Nebraska Republicans Don't Care That Their Votes Won't Count???

The rejuvenated Douglas County Democratic Party held a press conference yesterday touting the Nebraska Democratic Party's 2008 Presidential caucus, scheduled for Saturday, February 9th. The press conference was obviously quite successful, earning a front-page story in the Omaha World-Herald, not to mention across the dial coverage on Omaha television (KMTV, KETV, KPTM).

This is a really exciting development for Nebraska Democrats, who are certainly taking a risk with so massive an undertaking but who ultimately have little to lose after years of our state being less than an afterthought in presidential politics. Of course, there are no guarantees the caucus will prove a tremendous success, but I think the people of Nebraska will appreciate the fact that at least one political party in our state cares enough about its voters to give them the chance to have a say in choosing their presidential nominee.

The Nebraska Republican Party may have any number of legitimate reasons for not following suit, maintaining its own presidential selection during the May primary when the race is all-but-certain to be over. It may be a matter of tradition. It may be a simple (and quite practical) acknowledgment of Nebraska's low place on the presidential totem pole. It may even reflect plain old laziness on their part, not wanting to deal with the hassle when Nebraska's Republican majority is likely to rally behind whoever has the "R" by his name on the November ballot. Who knows - they might even sense that the current crop of Republican candidates is so uniformly unimpressive that it's just not worth having a choice between them.

Whatever their reasoning, I could probably respect it. What I can't respect, though, is the insulting mockery by the Nebraska Republican Party's Executive Director, Tiffany Carlton, directed towards Nebraska Democrats just for daring to be relevant on the national stage.

  The Omaha World-Herald reported:

Although the Democrats' caucuses will come four days after Super-duper Tuesday - when more than 20 states are expected to hold primaries or caucuses - several candidates have indicated interest in competing for Nebraska's delegates, state party officials said. "We are definitely a part of the process now. Even though there's a Super-duper Tuesday going on February 5, there are so many strong candidates that we won't end up with a definite winner on that date," said Chris Jerram, chairman of the Douglas County Democratic Party....  

[Tiffany] Carlton, the GOP executive director, said it's unlikely that a Feb. 9 contest will have any real impact, with so many states choosing a nominee on Feb. 5. "Unfortunately, because so many other states have moved their caucuses forward, their delusion of grandeur is not going to happen. By February 9, the decision will be made and the Nebraska Democrats will be left standing like the kid who got left out on the playground," she said.

Now, I realize that, as her party's executive director, it is Carlton's job to be partisan. But, I don't think that partisanship should extend to actively rooting for the failure of any effort to empower the people of Nebraska and to give them more of a say in who will be their next president.

According to the Nebraska Republican Party, democracy is the true delusion of grandeur. They decided for their own voters that Nebraska Republicans would have no real say in their nomination process. And, from this response, they clearly resent the fact that Nebraska Democrats are daring to be more bold, taking a risk that shows signs of life and true concern for Nebraska voters that will only make the complacent GOP look bad by comparison.

Then again, they already look bad from Carlton's statement above. I guess they might as well get used to it now.

***Addendum*** I just added a new poll on this topic. Please tell us what you think about Nebraska Democrats' plans for a presidential caucus.

Go to full text...

Is Hagel Ready To Make It Official?

By: Dave Sund

Via Leavenworth Street, the Washington Note reports:

The word is slowly leaking out that not only is Chuck Hagel not going to run for President -- but he's not going to run for the Senate again in 2008. I'm not sure this is the final word, but Hagel is getting ready to make an announcement either this next Saturday or the one following -- and all indicators are that he is going to depart an institution that very much still needs his conscience and sensibilities.

Going to the poll that is currently on the sidebar, this falls under the "politics of Husker football," and one of those things national media types like Steve Clemons won't get. There's no way that Hagel's announcement will come on September 15. Every second of media on that day will be devoted to the Nebraska-USC game.

I don't doubt the accuracy of Clemons' sources, though, in that I think we can expect Hagel's decision to come in the next couple of weeks. There's certainly no surprise on this end: it's been a foregone conclusion since at least June. Just a question of "when," and when the Democratic field will shake out. The next two weeks should be very interesting.

Go to full text...

Nelson: It's Time To Change Course

By: Dave Sund

I haven't exactly been Ben Nelson's biggest fan in the world, but he generally has a pretty good idea of where Nebraskans are on an issue, and I think that's one of the reasons why he's so popular. Which is why this bit of news in Wednesday's Lincoln Journal Star came as an encouraging sign for the state of the debate on the war in Iraq:

Sen. Ben Nelson said Wednesday he'll push for a change in the military mission when the Senate next week resumes consideration of U.S. policy in Iraq. U.S. troops should be phased out of sectarian conflict in Baghdad, Nelson said, and redeployed to pursue and destroy al-Qaida elements in Iraq. That transition over a six-month period would lead to reduced troop levels without any artificial deadlines for U.S. withdrawal, he said.  

While the Bush administration may argue its surge of additional combat troops is showing some military success, Nelson said, it is not leading to the political accommodation required for peace and stability. "It's very difficult to see what reducing violence in Baghdad has achieved," he told his weekly telephone news conference from Washington. Without Iraqi progress in achieving a political settlement and national stability, Nelson said, it's hard to argue that U.S. policy is succeeding. "In that context," the Democratic senator said, "I don't think the surge has worked."

This is the debate that the administration refuses to have: there is no military solution in Iraq. This must be dealt with politically, diplomatically, and responsibly. No more platitudes, no more fearmongering, no slogans or empty promises. Bring this war to a responsible end.

Nelson's evolution on Iraq has been interesting to watch, because I think it presents a window into Nebraskans' opinions on the war in Iraq. My own personal experience in 2006 was that people in Nebraska had just about had enough of the war in Iraq. Nelson didn't say much of anything about the war during the campaign - he didn't have to with an opponent like Pete Ricketts. But since the new Congress began, he has been outspoken in trying to build bipartisan support to change course in Iraq.

If only the Republicans would listen. But Ben Nelson has been a pleasant surprise over the last few months. And it's been good to see a reminder of why I - and so many others - voted for him.

Go to full text...

LD 27: Dan Marvin To Run For Legislature

By: Dave Sund

I mentioned before that this community creates an opportunity to expand our scope and dive in deeper to local races. Though the unicameral is officially nonpartisan, the reality is that partisan politics rule when it comes to standing up to Dave Heineman. A number of veterans of the unicameral will be term-limited out of office, and while it means we will be losing some dedicated public servants - and one controversial legislative giant - there is also a tremendous opportunity to gain ground and elect the next generation of progressive voices for Nebraska. There will be 26 legislative seats up for election in 2008. We'll do our best to cover them.

Dan Marvin, the city councilman who overcame some ugly Republican attacks to win his election in 2005, is running for legislature:

City Councilman Dan Marvin has worked on many of Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek's campaigns, but next spring he'll be working on his own legislative campaign.  

Marvin announced Tuesday that he intends to run for the District 27 seat that Schimek will leave next year because of term limits. She was elected in 1988 and has been re-elected every four years since.  

Marvin served on the planning commission from 2002 to 2005, when he was elected to the City Council. He said he had been thinking about running for the Legislature for a while because he feels he could represent the city's interests well on the state level.  

"If I'm a strong voice for the city of Lincoln and the citizens of Lincoln, I think I can do more there than if I'm on the City Council," he said.

Go to full text...

State Senator Mick Mines Resigns

If we really want to see more progressive voices in the Nebraska Unicameral, Legislative District 18 - running from Blair to Northwest Omaha - just became a prime pick-up opportunity in November 2008 after the resignation of State Sen. Mick Mines only one year into his second term.

As Eric reports, Mines will be leaving office to set-up shop with his own lobbying firm. It seems he couldn't wait any longer to cash-in like former Speaker Kermit Brashear on all the fat lobbying contracts and legislative inexperience that abound in the post-term limits environment.

Of course, District 18 voters should be annoyed - perhaps even outraged - that Mines would abandon their interests to exercise his legislative influence in the name of corporate profits. Every voter across the state, though, should heed the warnings of this situation, which so well illustrates the dangerous expansion in corporate influence that has consumed Nebraska politics under the reigns of Gov. Dave Heineman and his predecessor, Mike Johanns.

Heineman will appoint Mines' successor for the 2008 legislative session. The example Heineman set with the appointment of Tony Fulton in November 2006 suggests he will look for a long-time partisan ideologue who can be counted on to serve his corporate agenda.

If that again proves to be the case, this is a district ripe for change where we must give the people the chance to break Heineman's lock-grip on the legislature, restoring much-needed balance to our state's democracy.

Go to full text...

The Marquee Senate Race of 2008?

By: Dave Sund

The table is set. Labor Day is upon us, and a number of political deadlines are approaching. Decisions ready to be made. Political heavyweights ready to enter the arena, and some apparently ready to exit. I've devoted quite a bit of virtual ink to this race, repeating myself dozens of times, going over every single sign, detail, rumor, or press account to get a better picture of what I believe is the most important race in Nebraska - for Nebraska - in 2008. The evolution of this race - from the initial rumors of Hagel's retirement, to Mike Fahey's potential entry into the race, Hagel's March "announcement," and Bruning's primary challenge, followed by Kerrey's interest in a potential candidacy, has been one of the most fascinating stories of this young election cycle. In Don Walton's article in the Lincoln Journal Star today, this quote stands out: If it's ultimately Kerrey versus Johanns after 2008 primary voters have spoken and all the smoke has cleared, Nebraska may play host to next year's premier Senate race. So say Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray in The Washington Post. "A Kerrey-Johanns matchup would be the early front-runner for the marquee race of the 2008 cycle," they wrote last week. We wait in anticipation for Kerrey's decision.

The right-wing blog Leavenworth Street reports a few rumors of note, including this one: The word on the Street is that Mike Johanns has hired a campaign manager. Which would be interesting to say the least, because there's at least two things in that sentence that have Mike Johanns directly violating the Hatch Act. Maybe the rumormongers want to back off a bit before they get their preferred candidate into trouble with the law? Oh, wait, that's right, the Justice Department doesn't prosecute Republicans - especially members of the Bush administration. Speaking of Republicans having total disregard for campaign law, there's Jon Bruning, who placed an ad in the Omaha World-Herald on Thursday. Okay, you say, so what's the problem? It was paid for by Jon Bruning for Attorney General. The NDP blog explains the rest: This ad was financed with soft money - money collected without adhering to the rigorous standards required by the FEC in federal elections. State-level and lower candidates use only soft money for their campaigns. The problem is that Mr. Bruning has announced - three times, no less - that he's running for a federal office. And I think even a lawyer as practiced as Jon Bruning would be hard-pressed to convince Nebraskans that this ad is not intended to help his numbers in his bid for Senate. Then, of course, there's Pat Flynn, the fringe candidate who, in his campaign announcement, decided it was a good idea to get out in front of the story: Pat has not always led an exemplary life. He had some encounters with the law regarding alcohol and marijuana when he was in his twenties. Thankfully, the law won these battles and today these experiences are looked upon as an asset because of the life-change that occurred. With the help of God, a recovery program and the love of friends and family, Pat's life has changed and he has been able to help effect change in other's lives because of this experience. Pat is not proud of this part of his past but has taken full responsibility for his actions and understands well the concerns and challenges of many others who are dealing with these issues in their own lives. Here's guessing that Flynn's candidacy is already "up in smoke."

Go to full text...

Newspapers Publish Letter Exposing Smith's Lies and the GOP Responds

By: Lisa Hannah

As a follow up to the recent mass mailing Smith sent out on immigration, I decided to write a letter on Smith's deceptions and send it out to the many 3rd District newspapers. Of those, 4 of the major papers published it. Here is the letter I sent: Congressman Adrian Smith recently sent out a mass mailing to constituents regarding immigration. This represents the third mailing in seven months. According to the House Statement of Disbursements, the first one cost nearly $50,000 for production and postage. He contracted with a partisan political "persuasion" firm called Targeted Creative Communications to produce the first one. This firm has advertised themselves as having "a proven track record of propelling Republicans to victory with award-winning direct mail, targeting and campaign strategy."   In this most recent mailing, what Smith presented was very misleading. He stated he voted to provide $26.4 million to train and support local law enforcement in enforcing immigration law, as well as for prohibiting federal funds for cities that pass "sanctuary" laws. He also took the position that border security needs to be increased. The votes were on amendments within the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which also contained increases in funding for border security. What he failed to disclose was that when the full bill came up for the vote to pass, he voted against it. He stated that he voted to stop illegal immigrants from receiving federal housing assistance. When an amendment was offered on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act banning illegals from having access to low-income housing, he voted for it. However, he voted against the full bill. When a ban on assistance was offered as final amendment on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, he voted for the amendment. However, there was confusion on what the final vote was. Instead of trying to work things out, Smith joined a large number of Republicans and walked off the floor before the vote was settled. As a result, the amendment was not adopted and the bill passed without his participation.  Finally, he states he is cosponsoring three different pieces of legislation regarding immigration, but it took him one to three months after introduction to sign onto them. Congressman Smith has not introduced any legislation of his own, nor has he been a part of the development of other legislation regarding illegal immigration. And when it comes to legislation that's been up for debate, he's voted for amendments, but against the full bills. He could be accused of flip-flopping.   Congressman Smith is using dishonest political spin at taxpayer expense to mislead his constituents. The people of the Third District should demand better from him. The Scottsbluff Star-Herald published the letter on Thursday, which my sources out there say is one of the bigger editions due to all the inserts. They don't post these on-line, however, so I can't link it. They report it was published in full.  The same goes for the other three - no editing or removing: Published 8/29/07 Kearney Hub: Smith's mass mailings raise questions Published 8/30/07 Grand Island Independent: Rep. Smith's mailings 'misleading' Published 9/1/07 North Platte Telegraph: Writer does not care for Smith That last heading, at the NP Telegraph, made me laugh. So while they should be commended for publishing it, their title speaks volumes of what they think as a paper. The key is that more people were exposed to Adrian Smith's attempts to mislead them. Those really in support of major immigration reforms may have seen the truth of what Smith is REALLY doing in Washington as our Representative.

Today, there was a response from the 3rd District GOP, and I think it speaks volumes: Smith has fought against illegal immigration I am writing today in response to Lisa Hannah's letter of August 28th. Unlike Ms. Hannah, who has written several letters to the editor attacking Rep. Smith, I am very proud of the work he has done with regards to illegal immigration.   From the time he was a state senator, Smith has worked to fight against illegal immigration, and I was happy to receive the letter from Congressman Smith. I have had a chance to speak with him directly on this issue, and he understands how important this matter is. It's unfortunate that some would rather attack   Congressman Smith at every opportunity rather than acknowledge that he is doing a good job and is a man we should be proud of. Judy E. Glassburner 3rd District GOP Vice Chair Geneva, NE Why do I think this speaks volumes? They mention I'm attacking Smith TWICE in the letter. They then say how good Smith is doing on illegal immigration and how he understands how important it is. HOWEVER, they give no examples of his good work, and they don't counter any of the real facts I presented. Why? Because they know I'm telling the truth. They know I can back up what I stated 100%. And just like Smith, when talking with my husband at the gas station accused me of attacking him, they also accuse me of attacking him. But this is a knee-jerk reaction on their part. Why? Because every single criticism I've sent in his direction is backed up with facts.  Now, some may differ with me on my opinions and conclusions on some issues, but there is a difference between criticism and attacking. Criticism of a elected official involves taking their actions, analyzing those actions against facts available, and pointing out where you feel they are at fault. Attacking involves taking an issue and deflecting from it by focusing on the person criticizing rather than focusing on the issue at hand.  I criticized Smith and pointed out his lies. The 3rd District GOP, in turn, attacked me when they could not defend Adrian Smith and his actions. My work has now been completely vindicated!

Go to full text...

Obermeyer's View of....the Omaha World-Herald

Nebraska cartoonist Neal Obermeyer had a pair of classics this week. I'm not quite scoundrel enough to lift both of them for NNN purposes, no matter how big a fan.

Still, I'm happy to share the following as we kick-off the Labor Day weekend. As published in this week's Omaha Reader:

Also, be sure to check out Obermeyer's most recent depiction of Hal Daub. I've given the old man a hard enough time lately, but it would be downright impolite of me not to share.

Go to full text...

Did Jon Bruning Vote For Kerrey?

By: Dave Sund

Back in 1993, you may recall, Jon Bruning was a young liberal law student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In 1996, he ran for legislature as a die-hard conservative. Quite the evolution in such a short time, and quite typical of Bruning's ruthless ambition.
 
In between, there was an election, and Bruning - as the civic-minded person he no doubt must be, to have such an interest in public service - voted. And it's not hard to imagine, given Bruning's positions at the time and Kerrey's 55% of the vote, that Jon Bruning voted for Bob Kerrey the last time that Kerrey ran for office in this state. Will Bruning change his position on Bob Kerrey just to win the Republican nomination? The answers to some questions are not such a mystery.

Go to full text...

Bob Kerrey & Chuck Hagel: Best Friends Forever???

In Nebraska politics, we've all seen how ambition for higher office has driven Attorney General Jon Bruning from declaring himself "a Hagel guy" to making Sen. Chuck Hagel a target of any attack he could think of in just a matter of weeks. Unreported has been the similar flip-flop by Hal Daub, who went from announcing in December that he would not consider a U.S. Senate bid if Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel seeks a third term to now declaring "I don't care who runs." And, how can anyone forget the August fundraiser for the Nebraska Republican Party where praise for Hagel by the night's keynote speaker was met by nothing but silence from his party's faithful. With responses like these, you might expect Hagel to be feeling a little bit lonely. A little bit isolated. A little bit betrayed. But, then, of all people, there is Bob Kerrey - the lone voice in Nebraska politics defending Hagel, praising Hagel, and even encouraging him to run for re-election. What might distinguish Kerrey even more than the respect he continues to show towards Hagel, though, is that he's actually been consistent regarding his friend and former colleague. Well, if the following article from the Omaha World-Herald or the above picture are any indicator, it looks like Kerrey is still the one leader on whose support Hagel could actually count:

Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Sen. Bob Kerrey appeared together Wednesday, following the same script: Both smiled and both sidestepped questions about which, if either, of them may run for the Senate next year. The Vietnam veterans teamed up at a Capitol Hill press conference to voice support for the Omaha-based Wounded Warriors organization, which hopes to build a retreat for wounded service members, their families and relatives of those killed in combat on 80 acres near Crawford in northwest Nebraska. But neither Kerrey nor Hagel had much to say when the subject turned to next year's U.S. Senate race....  Before Wednesday's press conference, the two met behind closed doors in Hagel's office in the Russell Senate Office Building. Loud laughter could be heard outside....   "I just told him I knew it is a tough decision, since I went through the same thing seven years ago, and I told him I hope he goes for third," Kerrey said in an e-mail sent later in the day. "It will be a big loss for Nebraska and the nation if he leaves the Senate," Kerrey added. Admittedly, the New Nebraska Network has not always been so praising of Hagel, but I certainly appreciate his leadership and insight in foreign policy matters going well beyond his outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq. More importantly, it is heartening to see a politician of Kerrey's stature disregarding party lines and political games with the same independence and integrity for which he's always been known by the people of Nebraska. Of course, it's understandable why ambitious Republicans like Jon Bruning and Hal Daub would turn their backs on Hagel, hoping to appeal to all those silent Republican activists who don't care to face the truth about President Bush's failures. One wonders - one might even expect - that they will change their tune if Hagel announces he won't be seeking re-election - an effort to create a false united front, as if they hadn't just been preparing his political destruction. It shouldn't matter. However Hagel ultimately chooses to position himself politically, the people of Nebraska have seen these men's true colors for themselves - pandering to their party's extremists. At the same time, the people have seen Kerrey stand by Hagel, reflecting Nebraska's tradition of nonpartisanship. In doing so, Kerrey is also representing the vast majority of Nebraskans who overwhelmingly elected Hagel in 2002 and - looking to 2008 - have concerns far greater than protecting President Bush and the Republican status quo. Bob Kerrey is a man for all Nebraskans. He was as Governor. He was as Senator. Let's hope he'll again be the candidate for all Nebraskans very, very soon.

Go to full text...

One Brave Nebraskan Highlighted In John Edwards' Health Care Crusade

Highlighting the differences between Democratic presidential candidates in their plans to provide health care for every American (or not), the campaign of former Senator John Edwards has drawn national attention to the remarks of an unidentified Nebraska woman at a New Hampshire rally telling her story of struggle as a breast cancer survivor.


This woman is not alone - not as a Nebraskan, and not as an American.  To share this video with family or friends, please go to JohnEdwards.com.

Go to full text...

Pete Ricketts: If At First You Don't Succeed - BUY, BUY Again

The Clown Prince of the Nebraska Republican Party Returns Hal Daub just resigned as National Committeeman for the Nebraska Republican Party, prompting the Lincoln Journal-Star to print the following story that shows our old friend Pete Ricketts re-entering the political scene: In a prelude to a possible Senate bid, Hal Daub resigned Monday as the Nebraska Republican Party's national committeeman.   Pete Ricketts, the party's 2006 Senate nominee, emerged as the most likely successor to Daub. Republicans will fill the vacancy at their state central committee meeting in Kearney Nov. 17. This calls for a quick history lesson. Probably the most inexcusable unreported story of Nebraska's 2006 elections was the money flooding in to the Nebraska Republican Party and its candidates from the multi-billion dollar family fortune of Senate challenger Pete Ricketts.   Ricketts was not content to spend more than $12 million dollars from his Ameritrade trustfund on his own laughing-stock Senate campaign - so fundamentally flawed that it saw him lose to Sen. Ben Nelson by nearly 30%, with 56% of Nebraska voters actively disliking him by the end of the race. He also dropped campaign donations in the thousands of dollars all across the state - as if they were nothing more than bread crumbs.  Most notable was the way Ricketts coordinated the funneling of close to $100,000 to the Nebraska Republican Party - with nine members of his extended family contributing the full $10,000 allowable by law. Also worth noting was the thousands of dollars Pete and his parents contributed to Don Stenberg to help pay-off Stenberg's campaign debt after losing to Ricketts in the Republican primary. That might be a nice gesture - helping a vanquished foe who's fallen on hard times - but this was at the same time that he was running his own multi-milllion dollar self-funded campaign. Could Ricketts have made it any more clear that money meant absolutely nothing to him? Honestly, is it any wonder that a guy like that would fail to connect with the people of Nebraska? That they would - in fact - end up hating him? Still, it makes sense that Ricketts would end up re-emerging in the Nebraska Republican Party's hierarchy. The people of Nebraska don't have to like him for Republican candidates to be very grateful when he writes them a check. For all of his own failures as a candidate, there's no denying that the kind of money he was dropping in Nebraska politics was bound to buy Ricketts some loyalty. Republicans up and down the ballot hardly even had to ask before having thousand dollar hand-outs thrust in their direction. And, that mentality didn't end with the 2006 election. Ever since, Ricketts seems to have been just as busy as ever writing campaign checks and buying his party's loyalty with cold, hard cash.

Let's just take a look at who Ricketts has been contributing to lately (since the 2006 election): $8,000 to Ken Svoboda (failed candidate for Mayor of Lincoln)   $5,000 to Jim Vokal (Ambitious Omaha City Councilman, not even up for re-election until 2009....additional $2,5000 contributed by Ricketts' father, Joe)   $1,000 to Jon Camp (independently wealthy incumbent on Lincoln City Council)   $1,000 to John Erickson (failed candidate for Lincoln City Council)   $2,300 to John Thune (U.S. Senator from South Dakota, up for re-election in 2010) $1,000 to Pat Roberts (U.S. Senator from Kansas, up for re-election in 2008)   $4,600 to Chuck Hagel (U.S. Senator from Nebraska who already received tons of free advertising from Ricketts in 2006)   $4,600 to Jeff Fortenberry (maxing-out to 1st District Congressman's 2008 re-election campaign)   $500 to Lee Terry (spare change from under Ricketts' sofa cushion for his own Congressman in Nebraska's 2nd District)   $5,000 to "For Our Republic's Traditions Fund", aka "Fort Fund" (Fortenberry's very own "Leadership PAC", i.e. mechanism to skirt campaign finance laws and buy influence in Washington D.C.)   $5,000 to Sandhills PAC (Chuck Hagel's "Leadership PAC")   $10,000 to Nebraska Republican Party (just another drop in the bucket) Are you starting to get a sense of why Ricketts is the favorite to replace Daub in the Nebraska Republican Party? Those are some heavy-hitters, and that is a lot of money. Not to mention, everyone knows there's more where that came from. Of course, what I find most funny is all the various occupations Pete Ricketts reports for himself on the above campaign filings. They range from Ameritrade Executive to Director of the "Platte Institute for Economic Research" (whatever that is). A few times, Ricketts even declares himself "Retired" (at, I believe, the ripe old age of 42). No, we haven't seen the last of Pete Ricketts in Nebraska politics, and I say thank God for that. Despite all the money in the world, with this guy calling the shots - so disconnected from the people of Nebraska and their real world concerns - the Nebraska Republican Party might be flush with cash but will only become further removed from the common people already struggling to find a reason to continue identifying with this party that has become so synonymous with greed, corruption, failure, and lies.

Go to full text...

Don Walton On Hal Daub (maybe "Gets On" would have been more correct)

The Lincoln Journal-Star's Don Walton goes above and beyond trying to make the ever-unlikeable Hal Daub seem like a legitimate contender for the Republican Party's 2008 Senate nomination. Restrain your gag reflex and read for yourself:

Ideaman. That's Hal Daub. Intensity is the first word that comes to mind when describing the former Omaha mayor and former four-term Republican congressman. Usually, the body is in restless motion; last week in Lincoln it was the mind. At the end of a workday, Daub sat down in a semi-circle with about a dozen people in a meeting room at the Cornhusker Marriott to exchange views about the country's challenges and concerns....  

For two hours, Daub poses questions, seeks opinions, raises alternatives, proposes solutions. It is a tour de force. If Daub decides to enter the 2008 Senate race, he'll take the debate deeper than most candidates will want to go. Below the safety of the surface where many candidates prefer to float in consultant-tested life jackets, down into dangerous waters. Hal Daub is a deep sea diver....

You'd have to be a deep sea diver to wade through the remainder of Walton's Daub-loving drivel. Frankly, I don't know what Walton's talking about describing Daub as an "ideaman" known for his "intensity". To most people, the impression of Daub that usually comes to mind is "asshole" ("slimy politician" and "arrogant prick" are tied for second).

And, seriously, what sort of "tour de force" involves sitting around and talking with a dozen like-minded Republicans who weren't going to challenge a damn thing Daub had to say - not to mention the Journal-Star reporter looking around for a bigger spoon just so he could get a bigger bite of Daub's BS. Eat it up, Don. And, by all means, enjoy it while it lasts.

Go to full text...

Anti-Immigration Protestors Show Their True Colors

By: Dave Sund If you've been around Omaha for the last couple of years, you may have noticed the protestors that show up every so often in front of the Consulado de Mexico on 36th and Dodge St. Their thinly-veiled racism, however, is no match for the atrocious display of racism that is coming this weekend: The National Socialist Movement will shut down Dodge street Saturday to protest illegal immigration. The Nazi protest at the Mexican Consulate is becoming a cause for community concern. So much concern in fact, the white supremacist group will receive a police escort in and out of Omaha as well as police security during the event, according to both the Consulate and protestors. Well, that's great. I'm sure the people of Omaha will appreciate a bunch of Nazis choking off the main artery to the city for a few hours. Fortunately, everyone will be glued to their TV sets watching the season opener between Nebraska and Nevada, but that's not the point. It's disturbing how similar the Nazi message is to the right-wing party line on immigration. Put this together with the rising ranks of the KKK in recent years because of strong feelings against immigration, and it's not hard to see what kind of people are driving the debate on this issue. And it's sickening.

"This is not Mexico and we don't want it to be Mexico," says Col. Tim Bishop with the National Socialist Movement. Illegal immigration threatens the self described Nazi group's main goal. "The preservation and the promotion of the white Arian Caucasian people," says Bishop. And it's at this point that we have to bring up the thing that fails to get through to these people each and every time: Only the swastika emblazoned protest against illegal immigrants will happen outside the one place in Omaha Mexicans can obtain legal identification. "I guess because it has a Mexican flag out front or they misinterpret what we do," says the Consul. "They're telling people to come here. They're telling people where they can get social services. They're telling people how to exploit the system," says Bishop. At least these folks make their racism very clear, so it becomes easier to expose the racism of those who hold the exact same beliefs as them. How could this not be blatantly obvious at this point? This isn't about "border security" or "amnesty" or any of the other buzz words that politicians in Washington like to throw around. This is about Mexicans. This is about fear. Quite simply, this is racism. And it's unfortunately very politically acceptable, to the point where people who should know better are buying into the buzzwords and phrases. To the point where people are treated like criminals and separated from their families for wanting to make a better life in America. To the point where the "compromise" position has us relegating people to a status of virtually permanent indentured servitude. One last point, which I cannot stress enough: Don't take the bait. The Consul's concern is not the demonstration but the potential for violent public reaction and damage to his building.   "A counter-demonstration is not productive in any way and that's exactly what these people are looking for."

Go to full text...

Kos Predicts "Likely" Victory for Potential Kerrey Campaign

Markos, founder of the DailyKos community and probably the best-known political blogger in the country, has released his projections for the 2008 election cycle in the U.S. Senate. Quite stunning is the fact that he ranks a Nebraska Senate race without Republican incumbent Chuck Hagel and with Democratic former governor and U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey as one of the Democratic Party's absolute best hopes for expanding their Senate majority.  He writes: Here are my rankings of races most likely to switch parties at this point in time. TOP TIER 4. Nebraska (Hagel - R) Another race assuming someone gets out (Hagel) and someone gets in (Bob Kerrey). If this happens, it would mark one of the DSCC's biggest recruiting coups and force Republicans to play defense in a likely losing battle -- the best of all worlds. Now, I think it's great that some prominent voices in the Democratic Party and the new media are starting to take a good, hard look at the Nebraska Senate picture. With Kerrey in the race - even with Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey - this race is well-deserving of top tier status. But, I won't deny being more than a little bit concerned with overhyping a Kerrey candidacy. To say that Kerrey gives Democrats' their best chance in Nebraska is undeniable. To suggest that he's "likely" to win, though, seems somewhat extreme from where I'm standing.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but we have to be practical. We can't completely forget that it's been 13 years since Nebraskans last voted for Bob Kerrey. Nor can we be totally oblivious to the barely legitimate but no less effective criticism of Kerrey for living in New York City since leaving the U.S. Senate in 2001. Furthermore, the shadow of former Gov. and current Agricultural Secretary Mike Johanns hangs over the Republican field of candidates, probably as close to evenly-matched as they could get should both he and Kerrey enter the fray. Nevermind that we still have no assurances from Kerrey that he is running - even if the rumor mills and inside buzz all say he's practically on the verge of announcing. There's a lot to be said for a Senate bid by a re-emergent Kerrey in 2008. But, there are also real dangers for Nebraska Democrats becoming so caught up in Kerrey's star-quality that they lose sight of the 2008 election as it actually stands. And, for all the excitement about Kerrey's possible return to Nebraska politics, I just can't wrap my brain around any situation where he becomes an instant favorite - as Kos seems to suggest. What do you say, Nebraska? Am I failing to see the forest from the trees? Am I too caught up in the minutia of Nebraska politics - too close to memories of the 2002 and 2004 elections - to the point that my perceptions of this race are corrupted and prone to excessive skepticism? Again, I think we have a real opportunity in this race. Looking at Kos' list and the Cillizza list that preceded it, I'd agree that it's definte Top 10 material in terms of simple competitiveness. I just can't, for the life of me, call this a "likely losing battle" for Nebraska Republicans. But, maybe that's just me. I hope so. It's certainly a beautiful dream, but no one should think for a second we won't have to fight like hell to make it an actual reality.

Go to full text...

Hal Daub Finishes His Magical Mystery Tour (w/new poll)

Former Congressman and Omaha Mayor Hal Daub wrapped up his statewide listening tour with a couple of events in Omaha this week, leaving the door open to his third campaign for the U.S. Senate.
 The Associated Press reports:

Daub said he's found overwhelming support across the state for Bush and his decisions about Iraq.... 

Daub wouldn't say Friday how much money he's raised for a possible run, or how much of his own money he's spent on the listening tour. He also won't say whether he'd run against Sen. Chuck Hagel, a fellow Republican whom Daub says he considers a friend...

But Daub did say he "won't be dissuaded by whoever the candidates might be."

If he decides not to run, Daub says he'll return the money he's raised with interest and will pass the ideas he's gathered along to elected officials.

Boy, I'm sure Nebraska's elected officials can't wait to have Hal Daub tell them what the people of Nebraska are thinking. I still refuse to accept Daub's exaggerated and illegitimate claim that Nebraskans support President Bush and his war policy. This demonstrates nothing more than that the kind of people who'd attend a Hal Daub event are just as fringe-worthy and out of touch with the mainstream as Daub himself. I'm curious what others think of Daub's claim, though, so please answer our latest NNN poll.

As far as Daub actually running for Senate, I'd love to see him get the Republican nomination, but that's just not going to happen. I know it's said that "the third time's the charm", but we saw how well that worked out for Don Stenberg in 2006. No, as proven by the choice of Pete Ricketts, Nebraska Republicans might still nominate a candidate who is a total loser - but not a proven loser like Hal Daub.

Go to full text...

Fishing With Joe in NE-02

Omaha reporter Joe Jordan is fishing for stories about who might run against Lee Terry for Nebraska's Second Congressional District. The person he's cornered most recently is none other than Omaha State Senator Tom White.

KMTV 3's Joe Jordan: Senator, I was wondering where you are regarding a possible run for Congress?  

State Senator Tom White: Ha, ha, ha....   

Jordan: No really, do you think you're going to run?   

White: Joe, I'm just trying to get property tax relief for my constituents.

Jordan also remarks on the improbability of 2006 challenger Jim Esch making a second run at Terry's seat. Word on the street is that Esch will be announcing his intentions very soon - perhaps as early as Labor Day.

Go to full text...

For Your Viewing Pleasure: The Famous "Assface" E-mails

Remember those Republican staffers working for Sen. Tom Coburn who were out to get Sen. Ben Nelson. Well, we at NNN thought you might all like to see their artful displays of childish contempt for yourselves.

Note: A black Sharpie has been used to protect the innocent.

TAC is, of course, Sen. Thomas A. Coburn, whose staff seems to be prodding him to take this issue farther and farther for their own personal and political reasons. The hit piece being celebrated by these jokers is an August 2nd article in The Hill reporting Coburn's grandstanding against a single earmark for a Nebraska company in the Defense appropriations bill for not filing one particular disclosure form.

 

Whether hoping to embarrass Ben Nelson, make a name for himself, or just "shut that fucker up", Coburn completely fails to point out that, according to government watchdogs at the Sunlight Foundation, no defense contractors are filing the obscure forms he seeks. That's a damn shame because the lobbying practices they pertain to should be disclosed, but it also reveals the hypocrisy at the heart of this whole stupid situation.

Just another great moment in democratic discourse brought to you by our friends in the Republican Party.

Go to full text...

Bob Kerrey One Step Closer to ???

Following up on NNN's previous post, the Omaha World-Herald chimes in with some additional details and a slightly different take on Bob Kerrey's potential return to Nebraska's campaign trail: Former Sen. Bob Kerrey told trustees at his New York university Thursday that he is seriously considering running for the Senate again if Republican Chuck Hagel announces his retirement. "I'd like the answer to be 'yes' or 'no' as close to when Chuck makes his decision," Kerrey said in an interview. "I wanted to let them know the answer might be yes"....   Kerrey, a Democrat who served two terms in the Senate and one as Nebraska's governor, said the New School trustees understood why he is interested in possibly returning to public life. He said they hope he decides not to leave the university. "The odds still favor me saying no," Kerrey said.  If he were to win election again, Kerrey said, he suffers no illusion that he'd be happier than he is now. "It's not about happiness," Kerrey said. "It's about does the country need me to try?"Kerrey said he has been giving serious thought to the race because he thinks he could contribute to shaping American policies on national security, intelligence, trade and entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare....  If Hagel decides not to seek re-election, Kerrey said he will announce his own plans soon after. He has talked the matter over with his wife and would decide with her, he said."In some ways, it's not a difficult decision. It's just, do I want to do it?"

I don't know, Bob. You tell us.

Go to full text...

Bob Kerrey One Step Closer to Coming Home

Bruin606 had the quick draw on this story, breaking that the Lincoln Journal-Star had just broken the news that former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey has notified the trustees of New School University that he is seriously considering a return to Nebraska and a run for the U.S. Senate. Kerrey promises an announcement within weeks, no longer willing to let his friend Chuck Hagel sit back and dictate the entire decision-making timetable in Nebraska politics: Bob Kerrey stepped to the brink of a possible 2008 Senate bid Thursday.... A decision on whether to return to his roots and attempt to once again represent Nebraska in the Senate is likely "within the next couple of weeks," Kerrey said in a telephone interview.....   Kerrey said he has become convinced Sen. Chuck Hagel will not be a candidate for a third term next year. "I am more and more certain Chuck is not going to seek re-election," Kerrey said, "and my intention is to make my decision before he makes an announcement." Hagel is expected to reveal his decision next month.....

"This is a very personal decision for me," Kerrey said. It requires him to balance personal happiness with the opportunity to "try to do something good for my country," he said.... Kerrey said he has received no signal from Hagel about the senator's intentions. "The only signal I get is connected to the fact that I went through this too at the end of my second term," he said. "I know that with me it could have gone either way." There does seem to be a minor disconnect between Kerrey's attempts to be respectful of Hagel's indecision while announcing that he's not going to wait around for Hagel to make up his mind. Of course, that's nowhere near the outright insulting flip-flop by Attorney General Jon Bruning - going from calling himself "a Hagel guy" to attacking Hagel at every chance he could get in a matter of weeks. Should Kerrey run (not something we can firmly count upon until he actually commits), there's certain to be silly attacks that he's somehow a carpetbagger. The buffoon Bruning even used that term, delighting in the idea of using it against Kerrey as a potential opponent. But, Kerrey's work at the New School was an incredible opportunity for a man of his near-boundless creative instincts that he probably would have been a fool to pass up. It's hard to imagine how serving as President of an out-state University could honestly be said to nullify Kerrey's undeniable record of proven commitment to the people of Nebraska - especially when he was serving his country, helping us come to terms with one of the worst tragedies in our nation's history, as a member of the 9/11 Commission. Still, there will be plenty of time to talk of such things. For now, though, we remain in the realm of speculation. It's hard to be content with that when there's so much work to be done, but - take heart - the clouds are beginning to part and all will soon be revealed.

Go to full text...

Lincoln's Partisan Divide Erupts Into Trench Warfare

Following-up on a diary from last week on the question of whether the partisanship on Lincoln's City Council is being exaggerated by the Lincoln Journal-Star's coverage, before Monday night's final budget vote whatever conflict exists over funding of the Lincoln Fire Department turned quite personal between two Council members - Democrat Jonathan Cook and Republican Jon Camp.

The LJS reports:

The latest fire department flareup was ignited when Cook made a motion to restore $100,000 that Republicans on the council, led by Camp, cut from the fire department budget earlier this month.... Cook said the cut undermines public safety for no reason and accused Camp of being motivated by a vendetta against the fire department, recounting controversial statements Camp has made over the years about firefighters and the fire department. Cook said he doubted fire officials in other cities - such as Minneapolis, where rescue workers recently responded to a major bridge collapse - endure the kind of criticism Lincoln's do. He asked: Were they accused of having too many workers on site? Spending too much on overtime? Putting in too many workers' compensation claims?...  

Instead of being proud of Lincoln's specially trained team of firefighters who respond to national emergencies, Cook recounted Camp's accusation last year that firefighters had tried to "elevate themselves" by exaggerating their role at Ground Zero after Sept. 11. "I think it's part of an effort to turn heroes into villains and pick, pick, pick at a fire department that two studies have shown is a very efficient department," Cook said. "It's time to end these attacks on the fire department."  

In return, Camp accused Cook of twisting his words, trying to get media attention and "trying to cause alarm in our citizens." He said Lincoln has a good fire and ambulance service, but could do better and needs to be "fiscally prudent." "I'm tired of your tirades," Camp said. "And if you don't cease with this, I'm going to ask our colleagues to censure you because you've gone too far." He then called on Cook to apologize to him and the citizens of Lincoln. After the meeting, while Camp was being interviewed by the Journal Star, Cook approached and Camp became angry, calling him a "mouthpiece for the fire union" and saying, "get a life" before stalking away.  

It doesn't appear Camp will be getting an apology from Cook, who said, "I don't owe him an apology. He owes the men and women of the fire department an apology for constantly defaming them".... Cook's motion to restore the money failed by a 3-4 vote, with Republicans voting "no" and Democrats "yes."

It's hard to say where this Cook vs. Camp battle royale has its beginnings. Maybe partisan loyalties have colored the debate, but anyone who follows Lincoln city government can tell you that the idea of the proudly belligerent Camp accusing anyone of making tirades and seeking media attention is quite ridiculous on its face. Camp's made an artform of precisely that sort of grandstanding and - if anything - seems to resent having his own tactics used against him.

Both Cook and Camp were re-elected in Lincoln's May election, so they're probably going to have to put up with each other for four more years on the City Council. Both have also expressed past interest in seeking the Mayor's Office, so who knows just how far their skirmishes might ultimately go?

Go to full text...

Childish Republican Staffers Target Ben Nelson in Earmark Battle

A story from last month that ended with Sen. Ben Nelson retracting a controversial earmark request for an Omaha-based company that employs his son found renewed life thanks to a series of e-mails coming to light that suggest the controversy and criticism directed at Nelson may have been quite personal and probably even partisan in nature. As reported by The Hill: A battle between the offices of Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) over a controversial earmark intensified earlier this month, displaying how debates on Capitol Hill sometimes can turn personal. The senators had been at odds over the matter for much of the summer, but it would reach a new level when John Hart, communications director for Coburn, forwarded a news article detailing his boss's request for an investigation of a defense contractor. The target of the would-be investigation, 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), employs Patrick Nelson, the son of the centrist senator. Sen. Nelson had requested an earmark for 21CSI, triggering a heated battle between the senators that has raged for weeks.  "This will shut that fucker up," Hart stated in an Aug. 1 e-mail sent from his Senate account to several of his colleagues. "I can't wait to send an In Case You Missed It to Nebraska press that will be forwarded to assface".... Hart has since said that his missives were directed at Nelson spokesman David DiMartino, not Sen. Nelson. I wish I could hold this e-mail up as an example of Republicans' super-partisan mentality, but this seems to be more a case of simple stupidity. Why might Coburn's staff bear such animosity towards Nelson - or, even towards his spokesman Mr. DiMartino? I suspect it has something to do with the following article from July's Omaha World-Herald that proved Nelson's staff quite adept at putting their Republican assailants back on the defensive:

Sen. Ben Nelson had a message Tuesday for Sen. Tom Coburn: Take care of your own backyard before you attack other lawmakers' earmarks. The Oklahoma Republican filed an amendment last week to eliminate $7.5 million that Nelson, D-Neb., wanted to steer to Omaha defense contractor 21st Century Systems Inc., which calls itself 21CSI. A Coburn spokesman compared 21CSI military computer software to video games and criticized the project as classic pork barrel spending. Nelson's office staff responded by defending the earmark as important to national defense, but also decided to take a look at earmarks in the defense bill that would benefit Oklahoma. They came across a $5 million earmark for military simulation training in Oklahoma. The earmark was inserted into the bill by the other Oklahoma senator, Republican James Inhofe, who could not be reached. That simulation training program has involved the Institute of Creative Technologies, which has received millions through federal earmarks over the years, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. One product of the funding was a video game called Full Spectrum Warrior that proved commercially successful but of limited military use, according to the group. "Senator Coburn's derided the research and development work done in Nebraska by mischaracterizing it as 'video games' and deemed it unworthy of funding, while ignoring and tacitly approving a $5 million earmark for his home state that actually does fund video game development," said Nelson spokesman David DiMartino. That's a pretty damn fine retort if you ask me. Regardless of the ultimate merit of the 21CSI funding, there's nothing quite like the revelation of this blatant hypocrisy to make Coburn and his staff look like a bunch of fools. Of course - as previously stated - Nelson has withdrawn his earmark request, but the actual spending remains in the Senate's appropriations bill. It faces a long road in the House, though, because Nebraska's Republican Congressmen are so uniformly lacking in stature and influence. And, I fear the same will hold true of every dollar Nebraska seeks back from the federal government until we elect some Representatives who are honestly worthy of their colleague's respect. Until then - to paraphrase Second District Congressman Lee Terry - if you want something done in this state, you should "just go talk to Ben."

Go to full text...

ES&S Faces $10 Million Fine in California

The Omaha World-Herald's corporate sibling, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), continues to gain negative publicity - even if it never makes it into the Nebraska press (for quite obvious reasons).

After last week's damning report by Dan Rather on the conditions under which their machines are manufactured and the defects in their finished product, now comes word of a very serious failure to properly certify ES&S machines that could end up costing the company millions of dollars.  The Inquirer reports:

The California Secretary of State's office announced today that it is investigating ES&S for allegedly selling uncertified voting machines in violation of state elections laws. ES&S's Automark 100 voting machines have been certified in California since August 2005. However, ES&S is accused of selling its later model Automark 200 machines before they had been tested by the Federal government in August 2006. The Automark 200 machine still has not been submitted to the State for its examination and certification, according to a Secretary of State spokesperson....  

According to California law, ES&S could be fined $10,000 per uncertified machine, or $10 million dollars for 1,000 machines. In addition, ES&S could be required to make full refunds to counties that bought the uncertified machines, which reportedly would cost another $5 million dollars. ES&S could also be barred from doing business anywhere in the State of California for one to three years, which could mean headaches and unanticipated voting machine replacement costs for the 14 counties that currently have ES&S voting machines. It's not known how many such uncertified voting machines ES&S might have sold in other states.

I've called for the World-Herald to divest from ES&S several times out of principle. But, with these sorts of liabilities and this level of incompetence, it might be time to consider divesting to protect their own economic interests.

Go to full text...

Did Chuck Hagel's Slap Down of Republican House Leader Even Get Reported by the Omaha World-Herald?

Seriously, five days ago, Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered as straight-forward and stunning a rebuke to the Republican Party's entire Iraq War noise machine as any that has been reported across the country. Without resorting to sound bytes - simply stating the facts - Hagel managed to single-handedly debunk every fantastical notion of success just around the corner that Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration continue grasping onto in such sick desperation.
 
In particular, Hagel embarrassed House Minority Leader John Boehner with his merciless recitation of the cold, hard facts. At the same time, he shamed Nebraska's Republican Congressmen - who spent the week fundraising with Boehner across Nebraska, earning every blood-drenched dollar with their silent embrace of Boehner's and Bush's Iraq War fantasies.

Still, to my knowledge, the Omaha World-Herald managed to completely neglect coverage of Hagel's outright refutation of the party-line concocted by Boehner and his ilk. Did I miss something or is this oversight nothing short of outrageous on the part of Nebraska's supposed paper of record?

Even though Hagel's statements may have been made to the Lincoln Journal-Star, it's impossible to justify disregarding their importance or their implications for the national political scene and for Nebraska's stooge-like House delegation. A sitting U.S. Senator from Nebraska denounced his own party's leader in the House of Representatives - essentially calling him a liar or a fool - and we're left to assume our state's largest and most powerful newspaper somehow didn't find that newsworthy. Are you kidding me?

Once again, the World-Herald proves itself either incompetent or corrupt for keeping the people of Nebraska in the dark on issues and stories that are not convenient to its Republican political bent. Nothing we haven't seen before (or, failed to see, as the case may be). But, this is definitely a failure we must rage against if we're ever to put the World-Herald on notice that Nebraskans might - one day - expect better and find themselves seeking a more honest alternative.

Go to full text...

Bob Kerrey: Keeping Us On Our Toes

Last April, Bob Kerrey told the Lincoln Journal-Star that he wouldn't run against Sen. Chuck Hagel should he seek re-election, promising that he would, in fact, make a contribution to Hagel's campaign. At the same time, Kerrey declared, "I'm almost 100 percent certain I'm not going to run."

Well, speaking to the NY Times, Kerrey recently repeated, "If Hagel runs, not only would I not run, I would write him a check." One blogger at MyDD took issue with Kerrey's display of Nebraska-style nonpartisanship. But, the real story might be Kerrey's subtle change of tune should Hagel sit this one out:

"At the moment, I don't think I'm going to run. But these moments don't happen very often. It's a possibility."

Of course, I wouldn't expect a retiring Hagel to make any contribution to a potential - probably still unlikely - Kerrey campaign. But, even if it is but the faintest of possibilities, a lame-duck Hagel having to choose between a hypothetical Jon Bruning versus Bob Kerrey match-up would be a situation so ripe for political farce not even Shakespeare could have imagined it.

Dare we even dream?

Go to full text...

Nebraska Senate Race Hits the National Radar

What do ya' know, The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza is keeping an eye on Nebraska's 2008 Senate race and actually ranks it as the eighth most likely in the country to end in a partisan flip:

8. Nebraska: Can anyone claim to know what's going on in the mind of Sen. Chuck Hagel (R)? The Fix expects him to announce his retirement from the Senate some time this fall, but Hagel has proved us wrong before. If Hagel retires, Democrats are expected to make a major push for his seat. The likely candidate is Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey, although former Sen. Bob Kerrey has also expressed some interest and might well have the right of first refusal. Republicans would quickly move to recruit Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, a former Nebraska governor, but it's not clear that Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is already in the race, would back out. The eventual Republican nominee should be helped by the state's strong GOP bent.

That certainly reads like Nebraska's chances of being a Democratic pick-up in the U.S. Senate are being taken very seriously - perhaps more than I'd previously entertained as possible.

No doubt, that's an exciting prospect. Sure, there's a long ways to go and plenty of variables that have yet to play out before any true judgment can be made, but it's nice to know that they're thinking of us and that Nebraska isn't being written off just because we've picked up a couple of nasty voting habits somewhere along the way.

Go to full text...

Nelson on Iraq: Calls for Troop Reduction But Recognizes Long Term Commitment

It doesn't make me particularly popular with readers, but I have genuine respect and admiration for Senator Ben Nelson's cautious and well-reasoned position on the war in Iraq. Today's Lincoln Journal-Star includes Nelson's honest assessment of where things should head from here: [Sen. Ben] Nelson said he favors transforming the U.S. military mission in Iraq without setting any troop withdrawal date. Iraqi forces need to take responsibility for security and stability in Baghdad, he said, while U.S. troops "go after al-Qaida in a much more robust way." That transition naturally would lead to a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq, Nelson said. "We need to challenge the Iraqi government to do what it needs to do" to reach political accommodation and stabilize the country, he said. "But we'll have a presence there for a long period of time," Nelson said. It saddens me to see how anti-war activists, the media, and the Republican Right have worked together to re-imagine the 2006 election as being driven by a single supposed demand for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, setting an irresponsible and self-serving standard that undermines the more general cries for change that were truly at the root of the Democratic Party's success. Nevermind that this destructive fantasy neglects every other failure and outrage during years of Republican corruption and abuse. Probably worst is how the Democratic Presidential candidates have allowed their positions to be defined and dictated by this false construct, forcing them to extremes that will ultimately hurt their candidacies while making responsible Democratic legislators look weak and any true Congressional reforms impossible. Voters should be wary of Nelson's statement that "we'll have a presence (in Iraq) for a long period of time" - not because he's wrong but because we can't lose sight of the goal of withdrawal. But, to do so responsibly requires the sort of change in strategy Nelson is talking about and can help make a reality - if Democrats avoid the sort of demagoguery that doomed the Republicans in 2006 and that got us in this mess in the first place.

It is going to fall to our next President to set the terms of our commitment to the Iraqi people and - hopefully - our military's withdrawal from their country. It is good to be talking about exit plans, but they are no excuse and no replacement for an actual strategy. Battles over cutting funding for the war and when to demand complete withdrawal will not only hurt the Democratic Party's larger agenda but will also force precisely the sort of gridlock and inaction that will put our Armed Forces and our next President in even worse positions. The Bush Administration, Republican filibusters, and the prevailing uncertainty about our mission in Iraq are all realities we must deal with if any true progress is to be made. The coming Congressional debate does not need to be a zero-sum game between warring partisan factions. There is room for principled stands and impassioned debate without giving in to the easy rallying cries and expected brinkmanship from both sides that would close the door to compromise and leave President Bush completely unchecked by Congressional authority. What Nelson offers is a path to avoid this worst-of-all-worlds, "do-nothing Congress"-scenario that is otherwise so likely and so damaging to the entire cause of Democratic reform. This isn't to say that Nelson can be trusted implicitly. In this coming debate, he must remain stronger than he sometimes has in years and on issues past - asking tough questions, demanding honest answers, and insisting on accountability. If he can do that, he will have served the people of Nebraska and this country honorably - keeping faith with the ideologically diverse Nebraska voters who re-elected him in the real 2006 election.

Go to full text...

Absurdities of 2008 Senate Race Explored in Detail

Two of the more respected old-timers of the Nebraska press corps, the Lincoln Journal-Star's Don Walton and Nebraska State Paper's Ed Howard, each published separate accounts today updating readers on the outlook for next year's race for the Senate seat currently held by Chuck Hagel (whose recess activities are the topic of our latest poll). Walton reports on Jon Bruning's attack dog tactics before taking a wider look at the campaign landscape: Target: Johanns. The bulls-eye has moved. Here are a couple of paragraphs from a Jon Bruning news release issued last week: "Attorney General Jon Bruning criticized the recent decision by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to close 10 Federal Farm Service agencies in Nebraska. 'These closings are not in the best interests of Nebraska,' Bruning said. `I intend to protect and defend our family farms as a member of the United States Senate.'   As mounting circumstantial evidence points toward the likelihood Chuck Hagel will not seek re-election, the spotlight begins to turn toward Johanns. Bruning, who had been targeting Hagel for his views on Iraq and immigration, may see Johanns emerging now as the chief obstacle standing between him and the 2008 Republican Senate nomination.....   Hagel has not announced whether he'll seek re-election. That decision presumably will come soon....Although he'll be in Nebraska for a number of events this month - including a visit to Husker football practice last Friday - Hagel has not scheduled his usual August congressional recess swing across the state. Meanwhile, Johanns isn't talking. But the wind is whispering yes....   Bob Kerrey is interested - if Hagel doesn't seek re-election.... "Is Bob Kerrey heading back to Nebraska?" The New York Post asked in its featured Page Six column last week. "At the recent fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton..., several Dems, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, were urging Kerrey to run for the seat of Sen. Chuck Hagel...." the report stated. It's not the first time Kerrey and Schumer have talked.   No matter how this all shakes out, Nebraska is going to be a nationally-prominent Senate battleground state in 2008. For all intents and purposes, Walton should be absolutely right about this race making Nebraska a battleground state. But, national attention has remained relatively scant - probably under the assumption that this doesn't become a race until Hagel decides not to run for re-election. In that sense, the national press is waiting for Hagel to announce his intentions every bit as much as the other potential candidates - whom Howard examines in greater detail:

Bob Kerrey and Mike Fahey and Mike Johanns are politicians from Nebraska, but it only seems like they are endlessly waiting for Senator Chuck Hagel. The situation has become an overlong example of politics of the absurd.... Johanns has not said he will not run against Hagel. Johanns and Hagel are not pals. Never have been. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  There are very strong signs, subtle and not so subtle, that Johanns wants to run.   There is no question that Johanns represents the strongest possible Senate candidate the GOP can offer. Attorney General Jon Bruning has declared for the Republican Senate nomination. He can't beat Johanns.   Kerrey and Johanns were both popular governors. Kerrey is known for a touch of charisma. Johanns is not.... Several political watchers in Washington anticipate Hagel's retirement, but no one is certain, at this writing, what he will do....   [N]o one can ever be certain of what Kerrey will do. In addition, Kerrey has a reputation for sometimes changing his mind, even after he says he has decided what he will do. Seems a rather bold statement to declare that Bruning "can't beat Johanns" in a Republican primary. Howard may be right, but I think he might be over-estimating voters' affinity for Johanns - who definitely carries some baggage from his days as Governor and his involvement with the Bush Administration that would provide some easy fodder for Bruning if he's truly willing to keep those guns-a-blazing. Also, in contrast to Kerrey's legendary charisma, Bruning has a lot more personality than Johanns - even if it is the fake charm of an overgrown frat boy who seems to be permanently running for student body President. So far, much of the speculation around this race has relied upon some expectation of coordination between Hagel and Johanns - which Howard goes out of his way to refute. Regardless, the unspoken idea driving this whole hypothetical is that Johanns (and his blandness) could reunite Nebraska Republicans - both those who've been offended by Hagel's criticism of President Bush and those who've been offended by Bruning's criticism of Hagel - and see them to an easy victory. Sounds like a perfect little plan, doesn't it? But, politics rarely play out in these sorts of paint-by-the-number schemes - especially with wild cards like Hagel and Kerrey in the deck. That first card should be played soon, though....stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed for as much chaos and ridiculousness as possible.

Go to full text...

Public Pulse Taken Over by Republican Spin in Omaha Budget Battle

Ten days ago, Omaha Republican City Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson attempted to embarrass Democratic Mayor Mike Fahey and to pin the blame on him for not doing enough to prevent Omaha's rash of gun violence this summer. To do so, they leaked a letter they'd sent last December recommending a temporary increase in property taxes to fund a temporary increase in the number of police officers. Leaving out the obvious but highly-relevant fact of who had released this letter in the first place, the Omaha World-Herald reported: Fahey's chief of staff, Paul Landow, said the...council members privately sent the letter to Fahey but didn't push the issue further. "If they were really interested in adding 50 police officers, why didn't they say it publicly at the time?" Landow asked.....   Landow also said Fahey has been steadily increasing the number of police officers, including adding 15 officers in 2007 and another 15 next year. But Fahey won't be calling for a temporary surge in police officers, Landow said.   In their letter, the council members suggested that the number of officers increase by 40 to 50, then decrease after three years, or after violence in north Omaha has lessened. Under the plan, the tax increase that would fund the officers would also be rolled back.   Landow said the idea of a temporary surge in police officers is unworkable. "What are we supposed to do at the end of the three years? Fire all the additional cops?" So, essentially, Fahey is planning a permanent addition of 30 police officers rather than the 40 - 50 temporary officers Vokal and Sigerson had recommended. And, Fahey is budgeting for these new officers without relying on the property tax increases Vokal and Sigerson had called for last December. It's rather ridiculous that they would even attempt to milk that difference for political gain, particularly when Omaha's Police Chief, Thomas Warren, had just told the Council, "I'm comfortable with the personnel allocation that we are proposing for the 2008 budget." Honestly, it's sad that the World-Herald even printed this sad bit of partisan spin attacking Fahey and playing on people's increased fears about local crime. But, having opened that door, it was only fair that Fahey's office decided to fight back:

Mayor Mike Fahey's chief of staff is accusing two City Council members of playing politics when it comes to addressing gun violence. Chief of Staff Paul Landow said Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson have alternately advocated in letters to the mayor for both an increase and a decrease in the city's property tax rate....   Vokal and Sigerson...wrote Fahey last December that they would support a tax rate increase in 2008 to hire an additional 40 to 50 police officers. Then in June, Sigerson and Vokal wrote Fahey asking him to lower the property tax rate in response to what was projected to be a significant increase in property valuations....   "It's clearly disingenuous, political nonsense," Landow said. "One minute they are calling for a tax increase, and the next they want a decrease. Which is it?"..... Landow said the shifting positions were intended to bolster Vokal's possible mayoral bid in 2009. "This is all being done in the name of political ambition." Thoroughly established as opportunists and flip-floppers taking advantage of the surge in gun violence for their own political purposes, you'd expect Vokal and Sigerson to shut up. Instead, today's World-Herald ran three curiously-timed and similar-sounding letters in the Public Pulse that attempt one last time to shamelessly spin the fears and heartache of Omaha families to the Republican Party's advantage: Mayor Mike Fahey claims to want input from community leaders in an effort to solve Omaha's crime wave. But where was this concern in December when City Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson offered to work with the mayor on addressing the sudden increase in gun violence in Omaha? Omaha has again seen a dramatic increase in violent crime this summer. Now, Fahey accuses the councilmen, through his Chief of Staff Paul Landow, of playing politics. If Fahey had been attentive to Omaha's needs and responded to the councilmen's ideas in December, maybe he wouldn't need to play politics now. Possible solutions already would have been in the works.   Joe Risko, Omaha ------------------- Landow called the efforts by Vokal and Sigerson politically ambitious. This is ridiculous. Landown's attempt to twist the facts of the situation and turn it into a political attack is abhorrent. In December, Vokal and Sigerson proposed increasing the number of police officers in Omaha by 40 to 50 and were willing to authorize additional funding to do so. But Fahey refused this offer. In June, Vokal and Sigerson responded to the de facto tax increase caused by property valuation increases by demanding a tax cut. These two positions are entirely consistent. Vokal and Sigerson are in favor of using additional funding to curb violence in Omaha with additional police officers. They are not in favor of raising tax revenues through higher assessments just to pad city coffers. It is time for Landow and Fahey to quit playing politics and start doing something to keep our children from dying on the streets of Omaha.   Scott Knudsen, Omaha ------------------- It seems to me that when these councilmen sent a letter to Fahey back in December, they were putting the interests of the people of Omaha above their own political futures. When it became clear to the them that their suggestion to add more police to stifle a crime wave was rejected, they were free to move on to resolve another increasing problem: Douglas County Assessor Roger Morrissey's desire to increase taxable property valuations. As a voter, I prefer leadership that is sensitive to the changing landscape of the city, not oblivious to it.   Pete D. Pedersen, Omaha I always hate to see the opinion page littered with these faux-letters pre-manufactured by party hacks and signed with the names of loyal Republican footsoldiers. It's sort of amusing, however, how each of these three letters contains its own carefully-crafted message attempting to obscure Vokal and Sigerson's hypocrisy while turning the tables on Fahey and Landow for who's really "playing politics." Of course, in this little skirmish, the real question of who was "playing politics" begins and ends with who first tried to use this issue for their partisan advantage. Clearly, that was Vokal and Sigerson. They simply got out-played, despite the World-Herald giving them every possible advantage. The facts speak for themselves. Sadly, the World-Herald appears to be concerned very little with Letters to the Editors adhering to those facts, instead allowing fabrication by repetition on its own opinion page.

Go to full text...