Note: This post will stay at the top all day because of its importance.
____________________________________

From his blog, no further comment necessary, second paragraph bolded by me:

DeWine’s Public Attack of Rumsfeld was Wrong!

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) was wrong to lash out at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over his management of the War on Terrorism ….. earlier this week. We must learn from the past and that includes learning from our past mistakes, but obviously Senator DeWine missed those history lessons from Vietnam.

In his interview with Salon’s Walter Shapiro, DeWine stated that “Rumsfeld has made some very serious mistakes….Very serious mistakes. I think history will judge him very harshly.” He followed that with, “[c]learly not enough troops going in [to Iraq]. That was the biggest mistake. And a lot of mistakes would be covered under that.”

The lessons not learned by DeWine come from the 1962 to 1974 era when politicians in Washington tried micro-managing and second guessing the military. Without a day spent in a military uniform and without membership on the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Mike DeWine has become a critic of the nuances of our War on Terrorism. To make matters worse, he felt compelled to make his views public.

Discussion and disagreement is fine, but the participants must choose their venues carefully. For Mike DeWine to disagree with Rumsfeld’s management of the War is all right, but to do so publicly does nothing more than “aid and abet” the enemy – a lesson he should have learned from Vietnam. Our enemies look for that public discord and when they find it within the same Party they become heartened even more.

Senator DeWine could not have expected to achieve any strategic military benefit from his public criticism of Rumsfeld, nor could he have expected any change in the direction of the efforts. However, he likely expected that his attack would distance himself from the Administration in a mistaken attempt to make himself appear more attractive to Ohio voters for the November general election should he pass the primary next week. His actions fall clearly within the classification of pandering. To pander for votes at the expense of our efforts to succeed in our War on Terrorism, to aid and abet our enemies, and to further put our troops in harm’s way is simply shameful of a sitting United States Senator.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

____________________________

Previous Post: DeWine Stabs Rumsfeld in the Back
____________________________

NOTE: I have endorsed Bill Pierce for Senate, and have provided nominal financial support for his campaign. BizzyBlog is a member of Blogs for Pierce.

NOTE: Related FreeRepublic post is here.
________________________________

Leave it to Ohio’s incumbent senior senator to do something totally symbolic and worthless while refusing to do anything substantive on energy:

Big Oil in congressional cross hairs
Politics play large role in fuel-price protests

WASHINGTON — In a bitter election year, Congress has finally reached consensus about something this week: Everybody is mad at the oil companies.

The soaring price of gasoline has sent tremors through Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats scurrying for the nearest TV camera to assail the petroleum giants.

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, wants the Justice Department to use antitrust laws to go after foreign oil exporters, while Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., is urging the federal government to stop collecting its gasoline taxes for 60 days.

Senate Republicans countered with a $100 rebate to individuals to cushion the cost of gasoline prices. The GOP plan came with a catch: The Republicans want Congress to approve oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including DeWine, oppose oil drilling in the refuge.

And Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Upper Arlington, after saying profit is “what America’s all about,” denounced ExxonMobil for record profits while refusing to pay billions of dollars in punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

It is part of a growing worry — particularly among Republicans — that voters are so angry about high prices at the pump that they will take it out on incumbent members of Congress.

“Nobody wants to be on the side of the oil companies and high gasoline prices,” said Sherry Bebitch, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. “Will this do anything (to reduce prices)? Of course it won’t do anything.”

….. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill co-authored by DeWine that would allow the Justice Department to examine the prices demanded by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which includes Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

It was a mostly symbolic gesture, with some lawmakers acknowledging the legislation would be litigated for years if it becomes law. But DeWine said that “if companies in the United States were doing what OPEC is doing today, they could be hauled into court.”

Here’s what The Wall Street Journal said about all this nonsense today in a subcription-only editorial:

Even the Members know that cars will run on nuclear power before suits against OPEC succeed in U.S. courts.

And the idea that oil companies are colluding to raise prices has been contradicted by countless Federal Trade Commission studies. Oil exploration is a capital-intensive business that requires huge economies of scale and long time horizons. From the time a potential drilling site is spotted to the day any oil gets to the pump can take a decade. Bigger companies can afford to take bigger risks. So busting up oil companies would almost certainly lead to less oil exploration and production, and thus higher oil and gas prices.

So please, Sen. DeWine, do you really think we’ve forgotten that you alone are the biggest reason why drilling in the Arctic National Wildlfe Refuge has never passed the Senate?

And now, after years of hamstringing the energy industry, you’re shocked, SHOCKED that prices are so high.

Give me a break.

Ohio conservatives have a chance to do something about our RINO Senator on Tuesday. For the sake of energy sanity, vote for Bill Pierce (site, blog, contribute).

____________________________

NOTE: I have endorsed Bill Pierce for Senate, and have provided nominal financial support for his campaign. BizzyBlog is a member of Blogs for Pierce.

Item:

DeWine criticizes Rumsfeld in Interview with Far-Left online magazine Salon

Main quote:

But the sky rockets went off as soon as the topic turned to embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“Rumsfeld has made some very serious mistakes,” DeWine declared, repeating his verdict for emphasis. “Very serious mistakes. I think history will judge him very harshly.” Just to make sure that I was really hearing one of the harshest attacks yet on Rumsfeld by a Republican senator, I asked, “Which mistakes?” DeWine, who has never repented his 2002 vote for the Iraq war, gave me a what-planet-are-you-on look before responding, “Clearly not enough troops going in [to Iraq]. That was the biggest mistake. And a lot of mistakes would be covered under that.”

Bill Pierce Reax — DeWine’s Public Attack of Rumsfeld Was Wrong!

Blogger and Other Reax (will be updated throughout the evening):

• Porkopolis (”Et Tu, DeWine”) — “Political expediency is too kind a characterization for the ingratitude DeWine shows to a Secretary of Defense that is simultaneously prosecuting three wars (worldwide terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq), with historically low casualties, and transforming the military bureaucracy at the same time. ….. To DeWine, all of Washington’s a stage and he but an miscasted actor attempting to play the role of a conservative. On May 2nd, Ohio Republicans can tell DeWine to exit stage left and let Bill Pierce represent us/U.S. in the Senate. I love that “exit stage left” part.
• Matt at WoMD rips Hugh Hewitt for not pulling the plug on DeWine after the umpteenth betrayal, and telling us we should still “rally behind him — “What conservative credentials??? I’ll rally behind DeWine when DeWine represents our values… Chances of that happening? Well, let’s put it this way, I’m not holding my breath.” How can you “Paint the Map Red” when your guy shows up with only blue paint?
• NixGuy — “Mike DeWine has never been in military service, and I’m really curious as to why he thinks his opinion is better than Donald Rumsfeld. I’m also curious as to why he’s swallowing Dem talking points. Especially as it appears obvious that we had exactly as many troops needed to throw Saddam out of power militarily. We are now fighting guerillas. Anyone with just a faintest inkling of how things went in Vietnam came away with this lesson: Number of troops is not the most important factor when fighting a Guerilla war. But apparently DeWine didn’t even get that much out of Vietnam history.”
• Large Bill (from a comment at a previous BizzyBlog post) — “Leading up to hostilities and after shock and awe, personally I was concerned that we had way too many troops in harms way. What DeWine conveniently forgets is we (including him) believed Saddam had WMD. Is he saying he wanted the administration to put more troops in jeopardy than necessary? Fools like DeWine fail to realize we have had an extremely low casualty rate by any historical comparison precisely because we did not put extra targets in country. So, basically, DeWine is criticizing Secretary Rumsfeld for a low body count. What a clown. He needs come on home - for good.”
• Chuckoblog — “To paraphrase, ‘I came here to make blanket statements about the unpopular (according to left wing media polls) Secretary of Defense. Please don’t ask me to be specific, or it may alienate my conservative base that is mostly unaware of my horrible tax and spend record as a US Senator.’” Too late Mike. Consider us alienated.
• This ought to disabuse DeWine that he’s scoring any points with libs — “When your ship is sinking, blame somebody, anybody.”
• Ethical Wasteland — “The Republicans need to get their (act) together… they’re starting to bicker and fracture like Democrats.”
• Crain’s Cleveland Business — “Cross Rummy off DeWine’s Christmas card list”
• Return of the Conservatives — “Why exactly is DeWhiner running as a Republican? If he was to be honest with his constituents he would change his party affiliation and run as a democRAT which he has become.”
• PunditReview.com — “As election day approaches, two-term Republican Senator Mike DeWine is reaching out to…the liberal media by joining the chorus of Rumsfeld critics. Nice approach Senator. This is sure to shore up your base.”
• Boring Made Dull says DeWine has “New York Times Syndrome”– “Let’s see— soft on Judges, Soft on the 2nd amendment, now soft on the war against terror, no drilling in ANWR, but some show trials on energy prices. The reasons to vote for DeWine are rapidly shrinking. When your only slogan left is “I’m not as liberal as my opponent!” That’s not a rousing call to arms. Given the choice, most voters leaning left will prefer the real Democrat to the faux one. And if those are the choices, many conservatives may stay home. Oh, and memo to Sen. DeWine: The puff pieces won’t be rolling out from the MSM in September and October. They’re pretty fickle. Well, not fickle, since they will rally to the left every time.”

____________________________

NOTE: I have endorsed Bill Pierce for Senate, and have provided nominal financial support for his campaign. BizzyBlog is a member of Blogs for Pierce.

Back in December, some S.O.B. Alliance members, and members to be, used Mike DeWine’s vote against ANWR drilling as an opportunity to endorse. Porkopolis used it as an opportunity to unload, and did he ever.

Porkopolis did the dirty work and asked our incumbent senator six as-yet unanswered questions. I’m doing what I can to call attention to them before balloting takes place next Tuesday.

So here’s the Porkopolis Pre-Election Question of the Day:

Why are you blocking Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp reform?

Mike DeWine fiddles while the PBGC deterioriates.

Don’t wait for answers that aren’t going to come. Instead, vote for fiscal conservative Bill Pierce on May 2, and you won’t be asking your senator questions like this six years from now.

Don’t forget to visit Bill’s site, his blog, and his Contribute page.

____________________________

NOTE: I have endorsed Bill Pierce for Senate, and have provided nominal financial support for his campaign. BizzyBlog is a member of Blogs for Pierce.

The four-day hiatus from the McEwen campaign was wonderful. The longer-lasting one that I expect to occur in a few days will be even more satisfying. But there are matters to address before the books on the Second District Primary campaign are closed.

This will be a difficult but necessary series of posts. Difficult because I’m not in my comfort zone commenting on someone’s core beliefs, or lack thereof, but necessary because there has been too much happening in and around the 2006 McEwen for Congress campaign for me to remain silent about it any longer.

Let’s go back to 2005. I had many objections to McEwen’s run last year: his one-month residency after a 12-year absence (an objection, based on recent news reports, was even more pertinent than it first seemed); his endorsements by religious leaders and out-of-town powerbrokers who could not credibly claim that he was the best choice of the roughly half-dozen strongly prolife and profamily GOP candidates on the ballot (and would not be able to until they interviewed them, which they of course did not); the attempt to appear to less-than-informed voters as the 2nd District incumbent, or at least as a current officeholder, by calling himself “Congressman McEwen” in literature, radio ads and TV ads; and of course what turned out to be the principal objection that carried into the 2006 campaign, namely the 12-year “blank slate” resume he expected voters to swallow whole (something that a few of us attempted to fill in, with some success).

But one thing you could say about the 2005 candidate and campaign: IF you accept the premise that they meant no harm with the “Congressman McEwen” appellation (a contention I still reject, as does the Ohio Elections Commission), the campaign otherwise generally conducted itself with decorum. Although there were many who went after supposed frontrunner Pat DeWine (in retrospect, it’s hard to believe, polling data to the contrary, that he was ever REALLY the frontrunner), and did so with a vengeance, McEwen did not appear to have any association with them, and as a matter of fact did not go negative in his ads until well after Pat DeWine did. In fact, those who went after Pat DeWine were more often behind Tom Brinkman’s candidacy than they were McEwen’s, though I believe it can be fairly said that Brinkman was not directly associated with the anti-DeWine efforts.

But things have changed in 2006, both in the candidate himself and in the campaign, and for the worse. Those changes call into question Bob McEwen’s core beliefs. Those changes, in ironic combination with his involvement in the Ohio Restoration Project, frankly call into question whether Bob McEwen has any remaining core beyond his quest for power and influence.

Posts during the next couple of days will cover the troubling things I have observed over the past four months — things that I simply cannot and will not allow to slide by without comment.

In the meantime, a little humor:

Corrected caption: Ken Blackwell reacts
to Bob McEwen’s suggestion that he
be named Blackwell’s
Lieutenant Governor.

It’s simple: The Schmidt campaign fixed the errors as soon as they were discovered. We can argue all day long about whether they were accidental, inadvertent, or willful, but you can’t deny that they were fixed promptly.

Big deal? Anyone would do that, right?

Well, let’s see how Bob McEwen and his campaign reacted in similar circumstances.

On June 1, 2005, 13 days before the Special Election Primary, Channel 5 broadcast its report, presented the clear language of Ohio Election law, and showed conclusively that, by calling himself “Congressman McEwen” and “Congressman Bob McEwen” in campaign literature, radio ads, and TV ads, Bob McEwen and his campaign were operating in violation of the law.

As a result, Bob McEwen and his campaign changed ….. absolutely nothing.

Oh, they did respond, and here was their “response”:

Wes Farno, McEwen’s campaign manager, issued a written statement Wednesday that said, in part, “We’re not misrepresenting anybody because it’s common knowledge that he served in the United States Congress.”

What a load. The campaign had thirteen days to change what it was doing (probably more, because they likely knew the Channel 5 report was in the works a day or two earlier), and in the computer age, could have had lawful literature and commercials in place by Monday, June 6 at the lastest. If they were sincerely interested in following the law, that’s what they would have done.

Instead, the clear message from the McEwen campaign to Channel, 5, the Ohio Elections Commission, and the voters of the Second District was: Bleep the law, and bleep you.

Everything to this point is fact, not opinion.

What follows IS my opinion.

It is my further belief that the campaign didn’t change their literature or commercials because they were too busy trying to steal the election using the very tactic Channel 5 had exposed.

Here is part of what I planned to say at the OEC on March 16 when the Commission handed down the reprimand in Blumer v. McEwen. I was unable to do so because, after telling the world “bleep you” nine months earlier, Bob “Convenient Change of Heart” McEwen threw himself on the mercy of the Commission, which felt that further elaboration was not necessary.

Well, maybe not there, but certainly here:

Let’s look specifically at the Second District Primary race last spring.

It was an open seat created by the resignation of Rob Portman to become the Bush Administration’s Trade Representative.

There were 11 GOP candidates in the field. None of them, other than Mr. McEwen, had national office experience.

It was scheduled in mid-June, at a time when no other issues, save a couple of school levies, were on the ballot in any of the counties involved.

It was expected to be, and was, a low-turnout election, as you heard James Dobson predict in one of Mr. McEwen’s own radio ads, and the campaign period of five weeks was very compressed.

In that situation, one way clear way a candidate could enhance turnout on his behalf, and only on his behalf, would be to attempt to reach those who might not otherwise be expected to vote, and/or who were likely to vote but were not paying particularly close attention to day-to-day events in the campaign.

What better way to distinguish yourself in an extraordinarily crowded field, and to reach some voters who might not otherwise vote, or voters who aren’t paying very close attention, than to present yourself to them as being in possession of an office you don’t currently hold, one that every other candidate in the field just happens to never have held?

It was a “clever” idea, and it was “cleverly” executed. Unfortunately for Mr. McEwen, it was also clearly illegal.

…. (I would argue against) any leniency Mr. McEwen might feel entitled to, or that Commissioners might feel inclined to grant, as a result of his prior service, (primarily because of) how Mr. McEwen and his campaign reacted when confronted with their clear violations of election law by the press and others, including WLWT Channel 5, on June 1, a full thirteen days before primary Election Day on June 14.

If McEwen and his campaign, because of Mr. McEwen’s extended absence from the state, had somehow been remiss in preparing their campaign promotions and hadn’t thoroughly researched Ohio election law before preparing them, they could have apologized, changed or revised their campaign materials, and resumed their campaign in compliance with the law.

But they did the opposite. Instead, the campaign’s reaction was to issue a statement that said, in part “We’re not misrepresenting anybody because it’s common knowledge that he served in the United States Congress.” This was not the reaction of a campaign that had the least bit of interest in complying with the law, or frankly of even respecting it. Instead, it was a patently absurd and dishonest attempt by smart people who planned their every action during the campaign to pretend that this critical aspect of what they were doing somehow didn’t matter.

I believe to this day that fooling enough relatively uninformed primary voters into either thinking that Bob McEwen was the current incumbent, or that he was a very recent congressman from elsewhere coming back or moving in to serve “his” old district, is what the “Congressman McEwen” tactic was all about.

Why am I so sure?

• First, because on June 14, 2005 McEwen’s counsel “settled” with the gentleman who had brought the original complaint to the OEC on June 9 by essentially agreeing to “go and sin no more.” That complaint was withdrawn as a result of that promise.
• Second, because on January 11, 2006, just before the probable cause hearing in Blumer v. McEwen began, McEwen’s counsel made the same “offer” to me, which I rejected.

Folks, you don’t make the offers McEwen’s counsel made unless you know you’re going to get nailed in the hearing (which they did), which means that there’s no defensible reason why they didn’t change what they were doing when it mattered.

So, yes, I believe that they knew they were guilty as sin on June 1, if not even earlier, and gambled that they could get away with the tactic for the remaining 13 days, win the election with it, and suffer whatever consequences might arise once victory was secured.

Fortunately for the Second District, it didn’t work.
___________________________

UPDATE: Just had to respond to this quote (sixth para at link) from Chris Finney of the “We have nothing to do with the McEwen Campaign but we did give them $1,000” operation known as COAST:

“Ms. Schmidt should be ashamed of herself,” said Urling’s attorney, Christopher Finney of Cincinnati.

Hey Chris — If Ms. Schmidt should “be ashamed” about problems she fixed, what should Bob McEwen be for something he refused to fix?

I’ll take it, but I wish Treasury Secretary Snow hadn’t predicted 5%, though revisions could push the figure higher.

Obviously this is very good news, which of course means that the “objective” AP has to remind us that a good economy supposedly hasn’t helped Bush’s popularity in a report that is only supposed to be about the economy:

Economy Rebounds Smartly in 1st Quarter

Casting off an end-of-year lethargy, the U.S. economy bounded ahead in the opening quarter of this year at a 4.8 percent pace, the strongest growth spurt in 2 1/2 years.

The latest report on the economy, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, showed that consumers, businesses and government all did their part in terms of robust spending and investment to spur a healthy pace of growth in the January-to-March quarter.

The 4.8 percent increase in the gross domestic product marked a vast improvement from the feeble 1.7 percent annual rate registered in the final quarter of 2005, when fallout from the Gulf Coast hurricanes, including high energy prices, prompted people and companies to tighten their belts.

The GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the best barometer of the economy’s fitness.

“The economy is off to a strong start in 2006 and has fully rebounded from the fourth quarter’s setback,” said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group.

The first quarter’s performance — the best showing since the third quarter of 2003 — was close to economists’ expectations. Before the report was released, private analysts were forecasting the economy to clock in at a 4.9 percent growth rate.

A recent spate of good economic reports, however, hasn’t helped President Bush’s standing with the public. He is shouldering his lowest-ever job approval rating, at 36 percent, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

If the poll numbers are to be believed, it’s partially because the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as The Mainstream Media) rarely if ever acknowledge how good this economy is.

Dig into what Dick Morris has written about here.

Bring the heavy shovels.

I see a virtually unlimited and unreported presidential campaign slush fund in the making.

Free Links:

• Good news and bad news on the US Internet Population –
  

  The U.S. online population has hit an all-time high: 73 percent of adults, or 147 million, now use the Internet.

  The figures represent an increase from 66 percent, or 133 million adults, in January 2005, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

  But only 42 percent of all adults, or 84 million, have the home high-speed connections important for viewing video and treating the Internet as an always-on reference. Looking only at home Internet users, 62 percent have broadband.

  The extent of broadband use is very disappointing.

• More people are latching on to the idea of working in retirement – Good thing, because many will have to.
• This looks like a wrist-slap to me — From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
  

  A supervisor at ABX Air Inc. in Wilmington has pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge of hiring illegal immigrants between August 2003 and January 2005.

  Under a plea agreement, Douglas Steele, an 11-year veteran of the company, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati to a $10,000 fine and no jail time.

  Steele had faced up to six months in prison, a $3,000 fine for each worker unlawfully employed and a one-year supervised release.

  Federal authorities in early 2005 said they had reviewed the employment records of the air cargo company as part of an investigation of immigration and security issues at the airline.

  But Steele, 53, admitted that he knowingly hired illegal immigrants under contract with Garcia Labor Co., which provided workers for the airline’s national sorting and delivery hub in Clinton County.

  ABX is an affiliate of DHL Express, one of the Big 3 overnight delivery companies. The Wilmington, OH hub has employed as many as 10,000. So even though the reporter apparently wasn’t curious, “Enquiring minds” want to know HOW MANY illegals were involved? Dozens? Hundreds? An e-mail sent to Jeff McKinney, the reporter who wrote the story, was unanswered when this post was published.

• Psst, This Is Good Economic News — “Foreign businesses still gung-ho about USA, CEOs say.” Money quote: “But despite signs of rising protectionism in Congress, 57% of U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations expect to increase capital investment in the USA in the next 12 months vs. just 12% who plan to cut back.” Trade is a two-way street.
• Your Tax Dollars at Waste — “With hurricane season approaching, FEMA is destined to repeat million-dollar mistakes of disaster aid waste and fraud unless it can quickly establish controls for verifying names and addresses, congressional investigators say.” Why should they care? It’s not their money.

They were saved by the crew of a boat that maybe should not have been out in the water that day:

(more…)

BULLETIN: Read conservative candidate Bill Pierce’s statement on DeWine’s Rumsfeld betrayal.
_______________________________

UPDATE: Here’s my FreeRepublic post on DeWine’s Rumsfeld betrayal. I also posted at RedState.org.
_______________________________

NixGuy blogged it first, and it’s from Salon, which means it won’t be available for too long (and even now, you have to get a Free Day Pass to see it), so I’m glad he heavily excerpted.

“It” is Mike DeWine criticizing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in the harshest of terms (bold is mine):

But the sky rockets went off as soon as the topic turned to embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“Rumsfeld has made some very serious mistakes,” DeWine declared, repeating his verdict for emphasis. “Very serious mistakes. I think history will judge him very harshly.” Just to make sure that I was really hearing one of the harshest attacks yet on Rumsfeld by a Republican senator, I asked, “Which mistakes?” DeWine, who has never repented his 2002 vote for the Iraq war, gave me a what-planet-are-you-on look before responding, “Clearly not enough troops going in [to Iraq]. That was the biggest mistake. And a lot of mistakes would be covered under that.”

“Historian” Mike DeWine has swallowed his daily dose of The Washington Post and The New York Times, and like so many politicians before him, seems to think the truth lies there instead of in what his guy’s administration is saying (the same guy who has appeared with him and helped him raise millions of dollars). As Nix said:

I guess we can add ‘backstabber’ to our list of reasons to vote against Michael DeWine and for BILL PIERCE in the primary.

Yup.

Really people, now that he’s jumped ship on supporting the conduct of the War on Terror, what is left about Mike DeWine that is conservative except his prolife positions?

At this point, Mike DeWine would be better off changing his registration to Democrat and trying to change that party’s proabort positions, because otherwise, he almost completely agrees with them.

If Mike DeWine wins Tuesday, conservatives had better brace themselves for another six full months of similar campaign pandering to “moderates,” followed by six more years of sellouts. Mike DeWine clearly believes that’s where both his electoral salvation and his legislative legacy reside. You can’t help but think that he finds it more important to be well-liked by the Beltway press corps than by the betrayed conservatives who put him in office, and who have (until now) kept him in office.

Betrayed conservatives have a true conservative alternative on May 2. That would be Bill Pierce (site, blog, contribute).

____________________________

NOTE: I have endorsed Bill Pierce for Senate, and have provided nominal financial support for his campaign. BizzyBlog is a member of Blogs for Pierce.