Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Solid or Likely?


Charlie Cook of the The Cook Political Report has changed his estimation on the Nebraska 2nd District race from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.”

And for what reason could this be?
The intense campaigning by the Esch squads?
The impressive FEC reporting by Jim and his gang?
The immeasurable coverage of this race on the internets and beyond?

Uh, no. It's because Barry Obama plans to spend money in the battleground-state of Iowa. And as you know, to reach western Iowa, you have to spend money in the Omaha media market. In theory then, Obama's message will have a coat-tail effect for Esch.

It's an interesting theory, and one that could help Terry to a little bit of attention for his race from the national party. Unfortunately, who knows if the national GOP will care. The Dem Congressional Committee has already spelled out that they don't think Esch has a real shot against Terry.

Esch's best hope will most likely be to repeat his 10% loss from 2006. Anything else is gravy. (However, that's gravy with no "biscuit" with which to sop it up...)

(By the way, Cook calls Jeff Fortenberry's and Adrian Smith's Congressional seats still "Solid Republican".)

***

Oh, and as many have noted here, Jim Esch has STILL not filed his financial report with the FEC.
It was due in May.

***

Back in January we did a post about Democrat Senate nominee Scott Kleeb fibbing to his fellow Democrats about how much he lost his House race by to 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith. That was at the Dem's Truman Dinner.

We were reminded of that recently after receiving some correspondence from Mrs. Scott Kleeb about her appearances on FOX News. In explaining the "facts" to us about our post on her status as a "strategist" she noted that she doesn't "get paid by FOX, and "doesn't make a dime" from FOX for her appearances.

See, we just assumed that she was paid, since this is what her husband said was the case at his little speech back in January. In talking about his new house in Hastings, Kleeb said:


And we have a mortgage. And you wouldn’t believe who’s paying for that mortgage. My wife as you know, as Kris alluded to, is on TV quite a bit, she’s on FOX News believe it or not. She’s the Democrat on FOX news. She and Alan Colmes. So I’m here to say thank you to Shepherd Smith. To say thank you to Sean Hannity. To say thank you to John Gibson for paying for my mortgage. That is absolutely the best thing that FOX News has ever done.
(You can see the whole thing here, right at the beginning, posted on YouTube.)

Probably his biggest applause line of the night. (OOOOH! The Republicans are paying for Scott's house! Isn't that just rich! Neat!) And of course, it wasn't true.
Jane Fleming Kleeb's response was that, why, it was all just a joke, you see. Uh huh. There are other things we'd call a joke as well...

***

As noted in the OWH today, Mike Johanns supports new off-shore oil drilling to support his energy plan. When asked for Scott Kleeb's position on this issue, neither Scott nor anyone from his campaign returned the OWH's calls.

And here's the thing: Back in the days of land-lines and car-phones and poor reception, that's an answer you could give. But today, when every single person on the campaign has a cell phone in their pocket, it's purely a cop-out.

But then again, for the guy who won't tell you if he's pro-choice or not, that's not a big surprise.

***

There is still time to submit your parade photos from the 4th.
Please note the candidate and the parade when sending.

186 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait. Mike Johanns supports new off-shore drilling to support HIS energy plan?? Did he plagiarize that from the energy plan that Lee Terry authored?

OmaSteak said...

When does the betting pool open for picking the date the Kleebs leave Nebraska after Scott delivers his second straight defeat? Ms. Jane is probably itching to move closer to DC or NYC to pursue her media career as an astute democratic strategist.

Anonymous said...

"media career" for Jane....don't count on it.

Anonymous said...

Terry's website is still in violation of the House Official Rules on Official Conduct.

Anonymous said...

Yes, shall we start a countdown of days that the Terry campaign is in violation of House rules?

Do we need to request the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct complete an investigation?

Anonymous said...

Well, it must be over 15 days they have been in violation of House Rules.

'sker said...

Gotta give kudos to SS. You have a memory like an elephant (that's a cute pun that). Recounting Kleeb's very words is informative and rightly calls his credibility into question. Nowhere else have I read, heard, or seen this information.

If one theorizes a bit, one could envision Jane coming home from work to berate her fabricating hubby. "Your mouth is killing me. I had to cover for you at the office, dear, it gets old. And why isn't junior in bed? And where's supper?"

This phantasm made possible by SS...

bob said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Street Sweeper said...

Take it down a notch Bob...

Anonymous said...

What are the differences between Mike Johanns' and Lee Terry's energy plans? Aren't they the same? And, if so, who can claim "authorship"?

I find it funny that in the Omaha World Herald's account of Johanns energy plan, they didn't mention Terry's at all. If Terry's is so innovative, wouldn't they have included his input? Especially since his press conference on it was SOOOOOO important that there were SOOOOO many reporters there.

This is his home district paper after all. Aren't his contributions to energy policy supposed to be his claim to fame?

Anonymous said...

How many Esch's does it take to screw in a light bulb?

These bozo's have filed the pre-primary report with the FEC four times now and it is still wrong!

Anonymous said...

Esch campaign=dim bulb.

And, they are 25 days late in filing the April Quarter report--which means they will then have to refile (for a fifth time) the pre-primary report.

Anonymous said...

Question for the Esch dim bulbs:

How many days since Jim was arrested for D.W.I.?

How many days since he was convicted of D.W.I.?

How many days since the last election--when he lied to the voters about his criminal record?

Anonymous said...

How many days (years, probably) since Jim had an actual job?

Anonymous said...

Can someone please give a serious answer why it is okay for a City Council person, a Senator, heck even the current President of the United Sates to have a DUI, but not a candidate for Congress?

Cheating on your wife is an impeachable offense, not driving while intoxicated.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:11--it's not the D.W.I. so much. It's that Esch lied to the voters--he never leveled with them about this in 2006.

Esch didn't tell the truth in 2006. What makes you think he's telling the truth on anything right now? Unless you too are a dim bulb.

Tyler said...

OK, seriously, the attacks on Esch here are becoming more pathetic by the day. Apparently, Esch's not undertaking a major ad buy to let everyone know he got a DUI nearly a decade ago now constitutes a lie (if he actually did lie about it, would one of you Grand Old Crime Family sycophants please post some evidence?), and his staff's failure to file an FEC report now means he shouldn't be elected. Apparently, all of Lee Terry's late filings and the fact that he's done virtually nothing in a decade means he ought to be sent back to suck another $350k out of the Treasury, however. Just pathetic - are you ever once going to write a post that disagrees substantively with Jim's proposals, or just stick with the increasingly ridiculous (and repetitive) attacks?

Tyler said...

Oh, and by the way, I'm still waiting for your scathing indictment of Terry for using taxpayer money for campaign literature. Also, be sure to point out how this is incredibly hypocritical; if Lee wants "small government," one would think he ought to start in his own office. It's not as if he doesn't have sufficient cash on hand from the one thing he actually does well - that being raising money from special interests.

Street Sweeper said...

Tyler,

If Jim proposes something we'd be interested in addressing it. Has he proposed something? I don't think we're on his release list.

And what's this about a DUI? We're not familiar with it. I don't think I've ever heard Jim or the Esch campaign discuss it. If the Esch campaign would forward us the details we could take a look.

And the funny thing about filing reports is that once you've correctly filed them, no one really pays much more attention to it (except of course, what IN them). Has he filed the financial disclosure? Can we have copy?

Thanks
SS

Anonymous said...

Tyler 3:22--it is impossible to discuss "Jim's proposals". There aren't any. Name one.

Terry has a major energy plan. More than we can say about Esch--he has nothing.

Meanwhile, we've given you Hill-Terry. He (Terry) can ride that alone to reelection this year--the major conservation bill passed by Congress in years.

Oh yes, those pesky little things called "rules".

Esch hasn't filed the FEC reports because the numbers don't add up--and he knows it. If he shows his true cash on hand, it will flag fraud to the FEC. Suddenly, thousands of $$$ in contributions that he claimed to have received, don't exist. That's what's going on.

Anonymous said...

I know you're having a big party at Jim's HQ tonight.

Who is Jim's designated driver?

One Out In sThe Third said...

Sweeper...you gotta keep in mind that Speed Racer travels faster than sound...he's not hearing us. That's why he's not calling back with his platform stances.

Remember when politicians wrote their own speeches...no one knew what a talking point was? They had a published platform? I miss those days.

Anonymous said...

Again, too bad that Terry can't follow the rules either.

"Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage
and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings
may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office."

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf?bcsi_scan_1B52DDDF8F779140=0&bcsi_scan_filename=2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf

IKW

Anonymous said...

Tyler--if there's no issue there, then have your boss make the DWI file public.

Let the voters see the facts.

Again, it wouldn't be an issue if Esch had told the truth about it in 2006.

Anonymous said...

Dingell's little jingle should not be posted on Terry's campaign site. It is the use of House audio of floor proceedings which may not be used for political purposes.

Speak to Mark Udall about that.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5732904,00.html

He was asked to remove the video from his campaign site.

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about an issue--the stimulus checks.

Most families have now received the check for $300 or $600.

Terry voted for this tax relief. Esch opposed it and said we should give the money instead to the nation's mayors.

Did Jim sign over his check to Fahey?

Anonymous said...

What impact has the stimulus had on the economy?? According to the most economists, very little. It's more likely to cause a deeper recession.

Unemployment up.
Wages earnings down.
Oil prices up.
Food prices up.
Stock markets down.
Stimulus check - saved.

What about the cost to the taxpayers to print the checks? What about the cost to mail and administer the program?

Stupid idea that doesn't work. Did it work the first time they did it? How do you spend your way out of recession?

Anonymous said...

And let's talk about the "energy plan" that the Terry folks like to bring up ad nauseum.

Seems to me that Terry introduced it at his little press conference over a month ago. What's been done about it since? Anyone? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Well, one portion is being reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

From Lee's energy plan:
"I have been a leading advocate over the years of an increased use of Ethanol derived from corn. In fact, our country is now on track to use nine billion gallons of Ethanol - a very positive step."

The OWH reported that the EPA is looking at waiving this requirement.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=10374169

Anonymous said...

Anonynous 4:25--I think what is "stupid" is Esch's belief that $300 or $600 doesn't matter to families in Nebraska. They can use the $$$.

Now I know Jim doesn't worry about money since he lives off of his parents' trust fund. But other "real people" deserve tax relief and Terry is providing it.

Anon--please tell everyone you know that Jim opposes tax relief.

Anonymous said...

Real people deserve a cut in their income tax.

Real people deserve a government that doesn't spend more than it takes in.

Real people deserve a government that spends responsibly and not spend in a fashion that goes against everything conservatives stand for.

Do you know the last time before President Bush that a stimulus check was handed out in a fashion that is similar to this? What was the end result?

Unemployment up.
Wages earnings down.
Oil prices up.
Food prices up.
Stock markets down.
Gas lines a mile long.
Inflation through the roof.

What has the stimulus done for the economy?? Nothing. It will only serve to prolong the recession.

Anonymous said...

Um, yeah. I live in Omaha and lost my job in the last year. The stimulus checks that Terry's so proud of? Have they helped me and my family? Not so much.

Has his energy plan helped me and my family? Not at all.

In fact, nothing Terry has done or is proposing to do will help us one bit.

It's time to vote him out of office.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:02--this is another reason why the D's made a major blunder by choosing an unemployed party-boy over a veteran and economist.

Richard Carter would have been the far better candidate to put up against Terry. He (Carter) has actually done things in life, unlike Esch, not to mention he had more reasonable and substantive positions that would appeal to moderate voters.

Please carry on and tell every family in NE2 that you and Jim Esch don't believe they deserve a $300 or $600 tax cut.

I appreciate your defending higher taxes.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Tyler and the other Esch trolls here are so silent about making Esch's DWI file public.

Are you all afraid of what's in there?

Anonymous said...

I'm not affiliated with Esch in any way, but I am WAY MORE concerned that my current sitting congressman is defying House rules than whether or not his challenger had a DUI while he was in his 20's. Who cares? President Bush had a DUI and I bet most of you voted for him.

Anonymous said...

Various Anons:

You need to reread the rule.

It applies to congressional offices. They cannot use video or audio from the House on their web pages or use it for political or campaign purposes.

That's for House offices.

House rules don't apply to campaigns.

A campaign or anyone else is free to use the footage.

Do some basic research and you'll see that.

Want to file a complaint? Go for it . . . either put up or shut up.

And, if you file it, have Esch file his April Quarter report too. It is now 25 days late.

Anonymous said...

Ummmmm...I dont work for Esch. But, your logic is at best sketchy. By your interpretation - the following people would be in violation of the rule:

Mike Pence, Judy Biggert, Marsha Blackburn, Eric Cantor, Ander Crenshaw - would all be in violation of the rule by your standard. They all have audio/video on their Congressional site of floor speeches, etc.

Your logic makes no sense.

Furthermore, if the Congressional staff is doing campaign work during time spent in the Congressional office. That is a violation also.

Also, if they use equipment in the Congressional office for campaign work; they are in violation.

They also may not hold campaign fundraisers in House offices or make campaign calls to donors from a congressional office.

These rules in the Congressional Rules of Official Conduct covers what campaigns and congressional offices can do, share, etc.

Again....you're wrong. Try again.

Anonymous said...

Give us a citation where the House ethics committee ruled that a political campaign could not use footage of the House on their web page.

A specific example...

Why Udall took his down, who knows. Call him up and ask. Maybe he's like Esch's campaign--a dim bulb.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:23:

The House rules apply to members of the House.

They don't apply to campaigns.

If a campaign gets footage of the House from the public domain, they are free to use it on their web page.

Give me a specific ruling by the ethics committee that says otherwise.

Pol Observer said...

Please put a bullet in my head Sweeper....I can't wait for ESCH v TERRY: The Sequel to be over.

Anonymous said...

I do understand why the Eschies are so desperate to have the Dingell footage taken down: it is devastating to them.

It shows Lee Terry works in a bipartisan manner to get important things passed, like the Hill-Terry bill.

That was probably the major law dealing with conservation in years--and Terry authored it.

I can see why you are so terrified by Dingell's comments.

Still waiting for a specific ruling where a political campaign was ordered to take down CSPAN footage from their web site.

There is no issues so long as a congressional office is not the source of such footage.

Anonymous said...

I would encourage everyone to look at Esch's website. Look under the "ISSUES" subtitle and then click on say, energy. There you will see a energy plan that will work.

Anonymous said...

LOL! Desperate to have the Dingell footage taken down?

Devastated? Terrifying? Really?

Whatever. Dramatic much? I'm not affiliated with the Esch campaign in any way, but this is just ridiculous.

Go ahead and have your little one-liner from Congressman Dingell. He mentioned Terry's name once. It happens ALL THE TIME on the House Floor. It's just a formality. The really sad thing here is that must be the first time any of Lee's colleagues have ever mentioned his name on the House Floor -- in ten years!

If the Terry campaign wants to slime their way around House rules on a technicality, go ahead. I think it's pretty shady.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I think this all shows desperation from a campaign -- the Terry campaign!

Anonymous said...

Does anyone care to guess who leads the state of Nebraska in appearances on the floor of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress?

Tyler said...

If Jim proposes something we'd be interested in addressing it. Has he proposed something?
Yes. Plenty there to disagree with; no need to engage in childish back-and-forth about who filed their FEC reports on time - all while disingenuously ignoring all of Lee's late filings (I think he's edging up on 40 at this point, quite a lot more than Esch).

I don't think we're on his release list.
Seeing as how your entire purpose is to carry water for the GOP and engage in character assassinations, that isn't surprising.

Has he filed the financial disclosure? Can we have copy?
As soon as you do a piece on the millions of dollars Terry has raised from special interest PACs - maybe something about $40k he's taken from the insurance industry just this cycle and it's relation to his vote against SCHIP - I'll be happy to ask Jim about it for you. Deal?

Anonymous said...

Here's the full rules for the 110th Congress. I've bolded the key areas, and to summarized - all copies of recordings (including what SS did) are under these rules and CANNOT be used on political campaign sites. They can, however, be used on official government sites.


RULE V
BROADCASTING THE HOUSE

1. The Speaker shall administer a
system subject to his direction and
control for closed-circuit viewing of floor proceedings of the House in the offices of all Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and committees
and in such other places in the
Capitol and the House Office Buildings as he considers appropriate. Such system may include other telecommunications
functions as the Speaker considers
appropriate. Any such telecommunications shall be subject to rules and regulations issued by the Speaker.

2. (a) The Speaker shall administer a system subject to his direction and control for complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting and recording of the proceedings of the House. The Speaker shall provide for the distribution of such broadcasts and
recordings to news media, for the storage of audio and video recordings of the proceedings, and for the closed-captioning of the proceedings for hearingimpaired
persons.

(b) All television and radio broadcasting stations, networks, services, and systems (including cable systems) that are accredited to the House Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries, and all radio and television correspondents
who are so accredited, shall be provided access to the live coverage of the House.

(c) Coverage made available under
this clause, including any recording thereof—

(1) may not be used for any political purpose;

(2) may not be used in any commercial advertisement; and

(3) may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program.


3. The Speaker may delegate any of
his responsibilities under this rule to such legislative entity as he considers appropriate.

natty light said...

Tyler,

Thank you for sharing a form that is required by law to be available to the general public only after your demands are met. Very juvenile.

Are you guys running a campaign for congress or for vice-president of the Creighton Prep Student Council? I can't tell anymore.

Anonymous said...

With all the name calling from Lee's people, stop being a schoolyard bully.

But, I guess that's what you do when you can't defend what Lee has done (or what he hasn't done) the last 10 years in Congress.

Grow Up!

Tyler said...

Terry has a major energy plan. More than we can say about Esch--he has nothing.
They both have nothing. If Terry was serious, he'd support a carbon tax rather than boondoggles like ethanol and shale oil, and of course the non-solution pander of increased offshore drilling. But how can he do that when he's taking contributions hand-over-fist from the oil industry and the agribusiness corporate welfare queens? Let me ask you something - Lee Terry has been talking about how much he's done with energy for at least the last two cycles, so why have energy prices only increased since he's been in Congress? Do keep in mind that if you try to blame the increase in prices on the bipartisan prohibition on raping the nation's shores, I will smack you down with economic fact faster than you can say "tax cuts increase revenues."


Meanwhile, we've given you Hill-Terry. He (Terry) can ride that alone to reelection this year--the major conservation bill passed by Congress in years.
The Hill-Terry bill is pathetic. 35 miles per gallon by 2022? You've got to be kidding me, right? You think it's leadership to author a bill that's so weak the auto industry lobby (who's contributed $60k to Terry this cycle, by the way) actually supports it? China already has a 43 mpg requirement; this bill typifies Terry and the GOP's shrunken vision for America. You want me to vote for Terry because he thinks the US can't even make cars in 14 years that aren't even as efficient than Chinese-made cars today? Seriously? I mean, really? That's the best you and Lee think this country is capable of?

Esch hasn't filed the FEC reports because the numbers don't add up--and he knows it. If he shows his true cash on hand, it will flag fraud to the FEC. Suddenly, thousands of $$$ in contributions that he claimed to have received, don't exist.
Do you have evidence, or are you just making unsubstantiated assertions?

Street Sweeper said...

Tyler,

No, we're not interested in digging into Jim's 2006 web site talking points. At least get him to write a press release for gosh sakes.

We're on LOTS of press lists. I'm not sure why Jim can't send us the info that the OWH asked him to share, and EVERY other campaign provided.

We'll just wait, I guess...

Anonymous said...

If Terry was serious about his energy plan, he would have dropped the "legislation" by now on the floor.

Oh wait, it's just an election year ploy to say he's trying to do something.

Give me a break.

Tyler said...

Tyler--if there's no issue there, then have your boss make the DWI file public.

Let the voters see the facts.

Why, to give the RNCC fodder for attack ads - assuming they can get enough cash together to pay their phone bill, of course? Give me a break; you don't care what's in it, and if he did that, you'd immediately move onto some other dubious line of attack. If you want to wage a crusade against public figures who break the law, show you're not just being a disingenuous hack and start with the crimes of the Bush administration. Or is a DUI from someone's early twenties more relevant than treason?

Again, it wouldn't be an issue if Esch had told the truth about it in 2006.
If he had told the truth - WHEN DID HE EVER LIE? Just because he didn't hold a press conference and make a big spectacle out of it isn't indicative of dishonesty. I've know him since '05 (for the record, I'm not affiliated with the campaign), and he's never tried to keep it a secret. Perhaps the press just never made a big deal about it because there are real issues to be concerned with, like the economy, climate change, healthcare, foreign policy; or, failing those, whether the average Nebraskan consumes too much vitamin K.

Anonymous said...

China requires 38 mpg this year. The European Union requires 47mpg by 2012. Japan 35.5 by 2010. Australia is a voluntary 34.4 by 2010. The United States requires 35mpg by 2020.

Hill-Terry is pretty sad actually.

natty light said...

Serious question Eschies.

What is Jim going to do different in this campaign than in '06 to win? He lost last time by 10 points when Terry ignored him. How is he going to defeat Lee when the GOP machine is ready to roll over him this time around.

Tyler said...

Most families have now received the check for $300 or $600.

Terry voted for this tax relief.

Yeah, he was pandering during an election year.

Esch opposed it and said we should give the money instead to the nation's mayors.
Because it makes much more sense to spend that money on public-sector investments that will actually have a long-run effect on growth, as opposed to borrowing yet more money from China and Saudi Arabia so that consumers can buy more from China and Saudi Arabia. See, it makes sense if you actually think about it, rather than try to pass off mindless Reagan-era talking points as real policy.

Tyler said...

Richard Carter would have been the far better candidate to put up against Terry.
I agree, but let's not pretend that if Carter had won, you wouldn't be posting anonymously posting similar accusations.

Please carry on and tell every family in NE2 that you and Jim Esch don't believe they deserve a $300 or $600 tax cut.
I'd be happy to explain the economics of it - since we already have a tanking currency and significant inflationary gap (thanks to Bush's mortgaging the country to China), all it's going to do is put further upwards pressure on inflation. The "relief" they're getting will all be eaten up in the form of higher prices.

I appreciate your defending higher taxes.
And I appreciate your defending indefensible gimmicks. Want to cut taxes? The first step is balancing the budget, until that happens any tax cut is... not.

natty light said...

So is Jim saying that the Democrat led congress that passed the stimulus package were all just pandering for votes? Wow, statements like that will surely get the DCCC to send him some money.

And I used my families money to pay for our mortgage. Along your lines of thinking maybe Jim's farming family should return some of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies that they receive. Since "it makes much more sense to spend that money on public-sector investments." Right?

Tyler said...

What has the stimulus done for the economy?? Nothing. It will only serve to prolong the recession.

Ding ding ding - and the winner is: Anonymous 5:02!

It has done nothing and will continue to do nothing. There's no possible beneficial effects in the long-run, although the inflationary pressures it stokes may well increase uncertainty in the financial markets, thus increasing interest rates and decreasing already anemic business investment. Though the budget-busting right is loathe to admit it, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Tyler said...

So is Jim saying that the Democrat led congress that passed the stimulus package were all just pandering for votes?
That's what I'm saying; unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the laundry list of disgraces we've seen from Reid and Pelosi (unfortunately for the country, the GOP is so much worse that they know they don't have to work for my vote). Again, I don't speak for Jim and I'm not affiliated with his campaign.

And I used my families money to pay for our mortgage.
That's what is seen, and that's why this sort of pandering works. That's why tax cuts when we're running a deficit are politically effective; you immediately see the check and the money in your account. What you have to look a bit harder and think a bit more to see are the higher prices and/or lower wages.

Along your lines of thinking maybe Jim's farming family should return some of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies that they receive.
Hey, I'm all for eliminating farm giveaways, but that's not the issue.

Since "it makes much more sense to spend that money on public-sector investments." Right?
I don't really see how that follows, nor how Jim is somehow at fault for farm subsidies his relatives receive, but sure. By the way, good to see that our Boy Congressman vote on the most recent pork-laden giveaway to ADM.

Oh wait, he voted against it because it capped giveaways at $750k a year. Damn.

Anonymous said...

Gerald R. Ford, 33 years ago gave out stimulus checks. What happened after you might ask??

Unemployment up.
Wages earnings down.
Oil prices up.
Food prices up.
Stock markets down.
Gas lines a mile long.
Inflation through the roof.

Carter won and Ford lost.

Stimulus checks do not benefit the economy in the long run. They only benefit short term and that hurts the economy.

Milton Friedman said, "consumers will spend permanent income, not transitory income, including government largesse."

Read this article from our favorite local economist, Ernie Goss and get back to me when you understand basic economic thought: http://economictrends.blogspot.com/2008/01/stimulating-economy-or-voting-booth.html

Oh and by the way, Milton Friedman was Ronald Reagan's favorite economist.

natty light said...

SS,

You have to see the video Mrs. Kleb posted over at MTV. Some thoughts-

-Their deputy political director is 21? Seriously? Shouldn't you have at least voted in a Senate race before you run one?

-I love all the shots of the girl in the Philip Erdman shirt. Real strong liberal credentials there.

-They shot shotguns. All we had when I went to summer camp was archery. I wonder if their arts and crafts were any good?

Anonymous said...

This is America's thinking right now - what can I get right now?? How about saving?

How about using the money for infrastructure, which would create jobs and stimulate the economy faster.

Use this money for a public works program to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

natty light said...

Tyler,


I agree. I'm all for ending gov't giveaways as well. But this blog seems to be more about politics than policy. So...

It does have to do with Jim because he himself says that he is a partner in his family's farming and ranching operation. And Jim himself has received farm payments. So while it's good policy for him & his interests to take gov't payments it's bad when it happens for anyone else.

Anonymous said...

Beyond yammering about "Hope, Change," what has Esch said about anything? The Esch campaign is taking the people of the Omaha/Bellevue Metro for granted. He insists he is better at everything, yet refuses to give any proof.

Proof would be an idea or plan that goes beyond "Change".

Proof would be working in an area of employment for any extended period of time (ie: more than 18 months at any given job).

Proof would be that he has broad based support for his ideas and his work experience. Believe it or not, fundraising is an example of that. Jim, your family has to believe in you, they have no choice, you are the "Managing Partner" of their financial security.

You can say what you want about Lee Terry, but most will agree that he is one of the nicest people, one of the nicest Members of Congress, and one of the most hard working people you will ever meet (he has worked, at least, one full time job since before college).

Kind, Hard Working, and a Team Player (Not a Ball Hog), now those are Nebraska Family Values.

Self Absorbed, Lazy, The Desire to See One's Name in a Headline, those must be Jim Esch Values.

Let the Voters Decide!

WKW

Anonymous said...

One of the nicest people and nicest members?? Ha! I could think of 300 other members nicer and harder working than Lee.

lnk said...

Tyler:

I appreciate all of your posts--you are one of the few NNN trolls that actually raises substance. (Still disagree with you on the stimulus issue. And, the voters I talk to do also.)

I also appreciate your comments about Richard Carter.

You are right--he would have been the much better candidate to put up against Terry.

By any chance, do you know how we (Terry campaign) could get a hold of him? I take it you've worked with him before--Carter just seems to be a Class A stand-up guy.

You put his resume next to Esch's and Democrats wince--once they realize who they nominated.

Also, on the Dingell video, I'll reiterate that a political campaign has every right to use footage from CSPAN. The House rules the prior Esch posters reference do not apply to campaigns.

We're getting a ton of hits today on the video, so please excuse us if it is a tad bit slow in running.

Anonymous said...

That would be why House Members are required to go "Off Federal Property" not just outside the door, but off Federal Property, to make or receive Campaign Fundraising calls. This is why they clock time at the NRCC.

If so many Members of Congress are unsure of the rule on media use (especially use that appeared on another source first, then perhaps their Ethics Committee could give a clear statement that it is either to be used by everyone, or used by no one. It would be unfair for a challenger to use it, and an incumbent not to.

But then, you may be one of those kind of people who think laws don't apply to you. For example, the laws about operating a motor vehicle. It seems that the Dems have a big problem with those in this cycle.

I am curious about the stories you allege about a City Council person and a Senator. I already know about the President, and yes, I did vote for him for 2 reasons: 1) He told his story and I believe he knew he was being stupid and 2) The other guy frightened me and my kids, so I couldn't vote for him.

As for Esch, the mere fact that he has hidden his DWI so well and for so long, has refused to face up to it, and got part of the offense reduced, tells me that he thinks he was right and the law was wrong.

The circumstances of this arrest are significant because Jim has a huge reputation as a "Party Boy" you would think that he would want to prove that rep wrong?!

Anonymous said...

Can I ask the Terry people something?

Is this the first time that another member of Congress has mentioned your boss on the House Floor in the ten years he's been there? Is that why you're so proud of it?

How embarrassing for you.

lnk said...

From the C-SPAN COPYRIGHT POLICY:

C-SPAN holds the exclusive copyright in the video of all the public affairs programming it produces. Although C-SPAN is the only news media organization that regularly televises the legislative proceedings of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, it does not hold a copyright in that video coverage. That government-produced video is in the public domain which means that it belongs to the American people and may be used without restrictions of any kind.

Anonymous said...

CSPAN policies and House Rules are completely different.

Anonymous said...

CSPAN rules were changed last year due to a problem with Nancy Pelosi using CSPAN footage on her House.gov blog.

House rules are completely different.

Anonymous said...

Republicans seem to have a problem stealing this cycle.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and interesting findings out of Rasmussen yesterday.

Congress now has an all-time low approval rating of 9%.

And in a generic ballot nationwide, 47% of people would vote for a Democrat for Congress, while only 34% would vote for the Republican.

NOT good news for Lee Terry.

lnk said...

Anonymous 10:24, 10:27 and 10:28--obviously the same person.

CSPAN allows anyone to use its footage. Anyone. That includes campaigns.

House rules prohibit the use--but those rules don't apply to political campaigns.

Cite a ethics committee decision that says otherwise.

I take it you must be another "dim bulb" Esch staffer.

Filing the April Quarterly report with the FEC today? It is now 26 days late.

Anonymous said...

"House rules prohibit the use--but those rules don't apply to political campaigns."

It applies to House Members. They may not use audio/video of House proceedings for "any political purpose" or in "any commercial advertisement."

And love the dim bulb reference. Plagiarizing how your predecessor Jon Christensen was described?

Anonymous said...

I think this counts as day 21 that the Terry campaign is in violation of the House rules?

Anonymous said...

Ink - you didnt see the story that talks about Republicans stealing branding from the D's did you??

Also, what is the difference between you using talking points from gop.gov and Dingell's so-called endorsement of Lee. Do I smell hypocrisy? Since you changed the issue sentences on your issues page.

Are you guilty??

Anonymous said...

I agree with Annon 9:13, full disclosure is important that is why McCain is willing to give his wife's tax returns, Bush released the circumstance around his DUI and his military record and even held a press conferences for both.

It is time Esch start acting like a man and stand up for his past. He he wants to run with the big dogs, it is time he start acting like them.

Despite what Henry Hyde said, youthful indiscretion does not end at 42.

Until, Esch answers questions about an event ten years ago, I do not believe there should be any other dialogue or discussion.

Anonymous said...

Bush released the circumstances regarding his DUI and his military records when someone ASKED for them.

Has anyone asked Jim about his DUI? You all keep saying he lied about it. Where's proof of that?

Anonymous said...

Nice trying to deflect from the fact that Terry is in violation of House Rules...

Anonymous said...

Maybe Ink should contact Mike Melanson for a little chat...

"Udall was forced to pull a video from his campaign website last October that showed C-SPAN footage of him criticizing President Bush's Iraq War policy. House of Representatives rules prevent members from using floor speeches for campaign purposes. His campaign manager, Mike Melanson, said as soon as the campaign became aware that it was a violation, they immediately complied."

http://schaffervudall.blogspot.com/2008/05/udall-not-immune-to-campaign-ad.html

Anonymous said...

Ink said, "Cite a ethics committee decision that says otherwise."

You won't find one because it's never been taken this far before (that I can find).

The House Rules are clear and MOST members are honorable enough to realize they can't go against House Rules for campaign purposes. MOST members would read the House Rules and if they are in violation of them do something to clean it up.

Guess our 2nd district congressman isn't that honorable. What's he doing? Trying to slide around House rules for his own political gain. Pathetic.

lnk said...

Anonymous 10:45: You asked if you smelled? How would I know?

Anon 11:06--if Jim disclosed the D.W.I., please post that material somewhere where we can see it.

Anon 11:20--again, please show me an ethics committee ruling that told a political campaign to take off the video from the web site.

I suspect what happened in Udall's case is his congressional office taped the footage and then gave it to his Senate campaign. That's a violation.

The Terry campaign got the footage from the public domain--thus, no connection to any congressional entity.

We do not fall under the House rules. None of us are Members of Congress.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight:

NO ONE from the Lee Terry for Congress campaign is a Member of Congress???

You are so wrong on this it isn't even funny.

Anonymous said...

You "suspect what happened" in the Udall case???? Don't you think maybe you should find out for sure? Or are you too busy blogging? Or is Lee Terry above House Rules? What is it?

lnk said...

Anonymous 12:42:

Campaigns have a right to post CSPAN footage if they want. There is no violation of the House rules as long as a House office didn't provide it to the campaign.

You guys really are "dim bulbs," aren't you?

Anonymous said...

Where did you get your explanation Mr. Ink??

Anonymous said...

I'm copying from above:

(c) Coverage made available under
this clause, including any recording thereof—

(1) may not be used for any political purpose;

(2) may not be used in any commercial advertisement; and

(3) may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program.


Did you read the part about "any recording thereof"????? It doesn't say 'unless said recording is taken off of you tube.'

I suspect the Lee Terry campaign doesn't want to ask the Rules Committee or the Ethics Committee because they are afraid what the answer will be. When they hear that they can't use the footage, they will lose the only "weapon" they have to try and make it look like Lee has done anything while in Congress.

lnk said...

Anonymous 1:04--again, those rules apply to House offices and the Members and staff.

They do not apply to a political campaign.

Scroll up--I posted the copyright rules for CSPAN. I could take footage of the House today and post in on a campaign web site--and there is no violation.

Give me a ruling by the ethics committee to the contrary.

The only one in violation is Esch-- he still hasn't filed his April Quarter report--it was due 26 days ago to the FEC.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter what CSPAN allows.

The fact is, Lee Terry is a member of Congress (like it or not). He must abide by House rules. House rules say he cannot use ANY recordings of House proceedings for political purposes. Period.

Lee Terry is not employed by CSPAN. He is employed by the House of Representatives.

It can't get much clearer than that. Man oh man. What other rules of the House does Lee thumb his nose at?

Anonymous said...

Does the Lee Terry campaign want Lee to be the first congressperson to go before the Ethics Committee on this charge? Really?

It seems all the other members know how to abide by House rules. Why doesn't Lee?

lnk said...

Last two anonymous posts:

Terry is following the rules. They don't permit a member or staff to use CSPAN as a post.

Campaigns are separate and those rules don't apply--so long as the campaign got the footage from the public domain.

Want to file a complaint? Do it then . . . and maybe you should also file Esch's April Quarter report--that is now 26 days late.

Anonymous said...

Want to talk about who is thumbing their nose at the rules?

Then let's talk about Esch's noncompliance with the FEC laws and rules. nkuyo

And maybe we should talk about Jim's noncompliance (in 2001) with laws against driving drunk.

Anonymous said...

Ink doesn't understand the law.

CSPAN only has copyrights on the materials they produce, as in, their shows. Otherwise, they make it clear they don't own the recordings of official legislative business. It belongs to the public.

The public, like SS, can do anything they want with it. However, members of the House have rules they have to follow with those materials. They can post them on their official sites, undoctored of course, but they can't post on their campaign sites. That includes any third party productions...and SS could be considered putting together a commercial for their benefit.

Lee Terry is in violation of House Ethic rules. Period.

Anonymous said...

Are they going to report an in-kind contribution to the FEC?

Anonymous said...

Ink- they dont allow a member of Congress to post what to what??

You are slipping.

lnk said...

Anonymous 3:14--I see the error I made, thanks for pointing it out.

Let me return the favor: you don't understand the legal distinction between a House office and a political campaign. You slipped long ago, apparently.

Anonymous 3:08--you are right the public can do anything they want with CSPAN footage. So can a campaign. Show me a ruling to the contrary.

I think I should make an in-kind contribution to Esch--for making the Dingell video so visible the past 24 hours. Thanks guys!

Anonymous said...

Ink - I hope you file an in-kind contribution for the advertisement created by Street Sweeper.

If you are so concerned about following rules - ha! ha! I expect you will. :)

Otherwise, hypocrisy rules the day.

Anonymous said...

Ink, you keep asking for a ruling to the contrary which is a total red herring argument.

There are no rulings to the contrary because NO OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS SO DUMB! Show me another sitting member of Congress who uses audio/video of Floor proceedings on their campaign website. You have it completely backwards. Members of Congress CAN use audio/video on their official congressional sites. They cannot use it for political purposes on their campaign sites or for campaign advertising.

Members of Congress must adhere to ALL House rules in their congressional office and in their campaign offices.

How many times does it have to be repeated -- Members of Congress are not allowed to use any audio/video from House Floor proceedings for political use.

You say that only applies to congressional offices. Congressional offices can't DO ANYTHING FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES! What do you think they mean when they deliberately say FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES? They mean their campaigns!

I found this right on the Ethics Committee website. Look for yourself:

"Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office."

asecurityguard said...

I think that post at 4:09 pretty much sums it up, and shuts down the argument as well.

lnk said...

Anonymous 4:09. Let's take the rule you just posted:

"Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1).

My comments---> This is referring entirely to the use of official resources by a member and their office staff, that they cannot use CSPAN footage for "any political purpose"--in connection with the operation of their congressional office.

It has no relationship to what a political campaign does, or does not do.

Back to rule---> "In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office."

My comment---> same basic point. A Member cannot use his office or staff "or make available" the CSPAN footage to a campaign. It relates to actions they take in the conduct of their office.

Meanwhile, a campaign is free to use the footage--so long as it doesn't come from the congressional office.

That's why you can't cite any cases to the contrary.

Don't like that? Then talk to Pelosi about changing the rule.

Street Sweeper said...

And lest we let the smarmy comments by Team Esch go unchallenged ... L St put together a video showing remarks made by a Democrat member of Congress.

This is not in any way a campaign piece. It is used by our blog to educate our readership. I believe we have been successful.

The video is on YouTube, and is in the public domain. That the Terry campaign wants to link to our YouTube video, is their own business. We are not affiliated to them, nor them to us, in any way.

We are more than happy to have cleared that up for those that are confused.

SS

Anonymous said...

I have stated that you are in the clear - SS. The responsibility is not on you, it is on the Terry campaign.

lnk said...

Just checked Esch's FEC filings again--no April Quarterly report.

Where is it guys? No time to fill it out because you are watching the Dingell video?

Assuming that Esch does file it, then get ready to re-file the pre-primary report--since your numbers will be off, again.

That will be the 5th time you've redone it.

Esch campaign=keystone cops

Anonymous said...

Ink, your reading of the rule is so completely twisted. I can't believe that YOU even believe yourself.

If you are correct, don't you think that every sitting member of Congress would have video of themselves or their colleagues on every one of their campaign commercials or websites? The fact that NO ONE does except Lee Terry says everything. Lee CAN'T use House Floor proceedings for his own political purposes.

Sheesh. What would Thomas Jefferson or John Adams have to say about this slimy use of House Floor proceedings?

lnk said...

And we're in the clear, too.

Like I said, the footage was in the public domain.

We put it up on the campaign web site as we are entitled to do.

That action has nothing whatsoever to do with the operation of Congressman Terry's congressional office.

So, the Eschies use of the "rule" is irrelevant--and, again, for about the 10th time, they can't give one example of a decision that backs up their position.

Anon 5:08:

Campaigns can use CSPAN footage whenever they want--Eschies could do so too. Need help in posting something?

Anonymous said...

Ink said:

"My comments---> This is referring entirely to the use of official resources by a member and their office staff, that they cannot use CSPAN footage for "any political purpose"--in connection with the operation of their congressional office."

No, no, no. YOU added the "in connection with the operation of their congressional office." That part is not in the rule. AGAIN, the rule states:

"Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1)."

It says NOTHING about if you get it from your congressional office or off of public domain ANYWHERE in the rule.

You are wrong. Lee Terry is wrong. Lee Terry is openly breaking House Rules and none of you care.

Anonymous said...

You know what's funny? The Esch campaign could actually use footage they took off of the public domain. He's not a member of Congress so he's not held to their rules (yet!).

Lee Terry is a member of Congress. He has to abide by their rules ALWAYS -- in his congressional office AND in his campaign office.

lnk said...

Anonymous 5:15, Re-read it--

"Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1)."

House rules govern the official acts of a member. This, in essence, is saying they can't use footage for political purposes IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR USE OF OFFICIAL RESOURCES.

It has nothing to do with what a political campaign does, or does not do so long as the footage didn't come from the congressional office.

Again, you have nothing to stand on and you can't give a single ruling by any House committee that backs you up.

Anon 5:18--you are right that Esch could post footage today if he wanted to. So can we. There is no difference or distinction in the law or House rules on this because they are not dealing with campaigns.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, Anon 5:08: "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom."

Maybe Esch should have followed this suggestion when he campaigned in 2006 without ever disclosing his D.W.I. convection to the public.

lnk said...

Anonymous 5:18:

I hereby give you my authorization to post the Dingell footage on the Each campaign web site.

Go for it.

Anonymous said...

Opponents can use the footage. House incumbents cannot.

lnk said...

Anonymous 5:18 and 5:34--you actually make my case.

Think of the absurdity of what you're saying: one campaign (challenger) can use CSPAN footage but the other (incumbent) cannot.

That's an absurd result.

No one would seriously argue that position. That's why there are no rules preventing a campaign from using CSPAN footage.

lnk said...

Question to the Eschies:

The July Quarterly report is due 7/15 in the FEC.

Is Jim going to fail to file it like he did in 2007?

He didn't file that report until early January 08--almost six months late.

Are we going to see a repeat performance?

blah blah blah said...

You asked for it....

You wanted another member of congress who uses C-Span videos on their campaign website for political purposes. Well take a look at Keith Ellison D-Minnesota. www.keithellison.com

Anonymous said...

Too bad you can't get the address right.

blah blah blah said...

Sorry, I meant keithellison.org not .com.

blah blah blah said...

And here is one of many that is posted right on Dennis Kucinich's
re-election page.

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2060&Itemid=75

Need any more examples Eschies? Or will you now admit that it is allowed?

Anonymous said...

Ink said:

"House rules govern the official acts of a member. This, in essence, is saying they can't use footage for political purposes IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR USE OF OFFICIAL RESOURCES."

House rules don't only govern the official acts of a member of Congress. You obviously do not know how the House of Representatives works. They most definitely have a say in how a Member of Congress conducts every aspect of their lives. Especially their campaign activities!

You also obviously have not gone to the Ethics Committee website. They have an entire section on "Campaign Activity" where you can find this rule -- and many others. You should check it out.

Anonymous said...

Look, if the Terry campaign has any doubt -- or if anyone would like to check on this for themselves -- it's really very easy.

Call the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and ask to speak to one of their staff attorneys. Their number is (202) 225-7103.

We did. We spoke to somebody very nice. We didn't say what campaign we were talking about - yet. The attorney very clearly stated that House Members CAN NOT use House Floor proceedings for political purposes (i.e., websites, advertisements, etc.)

The attorney then went on (with no prompting from us!) that they were sure the next question we would ask would be about if they got it off the "public domain." The attorney's answer - "nope."

The attorney then stated that the next question they get asked all the time is about if a challenger to the incumbent can use video/audio from the House Floor. The answer -- "yes, they can." The attorney then said, "Everyone always complains that this is unfair. Well, too bad. That is the House rule."

But don't take my word for it. Call them yourself. It's easy.

Anonymous said...

Ooooh, Esch should get the footage of Terry attacking Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. on the House Floor! Or the footage where he's bullying Vince McMahon in a committee hearing.

Those would make for some funny commercials! Anyone from the Esch campaign here? Please do it!

asecurityguard said...

Ink
Please respond to anon at 7:05. i would love to hear a respnse to that. Ive been sitting this one out but is very entertaining. A little egg for you???

Anonymous said...

I just noticed Dingell's little jingle is off the Campaign website.

Whose the "dim-bulb" now?

Anonymous said...

Has Jim found out what district he lives in? Looking at his paper work it for the FEC it seems he needs to go back into high school and learn what about the which district he calls home. No... Jim you don't live in the 1st district.... Nope... not the 3rd either...
Can we elect a person that can figure out the district he wants to represent? If I were Esch I would be ashamed to be seen in public!

Anonymous said...

I love seeing the esch people trying to grasp for something that is just not there!

Has esch figured out how to give proper credit to the quotes he uses when he trys to respond to Congressman Terry? Sounds like there is a pattern of bad behavior that is seems to happen over and over. DWI, FEC false reporting, and plagerism. Seems like esch will do anything even if he has to break the law to get it accomplished. Nice behavioral pattern!!! Want a Beer esch?

Anonymous said...

Being a survivor of a car accident which was a result of a person driving while intoxicated I can think of nothing worse of a person than driving a car and risking not only their life but the lives of others around them.

Did Esch ever consider his action and the possiblity of causing serious injury to an innocent person or worse a child? Is this a leader Omaha wants?

I wonder what else is out there that we don't know about this person.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm. Funny there's no acknowledgement from Ink and company about the Dingle Jingle being taken down. They should say something like, "Sorry, you're right, we were wrong. Guess we're the dim bulbs."

But they're not very good at updating their website apparently. When you click on what they put up in place of the "Dingle Jingle" on the other pages other than the "home" page, you still get the Jingle. Nice work guys. You're still in defiance of House rules -- day 22.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah. Are the Terry people just that dim about updating their website that they didn't know you have to change it in each place?

Or are they deliberately trying to dodge House rules by hiding the Dingle Jingle so people can still "accidentally" see it?

Anonymous said...

http://www.leeterry.com/media.html

Someone want to let the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct know about this ongoing violation?

lnk said...

Morning everyone--beautiful day out!

Nice try, anon's--you want me to take your word that a "nice" person at the committee told you over the phone about CSPAN posting? Sure.

Did you ask the nice person whether or not Jim will have to pay a fine for filing his financial disclosure form 46 days late?

Maybe you can call back and ask the nice person to send you a written decision, any decision, where the committee ordered a campaign not to use CSPAN footage.

There are also several nice people over at the DCCC. Please call them, too, and tell them you're filing a complaint against Kucinich, Ellison, et al--since they also have CSPAN footage on their web sites.

Enjoy the day!

lnk said...

Forgot to ask:

Jim's April Quarter report was due to the FEC no later than June 13.

He's 27 days late now.

Filing today, guys?

Also, glad you were able to find the new location of the Dingell video. Enjoy!

lostinspace said...

It sure is a hot day out today!

lnk said...

Also noticed that the Eschies are very silent about Sweeper's offer to review Jim's DWI.

Folks--why don't you send the D.W.I. file to Sweeper? Let the voters see the details of Esch's arrest and conviction for drunk driving in 2001.

The reason this is relevant, again, is Esch never mentioned the criminal record when he ran for Congress in 2006. Do you think if he had it would have cost him votes? Sounds like the 06 campaign was based on deceiving the voters.

shakedown said...

Ink - I would ask then why didn't you make it an issue in the last election??

lnk said...

Shakedown--because no one knew about it, apparently.

Certainly, Jim didn't volunteer this key piece of information about his background.

Most people think a candidate for Congress has an obligation to level with them. Esch didn't do it in 06.

Anonymous said...

Talk about a big time bigot. I wonder if Jesse Jackson's comments will finally do him in.

Anonymous said...

Ink, like I said before, don't take my word for it, call the Ethics Committee yourself. I even gave you their phone number.

And I don't know if Jim will have to pay a fine, did Lee pay fines the 40 or so times he was late in filing FEC reports? I would suspect whatever Lee had to do, the same would be applied to Jim.

And maybe you should ask the Ethics Committee yourself to give you something in writing that Lee doesn't have to follow House rules. Since he's so high in seniority and importance in the House, they just might grant him whatever he wishes. Especially since he's going to solve the country's energy problems! They owe him!

And wow. Lee must be so thrilled to be in the company of Reps. Ellison and Kucinich. Nice company there in defying House rules.

lnk said...

Anonymous 12:21:

You filing the April Quarter report today?

Anonymous said...

What April quarterly report? I'm not affiliated with any campaign. I've never even met Jim Esch. I did meet his dad once, but that was quite awhile ago. Oh, and I'm not even a registered Democrat. I'm actually registered Republican here in the good ol' 2nd district of Nebraska.

You seem to have a problem with thinking people are lying to you all the time. Why do you think that is? Issues from your childhood?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, anonymous 1:26--thought you were an Esch troll.

But here's something for them:

Esch campaign----> please know that all of the reporters have been told that unless you: 1) file a new April Quarter report and 2) file a new pre-primary report BEFORE you file the July Quarterly, your cash on hand numbers will be bogus. We know what you're trying to do--inflating your cash on hand.

That's why the FEC demands timely filings.

Anonymous said...

What April quarterly are you looking for, Political Guy...or, should I say, Ink?

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00447664

April Qtr filed 4/15/08.

If you're talking about the request for information, then say that, because he did file his April Quarterly on time.

Also, what is Terry's problem with filing his intentions to run again before he fundraises? He's gotten notices many times from the FEC telling him he can't fundraise if he hasn't declared his intention to run. Yet, he's done it repeatedly. Is this yet another example of him being above the law?

Anonymous said...

No doubt Jesse Jackson Jr. got his butt-kicking skills from his dad.

What does old man Jackson have to say about that. No doubt he would kicked Lee's @$$.

lnk said...

Anonymous 2:14:

The FEC wrote your campaign on May 13 and told you the April Quarterly report "contains incorrect figures"-- they gave you a response date of June 13, 2008 to fix it. Do you need the letter? I can send it to you.

"Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action."

As the FEC told you, Esch needs to file the whole report again, not just the corrected numbers.

Here's another nice person you can call: Jeff Pope, Campaign Finance Analyst, Federal Election Commission--he sent you the letter: (202) 694-1167.

You're 27 days late.

lnk said...

Forgot to mention--anonymous 2:14--what is Jim's problem with filing reports?

Maybe he should have also sought help for that problem.

This time last year, Jim needed to file the July Quarterly by July 15, 2007. He didn't do so until the following January--almost six months late. Why?

He then owed an October Quarterly report on 10/15/07. That one was filed three months late.

Jim's financial disclosure form was 47 days late.

Someone sure has a "problem".

Anonymous said...

So, Ink, you called the Committee on Standards yet? Your website is still in defiance of House Rules.

Also, is now a good time to address the issue of the HORRIBLE grammar on your issues page? It starts with the first one and gets worse from there. Love how he talks about how we need to make sure our kids are ready for the 21st century, but his writing is worse than most 3rd graders could accomplish.

lnk said...

Hey Anonymous--good to hear from you. We've got all the info we need on CSPAN, thanks. But feel free to call the nice person again.

also, feel free to call Chris at the FEC to help you file the April Quarter report--which is 27 days late.

(He's probably left by now but should be in at 8 am or so tomorrow--'day 28 of late'.

Glad to hear you are visiting www.leeterry.com. You should do it more often.

that one guy said...

My oh my, why cant Ink just admit he was wrong about the campaign website video??? Grow a pair of balls, swallow your pride and quit trying to change the subject.

blah blah blah said...

Why can't Lil' Jimmies fans admit that they're wrong? You said that no other members of Congress had videos on their campaign site and we showed they do.

Oh and if you don't think Kucinich and Ellison are good company then how about the chair of The Education & Labor Committee, George Miller D-California. One of the highest ranking dems in congress.

http://www.georgemillerforcongress.com/blog/

Care to comment? Need me to show you more or can you admit your wrong?

Anonymous said...

I bet I can show you more who dont respected members than those 3 crooks than you do who have.

Anonymous said...

All you seem to be finding are Democrats. LOL!

Anonymous said...

"I bet I can show you more who dont respected members than those 3 crooks than you do who have."

Huh?

Anonymous said...

I bet I can show you more members who dont have any house footage on their site than you.

lnk said...

Anonymous 4:30--you asked if now was a good time to address the issues page. It is.

Is now a good time to address Jim's DWI?

I hear his attorney filed a motion to 'suppress' his BAC test results. If that is the case, my question is: 'why'?

Is it Esch's view that the OPD shouldn't be able to protect the public from drunk drivers, like him, who careen down the highway?

blah blah blah said...

What does it matter if more don't than do? You guys said no other member besides Lee had done it. We showed you some high ranking dems who had. That's what matters.

And according to you a top 15 ranked member in your party is a crook?

Anonymous said...

Ellison - a high ranking Dem? He is just a freshman.

Just because you can find one here and there. If Kucinich was going to jump off a bridge, would you follow him?

Also, someone else made the reference to "show me another member of congress who is using floor proceedings on their campaign site."

Anonymous said...

Give me a break. Lee's breaking House Ethics rules, and all you can do is say, "yeah, well, some Democrats are doing it, too." STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!

And I'll have a problem with Jim Esch having a DUI several years ago when you all admit that GW Bush was in the wrong on HIS DUI, which he hid, and it didn't come out until someone found it. THEN he said it was a "youthful indiscretion"....at the age of 40!!!! Do you think it was okay for Bush to do that?

blah blah blah said...

Sorry. I know Ellison isn't a high ranking dem. But George Miller sure as hell is. I'm just showing that it's either allowed or there is alot of confusion on the issue even with long serving members.

And I'm sorry that it wasn't you who brought up that "no other member thing" But could people PLEASE USE A NAME AND NOT ANONYMOUS!!!! It's easy you don't have to register or anything. Just call yourself Blue, Joe, Frank Solich, or whatever. We can't keep track of who's who right now.

P.S. Bush got his DUI at 30 not 40. I don't care about Esch's either but just thought you should know.

lnk said...

Anonymous 6:26--you raise a very valid point--that's why Esch should make the DWI file public.

What is he hiding?

Jim essentially got a 'bye' on this in 06 because he hid it from the voters and never leveled with them about having a criminal record.

Why don't you guys make the file public? So, here are your projects for tomorrow:

1) File the April Quarterly report with the FEC--otherwise it is 28 days late.

2) Make the DWI file public.

3) Write up an issues paper on something, anything. Esch hasn't outlined anything since he was caught red-handed by the media plagiarizing the Brookings Institution report in May on subprime mortgages.

Have a good one!

taco said...

Ink - your issues page is full of grammatical errors, fragmented sentences, run-on sentences, and idiotic language.

If you want a real issues page look at Adrian Smith's page. Pretty darn good and the language looks pretty original.

Stop bringing up the plagarism. Lee did it too. You were caught red handed using an official government resource for your language from GOP.GOV. Shall someone file a complaint with the Ethics Committee on that?

What other House rules does Lee blatantly ignore?

Anonymous said...

Wow, Anony yesterday morning must be a really important person to have me so many Members of Congress that he or she has found 300 of them that are nicer and harder working than Our Congressman, Lee Terry.

SS, how many Elected Officials have you met in your entire life? Maybe yesterday's Anony should be a contributor to your Posts. They know so many really important people!

YKW

slimeball said...

Well, high ranking Republicans who do not have video on their site:

Mike Pence
John Boehner
Eric Cantor
Roy Blunt

Other members who do not:
Jeff Flake
Judy Biggert
Ander Crenshaw
Neil Abercrombie
Gary Ackerman
Todd Akin
Rodney Alexander
Tom Allen - running for Senate
Jason Altmire
Joe Baca
Michele Bachmann
Spencer Bachus
Brian Baird
J. Gresham Barrett
John Barrow
Joe Barton
Melissa Bean
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Howard Berman - No site
Marion Berry
Gus Bilirakis
Brian Bilbray
Rob Bishop
Sanford Bishop
Timothy Bishop
Marsha Blackburn
Earl Blumenauer
Jo Bonner
Mary Bono Mack
John Boozman
Dan Boren
Leonard Boswell
Rick Boucher
G.K. Butterfield
Charles Boustany
Allan Boyd
Nancy Boyda
Robert Brady
Kevin Brady - No site
Corrine Brown
Paul Broun
Henry Brown
Ginny Brown-Waite
Vern Buchanan
Michael Burgess
Charlie Gonzalez
John Carter
Steve Buyer
Ken Calvert
Dave Camp
Shelley Moore-Capito
Solomon Ortiz
Lois Capps
Mike Rogers
Mike Capuano
Dennis Cardoza
Chris Carney
Andre Carson
Pete Sessions
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Russ Carnahan
Henry Cuellar
Lloyd Doggett
Chet Edwards
Ciro D. Rodriguez
Nick Lampson
Lamar Smith
Randy Neugebauer
Silvestre Reyes
Candice Miller
JoAnn Emerson
Fred Upton
Ron Paul
Ruben Hinojosa
Kay Granger
Mike Conaway
Al Green
Emanuel Cleaver
John Culbertson
Jeb Hensarling
Joe Knollenberg
Ralph Hall
Louie Gohmert
John Barrasso
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
John Conyers, Jr.
Dennis Moore
Todd Tiahrt
Mike McCaul
Ike Skelton
Bart Stupak
Pete Hoekstra
Kenny Marchant
Sam Graves
Vern Ehlers
Dale Kildee
Tim Walberg
Sander Levin
Mac Thornberry

And last but not least:
John "Give Lee a Jingle" Dingell

I can go on and on all day....

Anonymous said...

What's sad about the whole thing is if you look at Ellison, Kucinich, and George Miller's site - they are promoting themselves, not using some other member to do it for them. However, Lee is not promoting himself on the floor; he is depending on the words from another member of Congress.

Sad, just sad.

Does Dingell know he's helping Lee break House rules?

Anonymous said...

I think Jim Esch should grow some and file an Ethics complaint against Congressman Terry. They must truly believe that as a former practicing attorney that The Congressman would not have been wise enough to obtain a legal opinion on this subject. File a complaint, I am sure that some of those House Rules are in violation of a person's Constitutional rights anyway. ie: Barring a person from a certain type of employment, come on, they are former Members of Congress, not former axe murderers!

As for the question of which person is more wrong, Ethics rules are just that, rules. FEC rules are Campaign Finance Laws. If I were Esch, I would be more concerned about the laws that I keep breaking (or people are breaking for me) than whether an attorney has the legal backing to post a public domain document on the World Wide Web.

As for Jesse Jackson (sr or jr) cutting off one's P**** or dropping the F bomb on the House Floor are never something to advertise. Just ask them about it, they will really appreciate your inquiry.

Anonymous said...

That is true Anon 8:23. There are a few other members who are breaking House rules -- just like Lee -- but they all show footage of themselves. Lee is showing footage of another member. If I were Dingell, I wouldn't be very keen about that.

I bet if Dingell knew Lee was using him like that, Lee would sink even lower on the totem pole of that committee.

blah blah blah said...

The point isn't that everybody is doing it. It's that many are. Including Dems. So if your gonna bitch about Lee doing it then you have to include the dems.

This issue won't really carry any weight even if Terry isn't supposed to be doing it. Because he'll be able to counter that other members (from both parties) misunderstood as well. And Jim won't be able to attack Lee on it since Lee can counter back that members of Jim's party did it as well. So unless Jim is prepared for that kind of fight against his own party it's a non issue.

Anonymous said...

can anyone get my cat a transplant? I hear they cost about 8 grand.

Anonymous said...

When did Jim lie about his conviction? I would like for someone to tell me exactly when this happened.

I got a copy of Lee Tery's Energy plan in the mail like every other registered Republican - there isn't much there - but I went to see Jim speak and asked him some questions - he gave me more detail than Lee's letter.

I'm on the fence here - please clear up why Lee is great and Jim sucks because I am not seeing it first hand!

Anonymous said...

They think that because Jim didn't hold some big press conference to give every detail of what happened to lead up to the DUI, and then provide copies of the PUBLIC RECORDS (that anyone can look at at their local court house), that he was lying about his DUI. Of course, Bush and Cheney never did that with their DUI's but there are double standards with Republicans. It doesn't matter than when he was asked about it, he answered the question (and it was published in the OWH). No hiding. No covering up. But they can't see that. They have to keep doing what they are doing to avoid realizing that Lee Terry has done nothing in 10 years.

lnk said...

Anonymous 2:35 a.m.--you must have been sleep walking.

Esch admitted the DWI in April of 2008, even though it occurred before he ran for Congress in 2006.

He never leveled with the voters.

Please keep defending this 'lie by omission'.

There's an easy way to settle it: Jim has all of the documents--why doesn't he make them public?

Anonymous said...

1) Committee Chairmen do not have control over the rank levels of Members on their Committee-IT IS STRICTLY DONE BY SENIORITY, YOU DWEEB!
2) I actually know Dingell and Dingell would be the kind of guy that would get a wide grin on his face and say something like, I was wondering when you would get around to using using it.
3) What the hockeystick does a cats transplant have to do with politics in Nebraska-or anywhere else, for that matter?!

Stop the Insanity

lnk said...

Jim's April Quarterly report was due to the FEC on June 13. He still hasn't filed it--it is now 28 days late.

What's the problem?

Esch staff-----> you are looking foolish, again.

lnk said...

Question to the Esch staff-----> The next report due is the "July Quarterly" on 7/15.

Is Jim gonna file it?

Or, is he going to blow the deadline off like he did last year?

In 2007, Esch didn't file the July Quarterly report until the following January--about SIX MONTHS late.

What's the problem?

lnk said...

Anonymous 11:09:

Please don't stay on the fence--especially if your feet are planted squarely on both sides.

You asked when was it that Jim lied about his criminal record. Please tell me the date he disclosed this to the voters in 2006. I think it is called lieing by omission?

And, what about this 'motion' that his attorney supposedly filed--do you know anything about that?

All the more reason Jim should make public the full file on the DWI conviction.

Since you had a nice talk with him, why don't you call Jim back today and ask him to do so.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I know you're actually right about Committee placement being based on seniority -- so why IS Lee sooooooooo far down in the ranks when he's been there ten years??

And you know what? I actually know Mr. Dingell and his staff too. Yes, he's a nice guy, but he takes the rules of the House VERY seriously. I seriously can't imagine he'd want to be used in this way.

Anonymous said...

Ink, since you seem to have your panties in such a twist about this DUI, why don't YOU make an issue of it? Have Lee do a whole press conference on it or something.

You know what most voters would do? {Yawn} and say that's a shame, but I don't really care. That was seven (7!) years ago! Don't the Terry people have better things to worry about? Like the economy? The war in Iraq?

Anonymous said...

So Esch has told Joe Jordan that he has raised more than $200,000 this quarter. HA HA HA HA. Hey Jim, is that what you call new math? Does that include the $100,000+ you've loaned yourself? Although, I gotta say, it helps to have the last name of Esch, otherwise your total would be 1/16 of that. :) I'm betting the Terry camp has well over 1/2 million just sitting in the bank.

lnk said...

But Anonymous--we may not know Jim's true numbers for months.

Remember, he had the same report due last year on 7/15. He couldn't care less about filing it--it wasn't finally filed until early Jan. 08, after he decided to run again.

I wouldn't wait up late Tuesday night checking the FEC web page if I were you.

Remember: Rules don't mean anything to Jim Esch.

Anonymous said...

WOW, there goes my Tuesday plans. What should I do instead?

When will the FEC nail this guy?!

Anonymous said...

Remember: Lee Terry likes to chew up and spit out the House rules. He must feel he is above them.

His campaign has now been defying House of Representatives rules for23 days. He still has the Dingell Jingle on the website, he just hid it so it isn't so obvious.

Is this the kind of congressperson we want? One who hides from following the rules?

And remember: Lee has been late on filing his own FEC reports at least 40 times in the past. Why is he hiding this too?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:59 yesterday,

Did you bother to check and see how long the other Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have been serving on that Committee or have retained their seniority on it while serving as Chair on another Committee? Duh, you gain seniority on a committee by replacing the person in front of you when the person in front of them replaces the person ahead of them. This continues like a "chain reaction" up to the person that leaves. Just to clarify, no one above the departing Member gains any seniority because they are already more senior to the departing Member. Do you understand this or should I send you a diagram with cute pictures? Which one of the Esch Campaign addresses should I send it to, or are you still trying to figure that one out for the FEC?

As far as Dingell, he and Debbie are probably laughing about the whole issue over coffee, right now!

lnk said...

Anonymous 6:41--still waiting for you to show us one decision, any decision, by the Ethics Committee that supports your case.

But, keep attacking Kucinich, Miller, Ellison, et al. Go for it!

What is not in dispute is the FEC told you guys to submit a new, full report for the April Quarter to them by June 13.

You haven't done so as of today--you're 29 days late.

What's the problem?

Gal Pal said...

Ink: first of all, it's lying, not "lieing'.

My momma always told me that those who tell you how much money they have don't have any money. She also told me that those who make fun of others and enjoy discrediting them are actually cowards themselves. You are so hung up on Esch's DUI and the quarterly report to the FEC that it makes me wonder just what you have in your past. Have you had a
DUI or neglected to report something you should have for some reason?

pizzathehut said...

Well, Esch sure is thumbing his nose at people on these reports. Wonder what he has up his sleeve?? Sure isnt putting a lot of effort into this.

Anonymous said...

Ink is only pointing out that in the United States we are governed by laws and these laws should be respected! The American public deserve elected officials that respect the laws that our democratic officials create and pass. It looks like Esch has not done that!!! DUI, FEC, and wait I heard that he was kicked off the Creighton campus arguing with a police officer. Is he allowed back on campus yet?
I wonder why he got into a yelling match with the police on the Campus of Creighton and then was tld he was not welcomed back? Was he drunk again?

Anonymous said...

Ink is only pointing out that in the United States we are governed by laws and these laws should be respected! The American public deserve elected officials that respect the laws that our democratic officials create and pass. It looks like Esch has not done that!!! DUI, FEC, and wait I heard that he was kicked off the Creighton campus arguing with a police officer. Is he allowed back on campus yet?
I wonder why he got into a yelling match with the police on the Campus of Creighton and then was tld he was not welcomed back? Was he drunk again?

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to say that I am a Teacher in Omaha and I back voting for LEE TERRY!!!!! GO LEE!