(Chuck Muth) – Late yesterday afternoon, political pundit Jon Ralston reported that the Tarkanian for U.S. Senate campaign sent an email out yesterday asking for money. Nothing unusual about that. However….

The email consisted of a piece written by Human Events columnist John Gizzi under a Human Events banner but which didn’t attribute the actual text/column to Gizzi. (By the way, we know John Gizzi personally. He’s one of Washington’s best political reporters/columnists who married WAY above his social standing. Just kidding, John.)

Two problems here.

Because the email solicitation failed to identify the actual author of the column – which extols the virtues of Tarkanian while skewering fellow Republican primary opponent Sue Lowden – many receiving the hit piece thought Danny himself authored it. Indeed, shortly after Ralston posted the hit piece on his blog, the Tarkanian campaign found it necessary to issue an all-points-bulletin for clarification.

“In the email in question,” wrote Campaign Director James Fisfis, “the text is clearly posted under the Human Events banner and was written by conservative columnist and reporter John Gizzi of Human Events, describing how he believes that conservative momentum has shifted to Danny Tarkanian.”

Problem is, as we’ve already pointed out, even though the email appeared under a Human Events’ advertising banner, Gizzi’s name was never mentioned. So the Tarkanian campaign either (a) intentionally misled voters into thinking Danny had written something a professional journalist in the nation’s capital had actually written, or (b) screwed up royally by unintentionally misleading voters into thinking Danny had written something a professional journalist in the nation’s capital had actually written.

Either way, not good.

Worse, the criticisms of Sue Lowden in Mr. Gizzi’s original column which the Tarkanian camp was distributing yesterday were answered and refuted in a follow-up Gizzi column which was republished in Nevada News & Views on December 6th.

Funny how the Tarkanian campaign failed to include that fact and information, isn’t it?

For example, in the email the Tarkanian campaign sent out, here’s what Mr. Gizzi wrote way back in October:

“Lowden was one of 11 Nevada delegates to the Republican National Convention in 1996. With fellow delegate and then State Assembly Co-Speaker Lynn Hettrick, then-State Sen. Lowden said that ‘the national party ought to follow Nevada’s lead and take abortion out of the platform.’ Nevada Republicans, after a heated debate at the state convention in Reno earlier that month, had struck the abortion plank from the state platform.”

Notice, by the way, how we gave proper credit to the original author of this quote, Mr. Gizzi?

Also note that Team Tark sent this quote out yesterday, December 12th, even though Mrs. Lowden’s response and refutation was published in a follow-up column by Mr. Gizzi himself over a week ago, to wit:

“On the abortion issue, Lowden took sharp issue with a story in the Las Vegas Sun during the 1996 Republican National Convention in which she is quoted as saying, along with fellow delegate and State Assembly Co-Speaker Lynn Hettrick, that ‘the national party ought to follow Nevada’s lead and take abortion out of the platform.’ (Las Vegas Sun, May 18, 1996.) The quote has been widely distributed lately and has been used by her political foes to suggest that Lowden’s pro-life credentials are something less than solid.

“’And it’s completely untrue!’ Lowden told me without hesitation, noting that the Sun’is a very liberal publication that is out to destroy conservative Republicans who can win.’ She added that while Hettrick may have taken that position on the platform and expressed those views to the Sun, ‘that certainly isn’t my view.’ (At the ’96 convention, there was a move on the Platform Committee to change the strong pro-life language in the party platform but it was quashed by abortion foes on the committee who became known as the ‘Faithful Thirteen;’ Lowden served on the Rules Committee and not the Platform Committee that year.)

So the Tarkanian campaign really pulled a boner on this one yesterday. Their fundraising appeal was disingenuous at best; a cheap shot at worst. Which is exactly what I said to campaign chief Jamie Fisfis in an email last night:

“You should have clearly identified the author of the column which you clearly did not. Nor did you mention Mrs. Lowden’s response to the original accusations which Mr. Gizzi included in a follow-up column last week. Cheap shot….which won’t go unremarked. This was not a wise attack on your part.”

To which Mr. Fisfis blubbered in response:

“Spare me the outrage, Chuck. We’ve been sending this article out for weeks. Its not my job to push your candidate’s version of events. Besides, I’ve spent all last week beating back your candidate’s cheap shots at Danny with both HE and the Washington Times. Don’t lecture me either on what is or isn’t a smart attack. You are not neutral in this. Jamie”

Jamie, Jamie, Jamie. Political Communications 101: “Don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel, paper by the ton and bandwidth by the gigabyte.” Is this amateur hour, or what?

First, just because the Tarkanian campaign has been disingenuously sending this misleading campaign piece around the Internet “for weeks,” doesn’t make it right.

Secondly, it’s “It’s not my job,” not “Its not my job.” And it is the campaign’s press secretary/communications director/wordsmith’s job to know that.

Third – as we all know and I’m sure Jerry and Lois taught Danny – two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t know what “cheap shots at Danny” the Lowden campaign may or may not have taken last week, but they’re no excuse for Danny’s campaign to mislead voters and donors.

Fourth, as for being or not being neutral, I’ve never made it any secret that I’ve always thought Sue Lowden would be the strongest candidate against Harry Reid – and considering the ham-handed way Danny’s campaign has handled this matter thus far, I continue to believe it.

But that doesn’t mean I haven’t been fair to Danny during this campaign. Indeed, I’ve gone way out of my way to publish, right here on the pages of Nevada News & Views, columns and quotes by, and positive articles about, Danny. You can catch some of them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

For the record, let it be known that I do not work for the Lowden campaign. I’m not being paid by the Lowden campaign. And I have not endorsed Sue Lowden in this campaign. I’m taking Team Tark to the woodshed on this one, not because I’m supporting Sue Lowden or am on her payroll (which I’m not), but because his campaign people screwed up royally and deserve to be called on it.

Also note that I haven’t criticized Danny directly over this brouhaha because it’s quite possible that Danny’s campaign staff screwed up without Danny having any knowledge of it.

Until now.