Leavenworth Street Odds Makers

Just a week out now, Leavenworth Street is continuing our tradition of giving Odds on the major races!

First, some BOLD predictions on the Governor’s Race:

Dave Heineman vs. David Hahn

ODDS:

To win:
taken off the board; wagers will no longer be accepted for this category

That Heineman exceeds 60% of the vote:
1:10000


That Heineman exceeds 70% of the vote:
4:1

That Heineman exceeds 80% of the vote:
10:1

Aside from their first names, these two have nothing in common. Hahn has never convinced anyone he could actually win, he didn't get his message out, and didn't spark any enthusiasm. He has run a nearly invisible campaign and has excited no one.

Heineman, the consummate politician, the professional campaigner, the tireless Governor has exceeded expectations and soared past respectability to god-like icon of Nebraska politics. This is a guy who has paid his dues, moved up the ranks in the political hierarchy, worked hard, is responsive to his constituents and sides with the majority of Nebraskans on issues. Oh, and along the way, he beat a legend. Future generations will sit around campfires telling stories of the boldness that was Heineman. (Well, at least they’ll talk about how he knocked off T.O.)

And now for a little Halloween Separated at Birth for this Gov’s campaign!:


Dave Heineman and Godzilla

David Hahn and a Ghost

As usual, Leavenworth Street presents these odds for recreational purposes only. No actual gambling should be done while looking at these odds, and we don't think you can gamble online anymore anyway, and even if you could your stuck with poker, and stuff. But maybe there's some Irish websites that'll take your bets. So good luck on that and everything.

Kleeb Up in Kleeb Poll

For all of you poll-hungry animals out there, who are tired of Don Walton’s phantom suggestions, here is the latest, via the National Journal’s Hotline On Call:

Kleeb Up In One-Day Poll:

A Penn Schoen & Berland (D) poll; conducted 10/29 in NE 03 for rancher (eh, hem —“ranch HAND” – ed.) Scott Kleeb (D); surveyed 404 LVs; margin of error +/- 4.9% (release, 10/30).

Tested: Kleeb and State Sen. Adrian Smith (R).

General Election Matchup

Note that this was Kleeb’s poll, and as the questions aren’t published, we don’t know if this took in push-type queries or not.

BUT, it’s still a poll that shows that the race is possibly/probably a dead-heat. And, if Don’s further ruminations about the NRCC slapping dollar bills down in the 3rd are correct, the national parties agree that this one is up for grabs.

p.s.

Not that we have any solid reason to doubt the efficacy of this poll, but we had to chuckle at some of the other matters Kleeb’s pollster has been involved in: Exit-polling for Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and advising Bill Clinton during alleged electioneering in Serbia. Nice track record!

**Update, 10/31/06**

The Cook Political Report has also changed their analysis on this race from "Likely Republican" to "Lean Republican".

Ben Nelson Beaches Nebraska

Congress.org’s latest “Power Rankings” are out. Remember these from a few months ago, when Ben Nelson complained about his relatively low rating of 88th out of 100 Senators?

Well, Ol’ Ben has topped even THAT performance. Nelson is now ranked 96th out of 100 (that’ll be the fifth LEAST effective in the entire U.S. Senate).

Note some other Democrat Senators also elected in 2000 – Hillary Clinton, Bill Nelson, Frank Lautenberg and Debbie Stabenow -- are all ranked ahead of him. Democrats Barrack Obama and Ken Salazar, both elected two years later in 2004, are ranked ahead of Ben Nelson as well.

And let’s look at a couple of Republicans. Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel, elected just two years before Nelson, is ranked at number 48. Of course, Hagel has had very public fights with those in his party, so it’s not unusual that his power would wan thusly.

But let’s look at another comparable Republican: Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island. Chafee is known as Ben Nelson’s mirror opposite – a Republican in a liberal state, as opposed to Nelson’s Democrat in a conservative state. Chafee often votes with the Dems, like Nelson votes with the GOP. And look at the Power Ranking of Chafee, elected in same year as Nelson: 95th, just one spot above Nelson.

So we here at Leavenworth Street argue the point that all this talk about being “Independent” of one’s party is a big giant albatross around your neck when you actually want to get things done. Think it’s any coincidence that Ben Nelson has a dreadful record of passing any significant bills in the Senate?

When you straddle the fence, and play both sides, the effect is that no one trusts you. The Senators in your own party know you’ll stab ‘em in the back at a moment’s notice, and the ones on the other side of the aisle see the (D) behind your name, and feel the same.

Ben Nelson has put himself on an island in the U.S. Senate (he and Lincoln Chafee can share coconuts) and it is Nebraska that ends up being lost.

To the OWH: The Truth Hurts

Recently Harold Andersen, in his Omaha World Herald vanity column, suggested that Pete Ricketts’ ads “linking (Ben) Nelson with liberal Democratic senators like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy” were “negative campaigning”. (Harold W. Andersen: 'Stop Over Spending' campaign stands out for loony rhetoric – OWH – 10/26/06.)

This exact same sentiment was expressed in an OWH editorial back in June 2006 after Ricketts began his ads which stated that a Democrat majority in the Senate, of which Nelson would be a part if the Dems take over, would have the likes of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton running the show.

But now national Democrats are using the exact same reasoning for promoting Democrats in other states. New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer is traversing Rhode Island far and wide stating that while Republican Lincoln Chafee is a good liberal, they need the Democrat elected in order for Dems to take the Senate.

The New York Times editorial page recently endorsed the Democrat opponent of long-time NYT favorite Christopher Shays, saying, “Mr. Shays has been a good congressman, but not good enough to overcome the fact that his reelection would help empower a party that is long overdue for a shakeup.”

The New York Times, the national Dems, Pete Ricketts and every House candidate in Nebraska realizes what is at stake in this election, and that the party you vote for matters.

The Norfolk Daily News endorsed Ricketts on Wednesday, stating:

But partisanship is undeniable reality in Washington, D.C. The party that controls the U.S. Senate for example controls the agenda and, in many cases, controls what bills will and won’t be passed.

Given Sen. Nelson’s oft-stated independent nature, what does the national Democratic Party think of the Nebraska lawmaker? Apparently they like him enough to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of the Nebraska Democratic Party in order to help boost his re-election bid this year.

Yes, there are examples of Sen. Nelson voting with President George W. Bush and against the interests of his political party.

But there also are more than a few examples of important bills where Sen. Nelson has been in lockstep with his Democratic colleagues.

Do Northeast Nebraskans think it is important for the U.S. Senate to continue to be controlled by the Republican Party? Do they think it is important for a majority of senators to have conservative viewpoints on a variety of issues?

We think they should, which is one of the important reasons for voters to consider backing Republican challenger Pete Ricketts in this year’s U.S. Senate race in Nebraska.

So it’s pretty much just the Omaha World Herald that has its head in the sand, trying to say that party affiliation doesn’t matter in this election.

You bet it does. And with 200,000 more Republicans in Nebraska than Democrats, Ben Nelson knows it too.

Facebook Campaigning

OK, we were a little amazed at this one. Jim Esch's MySpace and FaceBook campaign has been going full throttle, and apparently his supporters like to use FaceBook to push his campaign as well. We're just a little surprised that an Omaha news reporter, from the station that web-cast his debate, is expressing her support on-line for Esch.

Yes, none other than KPTM's Calvert Collins devotes part of her FaceBook page to Jim Esch, stating "Vote for him Tuesday, Nov. 7!"

Then again, at least Ms. Collins is being honest, as opposed to some past reporters we know (Jim Fagin, we’re looking your direction)...

**Read the follow-up post here**

Who Supports Scott Kleeb?

Kleeb, in his College Democrat days

Democrats these days have decided that they can pull a fast one on you and pretend that they’re not Democrats. The catch-phrase of the day for Dems? “Independent”.

The latest to claim the “Independent” label in Nebraska? None other than Yale ranch-hand, Scott Kleeb. Thus far Kleeb’s campaign has been based upon him once riding a bull at the University of Colorado, spending summers in Nebraska and...well…that’s pretty much it.

Oh, and of course, that his opponent, life-long Nebraskan State Senator Adrian Smith, takes campaign contributions from an anti-tax group. As a matter of fact, Smith’s fundraising is pretty much the ENTIRE basis of Kleeb’s campaign. No matter that Smith has a sterling RECORD of supporting farmers in the legislature, as well as a solid anti-tax positions.

Well, as Ben Nelson would say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So who is giving money to Scott Kleeb? Well, since last week, money has been POURING in via the liberal website, AmericaBlog.com.

Now we don’t want to just chuck around the term “Liberal”, but AmericaBlog would probably have it no other way. Its founder, John Aravosis, is a nationally renowned gay-rights activist (Queercents.com calls him “a proud, gay American”). Aravosis has served as a consultant to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU and is the co-founder of something called StopDrLaura.com. His blog states that from October 19, 2006 through today, October 21, 2006, it has raised nearly $10,000 for Kleeb. (Of course, Senator John Kerry has also given him $4,000.)

So when Kleeb has volunteered for ultra-liberal Congressional candidates, led the Univ. of Colorado -Boulder College Democrats, and is supported through radically liberal sites, like AmericaBlog, to say nothing of the national Democrats, just ask yourself what positions Kleeb would be supporting if he were elected.

If by “Independent”, Kleeb means independent from the positions of the Third District, he just might have that correct.

Heineman is Trucking

Yes, we're aware that this is sort of a lame headline.

According to Rasmussen Reports, Dave “Godzilla” Heineman continues to crush all those that come before him.

Election 2006: Nebraska Governor
Dave Heineman (R) 70%
David Hahn (D) 22%

Rasmussen says that 83% of Republicans and nearly half of Democrats (48%) say they’ll vote for Heineman.

77% (gah!) have a favorable opinion of Heineman; Hahn’s unfavorables are double Heineman’s (40% to 20%) even though probably 89% of Nebraskans couldn’t pick Hahn out of a lineup.

Nelson is Cooking

The monthly numbers from Rasmussen Reports are in, and Ben Nelson should be sleeping well with a comfortable lead over Pete Ricketts.

Election 2006: Nebraska Senate
Ben Nelson (D) 54%
Pete Ricketts (R) 34%

Ricketts has closed the gap from last month by three points, though we doubt his camp will be turning any cartwheels based on that news.

Nelson also has a “favorable” rating of 67%, while Ricketts has an unfavorable rating of 56%.



In addition, 42% like Nelson wearing an apron; 58% like him better with the apron and the hat (none were “undecided”).

Lee Terry vs Jim Esch: The Debate

We’re here to provide you the synopsis of the Lee Terry – Jim Esch debate that you will find NO WHERE ELSE. (Well, KPTM Fox 42 has 30 minutes of the debate on their web-site, here, for which they should be commended -- especially since this is where we’re getting all our info and screen-shots.)

First let’s get out of the way all the stuff you are actually interested in:

The debate was held at the Omaha “Press” Club. We put “Press’ in “air quotes”, because for such an important forum, they had lousy lighting and apparently no mote-box for the local media (namely KPTM) to get decent sound.


The Omaha Press Dungeon...er, Club

Our local moderator for the debate is the Walter Cronkite of Omaha TV, the lovable Gary Kerr! Unfortunately, we only got Bigfoot-esque fuzzy shots of Gary in his captain’s chair between the candidates. However we can note that Gary has said “screw you!” to his white shirts and blue blazers in favor of the Philbinian dark jacket, dark shirt look. Gary seemed to do a good job of reading the questions, yadda yadda yadda.


The elusive Gary Kerr

Now the candidates:

Jim Esch

Dammit Jim! Tighten up the tie, button your jacket and stand up straight! Look the part! Geezz… And maybe it’s just your personality, but put some oomph into your responses. You sounded like you pulled an all-nighter cramming for this. Just a little enthusiasm? And then while thanking Gary, the League of Women Voters, everyone for coming, good…but pointing out Mom and Dad had a very junior-high debate contest sound to it, that you just didn’t need.

Lee Terry

Lee, we just don’t get your hair. Are you and Ben Nelson sharing barbers? While Ben’s has sort of a bread-loaf quality to it, yours is almost like a giant layer cake plopped onto your scalp. It’s a good four inches high! It should be iced and sold at Ferd’s Bakery!

Ok, on to the debate itself.

For their intros, Gary asked how the candidates would differentiate themselves based on their governing philosophies. Each candidate was given a minute and a half, to pretty much talk about whatever they wanted, build a theme, whatever. Esch used 47 seconds. Terry used 57 seconds. Now we don’t want to get hyper-critical, but if you’re given the time to pretty much riff on anything you want, use it! You’ve had to have given this stump speech a million times, here’s your big chance! Brevity has its place, just not here.

Noteworthy comment: Esch saying, “I have no problem with the private sector, but…” Nice endorsement of the free enterprise system there, Jim…

Next was Iraq. Both guys gave their standard party-line positions, whichever of those floats your boat. Terry followed up by pointing three different positions Esch has taken – then stopped there. In probably his best follow-up, Esch pointed out that his position has evolved, and that’s o.k. Esch very well could have or should have pointed out that Congress should be doing the same, etc. etc. It would seem that he should have really come out guns blazing on this point, since it’s pretty much the basis of his entire campaign. Instead he kind of let if off easy, almost apologetically.

From this point, it was pretty much all Lee Terry.

From questions on Terrorism, North Korea, Farm Subsidies, No Child Left Behind, and Immigration, Terry hammered home bills that he had written, voted for or ideas that he’s pushing. Numerous times, Esch would give his position on one of these, and then Terry would point out that he’d written, passed or supported a bill on that specific point.



And we’re not being trite about this. This happened regarding the questions on:

• Oil conservation – Esch suggested needing other energy sources; Terry said he wrote the bill to expand natural gas usage and for additional hydrogen and methane research.
• Farm Subsidies – Esch suggested that young farmers needed more support; Terry pointed to his “Young Farmers and Ranchers” bill.
• No Child Left Behind – Esch suggested reform; Terry pointed out his bill to reform NCLB.
• Immigration and the Mexican Fence; Esch suggested needing a more comprehensive job done, and said (his best line of the debate) that the U.S. would probably end up with illegal aliens building the fence; Terry pointed out that an Omaha company, 21st Century Solutions, is working on (or is bidding to) aspects of a virtual fence.

Terry killed on each one of these (and he may or may not have continued like this, but KPTM only had 30 minutes worth of video…). He was in command, gesturing all over the place, and at times left Esch mumbling that he was happy Terry was supporting these things.



That’s not to say that Esch came off as a bumbling fool. He was well composed (if a little unenthusiastic) and came off as intelligent and well versed on his positions. It was just that Terry, living these issues day-in and day-out, knew the issues up and down and knocked each one out of the park.

In a debate like this, the incumbent always has the edge. It’s the challenger’s job to knock him down. A tie goes to the incumbent. Unfortunately for Esch, this was not a tie. Terry was the clear winner (if a winner has to be chosen). If there were more debates, we’re sure Esch would do a better job.

We'd suggest to Jim, that the DNC talking points just aren't enough for a big-league race like this. In a next go-around, he should consider spending a little more of his campaign cash on opposition research, instead of a forty thousand dollar website. We know this little harsh, but this is the big time and that's the reality.

**Follow Up**

We listened to the second half of the debate on KIOS, and have no reason to change our opinion based on the whole thing. Some other issues that were brought up were Congressional ethics and tax cuts (Esch twice stated his support of raising taxes...). Esch accused Terry of being on the House Ethics Committee, yet doing nothing and then directly asked Terry, “If all the bad things happened while you were there, why should the people send you back?”

Well.

As Esch’s Creighton Law School Trial Practice professor (Colin Mangrum or Mike Fenner?) would tell you, you NEVER ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. So, Esch allowed Terry to correct him that first, he is NOT on the Ethics Committee, and has, again, introduced the Public Trust and Accountability act, and Terry claimed that makes him part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Ah well…

Red Hot Campaigning

OK, first there were the stories (with video!) of campaign signs defaced and torn up.
(Signs Vandalized – KETV – 10/9/06.)

Then we hear about the Ben Nelson camp hiring their own “Tracker” (aka “Macaca” in George Allen parlance) to hound Pete Ricketts’ every step.
(‘Tracker’ dogs Senate candidate – OWH – 10/18/06.)

But now it’s campaign signs being set on fire?
Burned campaign signs in two yards investigated – OWH – 10/18/06.)

What is with you people? Ever hear of passing out stickers and direct mail?
What’s next? Ya gonna glue a wig to Pete’s head, then shave it off?
Nothing will surprise us anymore…

Just so we're allllllllll clear:
* Leavenworth Street is not asserting that the Nelson camp itself is responsible for the damaged, destroyed and flambeed Ricketts signs.
* Leavenworth Street IS opining that it's likely that Nelson supporters are the ones responsible.
* Leavenworth Street does not know for certain whether Beavis is a Nelson supporter or not.

The Berkeleyization of Omaha

The Council's newest member -- Gladys Kravitz

Just to put in our final thoughts on the idiotic Omaha City Council resolution asking KFAB (and presumably Tom Becka) to apologize for the North Omaha parody, we ‘d like to say that it’s…well…idiotic. (Omaha councilmen ask for apology from radio station – OWH – 10/17/06.)

Beyond the issue of whether this is a prudent use of taxpayer dollars, in general do we want, or need the City Council to demand apologies? And what if KFAB says, “Go shove it”? Then what? Try to get their license revoked? What’s the point to this?

It would seem to be debatable whether KFAB and Becka should apologize. Becka claims he did the spot to “raise awareness”. Uh huh. We’d guess he was doing it to get a laugh, and add a little satire, and heck, boost ratings. So if he feels the need to apologize, so be it. If not, hey, it’s a free country. Feel free to turn him off. That’s the best way you disapprove of his antics, if you feel thusly.

But for the City Council to get involved turns Omaha into the kind of busy-body, Gladys Kravitz, Berkeley, California type town that Omahans enjoy mocking for their foolishness.

(Wait, we better not mock Berkeley – Frank Brown and the boys might make us apologize.)

Blog This!

As we do a little research on future topics this morning, Leavenworth Street would like to direct you to a couple of Nebraska blogs that we frequent.

The first is the brand new Heartland Notebook, posted by an “Uncle Wiggly” out of Kearney. UW has so far posted on a variety of topics, and does so with masterful prose, that we wish we could copy. Today (and a few past days) he’s thrown his research and intellect into, among other things, the candidacy of New Haven cowpoke Scott Kleeb. If UW isn’t writing professionally somewhere already, he should be.

Another of our favorites in the Nebraska blog roll is the Plains Feeder, and its main author “ptg”. The Feeder’s posts on world-wide and Nebraska topics tend to be much more pithy and succinct, but are always biting. Also ptg gets enormous props for coming up with the greatest moniker for Mike Foley’s suit -- the “mullet suit” – business up top, party down below.

Take a look at these blogs (and don’t forget to come back here!).

Adrian Smith Campaign Gets a Boost

Vice President Dick Cheney congratulates Smith on not getting the OWH coffin nail

3rd District Republican candidate Adrian Smith got a boost on Sunday from the Omaha World Herald, when the newspaper endorsed his election rival, Democrat Scott Kleeb (Kleeb for 3rd District – OWH – 10/15/06).

The World Herald is batting .000 in its endorsements so far this year, and such support is seen as the death knell for a campaign. So far this election season, the OWH has endorsed Tom Osborne, David Kramer and John Hanson in the major competitive primary races (none of whom you will find on your general election ballot).

The World Herald editorial board noted that Scott Kleeb, who until just this year had never voted in Nebraska, has never paid property taxes, and who apparently has never held a full time job for a full year, was a “real-life ranch hand” (golly!) and seems smart.

They opined that Smith, who works in real estate, owns a small business, has served four years on the Gering, Nebraska City Council and eight years in the State Legislature, and was nominated in the primary over the Mayor of Grand Island and Tom Osborne’s chief agriculture aide, can’t persuade, convince or lead.

In this editorial, the Omaha World Herald did not make any metaphorical comparisons to the TV show M*A*S*H, to help 3rd District voters understand.

Mike Foley: Defining Semi-Formal

Well, political fans, never let it be said that Leavenworth Street is not an equal-opportunity mocker of both sides of the aisle.

We were watching Channel 7’s little report on the Auditor race – nice summary of the candidates and their general positions, of course initially focusing on Kate Witek’s party-hopping.

Then they shifted to an interview of Republican candidate, State Senator Mike Foley – apparently interviewed by KETV’s Todd Andrews on Foley’s back patio.



So we see Foley, suit jacket, colorful tie, sitting very erect, making a good point… then BAM! The camera pans back and we see Foley’s legs under the picnic table and what’s he got on? Jeans, white socks and red tennis shoes!



What the suit pants and Florsheims were at the cleaners? Did Todd arrive for the interview mid-wardrobe change and insist Foley sit right away? From the waist up, with his giant forehead, he looks like he's ready for Meet the Press, and below deck he looks like he’s ready to meet Ralph Malph and Potsie.



Hey Mike! Ronald McDonald called and he wants his shoes back!

Maxine Attacks!

As pointed out by an alert Leavenworth Street reader (you people really need to use something other than “Anonymous” for your comments – just so we can i.d. you…) Democrat 1st Dist House candidate Maxine Moul has started new ads that bear a striking resemblance to ads by some guy named Baron Hill in Indiana.

Moul’s ad tries to tie Jeff Fortenberry’s receipt of contributions into his love for criminals and corruption (or something like that) -- while Baron Hill tries the same with Rep. Mike Sodrel. So since Moul is apparently short on cash (according to Barry Rubin) she’s hopefully getting a discounted rate from the ad agency which has put pretty much zero effort in making her an original ad (much like Ben Nelson did recently).

The ads first point out that both House freshman have taken apparently “dirty” money:

Then they ask the same question to YOU the voter (using poor grammar – what are they charging by the word? Would it kill them to make it “DO you…”?)!

Finally each presents their sign-off of the ad – where we find out that Moul is not only sharing ads, but tag lines as well! Maxine puts “Nebraska Families First” while her pal Baron apparently plans to put “Hoosier Families First” (which begs the question whether Maxine dissed the idea of putting “Cornhusker Familes First”…).

So congratulations to Ms. Moul and Baron Hill on saving some cash in their attack ads (now back to your regularly scheduled Ben Nelson hunting commercial).

MONY MONY

Various stories today (and earlier) about the financial straits of various campaigns.

First, Kevin O’Hanlon has an AP story – picked up by the Washington Post, among other national sources – about Pete Ricketts’ campaign getting little cash from the national Republican Party apparatus. The story also gives general background info on the race, Ben Nelson’s fundraising and the GOP supporters coming in. (Neb. Republican Making Do Without GOP Cash – Washington Post – 10/11/06.)


Ricketts photo attached to the national AP story

But we can’t figure out why it’s so shocking that the NRSC doesn’t feel the need to give money to someone who’s already spending over $10 mil of his own cash. Would you give $100,000 to Pete Ricketts or $100,000 to someone in an identically situated race, who needs the money to get his message out? It’s pretty clear that Ricketts doesn’t want for campaign cash, so it’s a bit silly to have that as the main thrust of the story.

On the other side of the aisle, The Hill discusses national Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts, and the money behind them. (Dems hunt for drop-off voters – The Hill – 10/11/06.) In discussing the Nebraska races, this little nugget emerges:

Although the DCCC placed former Lt. Gov. Maxine Moul (D-Neb.) on its “Emerging Races” list, indicating that (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman, Congressman Rahm)Emanuel believes Moul has an outside shot of winning in a heavily Republican congressional district, Emanuel has not spent money on the race.

“The DCCC has been noticeably absent in spite of all their chest pounding,” said Barry Rubin, the executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party.

Well well well! Look at Barry Rubin getting huffy with the party elders! Should we assume that Rubin is a Howard Dean guy and not a Rahm Emanuel guy? (Sort of like choosing if you’re an East Coast or West Coast rapper.)


Emanuel and Dean


Tupac and Biggie

Of course, how much of this could be as a result of Ben Nelson’s pro-George Bush and anti-Kennedy and Kerry ads? If there are coat-tails to be ridden upon, maybe the national Dems feel that they’re better off having real Democrats (who vote like Dems, instead of pretend-Republican), instead of the likes of Ben Nelson. (And while that’s an interesting theory to kick around, the reality is that if they really thought Moul could win, they’d pour in the cash.)

And then there’s poor David Hahn's campaign, with 700 bucks to its name… (Hahn scratching for pennies as election nears – LJS – 10/10/06.)

Finally Don Walton at the Lincoln Journal Star reviews Pete Ricketts’ latest ad (which you can find here), again centering on Ben Nelson’s failure to pay his Sarpy County property taxes (Ricketts ad revives Nelson's safari hunt – LJS – 10/11/06). Did you remember that Ben Nelson shot and killed a lion, a zebra, a steenbok, a blesbok, kudu, springbuck, warthog, ostrich, lynx and a giraffe (ah those wily giraffes…)? We can’t wait to find out what Mort Sullivan has killed!

Kate Witek: Evidence of Waste, Fraud and Misuse

We were recently perusing Kate Witek’s campaign website.
There, we noticed this photo of Kate (photo highlighted):

Then we went to the official State Auditor’s website, and found the same photo (highlighted):

Being the crack sleuths which Leavenworth Street is known for, we took a very quick look at the Nebraska Revised Statutes online, and found this little gem:

Section 49-14,101.02
Public official or public employee; use of public resources or funds; prohibited acts; exceptions.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a public official or public employee shall not use or authorize the use of public resources for the purpose of campaigning for or against the nomination or election of a candidate or the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot question.

So we were wondering where to go next. We figured we should complain to someone, that it appears that (new Democrat) Kate Witek is using a public resource (her official photo) for the purpose of campaigning. But who to complain to?

Well we went back to the State Auditor’s site, and found this page:

You see, Kate herself points out that there are exceptions to the honest, sincere and hardworking government employees….

So Kate, to whom should we send this evidence of government waste, fraud or misuse (we'll let you pick which one)?

Scott Kleeb: Punch that Resume!

Say hey political fans, the 3rd District race is apparently heating up. Democrat Scott Kleeb has begun airing a new bio ad that has a few interesting statements.

In Kleeb’s bio, on his website, it states that Kleeb, “…worked as a ranch hand in Eastern Colorado and Nebraska during summers and vacations.”

But in Kleeb’s commercial, it looks like this:




Now stating that you’re a “Rancher” when you were actually a “ranch hand” is the equivalent of working summers as a busboy at the local diner then running an ad with your photo that says, “Restaurateur”.






Or maybe working as a teller at the savings and loan and then claiming “Banker”.




And as long as we're asking questions about his bio, we’d note that there is no other employment information on his site. So beyond his summer job “punching cows” has Mr. Kleeb ever actually held a job? We’re just asking.

Oh, and that one other shot Scott has (on a horse), where it says “Independent Leadership”?
We’re assuming that he’s referencing his leadership of "the local chapter of the College Democrats".

Robo-Rubin is Calling

Hey Nebraskans, Barry Rubin and his East-coast bred attacks are back.

This time, Barry is making so-called “robo-calls” paid for by the Nebraska Democrats, trying to exploit the House page scandal.

Marylander-Rubin is apparently targeting the conservative Republican audience of 1st Dist. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. The message, which is also going out to at least FORTY-FIVE other House districts around the country, goes something like this:

Congressional Republican leaders including speaker Dennis Hastert covered up for a child sexual predator. Congressman Mark Foley was shielded by Republican leaders for at least 9 months after they knew Foley was trying to seduce a 16 year-old boy, a congressional page. ABC News reported that senior Republican
staffers were warning pages about Foley since 2001. Call Congressman ____________ at (phone number) and demand he stop the cover-up. The answer is arrests, resignations and a new congressional leadership.

The general goal of these types of calls is voter-suppression: GOP voters will think this is so bad, that they’ll refuse to go and vote, presumably for the GOP candidate.

What makes this so disgusting is that the Democratic House leadership and party hacks appear almost gleeful over this sad situation. Of course Fortenberry, along with Reps Tom Osborne and Lee Terry had nothing to do with this, and trying to attach their names to Foley is the basest of political tactics.

But Barry Rubin thinks that the best way to address a sexual predator issue is to pump up his resume so he can go onto a better job than the head of some fly-over state’s Dem party. Expect your phone to ring around dinner time.

Jim Esch: Blogging in Circles

On his campaign blog, candidate/blogger Jim Esch complains about Congressman Lee Terry and the Foley page scandal.

Esch first says, (follow us here) that Terry is part of the GOP leadership, and therefore he’s as culpable as Speaker Dennis Hastert. In the Omaha World Herald, we then see that Esch says he’s glad to hear that Terry didn’t know about the inappropriate e-mails until the story broke in the press. (Esch asks if Terry knew about Foley – OWH – 10/4/06.) But, back in the blogosphere, Esch says that’s not good, because that means that Terry isn’t high in the leadership and if Esch is elected he will be high in the leadership.

So to sum up:

Lee Terry is a leader, so he should have known.
But Lee Terry’s not a leader so he didn’t.

Ok. Look Jim, aside from the scumminess of trying to make political hay by connecting Terry to some pervert from Florida, and your genuine confusion over where to go with all of this, consider a few things:

1) You’re going to lose this race.
2) You probably hope to have a political career after this race is over.
3) Your blog makes you seem like a high school kid who yells the first thing that comes to his head as opposed to a candidate for a major political office.

Making wild accusations about a sitting Congressman who had nothing to do with this scandal is no way to make yourself look like you deserve another shot when this seat is wide-open (in 2008?).

Calling on Terry to condemn Hastert, or whomever else – probably politically fine.

Accusing Terry of being part of the scandal, when you have nothing to base it on – not so fine.

**Update, 10/6/06**
For those of you arriving on Leavenworth Street via Jim Esch’s reference on his blog, you can click here, here and here to find all the mentions of your guy on Leavenworth Street. (Or just type "Esch" in the search box above left, but we're not sure it's working...)

(And as long-time readers know, because of employment reasons, we cannot list our names here. If you can’t live with that, feel free to click away.)

**Update, 10/8/06**
We're also struggling (STRUGGLING!) to come up with a decent Separated At Birth for Esch and for Lee Terry. If you have any suggestions, feel free to e-mail them or leave them in the comment section here.)

2008 is here

Let’s see:

√ Running unopposed for A.G.
√ Spending $500,000 (?) on a statewide media buy.
√ Certainly not opposed to running for higher office.

(Bruning ads may hint at bid for Senate – OWH – 10/3/06.)

Yup, we’d say Jon Bruning just made his first media buy in the 2008 GOP U.S. Senate primary…

New Candidates for Senate and Gov

The battle for Nebraska’s U.S. Senate seat and Governor’s office recently got more crowded:

Joining the fight for the Senate is shop-owner Dori Settles (you can see her campaign web-site here). Ms. Settles is running on a platform of… oh who really cares? Notably, she blames her decision to run as a write-in candidate on Pete Ricketts’ “Farmer Nelson” ad (which is ironic, because I blamed my decision to get up and make a turkey sandwich on the same ad).

It should also be noted that from her appearance on KPTM, she looks a little like actress Laura Linney.

And what would a Governor’s race be without…Mort Sullivan! But the difference in this one is that Mort’s name will actually be on the ballot (via Mort’s website). And with the name ID of David Hahn these days (i.e., next to zippo), Mort has an outside chance of beating Hahn, just on name recognition alone.

(We should also add that while Ben Nelson’s website features Nellie catching one fish, Mort has a shot with TWO fish, and that means something somewhere…we think…)

Farmer Nelson redux

We’ve had a number of people ask us our opinion of Pete Ricketts’ “Farmer Nelson” ad, and have of course been reading all the hullabaloo about it, and figure we may as well give our nickel’s worth.

First of all, where do the Nelson people get off calling the ad “juvenile and immature,”? Can anyone recall the “Cat in the Hat” ad, back when it was Ricketts who was crucified for protesting his valuation? (Thankfully, Don Walton can.) Back in July, we noted that the ad was “student-council-campaign-esque”. Well, the Ricketts camp can at least say their ad cost more.

Of course “Farmer Nelson” is of the Jib-Jab variety, made famous with the mocking of the Kerry-Bush race. And if nothing else, it’s pretty humorous in the various faces and outfits of Ben Nelson (and we get a kick that every scene ends with him firing the shotgun).

But our problem with the ad is that we’re not sure that it succeeds in the message that it intends to send. The ad tries to tell the narrative of how Nelson fraudulently applied for Greenbelt status on his land by claiming it was for ag use, then after he was caught, refused to pay back the full amount for which he got a break.

(We’ve noted here extensively how outrageous we think it is that Nelson has gotten a nearly 100% free-ride from the press and anyone else on this, but we can only say so-much…)

So here’s the rub: some of the words in the song are hard to understand, most people don’t know what “Greenbelt” is, trying to explain that Nelson paid part, but not all of the taxes back is difficult, and in the end, you just laugh at the funny faces.

So while we’re all for the effort of trying to tell what Nelson did and how that should make one feel about voting for him, we’re just not sure this was the best vehicle. It’s sort of a compelling story to tell, and the comedy of the spot has probably overtaken the message sent.

But then hey, the latest poll has Ricketts down by over 20 points, and this ad has people talking about the race, so who knows. At least Ricketts isn’t going down without a fight.