After Jim Esch's ham-handed political move of endorsing Tony Raimondo over Scott Kleeb yesterday, it seemed there was one obvious move for Richard Carter:
Endorse Scott Kleeb.
However, Leavenworth Street has received word that Carter does NOT plan to endorse anyone in the Senate race.
Apparently Richard Carter's plan of not raising money, not having an ad campaign and being a complete unknown suits him just fine.
Even after Carter got some nice free press out of the Jim Esch's website plagiarism, he failed to close the deal by taking any hard shots. Lucky for him, Lee Terry's manager, David Boomer leveled a swift blow to Esch ("If Mr. Esch was still in law school, he would have been kicked out").
Here's the thing: Carter has no prayer against Esch unless something major happens. That's not going to occur all on its own. Carter may as well hitch his campaign to SOMEONE else's if he hopes to win. Frankly, that's what Esch has decided to do. (Of course, Esch's is an interesting, if not foolhardy, plan.)
But Carter doesn't need to beat Lee Terry right now. He needs to beat Jim Esch. And playing it safe ain't gonna get him there.
Carter's campaign will tell you he had the bravery to fly missions over Iraq and Afghanistan.
But does his campaign have the guts to go for it all?
***
Esch stated that it was Raimondo who came to him with the endorsement idea. An aggressive move by Tony, and frankly it only benefits him. Of course, why he would think that Esch will help him with Omaha Democrats is beyond us. But the stunt does get him some free media for the day, so he has that going for him.
Our favorite though was Kleeb's response to Joe Jordan:
Does he talk like that at home?
***
If you're really hankering for info on Esch and Carter, you can take a listen to their "debate" from the Tom Becka show on KFAB earlier this week.
The forum could actually have been worse, as Becka does a decent job of hammering them both and letting them both explain their positions.
We have to say that Carter's lines about not taking PAC money from "corrupt big businesses" like...insurance companies, made us cringe. Way to know your district. Who are you going to attack next Rich? Con Agra, Creighton and Mom?
Of course, Esch gave his standard platitudes of everything that was wrong with Washington and that he would only vote for good things and not bad things.
For instance, he is against, "bridges to nowhere". Now he was, we're sure, referring to the Alaskan bridges. But we on Leavenworth Street would ask Jim to simply take a walk to Heartland of America Park to view a homegrown bridge to noooooooooo-freakin'-where.
Endorse Scott Kleeb.
However, Leavenworth Street has received word that Carter does NOT plan to endorse anyone in the Senate race.
Apparently Richard Carter's plan of not raising money, not having an ad campaign and being a complete unknown suits him just fine.
Even after Carter got some nice free press out of the Jim Esch's website plagiarism, he failed to close the deal by taking any hard shots. Lucky for him, Lee Terry's manager, David Boomer leveled a swift blow to Esch ("If Mr. Esch was still in law school, he would have been kicked out").
Here's the thing: Carter has no prayer against Esch unless something major happens. That's not going to occur all on its own. Carter may as well hitch his campaign to SOMEONE else's if he hopes to win. Frankly, that's what Esch has decided to do. (Of course, Esch's is an interesting, if not foolhardy, plan.)
But Carter doesn't need to beat Lee Terry right now. He needs to beat Jim Esch. And playing it safe ain't gonna get him there.
Carter's campaign will tell you he had the bravery to fly missions over Iraq and Afghanistan.
But does his campaign have the guts to go for it all?
***
Esch stated that it was Raimondo who came to him with the endorsement idea. An aggressive move by Tony, and frankly it only benefits him. Of course, why he would think that Esch will help him with Omaha Democrats is beyond us. But the stunt does get him some free media for the day, so he has that going for him.
Our favorite though was Kleeb's response to Joe Jordan:
"We are going to be the best person to beat Mike Johanns."Is Scott from some sort of royal family?
Does he talk like that at home?
"Jane! We are hungry! Food, pronto!"(see the video link of Esch and Raimondo at the top of Joe Jordan's page)
***
If you're really hankering for info on Esch and Carter, you can take a listen to their "debate" from the Tom Becka show on KFAB earlier this week.
The forum could actually have been worse, as Becka does a decent job of hammering them both and letting them both explain their positions.
We have to say that Carter's lines about not taking PAC money from "corrupt big businesses" like...insurance companies, made us cringe. Way to know your district. Who are you going to attack next Rich? Con Agra, Creighton and Mom?
Of course, Esch gave his standard platitudes of everything that was wrong with Washington and that he would only vote for good things and not bad things.
For instance, he is against, "bridges to nowhere". Now he was, we're sure, referring to the Alaskan bridges. But we on Leavenworth Street would ask Jim to simply take a walk to Heartland of America Park to view a homegrown bridge to noooooooooo-freakin'-where.
Posts
33 comments:
Jim Esch is exactly what is wrong with Washington.
It is full of people unwilling to take a stand that could be unpopular. Full of people that have been publicly intoxicated to the point of making people wonder where they "disappeared" to for weeks (for example, Patrick Kennedy). Full of people that can't put their ego aside long enough to do what is right for their Country let alone the people of their district or even their family (ie Vito from New York). And lastly, full of people who want to make sure the American people keep their hand out to the Government so that they never become self reliant and informed enough to see that those very handouts where what kept them, and previous generations, down for so long (the Democrats).
As a parent, I know that they best way to ensure that my kids are on the right path is to teach them morals and the value of a dollar. Jim Esch may have gotten a great academic education and was shown a strong religious education, but somewhere along the line he turned his back on both!
FYI, if you read the snippet in the WH about Esch's plagerism, you will see that he has changed his story about how the "accident" happened. While he pulled his policy director out from under the bus that he threw her under yesterday, he still claims that it was a "cut and paste" mistake.
He also says that it was because they are so new to this campaign or computer stuff, I am not sure what part he was referring to, that it happened.
Jimmy, a $40,000 website does not indicate that you are new to this computer "stuff", nor does your age. AND, you were new to this political stuff 2 years ago-that is why you got a pass on virtually every stupid thing you did. Since January of 2006 you have been a full time candidate, by your own grand statements (minus your sabatical to a wind farm and your 1 month promise to Richard Carter that you would not run).
Jim Esch, you ARE NOW A PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN. You will get no passes!!!
Perhaps Carter simply doesn't feel that it's his place to endorse a candidate for another race. I think that Esch's endorsement was highly unusual, and I'm relative certain that promises were made with regard to fundraising. I've talked with Carter on several occasions, and I can say without any doubt that he does "want it." Rather, he wants to solve problems; I get the impression that Jim Esch "wants it," but he "wants it" for Jim Esch. Of course that's the obvious case with Terry as well.
SS-
It was the House Republicans who voted against our cheerished moms. On Wednesday afternoon, 178 republicans voted against H. Res. 1113 "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day."
The sad/ironic part is they voted for it before they voted against it. What caused them to change their minds?
You mean HR 113 that was introduced by Jeff Fortenberry and co-sponsored by Lee Terry and Adrian Smith?
I'm sure that it was NOT political that the GOP voted against Mothers.
That sort of thing never happens in DC.
So when is your boy Rich going to come around?
RE: "Carter's campaign will tell you he had the bravery to fly missions over Iraq and Afghanistan.
But does his campaign have the guts to go for it all?"
Normally I think the Leavenworth zings are pretty well done, but you inadvertently crossed the line when taunting Carter's courage and referencing his military service - your comparison of military bravery and political courage was inappropriate and out-of-line.
I've never met Mr. Carter and I have no plans of voting for him or for Jim Esch, but I have worn the nation's uniform for over 20 years and I'll salute and thank anyone who's flown combat missions in two theaters - not taunt their courage. Nor will I stand by while others do. You should note your mistake in being a little overzealous in your taunt ... and apologize.
Anony at 12:22:
We have absolutely no reason to apologize. The difference between the 2 versions of "courage" were called out for a reason.
Had we said "Carter" needed to have the "guts" or "courage" to endorse Kleeb, you and others like you would have attempted to rake us over the coals for suggesting that a military man didn't have courage.
We specifically note his military courage.
But there is a specific, non-military, courage that a politlcal candidate has to have in order to take a political risk -- a career risk. (And frankly that you would somehow equate the two is a an insult to those in the military.)
We specifically do NOT equate the two, and suggest that the "Carter CAMPAIGN" (note the difference, once again) nut up and try to win the race.
Apparently, Esch didn't believe Kleeb's characterization in the OWH where he said, "We've got a thick, deep campaign."
I think Scott's been watching a little too much porn.
The bridge goes to Council Bluffs, and the many hard-working Nebraskans who spend next month's rent check at the boats would disagree with your assertion that C.B. is "nowhere."
We didn't say that the bridge that crosses over to an empty field is "nowhere".
We said it is"noooooooooo-freakin'-where".
SS-
You are incorrect it is HR 1113.
You are correct Fortenberry did introduce the resolution and Terry and Fortenberry did co-sponsor it.
Congrats to Fortenberry for passing as much in one day as Terry has in how many terms?
However, on final vote Terry, Smith, and Fortenberry ALL voted against it. FOR SHAME!!!
Where is the outrage? How dare they vote against their own resolution but ESPECIALLY how dare they vote against our own Mothers. Is nothing sacred or above politics??
I am sure you would give Democrats the same deference if they did the same. And you wonder why repubs are not the majority?
Anony,
I will conced that the House GOP voted against Fortenberry's Mothers Day bill, if you'll step up and comment on the Esch/Carter endorsement battle.
Until then, we'll assume that the Dems hate all Grandparents, based on their omission in the vote (and their control of the chamber).
HR 1113
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Enhancement Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.1113.IH]... AKA, having to live with Democrat Majority.
Civics lesson Anon 2:22
5/7/2008 2:19pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll no. 274). (text: CR 5/5/2008 H3041)
5/7/2008 2:20pm:
Mr. Tiahrt moved to reconsider the vote.
5/7/2008 2:20pm:
Ms. Castor moved to table the motion to reconsider the vote (consideration: CR H3131)
5/7/2008 2:27pm:
On motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote Agreed to by recorded vote: 237 - 178 (Roll no. 275).
Cal-
So they were for it before they were against it or at least until they needed time to reconsider?
They introduced it and co-sponsored it. Besides, how hard is it to support Mothers?!?
I would love to hear their reasoning for their vote. Perhaps Terry was jealous that Fortenbarry was going to accomplish as much as he had his entire "career".
Again, I hope they are not putting politics before Mothers. That is not the "family values" that the repubs stand for.
Anony, you are a joke and your constant rant about Lee Terry is rather scary.
Learn to use a search engine and then get to a doctor about that unhealthy obsession you have in that tiny little world you live in.
Anon 4:26-
Nice critical analysis of the arguement. Did your mamma teach you how to argue?
If so, I can see why our Representatives would need to reconsider their Resolution. ;)
You can never go wrong with "your mamma jokes"!!
I am not afraid to say it:
Happy Mother's Day!!
Hug a cop! Yeah, I said it.
OK, now that we've got that out of our systems...
Will any Dems in the audience tell us why Esch is endorsing a former Republican, or why Carter won't endorse a fellow Dem?
Esch: Money
Carter: at a loss for words. Maybe he's waiting for Monday b/c Friday is the worst news day of the week?
Maybe he doesn't want to do something he doesn't believe in.
Here's the thing about Esch. I'd be surprised how much money he could theoretically gain out of the thing. I will say that he will LOSE $$$ if/when Raimondo loses and the ActBlue $$$ that he may have gotten dries up.
But as far as Carter not "believing" in endorsing someone... Gimme a freakin' break. It's not like someone's asking him to endorse Enron (or in Rich's case, Mutual of Omaha). It's suggesting he say he'll vote for the guy in his own party!
Esch may be a weasel, but at least he's a weasel who's willing to try.
Pop goes the weasel... when you drive over it.
I'll give this one to you Sweeper. Money controls the Democratic Party just as it does the Republicans. Would that that were not true.
I, for one, am trying to push my party into a more grassroots oriented type of organization. The monied interests have certainly found me to be an inconvenient presence within the party and wish that I would just shrivel up and blow away. Too bad for them, because it ain't gonna happen.
Brian this is a blog not an autobiography.
It is absolutely unbelievable that Esch is going to get away with plagiarism on the excuse that a 30 year old guy with 19 years of education-including one where his exams had to be submitted via computer-didn't know how to cut and paste.
Richard Carter was right. Jim knew exactly what he was doing, and did it anyway. It is heartening to see that the entire next generation is not all selfish. There are some out there like Carter.
Jim, just because you don't think that you'll get caught is not a good reason to do it anyway! Shame on you and your leaders that think you are good enough to represent their Party!
Now that Obama is the Dem nominee* the Terry people on this blog sure are defensive.
Obama is the ultimate GOTV weapon in Omaha.
Hopefully Lee's been saving up that pay raise he was against before he accepted it.
Board in the 3rd,
Sorry, I know that anything more complex than Looney Tunes taxes your ability to comprehend.
I will admit Esch endorsing Raimondo is pretty dumb, Kleeb will probably win but still better to stay out of it. But does that show a lack of intelligence more than voting against a resolution honoring mothers day? Terry has been in the house for 10 years and his only noteworthy deed is talking tough to some WWF wrestlers. I really dont understand our three idiotic amigos (NE Representatives) voting sponsoring and then voting against honoring our mothers
What a politician does when he or she thinks no one is looking is a whole lot more telling than what they are willing to do in front of people with the lights turned up.
I am certain that the politicos (yes, all of them) of Nebraska love their mammas, as well as the mammas of their babies.
I am more concerned about their "public" behavior when no one (they think) is looking, ie: Esch and plagiarizing on his blog under his name AND Vito Foscella(sp) and his, at least, 4 year affair with an officer in the Air Force who was assigned to several CODELS that he took.
Procedural shenanigans to make a point are of no concern to me. Morality and Ethics are of high concern to me, and I bet most voters.
BTO...
Seems to me...the Dems...supposedly the Grassroots Party...the Party of the Opressed...has done more in the past few weeks to build one of the biggest racial chasms since the 60's wider than any Republican could conspire...well except for Tricky Dick maybe.
As a conservative I find the race card that both HilRod and Obama are playing to be offensive. I must live a sheltered life out here in the Third...but I thought we were becoming a civilized and intelligent people. Things aren't getting better...worse if you ask me.
Both Parties need a slappin' around if you ask me.
TO: Anon ---- your quote "Morality and Ethics are of high concern to me, and I bet most voters."
If even today, not one cares when Bill Clinton called a girl that halted his advances "TRAILER PARK TRASH" why should we be concerned about the lack of morals in our country today --- WHAT HAS CHANGED???
REMEMBER --- their personal life doesn't matter.
TO SWEEPER: I RESENT THAT REMARK!!! BRIDGE TO NOWHERE?
To Sweeper: That Bridge doesn't go to nowhere, we are open until 2 am!!!
1/3rd,
They couldn't have done it all by themselves, the bobbling heads on Faux Noise, and other mindless yacking heads with too much time on their hands and too little news to fill it, certainly exacerbated the situation.
Rev. Wright finally filled a void for the Mainstream Media (once dominated by Liberals but now clearly owned by right wing blathering fools) to counter guys like Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Roberts, and John Hagee. But the thing that makes him more of a demon is that he is a BLACK!!
We might have found some ground on which we can agree. The kind of crap that has been stirred up over this issue between Hillary and Barack, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals (or Progressives, as some prefer) and Conservatives is just plain ridiculous. We are all humans aren't we?
Post a Comment