Friday, August 11, 2006

Debate Wrap #1


Nelson: Well, I Didn't MEAN What I Wrote...

Towards the end of the U.S. Senate debate on Friday, Senator Ben Nelson was asked his views about the consumption tax (aka the Fair Tax). Nelson responded that it’s a bad idea, would raise taxes on everyone, then used one of his many prepared lines that when taxes are shifted, “the shift-ee would end up getting the shaft” (chuckle-chuckle-chuckle).

Pete Ricketts pointed out that Nelson had said, in a letter to a Nebraska constituent, that he “would welcome the opportunity to hear the testimony of experts representing both sides of the issue”. (Click here for the text of Nelson’s letter to Gary Brown.)

And Nelson’s retort?

Well, this was a constituent that had sent in several letters on the issue (gasp!) and Nelson just decided to be nice to the guy and tell him what he wanted to hear, instead of telling him where to go.

So, remember this Nebraskans: You may get a letter from Ben Nelson, but (wink, wink) he doesn’t necessarily mean a word of what he says.

(More debate wrap coming soon…)

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

really? that's the best you can do? that ben nelson is not horribly rude to people who write him? wow - your boy must have done badly.

Street Sweeper said...

Telling a constituent that you're sorry, you don't support his position, is not being rude. What Ben told everyone is that he lies when he responds to constituents.

And we'll have more up for you soon...

Daily Bulldog said...

Hey, anon....poor constituent service is a major reason why Lieberman lost.

I know...you want the 60s back so you can protest the war, raindance to the commune and think your hippie-ness actually will make a change, but I can assure you it does not.

Piss-poor constituent service does in many an elected official.

It is sad that the THC clouds your understanding of this.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Bullmanure!!! Back to the tired old drug retorts. One of these days, after the Tax Cheat sends Richie Rich back to counting Daddy's money, maybe you can put on your pajamas, light up the pipe, sit in the easy chair, send the Beav to bed, sip the dry martini, and comtemplate the domino theory.

Daily Bulldog said...

Anon,

There goes the "class warfare alarm", calling Ricketts "Richie Rich".

Funny....Joe Ricketts makes a fortune, fair and sqaure, and all the little haters of the world want to criticize it. From what I understand, Pete was in his mid-20s when Joe Ricketts's company became what it was, which of course didn't happen overnight.

But you don't care....Nelson is wealthy enough to "overlook" the legal paperwork (as the trained attorney he is) on a $450,000
asset.

But Nelson isn't a "rich guy"...since he sticks a "D" behind his name, he is "the common guy" and "down with the homies".

Your sorry-ass party doesn't have a grip on reality, which is why it is in such disarray.

Cowpunk said...

I thought the funniest part of the debate was watching these two "hawks" running away from the Vietraq issue like Japanese schoolgirls in a Godzilla movie. First Nelson with his unintelligible gibberish, then Ricketts with his "whatever the troops want is OK by me" cop-out. If I were Nelson, I would have responded with this: "If it is the opinnion of our commanders in Iraq that the only way to succeed there is with a full military draft, would you support that, Mr. Ricketts?"

Anonymous said...

BM, who's criticizing Joe Ricketts? He may be a fine man who made a fortune through hard work and ambition. Good for Joe. It's just his no talent hanger on kid I got a problem with. If Nelson's kid got bored and decided to do the same power grab, I'd be right there hammering him. Try some linear thinking for a change for chrissakes.

Anonymous said...

Here is some food for thought...

Imagine you worked hard to build a successful business. Would you trust that business to a son or daughter if you believed for one minute that they were incapable of continuing the success of that company? The resounding answer is NO, you would not trust the business to a son or daughter UNLESS they were fully competent and held the skills and tools necessary to build the company further.

In fact, most children who follow their parents into the family business are held to a higher standard, because those parents want to ensure that their children have the ability to run the business and the vision to expand.

To call Pete Ricketts a "no talent hanger on kid" is an insult to both Pete and his father, Joe Ricketts.

If all of you who post these negative comments about the success of Pete Ricketts would read the record, you would see that Pete started at the bottom level and worked his way up. Pete was not instantly placed in the position of Chief Operating Officer. It took years of hard work and dedication to the business.

And lest we forget, Ameritrade is a public corporation, Joe Ricketts was not the sole decision-maker. There is no reason on earth why Joe Ricketts and the Board of Directors would entrust the operation of Ameritrade to Pete Ricketts unless they were absolutely certain Pete was superior to all other applicants for the job.

And I assure you, I would expect nothing less from Ben Nelson if the situation applied to him. Ben and his respective Board would make damn sure that his son or daughter was the most qualified person to oversee the operation of the business.

Parents do not simply just hand-over their successful businesses to a child because they are family - that's just bad business. Smart and savvy business owners hire even smarter and savvier workers to succeed them, and if that happens to be a child, what is the harm in that?

Are hardworking, capable, qualified individuals now prohibited from executive leadership roles simply because they happen to be a child of the current leadership?

Daily Bulldog said...

Anon,

Have you worked with Pete Ricketts before? Do you know for certain he does not "have any talent"?

You are making assumptions based on "reserach"....most of these academics who perform this "research" are the "no-talent" ones.

Hence the saying "those who can't do teach."

Unless you have work for PR directly and have seen first-hand that he is incapable, you have no place making assumptions.

And no, I don't care if one of your on-the-edge-of-middle-age, I didn't-go-to-college-because-I-thought-my-boyfriend-would-always-support-me, I-am-too-weak-willed-to-stop-smoking and I-use-every-bit-of-my-vacation-and-sick-time women friends who didn't make it at Ameritrade thinks PR is a dolt...unless you have seen it yourself, I don't want to hear it.