Not a Pro at Prose

Before I leave Mr. Tiahrt’s Op-Ed piece from the Washington Times to die the horrible death that happens to seldom viewed internet pages, I must conclude my discussion of the piece by writing about the parts of it that are so obvious they often are overlooked. While you might be expecting me to now offer more places of hypocrisy or irony, I am going to keep this post to sheer idiocy.


And by idiocy, I mean the prose with which Mr. Tiahrt expresses his off-the-mark opinions.


Now don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware that Kansans didn’t elect Mr. Tiahrt for his beautifully articulate writing, but the format and scope of his Op-Ed is incredibly incoherent. While he starts by criticizing Senator McCain for advising and supporting like-minded political candidates, he magically and mysteriously uses a string of buzz words like “spins out of control,” “bailout, “tea party,” and “fair tax” to bring his argument around to a place where he nonsensically criticizes McCain for running the ‘wrong’ type of Presidential campaign.


While there is hardly any internal logic to the structure of his piece, the format makes it painfully difficult to read.


As a blogger, I’m accustomed to reading and writing one sentence paragraphs. Stylistically they work great to emphasize certain points and break up the monotony of essays, stories, and opinion pieces. However, any middle school student could tell you that one sentence paragraphs are incapable of conveying an argument. Short paragraphs might introduce an idea, but they end before the writer even has enough space to scratch the surface of the idea, and there is no way that a writer can make a convincing argument without supporting their ideas.


This is exactly what Tiahrt attempts in his Op-Ed.


Through a series of one sentence paragraphs, Mr. Tiahrt introduces his (or probably somebody elses) ideas that are a mere collection of buzz words. Before he even gets a chance to discuss these ideas—to discuss how a different position by McCain might have changed the presidential election or why these issues are critical to current affairs—he moves on to yet another buzz word. This should be troublesome to Kansans because the entire Op-Ed piece is a veneer that Tiahrt is painting over what appears to be the crux of his entire piece: that he is bitter because he did not receive the endorsement of Senator McCain.


He writes:


“But I am troubled by reports in recent weeks that Mr. McCain has been, as Politico put it, ‘working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image’ and has ‘emerged as a political godfather’ to moderate candidates including my opponent in the race for the Republican Senate nomination in Kansas.”


Mr. Tiahrt’s is troubled by the fact that Senator McCain endorsed his opponent, so he believes the best way to improve the situation would be to slander the Republican stalwart with a mish-mash of buzz words and a pop culture reference or two thrown in for good measure. The secondary headline of the piece reads, “McCain moderation is politics of convenience,” but isn’t it Mr. Tiahrt that is practicing the politics of convenience by turning against John McCain?


I think if Tiahrt really wants our support, he should take the gracious route and accept that Senator McCain doesn’t feel comfortable supporting his campaign. He shouldn’t attack McCain with bogus arguments or call out McCain for things that the elder senator actually should be doing. If Todd Tiahrt wants to be a United States Senator from the state of Kansas he should exhibit a little more classiness and restraint in future editorials.


He should support all of the buzz words with facts and leave the one sentence paragraphs to us in the blogosphere.


Editorially yours,


Publius