We Need Jan Brewer

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are joining forces and telling President Barack Obama to do his job and secure our borders. Check out their new ad:

See also the statement on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page. Money quote: “We’re all Arizonans now and we say with clear unity: ‘Mr. President, do your job. Secure our border.'”

Jan Brewer succeeded Janet Napolitano to become the 22nd governor of Arizona when Napolitano was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security in 2009. Prior to her service as governor, Brewer served a term and a half as Arizona Secretary of State. She served for thirteen years in the Arizona State Legislature, three years as a state representative and ten years as a state senator. She served as chairwoman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for six years, steering Maricopa County through a serious fiscal crisis and earning the county the reputation of being “one of the two best managed large counties in the nation,” according to Governing Magazine.

Gov. Brewer already has more experience in government than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Sarah Palin had in 2008. She has more executive experience than any of the candidates on either of the 2008 presidential tickets. Gov. Brewer will have recently turned 68 years old on November 6, 2012. I think you know where I’m going with this.

Palin Endorses Fiorina, Idiocy Ensues

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in her bid for California’s U.S. Senate seat yesterday. From Palin’s Facebook page:

Carly is the Commonsense Conservative that California needs and our country could sure use in these trying times. Most importantly, she’s running for the right reasons. She has an understanding that is sorely lacking in D.C. She’s not a career politician. She’s a businesswoman who has run a major corporation. She knows how to really incentivize job creation. Her fiscal conservatism is rooted in real life experience. She knows that when government grows, the private sector shrinks under the burden of debt and deficits. We can trust Carly to do the right thing for America’s economy and to make the principled decisions she has throughout her professional career.

Please consider that Carly is the conservative who has the potential to beat California’s liberal senator, Barbara Boxer, in November. I’m a huge proponent of contested primaries, so I’m glad to see the contest in California’s GOP, but I support Carly as she fights through a tough primary against a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer, one of the most leftwing members of the Senate. Carly needs our support in this crucial election year when we have a real chance of putting an end to the Pelosi/Reid “Big Government” agenda.

Emphasis mine. Of course Chuck DeVore supporters nationwide aren’t happy with Palin’s decision, and their contempt for her common sense is pretty well encapsulated by the DeVore campaign referring to Palin as a “sheepdog.” From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“This grassroots movement is actually a grassroots movement,” said DeVore spokesperson Joshua Trevino. “Carly Fiorina thinks she can find the sheepdog to corral the sheep. Chuck DeVore knows they’re not sheep at all. They’re Americans. And they’ll make their own decisions.”

According to DeVore supporters, Palin has betrayed the grassroots. She is just another establishment hack. Yadda, yadda, yadda. There’s been plenty of speculation about Palin’s decision as well. Was she just trying to pick the winner to make herself look good and curry favor with the woman who could well be the next U.S. senator from California? Was this a shrewd maneuver to gain a key ally should Palin run for president in 2012? Did Palin endorse Fiorina because she was a top McCain advisor? Did she endorse her simply because she is a woman?

No, morons. Sarah Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina because she “is the conservative who has the potential to beat California’s liberal senator, Barbara Boxer, in November.” The end.

Unlike his supporters, Palin and the rest of us don’t have time to be concerned with Chuck DeVore’s stroking of his own ego. The DeVore campaign can go on and on about being a “grassroots movement” all it wants, but maybe Joshua Trevino can explain to us why this “grassroots movement” has garnered the support of only 10.8% of Californians according to the RealClearPolitics average. He might also want to explain to us why Palin, or anyone else for that matter, should support the Republican candidate losing the worst to Barbara Boxer in the polls.

It might be all about Chuck DeVore to DeVore and his supporters, but to Palin and the sane, rational majority of Republicans in these United States it’s about beating Barbara Boxer. It’s also about beating Tom Campbell, whom Palin accurately describes as “a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer.” If the polls are to be believed, DeVore stands no chance of beating either Campbell or Boxer. Riddle me this, DeVore supporters: If Chuck DeVore can’t even come close to beating a liberal RINO in a Republican primary, why on earth should we believe he can beat an incumbent senator in November?

Here’s reality, folks. According to the RCP average, Carly Fiorina is currently losing to Tom Campbell by six percentage points. DeVore is losing to him by eighteen. Hopefully we can all agree that regardless of how much more conservative DeVore may be than Fiorina, Fiorina is much more conservative than Campbell and is the only one who stands any real chance of beating him.

The real question we should be asking isn’t why Sarah Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina. That should be obvious: She endorsed Carly Fiorina because she wants to take back America, which involves taking Barbara Boxer’s seat in the U.S. Senate. The question we should be asking is why Chuck DeVore and his supporters are so self-involved. He must know that he can’t beat either Fiorina or Campbell, and so must his supporters. If he were to drop out of the race and endorse Fiorina, and if all of his supporters went to her, she would take out Campbell and stand a good chance of defeating Boxer in November.

So, Mr. DeVore, Mr. Trevino, and DeVore supporters: Why do you care more about Chuck DeVore’s ego and your own Kool-Aid slurping wishful thinking sorry, “grassroots movement,” than you do about defeating Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer and taking back America? Sarah Palin has her priorities straight. Time for y’all to figure out what your priorities really are.

Senate Republicans Should Not Filibuster Next SCOTUS Nominee

It has been reported recently that Justice John Paul Stevens will likely retire from the Supreme Court this year, paving the way for a second Obama appointment. This has prompted the question: Will Republicans filibuster Obama’s next nominee? The answer should be an emphatic no, no matter how liberal the nominee may turn out to be.

Sure, it may be tempting to fight a highly publicized Supreme Court battle over an ultraliberal nominee during an election year. But we need to think bigger picture: Justice Stevens is the leader of the liberal faction on the Supreme Court. Replacing him with another liberal, which Obama will most certainly manage to do, will not change the status quo — just as replacing the liberal Souter with the similarly liberal Sotomayor did not change the status quo.

We cannot waste our energy on fighting a liberal replacement for the liberal Stevens because it is within the realm of possibility that we will have to fight an important battle over a Supreme Court nominee who will change the status quo. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, is 74 years old. Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, will turn 62 in a couple of months. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is moderate to conservative, will turn 74 this summer.

If any of these three justices retire during Obama’s presidency, it will give President Obama the opportunity to decisively alter the Supreme Court’s direction. Don’t think he won’t try to take that opportunity. Souter’s retirement did not give him that opportunity because Souter was basically liberal. Stevens’ impending retirement is similar. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy — those are the battles we have to be prepared to fight. Those are the battles that, if lost, will allow President Obama to reshape the Supreme Court in his leftist image.

No matter how hard we fight, we will not deter President Obama and Senate Democrats from eventually securing a liberal appointment to replace the liberal John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. If we knock out one liberal nominee, he will just nominate another, and another after that. We must save our energy and the patience of the American public for the Supreme Court battles that will actually matter.

Catholic Social Teaching and the 10th Amendment vs. ObamaCare

From the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of the lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

This is an unusual topic for me to blog about; I don’t normally cover religious topics for a variety of reasons. Still, as I have watched the debate over ObamaCare unfold, I have noted with interest that the Catholic bishops in the United States have opposed socialized medicine only insofar as it would expand federal funding to abortion coverage. Their single issue opposition to ObamaCare has led to the perception that its funding of abortion is the only way it contradicts Catholic social teaching.

But that’s not the case. Tea Party activists have opposed ObamaCare on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment, which plainly says that the powers not reserved to the federal government or prohibited to the states should be reserved to the states or to the people. Catholic social teaching is similar in that it invokes the principle of subsidiarity, explained by the Catechism in the quote above. In essence, both the Tenth Amendment and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity are identical. Both make the case that a massive collectivist takeover of health care is not only unnecessary, but improper insofar as it “can threaten personal freedom and initiative.”

You’re reading that right: Both the United States Constitution and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repudiate collectivism and demand subsidiarity to preserve human freedom. On this issue, our founding fathers who wrote of our God-given liberty would be in lockstep with every pope since at least Pope Leo XIII.

Why point this out? It’s not just a “fun fact.” The bishops have opposed ObamaCare because it does, in fact, expand federal funding of abortion. But what if it hadn’t? Had the Stupak amendment been preserved, the U.S. bishops were prepared to support the bill — despite its clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Certainly the right to life and the preservation of human dignity are the paramount concerns, the very foundation, of Catholic social teaching. But the principle of subsidiarity has again and again been expounded upon by the papal teaching authority. It is no small matter.

The U.S. bishops were in a unique position, as both Americans and Catholic bishops, to connect the Catholic principle of subsidiarity to our constitutional principles. They had an opportunity to tell American Catholics that opposing ObamaCare is both a patriotic and religious duty. They utterly failed to do so. They missed an opportunity to boldly reaffirm a mostly forgotten principle of Catholic social teaching, to affirm the link between the Catholic and American commitments to human freedom, and to once again take up the Catholic Church’s historic leadership in the fight against global socialism.

Only the bishops can know why they have chosen not to take this opportunity. All we can do, as ordinary Catholics, is encourage them to elucidate this principle and its connection to American constitutional principles. In the meantime, as ordinary Catholics we can tell our fellow American Catholics, and all of our fellow Americans, what the Church teaches about God’s model of governance versus the collectivist model proposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

If You’re Reading This, You Are the Resistance

ObamaCare has passed, to the sound of thunderous applause from the socialists who are trampling upon the principles that have been the foundation of our country since its inception. This monstrosity, deemed “health care reform” by its statist champions, is the largest government takeover of the American economy in our history and the first time that government has ever tried to unconstitutionally force Americans to buy goods and services.

Our next step must be to rally in support of the courageous state attorneys general throughout this country who will challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate. We everyday Americans must also fight, through the Republican Party, to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with constitutional, market-based solutions to Americans’ health care problems. If we hope to roll back this blow to our constitutional republic, it is imperative that we elect Republicans to the House and Senate this November, and that we start working now to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.

It is also imperative that we recognize that this fight for our country is far from over. They will not stop at ObamaCare. They will fight for their so-called “climate change” legislation, which is really an ecosocialist plot to pass the biggest tax increase in American history and plunge our economy into the worst crisis it has ever faced. They will fight for amnesty for illegal aliens, so that their dreams of a permanent majority — now jeopardized by their overt radicalism — can finally be realized in the only way possible, through theft and fraud. They will fight for countless changes, great and small, that will undermine the liberal democratic principles upon which our republic was built.

We must fight them every step of the way. And the only way we can fight them is to elect common sense conservative Republicans to the House and Senate this year, and to work to find the right candidate to make Barack Obama a one term president.

In pursuit of these goals, in the coming days From the Rust Belt will welcome new contributors. These contributors are individuals who believe in the mission of this blog, to advance conservative principles — that is, constitutional principles — and to promote political leaders within the Republican Party who adhere to those principles. They will work with me, and with you, to fight to take back the Republican Party, to take back Ohio, and to take back America for the people of this country and the fundamental principles of our republic. We know that we are the resistance. We also know that we cannot win this fight alone.

If you’re reading this, you are the resistance. Every single man, woman, and child in this country must wake up and recognize what Barack Obama and his socialists in Congress are doing and fight them every step of the way. Every American must engage in a second Velvet Revolution to halt the forward march of Karl Marx’s ghost. You, and I, and every other American must take to the streets in peaceful protest. You, and I, and every other American must pound the pavement for candidates who will restore our republic. You, and I, and every other American must vote in primary and general elections at every level of government for candidates who will fight this fight with us every step of the way.

You are the resistance. America is depending on you. Look at everything she has done for you. Do what you can now for her, so that your children and grandchildren don’t wake up in an America in which the American Dream is nothing more than a dream, buried deep in the minds of enslaved and asleep citizens lulled into their slumber by the empty promises of big government.

Sin Taxes, Freedom of Choice, and Our Economy [UPDATED]

The guys at HillBuzz have a question: Do you support measures like “Soda Taxes” in cash-strapped cities raising revenue from unhealthy choices?

My answer is emphatically no, for four reasons:

1) It is a big government idea that restricts individual freedom of choice and discourages personal responsibility, which is the modus operandi of statist socialism.

2) It can be damaging to our economy, especially during a recession.

3) It encourages government to continue spending frivolously and beyond its means, then to pass the cost to the lowest income consumers in what amounts to a regressive tax.

4) There is evidence that, rather than raising revenue, sin taxes may actually have the (supposedly) intended effect of curbing the purchase of the unhealthy products in question. That’s all well and good, but it can lead to further budget shortfalls when government does not raise the projected revenue from the sin tax.

An in depth discussion of my reasons for opposing sin taxes beneath the fold…

Redfern, ODP Are Running Scared

Chris Redfern and the Ohio Democratic Party are scared. How else to explain Redfern’s focus on the Republican primary for Auditor of State?

Redfern, on January 20:

Are Republicans so desperate in looking for anyone to run for State Auditor that they have settled on someone whose home county soundly rejected him as a candidate for County Auditor? Rep. Morgan’s one big accomplishment is slamming the Governor’s office with a massive and frivolous public records request that was a waste of taxpayer dollars. And now, after wasting the state’s money, he wants to be Ohio’s next Auditor. Rep. Morgan says he wants to continue in Mary Taylor’s CPA tradition, which, given his record, we assume will be her tradition of Conservative Partisan Attacks.

Redfern, on January 25:

Dave Yost was strong-armed out of the Attorney General’s race by the Ohio Republican Party, despite having endorsements from many county Republican parties throughout the state. Yost clearly wanted to be Attorney General, but was forced to play second fiddle to Kevin DeWine’s second cousin and the second choice of the Republican base. Meanwhile, two self-proclaimed Tea Party candidates are now pitted against one another in the race for the Republican nomination for Auditor, which has infuriated the right-wing of the Republican Party.

Running for the Auditor’s office should not be a consolation prize. David Pepper has been traveling across the state for eight months, talking to Ohioans about what they want out of a State Auditor and speaking about his passion for improving the Auditor’s office. He will build on his record of protecting Ohio tax dollars by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, while expanding transparency and accountability in local government.

Most recently, Redfern on March 3:

Does Congressman Kasich stand with Kevin DeWine, or does he stand with Mary Taylor’s longtime mentor Alex Arshinkoff? Does Kasich stand with the Ohio Republican Party, or does he stand with county Republican parties throughout the state? Does he agree with his running mate that Ohio’s Auditor should be a CPA, or does he agree with Kevin DeWine that Ohio must have a former county auditor in the position?

Redfern is scared, and he should be. No matter who wins the Republican primary for Auditor of State, our candidate will still be a stronger candidate with better qualifications to be Ohio’s next Auditor than their candidate.

It is ironic that Redfern would ask whether John Kasich thinks that Ohio’s Auditor of State should be a CPA like Mary Taylor and Seth Morgan or a former county auditor like Dave Yost. Their candidate, David Pepper, is neither. In fact, it seems that Pepper’s chief qualification when Redfern thought he would be running against Mary Taylor was his ability to self-fund his own campaign (in other words, his well known status as the “spoiled little brat” candidate for Auditor). Pepper and Redfern seem to think that money is the only qualification a candidate needs to be our next Auditor of State.

And how desperate is Chris Redfern, that he doesn’t even notice the hypocrisy of criticizing the way our party does business as the Ohio Democratic Party, under his leadership, has been working hard to limit Democrat voters’ choices to the establishment’s preferred candidates?

Take, for example, the Democrat primary for U.S. Senate. There can be no question that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is the more liberal candidate who would be more appealing to the Democrat nutroots, yet it’s clear that the establishment is supporting Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher. What gives?

But the ODP’s treatment of Brunner is nothing compared to their treatment of the woman who once sought to replace Brunner as Secretary of State, Jennifer Garrison. OhioDaily, a Democrat blog, reported at the end of January that “donors and party insiders” (read: the ODP and its minions) were seeking “to push their original hand-picked choice out as fast as they rushed her in.” They succeeded, and their efforts to deny Democrat primary voters a choice between moderate Garrison versus an ultra-liberal candidate like Maryellen O’Shaughnessy left some wondering if Garrison would switch to the Republican Party.

And Redfern wants to talk about candidates being “strong-armed” out of primary races? Apparently he is so irrationally afraid of Seth Morgan and Dave Yost that it slipped his mind that his own party, under his own leadership, successfully “strong-armed” Jennifer Garrison out of the Secretary of State race and is trying to do the same thing to Jennifer Brunner and her flailing campaign for U.S. Senate.

But hey, Redfern can be forgiven for being a little scared. I have long maintained that, as a CPA, Seth Morgan is the most qualified candidate in the Auditor of State race. I believe he can and will win the primary and be our nominee for Auditor. But let’s face it, even if Morgan loses the primary and Dave Yost is our nominee, our candidate will still be leaps and bounds more qualified than David Pepper. Whether our candidate is a CPA or a former county auditor, at least he will have better qualifications for the job than his family’s money.

Morgan Campaign Urges Yost to Fire Spokesman [UPDATED]

On February 25, I noted that Yost campaign spokesman Matt Borges has a little public corruption in his past. In 2004, Borges pleaded guilty to improper use of public office amidst a scandal involving his time working for former Ohio Treasurer Joseph Deters. It seemed to me that someone aspiring to be Auditor of State, our government watchdog, shouldn’t have any trace of corruption on his campaign. I wrote:

On more than one occasion, Yost has boasted about his (admittedly impressive) record for going after public corruption. That’s all well and good, but what about the corrupt former public servant on his own campaign staff? Matt Borges pleaded guilty to improper use of public office. What is he doing on the campaign staff of a man who prides himself on the aggressive prosecution of public corruption? More importantly, will Mr. Borges be working in the Auditor of State’s office if Yost is elected?

Now the Morgan campaign has written a letter to Dave Yost urging him to fire Mr. Borges. From the Morgan campaign’s press release, which I received by e-mail:

Dear Dave,

It has been brought to my attention through past media reports in the Dayton Daily News, the Cincinnati Enquirer, other media outlets, and recent news blogs that you have associated on both of your campaigns, running for Ohio Attorney General and now Auditor of State, an individual that admitted to public corruption charges.

The public insists the Auditor of State to be above reproach and demands the Auditor to have high ethical standards due to the sensitive nature of the cases the office handles. Even the hint of impropriety would be damaging to the reputation and the public trust of the Auditor’s office. That is the reason why the ethical standards for professional auditors such as Seth Morgan, CPA are some of the highest found among any professional group.

Mr. Matt Borges, your campaign spokesman and member of your campaign leadership team, admitted to public corruption charges in July 2004 when he was Chief of Staff to State Treasurer Joe Deters. Borges pleaded guilty to one count of improper use of public office. Court documents indicate he gave preferential treatment to certain brokers who made contributions to Deters’ re-election campaign.

Mr. Borges may be a very skilled professional and I don’t claim to have any special knowledge of what did or didn’t happen in the Treasurer’s office at the time he chose to plead guilty to these charges. However, the fact that Mr. Borges did plead guilty to corruption charges and you still have seen fit to allow him to play a very visible role in your campaign could raise very serious questions in the public’s mind regarding the standards you would use should you prevail and succeed in being elected Ohio’s next State Auditor.

I urge you to disassociate your campaign from Mr. Borges and to exercise greater care in the future regarding those who become part of your team.

Respectfully,

Emery Phipps
Political Director
Friends of Seth Morgan

Given the very nature of the Auditor of State’s office, this is not an unreasonable request. You can bet, though, that Yost supporters will once again howl about the purported “scorched earth” campaign that they say Morgan and his supporters are running. To that, I would point out to them as I pointed out in February that it is far better to air this now, during the primaries, than to let David Pepper get his hands on it in the fall.

As Yost supporters are so fond of pointing out, it’s not just the Auditor’s office that is at stake here. It’s the Apportionment Board. By employing someone who has admitted to public corruption in the past, Dave Yost is not only jeopardizing the integrity of the Auditor’s office should he win, he is also jeopardizing Republican chances to maintain control of the Apportionment Board should David Pepper hammer him day in and day out about his association with Mr. Borges.

UPDATE: I have been reminded that this incident has since been expunged from Mr. Borges’ record, which in no way changes the fact that he still pleaded guilty to one count of improper use of public office in 2004. But yes, for the record, that has since been expunged.

Yost Endorsed By “Gang of 5,” Other RINOs [UPDATED]

State Rep. Seth Morgan (R-Huber Heights) has recently been endorsed by 17 state legislators and the Cuyahoga County Republican Central Committee in his bid for Ohio Auditor of State. Frankly, the Morgan campaign is wracking up so many endorsements that it’s becoming difficult for little ole’ me to keep up with them all!

It’s been a little easier to keep track of Dave Yost’s endorsements. Until recently he had only the endorsement of the Ohio Republican Party and the Delaware County (his home county) Republican Central Committee, both of which were expected, as well as the Muskingum County GOP. His endorsements thus far have been so pathetic that Third Base Politics, an establishment Republican blog out of touch with everyday Ohioans, felt the need to weigh in and say that endorsements don’t matter at all. Of course, if Yost had all the endorsements, they would matter — since, according to our Ohioan-Virginian friend, his endorsements by the Ohio Republican Party and 16 Republican state senators apparently matter a great deal.

But wait, what did I just say? 16 Ohio state senators? Yep, in fairness to Dave Yost, he did finally receive some endorsements from Republicans in the Ohio Senate. But if you do a little digging — and really, I mean only a little — you quickly discover they’re not the kind of endorsements a truly conservative candidate for Auditor of State would actually want.

You see, Dave Yost has been endorsed by the infamous Gang of 5 — yep, all five of them — who voted with outgoing Gov. Ted Strickland and his Democrats to raise taxes to the tune of $900 million. Another five of these senators endorsing Yost have troubling voting records that variously include tax hikes, big spending, and statist paternalism.

So just what exactly do these big government, RINO Republican endorsements say about Dave Yost’s candidacy for Auditor of State? All of that, including a glimpse at these senators’ voting records, beneath the fold…

Corruption: Coming to an Auditor’s Office Near You?

Yesterday, Matt Naugle (Right Ohio) noted that Matt Borges is working as spokesman for Dave Yost’s campaign for Ohio Auditor of State. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Borges, he pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of improper use of public office in 2004. Borges, who previously worked for former Ohio Treasurer Joseph Deters, was alleged to have given “preferential treatment to certain brokers who made contributions to Deters’ re-election campaign,” according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Naugle ponders whether Borges’ work on the Yost campaign has more to do with the Ohio GOP establishment than it does with Dave Yost:

The rumor is that this job was arranged by Jo Ann Davidson and the Franklin County GOP Chairman as a way to attempt to control Yost’s office if he is successful in November against the spoiled brat rich boy David Pepper. Other party insiders think that is a huge stretch to assume.

In this case, I don’t think we can blame the establishment. I think the blame needs to be placed squarely at the feet of Dave Yost. Borges has been working for the Yost campaign since October, when he was still running for Attorney General. According to a Dayton Daily News article from October, Borges said that he and Yost have been friends for 20 years.

So let’s recap, shall we? Dave Yost once argued that he was more a prosecutor than a politician. Now, running for Auditor of State, Yost is emphasizing his brief tenure as Delaware County auditor and is distributing misleading literature to the public which says that he’s “the only [candidate] who’s been an auditor.” You would almost forget that this politician was ever a prosecutor! Once the grassroots hope to defeat Mike “RINO” DeWine for Attorney General, he is now the establishment hope to defeat grassroots candidate Seth Morgan for Auditor of State.

But it just gets worse for Mr. Yost. On more than one occasion, Yost has boasted about his (admittedly impressive) record for going after public corruption. That’s all well and good, but what about the corrupt former public servant on his own campaign staff? Matt Borges pleaded guilty to improper use of public office. What is he doing on the campaign staff of a man who prides himself on his aggressive prosecution of public corruption? More importantly, will Mr. Borges be working in the Auditor of State’s office if Yost is elected?

Dave Yost — politician before prosecutor, the establishment’s best hope against a conservative grassroots candidate, and a proud opponent of public corruption unless the corrupt former public servant in question happens to work on Yost’s campaign. This man is not the leader that conservatives across this state thought he was. And judging by his early employment of Mr. Borges, he never was.

But hey, if the establishment succeeds in winning Yost the primary for Auditor of State, at least we’ll all have something to look forward to. We can look forward to David Pepper dredging all of this up again, only this time it will be splashed across the pages and airwaves of Ohio’s liberal media (not to mention Pepper’s own campaign ads). And then, best of all, we can look forward to potentially losing the Apportionment Board. Won’t that be a blast?