly– that Tammy needs to be replaced by someone gay. (Roys is guilty of running on the we-need-more-women platform, though I will say I’ve seen A LOT more sexist treatment of her than homophobic treatment of Pocan).

    I realize I’m consigning myself to the category of Kelda supporter (and my points will fall on deaf, already-decided ears), but while I’m at it I might as well add that I think you were begging for the call.

    1. Heh….I don’t “beg” for calls after 10:00 p.m. from irate campaign managers that I’ve never spoken to before who want to harangue me about how unfair and mean I’m being to their campaign.

      As for Kelda’s contribution from CULAC, it’s there on here campaign finance documents – she took $2,500 from that group in December 2011.

      Then there’s this quote from CUNA’s own website:

      “ALEC created a new financial services subcommittee and CUNA attended the first meeting,” Pat Sowick, CUNA vice president of league relations, told News Now. “It’s important to have a credit union presence in these forums where financial services issues are discussed. A highlight this year at ALEC was the attendance by more than 600 state legislators–many of whom were freshman members.”

      And since you want me to do all the work for you, here’s a link to a CUNA press release from 2003 stating that “CUNA sits on ALEC’s Commerce and Economic Development Task Force.”

      You’re welcome.

  9. I don’t care to participate in this discussion anymore, but I will note that you responded to exactly zero of my points, save my acknowledgement that I don’t care about evil corporation CUNA (hard to show sarcasm online).

    Your method of debate seems to to ignore any actual points made my your opponent entirely and retort with your one attack, which is so inconsequential it’s never even been mentioned to smear Kelda in an actual publication, which is saying something given the Cap Times’ editorial board. Or, as in the case above regarding payday lending, regurgitate un-fact checked press releases by self-serving politicians eager to get in the good graces of the presumptive nominee. Whoops. I meant to have a civilized discussion with another progressive, but you made it impossible.

    Good night.

  10. Kelda’s getting walloped because she’s running a bad campaign. If her campaign manager thinks you’re the problem, it shows how badly they misunderstand their own issues.

Comments are closed.