Thursday, January 11, 2007

From the NNN Mailbox: "The Blind Partisans"

by Kyle Michaelis
A reader just sent me the following message with some interesting facts and questions we need to do everything in our power to put before Nebraska voters:
1. On the House vote to curb new deficit spending and reform the practice of earmarks, 24% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith and not Lee Terry. Who is the conservative?

2. On the House vote to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 35% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith and not Lee Terry. Who is for protecting us against terrorism?

3. On the House vote to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in about a decade, 41% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith, not Lee Terry, and not Jeff Fortenberry. Who cares about the working person?
You've got the facts. You've got the questions. Now, use them.

The people of Nebraska did not overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic agenda in 2006, but it's their agenda nonetheless. These are changes that the people want - regardless of label - and those who fail to see that must be held to account by us today and by the voters tomorrow.

But for the tyranny and corruption of the last Congress' Republican majority, much of the Democratic-American-Nebraskan agenda we're seeing in these first 100 hours of the new Congress would have been passed years ago. From their votes, some Republican representatives have recognized their party's failure and wakened to the new possibilities for true progress on the great issues of our day.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Republican Congressmen - especially the 2nd District's Lee Terry and the the 3rd District's Adrian Smith - have been slow to this realization or are simply incapable of operating in any atmosphere but the toxic hyperpartisanship of the last decade.

Over the next two years, these men have a choice: change or defeat. But, we have to make those the stakes by holding their feet to the fires of truth and by helping grow the emerging majority of Nebraskans who will no longer accept empty suit, rubber-stamp Republicans who put D.C. politics before the interests of the people they represent. Terry and Smith should consider themselves warned.

Change is coming. Their time is over. Our time is now. (Even says so in the masthead.)

Labels: , , , , ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Knightn said...

From their votes, some Republican representatives have recognized their party's failure and wakened to the new possibilities for true progress on the great issues of our day.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Republican Congressmen - especially the 2nd District's Lee Terry and the the 3rd District's Adrian Smith - have been slow to this realization or are simply incapable of operating in any atmosphere but the toxic hyperpartisanship of the last decade.


You have to include Nebraska voters who fail to realize that SMITH, FORT, and TERRY are the actual FAILURES that make up the Repelican party.

1/12/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think if you look up the House vote on the 9/11 recommendations you'll see Fortenberry actually voted agains implementing the recommendations of the commission. There were two votes - the fist was to "recommit" the bill to the committee - effectively killing the legislation. Fort voted yes. Then, when that failed, he realized he was in the minority and saw the writing on the wall - he voted Yes to pass it. Seems he's a little conflicted - yes to kill the bill and yes to pass it.

And what is most annoying is the NE media has given him and the others a pass on his votes.

1/14/2007  
Blogger Kyle Michaelis said...

Anonymous-

I'm not willing to go to the extreme you propose in interpreting Fortenberry's votes. A vote to "recommit" would, by no means, have killed the legislation. In fact, I could see Fortenberry's votes in this situation as quite legitimate if only for the desire to offer amendments (which the GOP has not yet been allowed to do).

Unless I'm way off base in my admittedly unschooled understanding of parliamentary procedure and House rules, I'm just not willing to play the all-too-easy game of using each and every vote to attack those with whom I disagree politically. Not that sort of person. Not that sort of blog. Sorry.

There are enough votes and statements for which Fortenberry's ill motives are perfectly clear that I just really don't feel the need to go out on such limbs...especially when attempting the difficult work of persuading Nebraska voters with something more than rhetoric they'd see right through.

1/14/2007  
Blogger john owens-ream said...

I'd like to point out that nearly 70% of Nebraskans voted for the Democrat in the senate race, and about 43% for the Democrat in their house race.

1/14/2007  
Anonymous Dave Sund said...

Gotta agree here. You can't hold a procedural vote against Fortenberry, Terry, or Smith. There will be plenty of opportunities to hang simple up-and-down votes around their necks.

Progress feels pretty good, doesn't it, John? I think we're about to see the 2nd District make a pretty distinct change from the rest of the state. Hell, I'm not willing to give up that electoral vote just yet, either.

1/14/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the point I was trying to make is that Fort is inconsistent and partisan. and dont think for a second that the NEGOP wouldn't hold a procedural vote against Reps. Kleeb or Moul.
But if we are into letting them off the hook here...that's OK too.
And poor Fort - the Dems wont let him offer amendments. I wonder how many times he voted to recommitt a bill so the Dems would have a chance at amendments.

True there will be better votes to go after him on. But is anyone out there - besides you Kyle - going after him? where is the NDP release? the creative media event highlighting their votes?
If a tree falls in the forest...

1/16/2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home