It ain’t Finding Nemo. It’s not The Incredibles. It’s kind of Monster Inc., but more like Politics Inc. It should be called “Campaign Story.” And it’s been making the rounds on Facebook.
“It” is a new acerbic computer-generated political ad, a la Pixar Studios, created by a supporter of Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, who is running in a primary against House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, R-Monument.
The pair have been going at each others’ throats over the past few months, basically calling one another lying posers. The Looper campaign says the creator of the video isn’t associated with their campaign, but the piece repeats a number of allegations against Stephens, all of which Stephens’ campaign says are lies and political spin.
In the four-minute video, a woman lectures a suited man behind a desk who says he’s supporting Stephens because she’s a conservative. The woman tells the man that Stephens has sponsored a health care bill that implements Obamacare and helps fund abortions, that she has carried a gun bill this year only because it was politically convenient, and that she has helped destroy the economy.
“I hate to burst your bubble,” the woman tells the man, before listing off several accusations against Stephens. “You must not have vetted her.”
The man, who defends Stephens at first and says he’s supporting her “because she’s a conservative,” is eventually persuaded by the woman, who also paints Stephens as an establishment puppet for “big oil.”
“Amy has betrayed us,” says the man at the end of the video.
The woman and man in the video speak awkwardly, and it’s obvious that the computer was fed a script and pronounces words on its own. “Yeah” is pronounced “Yay,” at one point.
The woman who put the video together, Jen Raiffie, is a volunteer at Looper’s campaign, and is also a paid consultant of Looper’s campaign. But Raiffie said she was not paid to make the video.
In a text message Tuesday morning, Stephens called the video “insulting to voters” because it is “full of things that are not true.”
The health care bill the woman refers to, Senate Bill 200 (a.k.a. Amycare), has been defended by members of the business community and Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs. The measure creates a state health care exchange. Several Republicans, including Gardner, have said that the accusation that the measure helps fund abortions is untrue, and that it only creates a new marketplace for health insurance plans.
And though Stephens has not been the prime sponsor on any other 2nd Amendment rights bills aside from one this year, she has been a co-sponsor on a number of others, such as the Make My Day Better bill this year and another to repeal a ban on conceal-carry permits on college campuses.
The video also refers to Looper’s endorsements, which include former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo and former state Sen. Dave Schultheis. Stephens, however, has been endorsed by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, along with several local public officials, including El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton.
The video makes several allegations about Stephens’ campaign contributions. View the record at the state’s office here, and view Looper’s campaign contributions here.
Look up Stephens’ and Looper’s legislative records on the General Assembly’s Web site.
Terrible shame how this campaign has gone. And, it’s hard to separate reality from hyperbole.
It is less difficult to identify truth.
Folks ought not characterize SB200 as ‘hastening’ or ‘inviting’ or any other ‘ing’ Obamacare. SB200 is a hedge against Obamacare and protects Colorado from Federal mandates that would otherwise be on our shores in two years time. To suggest it’s anything else is to misunderstand–or worse, misrepresent–what SB200 is.
It is a free-market solution, a basic Conservative principle. It is decidedly pro-business, and will inevitably, as a result, keep pricing for health insurance at market-defined levels. It allows businesses to purchase coverage on an exchange, expands risk pools (which allows individuals to purchase single-coverage at affordable rates), and does so without government intervention. Conservative principles all.
If people object to those things, so be it. But, folks ought not simply make stuff up to advance their political objectives.
David – I agree. I have read SB 200 and it is not how it is described. I encourage all to read the bill online – just type in Colorado SB200 an read. Here is a letter to the editor (rather long) that clearly shows what the bill is about:
Saul Alinsky is Alive and Well in the Republican Party!
By John McAdams, Contributing writer
It was July 2008 in Colorado Springs when Barack Obama stated,
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We must have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just a strong, just as well funded?”
This statement along with his intimidating tactic of calling out the Supreme Court is simply one of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals. Get that book and read it. All the steps that Obama has taken recently (and in his past); clearly reflect the actions suggested in the book. Unfortunately, our own GOP members are using it also. They are doing EXACTLY what Alinsky suggested they do simply to win political office even it includes lying to citizens.
I am heartbroken to see the negativity, half truths, innuendo, and personal attacks that the GOP is doing to one another. You should be also. We complain about the politicians WE ELECT, but WE are the PROBLEM.
Really open your eyes and look at the advertising being done now – you have or will be getting mailers, postcards, phone calls, etc from all who are currently running for office and I want you to notice the Alinsky attacks they use. Consider if you want these type people in office representing YOU in political office. IF they will do that to an opponent, what will they do to YOU when they are in power? Here are two tactics used: Did YOU fall for them?
1. Ridicule – Ridicule is the man’s most potent weapon and is almost impossible to counteract it. It infuriates the opposition which then reacts to your advantage.
Consider the current battle between Marsha Looper and Amy Stevens. Instead of Looper telling us why we should elect her, she ridicules Stevens for trying to get ahead of the Obama mandate. Ridicule to the extreme, comparing Stevens to Obama!
Stevens knew that if she didn’t set up a health care plan in the state, Obama would come in and set one up for us! Of the two, I would prefer the health plan set up by Stevens over that of Obama.
But YOU didn’t bother to read SB200 to find that out did you? Here in a nutshell is what it says along with my commentary:
ASSEMBLY DETERMINES AND DECLARES THAT WITH THE MARCH 23, 2010,
ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL “PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT”, PUB.L. 111-148, AND THE MARCH 30, 2010, ENACTMENT OF
THE “HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010″,
PUB.L. 111-152, WHICH ALLOW EACH STATE TO ESTABLISH A HEALTH
BENEFIT EXCHANGE THROUGH STATE LAW OR OPT TO PARTICIPATE IN A
NATIONAL HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE OPERATED BY THE FEDERAL
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, (with the federal plan you can think Obama Death panels if you are over 50 years of age and/or have some type health problem including just being older!)
AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARENUMEROUS FEDERAL LAWSUITS CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OFTHE FEDERAL ACT IN MULTIPLE FEDERAL COURTS, THE BEST OPTION FOR THESTATE OF COLORADO IS TO ESTABLISH A HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE AT THESTATE LEVEL. (OK now ask yourself – do you want Obama and his HHS Secretary setting up YOUR health care or Amy Stevens at the local level who has shown she is a committed conservative and really cares about you?)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FURTHER FINDS THAT THE FEDERAL
ACT REQUIRES EACH STATE TO ESTABLISH A HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE TO
PERFORM CERTAIN DUTIES AND TO ASSUME CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES SET
FORTH IN THE FEDERAL ACT OR MAKE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS IN THE
CREATION OF A HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE BY JANUARY 1, 2013, OR
DEFAULT TO A FEDERALLY RUN NATIONAL HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE.
(Consider that if Stevens didn’t act and given how long our state legislature takes to get bills through, that 2013 date would be on us in a short 8 months! I don’t trust the federal government one iota and I don’t want them setting up a health benefit exchange for me.)
THEREFORE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY INTENDS TO CREATE A HEALTH
BENEFIT EXCHANGE TO FIT THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF COLORADO, SEEK
COLORADO-SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS, AND EXPLORE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE STATE OF COLORADO. (You bet we are unique here in Colorado Springs – and we don’t need the government giving us ONE option when Stephens wants to provide a maximum number of options to choose from – Yes? No?)
THE COLORADO HEALTHBENEFIT EXCHANGE, INCLUDING AN AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE, IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE THE ACCESS TO AND ENROLLMENT IN HEALTH PLANS IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET IN THIS STATE AND INCLUDE A SMALL
BUSINESS HEALTH OPTIONS PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL EMPLOYERS IN THIS
STATE IN FACILITATING THE ENROLLMENT OF THEIR EMPLOYEES IN HEALTH
PLANS OFFERED IN THE SMALL EMPLOYER MARKET. (What is wrong with this? IF you are a small business owner or employee, don’t you want access and choice? )
THE INTENT OF THE COLORADO HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE IS TO INCREASE ACCESS,
AFFORDABILITY, AND CHOICE FOR INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL BUSINESSES….
A second Rules for Radicals is this one which clearly represents what is going on with the Looper/Stevens battle: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
Looper’s campaign will lead us down the primrose path if you don’t take time to actually READ the SB200 plan – here is the link: http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7233327000DC9A078725780100604CC4?Open&file=200_enr.pdf
Did YOU fall hook, line and sinker for rule # 1 – ridicule? If so, think and read before you vote on June 4! But the Metro Chamber of Commerce did think and their thoughts are reflected here: The reason that SB200 passed was because it didn’t try to be too far-reaching or do too much, too soon. It simply sets up a board of directors for the exchange, and creates a legislative review committee that will convene by the first of August in order to start “guiding implementation of an exchange in Colorado, making recommendations to the General Assembly, and ensuring that the interests of Coloradans are protected and furthered.” SB200 does not mandate any specific aspects of how the exchange will work – it leaves that to the board and committee and the legislative body to figure out over the next two years.
David:
When has more government intervention created a free market?
A truly “pro-market” and “pro-business” health insurance exchange would not be run by the state. Private, non-government insurance exchanges already exist, as is described here:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2011/04/private-insurance-exchanges-already-exist/
Insurance Exchange weakens repeal efforts and is strangled by federal controls.
How is Co going to pay for this once Federal subsidies are removed?…oh, and they will be removed 2014-2016. We can’t afford it!
wondershare data recovery…
[...]Computer-generated campaign ad against Amy Stephens posted on Facebook – Second Reading : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…