Candidate wants to get money from the national GOP.
Candidate can get it if he's on the list (that's good!).
Candidate has to be on the vulnerable list (that's bad...).
Being on the vulnerable list means your opponent looks tough (also bad...).
But candidate gets more money, because he's on the list (but good!).
And go 'round and 'round until your head hurts.
Congressman Lee Terry being on the GOP's "Patriot Day Program" list should help Tom White's national fundraising too, in theory. Except that the more GOPers that leave the list means tougher Dem races that will focus that national money to Dem incumbents.
White's saving grace right now is that he's apparently the only Democrat in the state who is running a serious campaign. Apparently all the Democrat eggs are going in White's basket.
***
Since the Dem's have only one serious candidate, the Nebraska GOP can also concentrate on that candidate as well.
They have apparently called out Tom White's campaign to answer how he is allotting the time of his state Senate office staff (namely Ian Russell) and his Congressional campaign staff (namely...Ian Russell).
Word is they're demanding that White produce policies on use of email, internet, office space and hours of work.
And it is still over a year out.
Expect the heat to be turned up from both sides.
(Oh, what a fun year in store...)
***
Governor Dave on Greta Van Sustern the other night:
"What they're going to do is pass the bill and then pass the costs on to the states. I wrote our two United States senators, both of whom are former governors, and said, You know what that means. We'll either be forced to raise taxes on our citizens or cut funding for important programs, like the education of our children. That's not fair. That's not appropriate.***
"And what's really disgusting, we've already heard that Senate majority leader Harry Reid has an amendment that takes care of Nevada, but not Nebraska, for example. That is really appalling."
"I've actually talked to my United States senators. Both have indicated they're very, very concerned. I hope they'll address this issue. I'd like to get it addressed in the Senate Finance Committee, but if not, on the Senate floor."
On Saturday (10/10), the NEGOP State Central Committee will vote on whether or not to endorse incumbent 2nd Congressional District Congressman Lee Terry over primary challenger Matt Sakalosky. If Terry wins two-thirds of the central committee's votes, he'll get the NEGOP endorsement.
The Matt Sak people are fighting against it.
Leavenworth Street has even received pleas from Matt Sak supporters that any endorsement by the party before the Primary election is anti-American values, and the like.
It's an interesting argument, and a compelling case can be made by a challenger.
But when the party's main job is to help elect members of their party, supporting an incumbent isn't exactly some sort of crime against the Republic (or Republicans).
Generally, we would suggest that if a candidate is trying to take down an incumbent from within one's own party, that candidate had better have lined up support within the party early on, if he's hoping for their help.
If you want to change the rules, you have to make a little more effort than just showing up.
But hey, that's just us. Some will differ.
***
Joe Jordan's latest Nebraska Watchdog story -- The Special Session!
But hey, that's just us. Some will differ.
***
Joe Jordan's latest Nebraska Watchdog story -- The Special Session!
If that ain't a sexy news issue, we don't know what is...
Posts
112 comments:
Pretty short-sighted of the GOP to go after Russell. Do they really think the White camp wouldn't be ready for this?
I wonder how John Murante, Carlos Castillo, and others feel about this.
Jane Fleming Kleeb and her SEIU buddies are protesting the GOP dinner Friday ngiht! Sad and hillarious at the same time!
What would they be protesting? That a Republican dares to breathe? Seriously. Democrats have the White House and supermajorities in both houses of congress. They hold all the power so they should be able to do whatever they want. They don't need republicans for anything other than political cover which makes the dens look weak and cowardly. I guess Mrs. Kleeb wants to show the ACORN people that she can organize the AstroTurf with the best of them. Only an obtuse outsider wouldn't realize that protests turn off Nebraskans.
Wow, Carlos shuts down the Department of Administrative Services for the entire Summer while he creates a website and sends out press releases with his name as the only contact for a federal race? (or any race for that matter)
I think the NEGOP whould be the least of Mr. Russell and Mr. White's concerns. The FEC is who they should worry about. The FEC is about the Law, not silly old ethics.
I think it is great that Jane and her supporters are coming to the dinner. So here are a few tips for the protesters.
Ladies of the SEIU,
Mitt Romney is an extra special guest so expect the cameras to come. Remember to Dress for Success!!! My suggestion is to freshly press your XXL SEIU sweatshirt and invest in a new set of Strechpants to avoid unsightly lines. Also, make sure you shave and have your flattop hairdo trimmed just right.
Also I have notice that the UNO College Democrats seem to tag along, so please let them know that a shower and deodorant is in order.
Does Jane have something against Mormons?
So first, she doesn't want to have to buy insurance for her family from her employer, she wants the government to provide for Scottie and the kiddos, and now she is intolerant of people of other faiths?
I feel sorry for Scottie, nothing seems to please his woman!
It is not Anti-American for Matt Sakalosky to challenge incumbent Lee Terry in a GOP primary. It is however a form of light partisan treason; certainly a wasteful irritation that weakens the party at a time when the incumbent isn't doing an objectionable job from a GOP perspective and Democrats hold all power in Washington.
Sweeper is right about Sakalowsky needing to grasp what he is doing.
Remember when Daub ran against incumbent Republican Karnes? Lots of GOP money was wasted and then in the general election the Democrat won. Perhaps Hal's light treason in the primary was justified, but some Republicans still see it as having given power to the Dems for sake of an ambitious Republican contender undercutting a GOP incumbent.
Sak had better understand that he isn't angering any Democrats by running against Terry. But he is making some powerful lifetime enemies inside his own party by running against Terry.
primary challenger Matt Sakalosky
The NEGOP/Terry's campaign are scared ginger kids! Go Tom! Go Russell (no he doesn't have a soul)!
It is beyond not angering Democrats, he is helping them. If he really cared about the issues that he speaks in essay on, then he would not be so blind to the simple fact that any effort spent defending Congressman Terry's conservative record against Sakalosky's ultra right wing rants is time not spent defending those very issues against ultra liberal Tom White.
The phrase, "cutting off your nose to save your face", comes to mind.
If Mr. Sakalosky is really interested in helping the conservative cause, then he would quit helping White further the "social justice" cause.
What the Hell does "scared ginger" mean? You really should put the pipe down and get your thoughts together before you start typing Ian.
Nobody's asking the GOP to change the rules (that's a Dem game) regarding endorsements in the primary. The GOP needs to honor the primary purpose and recognize that citizens want an open debate. No date for endorsing a candidate is specified in the Constitution. You and I discussed this at length today.
And Matt Sak didn't just "show up". He's been pounding the pavement all over Nebraska. He's a successful entrepeneur in the health care industry (how timely!) with a great family and great values. Just what the doctor ordered.
The citizens aren't afraid of a little debating with a full and primary season. Their party, representatives and opposition shouldn't be either.
hmmmm. that NEGOP! Wasn't it Senator Hagel's Chief of Staff that was caught red-handed organizing a political press conference to attack Ben Nelson in 2006 - LouAnn somebody I believe - getting Kate Witek (also in the where are they now file), Bruning and others to go after Nelson? Wasn't it Chuck Hagel himself who condoned the blatant and illegal use of his official staff for political purposes? And where was the NEGOP's ethics conscience back then? Not saying Ian has done anything wrong and if he has he shold be canned. But LouAnn got away with it for years - got called out for it by a republican elected official specifically - and not a peep from Quandahl et al at the time.
Lee Terry doesn't need to worry about the flailing and failing Sakalosky campaign. They will be out of the race well before the primary. They will run out of money and, unless he's giving a prepared speech, Sakalosky makes Terry look like a great communicator every time he does an interview.
SB,
Yes, we did have an email exchange on this. And my point still stands: If you want to change the rules -- or how those rules are promulgated -- then you can get YOUR people into the positions of rules changers and change the rules.
While the rules don't say they HAVE to make their decision Saturday, nothing says they couldn't do it last week.
And, yes, Matt S. just showed up. Who are his supporters on the Central Committee? And don't say "it's the voters that matter", if it's the Central Committee's mind you want to change.
Again, when you want to take out a sitting office holder from within your party, this is what happens.
(Ask Jon Bruning if he was prepared for this when he decided to take on Hagel before Hagel dropped out. I can guarantee you he had a plan.)
-SS
Susie Sweetie,
You don't seem to understand that the Party is trying to save itself from people like Matt that like to walk around in the world and suggest everyone cut off their nose to save their face. Quit being so short sighted and tell Matty to quit putting his own needs before those of the masses.
He seems to think that the leadership in the Republican Party doesn't understand that too much money was spent under their control of the bank. Whether this is true, or not, they got the message 3 years ago on election day. What Matt doesn't seem to care about is the simple fact that America can't bury its head in the sand and not help the rest of the world. What kind of heart would we have then. He also doesn't seem to understand that if not for September 11th and the military action following, we would not have arrived at the debt level the government has. Does Matt dare to suggest what part of our Military and National Defense should have had less funding?
Now, if he wants to talk about the financial market side of the economy, tell him to look in the mirror. Young people with far too much disposable income have created a want not need society, I want a boat, I want a giant house, I want, I want, I want. Everything is about instant gratification and Matt is conducting his campaign in that exact same manner.
Tantrums directed at Party Leaders and rank and file that choose to ignore you is nothing more than an "I want it now" attitude.
Many people have under estimated Lee Terry in the past, Matt is making that mistake now. If Matt doesn't like playing hardball now, how the Hell does he propose to beat a self absorbed hothead like Tom white later.
Matt doesn't want to be ignored, but he doesn't want the heat that gets turned up on behalf of our Republican elected officials; he wants a real race, but none of the campaigning that goes along with it. He needs to understand that there are thousands of people in this District that are unwilling to turn this seat over to a Democrat so that Matt can act like he is running for Student Body President.
I have said it before, and I will repeat it for you now. Read really slow so you understand it clearly:
Matt will be ignored by the masses, but he will not be ignored by Lee Terry. That would be foolish and unexpected by his supporters.
If Lee Terry were to get out of the race, there is a long list of people more qualified, harder working and better connected to this community than Matt Sakalosky. Matt is the one creating his own problems and permanent animosity.
SS, JB absolutely had a plan. This is the difference between a man like Jon Bruning and Matt Sakalosky.
Jon is patient and works from within a plan. He did polling and made an informed decision.
Hagel had been repeatedly told that he was not representing the concerns of the constituents that repeatedly supported him. Hagel's own polling showed him out of touch with his base. For Hagel, this was fine, he needed Bruning to show the future administration that he was a tool for them (no pun intended, really).
BUT, JB cares more about the Party than himself and chose not to divide the Party to the benefit of the Democrat candidate.
Sakalosky let a handful of disgruntled newbies annoint him. He acts like the Republican version of Obama. I hope he isn't expecting the same outcome as his Democrat counterpart, 'cuz it ain't happening.
Is Matt Sakalosky endorsing the candidacy of Chris Geary for Governor?
Finally, NNN GETS IT RIGHT!
Addressing the lack of enthusiasm from their base voters as to the 2010 elections in NE, here's what NNN just had to say:
" . . . it's pretty hard to cheer for a team that isn't putting players on the field and doesn't even come ready to play the game."
You listening, Jim Rogers?
Matt Sakalosky vs. Lee Terry = Richard Carter vs. Jim Esch. In terms of viability, same story, different party. Terry will crush this poser.
One difference, Jim Esch had publicly and privately announced that he would not be running for the congressional seat. He also told the FEC he wasn't running when he closed his campaign committee.
Richard made an informed decision to run on the basis that the seat should not go unchallenged. What is Sakalosky's reasoning again?
Republicans are grateful to Richard's dedication to country. this is why he was approached and welcomed as a fresh voice for the Republican Party.
Matt's just being a bully and sending women to fight for him.
I'm following the posts here and also wonder what "scared ginger" means.
But the folks who really should be scared are the NE Dem leaders. Without any kind of statewide campaign, their turnout will drop--even in Omaha.
Also, people will naturally blame the "in party" for 9.8% or 10% unemployment. That's the D's and includes their candidates like Tom White.
And Larry Sabato recently added about the 2010 race in Nebraska: "The Democratic bench is all but empty."
To Anon 7:46am - "Right On!" regarding the GOP party active. This isn't (just) about Lee it is about preserving a seat.
To Anon 7:56am - I'm not sure where you get your Bruning info, but he got out of that race because his own polling showed him coming in a distant 3rd to Johanns and Daub and he copped a deal. It wasn't as altruistic as you suggest. Most would call it self preservation.
Anon 9:01AM,
Just a correction - Jim Rogers is just an employee of the NDP. Just like Pierre Neilan is at the NEGOP. It's ultimately the responsiblity of Vic Covalt to provide leadership in finding a candidate, and he's completely incapable of doing that.
I wonder if Heineman has called Suttle for help on how to make up the deficit.
We believe the "scared 'ginger' kids" is an allusion the the "Ginger-Bread Boy". As in the anthropomorphic protagonist from the fairy tale about a cookie's escape from various pursuers and his eventual demise between the jaws of a fox. If so, a very literate reference, though I don't agree with the characterization.
Just when I thought Iron Mike was gonna be a Senator, he votes against an amendment that protects our wives, and daughters from sexual assault on the job. Not only is it ok to rape women, it is ok to confine them until they agree to not report it to supervisors. I guess maybe he has a point...jobs are hard to come by, so grin and take it. Not only is the GOP ok with employee rape, so are several pro employer groups. Great job, GOP.
Is there any democrats running for any statewide races yet...I see Fulton is running for Treasurer...along with a slue of other Republicans...
It is a sad state of affairs when a major political party cannot get candidates to even run for office.
This proves that there is no leadership at the top of the dem party. I am not sure what Covalt could be thinking. I hear that perhaps as many as 3 incumbent Republican State Senators will be unchallenged by the dems.
How sad....
Nebraska 27
Missouri 24
Go Democrats!
Lee Terry's primary opponent (I prefer not to give his name ink) spends much of his time being the great philosopher or Reagan's parrot. He has no clear message, yet thinks by his waltzing into the GOP party heads should turn. Grass roots is one thing, ineptitude as an election campaign is another.
As far back as June this guy was told to make nice if only out of respect for the party that has been around a good deal longer than his sudden itch to run for Congress. Prove yourself, he was told and the respect will follow. Unfortunately, it sounds as though he is still showing up with a soccer ball and thinks he's Pele.
I agree with 7:46 a.m.'s assessment that it is about: I want, I want, I want and instant gratification whether it be property or credibility. I'm willing to bet he doesn't have a clue about the district he wishes to serve whether it be a neighborhood outside west O or its people's wants and needs.
He's been trying ot run a campaign by proxy with a campaign manager on her virgin voyage of disconnect. When you come to war with a pop gun, don't whine when you're wounded from a smart bomb.
Time to step up to the challenge or step aside for Terry.
Anon 12:39--just a correction.
One of Perre's major responsibilities, in fact, is to recruit candidates. That goes with the E.D.'s job.
Pip 1:31--your post is the type of comment that usually comes from "Vile Kyle" and the NNN crowd. You turn voters away from the D side with garbage like that.
Just step aside for Terry???? How pompous!! What, is he royalty now?
Why do you dislike what Pip had to say about Johanns? Is it because it's the truth? How else can you explain Mikey's vote? And it was all white, male Republicans that voted against it. Even the women in the Republican party supported it. So give us another reason that Mikey would let KBR have a policy of trying to silence employee from reporting a rape?
I'm unsure whether Pip is a hysteric who swallows whole whatever Democrat propaganda he/she hears, and then regurgitates it unquestioningly, or a dishonest shill. The Franken Amendment, if that's what he/she/it is referring to, wouldn't have protected a single person from rape. It basically forbids government contractors from taking certain kinds of lawsuits to binding arbitration. Rape is a crime that will get you major jail time. The amendment doesn't change that.
As for the claim that anyone who opposes this is OK with rape -- well, let's take that logic further. If you don't support a similar measure opposing taking fraud claims to binding arbitration, are you pro-fraud? In fact, by this logic, you should entirely oppose any form of arbitration to resolve disputes. Who would favor that? Oh yeah, trial lawyers, who bankroll the Democrat party.
Oh wait, the DoD also opposed the amendment. Well, that settles it. Obama is pro-rape.
Vile Kyle caught red-handed!
Get this. Kyle posts another attack on Terry at NNN that quotes a sentence from yesterday's OWH story.
But he conveniently ended the quotation right before the following sentence which was also in the story:
"In fact, Terry is in a much better position this year than he was last year when then-candidate Barack Obama headed the ballot."
Nice editing job, VK.
Anon 2:33 So, what will you tell your wife, daughter or son who is a government subcontractor employee either home or abroad, and is gang raped? Will you tell them their pain is not real, it is just political? I didn't think the GOP could become more selfish, more self serving, and more self centered then it bacame in the last eight years, but in their quest to destroy President Obama, they are showing just how much they care about women, children, minorities, and those with health problems. Once again Anon 2:33, what will you tell your wife or daughters, or sisters, or friends, or nieces? Then, what will you tell Sen. Johanns? Rape is rape.
I would tell family members that, yes, there are some very sick and disturbed individuals out there.
Like The Pip.
Tony Fulton seemed to get some good press coverage about his announcement for Treasurer today. It will be an interesting race!
The fact that the Democrats can't find any credible candidate for Treasurer--an open office--is hilarious. The Keystone Cops!
Someone posted above that it really isn't Jim Rogers' job to recruit candidates. I bet a ton of the NDP central cmtee members would disagree.
I know Fahleson is out their recruiting candidates--does Covalt do any of this kind of work? He should be.
I heard there is some whining by Democratic legislators that the Gov's call on the Special Session won't include tax increases. Good to see their priorities haven't changed.
Hey Nebraska Republicans, be careful what you wish for.....
It's still a long time until November 2010.
Did Ian show up in Lincoln today to dust things off and throw away all the junk mail that has accumulated since June when he quit going to work, but kept collecting a paycheck?
Not royalty. Just worthy. Less whining.
Forget Russell and Boomer for a moment. How about Terry's COS, Dwight Eric Hultman?
Hultman owns more than 90 individual stocks valued at nearly $500,000. While House ethics rules allow Members of Congress and their senior staff to own individual stocks, many, like Terry, choose to avoid any appearance of impropriety by holding only mutual funds.
Among Hultman's individual stock holdings, 14.6 percent ($72,349.49) are from companies in the energy sector, 14.7 percent ($72,962.00) are in the telecommunications sector, and 14.1 percent ($69,624.58) are in the health care sector. Each of these sectors is subject to substantial regulation by the Energy and Commerce Committee on which Lee Terry sits.
Is it fair to ask whether Hultman has ever met with lobbyists from these companies? How can Nebraskans be sure that when Hultman gives advice about regulating these companies to Lee Terry he is looking out for the interest of Nebraska and not for his interests as a shareholder?
Since when did "rape" and "sexual assault" become federal issues? Only Democrats, feeling brazen after their assaults on private industry (autos), private banks and health care, would think so.
Where's Tom White stand on these issues? Or any issue (other than his support for card check)?
W. J. Bryan,
Are you freaking kidding me? I suppose you are one of those that think repeatedly raping a young woman in a cargo container, then forcing her into silence, is the All American Way to have some good fun?
I think even Republicans, the REAL ones, still believe that rape and sexual assault are fairly despicable things. Evidently, you don't.
Rape and sexual assault are violations against a person's civil rights, thus ... a federal issue. Why don't you just go back to your crypt and roll over?
I'm never going to vote for Terry and was 2/3 settled on voting, and probably volunteering and donating, to White's campaign. But Camp White just lost my vote for putting Russel in there. Out of all the people I've met in politics over the years, on both sides, he's in the top five worst... If Tom White can't see that, then he doesn't deserve my vote.
Brian T. Osborn:
Obviously a philosophical difference: I (and most Nebraskans) believe in state's rights. You (and most Democrats) believe that everything should be controlled by the federal government. Perhaps your philosophy is driven by the fact that Democrats don't run for office in Nebraska, so let's give everything to the Ds in Washington. Who is your AG candidate? Oh, that's right, you don't have one. Or one for Governor. Secretary of State. Auditor. Treasurer. 1st District Congress . . . . .
WJB,
After realizing that you think of rape as just a good time, nothing you have to say has any significance whatsoever. Have fun with the crayons.
Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize?!
Nominated 2 WEEKS after taking office!
All he did was gallivant around the world, meet with terrorists and refuse to give the War in Afghanistan the troops it needs to be successful in bringing peace there and keeping our troops safer that are already there!
I Dick Cheney doesn't have a heart attack upon hearing this, nothing will kill him!
More Raucus Baucus...
The CBO report on Baucus' plan says it will cost $850 billion over 10 years but still leaves 25 million uninsured. What a joke.
And, the $850 bil is based on continuing big Medicare cuts to physician fees. If that is reversed (usually is) the cost is back above $1 trillion. And the $80 bil in deficit reduction is more than wiped out.
Dems----> throw in the towel on this and concentrate on creating jobs. Your 9.8% unemployment is a tragedy.
Osborn:
Murder is also a deprivation of civil rights. Why do we try it in state court?
You did sleep all the way through American Government, didn't you?
BTO:
After realizing that you think of rape as just a good time, nothing you have to say has any significance whatsoever.
I have to say this is probably the vilest and most mendacious thing I've ever seen posted on this blog. Congratulations, BTO, for excelling in the one field in which you seem especially talented.
RWP, you shouldn't be surprised by BTO. That's normal for him.
"Dems----> throw in the towel on this and concentrate on creating jobs. Your 9.8% unemployment is a tragedy."
BOTH sides are being so amazingly childish about this talking point. Unemployment is at this level for a plethora of reasons, most of which aren't in control of the government. BOTH parties are to blame for SOME of the regulatory loopholes that led to SOME of the problems, but recessions will happen no matter who is in office. The second coming of Reagon wouldn't stop it any more than Obama can.
Presidents, congress and government in general can nudge the curve, but the economy can't be fixed or broken by anybody. Only thing you can learn from someone trying to lay blame on this level of unemployment on EITHER Bush, Obama or either party is that the person espousing such a belief has been brainwashed so much by partisan talking points that they can't see past them to reality.
Anon 7:08: You are absolutely wrong. The deadline for nomination was Feb 1st. That's only 11 days, not 2 weeks. But leave that aside. Don't you see that his work began long before that? Surely you noticed all the work he did in the 2 years he was a US Senator. In addition, I would think that overcoming the vast right-wing conspiracy and getting elected, unlike those impotent wusses in Iran, is worth a Nobel Prize. He's been an inspiration to trillions of people all around the world. I mean, since he's been elected, the Earth has cooled and the seas have lowered just like he said would happen! So sure, it was only 11 days since he'd been sworn in, but really, his work began long ago. Probably when he was just a child! Nobel Laureate Barack Hussein Obama. Mmmm mmmmm mmmmm!
Mr. Kleinsmith: you are half right: the economy can't be fixed by the government, but throughout history, it has been shown over and over that the government sure as hell can break it. Of course, I doubt that Obama really gives a crap what the unemployment rate is. He won a Nobel Prize!
"Mr. Kleinsmith: you are half right: the economy can't be fixed by the government, but throughout history, it has been shown over and over that the government sure as hell can break it."
Maybe you've decided to swallow those ridiculous talking points, but I'll stick with economic theory over your propaganda. This isn't complicated stuff. There is a limit to how much a government could possibly alter the path of the economic cycle. No matter which economic system you ascribe to (unless it's merely an ideological one) the fact remains that with an economy as large as ours, it would take moves geometrically larger than anything the government has ever done to actually change the course of the economic cycle.
It is clear that the Bush AND Obama stimulus packages kept the financial sector from collapsing, which would have caused a stock market collapse, and probably has made a few points worth of difference in where the unemployment level will bottom out at. What we can't possibly know is (among other things) how bad it would have gotten without some of those stimulus packages, how much better it could have been had the stimulus packages actually have been focused on job creation and how bad it will be in the future when all this debt starts eating even more and more into our budget.
The Dem health plans all contain tax increases--tens of billions of which will be passed on to consumers. They just don't seem to get it that one of the things you don't do in an atmosphere of 9.8% unemployment is raise taxes.
The Dems will just make a bad situation worse.
They got their entire economic program enacted and implemented--look at the result so far.
Huh? Did you miss last summer and fall when the bottom dropped out of the economy? Granted, it took a long time in coming, but the government didn't make large moves to get it to tank. All it took was a few misguided regulations along with idiotic moves by refusing to try to lower energy costs thus creating the perfect storm of business-strangling regulations and consumer-choking "taxes." So, I guess you are correct: it really is simple. And it also defies logic to say that the government, which holds absolute power in this country, has the inability to make the economy tank. Bizarre.
RWP,
If we took all the federal regulations back to the states, I guarantee you that even you wouldn't want to live in Nebraska.
Lee Terry is at risk because of his pathetic progressive voting record.
He has sold out conservative values and has never stood up to unbalanced budgets. He gladly voted for the TARP scam and the 400billion omnibus spending bill earlier this year. Almost 9 trillion in debt and Lee Terry votes to borrow another 400 billion.
This country is over 9 trillion in debt and Lee Terry has voted for more than half of that debt.
Lee Terry has to be Pro-Life. He needs more births and eventual tax paying Americans to pay for his unrestrained spending habits.
If we're going to have a liberal spender hold this office, it might as well be a real liberal.
To those of you slamming this Sakalosky guy as a political newcomer, maybe that's what we need. The Good Ol' Boys club has failed us miserably for the past 8 years.
Sakalosky won't get the endorsement of the Central Circus Clowns, but who needs it. Most of the party insiders resemble the tired old white males that Obama tied the republican party to last fall.
Your comments suggest that not only will Sakalosky lose big, (probable), but when it happens then Lee Terry also won't need Sakalosky supporters to close ranks to beat Tom White.
So be it then.
Republicans fell in line behind John "Progressive" McCain because it was "his turn" while Romney was the best candidate.
Liberal Lite McCain was crushed by the real Liberal.
The national party realizes how unremarkable Lee Terry has been as one of the Dems top 10 favorite republicans.
They'll raise and waste money on Liberal Lite Lee Terry while Tom White runs as what he is, a real liberal.
Bring back John Christensen, a real conservative, if we don't want to lose the seat to Tom White.
And for those of you who think it's far right wing for anyone to speak out about the out of control spending of Congress and Lee Terry,
I'd say we have NINE TRILLION reasons to become more right wing.
Lee Terry has always campaigned as a conservative. Quite clearly, that's a lie. He has betrayed the conservative base with his spineless spending votes.
Will you hold him to his word to be a conservative. Or will you pull an Obama and give him a pass and your vote again. Can we really afford Lee Terry and another $9,000,000,000,000.00?
Lee Terry is not and will never be a Leader in Congress. He's too spineless to stand up to the tired old men on the hill when they're wrong on spending.
So the only question is, Liberal Lite Lee Terry or Liberal Tom White?
I'm sticking with the no-link rule. If you have a point, just make it.
-Ed.
Really, Sweeper? You're covering up the fact that Lee Terry is raising money from trial lawyers because he's helping them defeat medical malpractice reform?
Trial lawyer Tom White wouldn't be any better, of course, so you can guess the ONE candidate in this race who supports medical malpractice reform.
Ok Sweeper took this down, but here's what the link said:
Dear Friend,
As you know, the health care bill is dominating the debate in Washington this fall. Only through the support of pro-civil-justice Members of Congress will we be able to defeat the proponents of medical mal practice reform. One of those pro-civil-justice Members is former trial attorney Congressman Lee Terry. Congressman Terry, a Republican from Nebraska’s 2nd district, is your clients’ strongest Republican ally on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This important committee has jurisdiction over many issues that impact the civil justice system, including products, devices and health care.
Congressman Terry needs our help. Last cycle President Obama carried his Omaha district and Congressman Terry won reelection with only 52%. His race is a top target this cycle and he is in a fight to keep his seat.
Please join me in helping Congressman Terry by contributing to his reelection campaign. A voluntary contribution from you, in any amount, will give the Congressman the resources he needs to run a successful campaign. We cannot afford to lose this key pro-civil-justice voice in Congress. Attached is a form to make your contribution and an invitation to a reception in Washington, DC on October 29th in honor of the Congressman. If you are in the area I hope you can join us. As a reminder, please send contributions to the address on the form and not to me or AAJ. Please take time to contribute today.
Thank you,
Dan Brown
Chair, AAJ Republican Caucus
brown_law@yahoo.com
"Did you miss last summer and fall when the bottom dropped out of the economy? Granted, it took a long time in coming, but the government didn't make large moves to get it to tank. All it took was a few misguided regulations along with idiotic moves by refusing to try to lower energy costs thus creating the perfect storm of business-strangling regulations and consumer-choking "taxes." So, I guess you are correct: it really is simple. And it also defies logic to say that the government, which holds absolute power in this country, has the inability to make the economy tank. Bizarre."
You actually think the changes that the government has made in the last year or so have been major enough to drastically, or even moderately, change the course of the economic cycle? Man... you're not in left or right field here... you're out of the park altogether.
The underlying causes of this recession are bigger than our entire economy, tied up in the global financial markets (which we have almost no control over) and the real estate bubble was going to burst no matter who was in office. These are fundamental economic problems... you have a deluded view of economics if you think even your version of a perfect regulatory framework can cure the economic cycle.
This recession was going to happen, no matter who was in office... just like the dot com bubble (boom and bust) had almost nothing to do with daddy Bush OR Clinton.
You have been sold snake oil if you believe these half baked economic ideas you're espousing.
Wow. Im engrossed with a malady for awhile and look what happens
Some idiots (macdaddy) are trying to blame this economy on Obama, even though this recession started in Dec 2007. Who was prez then?
Other people are actually trying to defend Senators for voting against mandatory arbitration in cases of rape. Disgusting.
W. J. Bryan typed this
"Only Democrats, feeling brazen after their assaults on private industry (autos), private banks and health care"
Seems to me that the banks, auto industry and health care users came to the feds for help, not quite the assault that you said it was. Bush (with the support of 95% of repubs) gave billions to both private banks and automakers. (Bush is a socialist!!!) And healthcare needs to be fixed, unless you think that is the one thing that is perfect in this country.
Has Jane finally lost her mind? Protesting a fundraiser? For what? I am pretty sure the $$ for the 1 table she is protesting (5k). Is personal money spent on this event. Not our tax dollars that she and her liberal, thug, SEUI buddies would like us to pay for everyone's medical insurance.
Jane, If you are so worried about this ladies round of chemo why don't you and the SEIU pay for it? Throw a fundraiser of your own for her?
Bush didn't cause this recession either. You can certainly argue that his policies over 8 years set the stage for this recession being more severe that it may have been otherwise, but the recession would have happened either way.
Nate E: when did I say that Obama was responsible for an economic downturn that started in Dec 2007? I think the other Democrats have more than enough share of that blame. Barney Frank, for example. We can only blame Obama for his inattentiveness to the gathering storm and fascinating apathy towards doing anything to try to fix it. He was a voting member of the Senate when all this came up. Currently, however, we can blame Obama for lengthening and deepening our current problems with a poorly named "stimulus" package that added $800 billion to the deficit and has driven the unemployment rate to 25% higher than advertised.
Mr. Kleinsmith: the government created the housing bubble. It was a conscious decision back during the Clinton administration to force banks to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back. Closer to the recession, the SEC forced mark-to-market accounting rules on banks who then saw the bottoms drop out of their bottom line. The government had opportunities to drive down energy prices and refused to do so. People had to chose between paying the mortgage and driving to work. The SEC has since agreed that mark-to-market accounting hurt the economy and has backed off on it. Look, I am in agreement that our economy can recover. There's plenty of history for that. But "normal" cyclic economic downturns can often be triggered by some idiotic government idea. And there are plenty of bad government ideas that can make things worse than they should be.
Maybe Bush's policies didn't cause this recession, but he's not blameless, either. He should have been pounding harder on the Democrat Congress to get things changed. He probably should have been pounding on the prior Republican-controlled Congress as well.
Every time I get on blogs like this, I'm amazed at how much people just suck down sensationalist reporting and party talking points like they're gospel.
"the government created the housing bubble. It was a conscious decision back during the Clinton administration to force banks to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back."
When did you sign on as a liberal? I thought you right winger types were believers in individual choice, personal responsability and the like... You do know that the big whigs in both parties don't even believe half the stuff they spout, that you're so kind to be regurgitating here... don't you? These are talking points, not reality, and you're eating it up.
Nobody forced the banks to loan money to these people. The government opened the door and greased the gears some, with bad regulation (which both parties deserve blame for), but the banks CHOSE to lend these people money, and these people CHOSE to take out loans that many of them should have had the common sense not to take out. You're the one sounding like a raving liberal here, laying the locus of control over bad decisions on external forces, not personal responsability.
"Closer to the recession, the SEC forced mark-to-market accounting rules on banks who then saw the bottoms drop out of their bottom line."
Just to be clear... are you seriously implying that banks' bottom lines crashed... because of... accounting rules?!?!? Again... thats not even wing nuttery, thats... I'm not even sure what to call it.
Energy costs did have an impact, but again, both Bush & co, as well as Obama & co the last few months, MAYBE could have worked prices down some, but not by much. Even if you swallow straight talking points hook, line and sinker, you still understand that the floor of energy costs are determined by supply and demand. Supply isn't moving up nearly as fast as demand... and when the economy recovers, you can bet your bottom dollar on gas going back up, and maybe never coming back down past 3 bucks a gallon ever again... barring some kind of technological breakthrough like lighter batteries with much more dense energy storage capacity for hybrids, and/or a genetic leap in algal biofuel production.
yadda yadda yadda
Its a convenient argument for any blind partisan to make that the problems of today are the either the fault of the current guy in office with a different letter after their name, or the fault of the last guy with a different letter after their name that was in office before your guy or gal took office. It does make MORE sense to blame SOME of the current problems on dubya, since anything Obama has done is just now having an effect (past psychological), but even in that case, blaming Bushie is just intellectually lazy. No one man, not even the most powerful man in the world, can make the decisions for hundreds of millions of people that make up our economy. Until we all decide to make better financial decisions, stop buying as much junk from China, spending more money that stays here, take better care of ourselves, etc... no government program can save us.
Lord have mercy. This is it for me because I actually have to go pay the mortgage. Did or did not the Clinton Justice Dept threaten mortgage lenders with criminal charges if they were not lending to minorities on the basis of their percentage in the community? They did. Nobody ever got prosecuted, but the banks got the message loud and clear. Minority lending went up. Unfortunately, these were often risky loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, semi-government entities/enriching grounds for ex-Clinton officials started taking over a lot of these risky loans...you know what? Life's too short to explain all this stuff that has been all over the news, you know, reactionary newspapers like the New York Times. I will say that there are rules that banks have to follow, and when those rules change suddenly with no forethought as to the possible consequences, well, we just saw what happens. But apparently it all happened in a vacuum. It was the immaculate recession.
I am absolutely dizzy. Is Lee terry too conservative or too liberal? Is he representing his constituents or pandering to his Party? Does the 2nd want someone that can't play well with others or someone that can?
Some on here hold Mitt Romney up as being more conservative than John McCain. Yet, I read in the OWH this a.m. that he is proud of his State's Reform that has a mandate on purchase (and I like Romney and would have voted for him in the Primary, so don't start yakking!).
As for the person that claims Lee Terry is part of the "old white guy" club, what the Hell are you talking about and, Matt Sakalosky is about as white bread as you get.
Lee Terry is the most diverse of all the candidates currently in the race. He was public school educated, got bused in 9th grade and is extremely active in all parts of this City-not just the rich white parts.
Something that has always bugged me is that a white male Democrat is seen as a better representative for the minority community than a white male or female Republican. Why is that?
Everyone should look outside so we can behold the wisdom of the Nobel committee for giving Al Gore a prize for his global-warming work.
Where would we be without Al Gore?
Oh, I know, drilling in Alaska, drilling LNG off the shores, and not trying to figure out how to pay the extra $50 bucks a month on my local electric bill while china can't build coal fired plants fast enough.
Thanks, Al Gore.
BTW, I choose to thank someone else for the amazing beauty outside this morning, God. He reminds us everyday that a clean slate can be given over night. You just have to be willing to "see" it, when it is put in front of you.
Anon 9:18,
Where did you get your meteorological degree ... Faux News? The phenomena of global warming cannot be disproved merely by looking out your back door, just as Sarah Palin cannot understand foreign policy just because she says she could see Russia from her back porch.
The concept of global warming takes into account the average global temperature. The earth is running a fever, but that doesn't mean that every part of its body is hotter. Just as you can feel chills when running a 105º temperature, the earth can experience areas that are colder while others are hotter.
Global warming is causing severe disturbances in our earth's atmosphere. It is as though our air were all placed in a gigantic blender. The over-heated areas cause low pressure zones that pull colder arctic air further away from the polar regions, resulting in some areas, such as ours, to experience unseasonably colder weather.
Try Googling "global warming" and read what real world scientists have to say about this. It might open your eyes ... and your mind.
I Googled "Global Warming" and found the following information, "Global warming is generated by the hot gases that are created when Democrats like Brian T. Osborne post on subjects in which they have no expertise."
Scientist,
You've got to use the real world computer, not just the fantasy one you see when your head is up your ...
BTO...
See you have a free weekend. Check out the Climate Depot...I'd post a link but SS runs a fairly tight ship. Not to the degree of your pal "Fail-Safe" Fahleson...is that pronounced "Fail Son" or "Folly Son?"
Anyway back to the subject...the "Hockey Stick" is broken...and the planet is cooling down. We are at the beginning of another Maunder Minimum...invest in those wool stocks now.
1/3rd,
I believe in reading peer reviewed articles for their scientific content, but who are the peers of the authors of the Climate Depot ... Limbaugh and Hannity?
Should I believe them or some unknown putz like the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud, who says people should not confuse local weather variability with climate change.
"Just because people in Geneva and elsewhere in Europe are shivering does not mean global warming has stopped," he says, "the trend toward global warming is still there."
is it me or is this getting boring?
5:46, you are right. The sizzling discussion here devolves to calling others a "putz". What's next? Some guy is a "schmuck"? Cutting edge political commentary.
If Matt Sak was looking to endear himself with the Nebraska Republican Party, showing up at their major fundraiser or central committee meeting would be helpful... two things he did not do.
Thank you Anonymii 5:46 and 6:40 for your own extraordinarily exciting additions to the commentary. Hey, 1/3rd, what did you have for dinner?
Hey NEGOPs, how was YOUR dinner last night? Got any bon mots from Mitt to share?
I have never heard of a local party raising $100,000 for their party from holding one dinner. The OWH reported it saying there were around 600 people. Wow! Looks like the Republicans are coming back and are on fire! People are rejecting Obama's policies.
Let's see if the local Democrats can top that? Ok, Democrats now its your turn to bring a national figure into town. Uh, no, Tom White at Barrets or Ben Nelson at the Holiday Inn or Bob Kerrey at the IBEW hall isn't what I mean.
I think its pretty clear that Obama could come into town and raise a ton of money too, probably more than Romney could. This isn't some profound statement... he's the president. Presidents typically stump for candidates they think that can help, and if the race stays tight and gets more national attention, it would be within the realm of possibility that Obama could come back to Omaha and raise a pile of money for White and the local party sometime next year.
This is obviously news, and the money will certainly help the party, but its no evidence of a surge in party support. Its evidence of a popular rising star in the party pulling strings to gain favors... which is exactly what he should be doing right now.
I don't have an up to date copy of the voter registration numbers... that would be the best indicator of where voters minds are right now. Reps are ahead by a bit (2-4 points) on a national generic ballot, but lets be honest here... both parties see Terry as weak and White as the a more viable candidate than Esch was.
Its all speculation at this point though.
Sol,
According to the 2008 registrations on the Sec. of State website:
Douglas
GOP=123,505 (39.2%)
DEM=127,158 (40.3%)
I+3rd=64,624 (20.5%)
Sarpy
GOP=43,404 (47.5%)
DEM=27,369 (29.9%)
I+3rd=20,644 (22.6%)
Combined (n.b. - Sarpy shares with CD1)
GOP=166,908 (41.0%)
DEM=154,527 (38.0%)
I+3rd=85,268 (21.0%)
So, neither party actually has the upper hand. The Independents and the 3rd Party folks will probably be the deciding factor. Maybe Jim Esch is on to something that neither of the major parties realizes.
Meanwhile, in the other two districts, things are pretty much the same old, same old. If Obama shows in Omaha, he could still tip the scales quite heavily. Personally, I'd rather see Al Franken or Alan Grayson. I'd even pay to see either one of them.
BTO, you'd be the only one to pay to see Al Franken. You might want to clap extra hard if you go so he won't get his feelings hurt.
I agree with you that independents in CD2 hold the outcome of the next election but I don't think Jim Esch is onto anything. 21% will only get you more campaign debt.
What "esteemed" Senator made the claim that if we don't pass Net Neutrality, we will become just like Iran?
Weird statement since NN is an internet billing scheme.
Oh, maybe he was just cracking a joke on the Senate floor?
What a fool and America should be ashamed to have people like him representing us worldwide.
macdaddy...
Should Franken show up in Lincoln or Omaha I think he would draw a crowd of more than just BTO...and I doubt BTO would show up.
Seems eastern Nebraska has a little more of a cant to the left than the folks west of Highway 81.
Romney is a Republican longshot...I would vote for him if there was no one better...but he has a problem that many Americans can't get over...his faith. There is a bias in America...duh...and that bias killed his chances in the last go-around. Maybe he could leave his church like Obama did? I don't know that his health care plan in Massachusetts is working all that well either which could be another detractor.
BTO...
We had homemade beef-barley soup...times are tough we don't go out as often. Can't even afford the 8 bucks for the occasional burger and fries at Bullwinkles anymore...and that hurts as they serve the best burgers in all of GI...despite what a new guy coming to town purports. You weren't over at the Speakeasy were you?
I have to watch what I say...I understand that the FTC is going after bloggers that promote business. Maybe I should attach a disclaimer from now on.
By the way, it's franken.
BTO, since you like the internet so much, why don't you send your buddy in the senate an email explaining to him explaining why when he opens his mouth people think he is an idiot.
Then school him on this internet availability thing and how it has nothing to do with the human rights violations that occur every single day in Iran.
1/3rd,
Soup is always good on a snowy day. We grilled steaks at home last night. Trish got Angus on sale! But Speakeasy (shamless plug) is highly recommended despite T.P.'s probably being a Republican.
As for Al Franken, I would wager his I.Q. would shame every other Senator in Washington. I would most certainly be there were he to appear anywhere in Nebraska.
Anon 9:54,
At least TRY to formulate a complete thought before posting. You could practice by talking to you cats.
Damned internet is stealing r's today. Must be those pesky Ianians.
Still boring.
@Brian - I've seen the end of year totals, but I've also been watching both Dem and Rep numbers fall across the country. Nationwide, the total R numbers have fallen more, but D's have lost a bunch too. In our neck of the woods, Obama brought out no small number of people that either didn't vote down ballot, or didn't vote the party line... and it remains to be seen how many of them will pay attention enough to vote. Obama making a visit on White's behalf would certainly help him there.
I'm tempted to go out and buy a voter file with my next paycheck... heheh. 75 bucks is a high price just to satisfy my curiosity though.
@macdaddy - I'm sure Franken would draw a few hundred, but I agree with you that it would hurt White more than help. While ya'll on the right are trying to fashion him as a raving liberal, White is more of an Evan Bayh/DLC type Democrat, so if he brought anyone out I'd guess it would be people like Bayh, Harold Ford, Jr., Cory Booker, Jim Webb, Kathleen Selibelius, Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, Tim Kaine... maybe a Udall brother. And Esch is done with politics I think. Its an extreme rarity for people to run more than twice for the same office.
Al Franken would draw a decent crowd, he's a celebrity Senator.
The Republicans are looking out for their own interests instead of the state of Ne's interest in trying to change the law to winner take all. Shame on GOP on that one.
Does anyone think Jeff Koterba's cartoons are predictable, boring, and very partisan?
Lee Terry is all over the place! I have a recorded message on my machine, I hear he's got another town hall, he's often in the news. This guy is finally working hard and I think he is on his way to an easy win over Tom White.
Someone said we should Recall Tim Dunning rather than Mayor Suttle. No a bad idea.
Chuck Hagels says we need to pass Health Care Reform NOW not later.
Obama's peace prize was way premature. He needs to get something done, people are losing HOPE. THis is a great opportunity for the GOP to present a crediable alternative. I would listen if they do.
I'm not impressed with Jim Esch. He's a young, hip, generation X er who has a cult-like following from the Film Streams, Slowdown crowd. This crowd is often apathetic to real nitty gritty politics, preferring to watch Jon Stewart, live their no values social life and play with their iphones all day. Good luck turning slackers into a political voting block.
Bo Pelini is awesome!
B O R I N G ...
Two of the two posts above said that this discussion is boring.
Over at NNN, they've posted four articles since last Wednesday, the same day this thread went up. LS has had over 100 comments here while a grand total of eight comments have been registered at NNN.
NNN should rethink if their approach is working.
People on here are a lot more civil... or maybe SS is just more vigilant. And the posts here are more about politics, with commentary, where most NNN posts are mostly commentary.
Only thing that bums me out about this site is his posts are about too many things at once. Would be nice if he broke them up by subject.
Sol,
This is the Hyde Park of Nebraska. Everyone pulls up a soapbox and haves at it. Even the bozo that pipes in with his "boring" every now and again, despite never adding anything to the conversation his/her own self.
I think it is debatable that a visit from Obama would help Tom White, but that aside, Obama has shown that he won't even cross town to help a fellow Dem (just ask Creigh Deeds in Virginia) so I doubt that he'll bother coming here since Omaha is not on the way to either Copenhagen or Havana nor is it the favorite date spot of his wife. What remains to be seen is how much of an organization Obama left behind and if he is willing to put that to work for Tom White. I have to say that it was impressive in the last election and it really helped...Obama.
Solomon, we're multitaskers. Or our ADHD has yet to burn out.
Independents in both Sarpy and Douglas will overwhelmingly choose Terry over any Ilk like White. All that needs to be done is to tie Obama to White, not much of a challenge there, and White will go the same path as Esch.
So have your fun, spew your hate, and help get Terry elected. Go figure. It's the economy you silly goose.
Oh and guess what? The Special session will see programs cut, and most Nebraskans will be okay with that.
Get over it.
Best back-and-forth in today's paper:
"But so far the Democrats don't have a candidate to propose change, and it could be months before one is announced. Covalt said it is even possible the party may wait until the state party's convention in July to announce a gubernatorial candidate.
Covalt's Republican counterpart, Mark Fahleson, said, “You do that after someone's died” and you're scrambling to get another candidate."
"Independents in both Sarpy and Douglas will overwhelmingly choose Terry over any Ilk like White. All that needs to be done is to tie Obama to White, not much of a challenge there, and White will go the same path as Esch."
Don't be silly and pretend that you KNOW what independents will or wont do over a year from now. I'd put money on that indies wont vote very much at all next year, and the ones that do wont go 'overwhelmingly' one way or the other. White has the right sort of makeup to catch the eye of moderate indies, but it remains to see whether he can run the campaign needed to overcome incumbent advantages and get those that consider him to actually vote for him.
Spin all you want, but both parties are targeting this race for a reason. Terry isn't on strong footing. White is clearly a stronger/more experienced & connected politician than Esch, but doesn't have that charisma/X factor that Jim has. Trying to label him some leftie trial lawyer isn't going to help with the middle, but it will with the rank and file R's. Terry is despised by Dems (and frankly isn't liked by a lot of Reps), and they smell the blood in the water... they're going to pour they're blood sweat and tears into this one from all over the state.
If it was head to head, neither one an incumbent, I'd say White wins. I give Terry the edge if I had to bet on it right now. And this is coming from a swing voter who tends to lean left... I just haven't been impressed with anything I've seen from White's campaign yet. I know way too much about Terry to ever consider voting for him, but as of right now I'd guess I'll probably not vote for either.
Sol--Agree w/you that there hasn't been anything impressive about White's campaign yet. If he is going to run as a Blue Dog, then the left/progressive vote will stay home--especially since there aren't any statewide race likely to be contested.
Meh... there is always a segment of either party that thinks the eventual candidate is not conservative/liberal enough, or too conservative/liberal (overall or on particular issues)... Terry has won the enmity of the lefties enough that whipping it up a bit shouldn't be too difficult to get most of them to vote AGAINST Terry, even if they don't like White much.
What do you think Brian, you're the token leftie here... Unless Dorsch or Darwin are lurking too? Think Blue Dog White can keep you lefties in line?
The fact that there probably wont be much of a serious governor's race (I'd be extremely surprised if NOBODY stepped up, sacrificial lamb or not) could help or hurt White. Could bring money and volunteer help in from all over the state... Nelson and company could throw his weight White's way... who knows. Could also free up the whole conservative state to help Terry...
Lots of people around here seem to be certain about things that are impossible to actually be certain about for any objective reason. Better than even money has to be on Terry, but a whole ton of people with a lot more information at their fingertips say this one is going to be a tough one. They wouldn't be wasting their time and money on this race if they didn't have a good reason to do so.
Post a Comment