Monday, August 21, 2006

Republican not pulling Republicans

Nelson and the gang have a laugh at the GOP’s expense…

Ben Nelson is still holding Pete Ricketts at arm’s length in the August poll by Rasmussen Reports.

Nelson holds a 55% to 32% lead over Ricketts, down 2% from last month’s poll, but equal to the average of the last three months.

Ricketts has a 45% to 52% favorable vs. unfavorable rating, with Nelson taking a 74% favorable.

Nelson also still garners 41% of GOP voters.

Question: Who are these 41% of Republicans, and can Pete Ricketts track each of them down before Election Day? And will the rest of the Nebraska GOP help him?


Anonymous said...

Maybe those 41% of Republicans see that Ricketts is nothing but a bored rich kid who was looking for a hobby. Or maybe they like Nelson's record. Or maybe they don't like being told they have to elect a sub-par candidate simply because he has an R next to his name.

There are so many possibilities....

btw - could that photo be any older?

Street Sweeper said...

Or maybe they believe Nelson's ads.

Listen, feel free to make your political comments...but when you start criticizing our choice of photos, you're asking for it. If we could have found one with Ben's hair looking more breadloaf-like, we would have...

Anonymous said...

Wow, how about a nice photo of Ben Nelson with Ted Kennedy, or maybe Nancy Pelosi, or how about Satan? You Republicans are so Pavlov.

Street Sweeper said...

Please tell us why you Democrats are so afraid of Nelson appearing with a Democrat? We thought he and Kate Witek EMBRACE Democrats these days! We thought Bill and Hillary were the Democrat heroes? What's the problem? Do tell.

Daily Bulldog said...

Bored rich kid? Nelson is also rich and he cheats on his taxes.

Anonymous said...

Bulldog - has ricketts ever done anything for anyone besides pete ricketts? no? then there you go.

Anonymous said...

looks like a lot of folks in sarpy county have the same issues as nelson. don't you read the paper? world herald on sunday.

Daily Bulldog said...

I guess all of the jobs Ameritrade provided are meaningless, right? If Ameritrade moved out of state, no one would care, right?

And if any taxpayer cheats like Nelson does, that individual should be punished or should pay the back taxes accordingly.

I don't care who does it...he is an elected you not hold elected officials to a higher standard? I guess the Democratic party doesn't.

And several thousand homeowners fight high valuations like Ricketts did. Are these folks "guilty" like Ricketts?

Nice try....go back to the minor leagues where you belong.

Anonymous said...

puh-leeze. ameritrade is hardly an example of community spirit. his dad started it, petey just worked there and drew a fat paycheck.

where's the community service? where's him putting someone else's interests ahead of his own bottomline? ameritrade is in nebraska because that's where joe ricketts was living when he started it, not out of some sort of obligation to the people of nebraska.

and smart guy - nelson has said he'd pay whatever the assessor deemed fair. unlike petey boy who wanted the assessor to change the rules for him. (92% to 50%)

Street Sweeper said...

Ben Nelson shirked the people of Sarpy Co. out of 4 years worth of taxes. Plain and simple.

As far as "community service" goes, w/o Ricketts resume in hand, Ricketts led, or was part of, the anti-casino groups.

Anonymous said...

If that picture wasn't so flipping old , I'd have sworn Ben had just told Hill and Bill (8 years of peace and prosperity really sucked) that some dude named Pete W Ricketts was actually spending his millions on trying to beat him.

Anonymous said...

Pete Ricketts "shirked" the people of Douglas County out of 4 years of taxes for every year he didn't pay market value on his house.

And then he whined when folks called attention to it.

And he joined that anti-gambling group last year - coincedentally right before he declared for senate. kind of reminds me of kids who do one day of volunteer work so they can put it on their college applications.

of course all of this is a distraction from the fact that despite his money, voters are not buying what he is selling.

Daily Bulldog said...

So providing over a thousand jobs is not community service?? If that isn't, I don't know what is.

Was Ricketts supposed to take profits and hand them directly to the poor and needy? Isn't the tax revenue the company generates what partially supports social programs at the state and federal level??

Do you not understand business and our tax system at all?

Ricketts was being shrewd with his tax assessment, yes.....aren’t most successful businessmen and women shrewd? Nelson manipulated a rule and got caught….Ricketts was criticized for fight his valuation, which is his right as a taxpayer.

Street Sweeper said...

Ricketts very legally contested his valuation. As did Ben Nelson on his many properties. What Nelson did was LIE, that his land was being used for Ag. And then when he got caught, refused to pay all the amounts he had gotten a break for. All of that is fact, and any spin you might try won't change it.

Ricketts beat two seasoned pols in the primary, so don't say he doesn't have support. Heck, Nelson only won his first primary by 40 votes.

Anonymous said...

if i go to work every day and get a paycheck, am i providing a community service? not unless i'm a firefighter or police officer or similar. there is absolutely no evidence that pete himself created any jobs or did anything at ameritrade besides collect a paycheck. big deal! that's hardly some great accomplishment, especially when you're working for daddy. nothing you've said has convinced me he's more than a bored little rich boy. (and beating stenberg and kramer when you've outspent them 10-1 is hardly a feat of epic proportions).

Anonymous said...

also, you all must not be very good republicans if you think that a business is a "community service." a business exists to make profits for the owners and shareholders. Not to make the world a better place. ameritrade is under no obligation to stay in omaha and would certainly move if they got the right offer.

if ameritrade creates jobs in omaha, that's nice, but it's for their own bottom-line, not for the welfare of the community.

however, this doesn't apply to those in public service. they are under an obiligation to help their community. so far, petey has fallen woefully short.

Street Sweeper said...

Dems, your guy is up by over 20 points against a poltical newcomer, yet you're on this message board tearing down Ricketts like you're down by 30. The fact that you're THAT worried about him should give the Ricketts camp some real satisfaction and hope. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Streetsweeper to Ricketts campaign - "Your candidate is doing terribly, but democrats keep finding ways to blast him. keep up the good work!"

Street Sweeper said...

Your paraphrasing needs work: Try, “Ricketts camp, while the numbers aren’t good, you’re not Hahn-low, and obviously the Dems are still deathly afraid of you. It ain’t over til’ the fat lady says it’s over.”

Daily Bulldog said...

If a business does not help a community, then why does the OWH runs stories about the competition for businesses between La Vista and Papillion? And why is it big news when a business locates an operation here or one moves to another state or country?

Businesses generally do generate donations not only from the execs, but also from all employees.

Grasp it, my're looking worse each post.

Street Sweeper said...

Whichever "Anonymous" wanted to post the "YouTube" clip, we're rejecting the "comment". If you want to re-submit it with some explanation of what it is, and maybe the purpose of it, we'll consider posting it. Otherwise, this isn't the forum to blindly post links to campaign videos.

Anonymous said...


I am compelled to respond to your comment regarding Pete Ricketts' support of the anti-gambling group, Gambling With the Good Life.

To me, Pete's/Ameritrade's opposition to expanded gambling is easily understood: They run the biggest casino in the country (Ameritrade) and do not want the competition.

It is obvious that many Ameritrade account holders are unsophisticated investors who are in over their heads. These folks lose big. The media used to report regularly on these cases, especially when the markets collapsed at the end of 2001.

Ameritrade's fortunes are not linked to the less lucky investor.

Just like in Las Vegas - the house always wins.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous tried to compare investing in the stock market to gambling in a casino. The basis behind the post is so ignorant that I fear for the financial security of anonymous and his family.

When it comes to a casino the business (casino) owner only makes a profit when the consumer losses.
The stock market on the other hand allows the business (Ameritrade) owner to profit win or lose. They take their cut on the initial investment. An investment that on an average has a much higher rate of return than gambling and an investment that is not based purely on luck.

Also, Ameritrade does not set the odds for which the consumer invests. They are providing a service for which the investor can invest in the national and global market. On the other hand, it is up to the casino to set the odds in order for the casino to turn a profit. The casino decides how much money you go home with, Ameritrade does not.

Anonymous said...

From one Anonymous to another, I think you are missing my point. You incorrectly conclude that I am comparing the gaming industry to the stock market. Instead, the point of my post is to illustrate that the gaming industry and Wall Street depend on stoking similar instincts in the public.

Risk, reward. Buy low, sell high. Loosest slots.

Now, you tell me what was driving the Level 3 buying orgy in the late 1990s early 2000s. Was that rational investing? Mr. Buffett did not think so. However, Level 3 (and others like it) had no compunction about exploiting a very basic impulse: Get. Rich. Quick.

Statistics regarding problem gamblers are widely available. Does Ameritrade publish data concerning the number of account holders who "roll snake-eyes?"

I doubt it.

Daily Bulldog said...


I didn't mention Ricketts ties to gambling one way or the other. Are you stoned?

The stock market has risks. If people who have money choose to invest, so be it.

Stocks go up and down....what is your suggestion for stopping this, and what is your suggestion for stopping folks from investing?

I don't know where you're going and suggest you give up. If you are not satisfied with your lot in life, it is not Ricketts or Bush's fault.

Anonymous said...

Ameritrade can't be compared to a casino. Now a horse or dog track or a bookie, that's more like it.

Anonymous said...


I incorrectly attributed the comments regarding Ricketts' "anti-gambling" activities to you. While I appreciate your overheated response, I stick by my thesis.

You and I agree that rational investing requires thoughtful analysis of risk and reward.

In that vein, what is your assessment of Ricketts' decision to invest what will certainly be in excess of $10,000,000.00 of his personal assets in this race? The risk (losing the election) is obvious. What is the reward if Ricketts' prevails?

On the reward side of the ledger, I ain't buying the usual "opportunity to serve;" "giving back to the community;" "conservative change" canards.

Finally, thanks for your concern for my "lot in life." While I'm no Pete Ricketts in terms of personal wealth, rest assured that my financial condition would be envied by the vast majority of Nebraskans.

Not bragging, mind you. I work hard to secure my family's future as I am sure you do as well. I mention this only to disabuse you of the notion that I am some high school kid blogging during study hall.

Street Sweeper said...

We here at Leavenworth Street will publish just about any clean comment, but this is getting bizarro. Investing in the stock market is being equated to casino gambling? Ameritrade is the same as the dog track? To quote Ty Webb, "this isn't Russia is it?"

And Ricketts has the right, according to his means, to spend whatever he finds appropriate. And his means are much more than most.