Quietly Disproving a Republican Lie

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.

Go to full text...

Did Adrian Smith's Family Cash-In on 2006 Campaign?

Neal Smith Receives $141,666 From Son's Campaign

Right off the bat, I want to make clear that I am not asserting any law-breaking on the part of 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith's campaign or on the part of his family. But, the fact that Smith's father, Neal Smith - an insurance salesman and former chair of the Scotts Bluff County Republican Party - was the second biggest recipient of funds from his son's 2006 campaign raises some pretty big questions for which Rep. Smith definitely owes some answers.

Ranging from $75 amounts for "In-Kind Office Use" to amounts greater than $12,000 for "Payroll Processing," the elder Smith took in a total of $141,666 from 55 disbursements during the 2006 campaign cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org, only the Virginia-based communications firm Greener & Hook received more money from Adrian's campaign, taking in a whopping $535,000 for ad buys and media production.

It's hard to imagine what legitimate purpose there could possibly have been for the total disbursements of more than $116,000 to Neal Smith for this mysterious "Payroll Processing." To a suspicious mind, that has to sound like either a deliberately vague catch-all for a lot of different payments or else a pretty clear cut case of the Smith family keeping some of the controversial Club for Growth's money for themselves.

(Readers should remember that Adrian Smith's primary victory was fueled by mostly out-of-state contributions from the anti-farm subsidies, pro-corporate Club for Growth - the membership of which ultimately donated around $400,000 to his campaign.)

In other words, Neal Smith appears to have been getting while the getting was good. And, there's some evidence he may not have been alone in doing so.

Adrian Smith's mother, Joanna - Secretary of the Nebraska Republican Party - received a paltry $1,500 from the campaign, but Adrian himself had a take of almost $23,000. Like father like son?

Of course, these payments by the campaign might all be entirely on the level, but they just open the door to so many possibilities for corruption as the line between a campaign's accounts and a candidate's personal income all but disappears. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reports:

It is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use, but it is not illegal to use them to pay family members who provide "bona fide services" at fair-market value....

Although paying family members with campaign funds is not an uncommon practice in Congress, election watchdogs say it is controversial because it can be difficult to measure the quality and quantity of services being provided....

The issue of paying campaign funds to family members gained national attention [in 2005] when it became public that [resigned House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay, R-Texas, had paid more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter since 2001...DeLay was indicted in Texas on unrelated charges of conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme.

In Western Nebraska, it takes a whole lot of bona fide services to reach a fair market value greater than $140,000. Remember, we're talking about a Congressional District with 4 of the 10 poorest counties in the nation. This is a sum big enough that it can't help but raise eyebrows and invite a much higher degree of public scrutiny.

I want to personally thank Lisa at SmithWatch for bringing this issue to light. Hers is quickly becoming one of the best politician-specific blogs in the country, and she has done an absolutely wonderful job of challenging Smith's record and holding him accountable - two vital functions in a working democracy that our local media have essentially abandoned.

I commend SmithWatch for its continuously impressive efforts, and I can't help but notice that Smith seems scared about being subjected to this close of scrutiny by one of his own constituents. Not only was Smith searching desperately for an online mouthpiece to counter SmithWatch last month, but it even seems he's trying to obscure his critics by recruiting a blogger from Kearney to start a seemingly worthless blog that will say nice things about him now being referred to as Adrian Smith Watch, This Old House, and the Adrian Smith Report by Nebraska's rightwing blog community.

Try as they might, I've got a feeling they won't have much success at silencing the real SmithWatch - which more and more readers will find so long as Adrian Smith keeps acting like Adrian Smith in Congress.

With this $140,000 payment to his father and this $23,000 payment to himself, Adrian Smith and his family have some serious explaining to do. What was going on in the Smith campaign, and what is this mysterious "payroll processing" that was supposedly worth more than 116,000 dollars? Seriously, I think a lot of people might be interested in that line of work - whatever it is - unless all it entails is Neal Smith just getting paid for being the candidate's father.

The people expect answers and deserve the truth. And, they can count on SmithWatch and the New Nebraska Network standing right here to see that they get them.

Go to full text...

Adrian Smith: Worst of the Worst

Let's take a moment to remember the Omaha World-Herald's characterization of now-3rd District Republican Congressman Adrian Smith in its October 15th, 2006 editorial:

When pressed aggressively...Adrian Smith falls back on sound bites and slogans....

Smith is not known as a skilled lawmaker. He is not known for an ability to build constructive coalitions for complicated legislation. He is not known as a skilled public speaker. He has no reputation for making substantive issues the subjects for his priority bills. He is not a lawmaker whom backers seek out to be the prime sponsor of major legislation.

He is not known as a leader.

Hard to believe that it was only a little more than three months ago when those words were written. But, from what we've seen of Smith in his first three weeks in Congress, he's more than lived up to his reputation ("lived down" would probably be more accurate).

The record of Nebraska's Republican Representatives in the first 100 hours of the new Congress has been pretty dismal. But, it really says something about Smith that, in just a few weeks, he's already earned distinction as worst of the worst, contributing nothing but partisan-driven vote after partisan-driven vote against an agenda with the over-whelming support of the American people.

Even First District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry and 2nd District Rep. Lee Terry learned enough from the last election to recognize that the days of the Do-Nothing Republican Congress are dead and buried. Although both have so far managed records that would still fail any test with the voters, they at least knew better than to vote in lock-step opposition with the most extremist faction of the Republican Party.

Surprise, surprise....Adrian Smith did no such thing, putting himself in the same league as Iowa nut-job Steve King, who claims Joe McCarthy as a hero and calls the Iraq War a success. Smith and King, clearly birds of a feather, voted against every popular measure brought forward by the Democrats (1) implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, (2) restoring pay-as-you-go budgeting, (3) raising the minimum wage, (4) expanding federal funding for stem cell research, (5) cutting student loan interest rates, (6) rolling back tax subsidies for oil companies and channeling the savings into alternative energy development, and (7) authorizing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

Of these, Terry only had the sense to vote for the rate cut on student loans. Fortenberry voted for the 9/11 recommendations, pay-go, and for the reforms in energy policy. Smith, on the other hand, just voted as told on every measure - as if the man were not even capable of an independent thought.

Adrian Smith: not known as a skilled lawmaker; not known as a leader. And, thanks to his choice to represent the most extremist wing of the Republican Party rather than the common sense people of central and western Nebraska, he never will be a skilled lawmaker or a leader.

One more line stands out from that World-Herald's desription of Smith three months ago:

[I]n terms of qualifications, the 3rd District deserves more...

That's more true now than ever. The 3rd District still deserves more and deserves better than Adrian Smith.I just hope someone will have the courage and faith to give voters the opportunity to correct their mistake before too much irreparable damage is done by Smith's unthinking Congressional incompetence.

Go to full text...

Nebraska's Democratic Mandate in Congress

A comment just made by one of our readers was pretty darn ingenious and deserves everyone's attention. Eric writes:

...44% of Nebraska voters chose a Democrat in their House race, so I'd say that the mandate for a Democratic House delegation is even bigger than the 423 mandate. That's got to entitle us to at least one seat right?

If you throw in the Senate race too, you'll see that 54% of votes cast for Federal offices were for Democrats. Certainly we should be able to argue that the Democratic Congress has a mandate from Nebraskans.

To be honest, I'm embarrased to admit that I hadn't even considered Nebraska's "Democratic mandate." But, there's actually a pretty powerful and convincing argument to be made here.

In the race that became Sen. Ben Nelson's landslide victory (64%), the stakes were laid out quite clearly that a vote for Nelson could mean a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. By their votes, the people chose this possibility, finding it much more acceptable than the alternative.

Although they endorsed Nelson's independent leadership, the people showed an openness to the Democratic agenda that we should not be afraid to point out in making its case here in Nebraska.

In 2006, "54% of votes cast for Federal offices were for Democrats." I don't know if that's a popular mandate, but it's certainly an opportunity. And, we should sing it to the mountain tops...or, at least, to the highest points along our beautiful prairie (I believe they're called buttes).

The Democratic agenda is Nebraska's agenda. The people may not recognize it yet, but their votes are trying to tell them something.

Go to full text...

Tim Walz, Nebraska's Democratic Congressman, Gives National Address

I hope the good people of Minnesota's First District don't mind our taking pride and laying partial claim to their magnificent new Congressman, Tim Walz - a native son of Nebraska who's quickly proven himself a rising star of the Democratic Party.

This morning, Walz was chosen to give the Democrats' weekly radio address, responding to President Bush's plan for a "troop surge"/escalation of military operations in Iraq and highlighting the popular agenda and actions of Congress since the Democratic Party's return to power.

Walz proclaimed:

Good morning. This is Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota. Last November, voters in Minnesota and across the country sent a clear message at the ballot box when they voted for change.

They cast their votes for new leadership in Washington and a new Democratic Congress that would help change the course in Iraq, end the culture of corruption in Washington, and give hard-working families a voice in Congress once again.

They voted for a Congress that would do the business of the American people, and one that would be known for its ideas, not its insults, its patriotism, not its partisanship.

I know that as I speak to you today, you are gravely concerned about the war in Iraq.

As the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress and a veteran who served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, I share your concerns.

After nearly four years of combat, we have lost more than 3,000 brave Americans. Tens of thousands have been wounded. And we've spent more than $300 billion.

Now, as the President escalates our involvement in Iraq and puts more of our troops in harm's way, I think of the men and women I served with in the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard.

Those brave men and women, and their families, just received letters informing them that they won't be coming home this winter, after all. After their second year-long tour of duty since 9/11, they'll be staying in Iraq even longer for this escalation.

Our military men and women know that it is their duty to execute their mission without question. But so too is it our duty to question the mission on their behalf. Rest assured that this Democratic Congress will live up to its responsibility to challenge the failed policies that have already cost us so dearly.

Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy.

Is there a clear strategy that the commanders on the ground believe will succeed?

What are the benchmarks for success, and how long does the President believe it will take to achieve them? Is this a policy that will contribute to the America's security in the larger war on terror, or distract from it?

I believe, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, that the escalation announced by the President will compound a bad situation and make matters worse, not better. It will make us less secure, not more. It is a step in the wrong direction -- more of the same at the very time when we need a new direction in Iraq.

Let us be very clear. We need diplomatic and political solutions in Iraq, not more American troops. We know that the forgotten cost of the President's plan will be borne by the husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the brave men and women who will be away from home for an even longer period of time because of the President's misguided decision.

So Democrats will ask the tough questions, conduct meaningful oversight and do everything possible to honor our men and women in uniform. At the same time, we will continue to honor our pledge to enact some of the American people's top priorities in the first 100 hours of the new Congress. We promised to pass ethics reforms, increase the minimum wage, help ensure our security here at home and to exercise fiscal responsibility.

Today, I am proud to report that in just over one week as the majority party in Congress, Democrats are delivering.

Democrats acted swiftly to clean up Washington and approved the most comprehensive ethics reforms in decades.

We stood up for hard-working families and approved a minimum wage increase, which will give 13 million Americans the pay raise they deserve.

And we offered patients suffering from debilitating diseases new hope when we approved a bill to expand potentially life-saving stem cell research.

Democrats in Congress also acted decisively to secure our nation by approving new measures to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

In a short period of time, we've [the Democratic Congress] won real victories on behalf of the American people, but we know there is more work to be done. In the coming days, we'll complete our 100 hours agenda by passing legislation to make college more affordable, end subsidies for oil companies, and invest in renewable sources of energy.

And as we go forward, we will continue to stand together and ensure American families have the strong voice in Washington they deserve.

This is Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota. Thank you for listening.

Sadly, since the 2006 election, the Democratic Party hasn't done a very good job of making the audio of these addresses available online. I'll keep on the lookout for such audio, though, because I'm curious to hear how "Fargo"-esque Walz sounds after a decade of Minne-sho-tan immersion.

Nebraska's First District Congressman, Republican Jeff Fortenberry, would have arrived in Nebraska about the same time Walz left for Minnesota. Some trade-off, eh? Especially with Fortenberry's votes against raising the minimum wage, expanding stem cell research, and opening the door for Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

So far as I'm concerned, Louisiana's perfectly welcome to claim Fortenberry as its own. Please take him! And, I'll just assume Minnesota voters would extend us the same courtesy (an honor, in Walz's case).

Regardless, we will continue to watch Walz's political career with affection and just a hint of jealousy. We also draw inspiration from his example and will continue to fight so the next Tim Walz will have the opportunity to lead and to serve as a proud Democrat right here in Nebraska.

** Update ** - Listen to Walz's address by clicking here. Special thanks to Minnesota's own Bluestem Prairie for sharing with its Nebraska brothers and sisters in the "Tim Walz Fan Club" - not to mention, in the same fight for our nation's future.

Go to full text...

Our Lost Opportunity to Expose Nebraska GOPs Extremism

Now that our somewhat entertaining but not particularly enlightening discussion about the feasibility and desirability of a national sales tax has winded down, I'm actually more convinced than ever of just how preposterous a proposal it truly is. It's not a good idea for America or the right idea for Nebraska...which shouldn't surprise after the expert framing of the issue by Sen. Nelson's reelection campaign, turning challenger Pete Ricketts' mere openness to the idea into a disastrous political liability.

This does, however, raise one essential question: considering how effective the national sales tax was in portraying Ricketts as out-of-touch with Nebraska voters for wanting to shift the tax burden onto the working class to benefit billionaire families like his own, why didn't Nebraska's 2006 Democratic Congressional challengers do more to piggy-back on the issue to make it work for their own campaigns?

At the very least, incumbent Representatives Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, along with Congressman-elect Adrian Smith, should have been forced by their opponents and the media to choose whether they would take the idea off the table as Ricketts famously refused to do. The fact that they could escape the 2006 political season without committing one way or the other (and accepting the consequences) is not only a failure of the campaigns they faced but of the entire citizenry who lost their best opportunity to force these men to carve out an honest position for which they could be judged and held accountable.

Nebrask FairTax provides a "Congressional Score Card" that reads accordingly:

* Ben Nelson – Completely misrepresenting the FairTax in his re-election campaign. Unabashed #1 FairTax-enemy in Nebraska.

* Tom Osborne – Officially listed as leaning AGAINST.

* Jeff Fortenberry – Officially listed as leaning TOWARD, but not committed yet.

* Chuck Hagel – Officially listed as un-committed. Running for President so he really owes us a position.

* Lee Terry – Officially listed as un-committed. Has personally told NE volunteers that he supports a ‘flatter’ Income Tax instead.

It's unfathomable that Fortenberry could get through the campaign season without being called out for his supposed support of so dangerous a scheme as a national sales tax. Considering the flack Ricketts took throughout the summer for holding a similar position, it's hard to understate the lost opportunity of turning this into a multi-pronged, party-defining issue by which down ballot candidates could have gained some early, much-needed momentum.

No mention is made on Nebraska FairTax's website of Adrian Smith's position, but he often spoke in favor of a broad overhaul of the tax system, providing no real specifics. Smith did, however, bring Iowa Congressman Steve King, the defacto leader of the Republican Party's "Right-Wing Wacko" caucus, to Nebraska to campaign on his behalf. No surprise, King is the most vocal supporter of the "FairTax" in Congress.

Considering the lengths to which Smith went to avoid taking a public stance on this unpopular idea, it seems safe to say he'll be following the lead of King and Fortenberry rather than Osborne and Nelson. That we were not more vigilant in demanding honesty and accountability from Smith in his bid for elected office leaves me ashamed as an activist, a Democrat, a journalist, and a citizen.

We let ourselves down with this one. Absent Nelson's stature and his campaign's funding, the same opportunity will not present itself in 2008. But there are lessons to be learned in terms of unity, constant vigilance, and foresight that are universal and eternal. We must recognize those and take them to heart if our passions are ever to translate into significant and sustainable Election Day victories.

Go to full text...

Scott Kleeb: Beyond Populism

"There aren't a lot of poor people in my district," Scott Kleeb said.

I really didn't know where he was going with that. His district, Nebraska's Third, contains four of the ten poorest counties in America. "There's plenty of people living below the poverty line, but they don't feel poor. And the Republicans have been tremendously successful in saying to these people: you're not poor. Your wealth comes from your family, your community, your sense of values. It's not just about money."

The netroots have moved quickly to declare 2006 the year of the populist, and populism is certainly no stranger to these Nebraskan plains. Here, the prairie boom of the 1880s led to the prairie bust of the 1890s and gave rise to the impressive political career of a young William Jennings Bryan: "the peerless one", the "boy orator of the Platte" who would in 1896 form an economic coalition between the farmers of the South and the miners of the West that would serve as a crude blueprint for the still distant landslide elections of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Both Bryan and Roosevelt rallied against the moneyed interests who lined their pockets while breaking the backs of the working poor and so too, we are told, did the new class of Democrats who rode to victory on November 7. But here in the birthplace of populism, the rising star of the Nebraska Democratic Party seems to reject this strategy and, in doing so, I believe Kleeb is hitting much closer to the source of the problem.

If rural voters don't feel poor, no wonder Democratic appeals to their compelling "economic interests" have failed to move them out of the Reagan coalition. If our message doesn't first resonate with a man's soul, we can't hope to move him by pointing to his checkbook.

What we need in our party are candidates who have a sincere respect for and share a genuine identity with the people they are trying to represent. In a superficial sense, I think this is what some people mean when they talk about "populism" anymore: Jon Tester's flat-top, Jim Webb's straight shooting and Scott Kleeb's cowboy boots aren't just cynical props designed to garner conservative votes, they're part and parcel of who these men are as human beings.

What we need in Nebraska, it would seem to me, is Scott Kleeb.

Now, don't get me wrong. The task of building a "new Nebraska" starts with all of us and it most certainly doesn't end with a single man. But our bench isn't exactly overflowing with candidates possessing Kleeb's understanding of and compassion for our rural communities and, more importantly, his unique ability to communicate that passion on the stump.

In Nebraska as well as in the greater United States there remains a growing rift between rural and urban, between Omahans/Lincolnites and those who live outstate. This rift lies at the very heart of our state's political shortcomings, and it won't be bridged by the Adrian Smiths and Dave Heinemens of the world. Nor, I'm afraid, by the Ben Nelsons. We need not a "caretaker" government at a time when the state isn't taking care of its people.

But having now had a chance to meet with Mr. Kleeb, I see in him a potential to bridge this divide and move Nebraska forward. Considering his intelligence, his eloquence and also his energy and discipline as a candidate I think the Republicans should consider themselves extremely lucky to have defeated him. But Kleeb's a fighter and I think - certainly, I hope - that they're mistaken if they believe he's down for the count.

Read the rest of Ryan's Interview with Scott Kleeb.

Go to full text...

An Interview with Scott Kleeb

By: Ryan Anderson, NNN

First of all, do you have any reaction to Barry Rubin's announcement last night that he was leaving his post [as Executive Director] with the Nebraska Democratic Party?

I think Barry did great work out here, he and I worked together great, and at the end of a cycle you look for new opportunities and new challenges. I think that's all Barry's doing.

The Omaha World Herald quoted you after the election as saying that you could divide the campaign into two halves: the last month and the year or so that preceded that. What'd you mean by that?

The pace of a campaign picks up throughout the effort. When I started out in August 2005 it was a much slower pace, obviously, and it just slowly picked up steam until at the last month so much is happening so quick that the campaign really becomes a different thing... Now does that mean that both halves aren't equally important? No, they are. You have to lay the groundwork in the first half in order to make the second half as successful as it can be. The only way we were able to have 30 people a day coming in and out of our office to make phone calls that last month was because we cultivated that base, worked it, made sure it was going to be there. But that first half is all about building up support for those last few weeks.

Also in the last couple of weeks, the GOP and the Club for Growth threw a lot of attack ads your way. Which of those attacks do you think had the greatest impact on your campaign? Which ones stuck?

Probably a combination of all of them....They had big, heavy points against me, five different ads, the robo-call thing. Probably all of that was effective. But I think the one that hurt the most 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.They talked about, you know, "went to school at Yale, raising money in San Francisco... Scott hasn't even lived here."

Which is a claim that is more specific to your candidacy, obviously. But it seems that a lot of the attacks that they threw at you, things like "he's gonna vote for Nancy Pelosi"... are claims that almost any Democrat running in Nebraska would be vulnerable to. How can Democrats in red districts effectively counter those claims?

Our campaign had been very careful at defining this as a race between Adrian Smith and Scott Kleeb. Not between a Republican and a Democrat. Now we were very successful –by talking about my beliefs, my values structure, why I'm doing this, who I am, all those things- in convincing some very rock-ribbed Republicans to say, "hey, I actually like this guy." But from the media standpoint, where it's all done in thirty second bites, you have to define it as between Scott Kleeb and Adrian Smith, not Democrat versus Republican. And you don't do that by going weak on who you are, you do that by saying "look, this is the choice: who do you want to represent you?" You point out his deficiencies, try to point out your strengths, and make the case why you're better. You know, that whole "message box" thing that you learn about [when you start a campaign].

Once we released our poll, the DCCC came in with $100,000, and the headline the day after the D-trip did that was "National Dems look to Third District Race". The next day, President Bush was on his way out here. The race nationalized in a way that got us a lot of attention that last week, but it made the story "the future of the house is increasingly dependent on this seat", which was not true. Anybody that follows politics closely knew that that wasn't true. But that's what folks in the media said, and I understand why they did it. They want to sell copy and they want to make it exciting and make it really happening...

It did increase turnout. Just to give you an indicator, we had figured out what our win number was... based on previous elections in previous years of off-year cycles, gubernatorial elections and all the ways of finding out what the turnout would be, what we would need to get to 50%+1, and we actually surpassed that number.

So, do you regret the DCCC getting involved? Do you think that ad was effective, or do you think that the cost you paid in nationalizing the race wasn't worth it?

No. We were getting hammered in the out districts very effectively because we didn't have the money to go up on TV in a way that we needed to in those out-markets. Out-markets being everything but the Lincoln market, for us.

By the way, we don't have a choice about where or at what levels the DCCC buys time....I couldn't have said, "don't do this". So when I'm answering the question, I'm answering the question: do I regret releasing the poll?

No, because we needed money, and we made a lot of money that last week. We were able to bump up our points, we were able to pay some bills that needed to be paid... You need to take some chances. And we took some chances by going up on TV as early as we did. There were points where we were really low, embarrassingly low. Less than a $1,000 with five weeks left. So we needed to find some ways to raise money.

When you announced your bid, were you met with skepticism by the Nebraska Democrat Party?

You know, when I entered this, I told some of my friends, colleagues and professors back at Yale that my goal was 40%. Our PVI [base] is 25, and if I could get 15 above that it'd be tremendous. And I knew I could do that, I knew we could do that, if I worked hard and worked aggressively.

But when you believe in something yourself, you need to convince others. They (the NDP), could see the numbers like anybody else, in fact they know better than the folks back in Washington that the numbers out there are ugly. Our last poll still showed President Bush very popular. Very popular.

You have to prove yourself on the campaign, especially in a district like ours. One thing that corporations do is offer matching grants. They say: if you can raise the money, we'll match it. That puts some sense of ownership on the part of that organization. Same principle when it comes to campaigns. Parties should be skeptical. They shouldn't just willy-nilly waste money.

But it would have been nice to have found a way to move that forward so we could have had two months of excited campaign at the end. That was the challenge, to find some way to do that.

This district was only one of a number of very red districts that discussed as possible flips, and the Democrats didn't pick up many of them. Do you think those results reinforced skepticism about going into areas like Nebraska's third? Or do you think that the party has become more interested in this fifty state strategy?

I hope the latter. I hope that it's gotten more people interested in the fifty state strategy.

Now, do I believe in the equation "Scott Kleeb loses therefore fifty state strategy is wrong"? No, and that's true, across the board, with any of these districts. Look at the people who are competing in areas where people still don't understand how they won. Stephanie Herseth won in South Dakota in 2004, same year Tom Daschle lost. Jon Tester wins two years after Brian Schweitzer wins, even though in 2004 [Montana] went heavily Republican, heavily Bush. You know, Earl Pomeroy in all his campaigns, same with [Byron] Dorgan. Colin Peterson -he ran three times before he won. Now that whole north-western part of Minnesota is more blue.

All of those were a sustained effort over a period of time. Schweitzer loses Senate bid then runs for Governor. Nancy Boyda, in Kansas, lost by [a significant margin] in 2004, and she won this year. We've got to realize that immediate results are not going to come from this fifty state strategy… It didn't collapse in two years, it sure as heck isn't going to be rebuilt in two years.

Now, one of the problems I think we need to sort out is: how do you fund a never ending two-year cycle that demands immediate results with a longer term approach that says "you know, we got to put off our cake until later"? That's a huge challenge.

So what are you doing now that the campaign's over?

Looking for a job. Trying to look for a job and find ways to help. You know, my commitment to what you were talking about is still there. Finding ways to help support people. We got some great new legislators here in Lincoln, so hopefully we can work on some of these issues. I know that they're as passionate about these issues as I am, so I hope I can be helpful in that. Continuing to help the party rebuild in areas around the state... continuing to help stoke that fire, I guess, keep it alive.

So are you yourself looking at running for another office?

I have no idea. I don't know.

Have you discussed that with anyone?

There are different people talking to me about things, but I keep telling them: look, I made $2,500 last year. I made $16,000 the year before that. You know, I've got bills. I need to get a life. I need to get a job. That's my focus right now, getting a job. Seeing how I can be helpful... I'm not going to turn my back on it at all. But as far as setting up the next run, if there is one, I don't know. And I'm not being coy, I'm being honest.

Just playing my role as "journalist" here: you haven't closed the doors on running again, say, in two years? Your personal interests don't necessarily conflict with running in '08?

It was the greatest experience of my life. Truly the greatest experience in my life, and one that I'll always cherish, and one that I'll never turn my back on. Does that mean that the potential for me doing this again is real? Yeah, it is. I don't know if it's two years, or four years, or twelve years... whatever it might be. But it was too moving of an experience. I was inspired by that experience. And I'm not going to turn my back on it.

To wrap things up, what do you think the party in general has to do to prepare for 2008 and build off of the successes they had this cycle?

Recognize that the 2008 cycle starts now. What I was saying before about needing to prove yourself as a candidate: we needed to do that, Jim needed to do that, Maxine needed to do that, Nelson had done that... and I think a lot of people got upset that that wasn't fair, you know, "why aren't we giving to every candidate?" and that type of thing, but there's an accountability there and that was good. Now we've proven ourselves. We can't afford to wait a year to try and get involved again.

We need to make sure that the 93 county strategy, which is the in-state equivalent of the 50 state strategy- is implemented in a very real way. We need to encourage, for instance, the people that we brought into our campaign: people who had never been to a Democratic Party function in their entire lives. Those people, their concerns and passions, their wants, needs and desires, hopes and dreams are still the same, and they saw something in our campaign that they didn't see in Adrian's campaign, and they're ready to stay engaged.

I met a woman who had never voted before. She sent me an e-mail that just said "it's time for me to take ownership". That's still there. And what the party will do, I think, is recognize that and encourage those people, make it safe for them to get involved. In that way we will make the 2008 cycle a much more real possibility. We just can't wait until March of '08 to get this thing going. It starts now.

Go to full text...