Thursday, October 15, 2009

White straight-faced

In an interview with Don Walton of the LJS, Democrat State Senator Tom White said that he would have voted for President Obama's 900 billion dollar "stimulus" bill.

And then he says...
  • He would work to "control spending";
  • He would work to prevent "prevent new deficit spending";
  • In his present job he'll "oppose any effort to increase taxes".
So, ya got that?

In FAVOR of blowing $900 billion on ham.
But pledges to "control spending".

Mr. Walton does not indicate whether or not he spit coffee all over White after he burst out laughing.

Tom White also says that the people of the 2nd District should elect him because he is a Democrat and the Dems are in the majority in DC, so... you know...Democrats.

Remarkably, not an argument you heard from any Dems when the GOP held the House.

Nor an argument you heard from White in his last campaign for the Republican dominated Unicameral.

And by the way, it would be nice if the Dems could put up a candidate -- ANY candidate -- that the people of Lincoln could vote for. Poor Don Walton can only kidnap Tom White and make him drink so many cups of coffee in Haymarket so many times...


Anonymous said...

Tom White was on state Senator Brenda Council's TV show last night. It was entertaining to watch him suck up to her by agreeing with almost everything she had to say on both state and federal policies plus those evil Republicans. He sure didn't put any emphasis on cutting taxes or controlling spending with her, just like he wouldn't if elected to Congress. It's good to see him pandering for the black panther party endorsement and vote in 2010.

Botton of the Fifth said...

Anyone watch Daily Show last night? MJ did not make me a proud Nebraskan.

The Daily Show may be a left wing comedy show, but RAPE is not a joke and should be addressed every bit as seriously as the Acorn scandal.

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

Agreed- Johanns really sank low by voting against Sen Franken's amendment. That totally disgusts me.

And Anon- you're aligning Brenda Council with the black panther party? Have a little more respect for her, please.

Right Wing Professor said...

White says people should elect him because he's a Dem and the majority party wields power....ah, but will they be the majority party in 2010?

And let me ask bottom of the fifth a question: since the Department of Defense opposed the Franken amendment, does this indicate Obama doesn't take rape seriously?

Incidentally, selling underage girls into prostitution, which the ACORN rep in San Diego promised to help with, is not just rape, but conspiracy to aid and abet rape, multiple counts.

These guys don't take rape seriously. They use rape as a political tool.

Bottomof the Fifth said...


No one is contesting what Acorn did was wrong and that is why MJ's amendments received bipartisan support.

Similarly, a bipartisan Senate including ten republican voted to protect victims of sexual assualt through the Franken Amendment.

MJ's action against Acorn were just and proper. It is HIS vote on the Franken Amendment which warrants the disapproval.

The issue is not what other people did or did not do. The issue is did MJ's vote represent your Nebraska values/ did his vote make you proud to have voted for him?

So I ask RWP, how would you have voted on the Franken Amendment?

Anonymous said...

SS, I can't believe you didn't take a minute to point out that Tom White gave his Democrat Senator Ben Nelson a vote of "no confidence" in reference to White's concerns about OAFB. Doesn't he understand that Senator Nelson is the man that failed the 2nd District in his representation on the Armed Forces Committee. It is his fault that the 2nd District didn't get those jobs.

I wonder if Ben is still happy to have hosted that fundraiser for White at Bob Batt's house last August?

Right Wing Professor said...

I would not have voted for the amendment in its current form, which forbids arbitration not just in cases of sexual assault, but also "intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, retention and supervision. The amendment also covers civil rights claims of workplace discrimination".

It looks to me that Franken opportunistically used one alleged instance of brutal rape to piggy-back a trial lawyer's shopping list of torts and make them immune from arbitration. If he cared about rape, the amendment would have covered rape, not everything else he figured he could get in.

Pretty sleazy to use rape in this fashion.

Anonymous said...

I think most could agree that denying a woman her day in court who has been gang-raped is sleezy.

Anonymous said...

I thought "Binny" was one of the top 50 most powerful in DC, not according to tommy boy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:51, I'd have to have some respect for Brenda Council to be able to have "a little more" respect for her. Chances of that happening, absolutely zero.

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

Just so you all know -- while this comment section veered off to the Franken amendment -- if you want to have your comment deleted, just suggest that someone is "in favor of" rape.

Anonymous said...

Looks like SS wants to protect Mikey and his vote. Truth hurts.

Anonymous said...

And he wants to hide the fact that Tom White raised over $204,000 his first quarter.

Street Sweeper said...

L. St. provides a free-flowing discussion, as the previous comments demonstrate.

We seek to keep out dipshits, however.


Anonymous said...

Should private defense contractors and their employees be exempt from U.S. criminal law? Should employers be able to write into their employees' contracts that they can *only* bring claims against their employer through private arbitration under the employer?

This is a pretty clear cut issue that's neither Democratic or Republican. No individual or company should be exempt from U.S. criminal law.

Doug said...

Two questions:

1. Terry voted for the bank bailout (after he voted against it) and would make those exact same statements. Should we laugh him right out of office?

2. The Dow closed over 10,000 yesterday. Where do you think the market (and the economy generally) would be without an injection of approximately $300 billion to date and $600 billion more on the way?

Anonymous said...

anon @ 10:06... so, i know i'm clearly not up to speed here, but what TV show?

Right Wing Professor said...

Should private defense contractors and their employees be exempt from U.S. criminal law?

They are not, and never have been, exempt from U.S. criminal law.

The issue was whether they could use binding arbitration to avoid civil lawsuits. In the Jamie Leigh Jones case, the problem with criminal prosecution was lack of jurisdiction, if I'm understanding the case correctly. The rape occurred in Iraq. The DOJ -- now Eric Holder's DOJ -- has decided it can't prosecute.

For people are so outraged about the case, you Dems sure don't seem to know much about it. the Franken amendment concerns arbitration and civil liability, not criminal liability. And you wonder why some of us think this is a cynical opportunistic attempt to politically exploit a woman's tragic rape.

macdaddy said...


In order for the government to give the money, they first have to take it from somebody else. It's actually a net negative.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of bad pics, does White even take a good one?

Thanks for posting Ian, White's report is not posted for anyone to see yet, why accuse SS of hiding the cherry picking that he's been doing for 6 months?

Why not file it with the FEC so all us normal people can see who is buying time with the Senator White?

Anonymous said...

Senator Johanns needs to clarify his position in regards to the Franken Amendment. I for one, would like to hear his explanation of this controversial vote.

Speak Senator Johanns...we are waiting!

Anonymous said...

Thank God for Jon Stewart because the OWH and the Leavenworth Street blog never reported how Johanns voted against rape victims!

Anonymous said...

Johanns owes all victims of rape an apology!

Anonymous said...


Right Wing Professor said...

It looks like you now have a flood of mindless spam on the Franken amendment, Sweeper. Sorry to have added to the thread drift, but I couldn't let the false and malicious characterization of Johanns' vote go unchallenged.

It is noticeable that all the 'rape' comments are anonymous. It's easy to spread malicious lies about someone when you don't have to stand by your words. Easy, but chicken-5h17.

Anonymous said...

The Daily Numbers ...

Terry beat White for the Quarter.

Terry has beat White for the cycle.

Terry has alot more cash on hand than White.

Any questions?

Anonymous said...

More Numbers:

This should have been a boffo Qtr for White. What happened?

Terry-----> raised $226,000
White-----> 204,000

Terry wins the Quarter.

For the cycyle so far:

Terry-----> raised $512,000
White-----> 204,000

Terry wins the cycle.

Cash on Hand

Terry-----> $335,000
White-----> $197,000 (maybe)

Terry wins the CoH battle.

White is 0-3.

Anonymous said...

I'll be happy to recall Johanns: nice guy, liked Swedish meatballs.

Anonymous said...

After all of the 'hype' on White, I'm surprised he only raised $204,000. Why not more?

Anonymous said...

White claims to have only spent $7,000 this quarter.


If they held expenses back until 10/1, his real cash on hand is probably $130,000.

Anonymous said...

You can't "hold back" expenses from the FEC. I assume both sides know that you pay bills as they arrive.

Brian T. Osborn said...

RWP and others,

As always, I do sign my name, and I will go on record as having found the Johanns vote on the Franken amendment deplorable. To even consider that a defense contractor can force potential employees to abdicate their rights, if they want a job, is Un-American. I don't really care if the sexual harassment is a "civil" or a "criminal" matter ... it is wrong ... PERIOD! And contractors should not be allowed an easy out.

Anonymous said...


I will tell you my name if you tell me yours.

The fact is Johanns was playing politics earlier. His anger at Acorn, a bad, but fake crime, seems hollow when compared to his anger at a real and actual crime, gang rape.

If Joha was so against the section in the amendment you mentioned, why did he not take to the floor and offer "your" amendments?

Right Wing Professor said...

My name is on my blog. Just click on the 'Right Wing Professor'.

Amending the amendment was not possible within the rules of the Senate. Senator Sessions noted that in fact, the 5th circuit court of appeals had judged Jones' complaint as outside the bounds of her employment contract, and that therefore Franken's amendment was no longer germane; her binding arbitration clause did not in fact block her from suing. He also pointed out the Department of Defense had asked him to oppose the amendment, because it was written, not to cover sexual assault, but virtually any employment dispute. That's Obama's Department of Defense. Franken then immediately asked for yeas and neas.

ACORN's problems date to long before the pimp/hooker sting.

You can find my email address on my blog; I'll be expecting an email.

Uncle Wiggily said...

Sweet Jeeebus ... what's wrong with these folks? All you gotta do to find out RWP's id is click on his "RWP". The prof makes absolutely no secret of who he is and what he does and what he believes.

And btw ... he is absolutely correct in his analysis of this whole 'Johanns votes for rape' thang. Everyone (except RWP) seems to think the unfortunate victim has been prevented by Halliburton from pursuing criminal charges against her attackers when in fact, it was our own Justice Department that decided not to prosecute.

Learn the facts people ... the only recourse that the Franken Amendment provides for this poor girl is the right to bring civil suit against Halliburton who, as far as I know, had nothing to do with her being raped (she has the right to go to arbitration, but apparently feels that won't be fair). But in the liberal world, by Gawd, them fatcat rich guys gotta pay. Why aren't they pounding on Holdren's door and asking why his office decided to pass on this one. Oh ... let's also remember that the DoD also opposed this amendment - has anyone asked them why?

I'm very sorry for this girl ... but I don't see how this "stab the rich" amendment helps her as much as a criminal prosecution would.

Or did I miss something?

Gerard Harbison, aka RWP said...


Thanks. In fact, the Franken Amendment doesn't even give her the right to bring suit (ex post facto law, etc.) -- but that's OK, the courts have already found she can bring suit anyway.

The Franken amendment, I've been told by people who actually know something about it, will be dumped in conference committee, because even the Dems know that wiping out all binding arbitration would be a terrible idea. It's completely shambolic. But this is a completely shambolic Congress. They're playing to people who get their political views ready made from Comedy Central, they're represented by low comics like Al Franken -- you can hardly expect actual substance.

Anonymous said...

And funny enough, binding arbitration is a Democrat thing, that is why they will let franken parade this woman around the Hill for the rhetorical publicity, let him open his mouth about something he knows nothing about, and then dump it during conference so as not to piss off their union thugs.

Brian T. Osborn said...

When President Clinton couldn't keep his pony in the barn you guys were all over him like stink on a cow pie. But when Halliburton's boys do even worse, you trip all over yourselves trying to turn it into a debate about those Democrat lowlifes.

Let's face it, most of your arguments have more to do with partisanship than it does facts.

Uncle Wiggily said...

In my post above (7:10 PM, 10/15/09) I mistyped "Holdren" instead of "Holder". So many scoundrels in the Obama-cile I sometimes confuse them.