The Associated Press reports on last night’s vote with a studiously uncurious dispatch entitled “Voters back anti-DC, anti-establishment candidates“:

… The message was clear: It’s an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year, with voter frustrations fueled by a still-sluggish economy, unrelenting joblessness, bottom-barrel approval of Congress and lukewarm support of President Barack Obama.

“People just aren’t very happy,” Ira Robbins, 61, said in Allentown, Pa.

With anyone linked to power, it seems.

Taken together, the outcomes of primaries in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky ? following voter rejections of GOP Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah and Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan in West Virginia ? provided further evidence that voters are in the mood to choose outsiders over insiders.

It’s clear that anyone affiliated with Washington or traditional party organizations is at risk, regardless of their political affiliation.

Care to hazard a guess why? The AP doesn’t. It’s as if this mood just happened.

Do media not have anyone who can see the roots of this movement going back to 2006, when voters tossed Republicans from power in Congress because they had been become spending-mad, secretive, and corrupt? Do they not remember the Democrats in 2006 promising “the most ethical Congress in history”? Do they not remember the Reaganesque promises of Candidate Barack Obama in 2008 ? and therefore could not notice President Obama’s smug actions in stark defiance of those promises?

Do they not notice that both parties have thoroughly frustrated and lied to voters, deliberately, to seize and abuse power?

Then there was this quote:

Future implications could be huge. Candidates like Paul and Rep. Joe Sestak, who defeated White House-backed Specter, owe little or nothing to their parties. Coalition building, already a lost art on Capitol Hill, could become tougher if more candidates come to Washington as insurgent free agents. Big-monied special interest groups could recruit and fund candidates, the domain of a strong Democratic and Republican parties.

“It’s not healthy for democracy,” said GOP consultant Ben Ginsberg, an attorney and a leader in the Republican establishment in Washington. “But it is what it’s becoming.”

Not healthy for democracy? No, what you’re seeing, Mr. Ginsberg, is very healthy for democracy. What’s not healthy for democracy are the current crop of political leaders on both sides of the aisle who think that the way you “play the game” is merely to promise low taxes, fiscally responsible policies, open government, and less government intrusion ? and then when elected openly work for the cardinal opposites.