GOP Senator Still Unsure About Rep. Accused of Abusing His Daughter ⁠80%

By Edith Olmsted⁠93%

7/31/2026, 1:10:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.9% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 577 faulty-reasoning hits from 217 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (5,941 of 28,461 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno isn’t willing to take a stand on the political future of the guy who allegedly held a gun to his daughter’s head. 
NOTUS asked Moreno Friday whether Republicans should move to replace Representative Max Miller on Ohio’s ballot, after gruesome allegations surfaced that he had physically abused his ex-wife, Emily Moreno. 
“I don’t know,” the senator told NOTUS. 
It’s not clear what about this situation has Moreno so mystified. 
Moreno’s own daughter accused Miller of throwing hot water on her body, holding a gun to her head, and breaking their two-year-old daughter’s collarbone. 
Earlier this week, Emily Moreno filed for a new restraining order against Miller, alleging that he’d physically grabbed one of her attorneys and used a profane slur. 
If that doesn’t elicit the strongest condemnation, what does the Ohio senator care about? 
Moreno’s not alone in his total apathy. 
Other Republicans—including the entire Ohio Republican delegation—have remained disturbingly silent on the allegations. 
Reagan McCarthy, a spokesperson for Moreno, hit back at questions about Moreno’s continued support for his former son-in-law. 
“While we won’t dignify this baseless attacks by Democrats and their media allies, Senator Moreno will not speak on active litigation involving his family,” McCarthy told NOTUS in a statement. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 5.0%newrepublic.com: 5.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Edith Olmsted: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.7%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Edith Olmsted: 10.8%newrepublic.com: 6.4%Framing Effect25.8%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Edith Olmsted: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Pessimism Bias11.5%This article: 36.9%Edith Olmsted: 20.4%newrepublic.com: 10.3%Negativity Bias36.9%This article: 13.8%Edith Olmsted: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias13.8%This article: 15.2%Edith Olmsted: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error15.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.4%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Edith Olmsted: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 2.6%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 6.5%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%False Dilemma6.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Edith Olmsted: 9.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 25.8%Edith Olmsted: 7.3%newrepublic.com: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion25.8%This article: 20.3%Edith Olmsted: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Begging the Question20.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 4.8%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.7%Anecdotal11.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.1%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity5.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.1%Edith Olmsted: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 1.7%Unattributed Quote17.1%This article: 2.3%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 23.5%Edith Olmsted: 25.9%newrepublic.com: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice23.5%This article: 11.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Indoctrination11.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 12.4%newrepublic.com: 5.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

217 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech131writer words
Selected voice

Reagan McCarthy

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words35% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+94.7 ptsWriter: 5.3%Reagan McCarthy: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.9 ptsWriter: 38.9%Reagan McCarthy: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Reagan McCarthy: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Reagan McCarthy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.