Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Strickland tries to pull a fast one.

The Governor is out with a new ad.

On the surface, it seems to be pretty darn effective.

Too bad it's full with distortions that beg for the Ohio Elections Commission to take a look.

Mytheos Holt with the National Review takes a close look and rips it apart. Check it out here.


  1. Um, there's not a single thing in that "fact check" that, uh, did anything.

    Kasich says IN THE VIDEO CLIP, that he's looking outside of the State for these positions. He said that he'll pay them bonuses (yes, based on performance, but that hardly changes anything) and he says they will be kept secret. The fact that SOME private money will be involved doesn't change anything. Money is fungible.

    It is factually INACCURATE to claim that only private money will pay for these bonuses as Kasich has NEVER said that.

    File an OEC complaint, then. I dare you.

  2. The "fact check" actually contradicts itself, too. It claims that Kasich's remarks disprove any croynism, but then quotes Kasich saying....
    "I mean, if you’re talking about getting some of our great leaders – I mean, if you get a Cheryl Kruger on the board – you know, Cheryl’s not interested in being paid, she’d like to contribute to our state of Ohio. And that’s terrific."

    That would be the same Cheryl Kruger who's a maxed out donor to Kasich? LOL..

  3. I'm an Independent and I don't care what Strickland's ads say. He is a paper pusher who does not have a clue about changing the culture of Ohio to being business friendly. With him in power, the slide to the abyss will continue with more of the same - government mismatched to its revenue stream and oppressive taxes and regulations.

    He will appeal, however, to those seeking government hand outs and those desiring government favoritism (i.e., the unions).

  4. This ad more than any polling shows the sorry state the Strickland campaign must be in. No campaign with any internal confidence at all pulls these types of stunts.

  5. What "stunt?" Attacking an opponent's plan on grounds that every media outlet has criticized it for?!?

  6. Attacking an opponent's plan is certainly not a stunt.

    What I call a stunt is... extracting footage out of context to distort the speaker's original intent. What I call a badly executed stunt is... one that requires 3 edits in 8 seconds to make the point.

    But you already agree, right? In your last two posts you said...

    "there's not a single thing in that 'fact check' that".... "contradicts itself"... "that's terrific".

  7. Um, there's not a single out of context thing in post.

  8. If the actual raw footage showed such selective editing showed the opposite, then you guys have the point. But the fact is that that's not what occurs here.

  9. "What I call a stunt is... extracting footage out of context to distort the speaker's original intent."

    So you must be outraged over the RGA ad's asserting that Ted Strickland himself hired a Texas firm against State Law (not a state employee who has since left the position who was wrong)?

    And you're outraged over Kasich using fuzzy mathematical formulas in debates rather than using facts to distort Ted's record?

    And your temperature MUST be rising when the RGA blames Ted for losing NCR when even NCR admits it wasn't the job climate or anything the Strickland administration did.

    The worst stunt, of all, that Kasich has ever pulled is pretending he didn't vote for NAFTA and literally outsource hundreds of thousands of jobs when in comparison Strickland voted AGAINST it.


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.