New Nebraska Network

Announcement: NNN 2.0 is Live

2007-08-06T03:50:00.001-06:00

I'm not quite sure how this is going to work out, but the new home of the New Nebraska Network is up and running. Experience it for yourself at http://NewNebraska.Net.

Of course, there is more work to be done. The new site definitely could use some sprucing up, and we haven't yet figured out what we'll be doing to make the transition easier for readers of NNN's RSS feeds and our daily e-mails.

For now, I'll do my best to keep the original www.newnebraska.blogspot.com address updated until we get all the kinks worked out. Also, I hope to maintain the original New Nebraska Network for posterity's sake.....and for easy searching of our archive, recording more than two years of our state's special brand of political ridiculousness.

We're trying something new with NNN 2.0. It's a work in progress, but we hope you'll enjoy it. Please don't hesitate to share your comments and criticism, while hopefully taking advantage of this new opportunity to speak out and be heard on whatever issues are important to you.

This is our next step towards building the progressive community that will make a new Nebraska possible. We're glad to have you along for the ride. Now, we look forward to your actually taking the lead - sharing your voice and your vision like never before that they might show us the way.

Fortenberry Takes Flak, Smith Gets Smacked for Farm Bill Support

2007-08-06T00:50:00.000-06:00

I don't have the time or the expertise to delve into the finer points of the 2007 Farm Bill that recently passed in the House of Representatives with the support of Nebraska Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith. For that, I will direct readers to the Nebraska-based Center for Rural Affairs' blog.

For a fairly quick update of what unfolded, I'd recommend reading everything that's been written since the July 17th post, "This is Not Reform," in chronological order. From there, you should get a pretty good sense of what controversies arose and what contentious issues still remain unresolved as the legislation moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

The House version of the Farm Bill was approved unanimously in committee by both Democrats and Republicans. When the bill reached the floor, the leadership of the Republican minority opposed it in protest to a $4 billion dollar tax newly-imposed on American subsidiaries of international corporations that would fund the expansion of food stamps and other nutritional programs while keeping faith with Democratic promises to pay-as-you-go with all new spending in the federal budget.

Usually amongst the first to dutifully accept orders from their party's leadership, Fortenberry and Smith broke rank by voting FOR the Farm Bill - looking beyond concerns about the $4 billion tax and keeping their eyes on the riches awaiting their respective districts amidst the $286 billion of spending therein approved. Smith's eyes had to be seeing double the dollar signs as the Representative of Nebraska's Third Congressional District, which has seen more ag subsidies than any other in the country in recent years.

Oddly, it's nationally-syndicated columnist Robert Novak (who I'm now quoting for the second time in two days) who's put Smith's vote in the harshest light for so hypocritically betraying the "conservative" themes on which he just won election:

The long and twisted history of U.S. agricultural subsidies continues with a farm bill that improves nothing and perpetuates America's government-subsidized farm economy. But the political lesson of last week's vote in the House is that the farm lobby is so powerful, it can win a tax increase vote from four Democrats and 18 Republicans who had promised publicly never to support higher taxes while serving in the House of Representatives....

Among the most surprising "yes" votes was that of Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), a freshman who last year was carried through his primary and general election with more than $400,000 in contributions and nearly $100,000 in independent expenditures from the Club for Growth. As he represents most of rural Western Nebraska, Smith had always been expected to vote for a farm bill. He would have seemed like the last person in Congress to vote for a tax hike.

It's worth mentioning that Smith tried to use this vote as evidence of his independence from his benefactors in the Club for Growth - a point the Nebraska Democratic Party deserves credit for ably refuting.

What's silly is how the line in the sand drawn over this tax - demonstrating long overdue fiscal responsibility after years of shameless Republican reliance on defecit spending - worked to almost completely obscure the more relevant issue of Congress' refusal to impose caps on federal subsidies directed to corporate and large-scale ag producers. Calls for such limitations have come from Democrats and Republicans, but the vote in the House and the focus of its debate reveals that neither party is truly willing to risk offending so powerful a sector of the U.S. economy.

On this aspect of the Farm Bill vote, it's Fortenberry who found himself in the crosshairs of editorial cartoonist Neal Obermeyer.

As published in the Omaha Reader

Of course, Obermeyer's true target might just as well be most any member of the House - Democrat or Republican, voting FOR or AGAINST the bill - because of their near-universal complicity in avoiding the real questions at its heart.

Signs of Life in "Hagel for President"???

2007-08-05T06:01:00.000-06:00

It may not mean a damn thing, but - after two months without a single update - the year-and-a half-old Chuck Hagel for President 2008 blog is up and running once again. Of course, that blog is an unofficial site, but it's unofficial in the same way as the Jon Bruning for Senate blog that recently went online.....meaning that it's not directly tied to the campaign but exists as little more than a feeder for its message and a generator of hype for its candidate.

So, what can we take from blogger "Charlie's" sudden resurgence of activity? He explains his absence as a result of "moving," but it's hard to disregard the stench of death that's surrounded Hagel's presidential ambitions which couldn't have allowed for much cheerleading and enthusiasm. But, suddenly, Charlie is back at it again - with a mostly fresh NY Times piece and a brand new Robert Novak Political Report trumpeting the possibility that Hagel might yet enter the race.

During my own hiatus, the NY Times reported:

[W]ith the Republican presidential field turned upside down, and a wide-open battle for the party’s nomination unfolding over the next six months, could there suddenly be room for a candidate who opposes the [Bush] administration’s war policy?

That’s what Senator Chuck Hagel is trying to conclude. Mr. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, has long been among the loudest Iraq critics in his party, a position that he said was “very, very lonely over the last four years.” His conservative voting record has been overshadowed, in the eyes of many faithful Republicans, by his forceful criticism of how Mr. Bush has handled the war.

These days, Mr. Hagel is no longer feeling so alone.

As he walked across the Capitol, one day after the latest chapter of the Senate war debate ended, he said he is receiving fresh encouragement to consider a presidential candidacy. He intends to study the landscape and disclose his intentions “in the next few weeks.”

“There is no Republican presidential candidate with this point of view. There might be an opening for me on this,” Mr. Hagel said. “I’ve had three very significant Republican fundraisers come to me this week, all of whom said I should look at running.”

Of course, later in the same article, Hagel admits that he marched in July 4th parades in Nebraska expecting to get "booed and called names." It's hard to imagine that Hagel would suddenly find the faith he lacked in his own chances last spring just because his constituents refrained from throwing tomatoes and cabbage at his head.

Still, there definitely seems to be something here, with Novak telling readers:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is still considering the possibility of a presidential campaign as an anti-war candidate and soon will make his decision. He could make a splash in the primaries.

One can't help wondering if the splash Novak imagines isn't better characterized as a belly flop. It's certainly possible, however, that the Republican establishment for which Novak speaks is starting to wake to just how dire a situation they face in 2008 - to the point that they'd welcome a candidate like Hagel who could never truly be called an "anti-War" candidate but who might be able to pass himself off as "anti-Bush"...despite his being Bush's most consistent supporter in the U.S. Senate.

Assuming such an "anti-Bush" candidate could survive a primary, that would be a pretty strong credential to carry in to the general election when two-thirds of the country actively disapproves of Bush's job performance. Bush would quickly go from lame-duck status to the victim of ritual sacrifice by a Republican Party blaming him for its ruin.

In essence, Hagel might be considered "the Doomsday Option" for a Republican Party trying to get as far away from Bush as possible.

I'll be the first to admit that the Republican Party's current slate of Presidential candidates is a pretty lackluster bunch who are doing themselves few favors with their total failure to articulate any plan for Iraq that isn't rehashed from the Bush Administration's 4 year-old talking points. But, this most recent "Hagel for President" hoopla stretches the limits of political fantasy pretty damn far. One can imagine him angling for a V.P. slot as a Republican to temper another candidate's Iraq idiocy, but Hagel wouldn't be joking that he doesn't know where he belongs politically if he remained a serious contender for the top of the Republican ticket.

Do other opportunities exist on an independent ticket? Sure - in theory. But, more than likely, these recent articles, along with the renewed rumblings at the Hagel for President blog, are little more than Hagel's attempts at maintaining relevance and a place in the public eye to make himself more appealing when the casting call begins for running mates and cabinet positions.

Then again, Hagel's baffled before by doing the unexpected . . . and sometimes the downright idiotic (i.e. the non-announcement national press conference in March). Far be it for the New Nebraska Network to stand in his way if he chooses to provide more entertainment in our little corner of the republic.

Chuck Hagel's Identity Crisis

2007-08-03T17:37:00.000-06:00

Nebraska Republican Party's Standard-Bearer Tells Audience, "I don't know what party I belong to any more."

Much has been made of Sen. Chuck Hagel's Hamlet-like ruminations of his political future that have become deliberately more vague and indecipherable as his day of reckoning approaches.

Understanding Hagel's position of pre-eminence in the Nebraska Republican Party, longtime observers of the Nebraska political scene have had a hard time taking seriously rumors of Hagel leaving the Republican Party. Although he's been quite open with his displeasure at the current state of the GOP - admitting to Newsweek that this is not the Party he originally joined during the Vietnam War - talk of Hagel actually changing affiliation has always seemed the stuff of Internet hype and raw speculation . . . until now.

The Washington Post's political blogger, The Sleuth, reports (with thanks to Leavenworth Street for the heads-up):

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) returned the love last night to his good friend Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), helping the underdog Democratic presidential hopeful kick off his book tour.

Biden, during the CNN-YouTube debate last month, said he would pick Hagel if he had to choose any Republican to be his running mate. So it was fitting that last night Hagel introduced Biden at a book party hosted by a nominally bipartisan group of senators.

Looking out over a sea of Democratic faces, Hagel, according to attendees, joked, "Hell, I don't know what party I belong to any more."

Of course, the report suggests that Hagel may have been speaking in jest, but I don't think a lot of Republicans are likely to find this particular "joke" very funny. In fact, it's hard to imagine how Hagel's statement could be taken as anything but a clear indicator that he really has though about leaving the party in which he is Nebraska's titular head.

Every joke has a hint of truth to it. When asked point blank earlier this summer whether he would leave the Republican Party, Hagel seemed dimissive of the notion - although he refused to completely rule out an independent bid for the Presidency or Vice Presidency. Now, one almost has to take this comment as crossing over from keeping his options open to active consideration.

Still, the idea of Hagel leaving the Republican Party remains almost utterly ridiculous for those of us in Nebraska who know his voting record and who witnessed the way he pushed for cookie-cutter Republican Pete Ricketts' election in 2006. If he isn't happy with the direction of the Republican Party, how could Hagel have ever campaigned so vigorously for Ricketts - a man whose entire campaign was waged in defense of protecting the Republican status quo that Hagel now claims to be raging against?

This is why it's hard to take Hagel seriously. Still, he's an intelligent man who seems to understand which way the winds are blowing politically. The fact that he'll talk so openly - even making jokes - about leaving the Republican Party is a very bad sign for its future fortunes - certainly on the national level and perhaps even here in Nebraska. A Republican Party that doesn't have room for Chuck Hagel - a man who won re-election in 2002 with over 80% of the vote - has to have lost a lot of those voters along the way.

Jon Bruning and other pretenders-to-the-throne are making their moves for Hagel's Senate seat by going after the hardcore Republican base that feels betrayed by Hagel. But, what of all the Nebraskans who aren't simple-minded partisans? What of the voters who have voted for Hagel in the past and share his concern about the monstrous and soulless state of the the modern Republican Party? What becomes of these voters in 2008? They already rejected Pete Ricketts in 2006 - who had Hagel's complete backing. Why would Nebraskans now flock to another generic Republican for whom the only appreciable difference is a fuller head of hair and a smaller bank account?

Chuck Hagel doesn't know what party he belongs to any more. Politically, that's a fascinating statement that opens a world of possibilities. But, probably the most important question is not what this foretells of Hagel's political future but rather how well it reflects the sentiments of the majority of Nebraska voters.

If Hagel doesn't know where he belongs, there's a lot of Nebraskans out there who have recently been voting Republican who feel exactly the same way. They've already proven their independence from the simple politics of hyper-partisanship in 2006 - by overwhelming numbers. Why shouldn't we expect them to demonstrate the same level-headed common sense in 2008?

Nebraska voters might just be waiting for a reason to vote Democratic in 2008. How foolish of us would it be if we didn't give them that chance because we failed to see Hagel's political frustration not as a personal dilemma but as representing an entire voting bloc that is up for grabs and looking for a better way?

The true power and true potential of Hagel's statement isn't what it says of his intentions. No, what's important to remember is that Chuck Hagel doesn't know what party he belongs to any more . . . and he isn't alone.

Following Nebraska's Lead?

2007-07-31T15:18:00.001-06:00

Okay, so technically this was Maine's idea, and we Cornhuskers were about twenty years late in adopting it as our own (the Pine Tree state first passed their electoral reform in 1969, we followed in 1990). But in the long, long, long struggle to fix our nation's flawed system for electing presidents, that twenty year delay makes us wild-eyed radicals of reform.

I'm talking about a proportional system for awarding electoral votes for president, and apparently I'm not the only one talking. Word has it that such reform is a real possibility for the 2008 presidential election in the states of North Carolina and California, large states with relatively small but significant pockets of red and blue that could fundamentally shift our pathetically static political battlefield:

North Carolina:

North Carolina is one step closer to eliminating its winner-take-all method for distributing its 15 electoral votes, a move that would probably help Democrats score again in the state's presidential sweepstakes.....

A candidate would get one electoral vote for each congressional district he or she carries. The candidate who wins statewide would take the remaining two votes.

Republicans called the bill politically motivated and a way to attempt to eliminate their stranglehold on electoral votes in the state. House Minority Leader Paul Stam estimated that Democrats could receive three of the state's electoral votes if the new system took effect with the 2008 elections, with the outcome close in two other congressional districts

California:

A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans... "If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," [Democratic consultant] Lehane said in an e-mail. Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.

Little surprise, of course, that the two parties support this plan when it benefits them and oppose it when it doesn't. What with a Republican state Senator in North Carolina decrying "This is a political act" and some liberal bloggers labeling the California initiative an "Attack on Democracy", you'd think there's nothing objective or principled at all about the struggle to make our elections fairer and more representative.

But the truth is the electoral college isn't fair, isn't representative, and isn't serving the best interests of anyone (unless you happen to be a professional political consultant or the head of a major national party). It's an undemocratic institution meant to smooth the transition from colonial monarchy to representative democracy, and after some 200 years of this nonsense it's time for the training wheels to go.

Since there's little hope and even less enthusiasm for amending this problem at the Constitutional level (where it really belongs), our best course of action for now is to embrace the Maine-Nebraska model and incorporate proportionalism into our existing electoral process. Such reform is imperfect and slow, but it's better than doing nothing at all.

Is it fair to ask one party to take an electoral hit (say, in the solid red state of North Carolina, or the Democratic stronghold of California) while waiting on the rest of the nation to maybe/possibly/hopefully follow suit? No, it's not fair. But that's what makes it objective, that's what gives this plan principle.

If we're not willing to forgo short-term political gain for reform that benefits democracy itself, then we don't deserve a party and we certainly don't deserve the presidency.

It's rare to see Nebraska described as a "trendsetter". Here's hoping this case proves an exception.

Prayer and Silence in Grand Island

2007-07-23T15:06:00.001-06:00

Some disturbing news coming out of Grand Island today:

Tension came to a head at a Grand Island meatpacking plant in June, when Jama Mohamed said his desire for 10 minutes to pray at sunset was met with shouting.

After he left the production line and began praying, Mohamed said, supervisors took his prayer mat, pulled him up by his collar and sent him crying to a lead supervisor, who fired him.

"I told him, 'Look, I know I am in America and I know in America there is a freedom of religion for everybody to practice their religion. . . . And as long as you fulfill that — as long as you let me pray — I will always work for you,'" Mohamed, 28, said last week through an interpreter. "And he said, 'No, that's not acceptable — your prayers are not acceptable here. You're here to work, not pray.'"

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has drafted a complaint to federal officials that is awaiting the signatures of dozens of Muslim Somali workers who say they were fired or harassed by supervisors at a Grand Island meatpacking plant for trying to pray at sunset.

....

[Mohammad] Rage [of the Omaha Somali-American Community Organization] said at least two dozen workers have been fired since May by Swift for praying. Swift disputes that number.

[Donald] Selzer [Swift attorney] said three Somali workers were fired for walking off the line without permission, not for praying. "These people are absolutely entitled to pray, and they should not be interfered with for doing so," Selzer said. "The only situations that I've been made aware of are people that walk off the job without permission, and that's a different kind of an issue."

Dan Hoppes, president of Local 22 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said he sees regular lists of those fired from the plant. Nothing in those lists raised his suspicions, he said, but he said the plant — which employs about 3,000 people in all and about 150 Somalis — generally has high turnover.

Hoppes said prayer breaks are not part of the contract, but he said he plans to revisit the issue with plant officials when the contract is renegotiated in 2010.

Rima Kapitan, a Chicago-based staff attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Swift has been "unwilling to work with us to create a solution where the workers can pray."

Kapitan said Swift rejected her group's suggestion to allow the Somalis who work evenings to leave in small shifts to avoid disrupting lines. The prayer must be done within a 45-minute window surrounding sunset, according to Muslim prayer rules.

Selzer and Hoppes said the company suggested phasing evening workers to shifts earlier in the day that don't interrupt prayer times. "We're perfectly happy to try to pursue that angle so that we don't have this conflict," Selzer said, but noted many people prefer the second shift.

Somali workers also complain that other workers are granted bathroom or smoking breaks and say prayer time should be granted in the same way.

Mohamed said it is important for Muslims to pray within scheduled times and not to postpone prayers or say them early. "I would never forgive myself and God would not forgive me if I do not pray on time because I want to earn some money," he said.

The cliche, in this situation, would be to exclaim: "if only this were happening to Christian employees, there would be an outraged outcry in this nation!" As with all cliches, such rhetoric has little power to persuade... it's a dog whistle, heard only by those who want to hear it.

But it's true, damn it. The mainstream media and the public at large wouldn't accept such actions against Christianity because such actions are unacceptable. Not because Christians have or demand special protection, but because all people of all faiths demand and deserve respect. As well they should.

Respect is a basic human right, one guarded not by the government but by the community. Our community. You and me. If we don't provide it, if we don't protect it, then we don't deserve it.

We've been derelict in that duty, and (for now) the Muslim community is paying our penalty. It's certainly disappointing to see the union official comfortably waiting until 2010 to seek such basic and fundamental reform. It's even more disappointing to see the Swift company refuse to engage with CAIR on a compromise that might serve the interests of all.

But what would be absolutely devastating is if this story were to fall through the cracks; never to be heard and never to be resolved. It does us no good to pretend this is simply a Muslim problem: it isn't. It's a worker's rights problem, it's a problem of religious freedom... it's our problem. We own it. And we will be shaped by how we act -or fail to act- in response.

Announcement: NNN Summer Slow-Down

2007-07-17T20:12:00.000-06:00

My contributions to the New Nebraska Network are going to be pretty light over the next two weeks as I travel cross country on an assortment of adventures. I will blog as my schedule allows, but don't expect much of me (which shouldn't be a problem for frequent readers). Hopefully, Ryan will be able to pick up my slack a little bit, but it's not the end of the world if the site suffers a little bit from the summer doldrums.

And....just to whet your appetite.....when we return full force in early August, NNN 2.0 has the green light and is already being prepared for public consumption. This new platform is going to provide a fantastic opportunity to create a truly interactive online community that will hopefully bring new life to the hordes of Nebraska liberals, progressives, Democrats, and plain old watchful citizens.

Of course, the thing may fall apart and prove a disastrous fiasco, but I'm okay with that. In this world, you either get busy being born again or get busy dying....and we're going to try like hell to achieve the former before giving in to that great silence that has so long stood in the way of our common vision for a greater state that serves and reflect the very best of our people and our communities.

Sham Hearing Produces Desired Results for Legislature & Lobbyists

2007-07-17T15:45:00.000-06:00

The all-mighty telecommunications lobby continues to dictate to Nebraska legislators, who have followed Governor Dave Heineman's lead in forsaking our state's economic and technological progress by closing off every avenue to public high-speed Internet service. Under the guise of protecting competition and the free market, our elected representatives continue to leave the people of Nebraska under-served and over-charged with few options and no incentive for the telecommunications industry to improve upon their wretched rates and worse service - especially in rural parts of the state.

In 2005, NNN covered the legislature's first selling out to these corporations by imposing a hardly-debated ban on state and municipal governments - as well as public agencies (i.e. power companies with the infrastructure in place and bandwidth to spare) - providing retail or even wholesale Internet service. That ban was rammed down the people of Nebraska's throats by then-Speaker of the Legislature Kermit Brashear, who already worked for the telecommunications industry in his law practice and who now unsurprisingly works as one of their chief lobbyists seeing that State Senators stay bought and don't challenge this outrageous legislation.

In the two years since, the issue was to have been studied by a taskforce appointed by Gov. Heineman, although - of course - the makeup of that taskforce littered with self-interested industry executives made it a joke from the start. Again, it didn't come as much of a surprise when its final report read like a brochure from the telecommunications lobby protecting themselves from any possibility of the public's need being sensibly served by a public entity.

Now, this might be the lamest chapter yet in this still-developing controversy. The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Legislative efforts to allow Nebraska municipalities to provide wireless Internet service to residents appear likely to die for lack of interest, the chairman of the Legislature's Transportation and Telecommunications Committee said Monday.

State Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine commented after the committee held a hearing on whether lawmakers should open the door to publicly provided wireless service.

"We scheduled the hearing to determine if there was any interest in municipal wireless service, and I didn't hear any interest," she said.

Two years ago, lawmakers passed Legislative Bill 645, which prohibited municipalities and other local governments from selling high-speed Internet service in competition with the private telecommunications industry.

Although the Legislature now appears unlikely to change the law, two Columbus Internet service providers are ready to mount a petition drive seeking to overturn the law in the November 2008 election.

Paul Schumacher and Linda Aerni said Monday that their petition should hit the streets in about a month.

Both said they were unaware of Monday's legislative hearing and were disappointed to have missed it. Three of the five people who testified at the hearing represented the private telecommunications industry, and all were strongly opposed to allowing competition from the public sector.

A sham hearing outside the legislative session to which no voices of opposition or dissent were even invited, orchestrated by industry lobbyists and the senators who do their bidding - have you ever heard anything more pathetic?

One day, this will stand as a defining issue for this dark period of Nebraska's one-sided, Republican-controlled government that confuses corporate profits and the public interest, refusing to distinguish the one from the other because it would so quickly reveal the full extent of their backwards and diseased agenda.

Chuck Hagel Calls for the "Nuclear Option" Against Senate Republicans?

2007-07-13T18:42:00.000-06:00

The Republican minority in the U.S. Senate has effectively blocked most meaningful challenges to President George W. Bush's disastrous and unpopular Iraq War policy (strategy would be too kind a word) by closing ranks for a procedural filibuster that has prevented a host of bills from coming to a final vote.

Of course, it wasn't long ago that these same Republicans were decrying Democrats as obstructionists for employing these same tactics. The big difference here is that Senate Republicans are acting in direct defiance of the American people who long ago realized and rejected the Iraq War as a blackhole of money and lives unlikely to see any return but in heartache and suffering.

So far, the Democratic majority has avoided forcing a real showdown with Bush and Senate Republicans. Some suggest Democrats are too ineffective and too scatttered to carry a shared message that would truly take the GOP to task. On the other hand, they might just be giving the GOP enough rope to hang itself with in 2008.

Either way, Nebraska's Republican Senator Chuck Hagel continues to break farther and farther away from his party on Iraq, to the point where a man who just months ago talked about the possibility of Bush's impeachment now seems willing to lay the blame on his entire party for the continued mis-steps in Iraq.

The Lincoln Journal-Star reports:

The Senate’s inability to force major changes in Iraq policy because of a 60-vote supermajority threshhold is weakening confidence in government, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

“It’s a frustrating process,” he told his weekly telephone news conference from Washington. “It paralyzes us. The American people have lost confidence in our leadership.”

Hagel’s comments came the day after two of his Iraq amendments commanded majority support among the Senate’s 100 members, but fell to the 60-vote requirement to stave off a filibuster by invoking cloture to end debate....

[T]he 60-vote cloture procedure comes with “a standard of responsible behavior we’re not paying much attention to,” he suggested....

Hagel’s two amendments would have mandated more leave time at home for soldiers following deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan and limited the length of time they could be deployed. One amendment attracted 56 votes for cloture; the other received 52 votes.

In singling out the Senate's procedural rules, one has to wonder whether Hagel isn't suggesting that drastic measures be taken to overcome continued Republican roadblocks to accountability and a change of course in Iraq. In essence, one could foresee from Hagel's statements an argument for resurrecting the Nuclear Option long-threated by Republicans to secure confirmation of right-wing judges.

Still, Democrats would have little to gain from such threats with a Republican President in office with veto power. Furthermore, these kinds of hard-ball tactics just aren't the modern Democratic Party's style and - besides - there's a lot to be said for letting the Republicans continue in their insanity as long they desire. Each day draws a clearer and clearer distinction for the American people. The only problem is that each day also brings new casualties that were never necessary in the first place.

Why is Dave Heineman So Scared of S - E - X ?

2007-07-12T15:29:00.000-06:00

Gov. Dave Heineman has a son, so I guess we can assume that he and the First Lady do "make whoopee" - or, at least, have at one point. So, it might not be entirely fair to say Heineman is afraid of SEX. But, recent reports suggest that Heineman's administration has adopted a laughable-if-weren't-so-deadly puritanical policy against discussion of sex, even as a mattter of basic reproductive health amongst professionals in the Department of Health & Human Services.

More than sex per se, the Heineman Administration really seems to want to avoid any sort of controversy - with "controversy" defined as anything that might offend the farthest right-wing fringe of Christian fundamentalists.

Let's check in with the Lincoln Journal-Star to see who Heineman has been censoring:

Charles Housman said the notice came in late spring 2005: Gov. Dave Heineman’s office was clamping down on what state Health and Human Services System programs could say in communication with the public. And what they couldn’t.

No controversy. No sex. The governor’s office was to review everything before it was published or released, said Housman, who quit his state job last month as public education coordinator for HIV prevention....

Minutes from a public health management team meeting Nov. 4, 2005, confirmed the system’s adherence to a pro-life philosophy and to avoiding controversy.

Dr. Joann Schaefer, newly appointed chief medical officer and director of HHSS regulation and licensure, “reminded staff that this is a pro-life administration and she supports that,” the minutes read. “We have a process in place to look at anything that could be controversial.”

Sure enough, Housman said, over the next two years, communications and conference plans were scrutinized, sometimes changed and, in some cases, eliminated.

This spring, for example, planners of a conference for state public health workers on sexual health were notified they would have to change its name from “Issues Impacting Sexual Health” to “HIV, STDs and Reproductive Health: A Topical Update.”

“I thought it was a joke,” Housman said. “If we can’t say the word sexual in a sexual health conference, this is sad. It’s beyond sad”....

In addition to changing seminar titles, Housman and others said, workers have gotten the word that brochures, posters, Web sites and conference speakers must conform to the goal of avoiding controversy.

* Pat Tetreault, University of Nebraska-Lincoln sexuality education coordinator, was told by an HHSS staff member she was in danger of being dropped from a panel scheduled for the spring conference because the communications staff looked up her name on the Internet and saw she was associated with gay and lesbian issues....

* Dr. Bruce Trigg, a New Mexico public health physician and pediatrician with 19 years of experience in public health, was not allowed to participate in this year’s sexual health conference because Osterman Googled his name and found out he was involved in an abstinence-only controversy and dropped as a panelist at a national Centers for Disease Control conference. Trigg said he had planned to discuss recent scientific research that concluded abstinence-only programs were ineffective....

* A poster printed by HHSS’ reproductive health program to alert underage girls that having sex with a man 19 or older was against the law was not allowed to be distributed. It quoted a state law verbatim that used the word “sexual” but, workers said, officials did not want the word used on the poster.....

* A brochure for people with diabetes that had a list [of] possible symptoms eliminated “a change in sexual functioning.”

Said [Health and Human Services spokeswoman Kathie] Osterman: “We decided to take it out. … I don’t remember why. I suppose because that is kind of a personal issue. … We wondered, ‘What will people think?’”

* This spring, some members of two Health and Human Services diversity teams quit because department leaders removed a speaker from a family diversity forum who was in a same-sex partnership and stopped a program in which a panel was to focus on gay and lesbian issues....

* Housman said that as administrator of the state’s HIV prevention Web site, he was not allowed to post information about human sexuality week. Earlier, he said, he couldn’t post an announcement about National Condom Week.

Is it just me or did the credibility and maturity levels of our state government just drop to zero? They actually censored a list of symptoms of diabetes for mentioning "sexual functioning". What a contemptible violation of their duty to protect the public health.

And just imagine a team of bureaucrats Googling each and every speaker, researching their backgrounds, and eliminating anyone who might challenge the party line. That's not America. That sure as hell isn't medicine. This is a tactic straight out of George Orwell's Ministry of Propaganda.

Probably the worst is HHSS spokewoman Osterman's absurd attempt to justify these outrageous policies:

The public views and interprets information in different ways, she said, and the department has to be careful not to cross a line between information and advocacy.

“Our role isn’t advocacy,” Osterman said. “Our role is to provide information and education.”

That information, she said, has to be provided in such a way as to be inclusive and to not offend people....

“I don’t see it as political.”

If your chief medical officer declaring her support for Heineman's "pro-life administration" isn't an instance of advocacy, then I don't know what is. And, honestly, what could be more political than forsaking the public health to remove mention of sexual symptoms of diabetes for fear of offending fanatics who can't tolerate sex as an issue of public debate.

This was medicine. HHSS once had a mission of information and education. But, it's Heineman's administration that has perverted this noble mission and twisted it to serve their political agenda, no matter its cost to the people's health.

Ladies and gentlemen, the patients have taken over the asylum. What's even scarier is that they seem to be politicians as well.

Coming Soon: NNN 2.0

2007-07-11T23:49:00.001-06:00

A new idea.

A new opportunity.

A new community.

The next step towards a
New Nebraska begins.....

Stay tuned.

Jon Bruning: A Man Lost to His Own Ambition

2007-07-10T22:49:00.000-06:00

In September 2005, I wrote a glowing piece thanking Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning for his principled, common sense demand that Nebraska politicians reawaken to the value of mercy in the exercise of their pardon and commutation powers. At the time, the Lincoln Journal-Star reported:

Sometimes the get-tough attitude on crime should be tempered by mercy, Attorney General Jon Bruning said during an unsuccessful attempt Wednesday to get an inmate’s life sentence reduced.

Bruning failed to persuade the other Pardons Board members — Secretary of State John Gale and Gov. Dave Heineman — to give a second chance to a man sentenced when he was 18 to life without parole for his role in a murder.

Bruning admitted this stand could jeopardize his own re-election bid. “We are continually trying to get ourselves re-elected by trying to be tougher than the next guy,” Bruning said. “And at some point, it’s got to end”....

With the 2-1 decision, the Pardons Board continued its 14-year record of denying requests to commute life sentences. But the decision sparked a passionate debate on being tough on crime.

Bruning pointed out that, historically, the state Pardons Board commuted life sentences several times a year until the early 1990s. And Bruning admitted his own get-tough record. “I’ve been so tough on crime, it makes me want to throw up sometimes,” he said.

But there is a time to consider mercy, he noted. Bruning said he was willing to commute this sentence “at my own political peril”....

“It’s the voice of the people driving this issue of law and order,” Gale said.

“It’s the voice of politicians who are trying to get re-elected,” Bruning said.

How right Bruning was. Unfortunately, today Bruning betrayed every principle and every truth he spoke by letting his ambition to run for higher office in 2008 guide his taking action that would have made him "want to throw up" less than two years ago.

Tuesday's Lincoln Journal-Star reports:

The three-member Board of Pardons refused 2-1 to commute the life sentence of a man who has spent 29 years in prisons for the death of a retired postal worker. The decision means Reginald Bennett has no chance to be paroled out of prison....

Gov. Dave Heineman and Attorney General Jon Bruning said Bennett’s case was not extraordinary enough to merit commutation....

Bruning...pointed to Bennett’s decision three decades ago to follow his attorney’s advice and reject the plea agreement. “Ultimately I’m not sure the system failed him. He could have taken the deal,” Bruning said.

Bruning also pointed to death penalty opponents, who say the state should do away with the death penalty because “life means life.” But a decision to commute a life sentence “is proof that life doesn’t mean life,” he said.

In addition, approving one commutation would open a flood gate for the 200 people in Nebraska’s prison system with life sentences, Bruning said.

“If we open the gate, it is going to be very difficult to say no to anyone. So do we want to open the gate?”....

Only Secretary of State John Gale said he believed Bennett’s case was one of the exceptions....

Gale pointed to Bennett’s record in prison, his lack of a previous criminal record, the fact he called for an ambulance and stayed with the victim until it arrived, and his strong family and church support and his record in the prison.

“I think this is one of those rare cases that deserves an opportunity for commutation.”

What changed between 2005 and 2007? Only Jon Bruning's taste for power. What a shameless and pathetic son of a bitch. Here, Bruning finally had the opportunity to prove that he stood for something - ANYTHING - more than Jon Bruning. This is a pretty clear demonstration that he's forsaken conscience and humanity for his own ego and ambition.

Did Bruning ever care about the value of mercy? Was ever really willing to take the right action at his own "political peril"? I suppose it doesn't matter now. He got his headlines at the time. Maybe that was all he ever wanted.

Bruning can fabricate whatever justification he wants - a 30 year-old plea bargain rejected by a 21 year-old kid, "life means life", opening the flood gates - but it's hard to imagine a worse load of complete bullshit.

I don't often use such harsh language on the site, but I don't know any other way to convey the full degree of my outrage at this sinful, unforgivable hypocrisy. It is sad enough that Nebraskans have elected three straight governors like Heineman who have let politics trump compassion for 16 years. But, Bruning has brought this ongoing controversy to a new low - pandering to our worst instincts in violation of that which he knows is right.

These other politicians? Maybe they really don't know better. Maybe they really do believe that being blindly tough on crime serves the public interest. Maybe they really do believe that there's no place for mercy and rehabilitation in our criminal justice system.

Jon Bruning, though, does know better. He's gone on record saying so. And, that makes his action all the more shameful and all the more sinful.

Below is a picture of Reginald Bennet's mother responding to Bruning's unsurprising flip-flop that decided her son's fate. She may be alone in her tears, but her loss is our loss - a blow to everything that is good and right about Nebraska and its people, who are better than this and deserve better from their elected officials.

GOP: Desperate Already?

2007-07-08T21:21:00.000-06:00

Sen. Tom White's barely into his first term in office, his promising Nebraska Leadership Project has only just begun, but already this titan-in-training has the Nebraska GOP running scared: whooping and hollering and trying every lame trick in the book to kill this revolution in its crib.

The source of their consternation? White's unsuccessful but politically brilliant effort to reframe the tax debate, challenging Governor Heineman's attempt to package regressive income tax reform as "middle class relief" by offering real relief to the real burden of Nebraska's middle class: property taxes. White's bill would've offered every homeowner a $500 tax credit to help offset the rising cost of local and county government, a plan Nebraskan taxpayers support by an overwhelming 85-13%.

How do you kill something that popular? A few boogeymen might help:

Sen. White, who is a high-priced trial attorney from Omaha and a long time Democrat activist, had every opportunity this year to put aside his partisanship and help eliminate the tax-and-spend mentality that has so brutally stifled economic growth in Nebraska. But rather than do what’s best for our middle-class, working families, Sen. White teamed up with Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy and assumed their nationwide Democrat strategy of unproductive negative criticism.

Sadly, that emphasis is theirs, not mine. Odd that they didn't bold "trial attorney" and "Democrat activist" as well, but maybe the names Dean and Kennedy have lost some luster since their unsuccessful deployment against Ben Nelson last spring.

Sloppy as these scare tactics may be, the NE-GOP remains a master at that other classic move: playing dumb.

Governor Heineman led the effort to eliminate the Estate Tax which Senator White believes only benefits the wealthy. Apparently, Senator White hasn’t ventured outside his comfy confines of Omaha to talk to middle-class Nebraska farmers who can’t afford to leave the family farm to their children due to the unjust and punitive Estate Tax.

Uh-huh, except White's proposal also included a provision to eliminate the estate tax. On this issue, the Republican "fact-checkers" weren't even close. This isn't just spin, this is lies.

A property tax cut was not “scuttled by the Governor and his allies.” This is a flat out distortion. Property tax relief was incorporated into the largest tax relief package in the history of the state. This package was permanent, lasting, and curbed uncontrolled government spending....

Senator White suggested an income tax credit for homeowners, not a property tax cut. So a homeowner would still pay the same amount in property taxes, but later get an income tax credit paid for by a surplus in the cash reserve. Sound confusing? That was Sen. White’s intent.

Sound confusing? Really? Does anyone out there really not understand the concept of an income tax credit for people who pay property taxes? I mean, anyone who isn't on the Republican Party payroll?

In fact, Sen White's proposal offered relief far more effectively and directly than Governor Heineman's plan, which repreated the tried-but-not-true tactic of diverting more state funds into county coffers in the hopes that rates will come down. Of course, that's exactly the same strategy that Heineman so vocally denounced as a "tax shift" and not a "tax cut".

Confused? That was their intent.

Chuck Hagel vs. George W. Bush

2007-07-05T21:25:00.000-06:00

With President George W. Bush's approval rating below 30%, you'd expect the Republican Presidential candidates to be putting a little more separation between themselves and Bush's record of incompetence and corruption. But, they are so fearful of offending the Republican base that stands by Bush in defiance of reason and reality that they are hopefully dooming themselves in the general election.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, on the other hand, is speaking as one freed, position himself as Bush's harshest Republican critic even though his votes reveal him as the U.S. Senate's most consistent supporter of Bush's agenda. It's an interesting, perhaps unprecedented niche - that of a man uniquely aligned with the principles for which Bush has stood who's watched in horror as Bush's arrogance and incompetence have done untold, inestimable damage to their shared agenda.

Hagel undoubtedly sees himself as the Defender of the Republican Faith from destruction at Bush's hands. This role requires no small degree of arrogance itself, but he's a politician so - seriously - what did we expect? What's ironic, though, is that Hagel's putting first what he considers the long-term interests of his party has invited such outrage and scorn at the hands of his party's activists, who would prefer to see loyalty to their president, marching lock-step with him into political oblivion.

Loyalty? Marching lock-step? Well, that's just not Chuck Hagel. And, as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, I say thank God for that.

Let's take a look at some choice quotes by Hagel from his Tuesday townhall forum at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (which can be viewed courtesy of the Lincoln Journal-Star):

On Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez – “I’ve called for his resignation. I think he’s a disgrace to this country.”

On the Bush record - ”History will not be kind to this Administration.”

While the frontrunning Republican Presidential candidates also rallied around Bush's outrageous and insulting commutation of White House aide "Scooter" Libby's felony conviction for leaking classified information in an act of political retaliation, the LJS reported:

Sen. Chuck Hagel said...he disagrees with President Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. Hagel described the president's action as "unfortunate"....

I'll admit that I think Democrats are very lucky that Republicans haven't heeded Hagel's warnings, embracing him and rejecting Bush. The easy appeal of their claimed "conservativism" backed by a voice that actually projects some measure of accountability, strength, and competence would be a formidable challenge in 2008 despite the American public's low opinion of its standard-bearer for these last seven years.

Chuck Hagel: Casualty of War?

2007-07-03T19:19:00.000-06:00

Sen. Chuck Hagel made some enlightening remarks in today's Lincoln Journal-Star that might just be the best indicator yet of where he's at mentally and emotionally looking at the 2008 elections:

Hagel said he willingly accepts whatever political price he may be asked to pay for opposing a president of his own party on the war.

“A senior statewide Republican politician berates me now around this state on Iraq and immigration,” Hagel noted.

Attorney General Jon Bruning already has entered the 2008 GOP race for Hagel’s Senate seat. Hagel said he still has not decided whether he’ll seek re-election to a third term.

“I may be a political casualty before people figure this out,” Hagel said. “I’m prepared to take that risk. I accept that. I couldn’t do it any other way.

“Your career could be ended,” he said. “But you’re here to do what you think is right.”

Hagel hasn’t ruled out the thought of a 2008 presidential bid. “Is there a place I could fit in nationally where I could make a difference,” he wondered, “maybe even be elected president?”....

No matter what he decides to do, Hagel said, he will not withdraw from the policy arena. “Whatever I do, I want to continue to have the opportunity to influence the world and the outcome of policy,” Hagel said. “That does not have to be within politics, as Bob Kerrey and others have demonstrated.”

Berated by Bruning. Still imagining the presidency. Ready to follow Bob Kerrey's footsteps, perhaps even trading places (Hagel's not heading into Academia, but you know what I mean).

As for Hagel's willingness to be martyred by the Republican Party over the Iraq War, it's impossible to know whether that's a genuine stand on principle or a calculated political risk, but it sure is a refreshing contrast from the silence of our Republican Congressmen and Bruning's pandering to the far right-wing.

If President Bush doesn’t change policy in Iraq, the Congress will force change through its appropriations power this autumn, Sen. Chuck Hagel said...

“The American people have left Bush on this,” Hagel said, “and many Republicans will not stay with him now” if he doesn’t change course.

“The political reality is coming down the track, and my Republican colleagues know it.”

On Iraq, the time of reckoning is at hand. Chuck Hagel knows it and hasn't been afraid to say so. The question is whether his fellow Republicans - especially those in his home state - have any real understanding of what's truly at stake, or are they so sheltered in their partisan bubble that even after 50 months they're still incapable of acknowledging this war for the disaster that it is.

And, for Nebraska's purposes, here's maybe the most interesting question of them all - just when Republicans seem ready to break from Bush on Iraq, does Jon Bruning really believe he can position himself for a Senate seat by riding Bush's tattered, lame-duck coattails straight into 'stay the course'-oblivion? When the tide has already turned, does Bruning really think it smart to condemn Hagel and make an enemy of him for having had both eyes open and daring to speak the truth?

Of course, this is Nebraska. Maybe the real question is just how far removed from reality and lost to their partisanship our average Republican voter truly is. For that answer, the coming months will be most telling as the fall approaches and our empty suit Congressmen meekly position themselves on the most important issue of our day.

What will our Timid Trio of Lee Terry, Jeff Fortenberry, and Adrian Smith have to say? How will their supporters respond? How will the rest of Nebraska respond? The time is now to stand up and be heard - to force the change of course that Hagel predicts. Where is the pressure? Where is the outrage? With these Congressmen, do we really expect them to take the initiative? Have we given up on reaching them? If so, have we given up on beating them? Or - despite all the polling data - at the end of the day, do we really just not care what happens in Iraq?

If so, the true casualty of this war will be a far more tragic loss than Hagel's political career but rather the loss of our faith in the character of the American people and the genius of democracy.

Have a safe and happy Independence Day tomorrow. Celebrate that patriotic spirit. Then, live it, and - by doing so - earn it.

Bruning Cashes In as Hagel Considers His Options

2007-07-02T20:05:00.000-06:00

From the Associated Press:

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said Monday that he had raised $721,200 by the end of June to prepare for a possible campaign against incumbent U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Bruning’s campaign said more than 80 percent of those donations came from Nebraskans, including a few prominent donors like legendary Nebraska football coach Tom Osborne and billionaire Walter Scott, retired CEO of Omaha construction giant Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc.....

Bruning’s campaign released preliminary fundraising figures on Monday even though his quarterly report to the Federal Election Commission isn’t due until July 16....

Hagel has said that he will make an announcement about his political future later this year.

Hagel’s political director, Kevin Chapman, said Monday the campaign won’t report its fundraising figures until the deadline, “but we’ll be well beyond $700,000.”

There's no doubt about it - that's a hefty chunk of change Bruning has managed for himself, quite impressive indeed if major Republican donors are still under the impression that Hagel might actually run for re-election.

Still no word on how much Omaha businessman and Bruning Campaign Finance Chair David Sokol has given to each candidate after last month's leak of Sokol's letter on personal stationary promising Hagel his financial support on whatever course he decides. More even than the somewhat dubious claim that Hagel's fundraising figures will be "well beyond $700,000," this silly little anecdote in the early days of the 2008 campaign is all the illusration one needs of Hagel's desperation and lack of confidence at the prospect of a Bruning challenge.

Although some are claiming quite assuredly that Hagel will not be running for re-election, my own not-particularly-insightful reading of the situation suggests he hasn't yet made up his mind what he's going to do. Rather, I suspect Hagel is keeping those cards close to his vest and his ear close to the ground still looking for the angle that best serves his interests and his ambitions (in his mind, probably even his country).

Rest assured, none of these options include getting beat by Bruning in a primary battle, but Hagel might be forced to commit earlier than he'd anticipated just to keep a potential Hagel-free race with Bruning competitive....unless plans are already in place for former Gov. Mike Johanns to step in and assume control of "the Hagel faction" in a seamless transition. In fact, it wouldn't surprise if Johanns had privately committed to deferring to Hagel's decision and, at our most fantastical, perhaps even waiting in the wings to assume a Senate appointment from Gov. Heineman should a jointly elected Senator and Vice President Hagel need to relinquish the former post.

Like it or not, Hagel is going to be a solid V.P. consideration for most any Republican candidate who gets the presidential nomination because of his singularly mainstream position on the Iraq War that would offer a near immediate balancing of the hardline stance each candidate is likely to maintain through the primaries. His actual combat experience and mostly undeserved reputation as a maverick would also likely be held assets to any of the potential Republican nominees.

If Hagel is angling for the V.P. slot, though, a high-profile primary challenge could alienate him even farther from the Republican base, making him a less attractive option. But, so too might Hagel's resigning himself to lame-duck status in the Senate if he foregos a re-election bid and just sits in the Senate with his fingers crossed hoping his prince shows up with his glass slipper. If Hagel looks like he was spooked away from the Senate by a primary challenger or like he's lost his drive for public service, his movement towards retirement could prove deadly to his own ambitions.

But, again, what the hell do I know. I'm just tossing hypotheticals out there. Honestly, what do you think?

Chuck Hagel Lashes Out

2007-07-02T18:06:00.000-06:00

From Friday's Omaha World-Herald, here are some choice quotes by Nebraska's Republican Senator Chuck Hagel on last week's brutal killing of the comprehensive immigration reform package that would have probably created as many problems as it would have solutions:

Three of the four U.S. senators from Nebraska and Iowa joined with a majority of their colleagues Thursday in killing a controversial immigration bill and likely putting off action on the emotional topic until after the 2008 elections.

With 46 senators supporting it, the bill fell well short of the 60 needed to clear a procedural hurdle.

The legislation, backed by President Bush, included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a large guest-worker program and increased border security and workplace enforcement.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., was the lone Midlands senator to vote in favor of keeping the legislation alive. Voting against it were Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Hagel had harsh words for those who helped bring down the legislation.

"We walked away from a tough problem, and we failed America today," Hagel said....

Even supporters weren't in love with the bill that was before the Senate this week. Hagel said it was inferior to one the Senate passed last year.

But the country's immigration problems have to be addressed, Hagel said. "We continue to defer the tough choices," he said.

Hagel blamed TV and radio talk shows and "political hacks" for giving the public the impression that nothing was being done on border security when, in fact, the country has spent billions on such efforts.

He said the number of illegal immigrants — there are an estimated 12 million in the country — will continue to balloon before the matter resurfaces in Congress.

Hagel said the illegal immigrants will remain hidden, not pay taxes and not be as productive as they could be. He said unscrupulous employers will continue to hold workers' illegal status over their heads as a means to hold down wages.

"Most are decent people who came here for the right reasons," Hagel said. "We lose all the way around".....

Hagel's office...was getting plenty of correspondence. A spokesman said the office had received more than 3,000 contacts related to the immigration bill over the past few weeks.

"My phone lines right now are jammed — nobody can get in, people upset with me," Hagel said during a conference call immediately after the bill died.

I'm not for passing bad legislation just so Congress can show its accomplishing something. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin call this bill "an unworkable mess." Even though he's gearing up for a re-election campaign and surely taking those considerations to heart, I'm inclined to agree. Still, I appreciate Sen. Hagel's apparent sense of moral duty on this issue and his calling out the rightwing talk show circuit for their shameless lies and fear-mongering about the present condition of our nation's borders. It's also pleasant to see Hagel speaking of our undocumented workers as true human beings who love and support their families rather than the law-breaking vagrants imagined by most Republican commentators (and whatever the hell Lou Dobbs qualifies as).

Still, even though an overhaul of our entire immigration system is long overdue, it now falls on Congressional Democrats to take charge of the border security debate by using their majority to pass practical and humane solutions that don't betray our national character. This issue has been left to fanatics such as Iowa's Steve King and Colorado's Tom Tancredo for far too long. Furthermore, it's time to make some headway on new security, identification, and enforcement measures so that questions of what to do about the 12 million-plus immigrants who are undocumented can no longer be dismissed by the likes of Sen. Nelson, who at least seems to have backed away from his previous progress-impeding rhetoric that drummed up opposition to any plan with a perceived Amnesty component.

By the way, an anonymous Republican Senator just denounced Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to Washington Post columnist Robert Novak because of McConnell's flip-flopping on immigration and his inability to rally the party faithful behind their President's agenda. Although it would be incredibly uncharacteristic for Hagel to say anything off the record - giving up the opportunity to get his name in the headlines - there is a definite air of familiarity to the statement below:

"If this were a war, Sen. McConnell should be relieved of command for dereliction of duty."

Hagel may still want to keep his options open for 2008, and a good way of closing those in a hurry would be his publicly attacking the only national party leader this side of John McCain (who doesn't have such a hot track record in Nebraska) who would actually came to Nebraska to campaign on his behalf. Still, that definitely reads like a Hagel statement, and the fact that it ran in the always Hagel-friendly Washington Post certainly doesn't dissuade from this quite reasonable inference.

Sorensen's Vision

2007-06-29T22:57:00.000-06:00

Nebraska native and legendary speechwriter Ted Sorensen was asked by Washington Monthly to produce the "speech of his dreams", a hypothetical address to be delivered by a still nameless nominee at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Sorensen, best known as the man John F. Kennedy called his "intellectual blood bank", produced a characteristically lyrical and uplifting portrait of a campaign divorced from all Beltway conventional wisdom. His vision of what politics could be, of what the Democratic party should be, is a must-read for anyone concerned about the direction of their government and the future of their country:

My campaign will be based on my search for the perfect political consensus, not the perfect political consultant. My chief political consultant will be my conscience.
Thank you for your applause, but I need more than your applause and approval. I need your prayers, your votes, your help, your heart, and your hand. The challenge is enormous, the obstacles are many. Our nation is emerging from eight years of misrule, a dark and difficult period in which our national honor and pride have been bruised and battered. But we are neither beaten nor broken. We are not helpless or afraid; because in this country the people rule, and the people want change.
True, some of us have been sleeping for these eight long years, while our nation’s values have been traduced, our liberties reduced, and our moral authority around the world trampled and shattered by a nightmare of ideological incompetence. But now we are awakening and taking our country back. Now people all across America are starting to believe in America again. We are coming back, back to the heights of greatness, back to America’s proud role as a temple of justice and a champion of peace.
The American people are tired of politics as usual, and I intend to offer them, in this campaign, something unusual in recent American politics: the truth. Neither bureaucracies nor nations function well when their actions are hidden from public view and accountability. From now on, whatever mistakes I make, whatever dangers we face, the people shall know the truth—and the truth shall make them free. After eight years of secrecy and mendacity, here are some truths the people deserve to hear:
We remain essentially a nation under siege. The threat of another terrorist attack upon our homeland has not been reduced by all the new layers of porous bureaucracy that proved their ineptitude in New Orleans; nor by all the needless, mindless curbs on our personal liberties and privacy; nor by expensive new weaponry that is utterly useless in stopping a fanatic willing to blow himself up for his cause. Indeed, our vulnerability to another attack has only been worsened in the years since the attacks of September 11th—worsened by our government convincing more than 1 billion Muslims that we are prejudiced against their faith, dismissive of international law, and indifferent to the deaths of their innocent children; worsened by our failure to understand their culture or to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees displaced by a war we started; worsened by our failure to continue our indispensable role in the Middle East peace process.
We have adopted some of the most indefensible tactics of our enemies, including torture and indefinite detention.

We have degraded our military.
We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner—by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.
At home, as health care costs have grown and coverage disappeared, we have done nothing but coddle the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care industries that feed the problem.
As global warming worsens, we have done nothing but deny the obvious and give regulatory favors to polluters.
As growing economic inequality tarnishes our democracy, we have done nothing but carve out more tax breaks for the rich.
During these last several years, our nation has been bitterly divided and deceived by illicit actions in high places, by violations of federal, constitutional, and international law. I do not favor further widening the nation’s wounds, now or next year, through continuous investigations, indictments, and impeachments. I am confident that history will hold these malefactors accountable for their deeds, and the country will move on.
Instead, I shall seek a renewal of unity among all Americans, an unprecedented unity we will need for years to come in order to face unprecedented danger.

Whether you agree with all of the specific suggestions offered in this speech (and I myself am at least conflicted about the pledge to seek no further "investigations and indictments" against those who performed "illicit actions in high places"), you have to admire Sorensen's bold desire to move beyond the conventional narrative of our two-party system. Really, read the whole piece. Eschewing money for TV ads and personally buying the television time to host six more debates? That's different. Maybe it's just different enough to work.

Of course, writing this speech is one thing. Having it delivered, or having its spirit adopted, by an actual presidential candidate is another. But with the bully pulpit or without it, these words speak for themselves; speak loudly enough that they just might be heard.

Sorensen will be forever linked to JFK and the inaugural address that gave birth to an entire generation of progress. Kennedy's figure looms large, in Sorensen's life as well as our party and nation. But anyone who thinks Sorensen lives in a shadow hasn't read these words, hasn't seen the light they shine. And will continue to shine, long after their author has gone.

Jon Bruning: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

2007-06-28T08:21:00.000-06:00

Desperate for all the media attention he can get, Attorney General Jon Bruning has resorted to tossing any pathetic and hypocritical complaint he can muster at sitting Senator Chuck Hagel to boost his declared challenge for Hagel's seat in 2008. There's just one problem - along with the kitchen sink, Bruning has already tossed out all logic and principle.

See for yourself, as reported in the Lincoln Journal-Star:

Attorney General Jon Bruning criticized Sen. Chuck Hagel Tuesday for his vote to revive comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

“Unfortunately, Chuck Hagel’s vote gives new life to a bill that the people of this country have soundly rejected,” said Bruning, a 2008 Republican candidate for Hagel’s Senate seat.

Hagel, a Republican, has not yet announced whether he will seek re-election next year.

Bruning said he supports improved border security and opposes any proposal that would grant amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already living in the United States.

Hagel was one of 24 Republicans who voted to revive the immigration issue.

Nebraska’s Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, also voted with the majority on a 64-35 vote.

Now, here are the absurdities and inconsistencies that don't get reported in Bruning's cry for relevance:

(1) Jon Bruning is criticizing Hagel for merely re-opening debate. That's a world apart from voting for the legislation's final passsage. For instance, Ben Nelson also voted to re-open debate but there seems to be zero possibility of his voting for this legislation in its current form.

(2) Jon Bruning has built his young campaign on being more loyal to President George W. Bush than Chuck Hagel has been. Yet, Bush has declared that those who opppose building a comprehensive compromise on immigration "don't want to do what's right for America." Immigration reform is probably Bush's last chance at a legacy not wholly tainted by his mangling of the Iraq War and America's stature around the world, and Bruning has abandoned his President on the issue just to score political points with the most rabid fringe element of the Republican base.

(3) Jon Bruning declares "the people of this country have soundly rejected" comprehensive immigration reform - except he couldn't be further from the truth. Polling numbers show that the American public overwhelmingly supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country - the so-called "AMNESTY" Bruning opposes and about which we hear so much fear-mongering. If Bruning is looking for an issue "the people...have soundly rejected," he should look to our current policy in Iraq. But, for some reason, there he doesn't seem to care what the American people (or the majority of Nebraskans) think.

Jon Bruning - he's flying blind with nothing to guide him but his own ambition. I hope he keeps it up. If so, we're in for some very amusing and very pathetic moments of pure pettiness and political pandering in the months ahead.

[**Update, 1:30 pm - On today's vote for cloture, Hagel supported putting the above legislation to a final vote. Nelson was on the prevailing side in opposition, likely killing comprehensive immigration reform until after the 2008 elections. Hopefully, the debate over sane and reasonable border security measures will continue and find greater success, so we can eventually move forward with comprehensive reform that finally respects the plight of those in our midst stuck in a sorry state of legal limbo.**]

Scott Kleeb: "I'm Exploring"

2007-06-26T15:45:00.000-06:00

Scott Kleeb's back in the arena. No, it didn't come with a press conference or a parade, but that's not really Kleeb's style. It begins, as his last campaign began, with a promise. And it ends with a bang.

The promise? A new brand of politics. A lofty goal, but Kleeb's "brand" isn't really new... at least not to anyone who followed his first campaign. That Nebraska could realize untapped potential if only it could recognize common interests and goals... this is the message that inspired the uninvolved and persuaded the straight-ticket Republicans. This is the message that brought Kleeb within ten points of victory, despite negative ads and dirty tricks, in a district Bush carried by 50%.

The story of that campaign has been told and retold many times, by myself and others across this state and beyond. But what's generally gone unreported (if not necessarily unnoticed) is the story behind that story: the hard work and solid instincts that helped turn an unknown ranch hand into a transformative political figure. Because Scott Kleeb isn't just an inspiring presence on the stump, he's a student and a laborer, a man who does his homework and isn't afraid to do the heavy lifting required of his campaign.

Kleeb has also impressed some independent observers: Diane Duffin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, categorizes Kleeb as one of the smartest candidates she has seen and said she can’t remember the last time a candidate studied the district as academically as he has. (CQ Politics, Feb. 6, 2006)

When I interviewed him in December, I was impressed by his attitude and discipline as a candidate. He acknowledges and accepts the hard tasks of raising funds and proving viability as a personal burden, not something that comes free care of the party or the press or the blogosphere. It is that pragmatism that drives his campaign today.

Though uncommitted to any race (he says he is "currently exploring several options to continue and expand our campaign", options that could include another run for NE-03 or a shot at the Senate), Kleeb realizes that Democrats must prepare now for a campaign the NE-GOP has dominated since November. He starts with $64,000 in the bank and a volunteer organization in the most Republican part of the state. Not bad.

But he also starts with a significant deficit in a state all too comfortable with one party politics and cakewalk elections. That deficit is a burden we can share. Scott's willing to put in the long hours and shoulder the hard work. He asks us now only for our money. Believe me, it'll be well spent.

Click here to donate to Scott Kleeb.

Bruning Goes National

2007-06-23T11:03:00.000-06:00

Sorry this post is so late, but having recently ditched my daily dose of conservative radio for some good ‘ole classic rock, I missed Jon Bruning’s appearance on the Laura Ingraham show and had to wait for the podcast. It took a couple of days. And no, it wasn’t worth it.

Begging for a caption contest?

A repetition of Bruning’s standard strikes against Hagel (his stance on immigration, his position on Iraq), the interview is notable only because someone was talking about Chuck Hagel on a national news talk show, and this time it wasn’t Chuck Hagel.

Personally, I’m skeptical that conservative weariness of the Sunday Morning “Hagel Show” has produced any real appetite for Bruning’s “Anti-Hagel Show”. Bruning could’ve brought this campaign (and the issues of the day) out of the long shadow cast by Hagel’s ego and public image. Failing to take that opportunity makes him vulnerable to the same impatience and fatigue that’s slowly sinking the Senator.

And then what happens if Hagel decides to jump ship? Does Bruning really want to be the only person left in the race that still thinks it’s “all about Chuck”? Hey, that’s the bed he’s made. I hope it’s comfortable.

Bruning’s early and persistent attacks on Hagel have earned him the endorsement of the conservative RedState bloggers, an item that apparently impressed the people over at jonbruning.com. It’s not clear this endorsement means anything substantively, but rhetorically it has given weight to progressive blogger’s claims that this race has become a sort of Lieberman-Lamont in reverse, or one part of an even larger movement to eliminate anti-war dissent in the national Republican ranks.

It’s a good story, but one that seems a tad over-sold. Yes, this is a primary battle based almost entirely on the single issue of Iraq. And yes, the Lieberman story was portrayed unfairly as some unprincipled purge of Democratic dissent, a charge this story has somehow managed to escape.

The difference is that liberal bloggers were way ahead of the Conneticut Primary, actively seeking a liberal challenger long before Lamont expressed any interest. The conservative bloggers in this case are Johnny-come-latelys, activists seeking to capitalize on a homegrown fight that’s dominated by ego and personality.

But ego and personality only go so far. This story might continue to grow in national prominence as Hagel slugs back and Bruning finds new lines of attack. But it’s a story we Nebraskans have heard before, one we’ve heard maybe one time too many. And, believe me, it doesn’t end well for either candidate.

Nebraska Democrats Prepare for 2008 Presidential Caucus

2007-06-22T00:01:00.000-06:00

I've stayed almost absurdly quiet about the Nebraska Democratic Party's attempt to see that Nebraska Democrats might have a real say in who their party's 2008 Presidential nominee will be for the first time in more than three decades.

Right now, Nebraska Democrats' plan is to hold their first ever statewide Presidential Caucus on Saturday, February 9th - which would make it the first contest after the huge February 5th SUPER DUPER TUESDAY that looks likely to host more than 20 states' primary elections.

The presidential nominating process has simply become so screwy that it's really hard to pin down whether this is likely to prove a good or a bad idea. There is definitely potential for the idea to be remarkably sucessful and worthwhile, but there are also plenty of dangers considering that it will require statewide organizing that isn't currently in place without any outside funding or taxpayer assistance. And, of course, there's no guarantee of relevance since a) we're in a state with very little potential to vote for a Democratic President in 2008 and b) there's a very real chance the nomination could already be decided before February 9th rolls around.

In response to this latter concern, Thursday's Omaha World-Herald reports on an amended proposal that will be considered by NDP leadership this weekend:

Nebraska Democrats may join the throng rushing to hold presidential contests on so-called Super Duper Tuesday in February.

The party, which plans to hold its first-ever presidential caucuses next year, will discuss Saturday whether to move the date of the caucuses up four days to coincide with Super Duper Tuesday.

Currently, the Nebraska Democratic Party plans to hold a Feb. 9 caucus. Some in the party and some presidential campaigns would prefer that Nebraska join more than 20 states holding primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5....

Earlier this year, the Nebraska Democrats agreed to hold caucuses to try to lure presidential candidates into the state and attract some national attention.....

The Nebraska Republican Party does not plan to hold caucuses and will stick with its May primary to choose a nominee.

Nebraska Democrats will gather in homes, cafes and town halls to declare a presidential preference. Delegates are then chosen at the precinct level based on support for a presidential candidate.

[T]he party's caucuses already have generated interest from three presidential campaigns: former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

I'm going to be perfectly honest - Nebraska is never going to receive enough attention from candidates and the press to make this caucus worthwhile. Rather, what benefits are likely to result are those that fall quite naturally from just giving Nebraska Democrats a reason to get active and to give a damn.

The Nebraska Democratic Party has no doubt paid a price for the decades of disregard from its national counterpart and their 30 years of successive presidential campaigns. Although Nebraska's Democratic candidates have found most of their success in distinguishing themselves from the national party over those three-plus decades, our state's traditional Democratic voters have become increasingly disengaged - perhaps even politically alienated - as a result.

There is potential and promise in this Presidential caucus only because it might give those traditional Democrats a voice once again - not on CNN, not in the New York Times, but rather in their neighborhoods and in their daily lives.

The success of this caucus has nothing to do with how many campaign visits or campaign commercials Nebraskans see. Its success begins and ends with its ability to mobilize Democrats - getting them together, getting them involved, and getting them to believe that they can still make a difference right here in Nebraska. The hope is that, with this caucus, the people will find their voice and - in the ensuing months and years - the dream is that they will damn well learn to use it.

That's a tall order - with higher expectations than we have any right to in the Nebraska Democratic Party's first attempt at a project of this scale. At the end of the day, it's probably worthwhile to continue with the caucus just because Nebraska Democrats don't have much to lose. If they're a failure, our votes weren't going to count anyways, but at least we tried to do something different while Nebraska Republicans lazily sat back and let the rest of the country decide who'd be representing their party on the November 2008 ballot.

The caucus is a sign of life for Nebraska Democrats - proof that the party is willing to try new things to reach the people of Nebraska and to give them a voice in their own future. There are no guarantees of success - just the knowledge that we can't do a whole lot worse than our total voicelessness over the preceding three decades. For now, that has to be enough.

Tuesday, February 5th or Saturday, February 9th? Honestly, it probably doesn't matter much. It's going to be a craps-shoot either way, and we won't know which would have been the better date until after the fact.

Personally, I say just pick one. I'll be at my caucus regardless - even if I'm not yet sure for whom I'll be caucusing. If readers have any suggestions, consider this an open thread - except for you Nebraska Republicans who aren't going to have any say at all.

Dave Heineman: Corrupting the Young

2007-06-21T10:24:00.000-06:00

Republican Governor Uses Strong Arm Tactics on Student Leaders

Recently, I wrote about Governor Dave Heineman's bullying and behind-the-scenes manipulation of the 2007 Nebraska Legislature. What we've seen is the work of man who's a seasoned Republican Party operative willing to use every trick he's learned along the way to have his way with the future of our state.

Having bitched (in prison slang) the cowardly majority of state senators by manipulating the committee system and by applying the basest partisan political pressures, Heineman has made a mockery of the legislature's institutional integrity. The man has an agenda, and he's not going to let democracy, our nonpartisan tradition, nor our state Constitution get in the way of that agenda.

Now, though, comes a disturbing example of just how far Heineman is truly willing to go - making threats and promising retribution against the University to force student leaders to do his political bidding. David Solheim, President of the student body at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln explains:

Last week the University of Nebraska Board of Regents voted to increase tuition by six percent. For the 2007-2008 academic year, in-state students will now pay $169.60 per credit hour.

In the interest of accountability and transparency, I feel it is my responsibility as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's student regent to inform students why I voted "yes" for the latest tuition hike.....

In January, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman recommended only a 1.1 percent increase in state funding to the university. Had this recommendation carried, UNL students would be facing tuition increases in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 percent....

Luckily, members of the Legislature were wise enough to up the recommendation to a 4 percent increase in state funding, but that still left [the University] with a deficit of some $9 million. Worse yet, the governor has the ability to line-item veto parts of the state budget and in May it appeared that he might target [the University].

At that point, the four student regents, myself included, met with Heineman and consented that if he did not veto the state appropriation, we would support a tuition increase to cover the $9 million deficit. Heineman followed through, [the University] escaped his vetoes unscathed, and last week all four student regents honored our commitment by voting to increase tuition by 6 percent.

This is, of course, a sad follow-up to last week's report on Heineman's shameless hypocrisy talking about the importance of affordable and accessible higher education after pushing for his Brain Drain Budget throughout the 2007 legislative session.

Heineman has never paid anything but lip service to the fact that many talented young people are being priced out of Nebraska's universities and forced out of the entire state to seek better opportunities elsewhere. From his record, he honestly doesn't seem to give a damn about higher education, though he can pride himself for teaching a lesson to these student leaders in how to abuse their office and pull peoples' strings to achieve their political objectives.

I'm sure those students learned Heineman's lesson quite well. After all, the man is a master. It's just unfortunate more Nebraskans aren't paying attention to our Governor and how he really does business, so the people might learn a thing or two for themselves . . . before it is too late.

Will the Democratic Party Follow Ben Nelson's Lead on Immigration?

2007-06-19T11:34:00.000-06:00

Sen. Ben Nelson is a man who knows how to get things done. We've seen that on Iraq, where Nelson has quietly but confidently helped lay out the pathway for establishing accountability and Congressional oversight over a war that was allowed to spiral out-of-control unchecked for almost four years under the Republican Congress. Now, on immigration, the other cable news-approved BIG ISSUE of the day, there are reports that the Democratic Congress again seems ready to follow Nelson's lead, keeping faith with the American people and proving to them the Democratic Party can overcome the gridlock and partisan procedural hurdles that have too long stood in the way of progress.

The following U.S News article is based on a story from the ultra right-wing Washington Times, so it's somewhat suspect. But, what truth there is in the report reinforces Nelson's place as one of the Democratic Party's premiere power-brokers and expert navigators through treacherous political waters when people are finally ready to listen to the American people and get serious about getting stuff done.

The immigration bill is back, with the Senate expected to debate it over the next two weeks. Senate passage is by no means assured, but the measure appears to have a fighting chance of surviving the legislative maneuvers and counter-maneuvers expected of the next couple of weeks. Keen observers of the current debate, however, have long expressed reservations about the chance of anything close to the Senate "grand bargain" (the bipartisan legislation including both border security measures and a "path to citizenship") making it through the House. In the House, Republicans seem firmly opposed to the legislation -- while Democrats are wary of passing any immigration bill without GOP support.

But now Democratic leaders may have found a partial way out of this impasse. The Washington Times reports this morning House Democrats "say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support." That "could buy Democrats more time to work out the tougher aspects of immigration, such as what to do about the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now here, but it would go against the Senate's massive catchall approach and contradicts President Bush's call for a broad bill to pass."

I've long advocated comprehensive immigration reform and have taken issue on numerous occcasions with Nelson's playing the "Amnesty" card with such unprincipled abandon. But, comprehensive reform does not require a single piece of comprehensive legislation if our politicians are truly willing to tackle the full scope of our nation's immigration problem in a responsible and timely manner.

By adopting the "Border Security First" approach that was so successful in Nelson's 2006 re-election effort, there is a definite opportunity for Democrats to make a reasonable start tackling what is understandably a very complicated issue. But, the problem is actually backing-up and proving their commitment to a total overhaul of our broken system after getting the easy stuff out of the way.

Border Security First is a great slogan....it's probably even a good strategy....but, just like saying we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq, the American people must demand a more complete answer from any elected official who is honestly deserving of their trust.

Although I differ with Sen. Nelson on a number of issues, his political acumen is not in question. In fact, as we've seen on Iraq and perhaps now even on immigration, national Democrats would do well to take his counsel and his example seriously if they have any real intention of restoring their party as a viable alternative in America's Heartland. My only hope is that they cut a few less corners and avoid Nelson's unfortunate tendency to occasionally use a good soundbyte at the expense of good policy.

Nelson is a politician - a damn good one at that. On immigration, though, real lives are at stake. It's important to establish who is here as a matter of national security. But, figuring out where things stand so we can move forward in a humane and responsible manner does not support lining up millions of people as if they were pawns on America's political chessboard.

We're not the party of Iowa's xenophobic, Joe McCarthy-loving Congressman Steve King (featured in yesterday's Omaha World-Herald). Thank God for that - we can do so much better. By learning from Nelson's success but improving upon his message by answering the tough questions, that's precisely what we'll do.

New Nebraska Network Libeled in Omaha World-Herald

2007-06-16T00:01:00.000-06:00

I'll admit it. I'm pissed off. In Thursday's Omaha World-Herald, the state's most powerful newspaper published a letter to the editor that had no other purpose but to undermine me and to delegitimize the work we've been doing for almost 2-1/2 years at the New Nebraska Network.

What's most appalling is that the letter I'd written last week to which this responded was published by the World-Herald with all criticism of the World-Herald's biased and self-serving coverage of the 2007 legislature censored. Yet, they've now published a direct, libelous assault on this website without even having the common courtesy of providing its name or its Internet address that readers might judge its merit for themselves.

Shameless cowards! See for yourself:

Public Pulse, OWH 06/14/2007

CONSIDER THE SOURCE
In his June 8 letter, Kyle Michaelis called Republican state senators partisan "puppets" and implied that Gov. Dave Heineman is so devious that his arm of influence could "threaten the independence of our Legislature as a separate branch of government."

Kyle Michaelis is lecturing us on partisanship? That's rich. For those unaware, Michaelis is president of the Young Democrats of Nebraska and runs a very liberal blog, which he uses to make destructive and personal negative attacks on Republican elected officials.

In my opinion, Michaelis is exhibiting unprincipled hypocrisy. The next time he considers giving a sanctimonious lecture about the perils of political partisanship, I think he ought to first look in his own mirror.

Lloyd J. Smith, Lincoln

So, let's get this straight - because I'm politically active and have a blog, I shouldn't be allowed to express a personal opinion? I've never been anything but upfront about my partisanship at NNN, but I've also never been anything less than absolutely respectful and supportive of the nonpartisan ideal in Nebraska politics.

The political reality of our near-total Republican domination demands a viable Democratic alternative for the good of the state, and I will fight like hell to see that Nebraska's middle-class and working families have that alternative. But, I have never allowed this site's purpose to be clouded or manipulated by purely partisan machinations.

In fact, in terms of honesty with my readers that is the true stuff of that mythical journalistic integrity, I will put my record up against that of the World-Herald any day of the week.

This liar Lloyd J. Smith, as well as the Omaha World-Herald, can both go to hell for this inexcusable insult to this website and myself without any recourse or possibility of correcting their outrageous accusations.

"Destructive and personal negative attacks on Republican elected officials" - are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This website has always been dedicated to the ideas, the votes, and the policies affecting Nebraska's future. I can't even say what a slap-in-the-face it is to be maligned and demeaned like this after years of working so hard to avoid the easy temptations of personal attacks on those officials with whom I disagree politically.

I stand by my record, and I am prouder than ever of the work we have done and the work we will do. This state's insufferable slaves to the Republican status quo are not used to being challenged - they're not used to being called out on their hypocrisy. So, they'll use strategies and baseless accusations like those you see in this Letter to the Editor to avoid facing the truth and to keep the wool pulled over the peoples' eyes. They couldn't be more obvious, with a local Republican blog just expresssing its delight at using precisely these underhanded tactics to attack me and this site because they are so morally bankrupt and incapable of competing in the realm of actual ideas.

I can handle their nonsense. I expect it and have gladly suffered their pathetic previous attempts to kill the messenger. But, now the World-Herald has given them voice in what's probably the widest public arena in the state. This has to be one of the most unprincled and hypocritical acts imaginable - allowing this site and its publisher to be attacked baselessly while editing any criticism of the World-Herald's own bias from my letter that offered actual concrete evidence of their one-sided spin and distortions.

This is what we're up against, Nebraska. In the media, as in politics, the powers that be have had their way for so long that they can't even imagine a world where they're not calling the shots behind the scenes and controlling the public's perceptions.

I have no delusions about this site's reach or even its quality, but I do know that sites like this and voices like ours are very real threats to the status quo. And, those who serve that status quo and have benefitted so much from it - at expense to the people and our democracy - are scared as hell.

And, you know it as well as I know it - they damn well should be....because change is coming and there's not a damn thing they can do to stop it.

Stay strong. Talk hard. They ain't seen nothing yet.

The Brain Drain Budget: Gov. Heineman's Higher Education Hypocrisy

2007-06-14T04:33:00.000-06:00

This is what reporting without context looks like, another press release from Governor Dave Heineman as published in today's Omaha World-Herald:

Gov. Dave Heineman issued a challenge Wednesday to get more Nebraska students into college....

Heineman noted that Nebraska ranks among the top five states for high school graduation, but barely exceeds the national average for the number of students who go on to college.

He challenged state education leaders to boost the college-going rate from its current 59.7 percent.

Increasing that rate by 5 percentage points would give Nebraska one of the top five college attendance rates in the country, Heineman said....

State Education Commissioner Doug Christensen said many students don't believe college is possible for them.

Those whose parents did not attend college or who come from lower-income families may feel the doors to higher education are closed, he said.

Christensen is absolutely correct that the doors to higher education have closed for many Nebraska students - except it's Heineman and his cohorts who've locked that door and thrown away the key.

In Heineman's 2-1/2 years in office, he's consistently paid lip-service to making higher education accesible and affordable, yet by his actions and his priorities before the state legsilature he's clearly a roadblock standing in the way of Nebraska's making any true progress on these fronts.

In the 2007 legislative session that just ended two weeks ago, Heineman's proposed budget included increases to the University of Nebrask's budget of only 1.1 percent in the first year and 2.2 percent in the second year. This is at a time of booming revenue for the state, after years of the University's funding becoming a smaller and smaller share of the state budget while rising costs of energy, facility maintenance, and health insurance have far, far outpaced the rate of inflation.

So, where have the burdens of those costs been shifted? On the backs of students and their families, of course, who've faced skyrocketing tuition rates and student fees each and every year.

When Gov. Heineman has had a real opportunity to lead and to commit this state towards investing in our youth - our most precious natural resource - he instead went precisely the opposite route, making a short-sighted and destructive budget proposal that should have had every student, parent, and Nebraska business leader up in arms. Heineman offered a brain drain budget that would have sacrificed many of our best and brightest students, practically forcing them out of the state to continue their education.

University leaders and a few bold members of the Legislature's Appropriations Committee fought tooth and nail against Heineman's brain drain budget, getting the legislature to increase state aid by an average of 4% annually over the next two years. Although Heineman ultimately acquiesced to this reasonable but still insufficient funding, he used it as a bargaining chip to convince those Republican State Senators who are in his pocket not to override his vetoes of increased funding for a wide range of social services targeted at Nebraska's neediest citizens - from the elderly who rely on the Meals on Wheels program, to prostitutes seeking rehabilitation, to anyone with mental illness, substance abuse problems, or developmental disabilities. Jesus Christ must be so proud!

Now, the University of Nebraska's Board of Regents has come forward with a plan that raises tuition by 6% in the next school year. One can only imagine how bad the tuition increase would have been had Heineman gotten his way with his original brain drain budget.

As is, this 6% increase is hardly a victory after a decade of Republican "leadership" in the Governor's Mansion that has turned a blind eye as tuition has more than doubled. Let's look at tuition rates (per credit hour) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln since 1997, the year before the Johanns/Heineman-machine took over our state government:

1997 $78.50 4.7%
1998 $82.75 5.4%
1999 $87.25 5.4%
2000 $92.00 5.4%
2001 $101.25 10.1%
2002 $111.50 10.1%
2003 $128.25 15.0%
2004 $143.75 12.1%
2005 $151.00 5.0%
2006 $160.00 6.0%
2007 $169.50 5.9%

What's saddest is that tuition increases have followed the same pattern across Nebraska's University system. Meanwhile, tuition at our state colleges in Wayne, Peru, and Chadron has also skyrocketed, with a 7% increase expected this year to $110 per credit hour.

In the midst of this crisis - to which Heineman's continued neglect, failed leadership, and lack of vision have been some of the worst contributing factors - it's simply outrageous that he would now act as if he gave a damn about making higher education more accessible and affordable. The numbers tell a different story, as does Heineman's actual record.

Everything we needed to know about Heineman's concern for higher education was revealed by his brain drain budget. Why no one will call him on his record, why he hasn't been exposed as the hypocrite and fraud his record reveals him to be, is a question each of us must ask of our leaders and of ourselves.

Quietly Disproving a Republican Lie

2007-06-11T13:15:00.000-06:00

Sorry, but this post isn’t timely because this information isn’t news... except maybe to the Republican hacks, who aren’t listening and probably don’t care. But if not for their sake then at least for the record, allow me to briefly revisit last year’s race for NE-03.

In December, Scott Kleeb posited that the most effective attack on his candidacy was “the claim that was, on its face, the easiest claim to make, but the one that I actually think was the most wrong. Which was... not being from here.” I happened to agree, and so too did the state’s conservative bloggers, who couldn’t seem to cover this race in any capacity without some gratuitous attack on Kleeb’s heritage and identity:

“enough of the indignation about his family being from Nebraska. His parents are. He’s not.” “he has no legitimate ties to western Nebraska”, “I consider him a carpet-bagger, and nothing I can find out about the man changes my mind....”

Not content with merely slashing and rehashing Kleeb’s past (you know, the awful sins of growing up on a military base and attending school at Yale), the conservative attack dogs offered a glimpse into the future, informing us helpfully that Kleeb “already has his saddlebags packed and the stagecoach tickets bought” in order to flee the state after losing the election:

“Don’t cry for Scooter Kleeb, Argentina - by sun-up this morning he was doubtless humming “I’m Leaving on a Jet Plane” while thumbing through his Rolodex in search of what he hopes this time will be a real soft spot in the underbelly of the great American Body Politic.”

So successful was this attack in the blogosphere that by fall the fantasy of a Kleeb exodus had reached more legitimate partners in the “vast rightwing conspiracy”, with the Grand Island Independent suggesting “it will be interesting to see if Kleeb stays on as a highly-educated ranch hand or vanishes like tumbleweed on a high plains wind if he loses this contest.”

It’s difficult to overestimate the nastiness of this attack or its devastating impact on the state as a whole. This was not a policy difference or a shot at Kleeb’s resume and experience. There was no suggestion of either professional or personal wrong-doing, no gaffe-induced feeding frenzy… no attack on anything Kleeb had ever said or done.

No, this was a coordinated effort to rob a man of an identity he’s held his entire life. An identity as a Nebraskan. And in doing so, the conservative blogosphere and its mainstream allies have helped rob this state of a "Husker Nation" that extends far beyond the number of Nebraska ballots or driver’s licenses. A community that includes a great number of people seeking a path that may wind its way around the world but always (hopefully, always) finds its way back home.

Before you make an argument like that, you’d better be damn sure. But on this matter our would-be punditry was damn wrong:

Former Democratic congressional candidate Scott Kleeb turned down a chance to return to his alma mater, Yale University, but says staying in Nebraska doesn't necessarily mean he's decided to run for office again...
This week, Kleeb took his name out of consideration for a job directing the Yale-based World Fellows Program, a training program for young leaders.
Kleeb was a fellow in the program in 2002 and three times has hosted fellows on an educational tour of his relatives' ranch near Dunning, Neb. That is the ranch where Kleeb worked during breaks between studies at Yale and the University of Colorado and where he established his residence.
Kleeb said the Yale job was hard to turn down, but Nebraska "is home. This is where I need to be. This is where I belong."
Kleeb recently married Jane Fleming, the outgoing executive director of Young Democrats of America, whom he met during the campaign. The couple reside in Hastings.

Kleeb has been hired to teach an introductory course in American history at Hastings College, said Rich Lloyd, academic dean of the school. Currently, Kleeb is working for a Nebraska ranch to build its international beef sales and helping form a coalition of agricultural and environmental groups on climate-change issues. (Omaha World Herald April 14, 2007)

Scott Kleeb is a Nebraskan... not just by heritage, but by choice. His journey has brought him halfway around the world. It could've brought him back to Yale, or at least (for those cynics out there) to greener political pastures. But instead it brought him back to Nebraska, the one place that always was and always will be "home".

The least he deserved for making that decision was to be taken seriously as a candidate, to be allowed into a dialog of ideas and to be heard. That's the least Western Nebraska deserved as well. They didn't get it in 2006.

Unfortunately, I think the only thing the attack dogs learned from this ordeal is that such "below-the-belt" strategies work, that they might even be their only weapon against the inevitable erosion of our rural one-party system. Already it seems they're gearing up for the next election, this time turning their rhetorical guns on Kleeb's wife, another (new) Nebraskan by choice.

What can I say? Some things never change. But for the sake of our politics and the future of this state, some things must. We can no longer afford this despicable attack, this self-defeating notion that a man can't cross our borders and remain a Nebraskan at heart.

The Husker Nation deserves better. Scott Kleeb deserves better. And we sure as hell deserve more.

Who Will Stand Up to Governor Heineman?

2007-06-10T12:33:00.000-06:00

Coming out of the 2006 elections having vanquished Tom Osborne in the Republican primary before capitalizing on that momentum to achieve the widest margin of victory in Nebraska gubernatorial history, it's understandable that Governor Dave Heineman should be in a strong position politically. But, the loss of a record number of incumbent state senators to term limits, along with Heineman's behind the scenes manueverings as a seasoned political pro, allowed Heineman to exercise power and influence over the 2007 Nebraska Legislature that, by the end of the session, proved almost downright despotic in scope.

Nevertheless, rather than taking the legislature's power-brokers to task for abdicating their responsibilities to the people of Nebraska by subservience to the executive branch, a trio of editorials published on consecutive days in the Omaha World-Herald last week instead went out of their way to squash dissent to Heineman's de facto takeover of the Nebraska Unicameral.

OWH Editorial (06/03/2007)

The 2007 legislative session stands out as a historic one for the way that lawmakers and the Governor's Office worked to tackle [several key challenges], each of which was duanting in its complexity and difficulty:...

Lawmakers reached agreeement - despite self-indulgent excesses during floor debate - on a large if flawed tax reduction package.

OWH Editorial (06/04/2007)

[P]erhaps the most discouraging episode during the 2007 session was the Legislature's debate over tax policy. A few lawmakers displayed remarkable disrespect toward the Revenue Committee, its chairman, Sen. Ray Janssen, and the overall process by working to short-circuit the committee's work and by repeatedly trying to revive tax proposals even after they had been decisively rejected by the full Legislature.

In the wake of that sunseemly episode, some lawmakers need to ponder a few things:

How bombast and displays of egotism ill serve the Legislature and the state, for instance. How partisan machinations hold a particular danger for a nonpartisan Legislature. And how the highest compliment a Nebraka lawmaker can receive is "He's a workhorse," while one of the most damning insults is "He's just a show horse."

OWH Editorial (06/05/2007)

Partisan politics has, of course, played a role to some degree in the nominally nonpartisan Nebraka legislature as the two parties jostle to score points. But the partisan fervor this session was unusually pronounced at times.

The Nebraska Democratic Party probed for opportunites, for example, and in general appeared to have more success coordinating its partisans than did the GOP.

At times, the political manuevering grew frantic and particularly counterproductive, as during the raucous efforts to hijack the work of the Revenue Committee during the debate over tax policy.

Lawmakers should go to the Capitol to serve the Legislature, not to make the Legislature a servant for one's personal political interests or those of a particular political pary. Otherwise, the legislative process is undermined.

Got to give the World-Herald credit for its ability to stay on message with its misdirection to cover for Heineman & Company, the real culprits behind the more partisan atmosphere taking hold in the Nebraska legislature. One can't help wondering if the World-Herald's rhetorical refrains aren't a result of their recently hiring Heineman's spokesman as an editorial writer.

Either way, I attempted to challenge the World-Herald's take, especially its obscuring of Heineman's hijacking of the legislature, with the following Letter to the Editor (appearing in Friday's edition, sanitized to remove any criticism of the newspaper itself):

The Omaha World-Herald has gone too far with its absurd attacks on several Democratic state senators for their supposedly legislating with a partisan agenda. Seriously, who does the World-Herald think it’s kidding?

This last session, we saw several Republican state senators flip-flop on the death penalty under heavy pressure from their party. We also saw Gov. Dave Heineman’s influence build to a point that it threatens the independence of our legislature as a separate branch of government.

Both in committee and on the statehouse floor, too many of our Republican state senators proved nothing more than puppets on Heineman’s string. For perfect examples, look no further than their rush to approve the budget with little substantial debate, their wholesale abandonment of promises to provide homeowners with significant property tax relief, and their unprincipled capitulation to Heineman’s veto pen.

This level of control in the governor's hands is a very disturbing development that is the true threat to Nebraska’s nonpartisan Unicameral, no matter the World-Herald’s partisan slight-of-hand.

If anything, we should be thanking those Democratic and Republican state senators who still have the courage – when necessary - to stand and fight against the "business-as-usual" status quo.

Kyle Michaelis

Of course, I regret that I wasn't able to provide more coverage of the legislature this spring. In particular, I failed to provide any real-time discussion of the tax-cut debate and completely neglected the appropriations side of things as soon as it became clear that the worst excesses of Heineman's budget weren't going to be enacted.

What's scariest about the 2007 legislative session is that Heineman has realized he can get away with almost anything without getting challenged directly by the legislature. He hasn't quite gotten to the point that he can dictate policy, but he can present a tax-cutting scheme fueled by deception and a radical, irresponsible budget that sets the tone for debate throughout the entire session without being called out for either offense.

Reading the World-Herald's editorials above, you'll notice that they talk about the need for State Senators to serve "the Legislature." They want service to decorum and slavishness to procedure and politeness. What the World-Herald doesn't want to see is State Senators who are actually willing to serve and to fight for the people they represent.

Yes, there is a need for respectfulness in law-making, but it cannot and should not come at the expense of actual democracy. We can't leave the truth unsaid just because it might ruffle some feathers. Nor can we allow Governor Heineman to bully the legislature just because he does so gently and behind-the-scenes - which is precisely what we've seen in the 2007 legislative session on a whole host of issues. Probably the only notable exception was the Omaha Public Schools debate in which it was Heineman himself who "undermined the legislative process."

Funny how the World-Herald never took him to task for that. Nor did any state senator but Ernie Chambers, whose "bombast and displays of egotism" have protected the people of Nebraska - especially the voters he represents - from any number of state actions that would have been directly against their interests.

Doing what's right and what's best for the state of Nebraska should not provide our state senators an excuse to forget the voters who elected them. Compromise is essential, but it's fundamentally undemocratic to expect senators to work always towards consensus. And, damn it, in a democracy there is a time and a place - maybe even a duty - to raise a little hell ... even if it is inconvenient for Heineman, the World-Herald, and those state senators whose hypocrisy and double-speak are thereby revealed.

It is not partisanship to do the job you were elected to do. There is no betrayal in having some balls and refusing to play this game of go-along-get-along that puts Gov. Heineman in the driver's seat working with a legislature over which he - constitutionally - has no authority.

This isn't about any single issue. This isn't about who's being more partisan, the Democrats or the Republicans. This is about the principles underlying our democracy - especially the separation of powers to which Heineman has displayed clear hostility while most state senators have demonstrated unforgiveable complicity - like so many puppets on so few strings.

This is one of those instances where, if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. The problem is that noone is paying attention - not the press, not our state senators, not the public. Dave Heineman, however, knows damn well the power now at his disposal and - unchecked - he's going to be having his way with this state for years to come.

That might be what the World-Herald wants to see. But, how about you?

A Sad Day for Nebraska Blogs

2007-06-08T16:40:00.000-06:00

Leavenworth Street Embraces A New Low in Local Online Politics

Today is a very important day for blogging in Nebraska. I would propose that it is a sad day as well. Although sites such as SmithWatch, Paging Power, Leavenworth Street, the UNO Democrats Blog, and New Nebraska Network each have their respective political agendas, they have always seemed works of passion, reflecting on who their contributors are and what they honestly believe.

But, our Republican counterpart at Leavenworth Street has changed all that with the anonymous Street Sweeper's allowing his site to be used as a tool of shameless, outright political manipulation. Some might contend that Leavenworth has always been such a tool, but - in our own way - the same could have been said of the other sites mentioned above as well (including NNN).

That changed today. With no pretense of fairness, objectivity or public service - without even the author's identity that there might be some measure of personal accountability - Street Sweeper has crossed a line from which I fear there will be no turning back. The world of online Nebraska politics just got ugly, folks, and that ugliness is probably here to stay.

Below, you see a personal note published this morning at Leavenworth Street. It is from homegrown corporate giant David Sokol - CEO of MidAmerican Energy - to U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, expressing Sokol's continued support of Hagel in whatever decision he might make for his future political career.

With Sokol having allied himself with upstart Hagel challenger Jon Bruning - not only paying for Bruning's statewide opinion polling but also recently announced as the Bruning campaign's Finace Chair - the above note might seem a statement of outright hypocrisy that would be relevant to interested political observers. But, this is politics, and a careful reading of Sokol's qualified statement reveals only continued support and "friendship" for Hagel, along with a promise of future contributions. The note does not swear any particular allegiance or fidelity to Hagel that would preclude Sokol's pursuing other options and lending his support to other potential candidates.

Regardless, I don't really care who some Omaha multi-millionaire is hedging his bets with in the 2008 Republican primary. Sokol isn't an elected official. He's a guy with money, and he should be able to do with it whatever he damn well pleases within the confines of the law. If there's some suggestion of corruption here, there's a story to be told. But, if Sokol just wants to play games with Hagel and Bruning - pretending to be buddies with both while playing one against the other in the real world of electoral politics, it's hard to see how that justifies turning the tables on a private citizen in so public a forum with no concern for the principles at stake.

Here's what's probably most disturbing - this correspondence could only have come from Sokol's people or Hagel's. And, considering the tone of Leavenworth's commentary and the site's history of publishing inside information directly from the Hagel camp, it looks to definitely have come from the latter. In fact, Street Sweeper might very well be a paid Hagel lackey.

In my mind, release of this note can only really serve two possible functions - (a) embarrassing Bruning for over-stating Sokol's support or (b) reminding Sokol that politics is a two-way street and that an experienced politician in a free fall makes for a very dangerous enemy. In either event, this is a leaked document that is strictly private in nature. By publishing it, Leavenworth Street has gone beyond the pale. This article is nothing more than an instance of raw political manuevering, making a private citizen a pawn of an anonymous blogger's (not-so) hidden political agenda.

Of course, Leavenworth Street has always been suspect. Despite its first introducing itself as a site for humorous, middle-of-the-road, independent political commentary, it was obvious from the start that Street Sweeper only took the part about being funny seriously. Other than that, the site has proven itself little more than an occasionally amusing online weapon of Nebraska's Republican establishment.

But, no matter how ugly things have gotten in the Nebraska GOP, no matter how quickly, this latest post simply goes too far. Leavenworth has gone beyond the free-for-all world of politics with an attack on a local business leader's integrity that is very, very personal. For this, I don't feel much sympathy for Mr. Sokol, but I am very worried by the precedent it sets across the spectrum of Nebraska politics.

When this sort of private correspondence is fair game for leaking to local bloggers who are without principle and accountable to no one, there is no logical end to the ugliness and stupidity that will eventually result. This day has been a long time coming. From this point forward, I'm afraid we are likely to see more of the same - even if I expect it to be quite amusing should two powerful factions of the Nebraska Republican Party engage in the full-on, open warfare that seems to be developing.

Their loss could be our gain. What troubles me is the just-as-likely scenario in which, quite simply, we all lose.

Chuck Hagel vs. Jon Bruning: Guns a'Blazing

2007-06-07T22:19:00.000-06:00

ROUND 3

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning took the big step today of offically announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by two-term Republican incumbent Chuck Hagel.

This move has, of course, been expected for some time. Although it was only March when Bruning declared himself "a Hagel guy" who would only run if Nebraska's senior senator decided not to seek a third term, Bruning has since become convinced that it's time to go for the Nebraska Republican Party's king-maker.

What's probably most surprising is how upfront Bruning has been with his accusations of apostasy. In Thursday's press conference, Bruning used every angle he had to portay Hagel as out of touch with Nebraska and as a traitor to his party and president at a time of war.

This went above and beyond attacking Hagel's half-hearted impeachment talk and his siding with the Democratic Party in opposing Bush's "stay the course" rhetoric and escalation of the war in Iraq. Bruning actually accused the sitting Republican Senator of being a carpetbagger from Virginia more interested in making a name for himself on TV than serving the people of Nebraska. He also went after Hagel for talking about an independent bid for the Presidency as yet another betrayal of the Republican Party.

When challenged with Congressional Quarterly's report that Hagel was more loyal to Bush's agenda than any other Senator in the country in 2006, Bruning bet the questioner "a nickel" that no such report existed. Besides owing that reporter a nickel and looking a bit unprepared and ignorant about Hagel's actual record, Bruning was still able to save some face with the suggestion to “Call the White House and ask them how they feel about Senator Hagel.” Considering the Bush Administration's vindictiveness and Vice President Dick Cheney's outright denunciation of Hagel, it's hard to believe there isn't some behind the scenes support for an anti-Hagel insurgency here in Nebraska (which Bruning appears to have tried tapping with a fundraising trip to New York last weekend).

Considering that Hagel's 1996 Senate victory is rightfully understood as the foundation on which Nebraska Republicans built their position of outright dominance in Nebraska politics, Bruning comes across quite like Robespierre declaring "Louis must die, so that the country may live." (i.e. "Hagel must fall, so that the party may live.")

If history is any indicator, Bruning might just get his way. . . but he's also likely to get his soon thereafter.

It would be one thing for Bruning to have announced that he couldn't wait any longer for Hagel to make up his mind. . . that he's running because it's his time, he's the best candidate for the office, and refuses to be constrained to decisions and time tables outside his control.

Rather than that more respectful approach that would have allowed Hagel to walk away from this race with his dignity intact, Bruning made quite clear today that - besides his own out-sized ego - this campaign is mostly about getting rid of Hagel. Bruning could have left Hagel an out but has instead chosen to define himself as "the anti-Hagel," essentially slapping Hagel in the face and daring him to do something about it.

This might appear to back Hagel into a corner but one can't help wondering if it isn't truly a reflection of the corner into which Bruning had already been backed. Whether or not Hagel was going to seek re-election, the institutional, inner-party forces at his disposal were likely going to work against Bruning and for another candidate no matter what.

In essence, every bit of influence Hagel has (most importantly, that behind the scenes) was probably going to someone who wasn't Jon Bruning. I suspect Bruning realized that and is now taking Hagel on and making him the issue not just as an attention-grabbing strategy but also as a matter of his own political survival. What's impossible to know is whether division in the Nebraska Republican Party made this conflict inevitable (with Bruning permanently wait-listed to make the next step) or whether Bruning's raw ambition simply wouldn't allow him to wait his turn any longer.

An intriguing dynamic any way you look at it. For now, this is a two-man race. But, we don't know if it's Jon Bruning vs. Chuck Hagel or Jon Bruning vs. himself. Bruning is trying very hard to make this a race about Hagel in hopes that Hagel's perceived weakness will play to his benefit whether or not Hagel ever appears on the 2008 ballot.

As Hagel and his people are concerned, Bruning's is pretty much a scorched earth strategy, which suggests divisions in the Nebraska Republican Party even greater than we might have previously imagined. Either that or Bruning just doesn't have the agenda to back up his ambitions and plans to win this race on negativity and personal attacks.

After attacking Hagel with every weapon he had, this latter possibility became especially evident in the delight Bruning showed at suggestion of a general election showdown with potential Democratic candidate and former two-term U.S Senator Bob Kerrey. With perversely little concern for winning an election based on ideas, Bruning's campaign strategy was succinctly revealed in his confidently dismissing Kerrey as "so easy to assail."

For now, Bruning gets points for going on the offensive with such reckless abandon. But, it's very, very early, and there's a lot of fight left - not to mention plenty of other potential challengers waiting in the wings.

Scorecard Through Three Rounds
Jon Bruning 09 - 10 - 10
Chuck Hagel 10 - 09 - 09

Blogger Brawl 2007

2007-06-05T17:10:00.000-06:00

Welcome to Thunderdome! What began as a simple note of appreciation for Sen. Bob Kerrey's latest contribution to the debate of the Iraq War has quickly evolved in that article's comments section into a broader and much more heated discussion of where our nation's Iraq policy truly should go from here between myself and two highly-regarded contributors to Nebraska's liberal blog community.

As much as I appreciate the views of TedK and Dave Sund - both with whom I have worked in the past and look forward to working with in the future - I see little evidence of progress in our deliberations - meaning that, as much as I might have hoped otherwise, the solution to the international crisis in Iraq won't be coming from the New Nebraska Network (at least, not yet).

Still, I'd be very interested in any third person's perspective (or fourth person's, as the case may be). Comment away. I'm going to be away from the computer until tomorrow afternoon, but will look with great curiosity to see if any further discussion develops.

Also, consider this my call for reinforcements in case Dave and Ted decide to gang up on me in my absence.

Omaha: One City, Period.

2007-06-05T08:27:00.000-06:00

Schools Controversy Highlights Nebraska's Political Shortcomings

I'll admit LB 641 was an imperfect and messy solution to a poorly defined problem. It's frustrating that compromise required the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, and there's certainly no guarantee that the separate districts will keep their promises to cooperate in a way that minimizes redundancy and waste.

Actually, there's no guarantee that any of the provisions in this bill will do what they were intended to do and eliminate the shameful achievement gap between black and white, wealthy and impoverished. It's probably fair to characterize this law, as one recent letter to the editor did (OWH, 6/2/07), as a "social experiment with no basis for guaranteed success." There are no guarantees here. This is a gamble. But considering the magnitude of the problem and the absence of any solution offering "guaranteed success", a gamble was precisely what the doctor ordered.

The few alternatives the Legislature could seriously consider -either ignoring the problem entirely, or funding study after study while allowing more and more kids to fall through the cracks- were morally unacceptable. There is at least some hope that any serious overhaul of the status quo might produce the grassroots optimism, innovation and dedication necessary to make our schools work. But by embracing a bold and equitable plan to confront the issues of race and wealth, the Unicameral has given their bill a fantastic chance to succeed, and that is reason enough for our enthusiasm and praise.

But even if I thought these concerns were legitimate, they wouldn't explain the size and volume of 641's opposition. No, there is a bigger issue at work here, one that's more familiar and more universal to Nebraska politics in general. Let's take another look at those letters to the editor:

I moved to Gretna years ago to avoid the big-school problems of the Omaha Public Schools, and I dislike being dragged into it now. The schools in towns like Gretna or Springfield have nothing in common with OPS and shouldn't be a part of it. (OWH, 6/2/07)

The message the Legislature has sent to Sarpy County students is clear: Those who reside in a district that values education and produces high-achieving students will work hard and be rewarded by having funds seized from their district and given to districts that need it more. That concept is straight from Karl Marx: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Sarpy County needs to find a legal way to kill this awful plan or look into seceding from Nebraska. (OWH, 6/1/07)

Sound familiar? This is the "rugged individualism", the "my way, my money, my rights" attitude that has defined Nebraska politics to a greater extent than either conservatism or Republicanism.

The problem with this attitude, in part, is that I hesitate to even call it a problem. Frankly, it's endearing. It's the very quality that makes this state "home". And it's done a lot of good for politics on both a state and a national level, in both parties and in every decade.

Without this attitude and our subsequent identification with the loner and the iconoclast, we may never have produced figures like Democrat William Jennings Bryan or Republican George Norris, statesmen who played invaluable roles in the Progressive reforms of the early 20th century and the passage of the New Deal. And yes, if any solution should ever arise from this mess in Iraq, it may come in large part thanks to the efforts of current mavericks like Senators Hagel, Nelson and Kerrey, all of whom demonstrate a unique willingness not only to cross party lines, but to break them down.

But even when the lone wolf shows remarkable success at building consensus, he cannot by his very nature build a community. That is the nature of Nebraska: politically, culturally, at every level and in every corner of the state. LB 641 is an affront to that sense.

That's the only real gamble. Our schools will work for us when we work for each other. But, frankly, that's asking a lot. It's asking us to overcome history and inertia. To part with the very quality that makes this state home.

Is there some middle ground, some way we can build that sense of community while maintaining our individualistic identity? Maybe, but it starts with us recognizing the need for that same consensus building and risk taking in a realm outside our government.

It's not enough to just win elections. If it were, Omaha would be in far better shape than it is today. Policy can only do so much, it is we the people who must find that optimism, innovation and dedication necessary to make this city work. We must find it in ourselves. Our rugged, egotistical selves.

Bob Kerrey Strikes Back

2007-06-04T03:33:00.000-06:00

Two weeks ago, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey provoked some very understandable outrage with a column decrying the American left for its short-sighted and reactionary approach to the Iraq War. I offered a half-hearted defense of Kerrey because there was a valid point somewhere in the middle of his apologetics and revisionism, but it was not an easy argument to make because Kerrey was just so wrong about so much.

Lucky for us - as Nebraska Democrats wanting to maintain faith in one of our party's favorite sons and as progressives wanting constructive ideas for challenging the Iraq War's disastrous stay the course status quo - the conscience of the American news media, Bill Moyers, provided Kerrey an opportunity to elaborate upon his ideas and to vindicate his vision for our future military engagement in the entire Middle East.

On PBS' Journal this weekend, Bob Kerrey stated in his own words:

I would say we end the occupation today. Our mission should not be to occupy Iraq. Our mission should be to be a reliable ally of the Iraqi government in their effort to survive.....

I think it's likely that the Iraqi government will say, we need some kind of U.S. force to make certain that a much stronger in Syria, much stronger military in Iran, and much stronger military in Turkey don't take advantage of a potential power vacuum. But they have to ask us what they want....

I would say yes to maintaining some kind of military force for that purpose. And if they ask us to have forces left not as occupiers, but to help make certain that those borders are protected, I would say yes....[T]hey ask us for economic and military assistance, I would say yes, up to a point.....

I think where we get in trouble is where we are out there operating their prisons, operating their jails, operating and even training their police force. It's very difficult to get that done in a fashion in the modern age, without these images of us knocking down doors, which I think undercuts essentially what we're trying to do....

I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are the same. But there are things that are very much alike. The first is, you're occupying this country. And you can't expect a kid that we've trained to be a good soldier to understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. We're trying to sensitize them. But at the same time, you're training them as soldiers. And...they're not trained as diplomats. They're not trained as aid workers. They're not trained as policemen. I do not think a mission of occupying Iraq is going to be successful.

I think that going after radical Islamic jihadists is absolutely essential. And I think as well, remaining a reliable ally of Iraq is important. But a reliable ally does not mean that we have to say yes to everything that's asked of us. And I think finally I would say...within reason -- and there's a lot in that statement, "within reason" -- you have to constantly press to expand the negotiations that are going on, both in the region and internationally, about what to do to make certain that Iraq has a chance of becoming a stable government in the aftermath of this war....

[T]he problem is that we don't have a bipartisan foreign policy today to deal with these radical Islamic jihadists. And...for the sake of our...soldiers that we're sending over there and for the sake of this larger battle, [we've got to] find a way to get bipartisan consensus on what to do about global jihadists.....

I think that the politicians in Washington understand that they can't survive the status quo. I don't believe that you're going to get Republican members of Congress very smiling ear to ear when they hear the President and the Vice President say we don't care about public opinion because we don't have to face the voters again. Republican Congress, people in Congress do face the voters. And they understand that that status quo is unacceptable. That's what the voters are saying....

The casualties are up. The cost is up....And the President still refuses to go to funerals. And the coverage of the caskets coming back are not national news. At home, they are....Those kids are coming home and they're being buried, and their families are grieving them, and their families are welcoming back their sons and daughters without legs, with brain damage, et cetera. And they don't like it. And I do not believe that Republicans or Democrats in Washington, D.C. misunderstand that. They know it....

The problem is, the very people who criticize us getting rid of dictatorships will then go on to say our problem is we're supporting all those dictators in the Middle East....[W]hich way do you want it? Do you want us to support dictators or oppose dictators.

We brought the dictator down....What's going on now is a war against a government....[T]hat war against...[the Iraqi] government is being fought by people who not just see liberal democracy in the United States as a problem, but liberal democracy in Iraq as an even bigger problem.

[M]any people in this debate are saying get out, period. Bring them all home tomorrow...[T]hat basically says...we're not going to help you in any way, shape or form. It was a mistake for us to go in. It's your problem. You fix it. And what we're doing is making the same mistake that many people made prior to the 2003 invasion, imposing our own ideas upon them.....

Iraq has become central to the war on terror. But the question now is, what do you do about it? And how do we responsibly respond to that fact? And it's very difficult to do because you could play an Air America piece and get a radio piece that was critical of what I said...It's sort of what's going on in many parts of the world. People who are trying to express a moderate view get driven out of the debate because they become the most important target....

I don't like the status quo of us saying, well, we have to support these dictators, because look what happened in Iraq....I mean, for the United States foreign policy to say we're just going to accept the status quo and go back to the status quo, putting our arms and cozying up to dictators because at least they provide stability. Saddam Hussein provided stability in Iraq by killing any Shi'a and any Kurd and anybody who opposed him....that's what he did. Was it stable? Yes. Was there violence inside of Iraq? Yes. If you were a Kurd, if you were a Shi'a, if you were anybody who opposed, he drove you either into prison or he drove you out of the country.

But...it was more acceptable for us, because it wasn't the kind of sectarian violence and brutality that we're seeing right now. And our troops weren't on the ground....

[T]he loss is incalculable. I mean, you've got a young person who dies and never develops, never, you know, sees their kids...It's an incomparable loss. And I think it's one of the things that I think the President has made a mistake in not doing -- going to funerals and allowing us to grieve these losses. And the losses are as great in Iraq, with families who are losing -- losing loved ones as well. Two million refugees...have left Iraq.

Allow[] yourself to feel that. Otherwise, it's not possible...to proceed in a correct fashion. You can be paralyzed by it. I would definitely say I do think that if this government of Iraq survives....if it survives as a democracy, I do believe that you're going to be able to say that the price was worth it....

The end game for me is one, we have to say we are not the occupying force. And it's not a small matter. We're not occupying Iraq any longer. We're ending the occupation. Secondly....that we are going to work to create bipartisan domestic and global strategies to deal with global jihadism. And thirdly, that we will remain an ally of Iraq and let the Iraqi government...make your requests. Tell us what you want. And we will say yes or no, depending upon whether or not we believe that it's an appropriate mission and appropriate for us to do it, or we have the resources....

I just see both the left and the right choosing to use words like betrayal and treachery any time somebody reaches a compromise....The problem is we don't have the conversation to find out where we agree and that's what's missing - the means by which the public can have a conversation and discover where the agreement is and then urge the Congress to do something in that area....

[Last November,] voters basically said "no" and that's not very clear instructions. In Nebraska, it's the number one issue. 49% of Nebraskans self-identify the Iraq war as the number one issue....I've never seen that situation, but if you poll...what should be done. Equally divided - withdraw, stay the course....

But neither answer is an answer. That's the problem.

Of course, there's some pretty heavy-duty editing going on above. I've left out Kerrey's defense of the Democratic Congress' recent compromise with President Bush from charges of capitulation, as well as his controversial call for refocusing the War on Terror on more surgical strikes with seemingly little to no regard for Middle Eastern countries' territorial sovereignty. Frankly, I agree with Kerrey about the former but am quite severely troubled by the implications of the latter and its potential to ignite a true regional conflict that could quickly become global in scale.

But, for now, its worth emphasizing to precisely what degree Kerrey has vindicated himself with a well-reasoned and comprehensive vision for ending the occupation of Iraq and moving forward with a new idea for American involvement. You don't have to agree with Kerrey on every point he makes, but his central proposal is as bold, as thought-provoking, and as deserving of respect as any I've seen put forward.

That Kerrey has now articulated himself in a manner that still challenges established liberal orthodoxy without going out of his way to blame its adherents for the four years of failure and the nationwide fatigue resulting from a war they opposed from the start should go a long way towards restoring confidence in Kerrey and confidence in his credibility as a true voice for reform.

As for talk of Kerrey returning to Nebraska politics, there's nothing I can say about such speculation that isn't said more entertainingly and probably more astutely by the following piece of brilliant editorial cartooning by Neal Obermeyer, as it appeared in last week's Lincoln Journal-Star.

Ben Nelson's Position On Immigration Is A Joke. . . Literally

2007-05-31T18:27:00.000-06:00

I've never shied away from criticizing Ben Nelson's continued failure to recognize how important it is that the United States do something to address and relieve the plight of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants already living in our country.

In 2006, I grew to have a begruding respect for his "Border Security First" campaign theme because he was right that the political exigencies of the day weren't going to allow for any true comprehensive reform of our nation's immigration policy. But, as soon as the Democratic Party assumed control of both Houses of Congress - with a Republican President desperate for some action that might give him at least one issue on which his presidency might one day be considered something more than a complete disaster - Nelson's most persuasive argument for not supporting comprehensive reform quickly lost its credibility and became an inevitable source of contention.

I won't deny that Nelson has a great fallback line declaring the current proposal before Congress "Amnesty with a Roadtrip." But, shame on him for debasing this important debate that affects millions of lives by using these cheap, Republican-inspired scare-tactics to suggest that amnesty is some great evil against the American public.

Of course, it's pathetic how so many lawmakers fumble about in vain efforts to prove the current plan does not include amnesty, but it's downright unconsciounable for Nelson to exploit their cowardice, playing games with hot button buzz words rather than dealing with the issue in a fair, honest and reasonable manner.

Nelson makes some valid points arguing for a different course than what we currently see before Congress, but he undermines them completely by engaging in this absurdist anti-"amnesty" campaign. The absolute worst example of this is when Nelson justified his position by declaring to the Omaha World-Herald:

"I plan to vote against the bill. . . It's amnesty any way you look at it. Amnesty in the dictionary is a sort of forgiveness. There is a forgiveness here."

How can Ben Nelson dare to call himself a Democrat, let alone a Christian, making foolish arguments like that - as if forgiveness were not a virtue and compassion were some sort of sin?

Like it or not, the current proposal mandates stiff penalties of thousands and thousands of dollars. If that's not tough enough for Nelson, that's one thing. But, there's no logical limit to his lock'em up and throw away the key (toss'em out and build a higher wall) philosophy. Nelson is contributing to an American society so ruled by fear that it can no longer even find the capacity to forgive. For that, he deserves the harshest rebuke.

I'm sorry, but these sorts of comments are beneath Ben Nelson, and they're beneath the people of Nebraska. I can respect Nelson for not doing a total flip-flop and forgetting his campaign promises post-election. But, he owes his country and his constituents better than representing his position in such silly and insulting fashion.

What's funny is that, despite my long-standing advocacy for comprehensive reform, I can't even say I'd support the proposal currently before Congress. Though we can't - as a matter of common sense and national security - afford to wait years before recognizing those in our midst hiding silently in the shadows, there are legitimate reasons to question and to challenge the proposed guest worker program that could create a permanent under-class without any opportunity to truly partake in the American dream.

Regardless of these principled concerns, though, this debate deserves better than what we're seeing from Nelson and company, whose manipulation of over-hyped rhetoric calls into question the integrity of our democracy with their childish adherence to A-word hysterics.

As for the headline of this little article, Ben Nelson's position on immigration has most definitely been a joke up to this point. Nor am I the only one who seems to think so. I suspect people will get a kick out of this clip from ABC's late night Jimmy Kimmel Live that puts Nelson's rhetoric in the silly light that it deserves.

Of course, it's the Kimmel show....so we're not talking about comedic gold. In fact, some people might not even find the clip funny at all - a sentiment I understand completely when it comes to Nelson's running gag on immigration policy.

What we've seen from Nelson so far - with all his talk of "amnesty" - most certainly is a joke, but - no - there's not a damn thing funny about it.

"NoHagel.com" Places Republican Senator In Own Party's Crosshairs

2007-05-29T18:55:00.000-06:00

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in last week's North Platte Telegraph, calling on fellow Nebraska Republicans to rise up in protest of Sen. Chuck Hagel's false promises and his supposed distortions of the situation in Iraq:

An open letter to Senator Hagel

In February of 1994 a member of your campaign staff contacted me and inquired if I would meet with you for lunch in Stapleton, Nebraska. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss your need for a campaign representative in Logan County and determine if I should serve in that capacity. During our lunch you offered a synopsis of your conservative political philosophy and your desires to bring that philosophy to the United States Senate. You stressed that, if elected, you would serve no more than two terms. You added that your central campaign strategy would be to emphasize Governor Nelson’s failure to honor his public commitment not to seek the 1994 Democrat Party nomination. Impressed with your statements I eagerly got on board. Your plan worked and you are now a United States Senator, twice over.

I have wondered for some months what your decision would be concerning another senate bid. Somehow, I must have missed your announcement that you would not seek a third senate term. Regrettably, I have determined that your credibility is no better than that which you ascribed to Ben Nelson.

My disappointment in your decision not to keep your word is dwarfed by my disgust for your public comments concerning the conduct of the war in Iraq. You know the history of the conduct of the Viet Nam war; you experienced it first hand and bear the scars of a wounded warrior. Do you not know that the fundamental tenant of the North Vietnamese was to defeat the United States at home? To demoralize the American people to a point where we would simply leave the fight? To encourage campus leftists to create the illusion that we were being defeated on the field of battle? Of course you know, and that is what makes your utterances so egregious....

I learned several weeks ago that you broached the possibility of impeachment of President Bush and that you cautioned him that he was not a monarch. I can’t describe to you the level of my rage at your statement. In discussions with other Nebraska Republicans I have learned that many agree with my assessment of your conduct. So many, that I believe you will not be re-elected to a third term, a third term that you told me you would never seek.

I am under no illusions that you will be honorable, or that your conduct in the US Senate is helpful to this country, this state, or the Republican Party that you claim to be a member of in mind.

I have, at my own expense, established a website that Nebraskans can visit to add their names to the legion of voters who will not support you for any future elective office. It is my most fervent hope that potential conservative senatorial candidates will be encouraged to challenge you in the 2008 primary. Like-minded Nebraska Republicans can logon to www.nohagel.com to express their lack of support.

Joe Shown
Stapleton

For the sake of Mr. Shown's credibility, I cut his sad attempts at fabricating some sort of victory from our four year occupation of Iraq. I won't ridicule him further because I feel far more pity than contempt for those who adhere to this "America can do no wrong" (and make no mistakes) fantasy.

Besides, I'm just highlighting the grassroots resistance to Hagel in his own party - I'll leave it to Republican primary voters to decide whether that resistance is warranted by the facts. Not my fight, but it's definitely one we'll all be watching with a keen eye in the months ahead.

More than 50 Nebraska Republicans from Central and Western Nebraska have already joined the "NoHagel.com" chorus - declaring "We Do Not Support Hagel in 2008!" Who knows - if the word got out in Republican circles, maybe the site would catch like wildfire? Regardles, this is a rare opportunity, indeed, to see just what sort of appeal this sort of insurrectionist action will ultimtely hold in a party that is defined by its deference to power.

Where do Nebraska Republicans' true loyalties lie - with King George or with Lord Hagel? That is the question, and it's one to which I do not have a ready answer. I suspect, though, the Republican Party's limitless capacity for self-delusion and hypocrisy will ultimately protect both men from facing any true inner-party resistance.

LB 641: An Unlikely Mission Accomplished

2007-05-29T07:44:00.000-06:00

On sale now (via Paging Power)

At the start of this legislative session I outlined my significant doubts that a Unicameral this inexperienced could successfully tackle an issue as laden with tripwires and land mines as the Omaha schools boundary dispute. I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

LB 641 confronts the two most urgent issues at hand -money and race- with courage, common sense and innovation. Inevitably, with so many different chefs seeking to put their individual stamp on this effort, the result is imperfect and a little messy. But the legislature kept their eye on the prize and managed a compromise that contained the best ideas of all proposals. I am especially fond of the "focus schools" concept (weird as it seems) - your best chance of combating institutionalized attitudes of ignorance and bias are the construction of communities small enough and cooperative enough to forge a new identity, an identity not tied to race or geography but to common need and interest.

There are many people to thank for this effort (which, while unproven, offers real promise and a rare opportunity for large-scale change), but give credit especially to Senator Chambers for forcing everyone back to the drawing board. I have been especially critical of his proposal to divide OPS along racial lines, but considering his strategic willingness to embrace compromise and surrender earlier demands of racial division, I have to wonder if this isn't exactly the result he intended all along.

What's that you say? Far-fetched? Inconceivable? Sure, but if any legislator invites such "cloak-and-dagger" fantasies it's the parliamentary giant from North O. I may not agree with Chambers' vision of what race relations in this nation could be or should be, but I have to admit his uncannily accurate sense of what they are. He understands this powder keg better than just about anyone, and at times he can be downright brilliant in the use of its explosive power for productive purposes.

After all, demolition is often the first step in construction.

So, my hats off to Chambers and the rest of the legislature for a job well done. And thanks also to the Governor and those Senators who supported LB 1024 for playing the necessary but unenviable role of "the stooge". Without your petty opportunism, this would have never been possible.

State Senator Brad Ashford: The Best Republican in the Bunch

2007-05-28T00:28:00.000-06:00

Returning as a State Senator 12 years after serving two terms in the late 1980s/early 1990s, Omaha's Brad Ashford has definitely impressed with his leadership of the Nebraska Legislature's Judiciary Committee. I'll refrain from singing any further accolades and simply let the man speak for himself, as quoted in a Sunday Lincoln Journal-Star profile:

Having grown up in Omaha, I’ve always really enjoyed the diversity of the people. Many, many different ethnic groups......

I’m committed to social justice. I grew up in a family that was grounded in that....

We need to constantly be vigilant against intolerance....

I think we ought to get back to our roots. We are, at our roots, a secular society that believes passionately about the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. It’s a wonderful mixture where people have the right to believe and say what they will.

At the same time, we should be careful not to impose our views or our religion on others.

Not your usual Republican themes, there. But, damn if it isn't refreshing to see someone who really doesn't fit into modern political stereotypes.....who uses the supposed independence afforded by our nonpartisan legislative environment to answer to principle rather than any one side's partisan extremists.

Our hats off to Sen. Ashford, with thanks for the example he has set this legislative session.

Lee Terry Is An Irresponsible Twit

2007-05-27T04:06:00.000-06:00

Paranoid Congressman Abandons Constituents; Passes the Buck to Ben Nelson on Omaha Earmark Requests

Two months ago, I wrote about Lee Terry's political stunt, playing games with essential federal funding for the city of Omaha to advance his self-serving partisan agenda. At that point, Terry had neglected to request any earmarks for his constituents using the silly excuse that he could not do so under newly-imposed ethics requirements by the Democratic Congress.

At the time, David Obey, the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, gave all representatives a one month extension to get any concerns addressed to the point that they could make requests with confidence of their ethical propriety. In that month, Terry's fellow super partisan stooge, Adrian Smith, decided to do what was best for his 3rd District constituents rather than continuing to play this partisan game with their best interests. Terry, however, was just stubborn, stupid, and self-centered enough to persist in this intelligence-insulting gambit jeopardizing a number of essential projects in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District.

The Omaha World-Heard reports:

Earmarks are special provisions that individual members of Congress attach to spending bills to direct federal money to specific projects.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Lincoln and Iowa Rep. Steve King, both Republicans, are among this year's earmark seekers. Rep. Adrian Smith, a rookie with barely four months on Capitol Hill, sought earmarks on behalf of Nebraska's sprawling 3rd Congressional District. But not Rep. Lee Terry.

The Omaha Republican said he was too worried about those ethics rules, which require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in an earmark.

Terry said he was afraid that House Democrats might attempt to show that he stood to profit from one of the earmarks.

Terry has shown little hesitation in the past about seeking federal funding to finance city sewers, local university research and other projects.

This spring, The World-Herald examined two sets of earmarks by Terry and other Nebraska congressmen: to fund construction of an Interstate 80 interchange in rural Sarpy County and to subsidize an Omaha business, 21st Century Systems Inc., as it tries to develop computer software for the Defense Department.

Terry, who received campaign contributions from people wanting earmarks for those projects, vigorously defended his role in both instances.....

Democrats, who won control of Congress last year, instituted new ethics rules, including ones on earmarks....

Terry said others seem to be willing to take the risk of submitting requests, but he isn't. He said he needs to be above reproach because he previously spoke out in favor of reforming the earmarks process.

Terry also said there was considerable confusion over the rules. He said his staff was told informally by ethics committee staff members that an earmark to pay for sewer separation projects in Omaha could be interpreted as a financial interest for him, because it might affect property taxes on his Omaha house.

He also said the Democrats controlling the House seem driven to find violations of the policy: "This is truly the most vicious 'gotcha' atmosphere I've ever seen," Terry said.

Others described the new rules as simply an attempt to provide transparency in the process as well as guidance to congressmen.

The rules make it clear that there has to be a direct and foreseeable benefit to a congressman before there is a violation, said Brian Svoboda, a Washington attorney who primarily advises congressional Democrats on ethics rules.

"They were not intended to preclude members from doing anything to help their constituents through the appropriations process," Svoboda said. According to the rules, a financial interest would not include "remote, inconsequential or speculative interests."

The rules encourage lawmakers to seek advice from the ethics committee if they are worried that specific earmarks could represent a financial interest.

Terry previously released the list of earmarks he had planned to ask for, including $6 million for a project to separate waste and storm water sewers in older parts of Omaha.

Typically, only a fraction of the multimillion-dollar requests are awarded; the city has been receiving about $500,000 a year for sewer separation.

Still, losing a half-million dollars a year could stall the efforts, said Paul Landow, chief of staff to Mayor Mike Fahey. Landow said Terry has been supportive in getting that money before, and the city hopes Terry will reconsider ending his support....

Nebraskans can always hit up their senators, Democrat Ben Nelson and Republican Chuck Hagel. Nelson sits on the Appropriations Committee, which wields a great deal of influence over how federal funds are doled out.

"Lord Nelson will be their savior," Terry said. "'Just go talk to Ben' - that's what I'm telling them."

Nelson, who also owns a house in Omaha, submitted a request for the City of Omaha sewer separation money, said his chief of staff, Tim Becker. Nelson signs statements that say he has no financial interest in his earmark requests, Becker said.

A Hagel spokesman declined to comment, but Hagel previously has talked about how appropriations are the result of the state's entire delegation working together....

Becker, the Nelson aide, also cited the importance of having support from other members of the delegation. "Those projects that have support in both houses stand a better chance of getting funded," he said. "They're not going to give you what you don't ask for."

Lee Terry has just told the people of Omaha that he doesn't give a damn about their concerns. Driven by either paranoia or political ambition, he's given up any pretense of true representation. By adopting this new philosophy of "Go talk to Ben," Terry has completely turned his back on his own constituents, demonstrating a total lack of character and courage without any sense of responsibility or shame.

No one can say exactly what game Terry thinks he's playing. But, one thing is certain - he's screwing over the city of Omaha in the process. This is a man who just last year thought of himself as next in line to run for statewide office, yet who's now so scared of his own shadow and so conscious of his weak political position that he's gone from being a very poor representative to one who is absolutely pathetic.

A number of new nicknames for Terry quickly come to mind. Lee "Off Duty" Terry? Lee "Talk to Ben" Terry? How about Lee "Fire Me & Give Someone Else a Chance" Terry?

Seriously, Omaha couldn't do much worse than what they've got. That realization started to sink in last fall when insurgent Democratic challenger Jim Esch shocked Terry with the closest race of his career on a shoestring budget. Right now, Terry has just admitted that the Second District is without representation and doesn't have a voice in the House. Thanks to Terry's cowardice, all they have is Ben Nelson - a powerful ally who still can't possibly make up for Terry's incompetence.

Nebraska's Second District deserves so much better, despite the voters' repeated mistake sending this cowardly incompetent back to Congress. 2006 demonstrated that more and more people are waking to the need for change, and they'll have that chance again in 2008.

Ultimately, Omaha doesn't need to look to "Lord Nelson" to be its savior. By getting rid of Lee Terry, the voters can save themselves.

Does "Hagel for Prez" Still Have a Shot?

2007-05-24T12:03:00.000-06:00

I have finally given up hope that Senator Hagel is going to make his political intentions clear anytime soon. He's made it perfectly clear that he has no intentions... at least, not any that he's pursuing with any consistency or logic.

Since he recently used a fundraiser apparently intended to shore up a Senate re-election campaign as a forum for a message the presumably illustrates his interest in an independent candidacy for President, I think it's safe to say that we can't safely say anything about what Hagel intends to do. But, since the stories currently dominating the headlines feature some combination of Hagel v. Bruning or Bloomberg/Hagel '08, allow me to explore the less likely but still real possibility that Chuck Hagel might throw his hat into the ring for the GOP presidential nomination.

And let me start with this new poll of Iowa Republicans:

5. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 54%
No 37%
Undecided 9%

Not to belabor the point, but these are Republicans only. The same Republicans who express a dissatisfaction with the current crop of GOP candidates (51-29%). The same Republicans who will cast the very first ballots (figuratively speaking... theirs is a caucus system) in this overlong presidential election.

And yes, the same Republicans who give current non-candidate Chuck Hagel a mere 1% in the polls.

But considering Ron Paul is the only other candidate attempting to capitalize on the growing unpopularity of the war in Republican ranks, is it so ridiculous to believe Hagel might make a splash even (or especially) after entering this contest so late?

One thing that's gone unnoticed in all the talk of Hagel's anti-GOP rhetoric is that the Senator hasn't rallied against the Republican Party so much as he's rallied against the Republican Party of George W. Bush:

I am not happy with the Republican Party today. It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors...

It has drifted from the party of Eisenhower, of Goldwater, of Reagan, the party that I joined. It isn’t the same party.

Call me crazy (please don't), but isn't that exactly the kind of message that might appeal to a GOP desperately trying to claw its way out of Bush's second term slump?

I mean, we have a Republican electorate in Iowa that doesn't believe Bush represents "a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan", and apparently can't find a proper standard bearer in an already crowded field of ten white guys.

Does that leave an opening for an anti-war conservative outsider like our own Senator Hagel? I think so. And I think there's a chance, just a chance, that Hagel might take a second look and see that for himself.

But am I gonna go back out on that limb and actually predict it? No way, man. No way.

Bob Kerrey: Wrong About the War But Right About the Stakes

2007-05-23T07:16:00.000-06:00

In his singular style, Bob Kerrey - the former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator who is rumored to be considering a 2008 bid for the Senate seat once held by his colleague Jim Exon...if his friend Chuck Hagel does not seek re-election - penned a controversial opinion column about the Iraq War in yesterday's Wall Street Jounal that has outraged and infuriated many of those who would otherwise be his most ardent supporters (I, II, III).

I can understand why a number of Democrats and progressives would react negatively to Kerrey's article. By repeating the case for originally invading Iraq and admitting that he still believes it was the right thing to do, Kerrey does seem to have blinded himself to the reality of this four year debacle that has threatened our economic security and demoralized our military while leaving the people of Iraq in a state of perpetual chaos.

However, as wrong as Kerrey may be about the war, this does not imply that he's wrong about the stakes. Nor does it mean that he's wrong about the course we must follow from this point forward. While there's a lot to be said for a clear understanding of the past being necessary to chart the best course for our future, I am probably more bothered by the reactionary fervor against Kerrey's ideas than I am about the ideas themselves.

It's easy to hold against Kerrey his stubborn, almost Bush-like refusal to reasses the threat actually posed by Iraq after 9/11. It's easier still to hold it against Kerrey when bloggers at the arch-conservative National Review declare "Bob Kerrey Just Became My Favorite Democrat" or when notorious right-wing blow-hard Rush Limbaugh decides "Bob Kerrey is right." But, in a democratic debate of free-thinking individuals, you're going to see people with very different agendas and very different worldviews sometimes finding themselves on the same page.

If the issue of Iraq were truly a partisan one, then perhaps we would be in a position to judge Kerrey by the company he currently keeps. But the ongoing debate of the Iraq War that has only really begun since the Democratic Party took control of Congress in January cannot and should not be conceived along these oftentimes arbitrary and wholly political lines we call party labels. As a proud Democrat, I can see why Democrats would want such lines drawn to insulate themselves from the failures of the Iraq War and to position themselves for the 2008 elections, but the perils of playing games while this disaster unfolds are too great to allow message control and party fealty to trump the free debate in which we place our faith and trust.

Although I disagree with a great deal of what Kerrey wrote, he is right to call on Democrats and liberals to re-examine the best course of action from this point forward. Like it or not, opinion polls and an 18 month presidential campaign cannot dictate how we proceed if we have any true concern for the international community, our own security, or the continued suffering of the Iraqi people. Kerrey may infuriate with his singularly contrarian style, but there is a lot of truth in the below statements that we'd be fools to dismiss for such callous and so obviously political reasons:

The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it....

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes"....

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq.....

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

For everything Kerrey may be wrong about in Iraq, there's enough truth in the preceding passages that they deserve more careful consideration than what I've seen from those who've reacted so negatively to this opinion piece. Of course, the above message may have been better received if Kerrey had come on bended knee apologizing for his previous errors of judgment in Iraq, but that's not Bob Kerrey's style.

Never has been. Never will be. And, you know what, that's a lot of the reason why Nebraskans love him so damn much.

I've been an outspoken opponent to the war in Iraq since 2002, but I'm not looking for an ego-stroking as we decide what course to set for eventual U.S. withdrawal and for the faint but still living hopes for establishing an Iraqi democracy. One thing is for certain - Iraq is a mess that we can not wash our hands of or turn a blind eye to if we are a sane people with any conscience whatsoever as a nation.

Other than that, I don't claim to have any answers, and I question those who do. This is a complex situation with no simple or short-term resolution. Whether a U.S. military presence can bring any sort of peace to Iraq is doubtful, but that doesn't preclude our playing an essential role in making that peace possible and in preventing the outright genocide that could otherwise result.

To these challenges, regardless of where I personally disagree with the man, I welcome Bob Kerrey's most recent contribution to this all-important debate. And - yes - I would most certainly welcome Kerrey's return to the Nebraska political scene that has been far less entertaining, less enlightening, and less challenging in his absence.

Mea culpa

2007-05-22T13:54:00.000-06:00

A quick note of apology, and thanks to an anonymous poster who caught a rather embarrassing oversight on my part. The Governor did not, in fact, veto the additional appropriations for the Microenterprise Development Fund and the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act. I guess by the end of the fourth page of items in an especially long veto letter, my brain was a little fried. I've taken the liberty to remove the offending post, please accept this explanation in its stead (trust me, the piece wasn't that great, anyway).

Dishonest and Disgusting: The Debate Over LB 475

2007-05-21T08:52:00.002-06:00

Look, I don't always envy our state legislators. Theirs is a tough job filled with tough decisions about complex issues and half-baked compromises. But that's not LB 475. In the legislative world, this is a gimme, a no-brainer: "Should employers be allowed to discriminate against applicants and employees based on sexual orientation alone?"

No, they shouldn't.

And a majority of Nebraskans agree. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Nebraskans in every single legislative district in the state reached that conclusion a long time ago. Why then is our legislature so far behind?

Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek said she couldn’t remember how many times the bill or a similar one had come before the Legislature.

“Every year I hope and think that this might be the year that we can pass it,” she said. “I think this is an important bill.”

I agree, Senator. And the people of Nebraska agree. It's your damn loony peers in the Unicameral who haven't figured it out just yet. People like this:

Sen. Pat Engel of South Sioux City, who said he had a gay nephew who died of AIDS, could not support the bill, he said. By giving homosexuals protected status, he said, the state could be taking away employers’ rights.

If a gay employee was not performing his duties, and the employer fired him, Engel said, the person could claim discrimination. “That’s what concerns me,” he said.

“I do not have anything against them. I do not appreciate their lifestyle, but it’s their business, not mine,” he said.

Presumably, Senator Engel would prefer to repeal the Fair Employment Practice Act all together. That way we wouldn't have to deal with all those frivolous lawsuits from disgruntled racial and religious minorities... not to mention the disabled. Seriously, is anyone taking this down? South Sioux City, is this really the representation you deserve?

Or how about this gem from Southeast Lincoln:

Lincoln Senator Tony Fulton cited a 1991 report from the Wall Street Journal that listed the national average annual income of homosexual households as significantly higher than those averages of other minorities. Based on that, Fulton said LB 475 is not necessary because homosexuals are able to earn comparable incomes.

You see? What's good for the gander is good for the goose. Homosexuals, as a group, were doing better than other minorities, as a group, sixteen years ago... and that was before Nebraska had a law protecting them from employment discrimination. Imagine what they'd do if 475 actually passed! They might even compete with the majority!

Oh, the humanity...

Well, Senators, I got some bad news for you: somebody is taking all this down. Somebody is listening. And those of us who are have a duty to let our friends and neighbors know just what their legislative leaders are doing.

Maybe this won't be the year to make it happen. But it won't happen, ever, until and unless the rest of us get fed up enough to write our Senators, call our Senators, visit the capitol... anything and everything we can to make this the last year we have to hope, and hope, and get nothing in return.

Nebraska - Get Organized to End the Iraq War

2007-05-17T08:13:00.000-06:00

A new age in political organizing has begun with the rise of online activism. The Internet has given people of like-mind the ability to work together like never before across any geographic expanse. This has proven especially effective for purposes of fundraising and sharing resources. Yet, it seems well understood that online influence and success does not necessarily equate with real people power in the physical world. Hence, the work of our contributor below.

As stated numerous times in the past, my own feelings on the Iraq War are quite mixed...precisely because it is such a mess, for which the United States is largely responsible. Our contributor writes about the goal of "responsibly ending this war." Of course, that's an idea everyone is going to support, but the trouble is everyone might have very different ideas of what exactly that entails.

But, enough from me. Take it away, John...and best of luck in your campaign.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
http://www.NoIraqEscalation.org

I am John Jensen, the new Nebraska field director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI). Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is a major, multi-million dollar national campaign to oppose the President's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more than 20,000 additional troops into a violent civil war. National Coalition partners include: SEIU, MoveOn.org Political Action, Center for American Progress, USAction, Win Without War, Vote Vets, Campaign for America's Future, and USSA.

I am looking to build relationships with local coalition partners, activists and opinion leaders to support the goals of the national campaign. I also want to develop and maintain communication with coalition partners and create a feedback structure.

Although I live in Omaha, these events are not limited to Omaha as this is a statewide effort.

Goal:
Seek to split off our Republican Congressmen’s support of the Presidents failed policies in Iraq while continuing to keep Senators Hagel and Nelson support for responsibly ending this war

Message:
We have a choice between ending this war and endless war. We choose to stop the escalation and to end the war in Iraq.

The House and Senate will continue working after the veto on a supplemental piece of legislation. It is unclear, given the lack of knowledge on the content front, if we will be supportive of the next piece of supplemental legislation or the legislation following. The initial vote provided an historic moment — the first vote to end the war — and we would hope that Congress has the courage not to backtrack.

As we continue toward future votes, supplemental and defense appropriations, we will seek out events and opportunities to organize.

All of our events and activities within a state will be directly tied to House and Senate targets.

Activities:
• Rallies
• Press Conferences
• Bird-dogging
• Breakfast meetings with reporters to pitch feature stories
• Host roundtable events
• Debates
• Small town halls
• Op-eds
• Letters to the editor

I Need Speakers – Three to four per event; taking points will be provided.

Looking for:
o Mom’s
o Vets (especially those who served in Iraq)
o Community leaders
o Religious leaders
o Students
o Teachers
o Political office holders (current or former)
o Rural Nebraska leaders
o First Responders

I will provide:
• Press releases
• Podium, Loudspeakers, television and DVD player as needed
• Talking points

Possible Activities:
• “America Speaks” Events Nebraska.
• Faith Leaders Speak Out On the War
• First Responders Speak Out On the War
o First Firefighters, Policemen, Emergency workers, National Guardsmen, FEMA workers… This will also be an opportunity to speak about the Nebraska National Guard sad readiness report.
• Teachers Speak Out On the War
• Rural America Speaks Out On the War
• Memorial Day Press Event
• State Press Conferences Rolling Out Paid Media with our Partners
• Bird-dog Bush/McCain Travel (If they ever come to Nebraska!)
1. Pre-Appearance Press Conference or Press Conference Call
2. During Appearance Counter Rally
3. Post-Appearance Response

If you are interested in helping as a speaker, as a sign holder or any other way, please send me an e-mail with following information:

• Name
• Job/Position
• Group (Only if you represent a group)
• Phone
• E-mail
• General times and days available. (I will always ask you about your willingness to speak or help at specific events.)

Thank you!

John Jensen

402-312-4180 (cell)
E-mail: Omaha.NoEscalation@gmail.com
Blog: http://nebraskanoescalation.blogspot.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2358807836

Hal Daub Running Against Hal Daub

2007-05-15T12:06:00.000-06:00

Pretty surprising for a former Congressman and mayor of the state's largest city, but the biggest question Hal Daub faced in his sorta/kinda announcement for the Senate today was that of relevance: in a race filled (or, potentially filled) with giants and rising stars like Chuck Hagel, Mike Johanns and Jon Bruning, does Hal Daub even matter any more?

To Daub's credit, the answer he provided was "yes... probably." A rather small victory, really, but a victory nonetheless.

It is really difficult to overestimate the problems plaguing Daub's Senate candidacy: he's already run, and lost, twice. He lost the last election he ever participated in... an election localized entirely in what should be his political base of support. He's well-known but not well-liked.

And these are not wounds that heal merely with the passage of time. You might recall Bruning's poll late last month that found Daub with an underwhelming 39-18 favorable/unfavorable rating despite 83% total name recognition. No wonder Bruning has a commanding 55-16 lead over Daub in a head-to-head matchup (including a 57-25% lead in District 2, which Bruning's pollster helpfully reminds us "should be Daub's natural base of support". Ouch.)

So what's Daub's strategy? Hunker down, grab a fistful of mud and start slinging, just like the good 'ole days?

Nope... apparently not. Looks like Daub's playing it cool this time, and taking the opportunity to label Jon Bruning the real "Hal Daub" of this race.

Think about it. He's refusing to attack Bruning or Hagel or any other candidate, pledging himself to be "respectful" in his treatment of the incumbent Senator (which is a lot more than you can say for Jon Bruning). He's even refusing to focus on his own policy preferences and proposals, stressing instead that he's dedicated to listening to what the people of all 93 counties think of the issues facing them.

This is not exactly the "my way or the highway" approach that resulted in such a contentious relationship between his administration and the city council. This is not exactly the same Hal Daub we know. Not in style, not in tone. Daub's got himself a new coat of paint, but there's doubtless still the same dirt-kicking, mud-slinging "bad boy of the GOP" under there, ticking away and just waiting to explode.

How long can it possibly last? Hmmm... let's give it another couple of months, or maybe until Hagel's final announcement. Then maybe we'll be treated to that most rare and spectacular of events: the contest to see which Republican can outslime and "out-Daub" the other.

The prophetic vision of Neal Obermeyer? As published in the Lincoln Journal Star.

Congratulations to Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler

2007-05-14T05:35:00.000-06:00

Today, the New Nebraska Network celebrates the inauguration of long-time State Sen. Chris Beutler as mayor of our state's capital city. While Beutler's victory in the May 1st election was by no means a landslide, anyone who has followed Lincoln politics the last 2 - 3 years should be able to testify to just how significant an accomplishment it truly was.

The animosity towards out-going incumbent and fellow Democrat Coleen Seng has made little rational sense, but it has been undeniable. I have every expectation that the people of Lincoln will eventually recognize the good that Seng did as mayor and perhaps even come to regret the low regard in which she's been held and the frequent jokes made at her expense.

Unfortunately, Seng allowed political rivals to define her and to keep her on the defensive for most of her term as mayor. After serving Lincoln with distinction for 16 years on its city council, her grandmotherly persona and emphasis on consensus-building left her prey to accusations of weak leadership and incompetent management. In some circumstances, these claims might have had merit, but they've remained exaggerated and rather ridiculously one-sided right up to this day.

It's my sincerest hope that Mayor Beutler will be more proactive in laying out a clear agenda for the city and - perhaps most importantly - not being afraid to take on those who will challenge and seek to usurp his authority. With a one-vote Republican majority on the officially non-partisan city council, there are likely to be instances of needless, politically-motivated division. Without falling into the trap of partisanship for partisanship's sake, Beutler must steel himself for certain battles in which he can and must rely on the bully pulpit and the power of public opinion to force the city forward.

Beutler won against all odds, running with grit while maintaining his integrity. To be honest, it was Republican city councilman Ken Svoboda's race to lose, and that's precisely what he did. Beutler outworked Svoboda on the campaign trail, presented a superior vision for Lincoln's future, and had a better, more professional operation in place from the very start.

Beutler also had an amazing support structure, in which I would go so far as declaring U.S. Senator Ben Nelson as the secret weapon who made it all possible. Not only did Nelson's 2006 campaign mobilize local Democrats, but it was also so extensive and tightly-managed an operation that significant planning and resources could still be targeted towards Beutler's election in the wake of the most expensive campaign in Nebraska history.

Success also breeds success - just as failure breeds failure - meaning there was no doubt a carry-over effect from Nelson's winning Lancaster County with almost 70% of the vote in November.

Looking at numbers alone, the impressiveness of Beutler's victory would likely be lost on many observers. The 2007 percentages and margins are virtually indistinguishable from Seng's numbers in 2003. But, as established, that's quite the amazing feat in and of itself. It's also a good sign of what Nebraska Democrats can accomplish when they back up preparation with some much-needed focus.

There will be more time to talk campaigns and strategies. But, today belongs to Mayor Beutler and the wise voters of Lincoln who saw fit to entrust this proven progressive visionary with the future of their city at a time of incredible transition.

This is a man who will serve his city well and whose bold ideas and clear vision should inspire a new generation of leaders across the state. A bright future lies ahead. I am even more excited to see it than I was to play my tiny role in helping to make it a reality.

Our Town

2007-05-12T11:05:00.000-06:00

I don't have much to add to Kyle's post on " State Agency Bans Discussion About Gay Parenting", but this comment at the Nebraska Democratic Party's blog is a real eye-opener:

At first my emotions were on the sensationalist level (“BE AN ACTIVIST AND GO TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THIS….”). Now that I [had] time to be collective about this, I am just saddened by the level of bigotry exuding in Nebraska. Maybe my peers are correct to tell me that there is no hope for me here?! I always scoffed at that notion because Nebraska is my home and I have such a huge affection for my home. However the bigots in this state truly do make me second guess that I am worthy of being an ordinary tax-paying citizen of America. And that is why I am distraught about this situation. Why must I be demonized in the place I call “home?”
-Luke Peterson (college student and Member of the Nebraska LGBT Democratic Caucus, with permission)

At their most logical, these assaults on gay rights and the "gay lifestyle" are meant to make members of the LGBT community rethink their own identity... to second guess themselves. And in this sense they have succeeded: they have convinced many bright young men and women to question their identity as Nebraskans.

And who can blame them? If the wingnuts leading this anti-homosexual crusade really believed their rhetoric (that gay marriage is a threat to civilization itself, that gay adoption is a pox upon the children) there would be no need to silence this discussion. Those confident of their positions don't shy away from debate, they embrace the opportunity to respond and persuade.

But the anti-gay rights movement isn't about discussion; isn't about debate. It isn't really about anything. It's a senseless and classless attempt to use the law to bully a population that makes some people uncomfortable.

And it's worked. Discrimination is enshrined in our state constitution. It is a cornerstone of our campaign rhetoric. It is the undeniable, unquestionable, fundamental truth of Cornhusker politics.

But it is not Nebraska. Not the Nebraska I know. And not the place I call home.

Look, America is not an ethnic nation or a tribal nation. It is a creedal nation, and we belong to that community because we subscribe to that creed: that "all men are created equal" and, in Nebraska, "Equality Before the Law". That is our creed, and hence this is our home.

It is not the bigots that must go, it is their bigotry. And it is not us progressives that don't belong; it is our fears and our doubts. We can't afford them, and we cannot allow the bullies that final victory: to elbow us out, to disappear us into another community, another state, another country. To surrender to them a state and a creed that they don't deserve.

I understand the feelings of hopelessness, of feeling lost in a place called "home". But we need to stick together, and we need to celebrate each small success. The Congressional candidate who boldly challenges the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Mayor who advocates a "live and let live" community. The state party that cares enough to cover these issues, prominently, on the front page of their website.

Someday soon these triumphs (small as they are) will have to translate into victory at the ballot box. And for that, we will need every person who loves this state to fight for it. But let's try to remember: this isn't about taking over, and it's not about 'taking it back'. Because you don't have to take what is already yours.

You need only to remember, and to remind.

Omaha's Messenger

2007-05-09T08:27:00.000-06:00

Among Nebraska bloggers, I've been the most skeptical of a Mike Fahey Senate candidacy (in that I think he'd be a "formidable candidate... but not my first choice". Not terribly harsh criticism, but let's face it, there's not a whole lot of ill-will between Fahey and the blogosphere). I still think it's pretty hard to sell yourself to rural voters when your first name's "Democrat" and your last name's "Mayor of Omaha", but I gotta admit I'm impressed by these numbers: 54% favorability? Not too shabby. And not too bad.

Considering the man's never run for statewide office, that shows a pretty impressive name recognition. It also highlights Fahey's potential appeal to voters who don't necessarily have a "favorable" impression of Omaha itself.

Which is where I start to wonder... The rural-urban split is a crippling handicap, not just to Omaha candidates but to the health of state politics as a whole. More than that, it's a two way street. It isn't just that Omaha doesn't understand or respect the needs of those who live outstate, it's also that the rest of Nebraska doesn't really understand Omaha. And what better ambassador could we ask for than Mayor Fahey?

The Fahey administration has committed itself to fiscally responsible growth, and in this area they have been remarkably successful. Buildings have been raised, standards of living have been raised, but taxes haven't. Their bold advocacy of a city-county merger is a model of effective government that could cut red tape and save the state money. Apparently, all this hasn't gone unnoticed (or unappreciated) out west.

Now comes that highest hurdle: convincing rural voters that this experience is the least bit relevant to the issues confronting them on the national stage. And on this question the Mayor's political instincts have served him particularly well:

The Senate could use more mayors with first-hand experience managing a local budget under the strain of unfunded federal mandates, Fahey said.

Senators "have no concept of controlling spending," Fahey said. "Of course, it's easier to spend when you can just print more money."

Fahey does well to remind voters that, whatever Omaha's dominance in state politics, we're still just a "little-big city" fighting the good fight against those real powers that be. The same fights against the same powers as the rest of Nebraska.

Translation: we're all in this together, bud. Might as well act like it.

Now, I'm still not the first in line for the Fahey Express. But believe me, if it ever leaves the station, I'll be right there on board.

The Tax Cut Mish-Mash - When Compromise Fails

2007-05-08T00:01:00.000-06:00

Revenue Committee's LB 367 a Mediocre Attempt at Pleasing Everyone

In legislation as in life, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Last week's Lincoln Journal-Star reported:

State Sen. Ray Janssen of Nickerson knows about making law and about making sausage. He’s a grocery store owner and butcher who also is chairman of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee.

It’s true, he told senators Wednesday as they worked on the state tax-cut package: It’s not very pleasant to watch sausage being made. “But the finished product isn’t too bad,” he added.

And there have been a lot of cooks stirring this tax-cut pot, he said, as senators changed some of the ingredients in the major tax-cut package during the second stage of debate Wednesday.

Sounds like an insult to sausage-making if you ask me. More on LB 367 in its current incarnation can be found in the LJS and in the Legislature's online update. The most recent amendments to this well-meaning but ultimately cowardly and convoluted tax cut package do away with its prior lowering of the income tax for those in the highest tax bracket and its reductions to the maximum levy available to school disticts on local property taxes. Instead, LB 367 now provides for repeal of Nebraska's estate tax and for increases to two tax credits targeting low-income families and property owners.

Unfortunately, all that's really being accomplished with LB 367 is a back-and-forth trade-off between competing priorities with no consistency at its heart. This legislation bodes ill for the entire state because it so clearly demonstrates the complete lack of leadership and vision in our state government.

In general, I support compromise, but compromise is not a good for its own sake. Compromise can just as easily be used as an excuse to avoid making tough choices. Frankly, it's downright foolish and ultimately quite dangerous to be setting a state's tax policy with a band-aid approach serving priorities no deeper and no more principled than looking to make a lot of people a little bit happy - which is precisely what we've seen in this year's supposed "debate."

The problem, of course, is that everyone has ideas for what taxes to cut and where the state's revenue should be coming from. But, the Legislature can't do everything. They can't make everyone happy - that's not their job. Yet, that's exactly what the Revenue Committee has been trying to do.

A lot of the blame falls on Gov. Heineman for ever having offered his bizarrely out-of-touch tax-cut plan leaving so giant a leadership gap on the issue that the Revenue Committee was left practically starting from scratch. This debate needed a strong guiding hand and an actual vision for true reform. Sadly, those Senators who tried to press forward with such proposals - largely responding to constituents' demands for property tax relief - met resistance for political reasons. This way, no substantial challenge could develop that might expose Heineman's failure and fracture his support.

The Revenue Committee had an obligation to take-on the Governor and to do what's best for the state. Rather, they spent most of the session on damage control. It's largely been a game of protecting the state from Heineman's bad ideas without offending Heineman in the process. What got lost was the development of a comprehensive tax cut proposal that served the people rather than an all-too-partisan political agenda.

Whether defending or simply explaining LB 367, Janssen has declared, "A compromise is a compromise." When that's the best that can be said for a bill, that should raise some very serious questions. But, instead we've seen assurances of LB 367's all-but-inevitable passage by a legislature more concerned with simply passing a tax cut than with passing one that is GOOD or SMART for Nebraska.

The media's inexplicable and unquestioning embrace of LB 367 when it first came out of committee certainly didn't help in this respect. Reporting on the tax cut plan like it was a Christmas present to taxpayers understandably stifled public scrutiny and betrayed the press' responsibilities to provide unbiased coverage and independent analysis. Yet, even while the bill's now undergone a massive restructuring leaving few of the previously ballyhooed proposals intact, there's been no real criticism. This speaks to an unsettling complacency and an undeserved trust that whatever the legislature decides will, of course, be for the best.

Which isn't to say that LB 367 is all bad. It's too convoluted to be all anything - except, maybe, all over the place. I would say, however, that this latest round of amendments has actually made the legislation worse.

Eliminating the estate tax isn't the end of the world, but it's a fairly fundamental repudiation of America's anti-aristocratic ideal. Meanwhile, an $84 property tax credit for the average Nebraska homeowner that will provide tens of thousands of dollars to wealthy, out-of-state landowners hardly seems in the state's best interests. At the same time, while I appreciate who the Earned Income Tax Credit helps (poor families), I believe these same people would be better served by a simple and straight-forward half-cent reduction in the ever-regressive sales tax, for which Sen. Ernie Chambers has been and promises to continue fighting.

Honestly, I have to question those so enamored with tax credits. At the end of the day, they convolute an already complicated system and stink of bureaucracy. There are more direct, more practical, and more honest ways of achieving these same objectives - whether a property tax exemption on homesteads, the aforementioned reduction of the state sales tax, or - yes - REASONABLE REFORMS of the state's income tax.

Just because Heineman's income tax plan was utterly appalling and because his attempts to hype the need for changing the system fell entirely flat does not mean that the income tax cannot and should not be improved. Frankly, it is absurd that the highest tax bracket begins at $52,000 - meaning a middle class family earning $55,000 is being taxed at the same marginal rate as Warren Buffett. If Heineman had really offered his promised plan targeting tax relief to the middle class, it would have been hard to argue with a simple and entirely justified expansion of Nebraska's middle income tax brackets.

Even if the income tax has not been voters' #1 priority, a good idea is a good idea. Unfortunately, those were lacking in Heineman's actual plan - just as they're lacking from LB 367.

But, Janssen promises, "The finished product isn't too bad." I'd probably argue that point on LB 367, and I think I'd win. Regardless, should not being "too bad" really be good enough?

State Agency Bans Discussion About Gay Parenting

2007-05-06T16:32:00.000-06:00

This is a pretty damn fine display of the right-wing whack-jobs who are pulling the strings in state government. Leaders of Nebraska Health and Human Services seem to think by prohibiting discussion of the troubles faced by Nebraska families with gay parents, the problems - or maybe even the families themselves - will simply disappear.

The Lincoln Journal-Star reports:

[S]tate HHS leaders recently ordered a Lincoln-based diversity committee to remove one speaker from an informational forum focusing on family diversity because the woman was in a same-sex partnership....

The team was told to remove the speaker involved in same-sex parenting from the lineup, even though the agency policy statement says the team should promote and encourage the appreciation of human diversity in the workplace and communities served by HHS, said Cathy Kingery, diversity committee co-chairwoman.

The forum was neither condoning nor condemning gay life but simply recognizing its existence and the special circumstances families may encounter, Kingery said in an e-mail description of the issue. The administration was unwilling to waiver, she said.

HHS administrators say the diversity team strayed from agency guidelines that limit diversity issues to groups protected under federal law. They include race, religion, national origin, gender and handicaps, but not sexual orientation, said HHS spokeswoman Kathie Osterman....

[Kingery] said committee members were aware that previous diversity committees had been told they couldn’t discuss same-sex issues, but they had seen nothing in writing.

Concerned they were being asked to discriminate when their goal was to recognize and encourage appreciation of diversity, 11 of 18 committee members, including the two co-chairmen, resigned.

After reporters began inquiring on Friday about the guidelines limiting diversity issues, HHS system CEO Chris Peterson said she wanted to meet with committee members....

Kingery said she and others would be happy to talk with Peterson, and she might be willing to rejoin the group if members had the right to discuss any diversity issue.

“But I’m not willing to just give lip service to diversity. We can’t blatantly discriminate against one group of people just because the administration doesn’t want us to acknowledge they exist.”

In answer to questions, Peterson said the guideline was not established to avoid political controversy but to provide a way of managing programs. She also said the agency does not discriminate against employees because they are gay.

This is just outrageously pathetic and backwards. It's also a pretty ugly reminder of the adversity faced by non-traditional, same-sex parent families, who currently have no recognition or protection under state law and who are supposedly so dangerous a threat to our society that they can't even be discussed in state government.

Sadly, I believe LB 571, which would have provided some measure of protection to same-sex parents and their children, won't be going anywhere this legislative session. It also remains unlikely that LB 475 can muster the support it needs to affirm the decency of Nebraska's citizens by ending discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.

But, we know that the principles of equality raised by these issues are right and true and that our common humanity shall eventually prevail. Alas, change in democracy does take time. This embarrassing prohibition of even discussing gay parents in a forum on diversity is a testament to the fear and weakness of those who support the shameful status quo.

For forcing this issue and exposing this horrible policy for what it is, the New Nebraska Network salutes Cathy Kingery and all those representatives on HHS' Lincoln Diversity Committee who have made a stand for a just cause and a greater Nebraska.

World-Herald Wants Simplicity - Not Sanity - in Iraq War Debate

2007-05-06T12:38:00.000-06:00

Editorial Attacks the "Complexity" of Sen. Ben Nelson's Position

In a matter so complicated and convoluted as the Iraq War, I'm willing to give our elected officials a lot of latitude for their mind to change and their thinking to evolve. In fact, as the situation has worsened and the future become more bleak for the people of Iraq, I have to give a great deal of credit to Nebraska Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel for doing what President George W. Bush and Nebraska Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith cannot - overcoming their reactionary fear of ever admitting that they might have been wrong about this war to embrace a true change in policy that actually responds to the American people's demands that this war be brought to an end.

Sadly, the powers that be in the Nebraska media seem to have a different opinion. They've turned a blind eye to Congressmen Terry and Smith's recent claims of "progress" in Iraq that are not only baseless in fact but absolutely insulting and dismissive to the memories of those lost in this war's rising death toll. Honestly, how hard is it to point out in the face of such statements that April was one of the deadliest months yet for U.S. Armed Forces and that the last 6 months have been the deadliest since the war began? Those numbers don't lie, and they sure as hell don't support these self-serving, super-partisan claims of imagined "progress."

Instead, while holding these statements up to no scrutiny whatsoever, the Omaha World-Herald chose to single out Sen. Ben Nelson in familiar fashion. In Friday's "Furthermore" editorial, they wrote:

U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson often deserves credit for his nonpartisan demeanor, but of late the complexities of his approach to the Iraq War have been growing exponentially. In late March, he voiced opposition to a troop withdrawal timeline even as he helped provide a key vote for a Senate measure that included a timeline provision dear to the hearts of war opponents. He helped kill an amendment removing the timelines. Now, to his credit, he is working with the Bush administaration to help craft a needed overall compromise. Such is the zigzagging that results in trying to satisfy the demands of rabidly anti-Bush Democrats while also striving for needed nonpartisanship.

It was just a few months ago that Sen. Hagel pulled off a complete 360-degree turn-around on Iraq over the course of a few days without the World-Herald giving him any grief whatsoever for the inconsistency. Now, they're stretching the facts and distorting the situation to make Nelson appear a hypocrite and panderer when he's been nothing of the sort.

The truth is, despite the World-Herald's supposed confusion, Nelson has been remarkably consistent on the Iraq War. He saw the need for a change in policy long ago, and he's bringing it to fruition - no easy task when you're up against the head-in-the-sand lunacy of Fortenberry, Terry, and Smith as they continue to cling to their partisan fantasy of the situation.

Needless to say, Nelson has been a little more outspoken since last fall's election, but that's perfectly understandable after being emboldened by a landslide victory and in responding to the new dynamics of a Democratic Congress. Also, Nelson's speaking with more force and ugency is well-supported by the realization of Iraq's continued deterioration that any independent observer simply cannot avoid. But, his basic message and his calls for tying our continued military support to benchmarks for improved security and political progress within the Iraqi government have not changed.

What's so stupid about the World-Herald's attempt to portray Nelson as inconsistent is their intentional failure to grasp Nelson's putting aside his long-standing and deeply-held doubts about setting any sort of timeline for troop withdrawal as an entirely reasonable and expertly calculated political move. It was most important at the time that a forceful voice for change be heard from Congress. With a President who has refused to listen to the American public, Nelson rightfully erred on the side of reform, sending an essential message that extraordinary measures are possible if Bush continues to display such extraordinary contempt for the will of the people.

Forcing President Bush's veto of this latest Iraq War spending bill may not do much good in the grand scheme of things, but - thanks to Ben Nelson - democracy was served and Congress was able to demonstrate that there is enouh dissatisfaction and dissent to offer a true challenge to Bush's endless embrace of the status quo.

Now, with Nelson at the negotiation table with the White House, Nelson might actually has the authority and the leverage to get the benchmarks he's been pushing for all along. That wouldn't have been possible had he not joined those pushing a timeline for withdrawal. The World-Herald has spun this move as some sort of buckling to "rabidly anti-Bush Democrats" when it's probably one of the more impressive and effective political moves throughout this long-stifled four year debate.

Nelson is getting things done and keeping faith with Nebraska's voters - delivering on his promises and putting his approach into policy. He's practically positioned himself as the power broker on Iraq - perhaps the most credible and legitimate voice for an eventual compromise in the entire Congress.

To this, the only questions the World-Herald should be asking is: How the hell has Nelson been able to pull this off - shaping the tone and setting the pace of debate for the entire country?

Seriously, it's ridiculous. But, it's true. And, it's high time someone give credit where credit is due.

While We've Been Away.....

2007-05-04T10:24:00.000-06:00

NNN's production has slowed down of late. I hope to recommit to the site for these last remaining weeks of the 2007 legislative session, but I can make no assurances in terms of quantity or quality. Amdist my distraction and neglect of this little corner of the blogosphere, I am happy to see that the UNO College Democrats and Paging Power have been doing some really excellent work picking up my self-perceived slack.

I occasionally disagree with the writers on both sites about a few issues and may have a somewhat different approach to politics. But, I'm just glad there's some progressive online discussion and criticism going on in my absence because I know there is an audience and there is a need if the prevailing mindsets in Nebraska politics are ever going to be challenged and be changed for the better.

My thanks to both sites, with sincerest hopes that they will keep up the good work.

Will Lincoln Voters Reject Republican Lies and Distortions?

2007-04-30T22:56:00.000-06:00

Vote Chris Beutler for Mayor of Nebraska's Capital City

The biggest election in Nebraska politics in 2007 is tomorrow, as the voters of Lincoln head to the polls to cast their vote for Mayor between long-time State Sen. Chris Beutler and current City Councilman Ken Svoboda. Also up for grabs is conrol of Lincoln's officially nonpartisan city council, with the current one vote Democratic majority to be maintained or lost depending on the outcome of the District 4 race between incumbent Annette McRoy and attorney John Spatz.

Beutler started the campaign at a significant disadvantage because of the prevailing negativity towards sitting Mayor and fellow Democrat Coleen Seng. But, having worked harder and run a better campaign than Svoboda on every front - from fundraising, to building a message, and most importantly to presenting voters with an actual vision for Lincoln's future - Beutler has positioned himself not only as a contender but likely as the frontrunner. This was evident after his impressive 13-point victory over Svoboda in the primary. But, Beutler came up short of 50% four weeks ago, so this race conceivably remains a toss-up.

The fact that Svoboda has remained competitive has done nothing to relieve the growing desperation of both his campaign and the Nebraska Republican Party as they've lost hold of what once seemed a near lock for their anointed candidate. So, it comes as no surprise that Lincoln politics have once again been dragged into the mud by the Republican Party with a series of long expected but no less disappointing attacks against Beutler, claiming to present the truth about Beutler's record on taxes with a poorly-doctored, sliced and spliced video clip that shamefully distorts a 2006 statement made by Beutler on the floor of the Nebraska Legislature.

The 10/11 News (KOLN/KGIN) has the report:

Readers may recall that this is the exact same distortion that NNN exposed 3 1/2 months ago. To get a good sense of just how terrible a job the Republican Party did splicing Beutler's statement to lie to Lincoln voters, watch this video clip currently featured on the party's website. As you can see, this is trash politics using the same insulting and dishonest tricks employed by Pete Ricketts in the closing days of his similarly desperate 2006 Senate campaign. This is also a fitting addition to the Republican Party's record of shameless, unprecedented personal attacks that made Lincoln's 2005 city elections one of the ugliest spectacles in Nebraska political history (1, 2, 3, 4).

The race is in the hands of the voters now. In my opinion, it would be a tragedy if Lincoln voters passed up this opportunity to elect a mayor with such a proven record of progressive and visionary leadership as Chris Beutler's.

Although I labeled Ken Svoboda "idiotic" for his road construction plan that even the Omaha World-Herald condemned as irresponsible political pandering, I'm not going to sit here and say that he's a terrible guy. His party has done some despicable things to win campaigns, and he's allowed his partisanship and ambition to color his judgment on the City Council to an unfortunate degree, but my beef with Svoboda is not a personal one. He's just not the right choice for the city of Lincoln.

That choice - the right choice - is Chris Beutler, a man whose election would portend good things and a brighter future for the entire state of Nebraska.

Nebraska's "Common Cause" in Lobbyist Reform

2007-04-30T15:49:00.000-06:00

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in Sunday's Lincoln Journal-Star and raises an excellent point about our state's failure to regulate Unicameral campaign contributions by registered lobbyists:

The Legislature is in session and 350 lobbyists are eager to win favor. What a perfect time to hold a fundraiser breakfast at Billy's or the Nebraska Club....

A restaurant like Billy's is closed to the public for breakfast. The public and the press are not permitted to witness the transactions. Lobbyists and senators send out private invitations usually asking lobbyists for a $100 contribution at the door while fellow senators get complimentary passes. Individual contributions must be kept under $250 so the contributor's names will not have to be reported. A Public Service commissioner appears to hold the record by raising more than $19,000 at a Billy's fundraiser. Only the total amount raised has to be reported.

The invitations clearly point out: "If unable to attend, please mail your contribution to: (Senator’s name)." Some senators actually take attendance and follow up with a letter and a return envelope to non-attending lobbyists. The implication is, if you don't come across you are not likely to influence me. Is extortion too strong a word?....

It is clear that incumbents have a great advantage over any challenger by employing the in-session fundraiser. The lobbyists are handy, the legislative leverage is in place, and the geographic location is perfect. Even better, you don't have to make a campaign speech or any promises to the press or the public.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 16 states prohibit any campaign contributions during their legislative sessions. Twelve more states prohibit registered lobbyists from making contributions during legislative sessions. Nebraska, obviously, isn't one of those states.

Jack Gould, Valparaiso
Common Cause Nebraska

Gould's characterization of these fundraising efforts as "extortion" seems a needless exaggeration and a somewhat unfair accusation. But, the issue he raises about these private breakfasts and luncheons leaving our state legislature susceptible to corruption and influence-peddling is a perfectly legitimate one.

Restriction - perhaps even prohibition - of campaign contributions during the legislative session and by registered lobbyists are both worthy ideas deserving of enactment here in Nebraska. Not that such reforms would cure the ultimate problem, but the worst possibilities for impropriety would at least be mitigated.

Still, there's no removing money from politics. With these changes, senators, contributors and lobbyists would just have to be more creative and better prepared (i.e. getting their 'ducks in a row' before the session begins). There will still be the scratching of each other's backs, the leaning on one another for this or that, the same winking assurances that there has been no quid pro quo. But - damn it - they'd at least have to work harder as they play their games at the public's expense.

That's a start. If nothing else, it's a better system with greater protections than what we have now.

Finally A Reason For Lee Terry's Support Of Iraq War

2007-04-28T18:22:00.000-06:00

The city of Bellevue wants to locate a national veterans cemetery next to Offut Air Force Base, and Lee Terry is doing everything he can to see that they get it (besides being an effective Congressman for Nebraska's 2nd District).

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Rep. Lee Terry said Tuesday that he will introduce a bill in the U.S. House to authorize a new national veterans cemetery in eastern Nebraska.

Advocates of creating a cemetery near Offutt Air Force Base have tried for years to convince the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that enough demand exists....

"The bill would be to specifically allow that eastern Nebraska be recognized for a federal veterans cemetery, because right now we don't meet the criteria," he said.

Suddenly, Terry's unquestioning support for President Bush's failed Iraq War policy makes a little more sense. His thinking seems to be quite simple:

More War = More Veterans = More Dead Veterans (i.e. "demand") = A New Veterans Cemetery for Bellevue

Hard to argue with logic like that. With the way Terry voted lock-step with Congressional Republicans (and fellow Nebraska Reps. Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith) against this week's House legislation setting goals and a timeline for troop withdrawal, he's certainly doing his part to get Bellevue the veterans' cemetery they desire.

Pork barrel politics? Supply and demand? Either way you look at it, you've got to give Terry credit for looking out for his constituents - just not those in uniform, their families, or any of the taxpayers who are carrying the financial burden of the Republican Party's directionless and unprincipled war without end.

NNN Special Report: "Nebraska Politics in the New Media"

2007-04-26T13:48:00.000-06:00

The following is a speech I presented to the Nebraska Associated Press Broadcaster's Association at their annual awards banquet on Friday, April 13th. It was an honor and a pleasure to have the opportunity - as a humble blogger - to address some of the most powerful and respected people in Nebraska television and radio news. The thrust of my 15 minute remarks, followed by another 10 minutes of Q & A, was the role of the blogger and the future of Nebraska's traditional news media.

I have done a lot of complaining about the media in Nebraska since NNN was founded more than two years ago. Understanding that this was my first - and perhaps last - real chance to deliver a call to action to those whom I have faulted and held responsible, I spoke more bluntly than was probably expected by those attending to receive an award for the quality of their journalism. But, the NAPBA was a better than gracious audience, and I certainly appreciated that its members seemed to take what criticism I offered in stride - hopefully without taking offense.

That being said, I'm proud to present:

Kyle Michaelis on
"Nebraska Politics in the New Media"

[After some brief attempts at humor in introducing myself]....

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a blogger.

That isn’t always easy for me to admit. I have a background in journalism and – first and foremost – I consider myself a writer. If I had to choose a title, I would call myself a citizen journalist. The work I do is unpaid. The site is free-for-all, has no budget, and has spread entirely by word of mouth. And, to those of you who have never seen the New Nebraska Network, I’ll be perfectly honest that it really isn’t much to look at.

Why do I sometimes bristle at being labeled a blogger?. It isn’t that “blogger” is any great insult, but it does suggest a certain flippancy that undermines my every purpose. That’s not a problem when a blogger is using his or her site as an online diary. But, when I write about Nebraska politics, which has been the sole focus of the New Nebraska Network since it began, I am not writing for personal satisfaction. I am not writing to amuse my friends. I am writing to make a difference.

My words and my ideas are all I have. They are my only source of credibility, and each time I write I stake my reputation and my readership upon them. People don’t tune into a website like they do the radio on their way to work or television while sitting down for supper. Now, there’s a pretty good chance my readers are just wasting time at work, but at that desk - on that computer screen - my voice is one in a backdrop of millions. The competition may not be as fierce as that between newsrooms in the same market, but it’s global in scale and infinite in number.

The one thing I have going for me is that I do have a fairly specific niche. Nebraska’s blog community has been relatively slow developing, and the number of bloggers who actually focus on Nebraska politics with any regularity can probably be counted on one hand. But, even with these other sites – whether they lean Republican or lean Democrat - I like to think the New Nebraska Network stands apart by offering substantive and insightful commentary that readers aren’t going to find anywhere else.

Now, that’s a bold statement, and I don’t make it lightly. It’s also a statement I wish I didn’t feel compelled to make. Still, after years of following the Nebraska media – the last two with an almost ridiculous level of intensity - I do feel there is something essential that we are undeniably lacking. Mainly, the Nebraska media – and those of us in this room - have failed the people of Nebraska by not asking more tough questions that challenge the status quo.

It’s easy to put myself on a pedestal. I’m accountable to no one – I have no advertisers, no editors, and no station managers I need to keep happy. My audience is limited to those strange people with enough passion for Nebraska politics that they’re going to read a website dedicated entirely to the subject. I also don’t have to worry about the appearance of political bias because I’ve never been anything but up front that I am a progressive and I am a Democrat. I do not deny that this shapes my thinking and colors my articles. So, there’s no doubt this affords me certain freedoms that allow me to be more openly critical of our elected representatives …. who just happen to be mostly Republicans.

But, let’s not forget one more important thing – I’m not getting paid to do this. Asking questions and informing the public isn’t my job. It’s yours, and I’m begging you to take it more seriously.

I’m not here alleging any great political bias in the Nebraska media - just a general complacency that might be even more dangerous and disastrous for our democracy.

For instance, let’s take a moment to consider the tax cuts that are all the rage in the Nebraska legislature this year. Governor Dave Heineman presented his tax plan in LB 331 with promises of simplifying the income tax and providing relief to the middle class. But, where were his claims and his numbers actually subjected to even the most basic scrutiny?

Why was it never reported that the most basic structural change Heineman proposed – reducing the income tax brackets from 4 brackets to 3 – would have been accomplished entirely by eliminating the lowest tax bracket? Heineman had just proposed a higher tax rate for Nebraska’s poorest population and no one said so. At the same time, it didn’t take an economist to point out that Heineman’s proposals to eliminate the estate tax and to phase-in a massive rate reduction for Nebraska’s wealthiest taxpayers weren’t intended to help the middle class.

The numbers were out there, but no one challenged Heineman on them. When he testified on behalf of his tax plan before the Revenue Committee, only one state senator even asked him a question. Heineman is a smart enough politician to have stayed on script with his answer – as he’s done whenever the cameras are rolling and microphones are in his face. The man is a walking, talking soundbyte – I’ve got to give him credit for that. But, the Nebraska media should be ashamed for letting those soundbytes so completely set the tone of their coverage.

This is not about whether Heineman’s original tax cut plan was a good or bad idea – even if I personally found it appalling. This is about the fact that Heineman’s statements and Heineman’s press releases completely dominated the media’s reporting on the issue. I don’t doubt that there was some independent fact-checking, but that’s not enough. When Heineman is armed with cherry-picked numbers to put his plan in the best possible light, it’s not enough to say that his numbers are accurate. What this state needed was independent analysis that might actually portray the proposal in an honest and complete light that a good politician like Heineman will do every sort of dance to avoid.

Honestly, who can blame them? If the media is willing to let itself be manipulated by regurgitating selective figures and well-rehearsed soundbytes, you’d be a fool not to take advantage of that fact.

A politician can save you the trouble of doing research. He can save you the expense. He can save you the time. But, he’s not doing your job for you. Your job isn’t getting done. The truth isn’t being reported. Suddenly, the public is getting nothing more than secondhand press releases, and – too often – that’s exactly what’s happening in Nebraska.

This isn’t a result of bias. This is the result of laziness, and I’d go so far as to call it the prevailing characteristic of Nebraska’s political press corp.

Which brings us to blogs and this hard-to-define concept of “the new media.”

There are many people who believe that we’re witnessing the dawn of a new age in politics and in journalism. There are many who believe that the rise of the blog and online communities will radically transform not only the relationship between politicians and voters but also the relationship between the media and its audience.

While I don’t doubt that new mediums and new means of communication will change these relationships, I’m actually quite skeptical that these changes will result in a more democratic society or a more informed public. The potential is there – God, there is so much potential – but so far, when I step back and look at this online universe in which I inhabit and invest so much of my time, all I really see is a new playground for the same games.

Now, I may not fit the bill, but there is a certain “coolness” factor surrounding blogs at the moment. They’ve been around for years, but the news media - both nationally and locally – have really embraced them in the last year or two – particularly in the realm of politics.

There are blogs dedicated to every subject under the sun, so it does seem odd that political blogs receive as much attention as they do. They’ve got their own corner of Newsweek. They’ve got their own segment on CNN. Just here in Nebraska, I’ve personally been interviewed on TV, cited in the newspapers, and even asked to speak at this dinner. Not bad considering that many people in our state have never and will never read a blog – let alone one about Nebraska politics.

So, why do people care? Why do blogs receive this attention? Again, why am I here?

The beauty of blogs is that they do have a way of leveling the playing field. They might be the purest example of the marketplace of ideas that our country has ever seen. There is little-to-no cost of entry. There is no corporate censorship and, for better and worse, there isn’t much in the way of self-censorship either. It’s an emerging form of communication without any specific bounds or standards, so there’s still the perception that anyone with something worthwhile to say who’s able to say it effectively can find an audience.

Still, the question of why the news media seems so fascinated with blogs is a legitimate one. For some, I think it’s an admission that they haven’t done enough to integrate diverse viewpoints and perspectives into their reporting. For others, I think it’s a simple matter of following the hype and giving the people what they seem to want.

It might just make good economic sense. The audience for traditional media – whether the people in this room want to hear it or not – has been stagnant for years. It’s understood that, in the coming years, increased emphasis on more engaging online content is probably going to be essential just to maintain a market share foothold. From an advertising standpoint, who wouldn’t want to attract those who read blogs and watch video clips on YouTube – they’re young, they’re tech-savvy, they’re educated, and – whether to an ideology or just to John Stewart – they already tend to be loyal. They may not reflect the larger population but that’s still a demographic any advertiser wants on board.

The problem is that this idea that the new media can serve as a supplement to the traditional media seems to underestimate that the online world really is a new medium that needs to be thought about in new ways.

Then again, I wasn’t asked here to offer my thoughts on the 21st Century marketplace. That I have opinions on the matter and am only too happy to share them without invitation, however, is very reflective of my role as a blogger.

Basically, the only requirement for blogging about politics is an abundance of opinions. Writing skills come in handy. Being informed is generally a good idea. But, by and large, we are commentators.

Despite my pretenses to the contrary, bloggers are not journalists. Many of us adopt a vaguely journalistic, truth-seeking mission. Some of us do our best to uphold journalistic standards of form and objectivity. But, the only real checks are the ones we impose upon ourselves, and those can change day-to-day or as the situation dictates.

Maybe I’m projecting my own faults and my own weaknesses onto the blog community with that assessment. But, from what I’ve seen and from what I’ve written myself, there’s a critical stage of fact-checking essential in journalism that is not expected of a blogger. For lack of resources – mindful that this isn’t a job – a blogger has the latitude and might even be encouraged to rush to judgment and jump to conclusions.

Speed is a factor, but not in the same marking your territory sense as scooping your rivals. No, on a blog, the speed with which you respond is essential to the relationship with your readers. There is an intimacy born of blogging’s instantaneous and immediate nature. Bloggers are not in a position of authority. They stand in the place of the reader, the viewer, the listener – except they don’t do so passively.

Personally, I write when I hear something on the radio, read something in the paper, or see something on TV and feel the real story has not been told. When some critical bit of context has been left out, when there are obvious questions that remain to be asked – that’s when I log-in to the New Nebraska Network and share my two cents with the world.

Blogs can flesh out a story. They can provide the context that most people will not piece together themselves because they’re busy living their lives and have other priorities. Now, I think the best journalists do a good job of building that context into their own reporting. This may invite charges of bias, but it’s called informing the public. What could be more unethical and in greater violation of the public’s trust than remaining silent on an important point just to avoid the appearance of bias.

Blogs are less concerned about appearance. We’re expected to be biased, and there certainly isn’t any pressure to be polite.

While these are all strengths, they aren’t without their drawbacks. As much as it pains me and insults my fellow bloggers, I’m very concerned with the parallels between blogging and what’s become of cable news. There is definitely a level at which Bill O’Reilly serves as the televised template for what many people consider good blogging. There’s a point at which every blogger seems to declare his or her own personal “No Spin Zone” – where a single truth prevails and the fools who disagree will no longer be suffered. I find this ironic because, like O’Reilly, spin is all most bloggers really have to offer. Spin is what we do.

The difference is that your average blogger is not presenting his or her work as something that it’s not. They’re partisan and proud of it. Their readers come for the spin that caters to them or challenges them from a perspective they might not otherwise consider. This spin is not an active attempt to mislead in the worst sense of the word, but it does require that one be willing to go out on limbs and not shy away from innuendo.

I’ll be perfectly honest that I take comfort in the fact that I can be wrong and can be misled because, like anyone else, I’m relying on the news media for the facts that inform what I write. If you don’t do your job providing unbiased, in-depth, investigative reporting, the bloggers of the world will still have their opinions, but they’ll be a whole lot more ignorant and ill-informed – just like the public at large.

The people in this room, you have legitimacy. You have credibility. You have the people’s trust – whether it’s deserved or not. Take that responsibility seriously, or it will be no time at all before the talking heads, the talking points, and the worst excesses of our dueling political dichotomy have completely taken over.

Blogs can be part of the problem, or they can be part of the solution. Regardless, I think it goes without saying that blogs are here to stay. Eventually, the topic won’t be so trendy, but the medium itself will continue to develop. How much good they’ll do – what size of audience they’ll actually reach – I can’t really say. But, they’ll be around. And I expect certain voices will emerge online that become quite credible and influential – probably even here in Nebraska.

They’ll criticize bad reporting. They’ll claim bias from the left and from the right. They’ll mock our politicians and try their best to hold them accountable.

The traditional media will do what it can to co-opt the new media – to make a buck, to broaden its audience, and to keep a check on the competition. Meanwhile, politicians and their staff – who are so obsessed with image and message control – will no doubt find new and evermore creative ways to manipulate the online community for their own purposes. It’s already ridiculous now, and it will only get more ridiculous with time.

As for me and the New Nebraska Network, I’m not sure how much longer we’ll be in the blogging game. The only reason I’ve stuck with it as long as I have is because I truly believe those who share a progressive vision for this state have been horribly under-represented and their issues under-reported by the media. Also, there are important debates about Nebraska’s future that simply aren’t being discussed or even acknowledged as they should.

I have no delusions that the New Nebraska Network is going to single-handedly change Nebraska politics. But, I’m happy to have been in on the ground floor as this new medium develops, and I hope – when I’ve finally gotten sick of the sound of my own typing – there will be a few other voices to step up and follow in the New Nebraska Network’s footsteps.

There are so many important things to be said and no one way to say them – just so long as someone believes enough in the power of ideas and the strength of democracy that they’re at least willing to try.

Chuck Hagel Says Lincoln Will NOT Support Ken Svoboda

2007-04-25T17:22:00.000-06:00

After Lincoln's Republican mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda embarrassed himself and the city he hopes to lead with his idiotic plan to cut off roads funding for the western two-thirds of Nebraska, the hits have just kept on coming.

First, the Lincoln Journal-Star sensibly endorsed Svoboda's opponent, longtime State Senator and proven Nebraska visionary Chris Beutler, as Lincoln's next mayor. Then, in today's print edition, the Omaha World-Herald delivered a harsh rebuke to Svoboda, condemning him for confirming rural Nebraska's worst "negative perceptions" of the state's urban leaders. The World-Herald rightfully accused Svoboda of being irresponsible with his blatant pandering to local political interests.

Unfortunately, the World-Herald forgot to include the Nebraska Republican Party in its rebuke after Nebraska Republicans splashed Svoboda's plan across their website - insulting taxpayers and citizens across the state just to help win an election. It should come as little surprise that they have quickly changed the site's front page - replacing one insult with another, now attacking Beutler by distorting his record on taxes.

It does make sense - when their candidate has just made such an ass of himself - that they should suddenly try to turn people's attention away from Svoboda. Besides, there was never any question that the Republicans would go negative in this race - resorting to the same sort of desperate and dirty tricks they've used in past Lincoln city elections.

I just hope Beutler was right in his two-part NNN Interview (I, II) last month when he promised his campaign was "prepared for anything and everything" the Republicans might throw at him.

But, back to Svoboda, his worst move yet might be the way he's been drawn into the inner-party skirmish between Sen. Chuck Hagel and Attorney General Jon Bruning. In the race to prove who's the most conservative and most loyal Republican of the two (who's got the biggest elephant's trunk?), a Hagel spokesman responded:

Nebraskans will not vote for a chameleon.

When Bill Clinton was president and the Democrats controlled Congress, Jon Bruning was a card-carrying pro-choice, pro-tax Democrat. After a Republican Congress was elected in 1994, he transformed himself into a pro-life, anti-tax Republican.

Surprise, surpise...guess who else besides Bruning was also a Democrat until after the 1994 elections. That's right - Mr. Ken Svoboda.

You heard it here first, folks. Chuck Hagel says Nebraskans will not vote for a chameleon. So, according to Chuck Hagel, Nebrakans will not vote for Ken Svoboda.

As published by the Lincoln Journal-Star and NealO.com

Talk about a tough week. Ouch. But, don't feel sorry for Svoboda. He and his party have brought this on themselves and will hopefully get what they deserve.

Good News for Jon Bruning Is Bad News for Nebraska Republicans?

2007-04-23T18:08:00.000-06:00

Chuck Hagel vs. Jon Bruning - Round Two

Attorney General Jon Bruning has released a poll of 404 likely Republican voters in the 2008 Nebraska primary to bolster his case as the front-runner in the Senate race, whether incumbent Chuck Hagel seeks re-election or not. Bruning's numbers show him beating Hagel in a head-to-head match-up 47 - 38%. They also show Bruning with a head-to-head advantage of 55 - 16% over former Congressman and former Omaha Mayor Hal Daub . . . which would be quite impressive if it weren't for the fact that they pit him against Hal Daub.

But, while Bruning might find lots to celebrate in this poll, the picture is not so rosy for Nebraska Republicans as a whole. For starters, when asked about the direction of the country, with more than 20 months left in George W. Bush's presidency, a full 55% of Nebraska Republicans say the United States is on the "wrong track." Only 30% said the country was moving in the "right direction." That's a remarkable level of pessimism that speaks to a deeply divided and demoralized Republican base that knows it has no one to blame but its own elected officials for the failures, the corruption, and the partisan excesses of the previous six years.

In terms of raw favorability, Nebraska Republicans were still able to rally behind Gov. Dave Heineman - who led the pack with the favor of 82%. Meanwhile, 61% thought highly of Bruning - better than Hagel's startlingly-low 52% favorability or Daub's 39% (which still seems a little bit high if you ask me).

But, it's the unfavorable ratings that are the real story here. 18% of Nebraska Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Daub, with twice that many - a full 36% - having a negative opinion of Hagel.

The real kicker, though, might be the fact that more than a quarter of Nebraska Republicans (26%) have an unfavorable view of Bush - their own president. I'm guessing there's not a whole lot of cross-over between the 26% who dislike Bush and the 36% who dislike Hagel, painting a picture of a Nebraska Republican Party in which more than 60% of its voters are practically at war with themselves.

There's also evidence of a serious disconnect with reality in the Nebraska Republican Party rooted in its self-imposed, reactionary ignorance in all matters concerning the Iraq War. Of those voters who were so disfavorable towards Hagel, 16% said it's because "he's critical of the Bush Administration," and 12% said it's because "he's not loyal to the Republicans." Clearly, that's a whole lot of Republicans who are so consumed with the desire to believe what they want of the Iraq War that they'll also believe whatever they want of Hagel - whose 2006 voting record rated him as the most loyal Republican to President Bush in the entire U.S. Senate.

So, really, that 60%-plus of Nebraska Republicans who've found so much to dislike about Hagel or Bush might still be able to find some common ground realizing they dislike Hagel AND Bush.

Now, that's a Republican Party I could get behind!

By the way, there's one other measure that should either really worry Nebraska Republicans or at least call into question the methodology behind Bruning's poll results. Looking at the demographics of those polled, only 12% were under the age of 40, while 34% were ages 65 or older.

I know Nebraska has an aging population, but that's going to quite the extreme. Maybe Bruning's baby face goes over especially well with the nursing home crowd, who might also be more inclined to bristle at Hagel's Iraq War criticism. Either way, it sounds like Bruning has his work cut out for him. If he runs, not only does he have to get his voters to the polls, he also needs to keep them out of the grave.

Scorecard Through Two Rounds
Jon Bruning 09 - 10
Chuck Hagel 10 - 09

Ken Svoboda's Stupidity Reveals Republicans Don't Give a Damn About Rural Nebraska

2007-04-21T11:00:00.000-06:00

I don't like making brash declarations and relying on the politics of us vs. them, but, if the following story does not piss you off, you are either not a true Nebraskan or you are simply a damn fool.

From the front page of the Nebraska Republican Party's website:

Svoboda unveils Lincoln roads plan

Believing that an adequate and serviceable road system is vital for the city’s future economic development, mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda has advanced a forward-looking road and street construction plan for Lincoln.

Road improvement dollars have not been allocated as broadly or effectively as they might have been in recent years, Svoboda said....

“In 2003 the residents of Lancaster County, 90 percent of whom are Lincoln residents, paid over $88 million in road construction dollars to the state and received only $24 million dollars in return,” Svoboda said. “That just 29 cents on the dollar.”

As Lincoln’s next mayor, Svoboda pledges to work with the Lincoln delegation to the Nebraska Legislature to negotiate a better deal for Lincoln taxpayers.

“We’re state residents, and we don’t mind subsidizing road construction in the western two-thirds of the state to a certain degree,” he said. “But there’s more economic development benefit in having roads built in the eastern third of the state than in the western two thirds.”

During his chairmanship of the I-80 Commission, Svoboda proposed a seven-year moratorium on new, non-Interstate-related road construction in the western two-thirds of Nebraska. During that time, more dollars would go to the eastern one-third of the state, especially Lincoln and Omaha.

“The state would get a much better return through economic development and jobs created,” Svoboda said. “At the end of the moratorium, you could probably return to the western part of the state twice what they gave up during the seven years.”

The Lincoln Journal-Star adds of Svoboda's proposed moratorium:

Mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda called for a seven-year moratorium on new road construction in the western two-thirds of Nebraska, except for on the interstate.

If more state road construction dollars flowed into eastern Nebraska, namely Lincoln and Omaha, those two economic engines would be able to produce even more revenue for the rest of the state, he reasoned.

Svoboda said he first proposed the admittedly “politically incorrect” idea as chairman of the I-80 Commission....

[Mayoral candidate Chris Beutler] said he agrees that more road dollars should go to Lincoln, but said Svoboda’s call for a moratorium would just alienate western lawmakers.

The plan put forward by Svoboda and the Republican Party should not just "alientate western lawmakers." Rather, this plan should be denounced and apology demanded by every political leader, every agricultural worker, and every community activist in the state.

Honestly, I don't know who Svoboda thinks he's fooling. There's nothing "politically incorrect" about this selfish, stupid and short-sighted political insanity.

This all calls to mind the editorial pictured at right from last month's Scottsbluff Star-Herald lamenting their realization of Gov. Dave Heineman and Congressman Adrian Smith's empty promises on the 2006 campaign trail.

Read it. Seriously.

What you see are just the latest examples of a pattern of betrayal and a history of neglect by Republican politicians who have abandoned Western Nebraska at its most desperate hour.

Now, not only Republican politicians but also the Nebraska Republican Party itself have proven just how hollow their concern for rural and Western Nebraska truly is by advancing Svoboda's ludicrous and insulting proposal on their own website.

This is an outrage. To help a single failing campaign, the Nebraska Republican Party has shown its willingness to sacrifice the future and the economic well-being of 2/3rds of our state. Any and every Nebraskan - living in Norfolk or McCook; Chadron or Omaha - should take offense and take the offensive against such crass and destructive political posturing.

The backbone of our state's economy - not to mention its heart and its soul - rests in the fields and pastures of rural Nebraska. By pushing this moratorium on highway construction, Svoboda and the Nebraska Republican Party risk condemning those Nebraskans who are already struggling the most to what would essentially be life in an economic Stone Age.

Through Heineman, they have already shown complete disregard to the need for new technological infrastructure (i.e. public broadband). With rural Nebraska's road infrasture now being targeted for disrepair and destruction, those most in need of our investment would see even the possibility of renewed development and economic progress vanish right before their very eyes.

We can not allow that to happen. That it should be suggested - even by a foolish and desperate candidate searching vainly for a message - is utterly appalling and an absolute insult to Nebraska's people and their shared heritage.

I can't imagine what proof voters could ask for that would better demonstrate just how little Republican politicians and the Republican Party really care about rural Nebraska. For decades, they have offered nothing but lip service - delivering on none of it while an entire way of life dwindled and whole counties fell into despair.

This is the Nebraska Republican Party's legacy. Of course, voters bear some responsibility because, rather than staying true to the independence for which they pride themselves, they have allowed petty partisanship and scare tactics to blind them to their own self-interest and self-worth. It's a game that's gone on long enough - maybe so long that the damage has become permanent.

But, it's never too late to change. It's never too late to hope and to fight for your family, your community, and your fellow Nebraskans.

Today, we can see the enemy. Not just Ken Svoboda. Not just Heineman or Smith. No, the blame begins with the cakewalk campaigns, the controlled media and the voters' complacency that have made possible the Republican Party's endless litany of failed promises.

Regardles of where you live in Nebraska, I hope this story drives home that even the race for Lincoln's mayor does affect you. In this state, with the odds we are up against, we really are all in this together. For now, that means writing a letter to the editor, challenging rural Republicans with evidence of their own Party's betrayal and - yes - making a contribution to progressive visionary Chris Beutler's Mayoral campaign.

Then, after May 1st, all bets are off, and our battle for the future of the entire state of Nebraska begins anew.

Chuck Hagel vs. Jon Bruning - Round One

2007-04-20T20:30:00.000-06:00

While our anonymous GOP counterpart at Leavenworth Street has set his sights on Jon Bruning for having been a Democrat in his college days - publishing statements he made as a columnist at the Daily Nebraskan that suggest Bruning's either a secret liberal in conservative's clothing or an unprincipled political opportunist - it's amusing that Bruning's supposedly controversial remarks (i.e. “Homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else” - GASP!!!) have only come to light as Bruning attempts to establish himself as the loyal Republican and the "good" Republican in a potential 2008 primary challenge to Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Nevermind that Bruning's statements have been readily available for as long as he's been in Nebraska politics. Nevermind that I'd personally read his columns in the Daily Nebraskan archives four years ago. Nevermind that Bruning's statements have about as much relevance as his run-ins with the police as a frat boy in college. Bruning's gone on the attack against Hagel, so certain powers that be in the Nebraska Republican Party have decided that Bruning is fair game.

Aside from the amusement factor, I don't much care about Hagel, Bruning, and their respective camps going to war with one another on something so trivial. I am, however, happy to see that Hagel is standing up for himself and for our troops in Iraq as the new wave of Republican BS that supporting the troops means letting them die in vain finds Bruning its new champion in Nebraska.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said Thursday that Iraq is "worse off than it's ever been" and that he will continue to press President Bush to change his war policy.

Hagel made his fifth trip to Iraq last weekend, visiting Anbar province and Baghdad's highly fortified Green Zone....

The U.S. military is doing an outstanding job, Hagel said, but it's up to elected officials to guide the development of the mission in Iraq.

"We're not playing with a set of dominoes here," Hagel said in a conference call with reporters. "We're not playing with budgets here. We're talking about real lives. We're talking about the most real and fundamental aspects of the world, our position and security."

Hagel was asked about a possible challenge from Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning in the Republican Senate primary next year....Bruning said Wednesday that he might run regardless of what Hagel does. He criticized Hagel for supporting a timetable to get out of Iraq, saying it could hurt troop morale.

Said Hagel: "I don't accept that. I just don't agree with that. Those who make those kinds of statements maybe should go to Iraq and spend a little time (there) like I have.

"Maybe if they understood a little about the military, had any experience in the military, it might help them understand this better," added Hagel, a Vietnam veteran.

Who is the "they" of which Hagel speaks? Well, about 90% of Republicans in Congress - as well as our Republican President and all announced Republican Presidential candidates - would certainly seem to qualify.

To our discredit, Nebraska's entire House delegation has also adopted the Republican talking points suggesting that, after 4 years of increasing disaster, all our military leaders really need is more time.

Most recently, 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith declared, "We have a long way to go. There is tough and difficult work ahead, but we are making progress." Of course, this progress is never defined as Smith's far-from-expert opinion flies in the face of Hagel's assessment and the facts showing the last 6 months in Iraq being the deadliest for American forces since the 2003 invasion.

So, Jon Bruning and Adrian Smith have their talking points while Chuck Hagel is left talking from experience that may or may not be colored by his own ambitions. Either way, they may all inhabit the same party but not the same reality - not on this issue. It's still politics, though, so one suspects they're all playing the same games.

Round One Score Card:
Jon Bruning - 09
Chuck Hagel - 10

Has Hagel Lost His Hold?

2007-04-20T00:41:00.000-06:00

Congressman Lee Terry Ready to "Get On Board" with an Actual Presidential Candidate

Sen. Chuck Hagel has been the dominant force in Nebraska Republican politics for the last decade. From recent headlines, though, one can only assume his Hamlet-like ruminations on his political future have resulted in an army of would-be Macbeths sick of waiting their turn in Hagel's shadow.

As Ryan notes below, Attorney General Jon Bruning has all but announced his intention to challenge Hagel if Hagel seeks re-election. That's quite the change from Bruning's March 15th press conference, when he not only vowed that he would not run against Hagel in the primary but also declared "I'm a Hagel guy" who wants "to be there right behind him" supporting Hagel's bid for the Presidency.

So, Bruning would support Hagel for President but not for re-election? Is that a flip? Or, is that a flop? Either way, it's a sign that Hagel is no longer the golden boy above reproach in Nebraska Republican politics - even though he's played a big role in every major Republican victory in the state since 1996 and gave up much credibility as an independent voice on the national stage with his flagrant partisanship supporting Pete Ricketts' money-flush but inherently flawed 2006 Senate campaign.

Just goes to show that you really are only as good as your last campaign - even when it wasn't your name on the ballot.

Honestly, though, the size of Bruning's ego has made him a poor fit for the Team Hagel crowd from the start. Far more telling in terms of Hagel's newfound weakness is the report in Thursday's Omaha World-Herald that Congressman Lee Terry doesn't seem to be waiting around for Hagel to make up his mind before finding a candidate to support for President:

If Sen. Chuck Hagel waits too long to decide on a presidential bid, he may find his fellow Nebraska Republicans on Capitol Hill have already signed up with another candidate.

The state's three U.S. House members attended a meeting Wednesday with former senator and potential presidential contender Fred Thompson, who was pitching his conservative philosophy to lawmakers.

Rep. Lee Terry of Omaha said he was impressed with Thompson's desire to return the GOP to its roots - pushing for limited government and fiscal responsibility.

Thompson is still in the "listening tour" phase and is not officially running, but that could change.

"I think I need to start finding a candidate to back," Terry said. "I have some level of enthusiasm about Fred Thompson, so if he came out tomorrow, I could see myself getting onboard with him."

It's interesting to note that the online edition also includes the following, which was not reported in print:

Terry said he gets the feeling Hagel will ultimately decide not to jump into the race.

"Some of the vibes that I'm (getting) are that Chuck is not going to run for president," Terry said.

"I can't answer for my colleagues, but the fact that they were there listening to Fred Thompson means that they might be feeling some of the same vibes and that it's time for us to start looking."

So, what exactly is going on here? Has Hagel's continued criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy so completely destroyed his relationship with the Republican base that his fellow GOP politicians don't really care about offending him? Does Terry know something we don't - that Hagel has ruled out a Presidential bid? That Hagel is angling for a rumored indepedent campaign for the Vice-Presidency with billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg? That Hagel is retiring? That Hagel is resigning himself to seeking re-election....much to Bruning's chagrin?

Hell, I don't know. I'm just a dude who asks questions. But, clearly Hagel is no longer the end-all-be-all in Nebraska Republican politics. Although he served as something of a king-maker for Dave Heineman and attempted to do the same for Pete Ricketts, his national ambitions have left an open flank at home that others are proving more than willing to exploit.

Should be an interesting couple of months ahead.

NE-Sen: Huh? What? and How come?

2007-04-19T14:36:00.000-06:00

Today, the 2008 Senate race left Chuck Hagel's hands. Unfortunately, it also left a whole lot of us would-be pundits and prognosticators scratching our heads. There is no other race in the country in such a state of flux. Here's what we know:

* Attorney General Jon Bruning is willing to enter the Republican primary even if Hagel runs for re-election. He stopped short of announcing a run, but his statement leaves little to the imagination:

Senator Hagel voted with the Democratic leadership against President Bush on the most important issue facing our country... It's extremely counterproductive. I'm very concerned about the morale of our troops and the potential comfort given to the enemy, who knows now that they can wait us out.

Simply put: you don't declare war unless you're ready to fight. It just doesn't make any sense for Bruning to start hurling these bombs unless he sees an opening in this race. And for those of you keeping score at home, that's one point for Harold Anderson, nada for me. Oops.

* Bruning's announcement comes on the heels of Hagel's completely unimpressive first Quarter fundraising: a haul of $143,663 (not exactly a presidential sum) for a Cash on Hand total of $230,214 (compare that with COH total of $113,911 for the late Jim Exon, who hasn't been in the Senate for 12 years and hasn't been on this Earth for the last two).

* Meanwhile, Mike Fahey isn't exactly sounding like a Senate candidate. While careful not to rule out a statewide bid, he's been busy ramping up a mayoral re-election campaign, complete with a $100,000 fundraising dinner earmarked for a third term in City Hall (and not transferable to a hypothetical federal campaign).

I'd hate not to be around to see some of the projects through," Fahey said. "I don't think there has ever been a better time to be mayor of this city.

* Finally, this bombshell from Don Walton about some mystery organization conducting a poll for former Senator Bob Kerrey... who hasn't expressed any interest in the race and doesn't even live in this state anymore.

So where does that leave us? Scratching our heads and waiting to see the pieces fall into place. But first, a few thoughts:

I'm not yet convinced Bruning is an easier target for Nebraska Democrats than Hagel would be. True, it would be possible to run to Bruning's left on the war, but it's the very unpopularity of Hagel's Iraq rhetoric which has made him vulnerable in a Republican constituency that constitutes over half of the state's electorate. Bruning has the advantages of any statewide incumbent in terms of name identification and fundraising, but he's still a relatively fresh face who has managed to avoid isolating large sections of his idealogical base.

Then again, I just got schooled by Harold Anderson, so what do I know?

And Bob Kerrey? Seriously? The man was a terrific public servant who is still rather beloved across this state, but we've just seen similar goodwill dissipate in an instant when former Senator John Breaux tried to return from Maryland to Louisiana to run for the governor's office. Senator Kerrey has demonstrated a certain wanderlust throughout his career (retiring from the Governorship after only one term, announcing for the Presidency only a few years into his Senate career, retiring from Congress when he was nearly assured re-election), and it wouldn't be surprising to hear that he's considering a return to public life. But does that mean a run for the Senate in Nebraska? Doubtful, very doubtful.

For the moment, the Democratic nomination remains in Fahey's hands. Though not my first choice, Mike Fahey has been a terrific administrator for the City of Omaha and would make a formidable candidate against whomever the Republicans decide to nominate. But will he decide to run? Will Scott Kleeb, or Hal Daub for that matter? I don't think any of them know just yet. They're all probably just scratching their heads and waiting for the pieces to fall into place.

Who could blame them?

The CfRA's Big Push

2007-04-19T10:29:00.001-06:00

More than anything, the netroots have proven themselves through their ability to raise cash. We're now at the point where a candidate like Barack Obama can rise from the political woodwork and challenge the fundraising supremacy of the most established name in the Democratic Party with donations from college students, working people, single parents... people who don't usually shell out $2,000 checks to eat rubber chicken.

This momentum has been trickling down into the state blogospheres, with sites like Raising Kaine using local networks to raise money for candidates to state and federal offices... often with terrific success. In this respect, us Nebraska bloggers are behind the curve.

Not that we've eschewed fundraising in general. I should note (as I failed to note earlier -mea culpa), that NNN founder Kyle Michaelis supported an ActBlue page from this very site for the 2006 cycle, and other Nebraskan bloggers have certainly done their part to generate interest and raise funds. But I don't think we've tapped into our full potential, a potential illustrated by other state and national blogs who have perhaps been a little more forward in their solicitations.

In fact, the Center for Rural Affairs just might be the first organization in the state to break out the ole' fundraising thermometer and dream that big dream:

For years, the CfRA has provided an invaluable voice on progressive issues of concern to rural Nebraska: advocating for the state corporate farming ban, working to eliminate federal handouts to corporate mega-farms, and calling for reform of LB775 among many other admirable crusades. Now they're looking to raise $15,000 by May 15th.

A chance to support progressive causes and help prove our fundraising prowess? Sounds like a good deal to me. Let's help 'em bust this thermometer.

Click here to donate.

"The Fix Is In" On Unicameral's Tax Cut Plan

2007-04-18T13:40:00.000-06:00

I can't apologize enough to readers for being unable to focus on Nebraska's ongoing tax cut debate these last few weeks. The Revenue Committee advanced its plan to the full legislature on March 29th and the next day's headlines were so outrageously one-sided that I still haven't fully recovered from the shock.

The Omaha World-Herald read:

Tax Cut Plan Called Good Balance
A proposal advances that would set aside $100 million in 2007-08 to pay property taxes.

The Lincoln Journal-Star read:

Tax Cuts: Everyone Benefits
Governor offers support to proposal that provides more than $200 million in tax relief.

I can't compete with that. It's not journalism - it's advocacy. And, it's not a damn bit objective by any stretch of the imagination.

Right then and there, the state's two largest newspapers decided for the people of Nebraska that the Revenue Committee's plan was going to go through. For almost three weeks now, I've been meaning to dissect the Revenue Committee's proposal - acknowledging that it's nowhere near as hideous and appalling as Gov. Dave Heineman's original tax cut plan but that it's also nowhere near as beneficial or equitable as the headlines would let on.

Now that the debate has actually begun on the floor of the legislature, it's probably too late to really make any attempt to beat back all the hype and the one-sided coverage likely to carry the Revenue Committee's plan through the legislature.

Only yesterday did the Lincoln Journal-Star finally carry an article admitting "there are winners and losers with the plan." But, guess what - that admission came in an article entitled:

Tax Cut Package: A Bit For Everybody

Maybe it's not the journalists - just the copy editors - who are using the full force of the press to curry favor with Gov. Heineman and to prevent an honest assessment of the weaknesses of the current proposal.

And, what of "the losers" under this tax cut plan? Who will speak for them? Who has even acknowledged that they exist in the Nebraska media but as a throwaway line in a heap of spin? They are the unmarried. They are the working poor. They are anyone in the middle-class who owns their own home because they would see so much more benefit under alternative proposals (that, polling shows, people actually prefer).

I haven't spoken up for them these last three weeks. No one else has either. And, in the rush to go along and get along with a plan specifically crafted to please everyone....so long as there is no critical analysis and no questions are asked, I doubt that anyone will be able to truly make a stand for the quiet majority of Nebraska voters who have been deliberately silenced and manipulated by the media and by the politicians in whom they place their trust.

Special Event - Blogging vs. the Mainstream Media

2007-04-16T22:26:00.000-06:00

Sorry to be so last minute, but Lincoln readers who don't have to work afternoons might still be able to make the following event, the details of which I've known for a few weeks but forgot to post. Don Kuhns suggests that you attend:

Blogging vs. Mainstream Media - "The Daily Howler" Comes to Nebraska
Tuesday, April 17th; 1:30 - 2:30 pm
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN, City Campus Union

Bob Somerby, editor of THE DAILY HOWLER (www.dailyhowler.com), a prominent political blog that de-constructs the New York Times, will discuss the mainstream press coverage of recent White House elections, especially the history-altering 2000 campaign which sent George W. Bush to the White House. Somerby will also discuss the mainstream press coverage being extended to candidates in Campaign 08. He will focus especially on the coverage of Hillary Clinton and John McCain....

Don further suggests:

Somerby has probably done more than any one person to encourage liberals and Democrats to embrace full-time media criticism as a necessity for fighting back against conservative propaganda and anti-Democrat MSM "scripts". Before Atrios, before Media Matters, it was Somerby's Daily Howler that reminded us every day that so-called "liberal" pundits and other screwballs of the elite Washington press corps are not doing us any favors. Liberal media criticism is playing a vital roll in today's politics. Anyone who is happy with the outcome of the 2006 election owes Bob Somerby a big debt of gratitude, and a listen.

I haven't read much of Somerby's work, but I'm willing to take Don's word that this is a great opportunity for local blog readers to get a taste of the national blog scene.

I must say, blogging really seems to be coming of age in Nebraska. This last weekend, I had the honor of delivering the keynote address at the Nebraska Associated Press Broadcaster Association's annual awards dinner. The topic of my speech was the the similarly-themed but more locally-flavored "Hope vs. Hype: Nebraska Politics in the New Media." The text of those remarks should be posted at some point this week (if I can find time to edit what was a 20-minute speech).

Regardless, I'm hoping to make Somerby's talk at UNL Tuesday afternoon. Maybe we'll even get the chance to compare notes. New Nebraska Network Meets the Daily Howler - sounds like an old Abbot & Costello film or an episode of Scooby-Doo. I could dig that - most definitely.

Catching up

2007-04-16T13:24:00.000-06:00

* Following up from my post on Friday, I'd like to thank the World Herald for their Sunday morning cover story about poverty in Omaha's black community. This is exactly the sort of discussion that should have to endure the 24/7 "Imus cycle": Why does Omaha, home of five Fortune 500 Companies, have the third highest rate of black poverty in the nation? Why does the 19th best city for business -the largest city in the 10th best state for business- have the highest rate of black children in poverty?

Fortunately, as the OWH also reports, there is no shortage of possible solutions: "A coordinated effort by government, schools and the business community...", "reduce the isolation of blacks...", "jobs", "homes", "public transportation", and of course, "education." But all of these efforts start with political will, and that will only come when the rest of us stop being satisfied with "cleaning the airwaves" and start tackling the real problems, the ones that can't be solved with a memo from a radio executive. The problem isn't on MSNBC, it's next door. It's in all of us.

But as I've said before, this problem is bigger even than public policy. I've asked why these problems persist in a business friendly state. Now I ask: why does the state with the second highest rate of volunteers have such a large and largely isolated community of impoverished blacks?

There's a statue, just inside Boy's Town, of a little boy on another kid's shoulders. The caption reads "He ain't heavy... he's my brother." Omaha needs more brother's keepers. We all need to invest in a community that is less segregated, less isolated, and richer in ways beyond any dollar amount. In that spirit, the OWH has a list of organizations that would love to have your time and money (and yes, this goes to the preacher as well as the choir).

* We can all breathe a sigh of relief: Adrian Smith has been to Iraq, and he assures us that "progress has been made".

* Harold Anderson is gunning for Hagel's Senate seat:

Don't overlook the possibility that U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, the increasingly controversial Nebraska Republican, will face potentially strong opposition next May in the Republican primary....

I do not suggest that the following report of a recent conversation involving eight Nebraska Republicans approaches a comprehensive survey. But it was typical of almost all of the comments I have been hearing in recent day's when Hagel's name comes up. And it is coming up with increasing frequency.

The consensus of the conversation was strong dissapproval of the nature of Hagel's campaign of criticism over the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq.

I don't doubt the sincere possibility that Hagel could face a right-wing primary challenge next year. Sometimes this anecdotal evidence is ahead of the polls in revealing underlying vulnerabilities, and it isn't necessarily wise to dismiss a growing murmur just because it hasn't been recorded in a survey (then again, this is coming from the man who claims to get floods of e-mails begging to know what his wife and dog are up to).

I still think it's unlikely that a big name like Daub or Bruning (the two mentioned in Anderson's column) will get the ball rolling, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Dave Nabity out there waiting to take a swing at it (Speaking of which... why not Nabity? What's he been up to?).

As always, I can't provide a link to this column because the largest paper in the state won't put their opinion page online. Just saying.

Race and Racism in Omaha

2007-04-13T11:30:00.000-06:00

There are two stories about race on the front page of today's Omaha World Herald: one that's important and one that isn't. First off, Don Imus.

I'm trying to be professional about this story, but I just can't get past my first reaction, which is a sort of maddening, fuming indifference that wants to scream and point fingers but might be satisfied with a sermon or lecture so long as my "holier than thous" are on prominent display. Well, neither reaction is warranted. Imus' comments were inexcusable, but they weren't unforgivable.

They certainly weren't unforgettable. And the real subject of my anger, the real object of my sermon -not just the mass media, but the masses themselves, for driving this story and swelling those ratings- well, they deserve something less than my "Godawmightys", too. Then again, they deserve much more than another sideshow witch hunt masquerading as "racial dialogue".

I can understand the attraction of this story. Race is still a dominant issue in our lives, but we're so bottled up about it pretty much the only release we'll allow comes from those minor celebrities stupid enough and mean enough to say the wrong words at the wrong time. Well, we've got another head on the pike, what good'll it do us this time? Will it branch out into a larger discussion, not just about the them -the hip hop artists and the talk show hosts and the rednecks- but about the us, about all of us, about how we've fallen short of that ideal of Dr. King? That dream to live free of color, free of division... that one?

No, of course not. It didn't happen with Michael Richards, it didn't happen with Mel Gibson, it won't happen now. There are real problems with race relations in this country... are we seriously going to deal with them just as soon as we scrub the Earth clean of every shock jock, one by one?

Our task is too big and Imus is too small to matter. Let's start with OPS.

On the integration question, there are two proposals: the superintendent's plan, which offers priority to any student whose first choice of a school would help improve that school's socioeconomic integration (be they a poor student choosing to go to a wealthy school, or a middle class student who prefers a poorer school); and the Raikes plan, which would allow low income students their first choice of schools, even if it didn't improve that schools' diversity.

The superintendents claim the Raikes plan will only work to integrate middle-class schools, leaving poorer facilities far less diverse. They're right. But their plan won't work either.

The truth is that the voluntary integration OPS has relied on for decades is too little, too late for most students. There's some data considered in that sweeping statement, but for the most part I speak from experience alone. I was a "West O" student who attended a "North O" magnet school, Omaha North High, a fine and diverse school which is nonetheless quite segregated. Voluntarily segregated.

North attracted kids from out west with genuinely high quality academics, especially in the areas of computers and technology. Most of these recruits were serious students who bussed themselves halfway across town to take advantage of North's exciting honors classes. The majority of the neighborhood kids, like the majority of kids everywhere, elected instead to take the path of least resistance and filled up desks in the academic classes (some, like me, occupied a bit of both worlds).

The result was like squishing two schools right up next to each other: the West O's and the neighborhood kids, with some overlap but not quite enough. Not that there was racial conflict. Race was a dominant issue in our lives, but we kept ourselves pretty well bottled up (I remember that, as editor of the Commentary section of the school paper, the only thing the administration ever censored of ours was a political cartoon about the alleged racism of the school's security, a controversy quietly acknowledged by students and staff alike but never discussed in any productive way. Reminds of me news today that OPS condemned an article in Benson High School's Gazette that attempted to deal with student use of "the N word").

This isn't the fault of North, or OPS, or the Legislature. Not any of them alone. This is a problem that can't be solved by policy alone. But there are a few things we can do to help, so long as we're honest about the shortcomings of the status quo.

The first is an equitable distribution of the city's wealth, for which this "Learning community" seems an adequate solution. We could also do something about the "3,000 children, 3 or 4 years old," most of them from North Omaha, who "are either on waiting lists or otherwise not being served" by Head Start in Douglas County (OWH, 1/24/07). The lack of adequate funding for preschool and elementary education in North Omaha contributes significantly to the "black-white achievement gap", which is worse in Nebraska than many other states (you can play around with state by state comparisons here).

But this is an issue that's too big for the Unicameral and the superintendents. It's an issue that's way too big for Don Imus. It starts with letting some pressure out of that bottle, letting the students at Benson open up a real dialogue and encouraging their parents and neighbors to do the same. It starts, too, with an integration plan that will help convince some more "West O" students and their families to drive east of 72nd Street. It starts with us, with all of us, and a dream. Yes, that one.

Stop Employment Discrimination in Nebraska - Support LB 475

2007-04-12T00:40:00.000-06:00

If I could see only one piece of legislation pass in the remaining weeks of the Unicameral's 2007 session, that legislation would be LB 475. The Judiciary Committee approved LB 475 with six Senators FOR, one Senator AGAINST, and one Senator not voting. The Committee described the bill as follows:

Legislative Bill 475 adds sexual orientation to the factors that an employer is forbidden to consider when making employment decisions. Under LB 475, it would be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency, or a labor organization to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation....

The Act applies to employers having 15 or more employees; employers with state contracts regardless of the number of employees; the State of Nebraska; governmental agencies; and political subdivisions....

[T]he prohibition against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation does not apply to any bona fide religious organization.

Don't get me wrong - I know there are more pressing issues facing the state of Nebraska than employment discrimination. The budget, tax cuts, school reorganization, and water policy all demand greater attention and deserve prioritization. But, I stand by my designation of LB 475 as the New Nebraska Network's own personal priority bill because it best reflects the Nebraska in which we believe and the principles to which this site is dedicated.

I cannot speak to the people of Nebraska's opinion on the morality of homosexuality. That's a deeply personal question speaking to an individual's character, convictions, and religious faith in so fundamental a manner that generalization is all but impossible. But, I do feel confident in saying the Nebraskans that I know are not bigots - not in the rural community in which I grew up, not in the city in which I currently live.

Like race, religion, gender, disability, and national origin that are already protected classes, Nebraskans understand that whom a person loves and how they express themselves sexually has no bearing on an employee's qualifications or performance.

Sex may still be a topic that many Nebraskans are uncomfortable talking about publicly, but that doesn't mean they'd support using sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination. Rather, Nebraskans believe in privacy and respect that there are personal matters - hurting noone and breaking no law - that do not and should not affect ones employment.

This is more than just wishful thinking on my part. A 2004 survey conducted by the Nebraska Association of Sociological Behavior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that the people of our state overwhelmingly reject the notion that "it is okay for an employer to hire or not hire an applicant based on the applicant’s sexual orientation."

Broken down by legislative district, not a single district supported allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact, such discrimination was rejected by more than 2/3rds of those surveyed in 42 of Nebraska's 49 districts. The seven districts that couldn't manage a super majority against discrimination included:

LD #1 - Lavon Heidemann - 62.7% against discrimination
LD #16 - Kent Rogert - 62.9% against discrimination
LD #30 - Norm Wallman - 61.5% against discrimination
LD #36 - John Wightman - 65.7% against discrimination
LD #43 - Deb Fischer - 64.4% against discrimination
LD #44 - Mark Christensen - 52.9% against discrimination
LD #47 - Philip Erdman - 53.3% against discrimination

With results like that, it's hard to imagine how State Senators could justify not making this overdue change that will finally capture the common sense and principled compassion of Nebraska's voters.

Only Senators Christensen and Erdman, both representing the extreme southwest corner of the state, could even make a straight-faced claim that the jury is out or that their constituents haven't made up their minds on this issue. And, even they must first answer to conscience, which cannot possibly justify allowing employment discrimination against citizens for no other reason than their being attracted to people of the same sex.

The Center for People in Need has put together a great resource for contacting State Senators (via e-mail) with your support for LB 475. And, of course, the more direct and personal the contact the better, so constituents should definitely consider calling, writing a letter, or even making a visit to the capitol.

It would also be great if those who contact their State Senators about LB 475 could send word of the response they receive to Michael Gordon of Citizens for Equal Protection at michael@cfep-ne.org. That way, supporters can see where things stand and plan for where they have the most work to do.

Nebraskans are a fundamentally decent people. They believe in fairness and equality even if they sometimes need a refresher on what those principles actually entail. LB 475 is not some pie in the sky advancement of a "gay agenda" - it's good public policy reflecting who we are and what we stand for.

This is one of those issues on which we don't have to look to the future for progress. The people are already on our side. Now is the time to make our stand.

Again, I'm declaring LB 475 the New Nebraska Network's official priority bill for the 2007 session. That may not mean a damn thing, but - if you read this site, agree with its general philosophy, or even just have some vague appreciation for what we do - I hope you'll give serious consideration to joining in our effort to end this insulting and unprincipled form of employment discrimination that is so far beneath the people of our beloved state.

Nebraska ACLU Asks For Your Action in Death Penalty Debate

2007-04-10T10:35:00.000-06:00

After the near success of a bill repealing capital punishment in Nebraska, efforts are currently under way to add a "future dangerousness" requirement limiting execution to convicted first-degree murderers who pose "a present and substantial risk to the lives of others that cannot reasonably and effectively be controlled by institutional security measures."

Regardless of where you stand on the ultimate issue, this would be a change for the better. So, here's your call to action from the Nebraska ACLU in support of the amended LB 377:

Dear ACLU of Nebraska Members and Friends,

Your call today could make a big difference for the death penalty in Nebraska. On Wednesday or Thursday, the Nebraska legislature will be voting on a bill to significantly limit the application of the death penalty in Nebraska.

This is very significant news: we were most disappointed when the bill to outright abolish the death penalty failed by one vote. But this also shows how close we came when people like you called our state legislators. Now, we have a second chance and your call is critical to win!

We need your phone calls right away in support of LB 377 as amended.

Please call your Nebraska state senator. Or, look up your Nebraska state senator here:
http://action.aclu.org/nebraska

You no doubt have your own way of explaining why the death penalty should be used more sparingly in Nebraska. Just in case, here are some talking points to help with your phone call:

* This amendment creates an appropriate mechanism to assure that only truly dangerous people face the possibility of execution by requiring a determination by the fact finder.

* Adding this component to Nebraska law is not a unique or unheard-of step: Of the 38 states that allow the death penalty, nine states currently include "future dangerousness" as an element to be considered among other aggravating factors.

* The Baldus study, done by the Legislature just a couple of years ago, showed that the death penalty is applied unfairly in Nebraska. Socio-economic status, race and geographic location all affect who gets life and who gets death.

Help us make the most of this second chance! It's imperative that you call your senator and let him/her know that you support LB 377 as amended. Recent Nebraska poll results support this approach!

Please call your senator on as soon as possible. Time is of the essence and there’s no time to wait.

ACLU Nebraska is tracking what responses citizens get to their phone calls, so please call or email us to "report back" on how your call was received. Report your call by calling (402) 476-8091 or send an email to info@aclunebraska.org.

Thank you for your help!

Sincerely,

Laurel S. Marsh
Executive Director
ACLU Nebraska

P.S. Please pass this email on to friends and family -- we must send a strong message to the Nebraska Legislature today and tomorrow! Thank you for all your efforts!

My opposition to Nebraska's death penalty is not for ideological reasons. It's simply a disaster by any measure of fairness, justice, or practicality. As such, I'm proud to join ACLU Nebraska in urging support for LB 377.

Two weeks ago, State Sen. Ernie Chambers said on the floor of the Legislature that his only reason for supporting this reconfigured proposal changing Nebraska's sentencing procedures rather than eliminating the death penalty completely was to stop the execution of Carey Dean Moore. But, this is not about one convicted murderer's life or one senator's political agenda. This is a common sense reform to an unprincipled and out-of-control justice system.

Gov. Dave Heineman has called this new proposal "a back-door attempt to repeal the death penalty." Promising a veto that would require 30 senators to over-ride, Heineman here displays the darkest side of his political agenda by purposefully blinding himself to the absurdities and outrages of Nebraska's current policy.

Without any regard for truth, he has politicized this issue even worse than the activists opposed to the death penalty - except Dave Heineman's is an extremism of death. He is doing everything in his power to see that the state not only has the power to kill but also uses it as frequently as possible - with the loosest, most flexible standards.

Although a handful of senators might see this as a stepping stone towards outright repeal, the vast majority only want to see a more just system that might actually protect the conscience and humanity of the people of Nebraska.

Of Heineman, I must say that it's a miserable man with some very warped priorities who clings to the death penalty for reasons of politics and popularity. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be any reaching Heineman. He's got the polling numbers he wants, so Nebraska's king of the status quo doesn't need the facts.

LB 377 is going to need 30 votes in the Nebraska Legislature, and it needs your help to get them. Please do what you can.

Hagel:The Next Chapter and other stories

2007-04-10T08:09:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately little is moving me towards a full blown rant today, so let's take a quick look back on some of the headlines we might've missed:

*Washington Whispers reports that Senator Hagel is hard at work on his new book, America:The Next Chapter, "a collection of practical—and reportedly nonpartisan—policy prescriptions" due for release early next year (as the article helpfully points out, that's around the time of the Iowa caucuses). Quote Hagel's publisher:

He's said over and over again that this book is his legacy ... it's what is most important to him right now."

Now I'm not one to cast doubt on the power of the written word -believe it or not, at times I've even fancied myself a writer. But Senator Hagel isn't a blogger or a columnist, he's a public servant, and one would think his legacy might be built around that service. The man's been in the Senate for a decade now... did that not seem to him the proper forum for introducing these "nonpartisan policy prescriptions"?

*Now this is old news, but it's worth noting that NE-03's Adrian Smith was one of only 39 Congressman to vote against tougher penalties for people who promote animal fights. As Smith Watch noted (in a much more timely fashion):

To vote against this bill was, as I said, essentially Smith saying he hates your dog. I can’t even begin to imagine the reasoning behind voting against such a bill!

*Yesterday was Lincoln's first general election mayoral debate. Svoboda, desperate to overcome an abysmal primary showing, tried to address the median care controversy with a mea culpa ("That’s accountability, people"). It seems both candidates remained pretty positive.

*The Grand Island Independent favors an outright ban on the death penalty:

That public safety can be assured with a life in prison sentence rather than the death penalty, that millions of dollars are spent without benefits to the public can and should convince us to consider the abolition of this law in Nebraska.

Now that's another inexcusably old story, but considering this issue will almost certainly dribble into next year's session it's a nice reminder that it isn't the fringe opinions of some Omaha liberals driving this debate. A minority opinion it may be, but it's a growing and sizable minority. A mainstream opinion that will no longer be ignored. The Unicameral's thoughtful consideration of this issue was an outstanding triumph for all of us who desire a true political dialogue in this reddest of red states. Let's keep up the good work, fellas.