Thursday, October 26, 2006

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.

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.


mom at home said...

fcuauNebraska is a very nice state with very kind people. Unfortunately this election year is not , obviously, about being nice. It is about reality and that reality is that a Democrat controlled legislative branch would undeniably undo every major piece of legislation that has worked its way through the House and Senate in the last 6 years. How does a simple mom at home know that, because I actually read the paper and watch CSPAN once in a while-very late at night, but I still stay informed. Every major Bill and Act that has passed has passed with virtually ZERO "bipartisan" support. Yes, Bennie has voted with the R's many times-HE LIKES POWER , PEOPLE-but, that will not continue if the Senate or the House, for that matter, is controlled by the Dems. Who, by the way, can hardly contain the excitement. Let Ben come back home and do whatever he wants to make a couple more million before he retires. Let's send Pete to D.C., I hope he knows that his days of making millions will effectively end the day he's sworn in-I hope he has all his bills paid off!!

Anonymous said...

oh puh-leeze - this argument just highlights how weak pete is. it's the politicial equivalent of "take one for the team" as in "gee, nebraskans, we know you hate this guy, he is a complete moron who is wasting money right and left and knows next to nothing about this state OR governance, but he has an R so Take One for the Team!" Nebraska will vote for the best person. Ricketts will lose.

Eric said...

You're right, Ben's election helps put Dems in power just like every other senate race in the country.

But why ask Nebraska to sacrifice their independent voice to send someone who will tow the party line?

Why not try to defeat one of the liberals who you all hate so much?

Ben Nelson is the most conservative Democrat in the senate. There is power in the center, and Nebraskans know it.

Street Sweeper said...

Yes, well, later today Leavenworth Street will take a look at the "power" and "effectiveness" of Senator Ben Nelson.

Stay tuned...

Uncle Wiggily said...


Regarding your comment about where the OWH has its head ... I'm not sure it's in "the sand" ... if ya get my drift ....

Street Sweeper said...

UW, we've been around about nine months longer, yet we're already playing catch-up to your colloquialisms.

Great post today:

Dori said...

Pete may not have the need for money or care if his party even likes him, but he's not trying to get to Washington to help the people of Nebraska. If that was his goal, he would have listened long ago when the people said STOP to the negative campaign ads. With 56% of Nebraskan voters strongly disliking Pete Ricketts, it's unlikely there will be change this election year.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused by mom at home's comments. Is the chance of repealing "every major Bill and Act" passed in the last 6 years something we should favor or oppose? To what valuable legislation is she referring? (I know that trying to address actual facts and issues on this site is not its usual use but maybe this can be the start of something useful rather than engaging in the usual juvenile back and forth about who had their picture taken with who that is the typical subject of dialogue.) Can anyone out actually defend the Republicans' record in an intellectally honest manner? Although it is appealing to leave them in charge to clean up the monumental mess they have made, I have concluded that they never will so we have to put the Dems in charge and at least have an outside chance that something good for the country will get done.

mom at home said...

Dear anonymous, it's the tax cuts that spurred the economy, it's the energy bill that forced OPEC to lower its prices, its the prescription drug plan that the seniors LOVE. What, are you actually that uninformed or are you just posturing for your pathetic wanna be party?!!

Anonymous said...

Too bad the big interest groups who should be backing real gops end up settling for ersatz gops like Nelson. Prolife and progun endorsed nelson fearful of a dem takeover, leaving them without a player on the field.

Anonymous said...

I am sick and tired of Republicans thinking that Bush and this congress are infallible, and that Democrats could not possilby do any good. I am equally sick of Democrats who think that all republicans are evil, and that the Democratic party is perfect. However, when one party controlls everything, major mistakes are made.

The energy bill that is being discussed had an 8 billion dollar package of tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies.

The drug plan that motathome talks about does not allow the government to engage in price negotiations on behalf of seniors.

And while the tax cuts maybe have helped grow the DOW, increase corporate profit, and make interest rates more appealing, median hosehold income since 2000 is down.


Will a republican on this board please acknowledge that this republican government made a mistake in the energy bill by giving 8 Billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies?

Can one of you at least grant that this republican government made a mistake in not allowing the governemnt to engage in price negotiations on the drug bill?

Can a single republican on this board at least admit that the fact that median household income is down reflects some deficiency in the Bush tax cuts?


I am not voting for Nelson or Ricketts because I can't stand either of them, and Nelson is going to win by a landslide anyway.

I am definitely voting for Jim Esch, because Lee Terry has had 8 years to prove himself, and he has not. He is a terrible congressman.

And before anyone starts jumping on my back about being "ultra liberal," I voted for a Republican for my state legislature race, I voted for John Gale for secretary of state, and I voted for the republican in the state auditor race.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised, that after four days, not one self-identifying Republican has responded to the post immediately above.

I know that Street Sweeper and plenty of others read every post. Where is the response?

mom at home said...

I don't think anyone has responded to the "identity issue" poster because it is probably fake. Anyone who has already voted actually knows the names of all the people they voted for and if they don't there such idiots that true politicos shouldn't waste their time on them.

However, it was that very group (the "idiots" just in case you weren't keeping up!) that gave us 8 ugly years of Bill and Hill!

Oh, and we're all actually working on campaigns to get our candidates elected!

Anonymous said...

Fake or not, he/she makes a good point. These problems mentioned are real, but no one has owned up to them.

If someone posted legitimate Democratic politics problems, I would be willing to bet that a Dem would own up to them. Someone should try it and see.....