Last night, in a humiliation the likes of which I don’t believe has occurred in the three decades-plus I have followed Ohio politics, incumbent Senator Mike Dewine was bounced out of Fulton County’s US Senate endorsement vote on the first ballot, finishing behind both Bill Pierce and David Smith. Pierce and Smith ultimately both won ratings as “Qualified,” as neither candidate could muster the necessary two-thirds majority on the second ballot.

Reaction and reporting from a few Ohio blogs has been interesting:

• Bill Sloat at Cleveland Openers — “Barber, who has headed the Northwest Ohio county’s Republican organization since the early 1980s, said DeWine looks to be in trouble with the party’s conservative base. She said she didn’t realize how deep the senator’s problems are until his defeat.” Now we do.
• Right on the Right has endorsed Pierce — “He obviously does not support illegal immigration, he believes in the 10th amendment, and he believes in the right to life. These are only the start of his Conservative stances. This is the type of man Conservatives can rally behind and be proud in ….. I support Bill Pierce for Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate representing Ohio.” You go, guy.
• S.O.B. Alliance member Newshound — The conservatives are roaring from Archbold to Metamora and Fayette to Delta this morning after last night’s Republican endorsement meeting in Wauseon. Roar on.

….. and this was one of them.

She also said “Don’t count your chickens ’til they’re hatched,” which is why you haven’t seen end-zone dances or pouting at BizzyBlog over the ups, downs, highs, and lows of the matters brought before the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). To reduce the amount of crow in my diet, I learned a long time ago not to predict the results of legal and similar proceedings, even ones that look like clear winners. That lesson comes in handy right now, and I can stick to hot dogs and hamburgers.

Today, in a single vote (shades of Hamilton County’s endorsement process), the Commission voted 3-1 that there was not sufficient probable cause to proceed to a full-committee hearing on the four items I brought before the Commission.

Taking the items involved in order:

1. The Commission decided, even after issuing their Reprimand Letter last week admonishing Mr. McEwen “not (to) engage in such activities in future campaigns,” namely the practice of calling himself Congressman McEwen again, did not find probable cause that he had done so again, even though, to name just one of many examples, Mr. McEwen’s web site Endorsements Page called him “Congressman McEwen” for 58 days from January 18 until March 16 or 17.
2. The Commission decided that there wasn’t enough tangible evidence to demonstrate that Mr. McEwen does not “appear frequently” on programs such as Larry King Live, Crossfire, Good Morning America, and The Today Show. The level of evidence the Commission expected would have required audits of records at those four shows going back 15 or so years, and affidavits from everyone involved, which would certainly have cost thousands of dollars.
   No one has the money for that. So if you’re going to make a false resume claim, make sure it’s one that will be cost-prohibitive to disprove, as Mr. McEwen did. Yes, I’m saying the claim is false on its face. Mr. McEwen is welcome to deliver tangible evidence to the contrary; if he tries, I would suggest skipping Larry King Live, as a CNN rep who investigated the matter e-mailed me and said she could find no evidence that Mr. McEwen EVER appeared on LKL (but for the OEC, that’s not good enough as evidence). And I’d suggest skipping Crossfire too, as I have the transcripts from Mr. McEwen’s last three appearances on the program from 1991 and 1992, and a printout from a search performed by that CNN rep with no evidence of a McEwen appearance after 1992 (that’s not good enough for the OEC either). GMA is a waste of time too, as a rep with many, many years of experience there told me she had never heard of him and would certainly remember a name like McEwen (usable as evidence, even though I’m under oath? For get about it.) So that leaves The Today Show. Good luck.
3. The Commission decided that Mr. McEwen’s web site characterization of what you, I, and the rest of the literate world know as The “House Bank (or Banking) Scandal” as the “Democratic (or Democrat) Bank Scandal” is not deceptive, because Tom Delay uttered the term in one article written in April 1992. This is the only known published instance where a human being has called The House Bank Scandal the Democratic Bank Scandal. Google, New York Times, and comprehensive multi-newspaper searches, all covering 1989 through 2006, have shown no other uses of the term. Accordingly, I plan to refer to the scandal the “Pickle Relish Scandal” a couple of times here at BizzyBlog, because after the McEwen campaign finds that someone else is using that term, they can start calling the scandal by that name at their web site, and make it even more deceptive (yet, “of course,” legal).
4. The Commission decided that none of the eight clear endorsement misrepresentations that occurred on the web site were supported by clear-and-convincing-enough evidence, despite Jean Schmidt’s newspaper-covered endorsement by John Willke, the later appearance of two early McEwen “endorsers” as legitimate endorsers at Jean Schmidt’s web site, and the statement of Anthony Munoz’s personal secretary, based on her representation that she spoke with Mr. Munoz about the matter, that Mr. Munoz could not endorse Bob McEwen in the 2006 primary.

Go figure.

What’s really galling was that one Commissioner (before voting AGAINST probable cause!) strongly criticized Mr. McEwen before his counsel as the type of candidate who is always skirting at the edge of the law, and who almost seems to get pleasure out of doing so. This Commissioner (a Republican) practically pleaded with Mr. McEwen’s counsel to tell Mr. McEwen to clean up his act. It was as if he was unburdening his guilty feelings over how he was about to vote. Of course, counsel said okey-dokey. Zheesh.

And to top off this Murphy’s Law day, the people who brought the OEC complaint against Jean Schmidt for misunderstood, and quickly corrected, endorsements that were present on her web site for all of two or three days — won. That full-committee hearing is in late April, exact date and time to be determined.

Is this a great country or what? And if you’re wondering, I don’t think Ted Olson could have gotten a different result.

What remains from all of this, despite the lack of a probable cause finding, is a congressional candidate who:

• Can’t get over the loss of his title 13 years ago, and insists on using it whenever and wherever he can get away with it;
• Laughably (though not “provably”) claims current and frequent TV appearances he hasn’t made (if you’ve got proof I’m wrong, McEwen & Co., bring it on);
• Has never faced up to the fact that he was involved in a scandal where he wrote 166 checks during a 39-month period against balances he didn’t have in his House Bank account (notice I didn’t say “bounced”), offenses which at minimum would have cost you and me $2,500 or more in overdraft fees at 1992 rates (because, unlike the checks written at the House Bank, our checks WOULD have bounced), and at a maximum might have cost you and me the ability to even have a checking account, or time in jail;
• Represented in the opening weeks of his campaign that he had locked up for 2006 the endorsements of everyone who had endorsed him in 2005, even though he did little or none of the work to confirm those endorsements.
• On balance, has no business running for Congress, especially as someone pretending to be “respected” and who intends to “restore dignity.” The fact that the offensive things described here occurred, and that some of them are still occurring, communicates the exact opposite of dignity and respect. I’d call it disgrace.

If there is a silver lining, it is this: I have no remaining reason not to reveal the results of various investigations done by myself and others into the one question Bob McEwen won’t discuss in any degree of detail: “What have you been up to during the thirteen years after you left Congress?” Mr. McEwen was (and to some extent still is) a busy man. Stay tuned.

Steve Forbes, in an unfortunately subscription-only item, notes that there are consequences of taxaholism.

Four examples can be seen in Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey (coming soon), and California. And of course, as Forbes notes, The New York Times dares not recognize the real problem:

Two recent newspaper stories underscored a problem several states are experiencing–stagnant or falling populations. The New York Times ran a piece about young people fleeing the Green Mountain State of Vermont for greener pastures, citing the lack of job opportunities. Around the same time, the Des Moines Register ran a special section on Iowa’s population problem. A century ago the Hawkeye State was home to 3% of the U.S. population; today it’s home to just 1%. Young people have been leaving in droves for decades. Both stories cited experts and politicians who offered up various solutions to stem the tide, yet both papers ignored the proverbial elephant in the room: taxes. These two states are punishers when it comes to laying levies on income. In Iowa the top income tax rate is nearly 9%, one of the highest in the country. In Vermont it’s even worse, 9.5%.

Iowa and Vermont should be experiencing population booms. Thanks to high tech, folks today literally have the world at their fingertips, no matter where their feet are planted.

….. New Jersey is in the process of emulating Vermont and New York in crushing its citizens with onerous exactions. The state’s property taxes are about the highest in the country, and new governor and wannabe President Jon Corzine is poised to make the burden heavier.

Whoever thought the day would come that California–highly taxed and antibusiness–would start seeing tens of thousands of native-born Americans moving out of the state instead of moving in. For the first time since becoming a state 155 years ago, California will not gain, and may actually lose, congressional representation after the 2010 census.

Bottom line: Taxes matter, not only on the federal level but also on the state and local levels.

UPDATE: OpinionJournal.com rips into Corzine’s broken promises, and asks a legitimate question, after providing examples, which is why any Democrat who promises tax reductions should be believed. Based on sad experience in Ohio, I would expand the scope of that question to “almost all politicians.”

March 29, 9AM update: I have learned that there were 28 members in attendance and revised the post accordingly. Its substance hasn’t changed.

This post was originally done at 11 PM last night, but has been moved to the top for the remainder of the work day Wednesday because of its importance.
____________________________________

The 28 were Republicans meeting in Wauseon, voting on who to endorse in statewide races.

There were three contested races. I am told that in two of them, Betty Montgomery and Ken Blackwell won endorsement for Attorney General and Governor, respectively. I am awaiting media confirmation of those results from somewhere.

That leaves the US Senate race — Brace yourself.

Three candidates were in the fray: incumbent Mike DeWine and challengers Bill Pierce and David Smith.

The ground rules were as follows:

• A candidate must get two-thirds of the votes party members to be officially endorsed.
• If, after the first ballot, none of the three received the required two-thirds, whoever finished third would be eliminated, and there would be another vote with only the remaining two candidates eligible.
• On the second ballot, if neither candidate received two-thirds of the votes, no candidate would be endorsed.
• The actual vote counts would not be revealed for either the first or second ballots.

I am told each candidate was allowed to speak for a few minutes, and that there was no time allotted for questioning the candidates before the voting occurred.

So what happened?

No one got two-thirds of the votes on the first ballot. The candidate who finished third and was eliminated was ….. was ….. Mike DeWine.

You read that right. This is a stunning and I believe unprecedented rebuke in an Ohio GOP county endorsement meeting.

On the second ballot, neither Bill Pierce nor David Smith received two-thirds of the votes. Therefore, no candidate received a US Senate endorsement in Fulton County, but both Bill Pierce and David Smith were, according to an e-mailer, deemed “qualified candidates.”

I know there’s more than a little wailing and gnashing of teeth tonight that no one emerged with an endorsement, and yes, I share that disappointment.

But the big message from tonight is this, and don’t forget it: Emperor Mike has no clothes. Tonight he was deemed NOT qualified. He has been soundly beaten throughout the state, and has managed by one lonely win in five fair and open county endorsement meetings spread over eight weeks.

Mike DeWine has only two remaining allies: apathy and inertia. I’m beginning to think that DeWine can lose this election even if both challengers remain. If there’s only one declared challenger on May 2, the odds could actually be against him.
_____________________________________

UPDATE: Black Swamp Conservative noted that DeWine’s on-hand surrogate played the fear card, and was not impressed:

I am so proud of this committee for not falling for the DeWine surrogate’s request that “Republicans must work together as never before” - as if DeWine had that in mind when he brasenly declared the President’s Social Security reform efforts dead last year.

I am proud of this committee for having had the clarity to understand that having “voted with the President more than 90% of the time” means that he voted with the Democrats on the most crucial 10%.

I am so proud of this committee for having shirked the DeWine surrogate’s warnings of a Democrat takeover in the Senate. Clearly the committee can’t imagine it would mean much of a difference in terms of representation from our Senator.

UPDATE 2: Wrong-way DeWine continues to amaze with his tin ear. He opposes Ken Blackwell’s Tax Expenditure Limitation (TEL) initiative, as does our other alleged Republican Senator George Voinovich. I wonder how loud the booes will be when his name is announced at the Cincinnati Reds’ Opening Day game next Monday?

It’s here.

Free Links:

• How appropriate — pseudo-science meets pseudo-journalistic credentials. The Free Market Project catches ABC, in a series about the pseudo-end of the world threat known as global warming, passing off a journalist as a Pulitzer Prize winner, when he isn’t, and was shown not to be a year ago
• Whoever said tech news is all boring hasn’t checked out these three stories tracked by Techdirt –

– Married Man Sues to Get on eHarmony Dating Site (Techdirt link).

– Skype and Its Founders Sued under RICO Statutes (Techdirt).

– A Florida Elections Supervisor successfully hacks one e-voting system — and gets blackballed by other e-voting vendors (Techdirt). I’m beginning to think that something stinks in e-voting, and if it does, it better get fixed, QUICKLY.

A firefighter went into the water to save his dog (for the second time in a year) because he knew his comrades nearby would come to save him if they had to — and they did:

(more…)