Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Debate Day

Lee Terry and Tom White debate today in a race that is quickly slipping away as any chance for a Dem pickup.

Says who?

Only the Liberal/Leftist/Progressive daily Bible, the New York Times.

The NYT says that there aren't many "Republicans in the Cross Hairs", but a few races are in-play.

NE-2 ain't listed.

But is that really any surprise?

Remember back in 2008, when everyone was all Hopey-Changey?  The DCCC was pouring buckets of cash in for Jim Esch -- $200,000 a week by some estimates.  And this for a guy the local Dems dismissed as a muuuuch lesser candidate than the mighty Tom White.

But this year?  Meh.

The national Dems aren't supporting White.  We see much fewer local Dems that support him.  And his recent ad (which STILL hasn't been uploaded to the web by their campaign) will have many more running away from him.

You won't see Lee Terry ease up for the next three weeks.

But you also won't see some sort of groundswell for Tom White.  It is just not there.


Feel free to decide for yourself the strength of the arguments for the Mayor Suttle Recall.

But if Councilman Ben Gray is any indication, the Recall group has already won the battle of ideas.

As Joe Jordan notes from a Zapruderesque video of a video, Gray's argument:  why racism of course!

And in a very short while you will see Jeremy Aspen called a Nazi and Mike Simmonds will be referred to as Pol Pot.

Because those without any ideas or ability to form an argument resort to the easy name calling and use it to stir up their base.

This, by the way, is Page 1 of the Democrat playbook if you look down at your copy.

(Oh, and like long lines, no parking and no secret ballot?  Then the 2012 Nebraska Democrat caucuses are for you!)


The OWH says that they will be playing the Terry-White debate at 1:00 PM today, and it's on-demand on Cox.  We will probably have some discussion here afterwards.

See you then!


Anonymous said...

Tom White cannot help a lot of things. But that vile ad of his was just stupid. That was his choice. It is precisly the sort of thing voters most dislike. White is too stupid to be in office and too much of a pusbag to debate. There are good Democrats in Nebraska. White isn't one of them.

Soccer Mom said...

I hope Lee Terry explains why he has not signed the Pledge for America yet!

Anonymous said...

Does anybody have tabs on how many NEW voter registrations, since the Primary, there are in Douglas County?

I believe there are over 1100 NEW REPUBLICAN registrations in Sarpy County!!!!! Just since the Primary.

Would this have any impact on the turn out?

Anonymous said...

Page 1 of the Republican playbook?

"Socialist." "Communist." "Marxist." "Maoist."

Just saying. The presumption of innocence in hyperbole is pretty laughable coming from anyone here.

Macdaddy said...

Maybe they could debate who they'll support for Speaker since that's the most important vote they'll make in office.

Anonymous said...

Where's BTO when you need him? Come back Brian.

Street Sweeper said...


Here's the difference:
L.St has never used the terms "Communist" or "Maoist" to describe anyone, and only asked that Keith Olbermann be declared a Marxist dog kicker (a reasonable request).

But you have a problem with Socialist? Really? That would be like a Republican having a problem with "conservative" or maybe "libertarian".

But very telling that you consider calling a liberal Democrat a "Socialist" the same as calling a Republican a racist. Oh, it's all just hyperbole, you see!

Label me "shocked".

Grundle King said...

Soccer Mom, the 'Pledge to America' was introduced by House Republicans. Lee Terry is a House Republican, so I'm guessing he's on board with it. However, if Soccer Mom would be so kind as to find us a list of people who have signed it, perhaps then we could discuss why some folks haven't.

Anonymous said...

Not all republicans are racists. Just the ones who vote for racists. Listen to racists and agree with racists. That would be the really super kooky type republicans. The ones who are also members of the KKK, and the Tea baggers birthers, etc. . Go to a KKK web site. Very pro republican party talk there. Very anti Obama talk there. Again does that mean main stream republicans are racists? No. But the racists shoe is fitting some republicans today. So republicans who are not racists need to say we don't believe the way the racists in our pary do. Still waiting on that.

Anonymous said...


"The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact."


GeosUser said...

As for Ben Gray, he was on KFAB this morning to "explain" his Consider This racism claim. He did not and can not other than making vague references to "slumlords" and "more will come out" kind of BS. Sounds like Obama and Biden et.al. going after the US Chamber of Commerce without any basis in fact...confirmed by no other than the NY Times.

BTW Ben, the Omaha Housing Authority is by far the largest slumlord in Omaha and you're on its board (thanks to a payoff appointment from Suttle) thereby you are the biggest slumlord in Omaha. So racist slumlords like you support keeping Suttle in office. Go figure...

Anonymous said...

Sweeper, you're correct. You don't. GeosUser, and several others who frequently comment here, do.

"Socialist" is not the same as calling a Republican policy "conservative." "Liberal" is.

Especially since many people use the terms interchangeably.

So, let's be clear:

There is a difference between socialism, Communism, czarist Russia, fascism, "national socialism," and modern American liberalism.

Many Republicans either fail to grasp that distinction, or don't really care.

All I'm really saying is that if you're going to call someone out for hyperbole, you should recognize that it cuts both ways.

Grundle King said...

Anon 12:07 wrote: "So republicans who are not racists need to say we don't believe the way the racists in our pary do."


Democrats don't ask the good, peaceful Muslims to come out and publicly declare their abhorrence of radical Islamic terrorists...so why are Republicans held to a different standard?

And in truth, would it matter? I could stand here and say, "I disagree with racists who consider themselves Republicans!", but as soon as I state disagreement with the current resident of the White House, I'll just get branded as a racist myself...because as we've all been taught by the Dems, any and all opposition to Pres. Obama's policies are at least partially based on racism. Oppose Obama? You're a racist.

BTW, imagine that...anti-Obama talk on a KKK website. Do you think it would be any different if we had a black Republican as President?

Soccer Mom said...

Grundle King,

Thank you for politely correcting my mistake on the name, but I still can't find where Congressman Terry signed the Pledge to America. I know we can't do links, but can you please direct me?

Anonymous said...

Hey 12:44, first you post drivel from a completely biased and unreliable source World Net Daily. Then you somehow cannot realize that parties change over time even though the label may not have changed. When the Civil Rights Act was passed in the '60s, the southern and racist Democrats were gladly accepted by the Republican party. Democrats lost the element that aligned with the KKK. Democrats today are no more like those pre-60s Democrats than the current breed of Republicans are like their rational ancestors from the mid 20th century.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:44 We are talking about the Klan of today and the democratic and republican party of today. If you really want to get into history. Then you have to go back to the 1964 civil rights laws . LBJ said they the democratic party had lost the south for a generation. He was right. Starting with Nixon's southern plan to get racist democrats to become republicans. The south is the most republican part of the nation. Again we are not talking about main stream republicans. Just the kooks. Look on a kkk web page. Very pro republican party today. You don't have to claim them. But they are claiming you. So get your facts straight on TODAY!. No more listening to the warped history of Glenn Beck.

Grundle King said...

Anon 1:15 wrote: "
"Socialist" is not the same as calling a Republican policy "conservative." "Liberal" is."

I actually agree on that point.

Liberal:Democrat as Conservative:Republican

Socialist:Democrat as Capitalist:Republican

And of course, we all know that no Democrats would use such a slur as "capitalist" when describing Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Grundle I have heard lots of democrats including the President say that the nutty Muslims are not the way most Muslims are in the USA. And those same muslims say the same thing including the leader of the muslims who wishes to build a mosque in New York City. Maybe if you watched a real news station and not FOX you woud know that. Facts seem to be low on the list for republican bloggers today.

Grundle King said...

No Soccer Mom, I can't direct you because I can't find any website that lists who has and hasn't signed the Pledge to America.

And because it is you claiming that he hasn't signed it, it seems it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for such a claim.

Grundle King said...

Anon 1:30 wrote: "Grundle I have heard lots of democrats including the President say that the nutty Muslims are not the way most Muslims are in the USA."

That's great...it's very nice of the Democrats to stand up for the Muslims and speak up when they won't. But that's not what I asked. I have to wonder about the guy in New York though, was he making that distinction 10 years ago? Five years ago? Or did it come up about the same time people decided they didn't want a mosque anywhere near the site of the deadliest act of radical Islamic terrorism in history?

BTW, when you say "those same Muslims", are you saying the President IS a Muslim?!

Anonymous said...

Grundle are you one of those nutty republicans that people have been talking about? If you say the President is a Muslim you are. How you could read anything into what anon 1:30 said is beyond me. Maybe it is just your nutty thoughts coming out. Thanks for proving many others points on racists republicans.

Macdaddy said...

You guys should feel free to call Republicans racist all you want because nobody gives a crap. In fact, I believe that Webster's has added a new definition to the word racist: "Term used to describe Republicans when Democrats are losing at the polls or cannot otherwise articulate a coherent, common-sense defense of their policies."

soccer mom said...

Grundle King,

I am offended by your remarks. I was just asking a question. I could not find where he signed it either. I support the Pledge and want to support Lee Terry, but I do not support you.

Soccer Mom said...

If Lee Terry wants my vote, it is incumbent upon him to show me he signed the Pledge.

Anonymous said...

Hey what good are "pledges" with Lee Terry? Didn't he "pledge" to stay in Congress only two terms and look....he's still there after all these years. So much for pledges.

NE Voter said...

Just got done watching the debate.

Terry looked worn out and embarassed over White's rearks about his record and relationship with lobbyists and special interests.

I think Terry know he's past his sell-by date.

No ideas. Same jive he's been selling for 12 years.

CD2 needs a fresh start. Terry's got nothing.

Anonymous said...

And Jim Suttle promised no increase in taxes.

And President Obama promised he would work with all Members of Congress. (ask any number of Republicans when the last time they got a phone call returned from even the lowest level staffer at the White House.)

And Nancy Pelosi promised to "drain the swamp". Just google Charlie Rangle to start with.

Now, I could go on and on about the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa, but I think you get my point.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me the winner is pretty clear--Terry. He nailed White on his big spending in the legislature--shows TW is a hypocrite in talking about cutting spending. He didn't do it in Lincpon.

Anonymous said...

Watched the debate. White needed to be doing this all along. He debates well and makes his points solid.

White's failure has been in trusting bad advice from youthful neophytes on the ground who have not a clue how to organize an effective campaign or hold a gun much less fire it with lethal accuracy. His last ad was beneath him.

Lee Terry has nothing to show for all those years of leadership.

Macdaddy said...

White's failure is not in trusting the political neophytes running his campaign. It is in his laziness and wishful thinking. I guess he figured if Jim Esch could almost beat Terry, then he should be able to phone it in and win. White has to know that the incumbent always has the advantage. It is beyond bizarre that he waited to a little more than a month before the election to start campaigning.

Anonymous said...

Macadday back to your same ole same ole. Or like Reagan said "there you go again" Go back to your cave and dream of the good old days,when only white men with money could vote.

Anonymous said...

3:41--here's the problem--White's ad is what most people are seeing vis a vis his campaign. And, they are seeing the response even more--since Johanns' spot has a ton more $$$ behind it than White's attack ad.

You put the two together (I saw them back to back last evening) and the loser is White. That ad is killing him...

Anonymous said...

Grundle, site of the deadliest act of radical Islamic terrorism in history? In New York city? You might check your history again. I don't mean what you learn at Glenn Beck University. I mean real history not that made up crap you see on FAKE news. There have been a lot worse acts of terrorism by Muslims . Both Christians and Muslims did a lot worse in the Middle Ages. Check it out. Real history is more interesting than the fiction you have been listening too.

Anonymous said...

Terry wins!

White is still a sore LOSER!

Looks like the PEOPLE are going to bury the "Liberal" Brand and White with it.

Ya'll have a good day.

Lightfinger said...

Hey Mr. Anonymous who keeps attacking people like Grundle...

Why are you hiding behind an anonymous tag to spew your lies? Why don't you have the guts to come out from behind your shield and put your money where your mouth is?

I am.

First and foremost, 9/11 IS the largest Islamic terrorist incident in history, in both deaths and in the amount of property damage caused. You try to site the Crusades, but that was a full war, not a 'terrorist act'. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges.

Second, Robert Byrd was a KKK member and was a Democrat all the way through. The 1960 Civil Rights Act needed Republicans to pass, and all of them remained Republicans.

You have to keep calling Republicans racist because that is all you have. You can't argue policies. You can't argue historical context without trying to obfuscate the truth. Just like others of your ilk rail against the Chamber of Commerce spending $10 million on Congressional races, yet ignore $250 million spent by the AFL-CIO.

Guess what, Anonymous? AFL-CIO, NOW, NEA - all have lobbyists, and they are all in Tom White's back pocket, and he still won't win. In fact, Tom White is about to get crushed.

Macdaddy said...

Anon 4:04: Yaaaaaaaawn.

Anonymous said...

Nsil in the coffin...

Tom Becka is slamming White's ad--he called it "lame" among other things...

Anonymous said...

Is the debate on line somewhere?

Anonymous said...

Tom Becka slammed the ads against Jim Esch in 2008. But those were okay because Lee Terry's name wasn't on them, right?

Anonymous said...

Lightfinger. Like most republicans you know nothing about real history. Senator Byrd left the KKK soon after he joined it. He said he was wrong to join it. Most southern democrats joined the republican party in the 60's and the 70's. Many of those northern eastern republicans joined the democratic party. Why do you suppose the south is heavy republican today and the north east is heavy democratic? People kept their same beliefs they just changed their party label. Nixon's southern plan to get white racists to change parties worked. Ask Strom Thurmond if he was alive. It worked then and is working now. No one said that normal every day republicans were racists or KKK. They said the kooks were. Why are you defending the kooks. Terrorists are terrorists even if they call them selfs soldiers. Bin Laden calls him self a soldier. He is not he is a terrorist. Again get your nose of the funny pages and read real history. Not FAKE news style history.

Anonymous said...

7:33--you're learning--congratulations!

All of Esch's ads were hard attacks ones against Terry. Terry started out positive but had to respond to Esch and the DCCC.

But, Terry's ads never got into the DWI or personal stuff.

Grundle King said...

Anon 1:42, I did not say the President was a Muslim, because I don't believe he is one. I really don't care what his religious beliefs are. But as to your question, this was the statement that aroused my curiosity...

"Grundle I have heard lots of democrats including the President say that the nutty Muslims are not the way most Muslims are in the USA. And those same muslims say the same thing..."

Now, this is why grammar is important. When one uses a use such a descriptor, one needs to make sure it is clear which group he/she is pointing to. In this case, "those same muslims" could be interpreted as pointing at any one of 3 groups...1) Democrats and the President, 2) nutty muslims, or 3) most Muslims. Now, if you possess super-deciphering power and can tell which group this person was referring to, then congratulations. I couldn't make heads nor tails of the incoherent mess, which is why I asked a question.

Soccer Mom, I'm sorry you were so easily offended (note, I didn't say I'm sorry for offending you). My point was that, because you continue to claim that Lee Terry hasn't signed the Pledge to America, you should at least provide evidence for such a statement. And if you don't know whether or not he's signed it, you shouldn't make such statements at all. Furthermore, if you really want to know whether he signed it, you should probably contact his office instead of asking people on here.

However, if a candidate's support of the Pledge to America is the deciding factor on who you'll vote for, I can virtually guarantee* you that Tom White has neither signed it, nor supports it.

*Disclaimer: Virtual guarantee based on actual Tom White positions. Not available in all 50 states. Void where prohibited.

Anonymous said...

You're wrong. Terry had an attack ad against Esch before Esch even went on the air. With the exception of the first ad, Terry's ads largely focused on "character" attacks against Esch. Esch's ads largely focused on issue-based attacks against Terry.

Personally, I don't really care. Everyone complains about attack ads but no one would be doing them if they didn't work. And right now, you're doing the same thing I'm sure the Esch folks were doing when the NRCC ran their attacks: spinning that it will "backfire," etc. The difference for Terry is that he had money and time to cook up a response ad. But now the topic is back to Lee Terry's relationship with lobbyists. And that's not where Terry wants this race to focus.

Anonymous said...

12:47--no, you're wrong. Terry's initial ads were positive and contrasted his positons with Esch. Such as the ad where Terry outlined his energy plans and then had the cut of Esch himself saying Terry's plan "has good ideas".

Esch's adds from the start attacked Terry. Look at them again--carefully this time.

Anonymous said...

12:47--bottom line is the more White's ad runs, the better for Terry. Overwhelmingly, the response from people is it is a sleazy ad--and Johanns delivers a response that totally trumps it.

Anonymous said...

You mean the ad where Terry criticized Jim Esch's positions on the issues? The one that took the airwaves two weeks before Esch even went on the air?

I just figured since you were calling all of Jim Esch's ads critical of Terry - his record, the contributions from Big Oil, his support for privatizing Social Security, his votes on veterans issues - attacks, that we'd hold Terry's ads to the same standard.

When it's an ad critical of your candidate, it's an attack. When it's not, it's a "contrast ad."

At least *try* not to be so obvious about it.

Anonymous said...

If the pot won't tell you it's black, then it's the kettle's job to do so.

And ofr all you race-a-phobes, that is not a racist comment.

Anonymous said...

9:40--thanks for the trip down memory lane vis a vis Esch's attack ads.

They all worked out well for him, didn't they?