Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Primary colors


Filing day was yesterday and the candidates are lined up for the primaries.
(We're only going to discuss the House races today. We may get into the legislature, county and other races at another time, but not today. So please save your thought on how "Szerbiwicz is going to kick-ass in District 174" for a later date.)

***

In the 1st Congressional District Jeff Fortenberry and Max Yashirin will coast through their primaries. We would suggest that Max not spend too much time measuring drapes for his new Congressional office. Just a thought.

***

Back to the 2nd District, Lee Terry picked up a primary challenge in perennial candidate Steven Laird. Laird garnered around 16% of the vote in 2006. And he's a step up on many of the other announced candidates in that he has a website up and running. He has a lovely wife and is in favor of "starting a garden".

As was expected Rich Carter and Jim Esch will be competing for the Democrat nomination in the 2nd. Esch still doesn't have his $40,000 website updated yet, though we're sure when it is up, it'll involve 3-D holograms and virtual Obama rallies. It's interesting to see that on some of the Dem blogs, there are suggestions that Dems are not happy that Esch jumped in at the last minute after Carter made the effort to get in the race.

We'd also note that while Esch's work background is regularly questioned, Carter is now going on blogs and such declaring that he is an "Economist". He does apparently teach Econ 101 at Metro, but we weren't aware that teaching a course gives you that moniker. We would venture that one needs to be employed as such to declare that you are that. I.e., just because you teach Math, that doesn't make you a "Mathematician". Or just because you were a "Ranch-hand" that doesn't make you a "Rancher". (Oh wait, have we been down this path before?)

***

And things picked up fairly quickly in the 3rd. As of yesterday, Adrian Smith was standing alone in the massive district. Now he has a primary challenger and there are a couple of Dems who also plunked down their $1,600 filing fee to get their names on the ballot.

First there's Adrian's GOP opponent, Jeremiah Ellison.
Never heard of him? Well, that's why God and Al Gore invented Google.

It would seem that Mr. Ellison is 28 or 29 years old and is a computer programmer for JC Doyle Ltd in Grand Island.
But the main thing that Mr. Ellison is, is a RON PAUL FANATIC.

Mr. Ellison really, realllllly, REALLLLY digs Ron Paul. The FEC shows that he gave $2,242, nearly the max allowed, to the Ron Paul Presidential campaign. Not exactly chicken-feed.

He generally posts either under his name or under the screen name "enjerth" and has been very punctual in posting on forums after Paul appeared in various GOP Presidential debates. You can find his work on MSNBC, the LA Times and on the main Ron Paul forums.

It's not clear if he has adopted all of Ron Paul's positions, but one post indicates that he may be in favor of eliminating:
The Department of Education
The Department of Energy
The Department of Homeland Security
The FBI
The CIA and
The Patriot Act.

A full plate for a freshman Representative, no?

***

And then on the Democrat side of the 3rd, a couple of party-stalwarts are involved.

First is Jay Stoddard, also of Grand Island. You may (or may not) remember Stoddard as Secretary of State John Gale's 2006 general election opponent. Stoddard received around 33% to Gale's 61% in the general.
And Stoddard also ran for Secretary of State in 2002.
And Stoddard also ran for Nebraska Regent in 2004.
So he has...um... the campaign "experience" factor going. We'll say Stoddard probably has a leg up on Osmond, Nebraska resident Paul Spatz, leader of the Pierce County Democrats. That should be a barn-burner of a primary.

***

There are some interesting non-Congressional races out there as well, and we'll try to get to them all in due time. IF you're really champing at the bit to throw out an issue or a website or whatever, send us an email with the subject line "Candidate" and we'll see if we can address them later.

Rock and roll everyone! Start your yappin'!

40 comments:

Eric said...

Holding a degree in economics makes you an economist. Just like mathematics, there aren't too many jobs with the title of "economist". If you're an economist who works in banking, then you're also a banker. If you're a mathematician who works in accounting, then you're also an accountant. Shane Osborne didn't stop being a mathematician just because he's not actively publishing new theorems in Acta Arithmetica.

Uncle Wiggily said...

Oh no!! Don't tell me that goddam Szerbiwicz is running again.

Street Sweeper said...

Eric,
I wholeheartedly disagree with your presumption.

And "Economist" is a job title. If you have a degree in economics, then you have a degree in economics. Once you hold a position or a job where you are "Economizing" (as it were), then you can call yourself that.

A better argument for you is that teaching it qualifies him to use the moniker -- though I disagree with that as well. Teaching doesn't mean you're doing.

But once again, this just shows the Dems inflating their job titles.

Anonymous said...

Stoddard has an office right next to Smith's GI office. Or at least he did. I can only imagine the laughs every time they see Jay.

YoungRep said...

WTF! The Steven Laird website is the funniest thing I have seen in quite some time!

Eric said...

No, Street Sweeper, you're absolutely wrong. You can try to "disagree" but it doesn't make you any more right. The title "Economist" is a term for a person with an expertise in economics. If someone asks Carter what his job is, and he says "I'm an Economist" then that is wrong. But if he says "I'm an Economist" meaning that he has an expertise in the field, then that is completely valid. You might argue that a Master's Degree isn't sufficient proof of your expertise - like maybe you need a Ph.D. or something (which I don't agree with), but to say you have to be someone who "Economizes" doesn't make sense.

Street Sweeper said...

Sure it makes sense. If you don't DO the thing you say you have an expertise in, then you are not that thing. (the difference is the "-ist" on the end.)

It is dishonest for someone who has a law degree, yet does not practice in some way, to call him or herself a lawyer. Now I can bet you will find many who will argue the minutiae of that point as well, but if you're running for office, it's time to stop throwing words around and be honest with your background.

Degree in economics? Great. Expertise in economics? Maybe. "Economist"? Nope.

Mike in Omaha said...

Ok Ernie Goss is a professor and economist. He is hired for his expertise outside of the classroom. i.e the Midwest Economic Survey (which is reviewd by the FED Board) Does Carter publish? Is he employed outside of his teaching at Metro to opine on economic matters? My thought is he is an instructor at a community college that reads the textbook out loud in class and has the students use prefab tests to grade the students. I know Ernie Goss, I have read Ernie's work, Mr. Carter you are no Ernie Goss. Metro...Creighton...Metro...Creighton...MBA's....Econ 101.....Major contributor to the business community....major contributor to West Telemarketing.....Nice try Richard!!!

Eric said...

Wow, I missed that part where Carter said he was the same as Ernie Goss. But then again, Mike appears to have taken Carter's courses and follows him around all day to make sure isn't doing a good job at what he does.

I know you have a fondness for disparaging community colleges Mike, but like it or not, they provide a great service to our state. MCC provides a lot of people with educations that are practically applicable and needed in the workforce.

ari said...

eric,
All Mike is saying is that Ernie Goss is an economist...he can grasp tougher economic theories and teach more than a 101 class out of a book. Carter does not have the education to be able to do this in a classroom. What Mike was saying with the Metro vs Creighton comment is that an economist like Goss would never teach at a community college, because well he is an economist, not someone with a bachelors in economics.

Eric said...

ari,
Ernie Goss has no bearing on this conversation other than that you guys are trying to make some kind of comparison between him with Carter. It's such a stupid comparison. Ernie Goss doesn't have the same stature as Friedrich Hayek, yet they are (were) both economists. Carter isn't trying to claim he is a world-class economics researcher. Carter has a Master's, and by calling himself an economist is merely claiming he has a certain amount of expertise in the area. Not to mention that, just because he teaches introductory courses doesn't mean that that is the extent of his knowledge. He certainly has standing to claim he is an economist. There are people with less who get away with it all the time.

I'm glad you all have a big crush on Ernie Goss, but unfortunately, he's not running for office.

Mike in omaha said...

No Eric, Community colleges are great places and do provide a vital service to the community. Their is a difference between a Masters in Econ and a PHd in Economics. Their is also a difference between a person that instucts a Macro or Micro course in Econ and one whom teaches 300, 400 level and graduate couses. A tenured Phd has to publish and an instrucor at Metro? I'm Mr. Carter is a great guy, but Swweper is right an economist has a different meaning than one whom teaches a 13th grade class.

Liberty said...

Ronald Reagan once said that a definition of an economist is somebody who sees something happen in practice and wonders if it will work in theory.
Reagan studied economics and sociology in college, liked to play a cowboy in the movies, and then became a politician.
Isn't America a wonderful place for everyone...as it was meant to always be for everyone!

Eric said...

Mike. We all understand that there is a difference between a PhD and and an MS as well as between a four-year university and a community college. You're having an imaginary argument here.

You think that the only people who can call themselves economists are guys with PhDs who publish in peer-reviewed journals? That's fine, but I, and I think a lot of other people accept a broader definition.

I'm not trying to make the case that teaching a course at a community college makes you an economist. But, it is possible to have an expertise in economics and also be an economics instructor. I know the concept is difficult grasp.

BTOsborn said...

Why do all these people waste all that time getting good educations? If they don't get out there and get any dirt under their fingernails then they obviously don't know a damned thing.

(Sarcasm intended)

One Out In The Third said...

I wondered why Stoddard has been hitting the letters to the Independent editor so hard recently. He hasn't a frog's chance in a firestorm. Ellison is an unknown and with RP's principles as his guiding light...he won't go far. I was waiting for Uncle Wiggly's girl to come busting out of the gate (cowboy/rodeo term) but she was a no-show. I'm sure Adrian will not take any challenger lightly and will continue to toe the conservative line.

Wow Uncle...you cover both sides of the verbiage/verbage spectrum. Did
Szerbiwicz step on your cat or what?

Anonymous said...

"And "Economist" is a job title. If you have a degree in economics, then you have a degree in economics. Once you hold a position or a job where you are "Economizing" (as it were), then you can call yourself that."

By the definition, Alan Greenspan wasn't an economist.

How about we consult the dictionary?

Economist - noun:
A specialist in economics.

QED.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul M. said...

BTO: Thanks for the explanation to your utterly meaningless and profoundly unfunny post.
(sarcasm not intended)

Gwen said...

Paul ---- take it easy on BTO. His comment was a repressive slam againts the COWBOY who has a great education and doesn't get his hands dirty. He knows that the Yale RANCH HAND is a bad joke.

The punch line of the joke is coming either in May or November ----- once it "hits" Scott --- he will be a COW POKE (a little levity)

Paul M. said...

FYI to Gwen and BTO: If you have to provide that much detail to explain why something is supposed to be funny means it's not at all funny.

At all.

Gwen said...

Paul ---- thanks for stepping up!!! It is always comforting to know there is a HUMOR OFFICER on duty.

BTW --- I didn't feel confident I could talk sufficiently slow for your comprehension.

BTOsborn said...

Gwen,

If it doesn't involve potty humor, Paul doesn't "get" it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Creation of credentials is what the Dems are famous for. Let me remind you that Esch has and is telling (or allowing others)people that he is a lawyer from Omaha. I am sure this makes all the people donating to ActBlue(nationwide fundraising arm of the Democrat Party so people in other states that no NOTHING about the 2nd District can F... with us) think that he is the "good trial attorney" fighting against the "evil repressive of your Cons. right to recover damages when injured by another", Republican. What they don't know is that Esch has never been a lawyer and has never assisted anyone but himself in being a victim.

To the point, having a JD does not "make" you an attorney anymore than having a Masters in Fine Art "makes" you an artist and having a BS in Education does not "make" you a teacher unless you are employed as a teacher. To continue this line, even if you once did work in the field of your earned degree, when you leave that field, then you are a former teacher, lawyer or whatever.

Continuing to say you "are" what you no longer "are" is simply a lie.

I suppose the conclusion is that all of these Dems that are puffing their resume` are actually more like the politicians they claim to be better than.

PS: Carter is just a teacher that got a Masters instead of a BS in Education (which, by the way, does not qualify him in this state to teach a Kindergarten class or a High School class-ask the NSEA about that one!)

Paul M. said...

BTO: Thanks for "including" the quotes but don't you think they, like your attempts at humor, are rather useless? "Quotes" are normally used to indicate a "secondary" meaning for a "word" and in the instance of your post, there is only one way to "interpret" your use of "get".

But, then again, maybe I'm wrong...I didn't graduate "summa cum laude" like you did.

Anonymous said...

FYI, on his site, Carter starts by referring to himself as a "teacher". Later, he calls himself "a trained economist". Teacher is correct, because that is what he does for 1 section at Metro. Whether he gets to call himself an Economist is up to the Ethicists.
"Calling Nancy Pelosi", where is that B.... when you really need her, she is the "Queen of Ethics", after all.

Maybe she's out to lunch with the "King of Ethics", Harry Reid!

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Paul, for your suggestion. I will keep that in mind next time I post. You see, the problem is, I couldn't figure out what button to push so that you could see when I put my hands up in the air on each side of my head indicating that I was putting fake quotes around all those words.

If you have any ideas that could help me out, I sure would appreciate them. You seem very smart, based on your posts and all. It's too bad you're such an A-hole!

BTW, did I use all my commas correctly, at least?

yomammasalawyer said...

A Congressman does not practice law. He sits on a board and votes on resolutions. He is not a lawyer. A lawyer must win cases before a learned judge who decides or else instructs twelve well informed citizens. A Congressman need only impress the most ignorant of uninformed voters and thereafter may sit in Congress and achieve nothing of value.

A lawyer must use his wits or starve. A Congressman can have wood shavings for brains and still be an adequate Congressman.

Anonymous said...

Hey Momma,

Apparently that makes Lee Terry over qualified for the position of Member of Congress and Esch not qualified at all?

What field of employment do you suggest most qualifies a citizen to run for elective office?

Uncle Wiggily said...

Sweet mother of pearl .... does being "rosy" make you a "rose"? Not necessarily. Does "smelling like a feedyard" make you a "cow"? Naah. Does being "stoopid" make you a "liberal"? Well ... yeah.

Could we just get back to politics before real blood actually begins to shoot out of both my eyes from reading this silliness?

Mike in Omaha said...

This whole debate reminds me of History of the World Part 1 where Mel Brooks goes to the Roman unemployment line and is asked his profession he says "stand-up philosopher. The clerk says "You mean Bull Sh@# artist". Ok Mr. Carter you win your an Economist...lol..but in my mind you are a stand-up philosopher

Anonymous said...

While professional background is important to be a good politician, it is not the essential factor - lawyers understand how to apply and twist the law - but generally they don't have the patience to make a law because it would cut down on their billable hours. All laws are compromise - accomodating the interests of the learned ones, and of the retarded ones. What you need in a good lawmaker is the ability to connect with other people and treat them with respect no matter what. That way one is able to build coaltions and promote good ideas.

Right now none of the Nebraska Congressmen know how to do that. Even though Fortenberry will mop the floor with Young Max - he is, and most likely will never stop being an asshole and a pompous prick. Lee Terry picks stupid fights and makes national headlines for being a pussy, and Adrian... well... he is just Adrian.

Szerbiwicz said...

Nebraska used to have really ugly politicians like that snaggle toothed Peter Hoagland and the toadlike Carl Curtis. The uglier the better. Today they pose for webshots. Wussies.

NebNut said...

Just checked out Kleeb's website, and I think I'm going to vomit. Unfortunately, I don't think he's just an "eloquent, yet empty call for change".

mike in omaha said...

Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro believed in CHANGE. They would approve ogf the Kleeb website

4.0 UNL STUDENT said...

Scott Kleeb is about our future, not the past. Because the past is yesterday and the future is tomorrow. We need someone whom embraces change because today is not the same as tomorrow and yesterday is history. GO KLEEB!

OmaSteak said...

Kleeb is a stereotypical east coast liberal trying to pass himself off as some kind of moderate Nebraskan. Educated well past his intelligence level, his specialty is getting people to give him money to fuel a futile ego-centric publicity machine. He's stolen all the major themes for his campaign from Obama and his only prayer is hoping his own oratory skills are in the same league and he's never required to detail any substance behind his call for "change".

Anonymous said...

newsflash: leavenworth street flooded by hope

obama winning in 2cd's in nebraska?

Street Sweeper said...

Hmm. Well maybe if the election were held in March 2008.

Unfortunately for Sen. Obama, it's held in November 2008.

When Nebraskans will HOPEfully realize that Obama is a Socialist.