::::::::
Ed Tinsley describes himself as a "tried and true Republican", even as he admits that his party affiliation was born of his desire to impress his fiance. As it turns out, he may have made the Democratic Party a better place with his "conversion". As it is, he's trying to keep his anti-work ethic secret.
Front and center in Tinsley's argument for his candidacy is his success at building his Schlotzky's and KBOB Steakhouse franchises - which led him to becoming a Board Member of the National Restaurant Association (and eventually President of that group). But while Tinsley was busy testifying about his generous pension plan that bilks employees out of their hard-earned money, the NRA (National Restaurant Association) was busy pushing an agenda that included shielding themselves from "frivolous" lawsuits - specifically lawsuits that held them responsible for damages incurred by drunk restaurant patrons.
Tinsley continues to fight against giving his "stupid employees" a fair wage - he'd rather have them invest it in a "benefits plan" held by - well, by him. Tinsley refuses to build a KBOBs Steakhouse anywhere that a living wage is implemented - despite the fact that the raise in wages would count against wages rather than his bottom line (unless he's admitting that his employees can't live off of their tips).
Meanwhile, no one - apparently even Tinsley himself - is really sure if Tinsley even lives in the district. In fact, everything Tinsley does seems to take him away from his district. Even his campaign financing is largely run on out of state dollars.
It seems clear that Ed Tinsley is simply a stealth candidate. The only connection he has to his district is an address and his anti-worker background - backed up with his own admissions and actions - show that Tinsley is no friend of the working family. Yet what does his campaign have to say about such things?
<blockquote> *crickets* </blockquote>
