Mike Teevee: Johanns on the air (and a new Kleeb)

Mike Johanns will begin airing campaign ads today statewide.

**UPDATE 2:45pm**
Scott Kleeb also has a new ad up. See it with our commentary below.

His first ad, entitled "Proven. Tested. Trusted." is below. Take a look:



Our initial reaction is that this ad is...OK.
It generally gives a nice wrap-up of Johanns's career, re-introducing him to Nebraska.

But...

The initial problem seems to be the visuals.

First his wife Stephanie is centered on the ad. That's fine to include her, but we're not sure it should have been on the initial shot. And Mike should probably have been in the middle. We're immediately thinking, "Who is this an ad for?"

Problem is, that sort of continues.

We're presented with that western rancher theme that Scott Kleeb has glommed onto. The first shots we see are of some cowboy-hatted galute walking around with his baseball-hatted nine year old son. Wait, is that Mike? Did he get taller? What's with the hat? And who's that kid? The faces are all shadowed, so it's sort of unknown.

The shots of the Galute and his Boy continue, as we're waiting and waiting to see Mike's face.
Then a big close-up of Boy under the "Nebraska Values" logo.

Is the Boy running for something we don't know about? Is that Max Yashirin?

Finally we get a shot of Mike in the cathedral-like barn, with the light streaming in, talking to the Galute and his brother.

Nice visual and all, but again, it's all silhouetted. What do we gotta do to see his face? It's like waiting to see the Joker's face in the "Dark Knight" trailer. Was Mike's face horribly disfigured in some tragic cow-milking accident? Can we see him?

FINALLY, 27 seconds into this 30 second spot, we get a close-up of Johanns.
But then they back-off showing him walking with the Galute brothers, again silhouetted.

So in the end is this all too...artsy? If you replaced Johanns's name with Scott Kleeb's (and changed "tested and ready" with "hope and change" ) would you be that surprised? Is this the Mike Johanns that we know?

We have a feeling that once we start hearing Johanns himself in the ads things will improve.

Until then, we guess we'll just enjoy the cowboy campaign for a while.

***

Here is Scott Kleeb's new ad, entitled, you guessed it, "Nebraska Values".



In this, you hear Kleeb blather on telling YOU what "Nebraska Values" are (because you, who have lived in Nebraska your whole life, don't really understand what they are, apparently).

What the real point of the ad is, beyond visuals of the Kleeb gym pep rally, are the subliminal messages you see flashed on the screen in rapid fire. (Don't blink!)

They are:

"The Kleeb Plan"

"Cut Taxes for Working Families"
(gee, that sounds like a good idea Scott! Wow!)

"Bring Our Troops Home"
(Hmm. But Scott, didn't you say that you wouldn't provide any kind of a timeline? So, when exactly?)

"Health Care Nebraskans Can Afford"
(Wait, how does that jibe with #1 above, again?)

"New Jobs From Homegrown Energy"
(The stuff that everyone is saying is now starving the world?)

"Reduce the National Debt"
(...wait, we're still looking at #1...)

So here's the problem with the ad. Is it about "Nebraska Values" or is it about "The Kleeb Plan" (which we challenge you to find ANY details on...)?

Because each messages cancels out the other, as far as trying to get the voter to soak it in.

But you're not really supposed to worry about either. There's a pretty good chance his next ad is just going to say, "Hope! Change! Kleeb!" and show him riding a longhorn steer. And then the Dems will bat their eyes and note how pretty he is.

What say you folks?

Tony TV: My Opponents...

Tony Raimondo's latest 30 seconds up, entitled, "Experience". Take a look:



Now THIS is the type of ad that Raimondo should have had up initially. Much better summary of his background and experience.

Of course Tony also takes the first shots across the bows of the Mike Johanns and Scott Kleeb campaigns. But then, Kleeb has been doing that from the very moment he entered the race. (It's kind of funny to see the Kleeb people already whining about it.)

But notice Raimondo's choice of words when referring to Johanns -- "my Republican opponent".

Uh Tony, until you win the nomination, Johanns is just the Republican you were afraid to run against in the GOP primary.
The history teacher -- errr "academic" -- is the only opponent you have right now.

***

While we've mentioned it before, you can also go to the Johanns website to see seven of his issue ads.

They're all professionally produced and well done, but we'll wait until he goes on the air to give a full critique.

You may notice that the Johanns campaign also has decided to use Google Adwords to link their website as well. Raimondo started this, though Kleeb seems to have discontinued.

***

In case you missed it, Jim Esch's drug test came back "negative".

So we guess that just leaves the question of what does Rich Carter know (or think he knows) about Esch's urine sample that we don't?

Half-baked campaign

Well, you gotta say this about Rich Carter: If the kid is going down, he's going down swinging.

During last night's debate, Carter and Jim Esch were able to ask each other a question. Esch tossed a softball to Carter who swatted it away. And what does Carter do? He asks Esch if he'll take a drug test, just like many federal employees have to do.

Afterwards, Carter ambushed Esch with an appointment for a morning drug test. Esch said he'd take one on his own time.

Carter claimed that this was all about "setting a good example for the kids". (He was possibly heard murmuring "damn hippy" under his breath... )

Of course, Carter's example is Michael Scott, losing candidate to Lee Terry ten years ago. Back in Terry's inaugural Congressional campaign, Scott admitted to marijuana and cocaine use. Terry cruised to victory with 66%.

So what does Carter know or suspect about Esch?

Let's assume that if Esch tests positive for anything harder than caffeine, Carter could make this a race. But what if Esch is clean? Does the suspicion hurt Esch? When will the inevitable, "While you're clean now, what have you done in the past?" questions come? Or will it all backfire on Carter, who will then be sent back to Econ 101 at Metro.

Difficult to say at this point.
But harking back to the Hoagland-Christensen polygraph tests of 1994, Carter has made this race interesting...

***

Mike Johanns has found his Macaca.

We've learned that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has hired liberal blogger Lisa Hannah to stalk Mike Johanns at all of his public events and videotape his every word.

Now you probably remember that this sort of thing got Senator George Allen in trouble in 2006. Allen singled out the Jim Webb supporter who was following him with a video camera at all of his events.

Of course, Mike Johanns is no George Allen. Allen was the type who you sort of knew could say something blundering at any point. With Johanns, you feel like his brain sets out cue-cards that he reads before anything comes out of his mouth. Johanns is even-tempered, with a ton of public speaking experience. Don't expect a macaca-moment out of him.

But that's not to say Hannah won't try. She has become pseudo-famous in the Nebraska online world for her pestering of Third District Congressman Adrian Smith. She reportedly followed Smith around at a number of events and places over the past few years. And she's a die-hard Kleebian. If Smith's dentist needs to know how many teeth Adrian has, he could easily go to Hannah for the information.

Well, it's good to see that the Dems are spending their money wisely.

LeeTerry.com

Lee Terry (finally) has his new website up for the 2008 campaign. And we have to say that it is probably the best campaign website up these days, as far as the look, ease of use, photos, videos, etc. The "Issues" section has excellent blurbs on each point, though maybe could use a link to more fleshed out information.

Now all that being said, we here on Leavenworth Street are equal-opportunity fun-of makers, so with that...

The main thing that jumps out at you is...Lee himself! Ahggh! Whoa, dude! OK, ok, we see you. Hey, it may be time to visit a tailor and get the sleeves on that shirt taken in a bit. And what's the story with the shirt pocket? It got starched into his armpit, or something. But, hey, that's nothing compared to...

That shot of Lee in his suit on the "about Lee" page. Nice shot and all, I think we've seen it before. But you have to be careful about where you crop the photo.

Hey, where are his hands??! Is that one of those giant "David Byrne" suits? It kind of reminds us of when a kid puts on his dad's suit. We just hope he's not sporting big giant shoes at the bottom of the shot.

And finally, there's that shot of Lee joyously reading the paper on the "News" page. We snarkily put our own caption on it...

But beyond all that, very good site.

***

And on the point of other breaking campaign news, Scott Kleeb has auditioned for the part of "Brandon Walsh" for the new "Beverly Hills, 90210".

***

The Recall-Fahey petitions are due today.

It's our feeling that if the petitioners had enough signatures, we would have known by now, as they would have let the cat out of the bag. The fact is, this recall is short-sighted, as there's an election next year and the sentiment about the new stadium is even at best.

We put our odds on them turning in 21,000+ good signatures at 5 to 1 (because, still, people will sign anything...).

Tony: Roe vs WHAT?

First Scott Kleeb gives a non-answer to Joe Jordan about whether a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, then refuses altogether to answer Nebraska Right To Life's questionnaire.

Now Tony Raimondo has stepped in it.

We all know that Tony is a businessman and he's concentrating on business and business because business-business which is to say "business". But after telling the OWH he is "pro-life", he was asked whether he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and he gave this response:

"I haven't had a need to go back and change it," said Raimondo, who grew up in a working-class Catholic family.

When pressed, he told his campaign manager, "I think I'm going to have to go back and read Roe v. Wade. What am I missing here?"

(We're picturing manager Eric Fought with his head in his hands, rocking back and forth...)

Lord help Tony if someone asks him about stem-cell research...

***

Second District Dem House candidates Jim Esch and Rich Carter debated last week. But if they debate in a forest and no one is there to report on it, is it really a debate?

Anywho, here's the kicker from that race:

Esch: raised $27,000
Carter: raised <$5,000

Rich, we hardly knew ye. Without the cash for people to have a clue who you are, you won't pass Go in May.

Sure it's unfortunate that Esch went back on his word after telling you he wasn't going to run.
And of course you have a better resume than Esch and probably a better command of the various issues than him.

But you are that proverbial tree that just fell down without any TV coverage.

***

Lee Terry's new campaign website up today (we think).
(Oh, and btw, Lee has about half a million dollars in his campaign coffers...)

Raimondo and Kleeb taking advantage of the internets by using Google Adwords (well, both were yesterday anyway). Type "Nebraska Senate" in your Google search and look to the right to see their "sponsored links" up. And did you know that each time you click those links it costs their campaigns money? Hmm....

Kleeb TV: still horsing around

Scott Kleeb up on TV finally. First, take a look:

Kleeb, sporting the ever-present tan sport coat, begins agaaaain, explaining how all his relatives are from Nebraska.

We then get lots of cowboy hats and ranching images, because if you hadn't heard, Scott Kleeb worked on a ranch. Yes we know, it's a shock, but apparently it's true. Sure he went to Yale, has been running for Congress for the past three years, apparently teaches in Hastings and up until recently even had a driver's license. But when he's not doing those other things, he's remembering how he used to punch cattle (or something). But we digress...

Then the laundry list of "problems in Washington". Ever wonder if there was a time when candidates for Congress said, "Boy, those guys in Washington have it all figured out. They're on the ball and know just what you want and how to do it. But elect me anyway."

OK, so Kleeb then says that the pioneers couldn't get things done unless they had someone else to lean on.

Now feel free to argue, but the fact that they were pioneers meant they went out on their own! They were the rugged individualists who got away from government and figured stuff out for themselves.

So Scott goes on to say that Nebraskans "pitched in and together got things done." Or something.

He ends on the note where he tries to work the political disclaimer into his message. This almost never works and Kleeb makes it an awkward ending leaving you scratching your head:

"I'm Scott Kleeb and I approve this message because THAT's how we're going to change this country."

Wait, we're going to change the country by approving messages? Or, because you're Scott Kleeb the country will change?

OK, we'll assume that he's probably talking about that "pitching in" and "getting things done" theme, but again, what does us pitching in have to do with him in Washington?

And just so you know, when politicians suggest that you "pitch in" guess how they suggest you do that? (Hang on to your wallet!)

The words superimposed on the screen throughout the ad are:

Scott Kleeb (got it)
A fourth generation Nebraskan (we swear! NOT a carpetbagger!)
Husband and parent (as opposed to the bachelor playboy back in 2006)
Standing up for the middle class (because you can see him standing)
A return to Nebraska values (apparently building sod-houses and such)

So in conclusion, visually the ad's not horrible, if only incredibly busy. The average voter is probably hungry for more issue ads at this point, so it will be interesting to see how long before he drops the vapid bio stuff.

Comparing to the Tony Raimondo intro ad, we'll call it a wash. Kleeb's was technically better, as in you could read the words on the screen, there was one narrator throughout and you could see his face easily.

But Raimondo's message of successful business-guy was clearer and more specific than Kleeb's generalities. You learned something about Raimondo, but Kleeb could be absolutely anyone (with gel in his hair).

We're looking forward to the next one.

What say you?

Tony TV: Iraq

Here is the latest TV ad from Tony Raimondo:



Not a lot of words.

Not much detail (though he has given a time table of one to three years to get out of Iraq).

Sounds lots like Ben Nelson.

Then there's that awkward arm fold.

And all the while Kamp Kleeb is strangely silent...

(More from Leavenworth Street on all the other campaign-related stuff soon...)

Neb GOP defends itself

A few weeks ago the Nebraska legislature debated issues regarding illegal immigrant rights. One very topical subject was prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition at Nebraska colleges and universities. Remember that issue? Bet Tom Osborne does...

So when State Sen. Steve Lathrop voted against that prohibition, the Nebraska Republican Party called him on it. They sent out flyers and made phone calls to his constituents pointing out that Lathrop's vote was directly contrary to the advertising he sent out during his election campaign -- which he won by a handful of votes. (See Lathrop's flyer, to the right).

Not long after the Omaha World Herald wrote a scathing editorial against the NE GOP for this. They yelped about politics -- politics!-- entering that bastion of no-party-ness, the Unicameral. The OWH said:

The political parties should take heed: Demagoguing the immigra­tion issue for political gain not only dumbs down the policy debate. It al­so leaves candidates vulnerable if they are elected and need to make responsible choices rather than politically expedient ones.

So, just in case you weren't sure, the OWH is saying, "Say whatever you want to get yourself elected. After that, no one should hold you accountable for your promises -- as long as you vote the way we think." (And there's that word, "responsible" again...)

There's simply no other way to read it.

So in the vein of fairness, since many of you can't read the OWH's op-eds as they're not online, here is the Nebraska Republican Party's Chairman, Mark Quandahl, with his response in yesterday's paper (sent to us by the party):

BY MARK QUANDAHL

The writer, of Omaha, is chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party. He was a state senator from 1999 to 2005.

Even though Nebraskans hold the storied “nonpartisan” aspect of our state Legislature in great esteem, the political parties in Nebraska still have responsible roles to play in our state’s gover­nance. Political parties help elect pub­lic officials and, where we think appropriate, educate voters on those officials’ records. It is truly troubling that some apparently now think that “nonpartisan” means nonaccountable” for their words, actions and votes.

It is grossly unfair to decry the Nebraska Republican Party’s re­cent distribution of a flier and phone calls over immigration re­lated legislation as an attack, as an April 4 editorial did. It was an educational effort to inform the voters of a legislator’s actions that would seem to run contrary to his campaign promises.

It should be noted that nothing in the flier distributed to the leg­islative district or the phone calls was disrespectful, untrue or in­correct. On the contrary, not one person can point to anything in the materials that was false. Then why the outcry? Could it be that our politicians in the Leg­islature took umbrage at some­one who would dare hold one of their own accountable for state­ments made on the campaign trail? Does the fact that the “someone” was a political party and the politician was in our
non­partisan, unicameral Legislature have any relevance?

Does membership in the Legis­lature suddenly exempt one from accountability to the voters of Nebraska and release an elected official from the solemn prom­ises made while running for of­fice and that voters relied on when they cast their votes? One of the great aspects of the First Amendment is that it does not make the traditional press the sole means of informing and educating the citizens. As a mat­ter of fact, when the press fails to report how individual senators voted on legislation or compare our elected officials’ actions with their campaign claims, another level of accountability is lost.

We are often told that in Ne­braska, because of our “unique” one-house, nonpartisan Legisla­ture, “the people are the second house.” How can our people, the voters of Nebraska, effectively act as a backstop or a second house if they are not adequately informed as to the votes and ac­tions of our state senators?

If, as The World-Herald edi­torial would suggest, political parties should be discouraged from commenting on a legisla­tor’s actions (or lack thereof), if educating constituents of a bro­ken campaign promise is auto­matically derided as “partisan poison” without regard to the truth of the matter asserted, the ability of the people to act as the second house is nothing more than a quaint phrase utterly de­void of impact.

If anything, the lawmakers’ recent “defense” of their non­partisan culture proves that the “practical and noble” ideal of the second house is impotent. If our political system has de­volved to the point where knowl­edgeable citizens cannot distin­guish between factual represen­tations of issues and what could be termed as real “negative cam­paigning,” then our republic may well be at greater risk than we think. If exposing the truth about how our elected officials actu­ally represent us once we send them to Washington, Lincoln or even the county seat or City Hall is somehow dirty or wrong, what kind of “1984” Orwellian society have we become?

Both political parties, as well as every independent interest group and citizen, have a respon­sibility to keep elected officials honest. Trust and civility are two-way streets. We should expect — and demand — that our elected rep­resentatives in the Legislature would respect the voters of the State of Nebraska enough to be truthful and honest in their cam­paigns and conduct in public of­fice. To expect anything less is to admit that our elected officials have no duty or responsibility in that regard.

Leaven Street Worth?

First a little Separated at Birth of Democrat operative, Scott's wife, and fellow blogger...

Jane Fleming Kleeb and actress Jeanne Tripplehorn


We dedicated this SAB to Jane, because of her shout-out to us on her V-log on MTV.com's politico site. She is the "Street" correspondent for Nebraska, talking about general stuff and political stuff. She propped our little blog the other day...and...well, we'll give you the audio here:




She goes on to say how much she likes the Separated at Birth section, and she does give the correct name in the link.

See the entire video piece, and others here:

Thanks Jane.

(Now if we can just get that endorsement from "Friday Night Videos"...)

***

Speaking of the Kleebians, we see on Daily Kos they're continuing to beg for money by bashing "Republican who just recently decided to run in the Democratic primary" Tony Raimondo and his former Republicanness.

Hey weren't these the same people who embraced Kate Witek the last time around?

***

And New Yorker Bob Kerrey is keeping his nose in Nebraska politics. This time he's the "Campaign Finance Chairman" for the 1st District Max Yashirin Congressional campaign.

Wonder if Cosmic Bob's support will have the same effect on Max's campaign that his endorsement had on Hillary's caucus results...

Behlen for Senate

Tony Raimondo has the first ad of the political season (not counting the early Hal Daub ads ) on the airwaves.

First, take a look for yourself, then our critique:



OK, for this little bio piece, to "tell Raimondo's story", they used thirteen different speakers. 13!!!
Without watching it again, did any one stick out? Was any memorable? (Well, except for the guy from ZZ Top at the end..)

That's the first problem.

The next point is that, if at the end instead of "Raimondo for Senate", they said, "Behlen -- Bringing you a better tomorrow, today", or some other generic corporate tagline, would you have been surprised? Heck at the end, the warehouse full of employees are standing behind a Behlen sign! What, the campaign hasn't printed a "Tony for Senate" parade banner yet?

And then there's the fact that it's not until second 28 of the 30 second ad that you really see who this ad is about. There are a couple distant shots of him, and then he's sort of one in the giant group of clappers. When Tony finally appears, I'm wondering if that's really him, or if I was supposed to vote for ZZ.

Finally, the thing that gets us isn't the clichéd "change Washington" or Tony's goofy "air punch". It's the fact that it's a room full of his employees talking about him. We're not saying they were coerced, or that their jobs were on the line, or that there was a break-room full of free bagels waiting for them. We're just looking for more than the Behlen homers to give a boost. How about some other business people. Or Mayors, or elected people. Trade reps. Someone -- anyone -- else.

That's our take. Now here's a challenge Leavenworth Street reviewers. Give your comments about the ad itself. We're sure that maybe Tony has great experience or issues, or whatever. But if he doesn't convey them, no one will pull the lever for him. So, what did you think of the ad?

Kleeb stares at the cake

Joe Jordan of KMTV Channel 3 in Omaha recently quizzed Scott Kleeb on his abortion stance.

“Pro-choice or Pro-life?”, asked Jordan.

Kleeb then did his rattle-snake impression, twisting and turning, refusing to pin either label on himself.

Kleeb says he is personally against abortion, wants to reduce abortion, etc.

(See the video of Jordan's interview of Kleeb here.)

And that’s fine and all, but Scott Kleeb is Pro-Choice.

Many people are in favor of that position. But we can tell you that if he ever said he was Pro-life, all the out of state “Act Blue” dollars that fall his way would dry up like McConaughy in August.

Of course, if Kleeb blurts out that he is Pro-Choice (which he is) loads of Pro-Life Nebraska voters will abandon him as well.

So while he wouldn’t give a straight answer to Jordan (and the issue is no where to be seen on his website), we can look at his 2006 campaign where he said he was:

“…opposed to abortion on moral grounds but does not oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest.”

Almost sounds like a Pro-life position, right? Lots of pols say, I’m against abortion except in these two circumstances. And legislation has been written that way.

But Kleeb’s 2006 camp also followed up with this statement:

“Kleeb does not support a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion, because he does not want to ‘criminalize’ abortion for women who choose to have one.”

Note the key word in that sentence: “CHOOSE”.
In other words, Scott Kleeb would not want to infringe a woman’s right to choose.
I.e., he is “Pro-choice”.

Hey, that is a position by many politicians out there.
Unfortunately, many people will vote against a candidate for taking that position.

Well, guess what? If you want to run for office you have to take positions. And if you’re in the Senate, you have to decide whether you’ll vote to confirm a justice or a judge who will decide various abortion issues. You may have to decide whether to provide funding for abortions in various ways. There’s the whole issue of partial-birth abortion (which Barack Obama has no problem with).

So while Scott can take a position on any issues he wants, unfortunately the Pro-Choice and Pro-life forces, and ordinary Nebraskans, won’t allow him to take both positions.

You can either have it or eat it.
It’s a pretty piece of cake Scott, but how hungry are you?

Esch: Dishonorable, corrupt (we're told)

Jim Esch will be running a dishonorable, corrupt campaign that is pledged to special interest groups.

How do we know? Well, Jim Esch told us so.


You see, back in 2006, Jim vowed not to take any PAC money to fund his campaign. It was a dominant theme. He said it all right here:

I have made an unwavering commitment in this campaign to neither solicit donations—nor accept unsolicited donations—from any Political Action Committee (PAC) or any other Special Interest group. Winning an election can only be as honorable as the way in which the victory was achieved, and this campaign is no exception. When I vote in Congress, my allegiance will be to the people of Nebraska’s Second Congressional District, not Special Interest groups.

He also stated that he was:

...working to raise awareness of corrupt election practices by not taking any Special Interest or PAC (political action committee) money.

Well, that was Jim Esch v.2006. But Jim Esch v.2008?

Well, for starters his website design hasn't changed from 2006 to 2008. In his little "Issues" splash page (above), you can still see the "Special Interest Money" listed. But when you click there and go to the actual "Issues" page, 2008 Jim's aversion to PAC money is nowhere to be seen.

You see, Jim says he will take PAC money, because he won't campaign on an uneven playing field. Hmm.

OK, so Jim, is PAC money bad or isn't it?
Are you corrupt for taking it or aren't you?
Are you dishonorable for spending it, or are you lilly white?

Oh, wait..."Change! Hope!"
Ah...that's better.

***

And while we're on the subject of phony-baloney campaign promises, let's take a look at Richard Carter's (who?) endorsement of "A Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq."

That's the document that floating around these days that numerous congressional candidates around the country are glomming onto to try to show they have a "plan" to get out of Iraq.

It says things like:

How do we bring American military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end?

And answers with,

We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq.

You see people! You end the war by stopping it! That's clear, right?

Well, in case you were hoping for a few more details on how these big-thinkers plan on getting troops out of Iraq, well, keep on hoping. ("Hope! Change!").

In the 36 page document guess how many pages are devoted to "End the military action in Iraq"?
The answer: 1.

Here are the details for ending military actions:

"This should be accomplished based on planning provided by our military leadership."

Uh huh. That's it.

Oh sure there's lots of other neat stuff about meeting with allies and war crimes and such. And there are some verrrry unusual things such as the "Media Ownership Act of 2007". But there is absolutely, freaking, ZERO said about HOW you pull troops out.

Oh but it does use the favorite talk-show buzz word: "Responsible!" (Now if we could only work in "Hope!" and "Change!")

***

We here on Leavenworth Street weren't the only ones pulling the funny on April 1st. Scott Vorhees on KFAB put on a little show with Rep. Lee Terry, that apparently sucked in many many people. You can listen to the KFAB podcast by clicking here.

Tom Osborne for Senate?

Tom Osborne has apparently decided that his stint in politics is not over.

Leavenworth Street has learned that after the April 19th Nebraska Spring “Red-White” football game, Osborne will retire his position as Athletic Director and will mount a late write-in campaign for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate against Mike Johanns.

(Initial word is that former Husker great Dave Rimington will replace Osborne as AD on an interim basis, with a likely full-time position named later.)

Osborne reportedly felt that his initial plan of serving as an interim AD had gone as scheduled and that he felt he had accomplished what he set out to do – namely right the flagging football program with new coach Bo Pelini. Osborne felt there was little more for him to do than raise money for the new athletic facility that bears his name – a prospect that brought him no joy.

And Osborne’s feelings have apparently been instigated by two of his top financial backers: David Sokol and Warren Buffett. Our sources tell us that both Sokol and Buffett committed to Osborne that if he challenged Johanns he would do so with their full financial support. They have pledged to raise $30 million for Osborne’s write-in candidacy, via their vast financial networks.

While Osborne knows a traditional write-in candidacy is a long-shot, his vitriol for the Hagel-Heineman-Johanns cabal that dashed his run for the Governor’s office has made this a very personal stake for him.

In addition to the financial backing, at this time the word is that Osborne will also receive the political backing of Attorney General Jon Bruning and State Treasurer Shane Osborn. Both reportedly visited with Buffett and Sokol in January of this year to get the ball rolling. In a later meeting with the four at Gorats in Omaha in early February, Osborne reportedly gave the go ahead for things to start “in the background”. The risky plan to announce so late was seen as a strategic move to catch the Johanns camp off guard.

Our sources also tell that the nascent Osborne campaign has already vetted the idea with Republican Presidential nominee John McCain -- an early "Osborne for Governor" backer. While McCain is not likely to campaign for Osborne, he will probably give at least vocal support to the concept of Osborne’s candidacy. This too is seen as a thumb in the eye to McCain’s former GOP ally Chuck Hagel.

***

We here on Leavenworth Street think Osborne’s chances are a long-long-shot. He only has thirty-some days until the primary, and if he’s waiting until the Spring Game to officially announce, that makes it even shorter. Also, since the GOP voters rejected him once, we’re not sure why he thinks he’ll have a better shot this time around.

But with a “I got rid of Bill Callahan, I can get rid of Mike Johanns” theme behind him, Osborne may just catch fire. He’s already been hailed as a combination of Jesus and Bob Devaney in the AD job, and people have most likely forgotten about the Governor’s primary. Also, we can’t imagine that Osborne is going to make the same mistakes twice.

This is a bold move on Osborne’s part. But we’re not surprised. After all, he’s the guy who went for two…

**UPDATE 4/2/08**
For all those who didn't "get it", try taking the first letter of each word in the photo caption and see what it spells. (With apologies to the classic SI "Sid Finch" article...)