Fortenberry Takes Flak, Smith Gets Smacked for Farm Bill Support

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.

Go to full text...

Jeff Fortenberry: Enemy of the Middle Class

1st District Nebraska Congressman Jeff Fotenberry is making quite the name for himself between his January ranking in the Student Debt Relief Hall of Shame and, now, his March ranking as one of Americans United for Changes's "Enemies of the Middle Class." Probably not the sort of reputation about which you or I would be proud, but there's no denying that both are well-deserved from where Fortenberry actually stands on the issues.

The following press release got sent out a couple of weeks back. Yet, I don't remember reading anything about it in the Nebraska press. Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, didn't think so. Anyway, take it away, AUC:

In response to their full frontal, unapologetic assault on the middle class agenda in the 110th session of the U.S. House of Representatives, Americans United for Change today dubbed eighteen Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, ‘Public Enemies of the Middle Class,' including:...Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1).....

Specifically, Americans United took issue with the Representatives' votes against: 1) H.R.2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act which would raise the federal minimum wage for the first time since 1997 from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years; and 2) H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would level the playing field for middle class workers by fixing a badly broken system for forming unions and bargaining with big business and Corporate America for better pay and improved benefits.

Both bills passed in the U.S. House with bipartisan support, and Americans United for Change...is now urging Members of the U.S. Senate to do the right thing and move each element of the middle class agenda to the President's desk.....

Earlier this year, each of these Members opposed the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade. They couldn't even be counted on to stand up for the most vulnerable workers in their states who live in borderline poverty. A week later, half of these Members [Fortenberry included] took their insensitivity towards the middle class plight a step further by opposing legislation to make college more affordable by slashing student loan interest rates in half.

It's a question of priorities and a question of values - and it's clear that each of these Members have lost touch with the values of middle class Americans, whom overwhelmingly support these important initiatives. Until they get their priorities straight in Washington and stop pandering to the special interests at the expense of working people, we will continue to identify each Member as their districts' ‘middle class public enemy #1.'"

In response to Americans United for Change's promise to publicize Fortenberry's votes and to hold him accountable for his middle class betrayal, the Nebraska Republican Party has organized a silly online petition that reads:

Tell Americans United for Change to stay out of Nebraska!

Soon, a liberal 527 group called Americans United for Change will initiate negative media attacks against United States Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE-01). Americans United for Change is another left-wing organization in the same mold as Moveon.org that caters to liberal conspiracy theorists. Their mission is simple: to smear, attack, distort, and misrepresent Rep. Fortenberry’s vote on the minimum wage increase.

As a concerned voter in Nebraska I affirm my support for Rep. Fortenberry and hope that Americans United for Change will keep their ultra liberal agenda out of our state.

Darn that "ultra liberal agenda" of raising the minimum wage!!! And, thank God we have the Nebraska Republican Party protecting us from "liberal conspiracy theorists."

Wow, they should do a lot more of these online petitions. All I have to do is let our friendly local Republicans speak for themselves for their silliness and artificiality to shine through.

In announcing their petition to supporters, Nebraska GOP Chair Mark Quandahl also stated of Americans United for Change:

There is nothing mainstream about their group and there is nothing mainstream about their staff:

▪ Brad Woodhouse, President – Former spokesperson for the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee....

▪ Suzanne Granville, Deputy Executive Director – Former Director of the Working Women’s Department of the AFL-CIO.

▪ Jeremy Funk, Field Director – Worked for Tom Daschle's re-election campaign and at Media Matters for America – “a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

Interesting to see that even the Nebraska GOP got their memo from Karl Rove to strike the last syllable from Democratic (as regards the DSCC). And, of course, one wonders whom they are talking about as not "mainstream" for being Democrats, being a labor leader, or - GASP - working for Tom Daschle's 2004 campaign.

Yeah, darn those crazy, ultra-liberals in South Dakota!

Then again, this is the same Nebraska Republican Party that currently denounces national Democratic Chairman Howard Dean for speaking ill of Republicans - while simultaneously calling him "crazy" for being a Democrat, daring to visit Omaha on April 11th, and famously getting a little too exciteable after the 2004 Iowa Presidential caucus.

I suppose it's good to see the GOPs penchant for hypocrisy remains so firmly intact. Honestly, would you really have it any other way?

Go to full text...

BIG SURPRISE - Jeff Fortenberry Supports Nelnet's $300 Million Swindle

There was a bit of a delay in processing, but this March 9th Lincoln Journal-Star article should be of interest to anyone who believes corporations (and the politicians who protect them) should be held accountable for committing fraud against the American taxpayer:

The U.S. Department of Education is under fire from members of Congress for its decision to allow Lincoln student loan company Nelnet to keep $278 million in profits earned from a disputed loan subsidy.

Two different groups in Congress sent letters this week to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings asking her to better explain the department’s January settlement with Nelnet. One group of seven Republican and three Democrats called for Spellings to consider rescinding the deal.

The settlement allowed Nelnet to keep the about $278 million it earned from a government subsidy that guaranteed a 9.5 percent return on certain loans, even though the department’s Inspector General recommended that Nelnet pay back most of the money....

The first letter to Spellings, dated Monday, from seven Republicans and three Democrats called the settlement “irresponsible” and said it is setting precedent that “will encourage further abuse by lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan program”....

None of Nebraska’s three representatives signed either letter.

In the last election cycle, Nelnet was First District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s biggest financial contributor, at $26,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Fortenberry, a Lincoln Republican, said the decision on the Nelnet case was Spellings’ to make, not Congress’s.

“However, the congressman respects the concerns of members of Congress and welcomes any additional information regarding the secretary’s decision-making process,” Fortenberry spokesman Josh Moenning said.

The two letters asking asking that both the Dept. of Education and Nelnet actually be held accountable to the American taxpayer can be read here:

10 Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee

Bipartisan group of 7 Republican and 3 Democratic Representatives

The decision "was Spellings' to make" - can you believe that is Jeff Fortenberry's response? He "respects the concerns" of those who actually think Congress has a role in holding American corporations accountable when they rip-off almost $300 million from taxpayers, but he personally thinks Nelnet should get away with it scot-free.

I suppose that shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering that Nelnet was the largest contributor to his 2006 campaign and the largest contributor to the House Republicans' Campaign Committee. No wonder that Fortenberry was named to the Campus Progress Hall of Shame for being such a lackey for student lenders against students' interests.

For some perspective, Nelnet directly contributed $26,000 to Fortenbery's campaign. For that investment, they seem to have bought his complicity to their walking away with $278 million of the American people's money. That's a return of more than $10,000 for every dollar spent - though, of course, Fortenberry's was only one voice of the many Nelnet tried to buy in the last election.

A small price to pay and probably a sound investment when you've got politicians like Fortenberry eager to play along.

Then again, none of Nebraka's Republican Representatives had the decency to stand up for enforcement of the law and fiscal discipline by asking that Nelnet be held accountable. And, they never will - at least, not until they themselves are reminded that they are accountable not to the Tom DeLays, George Bush's, and Nelnets of the world but to the voters and taxpayers of Nebraska, who have just been screwed royally on the Timid Trio's watch.

Go to full text...

Thanks to Timid Trio, Nebraska "52nd State" in Congressional Power Rankings

This is embarrassing - but it really puts into perspective the failure and ill repute of Nebraska's all-Republican House delegation. While Sen. Ben Nelson sky-rocketed up the charts of Congress.org's Power Rankings after a landslide reelection and assignment to the Appropriations Committee, as Sen. Chuck Hagel held steady at #48 despite the Republican Party's loss of its Senate majority, Nebraska still finds itself in the unenviable position as the 52nd state in terms of political clout because of our weak-willed, do-as-they're-told Republican Representatives.

52nd!!! There are only 50 states, yet we somehow managed to rank below the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and even American Samoa. The only states we managed to rank ahead of are Idaho and hurricane-ravaged Louisiana.

Pretty pathetic, isn't it? But, looking at the individual rankings of our Congressmen, it's hard to argue with the results. The Second District's Lee Terry is understandably the highest-ranked in our House delegation since he's in his fifth term in office. Still, he came in no higher than 377th out of 439. And, of the 34 Representatives from the Class of 1998, Terry is tied for 2nd weakest.

Then, there's the First District's Jeff Fortenberry, who has to be the biggest let-down of the entire bunch. After almost managing to surpass Lee Terry in 2006 - in only his first term in Congress - Fortenberry has plummeted to 420th out of 439.

Of course, some of this precipitous drop can be written-off as the result of the Democrats taking the House, but that doesn't explain why Fortenberry would receive special demerit for his "weak committee assignments" and why he ranks as the 3rd weakest of 41 Representatives from the Class of 2004. 19 Republicans rank ahead of Fortenberry in his own class. That doesn't speak well of Fortenberry, and it's not a good sign for Nebraska's First District - not at all.

Finally, there's poor Adrian Smith, our Freshman Congressman from the Third District who's come into office with such low expectations that he's probably congratulating himself for not being at the very bottom of the list. Smith actually ended up ranking 426th out of 439 - still doing a lot of damage to Nebraska's overall numbers but a bit of a moral victory, nonetheless.

Nebraska - the 52nd State. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. But, unless some things change in the next election, there's no reason to expect our situation to improve. We are as powerless as the ineffective Representatives we've elected, and we - the voters of Nebraska - are the only ones who can do anything about it.

Terry, Fortenberry, Smith - we know what they are. These rankings just confirm what we've already seen, heard, and experienced for ourselves. We'll either wake-up in 2008 and demand something more, or we can expect and will rightfully deserve more of the same.

Go to full text...

Jeff Fortenberry: Thin-Skinned, Congressional Con Artist

After accusing a student newspaper of being biased against him and writing a series of letters to the editor (1, 2) whining in similar fashion whenever anyone takes him to task for his voting record, it's becoming clear early in Congressman Jeff Fortenberry's second term just how sniveling and thin-skinned a politician he actually is.

In his first term, Fortenberry generally went unchallenged on the issues - getting a pass from Democrats and the media - and that carried over into his election match-up with Maxine Moul. Well, there's still a long ways to go, but there are definitely signs that things are starting to change and that Fortenberry is going to have to start answering some tough questions - questions he clearly does not feel comfortable with anyone asking after his weak attempts at intimidation and accusation to silence his critics.

This weekend, Fortenberry was at it again. After the Lincoln Journal-Star - the largest newspaper in the First District - published an editorial charging Fortenberry with "march[ing] lockstep to the Bush administration’s drumbeat" on Iraq and calling on he, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith to rethink their blind support of party and President, Fortenberry again complained about this unfair and unfamiliar treatment better known as accountability.

Acquiescing to Fortenberry's paranoia, the Journal-Star agreed to publish the floor statement Fortenberry had made during debate of the House's non-binding resolution opposing the Bush plan for escalation of the Iraq War. In preface, the editor of the Journal-Star wrote:

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry took issue with the Journal Star editorial criticizing his vote against the House resolution opposing the Bush administration’s troop surge in Iraq. With his agreement, we are publishing his statement on the House floor as his reply to the editorial.

Although the New Nebraska Network doesn't like to see such easy buckling to political pressure by the press, we're always happy to see a politician's actual words and record reported. So, in this case, we have little trouble with letting the baby have his bottle:

Madam Speaker, when I left home this week for Washington, my 6-year-old Kathryn was very sad. She has big beautiful brown eyes, and they had filled with tears at the prospect of my leaving again. And she said to me: “Daddy, why do you have to be a congressman?” And my thoughts went to the words of Thomas Paine, the Revolutionary War author, when he said: “I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.”

Madam Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for our nation and a very grave and solemn policy debate. We cannot afford to allow the ups and downs of the daily news cycle to set the course for our deliberations. The stakes in Iraq are too high....

We must provide meaningful and vigorous congressional oversight. I commend Chairman Lantos for taking the lead on this in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and for his commitment to a substantive and reasoned debate. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to support a constructive bipartisan initiative, drawing upon the substantive resources, like the Iraq Study Group, to enhance congressional oversight and set out meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward stabilization of Iraq and drawdown of our troops.

While it would be politically easier for me to vote for this resolution, I cannot....

If we flinch now — regardless of the goodwill behind our motivations — if we are perceived as weak and divided and eager to throw up our hands in frustration, we will pay a heavy price. And every nation that counts upon us as a friend and an ally will pay a heavy price. None of us wants to see a repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon. I urge my colleagues: Let’s find constructive ways to get the job done.

With a line of BS like that, I have to join Fortenberry's daughter in asking "couldn't we find a better Congressman than this?" Seriously, I can not believe this man would have the audacity to quote Thomas Paine while making such a self-serving argument intended to stifle the freedom of dissent that is and forever shall be Paine's legacy as both a writer and a patriot.

To be honest, while I completely support the Journal-Star publishing Fortenberry's statement, I think they have a duty to do more than hand Fortenberry the microphone and let him say anything he damn well pleases. They have a duty to provide the context readers require to be less easy prey to Fortenberry's manipulation.

For starters, Fortenberry should not get away with perpetuating the myth that the troubles we're seeing in Iraq somehow result from the media's negativity. What a slap in the face to logic and the American public to suggest that four years of directionless death and destruction, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, has made for an unpopular war only because of how the media has presented it.

Sorry, Fortenberry...we're not that stupid.

I would also love to know when Fortenberry suddenly started supporing "meaningful and vigorous congressional oversight." In his first two years in Congress, he certainly wasn't challenging his party's totally irresponsible dereliction of their constitutional duties as a separate but equal branch of the federal government. No, Fortenberry stayed silent - like a good little rubber stamp Republican - and he would still prefer to stay silent on Iraq if it were not for the new Democratic majority forcing the sorts of debates we should have been seeing for the last four years.

Fortenberry claims he wants a "constructive bipartisan initiative." Sounds great, but what the hell did he do in the last Congress to actually make it a reality? NOTHING!

This is nothing more than empty rhetoric to hide the entire Republican Party's four years of failure and incompetence behind an illusionary call for compromise that they did everything they could to prevent when they were in power. Now that they are out of power and the people again have a voice, they make these sorts of disingenuous and insulting declarations that every voter in this country should see right through.

Sorry, Fortenberry....we're not that stupid. Not anymore.

With his record of being nothing more than a rubber stamp, it's also hard to understand what Fortenberry's talking about claiming it would be "politically easier" for him to support the resolution. All he's done on this latest vote is continue his two year record of voting as told by Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and various other string-pullers in the Republican Party. Being a good little puppet seemed like the easiest thing in the world for Fortenberry in his first term, and it's just plain ridiculous for him to suggest that still isn't easier than being the actual representative Nebraska's First District deserves.

Probably the saddest and most revealing of Fortenberry's comments is his warning us to avoid the perception of weakness and not to flinch in Iraq. He knows as well as anyone that the pereception of our weakness is not the problem - it's the reality of our weakness and our inability to establish any sort of control that makes our situation in Iraq so perilous and perhaps even hopeless.

Fortenberry's talk of not wanting to see "a repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon" is also quite troubling. If that was an instance of America "flinching," what would he have honestly preferred happen? Would he prefer that we still be in Vietnam - that we still be losing soldiers and sapping resources in a vain attempt to save face? Is that really better than realizing this isn't our war to fight, this isn't a war we can win, and we were probably wrong to have ever thought otherwise in the first place?

If Jeff Fortenberry's main worry is the appearance of weakness, then he is a far weaker man and representative than I'd previously feared. He offers platitudes like "Let's get the job done," but he shows no understanding and little concern for what that job is and what it truly entails. He seems to imagine that by will and stubborness alone, there's some victory that is ours for the taking. But, if he's wrong, all he's done is invited even greater catastrophe and more horrific tragedy - seemingly without reason and without end.

Sorry, Fortenberry....we're not that stupid. Not anymore. And, hopefully, never again.

Go to full text...

Nebraska's "Lockstep" Republicans Out-of-Step With Voters

With Congress in recess for the week, I'm going to turn my attention back to the state legislature and stop repeating myself on the Iraq War debate. But, there was an excellent editorial in the Lincoln Journal-Star today that at least deserves some mention for its unflinching challenge to Nebraska's Timid Trio in the House of Representatives.

The Bush administration desperately needs oversight from Congress to change course in Iraq. Nebraskans who want to see members of their own delegation help provide that guidance can’t help but feel frustrated.

In the House of Representatives, Reps. Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith still march lockstep to the Bush administration’s drumbeat.

They were on the losing end of the 246-182 vote Friday when the House passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the administration’s plans to temporarily increase the number of troops in Iraq....

There’s little doubt that as time moves on the need for Congress to intervene in the Bush administration’s mishandling of the war in Iraq will become more acute.

The chance for united, democratic Iraq has passed...The House vote on the nonbinding resolution against the troop surge was only a token expression of the American public’s realization that the war in Iraq is taking lives and draining U.S. resources without a commensurate increase in national security.

But the vote was the first sign in a very long time that Congress finally has found the backbone to assert oversight.

Reps. Fortenberry, Terry and Smith need to reconsider their support of administration policies in Iraq that are being proved every day to be unrealistic and ineffective.

Congress may have found its backbone, but Nebraska's House delegation has not. Nor will they show any spine on Iraq without the green light from their party leaders.

Until the next election, the people of Nebraska will not have a true voice in the House where Iraq is concerned (along with many other issues). We will have only these rubber-stamp Republicans and our hopes of more progressive, more reasonable, and more independent representation in 2009 and beyond.

Go to full text...

The Timid Trio - "Standing Silent" On Iraq

Yesterday, the Omaha World-Herald's front-page headline read, "Standing Silent on Surge," referring to the coordinated but cowardly choice by Nebraska's Republican Congressmen not to engage in an honest debate of the Bush Administration's conducting of the war in Iraq - especially its escalation of our military operations by sending 20,000 to 40,000 more troops and personnel into harm's way.

Our "Timid Trio" of Representatives - Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith (now in version 2.0) - have instead chosen to play the same games we saw for the last four years as House Republicans stood in the way of any substantive discussion, disclosure, or even criticism of the ill-fated direction of Bush's supposed strategy.

To really understand the patheticness of their position, let us first look at the actual resolution the House is debating this week over the objections of the Republican minority:

Concurrent Resolution on the President's Escalation Plan

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Pretty simple, wouldn't you say? We support the troops but not the troop surge.

Now, you can question the sufficiency of such a statement and whether - like the Warner-Levin Resolution - it shouldn't endorse specific changes in our Iraq policy and military priorities. But, look instead at the attempted misdirection and intentional confusion of the issues from the Timid Trio's most recent statements in response to so straight-forward a resolution.

First, let's give the Second District's Lee Terry the floor (as reported in the World-Herald):

I would like to say that we should re-communicate our support for our
troops there and not cut funding for them, while standing silent on the surge"....

I'm not willing to pull the rug out from under the troops that are over there. I'm willing to go along with (the surge) with the goal that this could actually quicken our ability to get out of Iraq.

With the suggestion that Congress should "stand silent" like it has for the last four years, the Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, Steve Achelpohl, immediately released the following all-too-deserved rebuke:

It is time for Lee Terry to begin speaking up for the people of Nebraska and stop hiding in the corner, hoping someone else will lead for him.

All Nebraskans should stand by the men and women who are fighting daily in this war. However, “standing silent” on the tough decisions does nothing to support our troops. They deserve a rigorous debate. They deserve to know where their representatives stand on the issues and proposals being considered. They deserve leadership, not silence.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course, Terry's remarks invited such criticism because his call for continued Congressional silence is such a clear violation of democratic tradition and duty. Reps. Fortenberry and Smith have not made statements so offensive but only because they have not been as honest as Terry about their true objectives.

On Tuesday, the World-Herald reported:

[Fortenberry] said he wants clear benchmarks for the Iraq government to meet, more aggressive congressional oversight and support for U.S. troops now in the field.

And, today, the World-Herald quotes Fortenberry speaking on the House floor:

I see no useful purpose in supporting a nonbinding resolution that may have the unintentional consequence of undermining our efforts while our troops remain in harm's way.

After his call for "more aggressive congressional oversight" and the House Resolution's express statement of support for the U.S. Armed Forces, can anyone explain what the hell Fortenberry is talking about? He implies that simply stating opposition to a single Bush proposal has an "undermining" effect. With that mentality, just what sort of "aggressive" Congressional oversight does Fortenberry really support?

Oh yeah, the same kind we saw for the last four years - none at all.

As for Adrian Smith (whose latest Iraq spin I've already written about), it's still worth taking a look at his most recent recitation of GOP talking points. The World-Herald reports:

Smith said he will oppose any resolution that doesn't offer solutions to the problems in Iraq....

"I want to give the president's strategy a chance because I believe that's how
we best support our troops."

So, basically, Smith will oppose Congress acting as anything but Bush's poodle, deliberately confusing support for the President with support for the troops and hoping that no one will tell the difference.

Smith's "support" for our troops would allow thousands more to die in Iraq without question, comment, or criticism. I think our brave men and women in combat - not to mention their families - would politely tell Smith to take that kind of "support" and shove it.

Thankfully, the days of the Timid Trio's style of Congressional complacency are finally over. Although, honestly, complacency is far too kind a characterization. Their real agenda is to confuse the issues and to kill debate. For evidence of this fact, you need look no further than a letter that Republican Congressman John Shadegg recently sent to his colleagues calling for just the sort of misdirection and contradictions on Iraq that we're seeing from our own Congressmen.

Shadegg wrote:

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Apparently, Fortenberry, Terry, and Smith all got the memo. After all, not one of them has so far contributed anything of substance to the Congressional debate.

Since last year, the only thing that has changed is their slogans. Like President Bush, the Timid Trio supports staying the course on everything but use of the phrase "stay the course." If anything, with this escalation, they're now endorsing a policy of "stay the course on steroids" but don't even have the decency to admit it.

Each day, they betray our soldiers in the field, the voters that they serve, and the offices that they hold by standing in the way of an honest debate about where we stand and what options we really have in Iraq. And, as we can see here, they will continue in that betrayal so long as we - the people - allow it.

For all of our sakes, I hope we won't allow it much longer.

Go to full text...

Jeff Fortenberry's Bunker Mentality

The outrage from Nebraska's college population continues to grow because of the votes by Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith against cutting the interest rates on subsidized student loans. With the large number of college students in Fortenberry's adopted home of Lincoln, he shouldn't be surprised that his betrayal of their interests' has made him the brunt of their anger and frustration. He chose protecting the profits of his largest campaign contributor, Nelnet, over protecting the futures of our state and its students - END OF STORY.

Still, in today's Lincoln Journal-Star, Fortenberry writes a half-hearted and disingenuous defense against a powerful Letter to the Editor last week from UNLs student body President denouncing Fortenberry's unthinking and unforgivable vote:

As one of the approximately 100,000 college students in Nebraska, I could not be more disappointed with Fortenberry’s vote....

College students and those who care deeply about the value of higher education in this state should take notice of this prime example of the kind of priorities Fortenberry has in Washington, D.C.....

Matt Schaefer, Lincoln
student regent and student body president, UNL

To that, the best Fortenberry could manage was a total retread of an earlier Letter to the Editor that had run in the Daily Nebraskan. Compare the language:

Fortenberry's Old Letter (DN)

The U.S. government is involved in helping students in a number of ways. It provides grants and direct loans and guarantees loans made by the private sector. Many of these programs have empowered more persons to access higher education than ever before.

However, I remain concerned that college tuition rates have greatly outstripped inflation, and there is reasonable apprehension that government programs, particularly borrowing, are correlated to these tuition increases. Nonetheless, in the last Congress I voted to increase borrowing limits for new students, decrease fees paid by students when obtaining a student loan and increase grant aid for low-income students. We also significantly increased fees on private sector loan providers in order to fund these new benefits for students.

This year, I carefully reviewed the proposal to increase the taxpayer subsidy, which may, in effect, encourage further indebtedness and fuel tuition increases. Instead of supporting legislation to temporarily reduce interest rates - providing benefits for graduates exclusively - I backed a measure that would have provided lower interest rates to low and middle-income college graduates and those serving in the Armed Forces.....

Another overlooked point...is the fact that my office spends considerable time and resources working with the University of Nebraska to enhance projects and educational opportunities.

Fortenberry's "New" Letter (LJS)

As a matter of good public policy, the U.S. government seeks to help students obtain reasonable access to higher education. It does so in a number of ways, such as providing grants, direct loans, and guaranteeing loans made by the private sector.

Of serious concern is the fact that college tuition rates have greatly outstripped inflation. There is reasonable apprehension that government assistance, particularly borrowing programs, has directly affected these tuition increases.

Nonetheless, in the last Congress, I voted to increase borrowing limits for new students, decrease fees paid by students when obtaining a student loan and increase grant aid for low-income students. We also increased fees significantly on private-sector loan providers in order to fund these new benefits for students.

This year, I carefully reviewed and chose not to support a proposal that may encourage further indebtedness and fuel tuition increases. This narrow legislation was considered without any opportunity for committee oversight, input from the public, or amendment. This is not responsible public policy or process.

I did back a measure that would have provided lower interest rates to low- and middle-income college graduates and those serving in the armed forces. In addition, my office spends considerable time and resources working with the University of Nebraska to enhance projects and educational opportunities for young people. These are important efforts to improve access to quality education for Nebraska students.

Wow, that's a pretty nice word jumble. I bet Fortenberry's secretary took all of five minutes copying and pasting from GOP talking points to put together these patch-work responses.

What's most impressive and most indicative of students' outrage, though, is the number of comments on the Journal-Star's website debunking Fortenberry's pathetic game of misdirection to justify a vote for which, if he had any integrity, he would simply apologize. I won't quote them all here, but - seriously - check them out.

Finally, it's worth noting that Fortenberry has adopted a bunker mentality on this matter, as he seems to be in hiding to avoid being asked any tough questions by student journalists who share their compatriots outrage and who also want to see their representatives held accountable for their actions.

Here's a telling excerpt from the University of Nebraska-Omaha's student paper when they reported on Fortenberry's vote:

When the Gateway tried to contact Fortenberry early last week, his office told us that he had a very busy week and suggested that we use the quote he offered UNL's student newspaper, the Daily Nebraskan.

Clearly, Fortenberry must have meant his already retreaded "Letter to the Editor" (seen above) because, when the Daily Nebraskan actually tried to contact Fortenberry and get him to answer some questions, they reported:

Fortenberry has not been available for comment since Tuesday.

Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it? Jeff Fortenberry is not available for comment because he doesn't want to be held accountable. But, at least, we can count on him for more BS in Letters to the Editor that allow him to hide from his critics while making whatever nonsense justification he can for being a horrible representative.

That's our Jeff "Bought & Paid-For" Fortenberry. As I'm sure Nelnet can attest, he's worth every penny - though it's students, parents, and voters-at-large who will ultimately pay the price.

Go to full text...

Jeff Fortenberry Takes Offense (& the Offensive)

On Friday, Nebraska's First District Republican Congressman, Jeff Fortenberry, responded to a Daily Nebraskan editorial a week earlier challenging his controversial vote against a Democratic-led proposal to cut student loan interest rates in half over the next 5 years. Fortenberry wrote:

A recent editorial examined my vote on a student loan issue before the United States Congress. Instead of focusing on the serious policy questions of this vote, the editorial board of the Daily Nebraskan chose to question my political motives and launch offensive insinuations.

The U.S. government is involved in helping students in a number of ways. It provides grants and direct loans and guarantees loans made by the private sector. Many of these programs have empowered more persons to access higher education than ever before.

However, I remain concerned that college tuition rates have greatly outstripped inflation, and there is reasonable apprehension that government programs, particularly borrowing, are correlated to these tuition increases. Nonetheless, in the last Congress I voted to increase borrowing limits for new students, decrease fees paid by students when obtaining a student loan and increase grant aid for low-income students. We also significantly increased fees on private sector loan providers in order to fund these new benefits for students.

This year, I carefully reviewed the proposal to increase the taxpayer subsidy, which may, in effect, encourage further indebtedness and fuel tuition increases. Instead of supporting legislation to temporarily reduce interest rates - providing benefits for graduates exclusively - I backed a measure that would have provided lower interest rates to low and middle-income college graduates and those serving in the Armed Forces. I'm disappointed you did not report on this important vote.

Another overlooked point by the editorial board is the fact that my office spends considerable time and resources working with the University of Nebraska to enhance projects and educational opportunities.

I would hope that more objective standards be applied in the future.

Sincerely,
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry

Oddly, Fortenberry failed to mention his vote to cut federal aid to college students by $12 billion last summer. It's also more than a little bit ridiculous that he would use as a defense his vote to "increase borrowing limits for new students," as if more debt at higher interest rates was to anyone's benefit but loan providers' (and big-time Republican contributors) like Nelnet.

One wonders if he will be similarly defensive and arrogant in his response to UNLs student goverment after declaring their formal disapproval of both his and Rep. Adrian Smith's votes against the College Student Relief Act.

Fortenberry claims he wants objectivity, but what this really reads like is a call for the Daily Nebraskan's silence and complicity as he votes against the interests of students, parents, and the state of Nebraska.

He expects the same kids' gloves treatment he received from the media in his first term, but it's a new year, a new Congress, and new rules apply. Though we're not there yet, as a New Nebraska takes shape, Fortenberry had better change his expectations or expect to pay the price.

Go to full text...

Jeff "Bought & Paid-For" Fortenberry

You've read it all before, but now see it in actual print. You're beautiful, Daily Nebraskan:

Nelnet officials defended their contributions to the political campaigns of two Nebraska congressmen who voted last week against a bill that could cut interest rates on student loans.

The legislation, approved by the House last week and awaiting Senate approval, could affect the profits of large private lenders, including the Lincoln-based National Education Loan Network, Nelnet.

Nebraska Reps. Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith, who both voted against the House legislation, received thousands of dollars in contributions for their 2006 campaigns from Nelnet.

Representatives from Nebraska's congressional delegation have strenuously objected to allegations that the votes of any of Nebraska's House representatives are influenced by campaign contributions.

Fortenberry has not been available for comment since Tuesday.

Nelnet officials said Congress plans to pay for the interest-rate cut by "squeezing the lender incentives that could otherwise be passed on to students." In other words, they worry the cut in interest rates could end up costing students more.....

Federal Election Commission reports show that approximately $26,000 of Nelnet-affiliated funds made it to the campaign chest of Fortenberry for his 2006 congressional campaign....

Smith received $5,000 from Nelnet's PAC for his 2006 campaign.

The entire article demands a read. The only glaring omissions are the mentions that Nelnet was the largest contributor in the nation to the House Republican Campaign Committee in 2006 and that - surprise, surprise - the Bush Administration just negotiated a deal that allowed Nelnet to keep almost $300 million in ill-gotten, tax-subsidized profits without suffering any penalty.

When it comes to money, power, and politics, all rivers run together. This article doesn't explore all the streams and tributaries, but it at least does a good job of showing that, with Fortenberry and Smith, the flow is against the people they represent (Pardon the metaphor).

Luke Swarthout, a spokesman for U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG) puts it very succinctly:

"These tremendous (financial aid) subsidies are directly affected by congressional policy....

"Campaign contributions and lobbying payments are seen as and treated as greater investments in greater return and greater revenue."

College students will put up with a lot of crap: from higher tuition to one-hundred dollar textbooks; even being treated like criminals by the police when they go out for a drink. But, when their own Congressmen cast votes that would cost them thousands of dollars in interest on student loans - to assure greater profits for campaign contributors - that's just pushing them too damn far.

Nice to see the Daily Nebraskan push back - not with advocacy, but with the truth. I just hope, as voters, both parents and students are paying attention.

Go to full text...

Fortenberry Responds as Supporters Play "Kill the Messenger"

The Lincoln Journal-Star has a fairly active website when it comes to readers' comments, and it's fun to see how much feedback a simple "Letter to the Editor" can generate. Unfortunately, while there was much relevant discussion of Rep. Jeff Fortenberry's record - especially his vote against raising the minimum wage - many of the comments on my most recent foray in this peculiar art of press-savvy citizenship demonstrate a disturbing tendency to attack me personally just for having questioned Fortenberry's votes.

As a testament to my egotism and self-amusement, allow me to share a few of the highlights:

Gerard Harbison: "If the Nebraska Young Democrats are going to be using the letters column of the LJS to issue partisan press releases, shouldn't they be labeled as such? Here, let me help you, LJS. Kyle Michaelis is the first district chair of the Young Democrats. That will give your readers a little better perspective on where his letter is coming from."

Seems like "The Right-Wing Professor" is keeping tabs on me (see his similar attempt to discredit me last July). Don't know whether to be flattered or scared for my well-being. Although far from a celebrity, I suppose this is the price of a none-too-common name and a digital paper trail available for all the world to Google.

SupportFort: "...Fortenberry, Smith and Terry...certainly support me and most folks I know and they do it well. Sounds like they don't support your viewpoints so you have resorted to character assasination instead of rational, logical dissent. I suspect you are a Democrat."

Character assassination? Huh? I called Fortenberry's votes "out of touch." If anyone cares to explain to me how that's character assassination, I'd love to hear it. Seriously, how does this sort of reflexive denunciation do anything but stifle the "rational, logical dissent" this reader supposedly desires? Is that even a question worth asking or are the inherently contradictory motives behind this response just as apparent as they seem?

Hey Michaelis: "If Fortenberry is so out of touch with America and Nebraska, why did 59% of the 1st district re-elect him?? Maybe you are out of touch with Nebraska. Please move away. Thank you."

At least that's an honest comment. Polite as well....beyond the whole bit about asking me to move away from the state (and the Congressional District) in which I've lived my entire life. But, I really appreciate the reminder that it only takes a change of opinion in less than 10% of the population to swing this state's politics in a bold, new direction. Maybe not a short-term project but certainly a worthwhile goal.

Who?: "Kyle Michaelis is the same college student who attempted to turn the congressional campaign into a race war. I checked him out and found that he is a college student, Democrat activist, and really scary liberal blogger. Perhaps when he gets a job and starts paying taxes, he may have less time to criticize his doubly-elected congressman."

"Really scary liberal blogger" - that's some ego-strokeage right there...especially since I generally fall prey to accusations of a too measured, too moderate approach on the issues. Need to look into having that put on some business cards and a t-shirt - maybe even a line on my resume.

Of course, the real pay-off comes in today's Journal-Star, with Fortenberry responding personally to my letter. He writes:

A recent letter on this page mentioned my vote on a proposal in Congress to increase the minimum wage.

I support a minimum wage increase. Almost a decade since its last adjustment, an increase in the wage is socially just. However, it must also be economically responsible. An increase, mandated without consideration of its effects on American small businesses, would have implications (reduced employee hours, increased prices, job layoffs) that would in effect harm those the policy seeks to help.

That’s why I co-sponsored the Working Families Wage and Access to Healthcare Act. This legislation proposes a $2.10 increase in the minimum wage. At the same time, it provides small business assistance that helps small employers and entrepreneurs shoulder the new demands of a wage increase. One of the ways it does this is by opening the door to new ideas to pay for employees’ health care, a significant expense to small businesses.

Unfortunately, the legislation proposed by Democratic leadership neglected to address these concerns, and proposals to help make the bill better were not allowed to be heard. As the U.S. Senate undergoes its deliberation of the bill, I am hopeful that these provisions will be included.

Then Congress will have crafted a minimum wage increase that is both socially just and economically responsible. That is good public policy, and it is the right thing to do.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry

In other words, Jeff Fortenberry supports increasing the minimum wage but voted against the bill that would have done just that. Just like he supports making college more affordable while voting against cutting the interest rates on student loans.

At least, he's consistent in his hypocrisy, if nothing else. And, in that, he's not alone. As the UNO College Democrats point out, 2nd District Congressman Lee Terry "just voted against a bill that would allow the government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices - to keep prescription drug prices low."

Clearly, Fortenberry and Terry deserve each other. But, the people of Nebraska deserve so much more than their shared tendencies to partisan double-speak. Games of message control and kill the messenger won't prevent the dawning of this realization. The truth may be delayed, but it will not be contained.

Go to full text...

Jeff Fortenberry's Predictable Partisanship On the Opinion Page

I often fall back on the familiar refrain asking NNN readers to write letters to the editor on the issues important to them. Just scroll down a little ways on the sidebar, and you'll see some of the local newspapers that are just dying to print what you have to say - in some cases, sharing your words with more people in a day than read this site in a month.

Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely grateful for every one of this site's readers. It's an honor to have been shown so much kindness and respect over the preceding two years. But, let's not fool ourselves - at the end of the day, this site does not have the reach to change a state's political identity and to create the New Nebraska that is its promise and purpose.

I'm not a preaching to the choir kind of guy. In fact, I don't think there's a whole lot of value in having ideas if you're not willing to put those ideas out there for all the word to see. As an admitted, unrepentant progressive in a state that confines itself to an ill-fitting Republican identity that does not fit its legacy or its people's character, we can not fear criticism. We must welcome it. We must invite it. We must even listen and learn from it.

Why? Because as soon as you've shared your ideas in a public forum, you've started a discussion. Criticism allows that discussion to continue, taking on new life and new power in the public's imagination. If we truly believe in democracy and our supposed ideals, then the willingness to initiate these conversations is the most powerful statement of all. We need to take it upon ourselves to challenge the comfortable conformity of the status quo, not just having a different vision of our own but articulating it for the masses.

This isn't about a revolution. It's about making Nebraskans think, about who we are as a people and where we're headed as a state. If we can just get the people to open their eyes, open their minds, and - yes - even open their hearts enough to start asking tough questions and expecting honest answers of our politicians and our press, then we will have fulfilled our moral and democratic duties as citizens of this land we love.

But, talk is cheap. I can't ask readers to do and say that which I will not. So, keeping faith and hopefully encouraging others to follow suit, I want to share two letters I sent in my own name that were published this week by the 2nd and 3rd most widely read daily newspapers in the state....both of them concerning the out of touch values and voting record of Nebraska's First District Congressman, Jeff Fortenberry.

First, the Lincoln Journal-Star published the following:

Fortenberry out of touch

I want to thank the Lincoln Journal Star for its reporting the votes of Nebraska’s Republican Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith on the issues so far addressed by the Democratic Party’s “100 Hours” agenda. Too often, the Nebraska media fails to inform voters how we are actually being represented in Washington, D.C.

Still, I believe the Journal Star has a responsibility to go one step further in its coverage. With Fortenberry’s votes against raising the minimum wage, against allowing the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and against expanded funding for potentially live-saving stem cell research, voters have a right to know why their congressman stands in opposition to the vast majority of the American public.

Our new Congress has brought with it the opportunity for Fortenberry to finally represent the people rather than his party. I fear Fortenberry will only live up to this promise, though, if a vigilant press and an informed public give him no other choice.

If we are to expect accountability from our elected officials, we must start by expecting more from the press and from ourselves. In the future, I hope the Journal Star will do a better job of holding its reporting on Congress to this high standard, no longer giving Fortenberry a free pass without explaining his out-of-touch votes on the issues important to the American people.

Kyle Michaelis

That same day, the Daily Nebraskan printed:

Fortenberry should consider student needs

In 2006, the interest rates on student loans skyrocketed as the Republican Congress cut $12 billion out of the federal student aid programs to pay for another round of tax giveaways for corporations and the wealthy.

Now, in one of the first acts of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic leaders hope to pass the College Student Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 5). For anyone who believes in accessible and affordable higher education, this proposal really should be a no-brainer as it promises to cut interest rates in half in the next five years for undergraduate students with subsidized student loans. Best of all, there are no new costs to taxpayers.

Once fully enacted, it's estimated this plan will save students an average of $4,420. Unfortunately, Nebraska's Republican congressional delegation seems unlikely to vote for this sensible and long-overdue legislation for reasons of partisanship and personal interest. This is especially the case for Rep. Jeff Fortenberry.

The largest contributor to Fortenberry's 2006 campaign was Nelnet, a local student loan provider that stands accused of bilking the federal government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. H.R. 5 offsets its costs by changing the terms for lenders - almost certainly cutting into the outrageous profits that allowed Nelnet to also be the top contributor in the country to the House Republicans' national campaign committee.

Regardless of who funded his campaign or his party, Fortenberry is our representative. He should know that the students of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln are watching this legislation and will hold him accountable for his vote.

Kyle Michaelis

Sure enough, Fortenberry voted exactly as predicted, one of only 71 Republicans to vote against the American people's interests in making higher education accessible to all. I'm sure Nelnet will remember that vote come the next election but so should we, the students, graduates, family members, and aspiring dreamers who look to a college degree with hope for a better life.

And, guess what, whether by suggestion or coincidence it was a pleasant surprise to see the headlining front-page story in Friday's Daily Nebraskan that actually got Fortenberry to go on record with this pathetic explanation for his vote:

Once in full effect, the cuts are projected to save borrowers with $13,800 of debt up to $4,400 over the life of the loan.

Fortenberry said the policy would increase debt and exacerbate a negative trend in tuition inflation for college students.

"My policy's emphasis is on the front-end - helping people get to college and go to college," he said.

Who does Fortenberry think he's kidding? Is he really going to act as if higher interest rates and the promise of endless debt aren't two of the most significant factors in keeping people from pursuing higher eduation?

Clearly, he is that far out of touch or that much of a liar considering his vote last year to cut $12 billion from the Federal Student Loan program. No logical consistency. No principle. No problem.

But, at least we've got him on record, and that's a start. What a start it would actually be if the Nebraska media held up its end of the bargain on more issues, keeping Fortenberry and his like accountable to the people they represent.

You can help make that happen. Dare to have high expectations. Make some phone calls. Write some letters. Demand to be heard and to hear what our politicians have to say.

Just forcing the discussion of a progressive agenda works to our advantage because these are issues that people care about and ideas with which they funadamentally agree.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that the more our Republican politicians say, the less they make sense. They know that. They fear it. And, they damn well should.

I say, let's keep'em talking.

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...

Nebraska Politics: More Stories Told in Numbers

Beyond the myth-shattering 2006 voting record of Sen. Chuck Hagel, the Lincoln Journal-Star also reported on the performance of the rest of Nebraska's Congressional delegation by Congressional Quarterly's standards for presidential support and party unity:

Nebraska’s other senator, Ben Nelson, was the Democrat who most often voted in line with Bush’s positions.

Nelson, re-elected last month in a landslide despite a commanding Republican voter registration advantage in the state, also emerged again as the leading opponent of his party’s agenda in the Senate. He departed from the Democratic position 63.8 percent of the time....

Nelson voted with the president 75.7 percent of the time. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana finished second among Democrats at 70.8 percent.

“Nebraska has a lot of support for the president,” Nelson said Wednesday during a conference call from Washington. “And that’s probably reflected in my voting record.”

“It’s no secret that I’m bipartisan,” Nelson said.

I would suggest to Nelson that he's over-estimated Nebraska's support for Bush and could have exercised less election-driven caution in 2006. Still, it's outrageous and deceptive for the Journal-Star's Don Walton to label Nelson "the leading opponent" of the Democratic agenda. In the do-nothing Congress of 2006, a large part of the Democratic agenda was seeing Nelson re-elected, and his voting record helped make that possible by reinforcing his independence and preventing his opponent from gaining any sort of traction on hot button issues.

Of course, I won't be so cynical to think that Nelson's support for Bush was all about winning re-election or so hopeful to think that one year of Nelson's voting like a moderate Republican has bought us 6 years as a moderate Democrat. Like it or not, Nelson is a fairly conservative guy, and, as I wrote earlier this week, every Democrat in Nebraska is going to have to continue working hard at persuading he and our fellow citizens on the issues important to us.

As for our Representatives in the House:

* Rep. Lee Terry, 2nd District, led the way with a 97 percent rating [in party unity], the same score he amassed in votes supporting Bush’s positions.

* Rep. Tom Osborne, who turns over the 3rd District seat to Adrian Smith today, supported the president 95 percent of the time and stood with his party’s majority on 94 percent of the votes in the survey.

* Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, the 1st District congressman, sided with Bush on 87 percent of the votes and with his party 89 percent of the time.

With numbers like that, it's no wonder Terry proved susceptible in 2006. Terry is not his own man, and the voters in Douglas (Omaha) and Sarpy counties know it. If Terry seeks re-election in 2008 (or Hagel's Senate seat), he'd damn well better expect to be held accountable and to be challenged like never before.

It's sad to see a good man like Osborne turned into a Republican automaton and whipping boy, especially in a year when he had nothing left to lose. Osborne's political career should serve as a precautionary tale for anyone with an independent streak who actually thinks he or she can find a home in the lock-step world of the Republican Party. Not only will you be defamed and defeated, but - as evidenced here - you'll eventually be demoralized to the point where you just do as told.

I'll have to look further into Fortenberry's votes to see where where he's broken rank. One wonders if these instances don't usually reflect his stand on the Voting Rights Act this summer, where he voted with an extemist faction within the Republican caucus, led by Iowa nut-job Steve King, against his party, his president, and our nation's principles.

Don't be fooled. Numbers are meaningless without context. While they may not lie, the stories crafted around them and the purposes to which they are used often do.

The first comment responding to the Journal-Star's report on their website reads, "I'm impressed by Fortenberry's numbers...apparently he isn't a rubber stamp."

Maybe that's true. Maybe it isn't. But - keep in mind - numbers don't tell a full story. Fortenberry isn't Nebraska's best example of a Republican rubber stamp, but he might be something even worse.

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...