Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Whither Jim Esch?

Back on November 8, 2006 – Election Day plus one – losing Democrat 2nd District Congressional candidate Jim Esch wrote the following on his campaign web site:

The battle for 2008 begins today… Please join me….So take a few days off, and get ready for 2008!
Well, as we slug through the heat and humidity of 2007, this seems to have changed.

Omaha’s KETV Channel 3 found Esch standing around at the Hillary Clinton shriek-fest in the Bluffs on Tuesday night. Action 3 News said:
Esch has not decided if he'll run again in 2008, but says he knows he has to make that decision soon.
That’s a change from November 8th, huh?

As we mentioned earlier, word is that the Dems have cajoled a business dude (or dudette) to run against Rep. Lee Terry in 2008. Could it be that the Powers That Be in the Nebraska Democrats considered Esch’s 2006 off-beat campaign a little too off beat in the Year of the Dem (when a Dem maybe coulda won)? There are numerous factions that are still upset with the way the Dem state party handled the various campaigns and Barry Rubin’s focus on blowing out Pete Ricketts instead of helping the House candidates.

We’re still fishing around for who the Democrat Back Room Cigar Smokers have chosen (oh wait, you mean Democrat candidates aren’t chosen by a Daily Kos diary poll?), but it will be interesting to see if Esch has been pushed aside or if Esch would have the guts to run in a primary against a party hand-picked Democrat candidate.

Now, an unnamed source has funded a new oppo-research site against Lee Terry (and they criticize us for being anonymous!). Seeing as Esch’s $40,000 2006 campaign site is still up, we can bet that Jim didn’t fork out any extra cash to put up the new site. And people on the various Dem blogs are saying that Esch’s family and friends don’t have any more insight into Esch’s plans than Senator Hagel’s staff does of Chuck’s.

Beyond his little spat with Kung-Fu Master Jackson, Lee Terry has gotten better press in the past nine months than he did in the previous term as a whole. While the Dems will cherry-pick various votes to bash him, they will have a hard time taking him down in a Presidential year.

We doubt Terry’s campaign plans will be affected by Chuck Hagel’s imminent announcement – i.e. we think he’ll run for re-election. But we’ll say right now, that Terry’s plans won’t be affected by whomever the Dems decide to pull out of their hat either.


Eric said...

Why do you guys all think that the Terry Watch guy is anonymous? He has posted under his real name on New Nebraska Network (click here). I don't think this is some shadowy, secretly funded enterprise. It's just a college kid with a few bucks for a website and some time on his hands.

Street Sweeper said...

Eric,That's b/c that same "Terry Watch guy", Mike Nellis (whose name may be at NNN, but isn't on the blog itself) stated on NNN that:

A group of folks, who wish to remain nameless, have purchased the domain rights to and are going to begin work to get rid of that guy. I am building the site for them and it should be up next week.

So that would make it, to use your words, "shadowy, secretly funded enterprise"...

Eric said...

Fair enough. These people should reveal themselves.

Mike Nellis said...

Check for my response.

Anonymous said...

Mike, I too have a website to plug:

I mean, seriously, what are you going to tell us? Lee Terry is not the brightest bulb in the pack? Hello!

Lee Terry is not a ninja warrior? Get out!

Lee Terry voted, gasp, with the Republicans more than the Democrats? No freakin way!

Jimmy's Babysitter said...

I think Jimbo should pay back his family all the money they lent him.

I think Jimbo should pay his web company-they've obviously locked him out of the site.

I think Jimbo should get a job with that expensive Creighton University BA/JD that his parents paid for.

I think Jimbo should explain what happened to his house that he was "so stoked" about in October.

I, apparently, think a lot of things, but I know that Esch is done-stick a fork in him!!

As for the website, I think it is a bunch of crap, but if the Dums want to be spoonfed information that they are to stupid to be able to go to the Congressman's website to read about, then they'll end up in the same pile as their darling little Jimbo-loser.

By the way I think Jimbo's FEC filings are VERY interesting to read!

Street Sweeper said...

For those of you who don't feel like clicking on the "TerryWatch" site, the site author, Mike Nellis, has posted that he alone is the author and funder of the site.

That being said, that still leaves a “nameless” “group of folks” who purchased the “TerryWatch” domain name.

Nellis also says that he “wouldn’t mind” seeing Esch run and thinks Esch would “mop the floor with Terry” (apparently in some sort of floor-mopping contest, or maybe charity event – chuckle).


Mike @ said...

Well, I can assume that you can not read but the blog post states that I own the site name:

"My name is Mike Nellis - I own the rights to the site, and I built the site, and I host the site. I have also done the majority of the writing on this blog and the NNN."

So you either can not read, or like to lie. Also you should run your posts through a spell check or something...

"funder" = founder...

Yes, there are other people who contribute, but make no bones about it. I own, I run it. If the other people who help out want to unveil themselves than awesome, but they don't have to. Some people just don't want to be public.

Like you, street sweeper.

Street Sweeper said...


YOU said a group, "who wish to remain nameless, have purchased the domain rights." If you reimbursed them, that's swell. But you haven't said that to date.

And uh, no, I meant "funder", as in "one who funds".

We've said nothing false. But my how you protest.

Mike @ said...

First of all, "funder" is not a word.

I protest nothing. I did not reimburse anyone. I purchased the site. I, at the time, choose to conceal my identity as the owner of the site because I did not know if I wanted to get involved, but I told those who wanted to start it that I would do that for them. It only cost like 15 bucks all together.

After I bought the site and built it I decidied to get involved because I had more time than others thought they had and I honestly think Congressman Terry has not been doing a job.

I purchased it from the get go. I can show you the email I got from GoDaddy when I bought it.

I own the site, I owned the site from the beginning and no money has changed hands. Quite twisting words. This arguement is not worth our time. Let's talk politics, not goofy symantics.

loser watch said...

The problem with Nellis' theory about Esch is that Esch has no experience "mopping the floor" with anybody! He does, however, have experience mopping sweat off the equipment at his baby brother's gym.

Esch is a loser. A well educated loser incapable of original ideas. Hell, he spent the better part of last year agreeing with Congressman Terry. He's gimmicky and sophomoric at best. You throw in the fact that he can't even pull his own life together and you get loser, loud and clear.

By the way, if Mikey is such a big fan of Jimmy's, then he should put his money where his mouth is and help Jimmy pay off the $130,000 that he obviously borrowed from someone in the last election!!

Momma Spellchecker said...

Choose or chose?

Decidied or decided?

A job or his job?

Quite or quit?

This is fun! By the way, Mike, you should let Jim know that a website only costs like 15 bucks-he paid $40,000 for his.

Street Sweeper said...

OK, let's get the important stuff out of the way:

"Funder" is a word if I want to make it a word. "One who works" is a "worker" and "One who funds" is a "funder".

And as long as you brought up the subject of "spell check", you might want to work on "Quite" [read "Quit"] and "arguement" [read "argument].

Soooo, just to clear everything up, when you, Mike Nellis, stated on NNN that "A group of folks...have purchased the domain rights...", you were actually not telling the truth [read "lying"] about this, since in fact it was not a "group of folks", but YOU who bought it.

Please, feel free to correct me on this, b/c I'm just trying to follow the sequence of events.

And while you would like to talk "politics", I'd suggest that after there were rumors of people buying up domain names based on various candidates' names, your ORIGINAL description sure made it sound like there was a group funding your venture. That certainly is a political issue to me.

But since we now know that what you originally wrote apparently wasn't true, I guess we can lay this issue to rest. Right?

Anonymous said...

Jimmy's babysitter and street sweeper:

I am a rep and a regular reader, that said, comments such as those from Jimmy's babysitter cheapen this site and what (i would guess) it's ultimate goals are.

Who is to say Jim doesn't have a job? Do you speak to him or his family regularly? Based upon your tone, I doubt it.

Free country, personal choices, and all that jazz. If he doesn't have to work, good for him. Why do you think everyone plays the lottery every week?

Why should he explain what happened to his house? That would essentially be the same as me saying that I think you should explain why you are such a jaded jackass with nothing better to do than to worry about some guy who lost a fairly uninteresting race for congress. So, Why are you such a jaded jackass?

Street Sweeper said...

Anony at 10:42,
(what do you mean you're a "rep"?)

As far as what people post as comments, just so everyone understands, we generally try to not allow comments that are obscene or could be libelous.

Beyond that, we let people say what they want, and leave it up to you to judge whether it's worth giving it a thought. We also let you post a response.

We consider this a forum and we hope it's obvious that we don't endorse every comment that's posted -- though some we do.

I figure most people already know this, but thought I'd re-mention in any case.


buckturgidson said...

Charlie Rose says his funding for his show is provided by "funders."

If Charlie Rose says it, you can be pretty sure, well, that Charlie Rose said it.

So there.

Eric said...

Since we're on the topic of anonymity and commenters being jerks, can I pass along the theory I subscribe to?

The web comic Penny Arcade wrote
this strip (contains profanity) on the topic.

There are a lot of good reasons to remain anonymous, but some people just can't help being a jerk when doing so. Feel free to ignore them. Nobody is really taking them seriously anyway.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know why Jim hasn't filed his second quarter campaign finance report with the FEC? It was due July 15. He reported outstanding loans in the first quarter--a report is required. Can the TerryWatch guy ask Jim what's going on?

Anonymous said...

I don't know for sure but I am guessing he hasn't filed the papers for running yet and, therefore, is not required to report yet.

Loser Watch said...

Anon is as ill informed as Esch. You have to file until you file to close your campaign-permanently.

Esch knows this and that is why he has filed every other report required since his loss in November-except this one!.

By the way, whomever lent him the money in the last race is prohibitted from forgiving the loans, also. You see, that would be a violation of FEC rules.

Perhaps when Jim decided to play with the big boys he should have checked into what the rules are for big boy games. Once he became a candidate, he is bound by the finance rules of the FEC. That is,until he dissolves his candidacy. Perhaps he is ready to do that now?

Rules and laws are a funny thing, but if you dont't like them then get out of the game! Because the further you get into the game, the stricter the rules become and the more embarassing the punishment!

Anonymous said...

Way to hit anon No. 1 with a Zinger Loser Watch. I believe Anon No. 1 said "I don't know" and "I'm guessing." Clearly he was making a difinitive "ill informed."

I'm guessing Anon No.1 has more to do than look up the rules to which you refer. Looking up FEC rules and maintianing your post on "Loser Watch," YOU sound like a winner...

I'd ask you to hang out but you clearly have your hands full...

Anonymous said...

jesus christ who gives a shiite?

Lookin said...

Prior anonymous--apparently, campaign finance laws mean nothing to you. Meanwhile, Scott Kleeb filed his 2nd Quarter report (on time) showing $70,000 in cash on hand. He hasn't announced a campaign yet either. Where is Jim's filing? His 1st Quarter report showed $6,852 in COH. What happened to it? A candidate can't just say "to heck with it" and walk away. There are legal responsibilities here. His filing is now one month overdue.

Lookin...for the report said...

In Jim's issues section of his web site, he states: "I am committed to proposing real campaign finance reform". Is this (not filing the required 2nd Quarter report)the kind of reform he had in mind?

Elsewhere on the site, Jim states: "Winning an election can only be as honorable as the way in which the victory was achieved, and this campaign is no exception." But wouldn't an "honorable" campaign comply with federal campaign finance laws?

Where is the 2nd Quarter report, Jim? It is now 5 weeks late.

To Anon 8/16 said...


There is a difference between being a rep and being a Republican-just ask one!!

Anonymous said...

This site has gone down hill with these posts. Street Sweeper(s), you're better that this.

Anonymous said...

haha, than

Common Sense said...

To the anon who said, "I'm guessing Anon No.1 has more to do than look up the rules to which you refer. Looking up FEC rules and maintianing your post on 'Loser Watch,' YOU sound like a winner..."

Um, most people involved with politics know that if you leave your campaign account open you have to file regardless of whether or not you have decided whether or not to run for office. I don't think SS had to look up any FEC rules to know that.

When I read the first anon's comment, "I don't know for sure but I am guessing he hasn't filed the papers for running yet and, therefore, is not required to report yet," I thought to myself, "try again, moron, he didn't dissolve his account, he has to file." I didn't have to run and look up any FEC laws, I just knew that. And I'd be willing to bet SS knew that along with most of the other people reading this blog.

just to be sure said...

Just to get this straight, do we now think that he purposely broke the FEC law instead of accidentally?

Makes me go "Hmmmm?!"

Still Lookin... said...

Just: Maybe the TerryWatch guy can ask Jim that. Also, Maxine Moul hasn't filed her 2nd Qtr report either. As mentioned previously, Kleeb has filed and is in compliance. Scott should set up a conference call on this issue with them--or maybe Jim and Maxine should become regular readers of LSB to learn the scoop!