Tonight on 13WMAZ evening news, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Randall Savage put Mark Taylor's "Always" attack ad to the Truth Test and gave it a failing grade. Beginning with Taylor's claim of providing Pre-K for every Georgia child, Savage points out that more than 200 Bibb County children who applied for the program were turned away because of the lack of slots. Bear in mind that this only reflects those children who applied. Many families do not apply, so the actual number of unserved four year olds is much higher. This is a common scenario across the state of Georgia.
Savage also makes it clear that while Mark Taylor has supported education, he is not "the only one" who has done so. In fact, Savage took particular exception to Taylor claim of sponsorship of HOPE saying that this was Zell Miller's program from the start and that while Taylor was one of the two senators who sponsored the bill, he was actually Miller's "gopher."
Regarding the attack on Cox, Savage says that these claims are "questionable at best" pointing out that Cox was not in the legislature when the vote on the lottery was taken and citing the statements from Toole refuting Taylor's claims. Toole, Savage said, had written the Taylor Campaign asking that the ad be pulled, but the Campaign has not done so. I will post this video soon. Stay tuned.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Taylor Ad Fails Pulitzer Prize Winning Reporter's "Truth Test"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
That's interesting. FactCheck.org has also called into question the Big Guy's false assertions.
It's clear that Mark Taylor is desperate and will continue his hateful, dishonest, and downright deceitful dirty campaigning. Georgia deserves no less than the truth. I look forward to seeing the video.
By the way, could you email me? justin@justintlewis.com
Unless he was in the voting booth with Cathy,like Taylor apparently was, I fail to see the point. Here's what really upsets me about this. Taylor's ad omits, and I would guess intentionally, the fact that the vote he refers to is the vote at the polls. He wants people to think that she opposed this as a legislator. No one but Cathy knows how she voted at the polls, and to suggest that the absence of reference to the issue in campaign literature- well, you don't know much about campaigns if you think that she would've underscored her support of the lottery in her lit in a district where it was not popular. She did serve two terms and voted repeatedly to protect and fund HOPE. She was re-elected after doing that, so you point is....?
Post a Comment