Mark Naymik defends himself in an argument with himself... and loses

Mark Naymik of the Cleveland Plain Dealer issues a non-denial, and in so doing, confirms that the Fisher campaign is pushing their friend in the media to hit Brunner hard before the next FEC report in a panicked strategy designed to get her out of the race immediately.  Here's a recap of the established timeline:

• A political group with significant resources, like the Fisher campaign, does a focus group in the Short North area of Columbus a few weeks ago testing various lines of attacks against Jennifer Brunner and her husband.  No other Senate candidate or race is covered.  The group concludes that the direct attacks against Brunner were ineffective to change people's opinions about her, but the group was more responsive to the attacks against her husband.
• Shortly thereafter, a "supporter" of Fisher's gives Naymik, in his own written words today, "a couple of tips" about detailed knowledge of various minor property tax issues involving Brunner's husband and son.  Naymik spends his last three columns writing exclusively negative stories about Jennifer Brunner's candidacy.  To date, Naymik has written not a single column critical, let alone, negative about Fisher's campaign.
• After spending the last three days trying to gin up a case against Brunner on tax issues, Naymik today declares his own campaign a success and cites the very political atmosphere he created by doing the Fisher campaign's bidding, as evidence of ... you get it why Brunner should drop out:

 "Ohio's Democratic race for the U.S. Senate got a little more personal last week, and it shows no signs of easing.

This is what Democrats have feared since Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher announced their candidacies on the same day in February."

So it's plot a course for a nasty political environment, create the nasty political environment, and then blame your opponent's candidacy for you creating the nasty political environment.  MISSON ACCOMPLISHED!  Circular logic fallacy surrenders.

So now we have the Fisher public relations strategy out in the open-- "let's get a friend in the media to write some negative stories about Brunner's using our own oppo research on her family and then he'll write a column citing the "heated" political environment as something that the Democrats don't want to go on for the next year, and so that coupled with the FEC reports will put tremendous public pressure on Brunner to drop out."

"But what if someone realizes that this information came from us?"

"Oh, come on, who's going to figure that out?"

How much you want to bet the Fisher campaign is pushing Naymik's column today as evidence that Brunner should drop out?  Any takers?

Here's what burns me about Naymik.  After weeks of hearing the Plain Dealer piss all over bloggers while whoring for their traffic with lectures about how much more objective, independent, and trustworthy print reporters are compared to bloggers, we get yet another example of how bloggers have a stronger ethical code of transparency than journalists.

I was incredibly harsh of Nick D. for allowing the Fisher campaign unprecedented control over the editing and presentation of his interview of Lee Fisher.  What I was particularly outraged by was an email Nick sent apologizing to the campaign for asking a particular question, but saying he had to do so in order to appear credible and objective.

To his credit, Nick D. fell on his sword and admitted the whole affair about how he let the Fisher campaign use him to control Fisher's image.  In so doing, Nick has shown stronger morals about transparency and accountability than Mark Naymik is willing. 

Yes, I know this is the old game Old Media used to play all the time where they allow a source they cover to use them for their own political agendas with the promises of a government job or further exclusives down the road.  But the rules for Old Media should change. 

It is news that a source pushing negative stories about a candidate is associated with that candidate's opponent. Naymik's "hostile political" environment was not created in a vacuum or by Brunner alone.  The fact that a government official is using information about a private citizen in a political vendetta is not only news when Nixon does it. 

When I realized that I wanted Brunner to win, I publicly disclosed it here on the blog so people knew of my bias when I wrote about the race.  Anyone believe Naymik is a disinterested objective observer of this primary?  No, I don't think even Mark Naymik believes that, either.

Anyone who was outraged over what Nick D. cannot defend what Naymik is doing.  The "we've always done it this way" defense never works.

Naymik's column is titled "Small tax issues still matter in a heated campaign--even between two Democrats."  I'm not sure why the editor felt it necessary to add that last part.  Nonetheless, the title of the column suggests just how defensive Naymik, and the Plain Dealer, is about Naymik's whoring for Fisher. 

Naymik makes no attempt to deny that the source of the information (who, despite Naymik's written assertion, I've been told gave him more than just a "couple" of tips) against Brunner's family is affiliated with the Fisher campaign.  He knows that's the criticism, but he knows he cannot honestly deny it.  Instead, he defends reporting on tax issues that don't actually involve the actual candidate herself by saying:

Taxes seem to matter to U.S. senators when people come before them seeking confirmation to administration positions. Senate candidates should be held to the same standard. This doesn't rival a Nannygate or an extramarital affair, but small tax issues still matter in a heated campaign, even between two Democrats.

First of all genius, Nannygate was about a tax issue.  Second, your own reporting concedes (and in today's column you again concede) that these tax liabilities were not owed by Jennifer Brunner, but her family members.  Second, I've never known such small amounts of tax liabilities, most of which have been paid for years, has ever DOOMED a nomination. 

And what, exactly does this tell voters about Ms. Brunner's character, Mr. Naymik ,because your column doesn't really explain that.  Should Brunner had divorced her husband and disowned her son in order to avoid the appearance that she condones that sort of thing as a late payment on taxes, most of which were resolved before she was elected in 2006?  We're not talking about Senator Daschle here... or Mark Barbash.

Which gets me to my next point.  Naymik is not a Fisher hack simply because he ran with a "couple of tips" after being handed the Fisher campaign's oppo research.  He's a hack because he refuses to give any critical look at the candidacy of Lee Fisher under the same standard.

Even when Naymik reported that Lee Fisher's hand-picked successor at the Ohio Department of Development had an unpaid tax lien on his house for over $100k, that Lee Fisher knew of the unpaid tax liability at the time, but deliberately chose not to inform the Governor about the issue, Naymik used the opportunity to criticize.... Ted Strickland!:

Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher knew of Barbash's problem, as did the governor's chief of staff, John Haseley. Yet, neither said anything to Strickland, who found out only when Barbash told the administration he had received a foreclosure notice on his home.

The situation sends a couple of possible messages, neither of them good.

One, the governor's staff keeps him out of the loop. Or, two, the governor doesn't pay attention to his own vetting process.

(Note to the governor: Questions about taxes and sex should always top the list of interview questions.)

To date, I can find no column by Naymik in which he suggests Barbash's tax problems is a problem for Fisher's Senate candidacy.  Add that to Frankie Coleman, and you'd think Naymik could find ONE column to write critical of Lee Fisher like he has repeatedly about Brunner's family.  But nope, instead he's spent the last week hounding the Brunners over taxes they paid.  TAXES THAT THEY HAD ALREADY PAID IN SOME INSTANCES YEARS AGO.  And then, citing his own Fisher-fed stories and declaring them politically relevant, Naymik then declares the stories are a fatal wound to the Brunner campaign.  Shameless, really.

Anthony at Ohio Daily Blog had it right.  There is emerging a clear picture of Lee Fisher that I do not like: an outdated robotic political machine opposed to transparency and accountability that seeks to win by engaging in divisive politics that speak to our fears instead of a thoughtful and hopeful message that unites us.

And I can't say I like the idea of the Fisher campaign engaging in this shadowy type campaign to turn up the political heat on Brunner and suggest she gets out of it before one of her family members gets hurt.  There's a certain misogyny to it that I find particularly distasteful.

Thank God Lee Fisher is only the Lt. Governor where he has no power!  I'd hate to see what he'd do to his political enemies if he were elevated to the Senate.  Seriously, what was once a dispassionate distaste for Fisher because of his previous failed campaigns in starting to turn into a serious dread of him actually being elected.  I'm seriously wondering if he continues this kind of dirty politics if I'll even vote in the Senate race if he's the nominee.

Day 5 and Lee has yet to declare that candidate's children should be off-limits.  Classy Lee Fisher.