For those of you unconnected (or missed same mention in the LJS), Ben Nelson is still kicking Pete Ricketts down the street, according to Rasmussen Reports:
Nelson: 55%
Ricketts: 32%
While the GOP is still hoping against hope on the killer GOTV plan they have, two numbers that severely wound Ricketts: a 54% unfavorable rating, with 25% "VERY unfavorable"...
Posts
6 comments:
my predictions:
Nelson: 71%
Ricketts: 29%
Heineman: 82%
Hahn: 17%
Fortenberry: 64%
Moul: 36%
Terry: 63%
Esch: 37%
Smith: 55%
Kleeb: 44%
Not sure on Witek/Foley
Foley: 52%
Witek: 40%
Larrick: 8%
THE ANONYMOUS
Andrew Sullivan may be the last true conservative in America:
"What's new is that in this war, enemy combatants have been designated as such not just on the battlefield - but anywhere in the world. What's new is that they are no longer entitled to POW status. What's new is that this war is for ever. So any changes are not just for a time-limited emergency but threaten to alter basic balances in constitutional order. What's also new is that torture is now allowed on the down-low, on the president's authority. And what's also new is that an enemy combatant may or may not be an American citizen."
"Put all that together and you really do have the danger of taking emergency measures for wartime and transforming a peace-time constitution into an essentially martial system, where every citizen or non-citizen can be apprehended at will and detained without charge. I repeat: this is a huge deal. It really should be a huge deal for conservatives who care about restraining government power. Its vulnerability to abuse is enormous; sanctioned torture, history tells us, never remains hermetically sealed. It always spreads."
Hey Don, that's a great quote and all, but come back when you have something to say yourself. This is great stuff for your NDP chat board though...
You want my honest opinion? I think that Ben Nelson is the most cowardly person on Capitol Hill. And I think that this will be seen in the future as a dark day in American history.
I have been visiting many right wing news outlets and blogs today to try to get some idea what "conservatives" might think about the detainee bill. Not one that I have seen, except for Mr. Sullivan, has even attempted to explain what this bill does, or means. Not one. They all choose to simply look away, as the president is given the power to label as an "unlawful combatant" anyone he chooses, to imprison and tortureanyone for as long as he wants, without a trial or any judicial recourse.
And this official sanctioning of tyranny is being done in the name of protecting us from those who "hate our freedoms".
Cowards.
Well that's much better, as far as that goes. Though I should point out that we rarely get into policy on this blog, generally sticking to politics and all its grime. We figured there're eight zillion sites talking about policy, and have chosen to focus this more on political inside baseball.
So here's a question: if Nelson has the political capital to spend --30 percentage points worth (and actually feels the same as you about the detaineee bill), is it politically expedient for him to support it, or could/would doing so cause him to lose? What would you, as his campaign advisor, not his Jimminy Cricket, tell him to do?
If I was Ben Nelson's campaign manager, and he asked me if he had enough political capital to oppose secret torture prisons, indefinite detention, and a denial of habeus corpus, I'd probably say some things you won't print here, and quit.
Post a Comment