DSCC Not Fighting for Fisher

In my morning rounds, I caught a Facebook post from our good friend Kyle Sisk (get his insights via Twitter) that I think rings true regarding the level of interest the DSCC has in Lee Fisher's tilting at windmills:

The DSCC takes sides. They just do. If a candidate & his/her campaign team have a schism the DSCC takes sides. They do not support both. That would send a terrible message & promote dissension in the ranks.

If the DSCC was "for" Lee then when he fires staff or they leave in the heat of the campaign said staffers would have a hard time finding work on a campaign for city council in Decatur...they would not land softly in a more high profile US Senate race in KY for Jack Conway. To me, ousted Fisher staffers landing in even better jobs after leaving Lee & Peggy Zone's version of "The Titanic" is "exhibit a" that the DSCC is not in this race.

This might be one of this situations where we read ourselves in to the actions of our "enemies" but I don't think that is the case here.

The sheer number of castoffs from the Fisher campaign is amazing enough on its own, but the fact that so many of these people wind up getting better gigs really is a story worth noting. while it may appear to be just a footnote in 527 Media stories, Kyle has a point that the real story very well could be that this signals a level of disinterest on the part of the DSCC.

Who can blame them really? The Fisher for Senate campaign has been a disaster from Day One and not just for Lee. Although, Governor Strickland has fared better thus far, Fisher's roles as Lieutenant Governor and Ohio's Job Czar has been a harbinger hanging around Strickland's neck as well. The Ohio Democratic Party may have backed Fisher in the primary against Jennifer Brunner, but one has got to think they may have buyer's remorse now since Lee Fisher's fund raising efforts have been lackluster (and that is being generous).

All in all, that the DSCC hasn't blacklisted these staffers is a sure sign of the campaign arm being not willing to fight for Fisher.

Portman Blasts Brunner and Fisher On Their Support of Cap and Tax

Release:

Marion, OH - Following a tour today of Nucor Steel mill and meetings with Nucor employees yesterday, U.S. Senate candidate Rob Portman criticized Congress' plan to impose a cap-and-trade energy tax that will punish Ohio's working families, factories and small businesses. Portman also criticized both Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

"Congress has failed to provide any meaningful help for Ohioans suffering through this historic economic crisis. Instead, Washington continues to pursue an agenda of record deficits, higher taxes and other job-killing proposals. Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner blindly support one of Washington's biggest job-killers for Ohio like the cap-and-trade energy tax.

"The cap and trade energy bill that has already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and is being debated in the Senate will be devastating for Ohio's workers and small businesses. Ohio is particularly hard hit because 86 percent of us get our electricity from coal, and Ohio has more energy intensive manufacturers who would be subject to these new costly regulations. The cap-and-trade proposal will raise energy costs for all working families and increase the cost of many goods and services as businesses are forced to pass higher energy costs onto consumers. This will lead to more job losses at a time when Ohio's unemployment rate is the highest it's been in 27 years.

"Unfortunately both Lt. Governor Fisher and Secretary Brunner enthusiastically support Washington's wrongheaded energy policy. Rather than levy a job-killing cap and trade tax on the kind of energy Ohio depends on we should aggressively use renewable energy, nuclear power, clean-coal technology, lower-emission natural gas and conservation in a way that leads to a cleaner environment, less foreign oil and more jobs in Ohio. We can deal with these climate issues without hurting Ohio working families and sacrificing jobs in a bad economy."

Portman made his remarks during a visit to NUCOR Steel in Marion, Ohio. NUCOR employs 253 people in Ohio and has a production capacity that exceeds 26 million tons, making it the largest producer of steel in the United States. Nucor is also the world's foremost steel recycler and one of the largest recyclers of any kind.

"Nucor Steel is concerned that this cap and trade bill will result in dramatically higher prices for all types of energy and hamper our global competitiveness because other countries like China and Brazil are not legislating against their manufacturers and as a result jobs will move off shore to those countries where more CO2 will be emitted," said David Sumoski, Vice President and General Manager of Nucor Steel Marion. Sumoski noted that the domestic steel industry in the US has already lowered CO2 emissions 30% since 1990 by using state of the art electric furnace technology that was pioneered by Nucor.

Sumoski continued, "Rob Portman understands that higher energy costs would have a devastating impact on local manufacturers and will lead to more job losses in Ohio. His opposition to cap and trade demonstrates his understanding of the challenges facing the steel industry and manufacturers during this tough economy."

Cap and Trade is Expensive to Ohio Families and Businesses

· Higher energy prices would have ripple impacts on prices throughout the economy and would impose a financial cost on Ohio families. According to the National Association of Manufacturing, Ohio would see disposable household income reduced by $133 to $261 per year by 2020 and $873 to $1,419 by 2030 because of increased energy costs. (http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf)

· A study of Waxman-Markey issued by the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that retail electricity rates will increase increase by 12% (1.3 cents per kWh) relative to 2015 levels, by 24% (2.7 cents per kWh) in 2030, and by 48% (5.8 cents per kWh) in 2050. (http://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/documents/CRA_Waxman-Markey_Aug2008_Update_Final.pdf)

· The Energy Information Administration (EIA), which is the government agency responsible for providing official energy statistics, concluded that cap-and-trade could result in up to 2.3 million fewer jobs in 2030 and 800,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in 2030, after including new green jobs. (http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/excel/hr2454nibiv.xls)

· EPA estimates the House bill would cost the average household 22 cents to 30 cents per day, or $80 to $111 per year in energy costs. (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090623/hr2454_epasummary.pdf)

· The Congressional Budget Office projected a cost of 48 cents per day for the average household in 2020 ($175 per year). (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090623/hr2454_epasummary.pdf)

Cap and Trade will Cost Ohio More Jobs

· The National Black Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study that concluded cap-and-trade would result in approximately 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2015 and 3.6 million fewer jobs in 2050, after new green jobs were considered. (http://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/documents/CRA_Waxman-Markey_Aug2008_Update_Final.pdf)

· The National Association of Manufacturing estimates that under Waxman-Markey, Ohio jobs decline by 79,700 under "low cost" scenarios and by 108,600 under "high cost" scenarios. The primary cause of job loss is due to lower output because of higher energy prices, the cost of complying with emissions reductions, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs. (http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/3/media_387.pdf)

· The National Association of Manufacturing estimate that high energy prices, fewer jobs, and loss of industrial output will reduce Ohio's gross state product (GSP) by between $1.3 and $2.3 billion per year by 2020 and $13.9 and $18.9 billion by 2030. (http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf)

Cap and Trade is Anti-Competitive

· Ohio's major economic sectors will be affected by emission caps. According to the National Manufacturing Association, Ohio's current two largest sectors-chemical manufacturing and transportation manufacturing-show decreases in output of 6.1% to 6.7% and 8.0% to 8.5%, respectively in 2030. (http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf)

· All Ohio manufacturing sectors will suffer output losses of between 5.4% and 6.0% by 2030, while output from energy intensive sectors falls between 10.7% and 11.7%. (http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf)

· Ohio's coal production would fall between 70.5% and 76.8% and electricity production would fall by 15.1% to 18.6% by 2030. These continued losses will have a lasting effect on the economic base of Ohio. (http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf)

NRSC on Ohio Job Czar's Spat with Jenny Brunner

The Democrat candidates seeking the right to lose to Rob Portman in November had a "debate" today according to the columbus Dispatch.  Here is a highlight:

Brunner went first and asked Fisher why he remained as lieutenant governor but resigned as development director in February 2009, when the state was reeling with job losses and other economic problems during the recession.

"Can you explain why it is that you abandoned the state of Ohio at a time you were needed most?" Brunner asked.

Fisher joked that in legal terms, that was a leading question. But he rejected the suggestion, saying he was proud of his record and that federal policies have been undercutting state efforts and need to be changed.

Here is a response from the NRCC's Amber Marchand:

“Apparently Lee Fisher is ‘proud’ of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost under his watch as Ohio’s Jobs Czar and he’s ‘proud’ of the state’s skyrocketing unemployment rate? While Ohio was hemorrhaging jobs, Lee Fisher was too focused on vying for a promotion than to bother paying attention to the people in his state who were struggling to make ends meet. Fisher is pointing fingers instead of taking responsibility for his failed record, but voters in the Buckeye State will hold him accountable for ignoring the Ohio’s economic development on Election Day.”

Zinger...

CHARTS: US Senate (Ohio)

Source: Rasmussen Reports

Dates: 1) 9/25/2009 2) 12/7/2009 3) 1/12/2010 4) 2/5/2010 5) 3/4/2010 6) 3/30/2010

Christopher Seeks Dismissal of Ballot Case

ChrisVsJennyDismissal

Reader's Digest version: Since the Republican-dominated, tied-to the Dewine Political Family, Ohio Supreme Court wouldn't be bother ed to hear the case on an expedited schedule, and couldn't be bothered to order Christopher on to the ballot in lieu of the conclusion of the case, Steven Christopher really did the conservative thing and stopped the proceedings.

End result: We're so screwed...

ORP Chair Calls on Fisher and Brunner to Refuse Special Interest Donations

Release:

(Columbus) - Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine called on Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner to denounce and refuse a massive, multi-million dollar investment in the 2010 election by the AFL-CIO, one of nation's largest special interest groups.

Fisher and Brunner recently condemned a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that lifts a ban on political spending by corporations and unions, saying it will bring an onslaught of "negative, hyperbolic ads" and undermine a core American value that "voters, not special-interest groups, should decide elections."
"If they're so opposed to special interest groups trying to influence Ohio's elections, then I'm sure they won't have a problem calling on the AFL-CIO to put their money somewhere else," said DeWine.
The labor union recently announced plans to spend upwards of $53 million this year by rolling out its "biggest political campaign ever." According to news reports, Ohio is one of six states to be targeted by the labor union, with funding directed at congressional races.
"They can't have it both ways," DeWine added. "Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner want to condemn special interest spending on the one hand while using the other hand to give their allies a big thumbs up," Dewine added. "If they think this type of spending is so destructive, they should denounce it and tell these groups to spend their money elsewhere. My guess is we're just seeing another example of Democrats saying one thing and doing another."

CHARTS: Ohio's US Senate Race

Source: Rasmussen Reports

Dates: 1) 9/25/2009 2) 12/7/2009 3) 1/12/2010 4) 2/5/2010 5) 3/4/2010

CHARTS: US Senate Race (Ohio)

SOURCE: Rasmussen Reports

1: 9/25/2009

2: 12/7/2009

3: 1/12/2010

4: 2/05/2010

CHARTS: US Senate - Ohio

These are tracking charts of the numbers from the Rasmussen Reports polls in the US Senate race for Ohio.

Dates of Polls:

1 - 9/25/2009
2 - 12/7/2009
3 - 1/12/2010

Fisher Disses Brunner

CityBeat has a very entertaining story about the Hamilton County Democratic Women’s Caucus and their "debate" in which Lee Fisher plays the part of arrogant tool.

Both Fisher and Brunner were invited, but Fisher insisted on changing the format so that the candidates for the right to lose to Rob Portman wouldn't appear on the stage in front of the audience together.

Officially, the Hamilton Women agreed with Fisher's demands, but now some of them are speaking out anyway. Lesson for Fisher: female Democrats won't keep your secrets.

Quote of the Day

Jenny Brunner:

"Usually I come out with something first and then [Fisher] follows with something less emphatic," she said, adding, "I think it's a question of courage."

Husted Steps In It...Again

I told you so... You can't say I didn't warn you...

Jon Husted has made his battle with Jenny Brunner the focal point of his campaign for Secretary of State and that is a HUGE mistake as illustrated by this Cleveland Plain Dealer piece.

The last line of his letter -- written just days before the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in his favor -- is this: "Today Jennifer Brunner and the Democrats want to take away my right to vote, tomorrow it could be yours."

If Husted truly believes Democrats can't be trusted on voting issues, he is going to have a hard time making nonpartisan decisions if he's elected in November 2010.

It's easy to call the line typical campaign rhetoric. But candidates for secretary of state bear more responsibility than others when it comes to avoiding hyperbole about the voting process.
...
Husted could say a lot more about his commitment to nonpartisanship by leaving Brunner out of a race she's not running.

Husted has nothing else to offer. He is an empty suit with the ability to raise some cash. that's all he is. That is all he will ever be. yet there are still those in the Ohio Republican Party who think this guy is a star on the rise.

Here is your star in action:

[Husted] also said he remains committed to keeping politics out of the office, but "when you see something that is wrong, you have a responsibility to call a spade a spade."

"And that's a fine line you have to walk," he said.

He acknowledged that the residency episode felt very personal and that putting aside such an attack is difficult.

"But you have to," he said.

But you didn't, Jon...and that is the whole point. Ohioans are sick and tired of lying politicians who claim to be one thing and turn out to be something else. Jon Husted fits that exact mold.

The fact that Husted made it to the starting lineup when he has no more skills than your average back-bencher is a real crime.

HT: ORP News Clips...thanks for pointing out what a TOOL this guy is ORP... Now, why exactly did you endorse this clown again???

More Supreme Court Decision on Husted Residency

We chatted about this issue on the radio show last night, but I hadn't had a chance to actually read the whole decision from the Supreme Court. I have now done so and I have to take notice that the Court failed to adequately address the residency of the Husted family. Here is what the Court says on page 11 (PDF):

Third, the secretary of state erroneously relied exclusively on R.C.
3503.02(D) (which creates a presumption that the place where the family of a married person resides is the person’s place of residence) to decide the residency issue. All of R.C. 3503.02, including section D, is phrased in mandatory language, so elevating R.C. 3503.02(D) over others, e.g., R.C. 3503.02(A) through (C), without reasonable justification is impermissible.

My dear Justices of the Supreme Court of the Great State of Beautiful Ohio, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. The Court has elevated A - C over D in this decision. And that is unacceptable. The whole point behind having a law like this is to establish circumstances under which residency could be determined. If the Court's interpretation is correct, a person would have to violate EVEY section of that law in order to have their residency status revoked. Does that sound like a law that makes sense?

By effectively treating the R.C. 3503.02(D) factor as the exclusive factor applicable to Husted, the secretary created an irrebuttable presumption to classify Husted as a nonresident of Montgomery County, which is not constitutionally permissible. Bell v. Marinko (C.A.6, 2004), 367 F.3d 588, 593.

I would have to ask for proof from this Court that Bell vs. Marinko was decided correctly. We have no reference as to what the particulars of that case are and how relevant they are to this case. You have already wasted 11 pages, why not do the work of explaining this issue more fully other than just sweeping it under the rug with a case citation. Democrats do that, I expect more out of a Court filled with nothing but Republicans.

Our holding is consistent with precedent. For example, in Klink,
157 Ohio St. 338, 47 O.O. 198, 105 N.E.2d 399, we held that a board of elections properly decided that a married person whose family lived in Franklin County was a qualified elector of Hamilton County because of substantial evidence that
the person intended to eventually return to Cincinnati. See also State ex rel. Lakes
v. Young (1954), 161 Ohio St. 341, 53 O.O. 249, 119 N.E.2d 279 (married man did not lose voting residence in township even though his family moved temporarily to a city).

What significant evidence was presented that Husted intends to return? Since when is the word of a politician classified as significant evidence of anything? This is purely a subjective and partisan determination.

Let me point you to Justice Pfieffer's opinion, because he concurred with the decision, but not the opinion, at the end of the PDF:

For each Ohio citizen, where he or she deems to be home is a highly personal matter. Home is often different from where one is presently living. R.C. 3503.02 attempts to recognize that elusive, emotional connection to “home.” But this particular case is not difficult: considering that R.C. 3503.02 allows voters to retain a residence by relying on a vague notion of intent to return, it must certainly allow all members of the General Assembly to retain their residences in the places they regard to be home while living with their families in the state capital.

"...it must certainly allow..." Really? What a cop-out, Mr. Justice! I always thought that our judges were supposed to rule on what laws actually say not what they "must certainly allow". The law either does allow or it doesn't. If you want to say that the law is not clear, say so.

As I said on the radio show last night, what we have here is a flawed law which unscrupulous politicians have circumvented in order to do whatever they want to do. I do not believe that those who created that law ever envisioned a time when a public servant would ever be so enamored with the centers of power as we have today. Tom Blumer was right when he said it last night: the legislators back in the horse and buggy days had it much more difficult than we do in today's 65 m.p.h. modern era. How pathetic has our political class become?

What Should Have Happened w/ Husted's Residency

I was reading a follow-up on the Husted Residency Debacle over at Third Base Politics and saw this bit in the Ohio Supreme Court's decision...

Of note, the section that does allow a board to cancel someone’s registration has several other requirements [such as sending a notice to the address and not receiving a response] that no one bothered to follow.

...that sparked an idea about what should have happened:

Somebody should have sent that cancellation notice to Husted's Kettering address and see if he ever bothered to check his mail. According to the Dayton Daily News (and other outlets) reporting, Husted had piles of newspapers on the front porch. One wonders what he did with his mail. Was it forwarded to Upper Arlington? Did it sit in the box all that time?

Jenny Brunner seriously bothched this thing, but in the end it doesn't matter because the issue isn't going to go away just because the GOP-dominated Ohio Supreme Court wrote a witty decision.

Another point I want to get in to is this bit:

“First, the secretary of state erred in concluding that Section 3, Article II of the Ohio Constitution is inapplicable.” The residency exception for state legislators in the Constitution applies in this case. Give credit to the Ohio GOP and Jason Mauk for being all over this from the moment Brunner announced her decision. One would think that if non-lawyers get it, a former judge would too.

Let me be clear about one thing right up front on this...residency does not mean "where a person lives" in the eyes of the law. That much is evident. This is the part where I believe Husted does stay within the letter of the law and why he ultimately prevails in the court. It has been my position that Husted has violated the spirit of the law and that by making this case so prominent, he encourages other state legislators to move to Columbus and not live in their districts. Now, that might be great for Columbus, but it isn't good for Ohio.

Lastly, this bit is worth taking a look at too:

“Whether it's a decision by a Democratic Secretary of State or an all-Republican Supreme Court, someone will question the motivation behind such a decision.”

What Brunner wants to say is “the stupid Republicans on the stupid Supreme Court get the last say. They’re playing politics too. I wasn’t wrong, I just wasn’t the one with the last word.”

She can’t say this because she’s a lawyer. Insulting the judiciary (e.g., the Supreme Court) can get you disciplined or disbarred. She knows she has to accept whatever they say and not blast them like she would a decision from Bill Harris or Mary Taylor.

Note the usage of the "all-Republican Supreme Court" bit...we'll be hearing lots more about that thanks to Jon Husted...

And I like that the 3BP author realizes that the all-Republican Supreme Court was "just playing politics too." Because they were. And that is a shame.

Final thought... Clearly, we need to fix this law. I believe it was the intention of the framers of our state constitution that Ohio's legislators live in their districts and not merely own property that they drop by and visit a few times a quarter.

Team Husted on Residency

Read the whole thing, but here is the key phrasing:

“Moreover, if an election statute is ambiguous, the voter should not be penalized as a
result of the ambiguity.”

We need a better law.

As I have said time and again: I expect Husted will ultimately be vindicated on this issue because he is -- in my opinion -- within the letter of the law while crushing the spirit of the law.

Still waiting for a reason for why the GOP is taking the risk of running this guy in the first place...

And, oh yeah, when the Ohio Supreme Court does overturn Brunner, the Democrats will claim "politics as usual" and not only will they make that a case against Husted, but for whomever runs for Chief Justice and the other Supreme Court slot as well. Nice move OhioGOP...you've done it again...trying very hard to snap defeat from the jaws of victory!

POLL ANALYSIS: Rasmussen's 2010 Ohio US Senate Race

Here is their analysis, but I want to dig a little deeper in to the guts of this thing...

Before we get to the Senate stuff, let's set the ground work...

Obama Job Approval

33% Strongly approve
15% Somewhat approve
10% Somewhat disapprove
40% Strongly disapprove
2% Not sure

How's that Hope and Change working out for you, Ohio?

Favor/Oppose Healthcare Plan?

Strongly favor 27%
Somewhat favor 17%
Somewhat oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 45%
Not sure 4%

Can you hear me now, Senator Brown?

Strickland Approval

Strongly approve 15%
Somewhat approve 32%
Somewhat disapprove 24%
Strongly disapprove 26%
Not sure 3%

Now...on with the show...

Portman does fairly well winning against both Democratic opponents, but I would like to see something more solid in regards to the Republican primary.

If there is one spot that I think Portman can be viewed as weak it is with the 65+ demographic where Lee Fisher actually beats him. It sure would be nice if Team Portman would address some current issues like the health care bill so we could have some idea what Rob actually thinks on the subject. It isn't as much of a risk as they probably think it is to come out against it as the 65+ crowd is getting wind of just how badly AARP has been screwing them.

Portman wins the Republicans, obviously, but when you add in the fact that he also wins the Independents, this is looking like some very good news for Team Portman. Portman also wins every category of voter that makes over $20,000, so he haw broad support across all classes of Ohioans.

All in all, I'd have to say that while this sounds like great news for Team Portman, there is still a LONG way to go and there are still an aawful lot of people who still don't know who he is or what he stands for. The moderates (going for Fisher and Brunner) and the Independents (going for Portman) are the people to watch as once these two groups realize that they are the same people and have to come to terms with picking their candidate for real, then the fun begins.

UPDATE: ThirdBasePolitics has more analysis of this poll that you don't want to miss.

On Brunner's Perfect Storm of Partisanship

It is no secret that I am not a fan of Jon Husted.

I have said all along that I expect Husted to be found to be within the letter of the law while shattering the spirit of the law.

That said, I must admit that I too was more than a bit surprised by Jenny Brunner's decision yesterday.

And while I do think that the spirit of the law has been crushed by Mr. Husted (and others), I believe that in the end, Mr. Husted ought to be vindicated on this charge. This is a political issue, not a legal one. That Brunner has decided to string this out does show her partisanship, but that was entirely expected...

That doesn't let Mr. Husted's supporters off the hook though. This issue has been brewing for quite some time and everybody knew it wasn't going to go away. Even if the Ohio Supreme Court sides with Husted, Democrats will use the GOP dominated Supreme Court ddecision as ammo against Husted and the entire Republican ticket. They will call it "politics as usual" and the facts of the case won't matter to the Cleveland Plain Dealer when the time comes. They may have an editorial out today that sets the story out right, but mark my words, the 527 Meida in this state will hit Husted and the Republicans HARD for their incompetence in handling this matter.

This will go down as yet another of Brunner's Blunders...but the GOP is not entirely without blame. Had somebody told Jon Husted that we didn't need this distraction while we are trying to convince Ohio voters that we have learned our lesson and are ready to lead again, we'd all be better off.

Husted vs. Brunner: The Sequel

I was asked earlier today about the lack of Dancing Snoopys...well, all I can say is that I just knew that there would be a sequel.....

Husted vs Brunner the Sequel

This one won't be over until the Fat Lady sings or we have an election... And "our guy" is going to have this hanging over him the entire cycle even if he manages to win this thing.

DOCUMENT: Brunner Decision Re: Husted Residency

Brunner Decison on Husted

Brunner: Husted Violated Election Law

Mark this day down on the calendar of your choice! Why? Because I agree with Chris Redfern...and that NEVER happens...

On the L'Affair Husted, Redfern says this:

“Overwhelming evidence, including utility records and media investigations, shows that Jon Husted does not reside at the Kettering house,” Redfern said. “Today’s ruling calls into question the legitimacy of Husted’s candidacy for Secretary of State, because someone running to be Ohio’s chief elections officer should follow Ohio elections law.”

Let's review what has happened thus far... The Montgomery County Board of Elections deadlocked along party lines and kicked it up to Jenny Brunner who punted it back to the BOE who deadlocked again. The Dayton Daily News did some digging and that made matters worse for Jonny Boy. Eventually the Ohio Supreme Court made the decision that Jenny Brunner had to make a decision and here we are...with the decision that we all knew was coming all along.

Now, my friends in the Ohio Republican Party are trying their hardest to spin this off as politics as usual, but I ask them to take another look at that Zero-Tolerance Policy that Chairman DeWine put in to place...this would seem like a pretty good place to use it. Heck, shutting Husted down might actually strengthen the party's chances as it would demonstrate our willingness to police our own.

At this point, a Ham Sandwich would be better on the GOP ticket than Jon Husted.