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.
and..
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.
and..
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.
So she believes that life begins at conception. How can she not then believe that it is murder to take the life of a living human being as in abortion? Methinks she speaks with forked tongue! If she supports common sense abortion laws, then does she support the common sense Texas law that the SCOTUS just overturned? This law was a common sense abortion law protecting women, but not according to the pro-aborts who want it done by anyone, anywhere, and anytime right up until the moment before birth. A relative of mine had triplets born at 24 weeks; one died, but two survived, one has gone home and the other will shortly. These babies are living, breathing human beings and were at the time of their birth; sadly many babies even farther along in gestation are killed daily and it seems just fine with the pro-aborts, calling them just fetuses or blobs. A sad commentary on our times.
I think she is De-Ranged. Perhaps she meant to say that many fallacies were told “by” her, not “about” her. She seems like a Elizabeth Warrenesque type, and I mean that in the most unflattering way.
Go away, Kathy, you bother me.
Only the most extreme pro-abortion legislators ever testify against pro-life bills in committee. Kathy Tyler finds herself among some pretty esteemed company in that category: Angie Buhl, Karen Soli, etc. She wants to be perceived as being pro-life in her district to win elections, and as I can attest, she will say anything in person or over the phone to get your support. Now we know what she actually does once in Pierre, and it is not pretty. She tries to kill pro-life bills through testimony and back-handed maneuvers to avoid a publicly recorded vote wherever possible. What should also concern her constituents is that she uses these same tactics on pro-life bills as with other bills dealing with ag and other issues. This is how she operates. It really boils down to whether one can trust Kathy Tyler to do what she says she will do because time and again she has proved otherwise and put her own interests and agenda ahead of everyone else.
Reading about Ms. Tyler one thing is very clear…we should all help her opponent…Rep Wiik
http://www.johnwiik.com/index.html