Sometimes you read stuff that leaves you laughing at how ludicrous it is. Kathy Tyler’s latest missive on her campaign blog falls in that category, as she makes up a new word, alongside her historic revisions: De-Elected.
During the 2014 election where I was de-elected, there were many fallacies told about me. The postcards and the radio ads were quite descriptive of a person that I am not. I think it’s time to clarify where I stand on a few things.
The anti-education postcard was one I didn’t even show my husband. I voted against funding a swine research unit at SDSU. I voted against it the first time it came up and then voted for the expenditure the second time it hit the floor. It was probably a mistake on my part, or was it a mistake to change my mind? I haven’t visited the facility nor have seen any research results produced by it, but am sure it is a good addition to SDSU.
They also claimed I was pro-abortion. I don’t think anyone is pro-abortion; everyone is pro-life—some just a little more than others. I believe that life begins at conception. Along with that is the support of common-sense anti-abortion legislation. There are some anti-abortion bills that just aren’t necessary. And I take my pro-life stance farther than the pro-birth, pro-life people. I support prenatal care for all women; that includes immigrants. That bill finally passed this year. I also support Medicaid expansion (it’s pro-life, too.) It’s a win-win for South Dakota. (That’s another article.)
De-elected? Um, yeah. That’s not a word. In any dictionary.
“Lost the election.” “Was defeated at the ballot box.” “Had my silly butt kicked from one side of the district to another.” Those are factual statements. But “de-elected?” Not so much.
But that sort of revisionism goes right along with her revisionism on two major issues that are still going to plague her during the 2016 election, just as they helped cost her the race in 2014. First off, her anti-SDSU vote:
The postcard was 100% accurate, as she did cast a vote against the facility. I’d argue it was absolutely fair game. But in light of her comments why she voted against SDSU, I’d say they went quite easy on her:
“it was a vote of, uh, a retaliation type of thing.” Her own words, in her own voice.
It wouldn’t be so bad, but she’s trying to revise history not just once, but twice, as she tries to deflect her record on abortion in preparation for election 2016:
She calls herself pro-life, and claims that “I believe that life begins at conception.” But her voting record says otherwise, as she voted against pro-life bills on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
It wasn’t just the issue that has managed to capture everyone’s attention when she claimed her priest told her (which he absolutely denied) “Jesus was pro-choice”…
…It was her total record on the issue.
Kathy Tyler lost the 2014 election for State Representative because she says one thing in Pierre – as stated and recorded in her own voice – and tries to tell the people in her District another. Trying to state anything to the contrary is just trying to revise history.
Just as claiming she was “de-elected” is another bit of ridiculous revisionism.
Hopefully, the voters in District 4 aren’t into “the NEW history books,” as written by Kathy Tyler.