Another Cheap Shot from the Seifert Camp

Marty Seifert and his campaign continues to bash his opponent for endorsement, Tom Emmer, with their latest hit piece shown above. This is the fourth negative piece in a row since the precinct caucuses that Marty has mailed out to party activists.

The first piece titled, Seifert Continues to Stretch the Truth, which I critiqued on this blog, was misleading, much like this one. It makes me wonder if Marty and his supporters are in desperation mode with such tactics, and, if Marty is willing and able to "walk-the-walk" if he is to be elected governor. Why do I say this? Because Marty has, in my opinion, a history of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Take for example this line from an email I received from Marty, "Any trashing severely on me now will be documented and used should I be the endorsed candidate." Marty and I had much back and forth correspondence after my previous post in which I questioned the accuracy of his literature. He considered my previous post to be trashing him. Yet I get the impression from him and his campaign that it's the acceptable thing to trash Tom Emmer.

Here is what Tom Emmer's campaign chair, Representative Mark Buesgens has to say about Marty's latest hit piece,

A message from Mark Buesgens

March 19, 2010

Fellow Delegates:

To quote Ronald Reagan: “There he goes again.”

Marty Seifert once again found it necessary to mail a negative attack piece into the homes of delegates and alternates to the state convention. By my count, this is the third or fourth piece he’s mailed – if he keeps up this pace, the post office might be able to stay open on Saturdays after all. And this does not include the negative messages he’s passed out at conventions, sent in emails or whispered over the phone.

Unless Marty Seifert figures out that delegates would rather hear about his vision for the future of our state instead of what’s wrong with Tom Emmer, it’s going to be a long 40 days until the convention.

This week’s attack on Tom’s profession as a lawyer and his votes on tort reform are not new but are very ironic. Tom spent his career as an attorney defending businesses and individuals from frivolous lawsuits – he is the last person who would oppose comprehensive tort reform. Tom Emmer’s real world experience in the courtroom as a defense attorney makes him uniquely qualified to advocate for a comprehensive tort reform package, not the piecemeal attempts he has opposed in the past.

Unfortunately, political campaigns run by career politicians always resort to taking votes out of context. A robust discussion of voting records is valuable as long as it realistically informs how a candidate will act once in office.

Seifert’s attack that Tom Emmer voted against some of the piecemeal tort reform efforts in the past is technically accurate, but not informative. When he takes those votes out of context and calls Tom a “trial lawyer,” he does not make a convincing case that Emmer will somehow oppose tort reform efforts as governor. Because he won’t.

Seifert’s attack that Tom Emmer voted against an amendment to strip Northstar rail funding from a bonding bill is technically accurate, but not informative. When Seifert fails to explain he actually supported final passage of the bill while Emmer opposed it, he doesn’t make a convincing case that Emmer will support frivolous rail projects as governor. Because he won’t. In fact, Seifert’s support of numerous bonding bills actually calls into question his ability to say no to pork spending if he is elected governor.

Seifert’s attack that Tom Emmer voted against an amendment to allow Hennepin County residents to hold a referendum on the Twins stadium is technically accurate, but not informative. When Seifert fails to tell you Emmer voted against the Twins stadium, he doesn’t make a convincing case that Tom will support future stadium projects as governor. Because he won’t. In fact, Seifert’s support for bonding money for a football stadium in his hometown of Marshall calls into question his ability to say no to stadium proposals in the future.

And the same standard should be used for Seifert’s cap and trade vote. Marty now says he’s against cap and trade and will veto any efforts to create such a system in the future. I take him at his word. But in order for delegates to understand the context of Seifert’s support of the Next Generation Energy Act (and other pro-environment bills), they need to ask why Marty got caught up in the green energy movement that was sweeping the nation before the economy collapsed. Will Seifert stick to core principles in the future and resist the urge to join the latest big government fad? That is the question.

Our job as delegates is to sift through the voting records of each candidate and examine each communication from the campaigns in the proper context. What is the point of the attack? Is it technically accurate but out of context and not informative? Does it credibly make the case that the candidate will act a certain way in the future?

On April 30th, I trust my fellow delegates to see through the attacks and make the right decision. To help in this effort, we launched EmmerTruth.com to provide accurate context for the negative attacks and misrepresentations of Tom Emmer’s record.

Over the next 40 days, please visit this website or call the campaign if you have any questions about Tom’s voting record. During that time, you will hear Tom talk about his vision for leading this state to economic prosperity and his plan for winning the November general election.

Thank you,
Mark Buesgens
Delegate, SD 35

P.S. For the most part, Marty Seifert’s attacks on Tom Emmer have involved his voting record, but I’m afraid the way the campaign is going he will soon switch to negative personal attacks. Please visit EmmerTruth.com to get the facts on the Republican race for governor.