Mark Naymiks emails to me

I wasn't going to publish them, but the guy is getting slammed on kos and Atrios and that probably isn't going to be a fair fight. So now I think I should, after Mark gave me the go ahead, before I even asked.

He emailed me first

I have come to admire your watchdog role of the press. I think the following insight into how I operated on Saturday will help you continue to evaluate my work.

My job Saturday was to test the theory that Republicans in red counties are jumping on the Democratic bandwagon. In Clermont, I left the Democratic rally to find people who were not recruited by Democrats to cheer.

I found several people at a nearby playground, where I interviewed a mother of four small children -- turned out to be Mr. Estruth's wife. She noted her husband had walked over to the rally to listen to Mr. Strickland, at the urging of a friend. I asked Mrs. Estruth for a description of her husband and sought him out.

There was nothing to suggest Mr. Estruth was a plant. He did not want to talk to me. He reluctantly agreed. I said I was interested in hearing from him only after he heard the speeches.

The fact that he gives money to Republicans might make him a better test subject -- can he really be converted? The fact that he took the time to listen to the rally suggests that even a hard-core Republican might have doubts, or at least is open minded. I did my job and recorded his reaction.

I make no apologies for his inclusion in the story. I'm only sorry I have no ability to poll all the voters in the county myself so I can get beyond anecdotal reporting.

Best,

Mark

I replied, but used webmail so I don't have a copy. My basic premise from memory is that some basic fact checking showing this guy gave thousands of dollars to GOPers should have been done, and that I didn't think Naymik was being nefarious, but that he just got punked by a typical, common GOP practice of media plants. He responded to me thusly

I respect your point of view but I still think you are ascribing "fense sitter" status to a guy I identified as a Republican who votes for Republicans. Readers get that he's not a neutral party. I also think the story's entire premise -- what do red county voters think? -- is clear.

I also don't believe the opinion of Democrat or Republican has less credibility because he or she gives money, regardless of how much. If I follow your premise, then why aren't you criticizing me for the quoting Betty Davis, who organized Republicans for Strickland. The entire room of people she recruited I'm sure gave money lots of money to Republicans but appear to support Strickland. Are they plants?

The story ran on the 20th August, 3 days after our buddy Nathan filed with the SoS declaring himself as President of Common Sense Ohio.

Mark emailed me again this morning

Russell:

You are free to disclose my emails. I don't see any need to modify what I said. Mr. Estruth passed himself off as a voter willing to consider Strickland. I regret he not open minded as he said.

He was reluctant to talk. Perhaps he was because he knew he was misrepresenting himself.

Mark

I am reminded by email that the PeeDee ran background checks on all the bloggers they front page featured a few months ago.

I think Mark's editors let him down badly here to be honest, and I also think they ought to burn Nathan Estruth for being a lying shill, and do so prominently in the Plain Dealer - and then start investigating this shady organization and who else is behind it. Right now evidence is starting to stack up that it's citizens for a stronger Ohio reborn.