Here are some thoughts on last night’s various elections.

____________________________________________________

Rand Paul’s victory in Kentucky’s GOP primary shows what happens when the state party establishment lets the voters decide. When that happens, real Tea Party Values prevail. It’s sad to say that yours truly lives in Ohio, a state where the GOP establishment believes that this is a bad thing.

One intriguing element of the race was how James Dobson publicly switched his endorsement to Paul (not that he’s the greatest indicator of a candidate’s fitness; see Bob McEwen, 2005). Dobson even said he was originally misled about Mr. Paul’s issue positions. I wonder which “senior members of the GOP” (Dobson’s words) did that?

____________________________________________________

Arlen Specter’s defeat was entirely predictable once he had a challenger (which, in full disclosure, I didn’t think would happen), though the 8-point loss margin was worse than yours truly expected. Specter should have known that switching parties wouldn’t necessarily save him.

Holly Maddux was unavailable for comment about last night’s results. Concerning Maddux’s brutal murderer, Ira Einhorn:

Einhorn’s attorney was soon-to-be U.S. senator Arlen Specter, and bail was set at a staggeringly low $40,000 — only $4,000 of it needed to walk free. It was paid by Barbara Bronfman, a Montreal socialite …

… shortly before his trial was to begin in January 1981, Philadelphia’s own philosopher king simply vanished (fleeing to Europe).

Einhorn was a radical environmentalist darling until and even after his arrest — even well after his true monstrosity was fully exposed. Arlen Specter has come home.

____________________________________________________

The man who defeated Specter, Congressman Joe Sestak, is pretending to be anti-Washington, anti-Obama, and anti-pork. This ABC post-election report says that “Sestak, a virtual unknown compared to his incumbent opponent, successfully exploited the anti-Washington mood …”

Sorry Joe, no sale — your Club for Growth scorecards show you are a big part of the problem, as follows:

2009 — 7%
2008 — 4%
2007 — 6%

Sestak’s 2009 grade during Obama’s first year make him more pro-Obama and pro-pork than the following sampling of leftist “luminaries”: Marcy Kaptur (10%), Pete “Soldiers Die for Bush’s Amusement” Stark (18%), and Dennis Kucinich (28%).

Oh, and Sestak’s 7% ties him with … Nancy Pelosi.

Sestak will go up against former Club for Growth head Pat Toomey. The result of that face-off is all about whether Pennsylvania can ever conquer its own variation of Stockholm Syndrome known as “Insulted Voter Syndrome.” Yesterday’s result in PA-12 should be a warning shot to Toomey — and the state and national GOP establishment that owes him its full and unconditional support for his part in finally taking Snarlin’ Arlen out of the picture — to take nothing for granted.

Imagination (first meaning at dictionary.com):

the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.

What does what the world saw and heard when Islamist kidnappers killed Daniel Pearl and videotaped his murder have to do with “imagination”?

Ask President Obama (HT Atlas Shrugs):

Transcript:

President Obama: Obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl, uh, was, uh, one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us, uh, uh, of how valuable a free press is.

“Loss”? “Loss”?

“LOSS”?

I can’t imagine why anyone, let alone the alleged leader of the free world, would call a cold-blooded murder designed to intimidate the international press and the civilized world a “loss.”

Ah, perhaps there’s the answer … he’s intimidated.

I don’t agree with Mr. Littleton in certain details, but he has the problem nailed (heavily excerpted because it’s important, but read the whole thing):

Two classes define modern America — a political class and a producing class.

… (in) our famed two-party system … Political parties exist to provide an apparatus for achieving elected positions. At no point does either party adhere to a specific set of principles — it is merely responsible for cobbling together a coalition of people who loosely share beliefs in order to achieve victory.

A well-run party consolidates its voting bloc by doing more for its constituents than anyone else. Over time, these constituents become supportive of the chosen party, paying little attention to the actual policies generated by their supported political class.

We are then left with Republicans whose primary goal has become to manufacture prosperity as a defense for a complete lack of fortitude, and Democrats whose primary goal is to manufacture equality as justification for their so-called superior moral status — both equally destructive.

At what point does this highly detached political class consider, “Why am I doing this?” or “Is it right?” The system perpetuates decisions and alliances based on the preservation of their electoral apparatus. Intent and rhetoric are valued far beyond method or outcome, and character and principle are easily abandoned in favor of expediency.

All this is possible only when our producing class has disengaged from the political process altogether. Why? They incorrectly made the assumption that the party they support works for their best interests.

… both parties defend their respective positions as different from the other. Yes, their agendas are different. Yes, their rhetoric is different.

But their methods and outcomes are identical.

Both use government expansion and influence to achieve their goals.

… So the “tea party” was born — not to rebel against one party or official, but to begin the great American re-engagement of the producing class. Those who were too busy looked at their children, knowing the political classes were destroying any semblance of the American dream, and finally crossed their line.

They knew that democracy’s own prosperity had bred this new entitled lifestyle and therefore saw complicity in the political class’s abuse of power.

… Those who gave birth to the tea party remembered that we look not to political parties, but to ourselves, for guidance. We were never meant to have rights administered or abused.

So in the end the tea party movement wasn’t a departure to the right. It was the rebirth of the American conscience — a conscience previously too busy, as members of the producing class, to worry about engaging. Now, they no longer trust blindly nor do they seek to divide, but rather to unite through principles — shared beliefs in limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.

The tea party movement isn’t about taxes or a third party. It’s the new conscience of the body politic. At its very essence, the tea party movement is the overdue paradigm shift required for the continuation of this “great experiment.” Without a conscience rooted in liberty and accountable through action, the political class will destroy the very fabric of our republic.

It has come perilously close to doing so already.

Borrowing from Mr. Littleton, the following statement might as well be the motto on the walls of the offices at ORPINO (the Ohio Republican Party In Name Only):

We make decisions and perpetuate alliances based on the preservation of our electoral apparatus. We will present noble intent and rhetoric to the voters and could care less about how we get to our desired outcome. We will abandon character and principle in favor of expediency.

What else explains ORPINO’s enthusiastic promotion of the objectively unfit Jon Husted’s candidacy, in direct violation of at least two items Kevin DeWine’s post-2008 election “10-point plan for building a new Ohio Republican Party”? (*) Merely because the system refused to hold Husted accountable for his self-evident offense against representative government — living in Columbus for years while falsely claiming to live in the district he represents — ORPINO and Husted expect the electorate not to care. If sufficiently aware, “the new conscience of the body politic” will not reward Husted with a promotion to the office responsible for administering the state’s election laws.

Extending the rhetorical borrowing from Mr. Littleton a bit further:

At what point does Rob Portman, the highly detached political insider, consider, “Why am I doing this?” or “Is it right?”

Am I being unfair? Consider this, from a 2005 Cleveland Plain Dealer profile:

“I probably am a little risk-averse compared to some members [of Congress],” he concedes, “but I think a lot of that is a deliberate decision on my part that some things are worth it for my career and some things aren’t.”

So when the chips are down, will Portman choose country first, or Rob first? When the Constitution’s original intent is being twisted like a pretzel, while Portman choose it first, or Rob first? What does it look like?

Rob Portman has to prove to “the new conscience of the body politic” that it’s not about him. He clearly hasn’t done so yet. I don’t even know that he can.

________________________________________

(*) – the “LeadingOhio.com” web site that formerly contained the 10-point plan, at least through late May of last year, and which included “conservative credibility” (Point 1) and “zero-tolerance policy” (Point 10) is no longer available, even in an archive.org search, and merely redirects to ORPINO’s home page. Expediency, and not “a specific set of principles,” rules.

From Dupo, Illinois:

Jessica Phillips, a young woman from Dupo, Illinois, recovers after receiving a miraculous third kidney. After her rare transplant last week some are calling the 27-year-old a “medical miracle”.

“I’ve seen people who’ve had two but I’ve never really heard of anybody saying anything about three,” explains Jessica.

It was 2:30 in the morning last week when Jessica and her husband, Jacob, got the call that a perfect match kidney had been located. The Phillips only had an hour to get to Barnes Hospital to begin the surgery.

Ten years ago, Jessica’s kidney contracted a rare disease that required her first donation made by her mother, Nancy. After the first transplant failed, Jessica’s stepfather donated a kidney for a second transplant. That kidney held on well enough, but doctors were afraid the organ would not do well with the grueling dialysis Jessica was preparing to go through. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Give Campbell Brown credit. Unlike many of her colleagues, who from all appearances will have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their microphones once their networks can no longer afford to subsidize their dwindling audiences, Brown recognizes that she’s in a business that has to make money.

Brown’s evening CNN show has consistently failed to reach enough viewers to justify itself, and she concluded that there was no realistic hope of recovery. So, unlike a certain CBS Evening News anchor, Campbell Brown is doing the honorable thing, and resigning. She has told the network to find someone who might perform better.

Meanwhile, give the Associated Press piles of demerits. Its brief story on Brown’s departure contained a final-paragraph howler about network’s news posture that must be read to be believed (link is dynamic and may change over time; full AP item is presented below for fair use, discussion, and embarrassment purposes):

For what it’s worth, Brown outdrew Larry King in the 25-54 demographic on Monday, May 17 by 108,000 to 90,000.

Care to take a hint, Larry?

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Today, the Associated Press generally did what is supposed to do when reporting on scandal-plagued politicians.

Here are the first five paragraphs of the AP’s brief report on Indiana Congressman Mark Souder’s resignation announcement (link is dynamic and will probably be updated; “where’s the worst one we can find?” picture of Souder at right is via AP):

Here’s the opening of the coverage at the New York Times’s Caucus Blog (also subject to possible updates):

That’s fine. AP and the Times generally handled this one as it should be handled, and as readers would want to see it handled (readers should be advised that subsequent revisions to the above items may see journalistic decay in other aspects).

If only the wire service and Old Gray Lady were consistent.

The trouble is, so many previous AP and New York Times dispatches fail to directly identify the resigning politician’s party, or wait until very late paragraphs until doing so. Here is a small sampling of many examples:

• Higher up the political food chain, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in the wake of getting caught using the services of high-priced prostitutes, this March 12, 2008 AP report did not identify Spitzer’s party until the 35th paragraph (that’s not a typo). The New York Times’s Michael Grynbaum only tagged Spitzer as a convention “superdelegate” for his party in his 1,300-word report’s 16th paragraph.
• At a parallel level, there’s this AP “classic” on the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana, where the wire service’s Lara Jakes Jordan and Matthew Barakat never specifically identified Jefferson’s party, but only cryptically did so by mentioning the party of affiliation of Nancy Pelosi (even so, Pelosi was in charge of the entire House at the time, so that’s not even a crystal clear tip-off). The Times report on Jefferson’s indictment was uncharacteristically good, naming Jefferson’s party right away.
• Concerning former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s conviction and resignation, this September 4, 2008 AP report waited until Paragraph 8 to identify his party. A 500-word synopsis of the sordid Kilpatrick saga at the New York Times does not mention Kilpatrick’s party, nor, as noted previously in a separate post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), do the vast majority of the Times dispatches underlying it.

The difference, of course, is that Spitzer, Jefferson, and Kilpatrick are Democrats.

Finally, here’s an interesting comeback argument that might come from those who claim yours truly is being selective by ignoring recently resigned New York Democrat Eric Massa.

After all, the argument might run, the AP’s Laurie Kellman identified Massa as a Democrat in the very first sentence of her report, as did a pair of New York Times reporters in their coverage. Why?

Well, as the Time intimated, Massa was “outspoken.” The AP’s Kellman was much more specific, almost to the point of doing an end-zone dance: “His departure is good news for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s effort to advance a troubled health care overhaul. Massa had voted against it. His departure reduces the majority she needs for passage to 216.”

The Times and especially the AP wanted to make sure readers knew that Massa was really a “bad Democrat” — not in his conduct, but in some of his key political stances, particularly on the Holy Grail of statist health care. It appears that from their perspective, the party was ideologically purified by Massa’s departure.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Oh of course they’ll try anyway. As noted yesterday, it’s what they do.

A Wall Street Journal editorial this morning dissects a serious diplomatic botch. The nation’s lapdog press establishment will ignore this, or dress it is up some way, but the real result is that our country and our allies are less safe:

Iran’s Nuclear Coup
Ahmadinejad and Lula expose Obama’s hapless diplomacy.

What a fiasco. That’s the first word that comes to mind watching Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raise his arms yesterday with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil to celebrate a new atomic pact that instantly made irrelevant 16 months of President Obama’s “diplomacy.” The deal is a political coup for Tehran and possibly delivers the coup de grace to the West’s half-hearted efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama Administration and its hapless diplomatic strategy. Last October, nine months into its engagement with Tehran, the White House concocted a plan to transfer some of Iran’s uranium stock abroad for enrichment. If the West couldn’t stop Iran’s program, the thinking was that maybe this scheme would delay it. The Iranians played coy, then refused to accept the offer.

But Mr. Obama doesn’t take no for an answer from rogue regimes, and so he kept the offer on the table. As the U.S. finally seemed ready to go to the U.N. Security Council for more sanctions, the Iranians chose yesterday to accept the deal on their own limited terms while enlisting the Brazilians and Turks as enablers and political shields.

… Under the terms unveiled yesterday, Iran said it would send 1,200 kilograms (2,646 lbs.) of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within a month, and no more than a year later get back 120 kilograms enriched from somewhere else abroad. This makes even less sense than the flawed October deal. In the intervening seven months, Iran has kicked its enrichment activities into higher gear. Its estimated total stock has gone to 2,300 kilograms from 1,500 kilograms last autumn, and its stated enrichment goal has gone to 20% from 3.5%.

If the West accepts this deal, Iran would be allowed to keep enriching uranium in contravention of previous U.N. resolutions. Removing 1,200 kilograms will leave Iran with still enough low-enriched stock to make a bomb, and once uranium is enriched up to 20% it is technically easier to get to bomb-capable enrichment levels.

Only last week, diplomats at the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has increased the number of centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium. According to Western intelligence estimates, Iran continues to acquire key nuclear components, such as trigger mechanisms for bombs. Tehran says it wants to build additional uranium enrichment plants. The CIA recently reported that Iran tripled its stockpile of uranium last year and moved “toward self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear missiles.” Yesterday’s deal will have no impact on these illicit activities.

The deal will, however, make it nearly impossible to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program short of military action.

… The U.N. is certainly a dead end. After 16 months of his extended hand and after downplaying support for Iran’s democratic opposition, Mr. Obama now faces an Iran much closer to a bomb and less diplomatically isolated than when President Bush left office.

Israel will have to seriously consider its military options. …

The “downplaying support for Iran’s democratic opposition” is an especially disgraceful (see “Related” items below). This administration will focus more energy on a state like Arizona doing something to protect itself from federal folly than it will to support freedom fighters with a chance of upending the civilized world’s most immediate threat.

Now the threat is even more immediate.

Heckuva job, Barry … and Hillary.

_________________________________________________

Related:

• Oct. 6, 2009, at BizzyBlog — State Dept. Pulls Funding From Iran Human Rights Watchdog Despite Tehran’s Vulnerability
• Aug. 21, at BizzyBlog – That ‘Engagement’ Thing With Iran Hasn’t Worked Out So Well
• July 11, 2009, from Andy McCarthy at National Review — “Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters”
• July 5, 2009, at BizzyBlog – Tech’s Repressive Dark Side Threatens Us All
• June 27, 2009, from Jose Maria Aznar in the Wall Street Journal — “Silence Has Consequences for Iran; The less we protest, the more people will die.”
• On June 20, 2009, Victor Davis Hanson asked, “Does not Obama see that the world has been given a rare chance, thanks to brave Iranians—as if the German people had risen up in 1938 in fear of what was on the horizon?”
• On June 16, 2009, yours truly said this in a “Roundup” post — “It has become downright embarrassing watching this administration dither and fumble around trying to figure out how to react straightforwardly to humanity’s cry for freedom and representative government in Iran.”

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog early on Thursday morning (link won’t work until then), so I can carry it forward during the day if it seems appropriate.

One thing that didn’t get into the post: The immature, overgrown frat-boy video (since pulled in a copyright dispute) put out by the Republican Senatorial Committee targeting Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Lee Fisher. The “level” of “humor” in the ad stopped being funny to most adult Ohioans once they reached the age of about 20. Yeah, it leverages something really foolish Lugubrious Lee did last June, but it didn’t have to go where it disgracefully went.

Rob Portman also didn’t have to wait a couple of days to denounce the ad. But he did. It’s because, as I noted at the Examiner post, Portman and his campaign think they can operate in cruise control and drift to victory in November. No they can’t — not if they want to win, and especially not if they want to win big.

Rob Portman 2010 may equal Dick Thornburgh 1991.

This goes back a few months at the Aurora, Colorado Sentinel (HT to an e-mailer), but it’s well-timed given that the establishment press is crowing about how successful they’ve been in marketing the patent falsehood that the current economy is still George W. Bush’s fault (and even though President Obama supported all of the ill-advised things Bush 43 did in his final months in office):

Obama is a victim of Bush’s failed promises

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

… Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

… It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Read the whole thing. Given the passage of time, perhaps readers can come up with additional examples beyond those Mr. Green cited.

The percentage of Ohio’s population receiving “traditional welfare” benefits (i.e., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF) has been much higher than the national average for many years, for no apparent reason.

But what I discovered in the course of drafting my column (at Pajamas Media; at BizzyBlog; Friday’s BizzyBlog tease) on Oklahoma’s economic progress since the Sooner State passed immigration law-enforcement reform in 2007 should stun every Ohioan concerned about whether the Buckeye State can ever reverse its slide into economic oblivion.

Ohio’s welfare/TANF caseload as of September 2008 was 178,652, or about 1.55% of the state’s population. Ohio’s share of the national caseload excluding certified basket case California (where TANF enrollment as a percentage of the population is almost four times the average for the rest of the country) was 7%, even though the state’s population as a percentage of the country’s total population excluding California was about 4%.

That’s bad enough, but in the next 12 months, Ohio added almost 49,000 recipients to the welfare rolls. I’m not kidding. As of September 30, 2009 the caseload was 227,363 — a 27% increase.

No other state besides Oregon (roughly +0.53%) added a larger percentage of its population to its TANF/welfare rolls during fiscal 2009 than did Ohio (+0.42%, to a total of 1.97%) — not even California (0.35%). Only one other state (Washington, at 41%), came close.

Sorry, but Ohio’s certifiably awful economy is not an excuse, because that doesn’t explain away the following:

• In Illinois (of all places), where the unemployment rate has been running in tandem with Ohio’s for about the past two years, total welfare/TANF enrollment as of September 30, 2009 was only 55,394, or 0.43% of the state’s population, and only went up by about 900 (that’s not a misprint) during the twelve previous months. Ohio’s caseload as a percentage of the state’s population is over 4-1/2 times higher than that of Illinois.
• Kentucky’s unemployment rate went from 6.9% to 10.9% during the same period, but its TANF caseload only increased by 2,000.
• In Michigan as of June 2009 (lastest data available), the caseload was 1.6% of the state’s population and fell  – that’s right, fell – by about 5,000 during the previous 12 months.

Given the facts and surrounding circumstances, it’s hard not to conclude that the Strickland administration, building on a 10-year legacy of failure by ORPINO (Ohio Republican Party In Name Only) governors who preceded him to pursue the national welfare reform law of 1996 as aggressively as the rest of the country, has mounted a determined drive to increase the number of government-dependent Buckeye State residents — and, not coincidentally, Democrat-inclined voters.

What else explains this?

From the Catholic News Agency (underlying Gallup report, entitled “The New Normal on Abortion: Americans More ‘Pro-Life,’” is here):

A Gallup poll of Americans’ views on abortion again reports that slightly more Americans self-identify as pro-life instead of pro-choice. While the number of pro-life Democrats is down, a shift is apparent among Republicans and Independents.

A poll conducted May 3-6 showed 47 percent of Americans say they are pro-life while 45 percent say they are pro-choice, Gallup reports, claiming a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Particularly large increases in pro-life sympathies are apparent among young adults and those aged 50 to 64 years.

In 2009, 56 percent of Gallup respondents said abortion was morally wrong, a number which declined to 50 percent this year. Gallup said in light of this fact it was “not entirely clear” why Americans are more likely to embrace the pro-life view.

Since 2003, Republicans have been more likely to call themselves pro-life, as 68 percent now do so. Republican-leaning independents have been trending pro-life since 2005 and 61 percent say they self-identify as such now. Independents without a party preference became more likely to call themselves pro-life between 2003 and 2006 but have since held steady. …

Go here for the rest of the CNA story, and here for the Gallup report.

This is long overdue:

This is what some of us thought we saw in John Kasich a year or so ago.

Meanwhile, here in Ohio, Jon Husted and Mike DeWine, the Party’s two totally unacceptable down-ticket candidates are both planting seeds about running for Governor — in 2014. Given these rumblings, is it really so crazy to think that ORPINO (the Ohio Republican Party In Name Only) and its vaunted “money people” would like to see you lose, even if it means that the Buckeye State circles the drain for four more years under a reelected Ted Strickland?

The people at ORPINO are not your friends, John. It almost seems as if they despise Republicans who aren’t beholden to them more than Democrats. I don’t recall ORPINO conducting an 8-mailing, poll-watching enterprise on behalf of Ken Blackwell to defeat Ted Strickland back in 2006 — or ever. But ORPINO probably blew over $1 million (especially if you include the value of allocated staff time) doing exactly that to ensure the defeats of superior candidates Seth Morgan and Sandy O’Brien.

(Hint to Kevin DeWine and ORPINO: You don’t get it. You may think that this state can drift for another four years, but we don’t have four more years, for reasons that should be obvious but on which I’ll elaborate in the coming weeks and months.)

BTW, John — Do you think Chris Christie would be a big fan of Third Frontier?