Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Terry now "Favored" in NE-2

Nebraska 2nd District Congressman Lee Terry's re-election race has been upgraded to "Republican Favored" by political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

Terry's race against state Senator Tom White had been listed as "Lean Republican" by the Rothenberg Political Report -- mainly based on Barack Obama's success in gaining the 2nd District's Electoral Vote in 2008.

Oh how times have changed.

And with the changes in President Obama's fortunes, so go those who support him and his policies.

Guys like Tom White.

White had hitched his wagon to Obama and Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson whom he believed would lead him to the promised land.

Instead, that wagon train has lead to a dry gulch filled with cacti, rattle snakes and Jim Backus in that Brady Bunch episode. (In this analogy, Lee Terry would be off eating beans with Jimmy Pakaya...but we digress...)

If it makes Tom White feel any better, his fortune is similar to lots of other Democrat contenders for House races, as well as many incumbent Democrats.

Rothenberg is predicting a pickup of 24 - 28 seats for House Republicans in the fall, "with higher Republican gains possible".  (He even whispers the words "Republican Majority", but let's not jinx it.)

After the Cornhusker Kickback, Ben's Betrayal and the Scott (Brown) Heard Round the World, we're not all that shocked. The rise of Tom White has always been based upon Obama. White's sinking was just as expected.

In the mean time, Lee Terry just continues to work.

Don't think that he will do anything less than run like he is ten points behind. Those who analyzed his 2008 victory showed that Terry won because of his organization on the ground -- that in the year of Obama rallies and HQ openings.

In this off-year expect Terry and his campaign to re-load and never stop.

In the mean time, White is in a pissing match with the Mayor of Omaha. Everyone has their strategy, we suppose...


Phil Montag said...

The Republicans were in control from January 2001 to January 2009. Voters are going to be asked...

1. How well do you think the country did during this time period?

2. What new solutions or changes in policy do the Republicans offer today compared to 10 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Not really, Phil.

In the timeline you use, the Democrats controlled Congress from Jan. 2007 through Jan. 2009. And, the Senate was Democrat-contolled in 2003-04 when Jim Jeffords left the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

And in just one year the Democrats - with working majorities in both houses - have dug is in a hole so deep it will take a decade to get back to where we were just a couple years ago.

Working majority in BOTH houses are the key words here. Republicans could not block anything as Democrats were able from 2001 - 2009.

Democrats seem to want to avoid this little tidbit.

Anonymous said...

There are really two choices the voters have this Nov.--stay the course or it's time for a change. I think most voters want the latter--and that means wins for Republicans like Terry.

Anonymous said...

White was a fool to come out in favor of the $1 trillion gov't takeover of health care. But, he's locked in now.

Anonymous said...

What will hurt White even more is his quick endorsement of the Dem. econonic program last spring.

The $800 billion stimulus plan is not working--it was sold as keeping unemployment at 8%. It is now 10% and probably rising again.

NE Voter said...

Actually, Phil and Anonymouse, you both are incorrect.

The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2007.

So, the question is, what did they accomplish in the 12 years they enjoyed the majority?

macdaddy said...

Well, NE Voter, since you are going to leave Presidents out of this and give the Congress all the credit, there was welfare reform, an impeachment of the President which showed the world that no one in America is above the law, a balanced budget for 1 or 2 of those years, cut the capital gains tax, cut the personal income tax rate, weathered the dot.com bubble with minimal rise in the unemployment rate, and responded to 9/11 by liberating 50 million people from brutal regimes. So what have the Dems done in the last 3 years?

macdaddy said...

Two points about Terry: first, he proved himself to be an expert and tireless campaigner. Obama's organization here was very impressive and should have delivered for Esch. Terry didn't take that lying down but instead did an awful lot of knocking on doors himself in areas that went heavily for Obama. Second, it appears that the Obama organization was a fart in the wind. They were highly ineffective in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts. Did I mention that it was Massachusetts? There is no more liberal state in the union and yet Obama's crew swung the vote from +30 to -5. Do you think Republicans are going to be fired up in Omaha after almost 2 years of Democrat mis-rule? I do. So, I think Rothenberg is hedging his bets, but I'm going to say that the only way Terry doesn't win is if he's found with a live boy or a dead girl.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone hear that Suttle is making calls to get a new Dem to file for the NE2 congressional race?

Anonymous said...

Terry is all over the district all of the time. White simply can't compete with that--no one recognizes him or knows him.

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows about the 'Cornhusker Kickback'--White said he 'proudly stands' with EBN. Another mistake, especially since pro-life voters view is as a sellout to their cause.

Anonymous said...

Pro-life voters will back Terry, not White, because of the CK.

NE Voter said...

OK, MacDaddy, I'll play.

Since you obviously (and correctly) believe that the exec. and leg. branches share both credit and blame, you certainly must agree that the Democratic Congress shares credit with R. Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union; etc., during the 1980s.

As an aside, the myth that Reagan "won the cold war" truly amuses me. The fact is, he was the last of EIGHT presidents who worked that problem for FOUR decades.

And it was accomplished -- gasp -- via negotiation.

Remember Reagan's dream of a "world w/o nuclear weapons?" Now the right criticizes Obama for sharing that aspiration.

Have a nice day, all.

Anonymous said...

Would Terry be depicted as "eating beans" because he is full of air, hot or otherwise and lets forth?

Street Sweeper said...

If you don't know who Jimmy Pakaya is, I can't help you.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that White had started his campaign by saying Terry was "too partisan". Then The Hill newspaper surveyed R and D Members of Congress--and the D members listed Terry as one of the most bi-partisan members.

No wonder you don't hear White saying that anymore.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to hear from Rothenberg as to why he moved Terry to Repub Favored. I wonder if it is due, in part, to the fact the Democrats don't have a candidate for Governor, and lack a cohesive statewide message. That is going to be devastating to their turnout in Nov.

Street Sweeper said...

Hey folks, just noticed we forgot to link to the Rothenberg Report story.

The link is in the post now.

Or copy and paste:


Anonymous said...

9:34--good point. If you ask people who the least partisan members of the Nebr. Legislature are, I'm pretty sure you won't hear the name Tom White.

Anonymous said...

NE Voter

Republicans have never had a working majority during that time. Actions by Dems to block and weaken policy held back the overall agenda.

Flash forward to now. Dems have had a working majority. They hold the White house. In that time, it is all on them.

Dems have talked about all kinds of grand plans. Over the last 110 years Dems have controlled the white house and have held working majorities in both houses several more times than Republicans but yet are still trying to pass their grand plans.

Dems are all lip service. can't get it done...now get out of the way.

macdaddy said...

NE Voter: I will give some credit to the Dem-controlled Congress and Tip O'Neill for standing alongside every US President including Reagan for helping to win the Cold War. Those were the days when Democrats didn't try to play politics with our national security but that everyone worked together to defeat a common enemy. Of course, there were many in the Democrat Party, such as Ted Kennedy, who worked actively to undermine Ronald Reagan in his efforts against the Soviet Union, but the Democrat leadership stood firm against the communists. Flash forward to today when you had the Democrat leadership trying to pull funding for our troops in harm's way, vote, after vote, after vote when they took control of Congress in 2007. But yes, back in the good ol' days, there were Democrats who were, shall we say, a lot more mature than today.

Phil Montag said...

The Republicans controlled the Executive branch and Judicial branch of the federal government the entire time and the Legislative branch for the majority of the time.

Discounting the influence and power of the Judicial branch isn't a strong argument after last weeks ruling on campaign finance laws.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad Phil is posting here--other points of view are welcome. It seems no one posts over at NNN except the same few people and mostly they just insult each other (Vile Kyle and BTO, Hannah.)

NE Voter said...

Off Topic, but let's do a quick roll call: How many of you support the actions of James O'Keefe, who was arrested Monday for entering the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu while pretending to be a telephone repairman and attempting to tamper with their telephone lines?

Another accomplice was arrested in a waiting car, with remote listening devices on him.

Fox News and the other right wing outlets have been treating this guy like some kind of a hero for months.

So, what say you?

To me, this looks like a thwarted terrorist attack. I say Gitmo for the guy. Just imagine the intelligence that (non-torture) waterboarding would yield.

Nixon-style dirty tricks. Shame!

NE Voter said...

Buehler? Buehler?


City Slicker said...

Tom White is showing his true colors as a pandering opportunist. I like that in today's OWH he says the city of Omaha should have asked for an increase in the sales tax; even though they did just that, but no one in the unicam would sponsor it. Then when the State says there is no double tax he counters with the even more juvenile "You're right! It's a triple tax!"

I wish he had a primary opponent but since he doesn't maybe I'll just write someone in. Perhaps Matt Samp would be a good choice. I TRIPLE-dog dare everyone.

Shoe Salesman said...

ANON 8:35:

The right to lifers will back Lee terry because he is a republican. They have basically said they will never endorse a Democrat again - regardless of their pro-life records. Ben Nelson, by sticking it to Julie and her thug cronies, did NE a favor. NE RTL is now officially a partisan organization. Thus, their endorsement means less. Over time, their endorsement will come to mean as much as an endorsement by the NE GOP Executive Director. Just another politically motivated, party backslapping worthless endorsement.
Thanks Julie - thanks to you and your over the top all-about-you overreaction to your uncommonly ridiculous access to the policy making in Washington - you have set the Democrats in Nebraska free at last.

Shoe Salesman said...

NE Voter -

The crime committed by James O'Keefe is punishable by a fine of $250,000 and up to ten years in prison.

It's a frightening development in the partisan wars. Hopefully Democrats in Congress will be calling for investigations into who is funding this clown and if the money can be traced back to the Republican Dirty Trick Machine. It is reminiscent of the Nixon paranoia that led to the Watergate break in and seems somewhat akin to NE RTL's stealing emails from planned parenthood.

James O'Keefe was exposed as a liar on the Acorn story (someone tell Mike Johanns) when it was revealed that he edited and added voice overs on the ACORN "videos."

I hope the Right martyrs this guy. He is dangerous, a liar, and a criminal - but hey so is Rush Limbaugh!

BTW - the reason you haven't heard back from anyone else here is because they are all awaiting their talking points from the RNC.

Right Wing Professor said...

The GOP controls the judicial branch? Who knew?

But it's interesting that a year into Obama's presidency, all the Democrats want to talk about is 2001-2008. What about hope and change?

Street Sweeper said...

NEV and Shoe,

I'll go ahead and step in and tell you that the majority of GOPers and conservatives I know simply expect crimes to be punished. They don't need to declare this every time someone is caught, or have their feelings affirmed.

The other thing I like is when people stay on point and discuss politics on this blog instead of trying to hijack posts. You got a new topic? Put it on your blog.


Soud O said...

The leavenworth st. back and forth sound sooo SOS same old sh--. I say a pox on both. The R's and D's
brought us this mess.

Lee says that the tea party movement in Nebraska is the GOP.
Lee meant, the bought and paid for part of the tea party movement.
(Mainly, AFP Douglas & Sarpy Counties)A very smart purchase for the GOP. No, not so much.
There is another choice. He has chosen to run as an R, but he is a true Tea Party candidate.
Matt Sakalosky
I hope this blog is open to a real alternative. Someone who still cares about the Constitution.
By the way, I have traveled all over Nebraska to tea party rallies, and I'm pretty sure they would not agree with you Lee.

Anonymous said...

With all the rhetoric about Obama taking the "expert" gambler approach to policy and going "all in", it is no surprise that Tom White has decided to go "all in" by bringing Members of the Democrat House Leadership into Omaha to do his wooing of supporters.

Yes, Mr. White, we do all know that you are thick as theives with the Democrat Leadership in Washington D.C., and now so does everyone else in Nebraska. (Nice try at keeping your fundraiser with the Democrat Conference Chair, Rep. Chris VanHollen a secret.)

I bet White tries to get Rahm Emanuel to come in March for him.

Anonymous said...

If the TEA Party folks want to run on the ballot in Nebraska then do it.

If Matt Sakalosky is not really a Republican, as you say, then tell him to remove the "R" from behind his name-NO ONE WILL CARE!

But to allege that Lee Terry does not believe in the Constitution, is just a flat out lie. As much of a lie as saying that all the supporters of the Taxed Enough Already movement only support this Sakalosky guy.

Maybe you should ask Dick Armey who he is supporting.

Anonymous said...

Shoe Salesman and NE Voter...

These two come across just as intolerant as those on the extreme right. Life is not black and white or absolute.

Anonymous said...

Saka who? It's his choice to run, and to do as he may to win the seat. But be warned, the voters are tired of the games being played and anything smelling even a bit rotten will be met with fury at the ballot box. Saka picked the wrong cycle to run, maybe in two years and after having at least served in some lower office. But it is his choice, America is great like that. Oh and it will take more to win than spouting Reagan quotes. It will take concrete examples of having employed them in a public setting (hence the experience comment)

John Q public is wary of "Change" now and as the Obama glow is somewhat dimmed here, along with Sen Nelson, being a dem doesnt bode well.

but we shall see