Seven Days

Let's start thing out, seven days out, with a little City Council SAB, District 5 style:

Candidate Jon Blumenthal and Scrubs actor, Zach Braff:

Candidate Jean Stothert and Night Court actress, Markie Post:

***

Seven days left as things get frenetic in the campaign corridors.

Lotsa ads. Lotsa mail. Lotsa door to door.

And the OWH has the latest on the NADC money numbers for the three Mayoral candidates.

Once again, Hal Daub has a fairly commanding lead in the money raised, and has also spent significantly more than Jim Suttle of Jim Vokal.

Suttle has more Cash On Hand going into the final week, but...what does that extra cash do for you if you don't make it into the final two? If he is saving it, does that indicate that he is confident...or foolhardy?

Vokal is much lower in all three columns, but is it enough to get him through the Primary? And if he does get through, is it a whole new money-raising ball game? One would think so. But he has to get past Tuesday first.

April 7th has the potential to be a long night.

***

Some interesting dynamics are at stake for Tuesday. For one, Primary turnout, at least in the last two city-wide elections, has been significantly lower than the General.

In 2001, Primary v.s General turnout was 25% to 45%. In 2005 it was 16% to 25%. However, note that in neither of those Mayoral Primaries were there more than two candidates -- so voters didn't have any real reason to hustle to the polls, unless there was a contested City Council Primary.

In 2001 there were several heavily contested Council Primaries, but the real battle was the knockdown-dragout between Mike Fahey and Hal Daub that came down to around a thousand votes in the General.

But this year's Primary will be a bit different, and that could have unusual effects.

With the Mayor's race between a big three, that should bring out the hard-core voters without any problem. 

Council District 3 is highly competitive, so turnout shouldn't be much of an issue there.

But the rest? With mainly head to head match-ups, would voters who don't care which Mayoral candidates make it to the general (or maybe if they believe the CW that Hal Daub is way ahead), not bother turning out?

Voting history (generally) says, that if there is a two-person race, the candidate who wins the primary wins the general.

So you look at three potentially close races:

District 2
Frank Brown vs. Ben Gray

District 5
 Jean Stothert vs. Jon Blumenthal

District 6
Franklin Thompson vs. Walt Peffer

Pick the winner next Tuesday and in all likelihood, you've picked your winner for the general.

Jim Vokal's 2005 hotly contested race with Anne Boyle was a good indicator. Though Vokal was an incumbent, he was Republican running in a Democrat district, against an opponent with high name ID.

The Primary was 51.59% - 47.88% Vokal.
And the General was...51.99% - 47.46% Vokal.

(Chuck Sigerson's 2001 race, where he won 57% and 52% in the Primary and General, shows that as well.)

If you're coming in second in a three or more-way primary, you've still got hope, and maybe even a good chance -- note for District 3 candidates.

But in the others? Unless it's razor thin, you better win in Tuesday's primary.

We're not saying it's over. But you've got lots and lots of ground to make up.

***

The Weird Harold is back.

The World Herald is what?

Check out WeirdHarold.com. You'll get several chuckles.

Bachelors and Endorsements

We read various stories recently about Senator Mike Johanns moving out of his U.S. Senate Doublewide trailer into an actual Senate office in the Russell building. We were curious however, to see what the inside of this badboy looked like.

And here ya go: a real, live, portable Senate office! (At least it was yesterday, anyway.)

In a story in the Politico, Johanns noted how the close proximity allowed him to become closer with his staff:

The bright side is that I’ve been kept up-to-date on all the latest news by my staff: what’s happening on the Senate floor, legislative proposals and even the latest events from ‘The Bachelor.’ 

In fact, the staff is convinced one of our LAs could be a look-alike for the latest bachelor.” (The LA’s name is T.J. Birkel.)

T.J. isn't in that particular staff pic (he may have been out picking up roses.) So we instead offer you a Separated at Birth featuring the most recent The Bachelor, Jason Mesnick and (a blurry-cam photo of) Johanns staffer, T.J. Birkel:

***

Nebraska Right to Life came out with their endorsements for the city primaries in Omaha and Lincoln. They are as follows:

OMAHA MAYORAL RACE
Hal Daub
Jim Vokal

OMAHA CITY COUNCIL
Dist. 1------Sharon Chvala
Dist. 2------No Endorsements
Dist. 3------Chip Maxwell (sole endorsement due to NRL PAC policy of showing preference to grassroots pro-life activists).
Dist. 4------No Endorsements
Dist. 5------Jon Blumenthal & Jean Stothert
Dist. 6------Franklin Thompson (sole endorsement due to NRL PAC policy of showing preference to incumbent)
Dist. 7------Chuck Sigerson (incumbent)

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL
3 At Large Positions------Adam Hornung & Ken Svoboda (incumbent)

LINCOLN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION
Dist. 1------Kirby Young
Dist. 3------No Endorsements
Dist. 5------Norman Dority, Kevin Keller & Mike Laughter
Dist. 7------Andrew Ringsmuth

(Note that Jim Vokal was added yesterday in the Omaha Mayor's race, as NRtL said they received his response late.)

We often get asked why NRtL and other groups bother endorsing candidates in races for positions where abortion seldom comes up. Here is what we said regarding this last year:

Here is why said candidate's opinion on a hot button issue, like abortion, matters in a race like City Council, where there are few abortion issues the Council could impact:

The future viability of that candidate. 

Say Candidate X gets elected to the Council. Then Candidate X will have a much easier time getting elected to the next level, be that Mayor, legislature, Congress or what have you.

That is why Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups get involved with candidates that don't have much say on their issues...now.

As he or she gets more political experience and become more a viable candidates, he or she will have a better chance of election to the next level. They will have more of an "incumbent's chance" than simply coming out of no where, no matter their views on specific issues.

That is why those hot-button issues in a race like City Council still matter.

And here was an additional comment by NRtL's Julie Schmidt-Albin:

SS said it well on why pro-life PACS care about Weed Board, Community College, County Board and yes, City Council races.

I might add to that that indeed for the Lincoln City Council, abortion was an issue from 1991-1995 while they were voting for money in the city budget to go to Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers showed up en massse for council budget hearings that went into the wee hours to speak against such funding. At the time we made the case that PP was tied to abortion and in 1995 did open its own freestanding abortion facility in Lincoln.

Former Lincoln City Councilman Ken Haar voted for the PP funding those years. He is the husband of Chris Funk, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska/Council Bluffs. And Ken Haar just happens to be running for Legislature in LD 21. Another PP candidate, Barb Baier, won election to the Lincoln School Board. Now she's trying to move up the ladder to the Lancaster County Board. There has been controversy about the county awarding Keno funds to PP.

So yes these issues can crop up at the local level but as SS illuminated, candidates with ambition have to start somewhere, and oftentimes it's county and city races.

And if you're still thinking about it, look no further than former City Councilmen, Adrian Smith, Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Mike Johanns.

By the way, we're not promoting of demoting any of these candidates because of this endorsement, or lack there of. 

But we can guarantee that other people do.

***

The OWH continues their profiles of the Mayoral candidates today, with their review of Jim Suttle.

After going on and on about what a strange bird Suttle is, how Mike Boyle can only say, "He's very organized, " and how Mayor Mike Fahey isn't even endorsing the only Democrat in the race, we get this piece:

The chill continued a month later, when Suttle started to speak during a council meeting. Some of his six colleagues tuned him out. One stared ahead. One stifled a giggle. One studied papers. Another turned his back.

"That's politics," Suttle said. "I'm a big boy. I sucked it up and life went on."

Suttle said that the actions were clearly meant to embarrass him but that the embarrassment belonged to colleagues who played political games instead of doing what was right for Omahans.

That's politics???

That's some bizarre stuff...

***

From the OWH, there was just a bit of a RRRrrrrRAR!, cat-fight, coming from the Nebraska Breakfast in DC.

Lee Terry said,

"Now whenever anyone needs money, you know, for a project with the NRD, you go to the guy that's senior in the Senate on Appropriations. So let's hear it for Ben Nelson."

Nelson then got up and said:

"And then when I help you out, Lee will criticize the earmark."

Later, Terry hit Nelson with the non-apology-apology:

"Ben could call me a hypocrite, but the reality is what I've called for is that there needs to be limitations and there needs to be transparency and that earmarks had gotten out of control.  I'm sorry that Ben was offended by that." (emphasis ours)

Chuckle.

Police Union still hates Vokal

The Omaha Police Officers Association took another jab at Jim Vokal this week -- this time in a TV ad entitled, "Omaha needs leaders not politicians".

See it here:



The ad is running on KETV and cable for a relatively small buy of 200 GRPs over the next two weeks.

But lets back up to the two mailers that the Police Union sent out a few weeks back. Remember those? The ones that were done totally because the Union was just concerned about public safety votes? That's what the Union said, right? OK, let's go ahead and throw that argument into the crapper.

The Police Union has spelled out in this ad that they're pissed at Vokal for suggesting that they take a smaller percentage of their pay for their pension payment, as well as the spiking issue that Vokal says he will address if elected.

But the basis of this ad is on the first screen statement (and thanks for the handy sub-titles, video production person. Doesn't get any more basic than that, eh?): "Jim Vokal voted twice to increase police pensions and reduce the age of retirement."

We asked the Vokal camp for a response to this and here's what we got:

Jim Vokal voted against the fire contract that passed the council. He voted for the most recent police contract after the police union threatened a potential million-dollar lawsuit against the city to receive the same benefits as the firefighters received. The police contract would have passed with or without his vote.

Regardless, no member of the city council voted to “increase police pensions” as the ad claims. The pensions are increasing because of spiking and abuse of overtime by police retirees.

Limiting overtime is the management responsibility of the mayor and police chief, not a contractual issue, and as mayor Jim will get overtime and pension spiking under control.

Now, you be the judge whether you think Vokal is trying to have it both ways on this issue. The other side would likely argue that he should own up to the vote, before coming up with a new plan.

***

But the interesting political part here, isn't so much the issue itself, as the Police Union's tactics.

How much of this is simply a vendetta by Police Union President Aaron Hanson against Vokal?

Well, during contract negotiations back in April of 2008, the Police Union proposed that retired officers get as much as 99% of their base pay. Vokal, in the OWH, said:

"Shocked is an understatement when I saw the latest offer from the police union. It's way out of line. It's not the direction we should be going."

In the Omaha Police Union's newsletter, The Shield, Hanson then had this to say:

On Tuesday April 8th, two members of the city council, Chuck Sigerson and Jim Vokal, took the unprecedented step of revealing a confidential union contract offer to the City of Omaha.

Their premature rush to judgment and poorly thought out inflammatory public statements were potentially very damaging to any future good-faith attempts at collaboration to address our pension-funding dilemma. 

Their antics make it hard to have any confidence that these two councilmen, once considered good friends to Omaha Police officers, could ever be engaged in trust-based good-faith negotiations with us ever again.

It isn’t the fact they disagreed with our concepts that has served to damage our past good relationship and trust, a lot of politicians do that from time to time, but rather the purely political and self serving manner in which they disagreed that makes it so unforgivable.

(emphasis ours.)

So there you go. Message sent. If you cross the Union, they will come at you with guns blazing (as it were).

***

In case you missed it, the OWH did their first in a series of "profiles" on the Omaha Mayoral candidates -- beginning with Hal Daub.

The piece made us scratch our heads a little. The article makes a glancing reference to Daub's work as Mayor to put the Qwest Center and other projects in place, and lists his resume, but otherwise concentrates on the old adage that Daub is "argumentative". That's pretty much it.

And to pump that, they make Daub admit that he's "passionate", and then quiz Lee Terry about Daub's personality and dig up former Councilman Lormong Lo from Arkansas to say the same thing.

Don't talk about what his experience can do. Don't feature how his work on Ways and Means helps him to better understand the tax code. Just that he's "fundamentally the same guy that Omahans either love or loathe."

Well, that was awfully helpful, eh?

***

And last but not least, here is a Separated at Birth suggested to us by a reader:

Democrat State Senator Bill Avery of Lincoln, and the old guy from the upcoming Pixar movie, "Up".


State Senator Scott Lautenbaugh is working on a bill in the Legislature these days to exempt cigar bars from the general ban on smoking in public places. There aren't a lot of people who like smoke in their faces while they are trying to eat, or watch a game or whatever.

But hey, when you're in a cigar-freaking-bar, it is expected that there will be, oh maybe CIGAR SMOKE in there, right? It's pretty much in the name of the place. You're in a grocery store, you're going to smell groceries. You're in a Law Office, you're going to smell gas. It's understood.

So, along with the fact that it seems outright un-American that a bill under the misused rubric of "public safety" or whatever they're claiming is putting businesses out of business, this law seems to be hitting the wrong type of place.

Well, don't tell that to Senator Avery. Here's Avery's "screw you cigar bars!" argument, according to the OWH:

But opponents said the bill would leave cigar bar employees subject to secondhand smoke and invite other groups to seek additional exemptions to the smoking ban.

"We open the door to cigar bars and pretty soon we don’t have a smoking ban," said Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln.

Senator, here's a job-tip: Don't like the smell of hogs? Don't apply at the rendering plant. Blood turns you off? Don't bother dropping that resume at the hospital. Cigar smoke is a problem? Maybe...just maybe...you shouldn't be working at the cigar bar.

Hopefully the next time you do open the door to a cigar bar, you get a blast from a Macanudo.

OWH endorses Vokal and Daub

In their Sunday editorial, the Omaha World Herald endorsed Hal Daub and Jim Vokal for the April 7th Mayoral Primary. The OWH didn't pick between Daub and Vokal, however.

Of Vokal, the OWH says:

Vokal has shown himself to be a level-headed, dedicated two-term councilman. Although he is a Republican and Mayor Mike Fahey is a Democrat, Vokal hasn’t indulged in small-minded partisan game-playing. On the contrary, he has encouraged productive, respectful relations between the City Council and the Mayor’s Office.

That is the type of mature, nonpartisan leadership Omaha needs.

Vokal has a background in finance and real estate, and he approaches city management from the perspective of a practical businessman. He places particular emphasis on having city departments headed by managers with top-flight administrative skills. He is resolute in saying that the key to solving the city’s budget challenges lies in spending restraint.

Of Daub, they say:

He rightly notes that it was during his watch as may or that the groundwork was laid for many of the central strategic decisions from which Omaha is now benefiting, above all the Qwest Center and the river front development.

Although he is running for mayor this year at age 67, Daub displays the energy and mental sharpness of someone decades younger. Mention any facet of city government, and the ever-quick Daub replies with an analysis that is both knowledgeable and astute. That was the case in the mayoral debate on Wednesday.

However, the OWH does take one dig at Daub (which they did not against Vokal):

But does the Hal Daub of 2009 possess the diplomatic skills to bring people together? That is one of the key questions of this year’s mayoral contest, not least since Vokal earns high marks for pursuing constructive cooperative relations.

And of Jim Suttle? They note:

A disappointment in Suttle’s mayoral run this year has been his overpromising statements about taxes.

His campaign literature states: “Jim will reduce property taxes by eliminating waste, modernizing city government and making more city services available.”

Yet when asked by The World-Herald about that statement, Suttle said he wasn’t necessarily promising to reduce the amount of taxes for any particular Omaha household. But if that’s the case, one wonders whether the English language — as in, “Jim will reduce property taxes” — still has any meaning at all.

***

Of course with the OWH's track record, this non-endorsement could be a boon for Suttle. He may blare it from a sound-truck rolling around the Qwest Center tonight, and voters may say, "Hmmm. The OWH hates him. That Jim Suttle just may be my guy...."

The other curious part about their endorsement is that it doesn't exactly help you when you go into the voting booth. Let's put it in a way the modern "voter" can understand:

The Mayoral Primary vote is "American Idol" style, not "Survivor" style. In other words, you're not voting someone out -- you're voting FOR someone, and the top to "For" votes go on to the General. So as much as you want to get rid of Sanjaya (here, Suttle), you'll just have to hope that your pro-Ruben Studdard (the combined weight of Daub and Vokal) vote gets you there.

And in all seriousness, you have to wonder if the endorsement for two Republicans will simply cause the GOP vote to be split and allow Suttle to sneak in. We actually don't think this will be the case, but there's an interesting argument to be made for it.

***

The OWH's editorial also referenced last Wednesday's Mayoral debate. If you really want to watch it (and you didn't catch it on Cox, because you have a life), you can get it at the Omaha Chamber of Commerce's web site.

Note: The first TEN minutes is a little "ad" for the young professionals and OWH columnist Robert Nelson attempting a nervous comedy routine. If you're the type inclined to watch this in the first place, feel free to skip to the ten minute mark.

***

On the flap regarding the who voted for or did not vote for a property tax increase last week, we promised a follow-up, and we will in about an hour or so. Come back in a bit.

***

UPDATE

As we had mentioned in an earlier post, in the Wednesday and Thursday debates Hal Daub repeatedly stated that, of the three candidates, he was the only one who lowered property taxes while in office.

Jim Vokal responded, indirectly, saying that he had always voted against raising property taxes during his eight years on the Council.

After the debate, the Daub camp made the following statement:

On September 21, 2001, Jim Vokal voted for a property tax increase. The vote, on Resolution #2430, raised our mill levy by 2 percent, from 42.523 to 43.387.

Councilman Chuck Sigerson bellowed back:

"To say that by certifying the budget, I'm voting for a tax increase is not only dishonest, it's a blatant lie".

The Vokal camp responded saying:

Mayor Fahey proposed a 1.5 increase. Council passed a budget with zero increase. Fahey put his increase back in. The issue came back to the Council the next week, and the Council was unable to over- ride the veto with Marc Kraft out of town. Vokal, Sigerson, Welch, and Thompson voted to override. Brown and Gernandt vote no.

The Council then passed the budget on a 6-0 vote, and the next week certified the tax rate to support the budget on a 7-0 vote, because state law says the Council is obligated to certify a budget and a tax rate and the city attorney recommended a positive vote.

So if the Council couldn't override the Mayor's veto, what happens? Those Council members, Vokal and Sigerson included, say that at that point their hands are tied, and they are stuck with the budget, so they just are voting, essentially, that there is a budget and a mil levy and there you go. But at that point, can they still do more?

The argument from Daub's perspective would go something like this:

The Council and Mayor still have an opportunity to hammer out a mutually acceptable budget before it even gets to the point of the final vote -- to set/accept/certify.

There would have been an opportunity to get to a point where there was a mutually acceptable budget. But the Council, including Vokal, ended up agreeing to accept the property tax increase. This is why the vote to set the tax rate is not merely a formality or technicality.

What it should be, but does not have to be, is a resolution that has already been “debated”. So a Council member could still vote “no” on the action to set the rate, but one would hope that the deal was worked out prior to the vote.

***

In the end, if no agreement for a lower mil levy could be agreed to, could or should the Council have dug in their heels and not voted for the increase? We're not sure what happens at that point -- a government shutdown or the like. And if it is "illegal" to not pass a budget (and mil levy), what happens? Do people go to jail?

Or the other question is, could Vokal (or the others) have voted, "present" or just had a minority vote "no" on the the budget and the property tax increase, as sort of a protest vote? If Vokal had done this, there would certainly be no question at this point.

So we leave it up to you to decide (if this matters to you) who did what or should have done which.

***

The other part of this is what makes the news and how this is portrayed.

Daub says he's a tax-cutter and that Vokal is a tax raisers. Vokal says he is a tax protecter, and that "same ol' Hal Daub" is playing politics with the facts. 

We will say this: Vokal wants to egg Daub into arguments like this -- where it can look like Hal is being "negative". Especially in something where people may or may not understand the voting procedures (and Sigerson helps Vokal on this). 

Daub on the other hand can argue that Vokal isn't doing what he says, and can do his best to let others take the fall on any perceived negatives. So it will be interesting to see how both sides play this issue, if it becomes one of the main points of the campaign.

Vokal will/should say:

"Hal, you know that Dan Welch and Chuck Sigerson and I all voted against raising property taxes, and that the final vote was simply procedural. You're lying about my record for politics sake, and Omahans are tired of that. I have been and will continue to be against property tax increases."

Daub will/should say:

"Jim, I respectfully disagree with your position that your vote to increase property taxes for Omahans was procedural. But be that as it may, we can both agree that I am the only candidate who actively lowered Omahan's property taxes while in office. And that is a record that has benefited Omahans, and I hope to continue that work as their next Mayor."

Or some such.

And Suttle? He's in favor of "jobs", or something.

Fight! Smash! Win!

Why the violent headline? A 2009 campaign theme? Nah.

It's the new single from the new band, Street Sweeper -- featuring Tom Morello  of Rage Against the Machine and (avowed Communist) Boots Riley of The Coup .

Hear their new single "Fight! Smash! Win" at StreetSweeperMusic.com. (They'll be touring with Nine Inch Nails and Jane's Addiction.)

Has Leavenworth Street been unmasked? You be the judge...

***

In yesterday's Omaha Mayoral debate hosted by the League of Women Voters, Hal Daub stated that he is the only candidate who has fought property tax hikes and lowered property taxes.

Jim Vokal spoke up to say that he too has never voted to raise properyt taxes in his eight years in office.

After the debate, the Daub camp sent out a release which stated:

On September 21, 2001, Jim Vokal voted for a property tax increase. The vote, on Resolution #2430, raised our mill levy by 2 percent, from 42.523 to 43.387.

Councilman Chuck Sigerson, when contacted about this, railed back saying 

"To say that by certifying the budget, I'm voting for a tax increase is not only dishonest, it's a blatant lie".

So, what's going on here?

As the City Clerk has pointed out, on that the City Council voted 6-0 to certify City Budget.

The Vokal camp argues it like this:

Mayor Fahey proposed a 1.5 increase. Council passed a budget with zero increase. Fahey put his increase back in. The issue came back to the Council the next week, and the Council was unable to over- ride the veto with Marc Kraft out of town. Vokal, Sigerson, Welch, and Thompson voted to override. Brown and Gernandt vote no.

The Council then passed the budget on a 6-0 vote, and the next week certified the tax rate to support the budget on a 7-0 vote, because state law says the Council is obligated to certify a budget and a tax rate and the city attorney recommended a positive vote.

We asked the Daub camp about this -- was it just a procedural vote, and why should it, or should it not count. And better yet, What Would Hal Have Done (WWHHD)?

Brinker Harding responded to us that:

"WWHHD? (What Would Hal Have Done)- What Hal did as mayor was lower the mil levy. He did not increase taxes."

He is getting back to us on the rest of it, and we will update.

As of yet, the Suttle camp has not responded to our request for info.

(**Update**  As pointed out by a commenter, Suttle was not on the Council until 2005, so he wouldn't necessarily comment on this particular issue.  )

We didn't bother asking Randy Brown, who did a swell job with the other three candidates at the debate. We're guessing that maybe Mort Sullivan is in..a bunker somewhere?

***
In any case, loads of fun on this one. And what's the answer?

Should the Council members who opposed the tax increase have voted against the budget, in principal? Did it have to be a unanimous vote to certify in the end? What happens if they dig in their heels and the vote is not certified? We would guess at some point people would stop being paid and the government would "shut down". Is that a "who blinks first" situation?

We're not sure of the answers on this. We will update as we get more info and invite your comments as well.

***


And a shout-out to the EARLY campaign going on in the Third Congressional District. A former resident of Alliance, Nebraska has moved back to Nebraska from Washington, D.C. to run against Congressman Adrian Smith in 2010.

Her name is Rebekah Davis. She's a twenty-seven year old Indiana University and (wait for it)...Yale University grad! She got a masters degree in divinity from Yale. She had been working in D.C. up until December or so last year. And BOOM! three months after her return to Nebraska, time to run for Congress!

City Council? State Legislature? Weed Commissioner? Nope, Ms. Davis is ready to head right back to D.C., Third Districters. She even has a website (so to speak).

Let the campaign begin.

Debatable

We will review last night's cocktail party Mayoral Debate, moderated by Johnny Cash, soon. (See Updates throughout the day, below.)

In the mean time, put up your comments and view the round-up of reviews and links (with embedded video below):

OWH

WOWT

KETV

KMTV

KPTM

**Update at 9:30 am**

A few notes, that we'll update through the day:

* What was with the cocktail lounge setting? Each of the candidates looked like they were waiting for their wives to get back from the bathroom. 

Why not little tea-candles at each table, and a list of the drink specials?

* Jim Suttle said, 

"I think the sacredness is setting up the mayor's office as a leadership pulpit instead of a bully pulpit."

And that's cute and all -- and is meant as a dig to Hal Daub's time as Mayor -- except that he apparently doesn't understand the term "Bully Pulpit". The term was coined by President Teddy Roosevelt, who liked the word "Bully" --meaning "superb" or "wonderful". As Wikipedia says,

A bully pulpit is a public office of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the forefront that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity.

The term "bully" in that phrase has nothing to do with "being a bully."  And once again, it's interesting to see that Councilman Kookypants has no idea what he's talking about.

* As I finish filling out my brackets, I got to thinking: Whose idea was it to schedule today's debate at noon?  Right on the first day of the NCAA Tourney?  These are the same people who schedule a wedding during a Nebraska football game. 

Omaha Mayoral Brackets

First Mayoral "debates" tonight and tomorrow-- though there have been various canidate forums before tonight.  Here are the details:

Young Professionals Mayoral Debate -Networking Event

Wednesday, March 18, 2009
6:30 - 9:30 p.m.

Join young professionals 40 and under from across the city for the Young Professionals Mayoral Debate. This is an opportunity to meet with and get to know candidates while learning about their positions on community issues.

The evening will include a meet and greet prior to the debate and then a reception following where you will be able to network and visit with the candidates.

There is no cost to attend this event. Free garage parking is available across the street from the tower.

This event is hosted by All About Omaha, Next Generation Omaha, Omaha Jaycees, Urban League Young | Professionals, Young Jewish Omaha and the Greater Omaha Chamber's Young Professionals Council.

The event is sponsored by Cox, Omaha World-Herald, Q3 Systems and Union Bank & Trust Company.

Location Information
UNMC Durham Research Center
45th and Emile streets
Omaha, NE 68131
(Scott Education Center - main level)

Mayoral Forums at the Omaha Press Club

Thursday, March 19, Noon
Thursday April 16, Noon

The League of Women Voters of Greater Omaha and the Omaha Press Club have scheduled a forum for mayoral candidates on March 19, 2009. The forum will be held at The Press Club over the noon hour.

Announced candidates Hal Daub, Jim Suttle, and Jim Vokal have already been invited. Reservations can be made by calling the Omaha Press Club at 345-8008. Additionally, a debate between the two winners of the primary election is scheduled for April 16th. We hope to see you at both events! The events will be open to the public to attend.

***

The OWH did a summary of each of the Mayoral candidates' positions on fighting crime in Omaha.

Hal Daub has an expansive plan that includes using Federal RICO statutes to get tougher on criminals, filling some police positions with civilian roles to allow other officers to concentrate on more important jobs, and supporting programs to get teens involved in other activities.

Jim Vokal's plan includes adding 50 to 150 more police officers by cutting other areas to make up the funding, addressing the pension problem to keep officers on longer, and working together with community groups.

Jim Suttle? Well, as he has noted before, he has planned to run for Mayor since the first day he was elected to the City Council in 2005. And his plan to fight crime in Omaha? More jobs. And how does Suttle plan to get more jobs in Omaha? Well, that would be his plan to build a bridge to a field in Iowa and have some companies in Council Bluffs.

That's it. That's his plan.

Oh he also mentions that the Mayor could talk up education, and that there are already things in place to address the crime problem. With his career on the Council and the entire campaign season to think about it, that's what he came up with.

Got it.

***

For the hyper-vigilant supporters and detractors of the District 5 Council race between Jean Stothert and Jon Blumenthal, you can get your JeanJon fix by watching their responses at a recent UNO College Republicans candidate forum. 

The forum is broken down by question and it was uploaded to YouTube by the Blumenthal campaign (though unless we missed something, there doesn't seem to be an bias in the filming -- though we're sure you'll tell us if there is). Click here to view.

Apparently the candidates received the prepared questions ahead of time -- which is why sometimes a candidate seems to be reading the response. What's interesting about this race is that, separate from one candidate's ability to run a better campaign or GOTV (which always interests us), there isn't much of a difference between these two candidates on the issues.

When it comes down to it, if the candidates want voters to pick them, they'll need to pick out one or two issues where they're different, and hedge the whole thing on that. This will particularly be the case for Blumenthal, where he has never been elected before -- with Stothert on the Millard School board and having just run a Legislature campaign. So while she has a built a campaign constituency, Blumenthal is really going to have to battle to separate himself.

But we're sure no one here has an opinion on this race...

***

Go Jays!!!

**Update***

New Jim Suttle ad up entitled, "Yard Signs".  See it here:

Interesting spot and all, but frankly, it makes us kind of dizzy.  (A shot of a bouncing brick house as he walks by a brick house...)  All in all, another introductory ad that doesn't say too much, and may be a distracting use of the visuals.

And then there's the shot of Suttle getting pounded in the head with a hammer...by himself.

Might that be the real theme of his campaign?  You be the judge.

Cead Mille Failte

Top of the mornin' to ye, and all that. 

Before you head on down to the Dubliner or Barrett's or your favorite watering hole for a nie pint of Guinness or three, we present ye with a little St. Paddy's Day nod from two of your candidates for Mayor of Omaha, (from Saturday's parade).

(We asked and asked from Camp Suttle, but no response...)

Kudos to both campaign for going that extra mile (or is it kilometer?) for the parade, for that single day's use.

First to the Vokalians for the special parade banner:

And then to the Daubites for the shirts:

It's that one day expense that you gotta do, right?

***

Jim Vokal came out yesterday with his Development Plan for Downtown Omaha.

The very expansive and fairly detailed plan includes bridges, restaurants and ball fields galore. It envisions development of the Riverfront and the surrounding area far beyond the way it stands now.

With a swipe at his opponents, Vokal said, "This is not a bloated stimulus-type plan thatcalls for unnecessary expansion of some existing facilities at an unknown cost to taxpayers."

You can see the entire plan, which includes a satellite map of the areas affected, by clicking here.

(What, you can't get that from any of the other media sources? Well I'll be...)

Of course the boo-birds came out as well on Vokal's plan. Jim Suttle says "The Mayor has proposed to do a master plan that's long overdue for the entire downtown. Let's let the professionals put this plan together to see what works and what doesn't work."

Well, actually it was the City Council who approved funding for the the Master Plan spearheaded by Suttle's old company, HDR. But the idea that the Mayoral candidates should sit on the sidelines, as Suttle here suggests, is goofy. Wonder if the Master Plan will include Toboggan Runs, ice rinks and economic development in Iowa.

While Vokal says that he does not propose public money to be used for his plan, "Mayoral candidate" Randy Brown had a good zinger, "I just wonder where all these investors are going to come from that are gonna want to invest in a city that can’t afford to turn on the lights on the walking bridge." (Ah, but in a City like Omaha Randy, there are always investors....)

***

For the gang out in the Third District's Greater Nebraska (as opposed to those Omahans and Lincolnites in "Lesser Nebraska"), here is part of a short interview of Congressman Adrian Smith by the conservative Heritage Foundation:

Heritage Foudation: What does “Conservatism” mean to you?
Adrian Smith: It means thinking about the future in applying the principals established by our country’s founders. We have more than 200 years of evidence that conservatism works, and we need to apply it moving forward in all areas. I don’t need to remind readers the key to a successful civilization is economic freedom. The challenge now is to live up to those ideals.

What is at the top of your ‘I tunes’ play list right now?
Michael W. Smith and Vota

Name three interesting guests (living) you would like to host for dinner.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia

Who was your influence in conservatism?

Ronald Reagan (for obvious reasons) and a taxpayer from Denmark whom I met years ago who showed me just how out of control government can get.

What is your idea of earthly happiness?
Having the freedom to pursue opportunities relating to my faith while upholding the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

What is your guilty pleasure?
Eating too much after 10:00 p.m.

What is the first website you visit every morning? (Heritage.org excluded!)
www.kneb.com

What is the last book you read, and do you recommend it?
Currently reading several excellent books, but one which springs to mind is When Character was King, by Peggy Noonan. Yes, I would recommend it.

What do you worry about?
The value of the dollar, the future of family farming and the “brain drain” in rural America.

Name your hidden talent.
Dabbling in music now and then.

What do you consider your greatest achievement?
Switching from Democrat to Republican in the 4th grade.

Maddening March

We will start this week of March Madness (and NIT Noodling), with a little Separated at Birth:

Nebraska Lieutenant Governor Rick Sheehy and Kansas Jayhawks basketball coach, Bill Self.

***

Nebraska State Treasurer Shane Osborn had an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, Nebraska Sets the Standard on Government Accountability.

In it, he talks about the website that he put together -- NebraskaSpending.com, which lets you track how Nebraska tax dollars are being spent. Osborn's site has been featured in a number of other places, for a couple of reasons:

One, as Osborn puts it, "As an elected official, the least we can do is give the taxpayers a receipt for the money we took from them." Two, it only cost $38,000 to put it together. Gauge that number against other states that have spent $500,000 to $1,000,000 on similar sites.

Now here's an interesting follow up on this. Nebraska State Senator Tom White -- who is constantly pimping his campaign website JoinTomWhite.com, introduced LB16, in order to force a website similar to the Nebraska State Treasurer's.

White contends that his bill adds in items (like tax-credits for businesses) that Osborn's doesn't have. However, White's bill doesn't cover nearly the amount of different information that the State Treasurer's site already has. 

So if the bill passes, will Osborn be obligated to get rid of things like Nebraska’s revenue sources for each fiscal year or the historical data associated with that? Can Osborn enhance the site, as we understand he plans to do, beyond what the bill says?

Now that's not to say that the site can't be improved. And it probably isn't a horrible idea to have a legislative mandate to have such a site.  But shouldn't it at least recoginize that there already IS such a site, and that you just want to make it better. Hmm, how to do that?

Well if White's proposal is almost exactly the same as the website that is already up, certainly he must have conferred with Osborn and his staff to discuss what Osborn could use to make it a better site. Or to see how the bill could be drafted to make it better for Nebraskans. Or to, just see what's up with the plan and where it's going.

No?

Ya mean White is just grandstanding to try to position himself for the next office to run for? Oh. Got it.

***

We chuckled at the OWH reporter Robynn Tysver's story the other day about Jim Vokal's campaign strategy. The headline of the story was, "Voters to assess Vokal advertising strategy". Really? That's what voters do?

"I really like that Hal Daub fella, and think he would be the best to lead the city...but darn it, I just don't care for his ad strategy. So Randy Brown it is."

We coulda swore that voters look at a candidate's positions on the issues and make a judgment about what's best for the city. Now we are to understand that voters are all about when the candidate went on the air and looked at how much they spent.

Yeah, yeah, we get the analysis. But here's the thing. The headline (at least) is extremely poor if this is supposed to be a "news" story. The fact that the OWH doesn't have a full-time political columnist makes this kind of story necessary -- if they want to discuss it. But it comes across a bit ham-fisted when the OWH reporter writes, "Vokal's financial disadvantage doesn't mean it's over..."

Doesn't mean it's over?? The candidate is already running his third ad and can argue that he is in a better spot than his other city-councilman rival, Jim Suttle (as the CW is that Hal Daub is in the Primary lead). If you make it all the way to the end of the story, you'll see Doug Parrot provide that spin. (Man, Parrott is so in the bag for Vokal...).

But before that, you have to endure the Democrat line of "He (Vokal) rolled the dice and came up short." Well, that's an interesting post-election analysis. But three weeks out, it's just a little pre-mature.

This makes for a nice column. News story? Not so much.

***

There have been a number of comments on the boards the last few days about Lee Terry staff or whatnot lunching with Jim Vokal a city council candidate's staff and this and that about Who Supports Whom. (Note correction. -SS)

Well, we've gotten it from one of the highest sources in Terry Corp. that Rep. Terry supports all the Republican candidates, and does not and will not be showing favoritism to any one candidate. While individuals can certainly do so -- and they all certainly will when they vote -- Congressman Terry is staying very much neutral among the Republicans up for office.

So there ya go.

City Council-ing

The Primary for Omaha Mayor is coming up on April 7th. A few of you also know that voters get to choose candidates for each City Council District that day as well.

"Whaaa?" you say. Oh yeah. There are slew of candidates for City Council, and in the next few weeks you will hear a bunch of names that will become trivia contest answers when you've got your elbows on the bar the following week.

But, in the mean time, we here on Leavenworth Street will try (try) to give you sort of a brief rundown of the races. (WOWT Channel 6 has a nice summary of each candidate and their links here. ) But of the seven City Council Districts (all up), only two of them will have contested primaries -- where there are more than two candidates. And of those two, there is only one, frankly, that we know what to do with.

** UPDATE: Note that all fund raising numbers below are based upon the latest NADC reports, and reflect only the period of 1/1/09 - 3/3/09.**

***

The main contest will take place in District 3, Jim Vokal's present district. It stretches from the river to 72nd Street, and is (roughly) bordered on the north by Cuming St. and (roughly) on the south by Center St. (See a full map here.) 

Your candidates (in alphabetic order) are:
Brian Buescher
Steve Cross
Jim Farho
Chris Jerram
Chip Maxwell
Crystal Rhoades

Now we put up each candidate's logo there (or an estimation of it) (Cross's may be coming), because City Council is one of those goofy elections where yard-signs can matter. In the races like President or Senate, while everyone loves them a yard sign, the name ID is so high that they really don't have much effect. But in a City Council race of unknowns?

Probably the biggest factor a candidate can make is actually walking door to door. Then direct mail and phone calls. Radio and TV are trickier for these offices, but can be effective if you have some cash. But yard-signs can be an interesting test of support and provide more name ID in these types of races. Keep a lookout for those logos.

In any case, while we hate to do a breakdown of "who will win" right now, there will are a few interesting factors:

There are three big names in this race: Chip Maxwell, Brian Buescher and Chris Jerram.

Maxwell is a former State Senator and Douglas County Commissioner. In November 2008, he lost a bitter, close race for re-election to the board to former Omaha City Councilman Marc Kraft. To see just how much that still affects Maxwell, see the "Record" part of his webpage where he knocks all the points that Kraft made against him in that campaign. He probably feels that he has to address those point that were made just a few months ago -- though it makes for sort of a different account of his record.

In theory here, Maxwell will be bumping heads with Brian Buescher. Buescher is a lawyer with Kutak Rock, and is a former chair of the Douglas County GOP. Buescher declared early for this race and has been garnering cash and support -- raising over $25K (with $21K COH), to Maxwell's $11K (with $1300 COH).

Now the "battle" between those two could be for the heart of the GOP voters. But then again, while Vokal defeated Ann Boyle in this district, it isn't exactly a GOP enclave. Maxwell's name ID is arguably higher, and if he can soak that, he could have a shot.

The other major candidate here is Chris Jerram. Jerram is (another) lawyer, and former head of the Douglas County Democrats. Jerram has solid support among the local Dems, and has also some solid fund raising -- $31K (with $28K COH).

The only thing that could muck things up for Jerram a little are the candidacies of Jim Farho and Crystal Rhoades. While both are political newbies, they are both very involved in their neighborhood associations, and have each raised around $5K. And both are Democrats. Assuming that they won't make it to the final two, can their campaigns leach enough off of Jerram's support to kick up Maxwell and Buescher?

It will be an interesting night on April 7th for District 3.

Oh, and Steve Cross? We emailed Steve, and he was a little miffed that he didn't have more notice to get his info to us. He responded "I read books, not blogs and I surely have never heard of this particular one." Ouch!  (We will update once we receive.)

**UPDATE** See the link for Cross's site above!

***

The other main contested Primary is in North Omaha's District 2. Ben Gray, James English and Cheryl Weston are taking on Councilman Frank Brown.

This race should easily come down to Brown vs Gray. And while we would give incumbent Brown the advantage (with $11K COH),  we wouldn't count out Gray who is raising a little cash himself ($5K from Wally Weitz, and a grand apiece from Susan Buffett and Mike Yanney) ($4K COH). It could be one to watch come May. 

***

Some of the other races will be interesting, but don't really kick in until after the primary (though don't tell the candidates that):

The race for outgoing Councilman Dan Welch's District 5 between Jean Stothert and Jon Blumenthal is already a battle. Heck you mention macrame and coffee here on Leavenworth Street and somehow if turns into a Stothert versus Blumenthal diatribe in the comments section.

We don't discourage it, mind you, but their supporters love to mix it up. Both of them are working doubletime to capture the flag in May, but in the mean time we'll just let them box it out in the streets.

West Omaha's District 6 between incumbent Franklin Thompson and former Mayoral aide Walt Peffer could be interesting if Peffer puts some effort into it.

On the face of it, we have to guess that Mayoral aide Pete Festerson will walk away with Jim Suttle's old District 1, Gary Gernandt will handle his reelection in District 4 and of course Chuck Sigerson will laugh at all those hustling around from his uncontested District 7.

***

OK commenters! We're guessing there are a few opinions out there on all of these folks. Have at it.

Just be civil, no swearing, and try to use a name other than Anonymous...