John Kasich released a new ad attacking Ted Strickland over his ad attacking JobsOhio.
And just who is the person the Kasich campaign is relying of for these statements? This kid:
Yep, that picture was taken this year. Meet Mytheos Holt, the ‘10 graduate of Wesleyan University in Connecticut who now blogs for National Review—hardly an objective, nonpartisan, non-ideological publication. [UPDATE:Anthony @ Ohio Daily Blog has more information about Holt’s “journalism” bona fides as well.]
Two days ago, I smelled a rat in Holt’s story, and wrote about his claims about the ad taking things out of context that really wasn’t. For example, what Holt claims was a “blatant misrepresentation of the truth” is the entire ad, even though it’s nothing more than, essentially, video footage of Kasich’s own words.
What Holt called “ridiculous” was including the line about secret bonuses… but he said that because the ad made two separate statements appear as one continuous statement. But that’s a distinction without a difference. Anyone who watched the two clips will realize that Kasich’s referring to the same bonuses in both clips. There’s nothing out of context at all about it.
Holt claims in his article, like Kasich does in his ad, that “not one sentence in context,” but his actual article fails to cite a single actual example where Kasich’s words are taken out of context. In fact, as I pointed out, Holt’s own article confirms much of the point Strickland’s ad made.
When I wrote columns, my old editor would talk about a column where, to put it bluntly, the “curtains don’t match the drapes.” In other words the facts of the article don’t really match up to the thesis of it. That’s what drew Holt’s article out to me. It seemed like his thesis was forced and predetermined, and not logically following the evidence he presented.
You know, bullshit.
That’s when we came across this on Facebook (the Social Network gets you every time.)
Well, Ms. Zaffini just happens to be a relative of:
The Deputy Communication Director for the Ohio Republican Party.
So, Mr. Holt gets sent by the National Review to cover Ohio’s elections, who has pre-arranged for him to shack up with a relative of the Republican Party communication shop. While here, he writes a column defending the Kasich campaign in a “fact check” article that is long on rhetoric, but short on facts (in fact, some of the facts cited by Mr. Holt actually refuted his own points,) and that unwarranted rhetoric just HAPPENS to be quickly picked up by the campaign to defend itself. And we’re supposed to believe this is all just one big coincidence???