Lincoln's Partisan Divide Erupts Into Trench Warfare

Following-up on a diary from last week on the question of whether the partisanship on Lincoln's City Council is being exaggerated by the Lincoln Journal-Star's coverage, before Monday night's final budget vote whatever conflict exists over funding of the Lincoln Fire Department turned quite personal between two Council members - Democrat Jonathan Cook and Republican Jon Camp.

The LJS reports:

The latest fire department flareup was ignited when Cook made a motion to restore $100,000 that Republicans on the council, led by Camp, cut from the fire department budget earlier this month.... Cook said the cut undermines public safety for no reason and accused Camp of being motivated by a vendetta against the fire department, recounting controversial statements Camp has made over the years about firefighters and the fire department. Cook said he doubted fire officials in other cities - such as Minneapolis, where rescue workers recently responded to a major bridge collapse - endure the kind of criticism Lincoln's do. He asked: Were they accused of having too many workers on site? Spending too much on overtime? Putting in too many workers' compensation claims?...  

Instead of being proud of Lincoln's specially trained team of firefighters who respond to national emergencies, Cook recounted Camp's accusation last year that firefighters had tried to "elevate themselves" by exaggerating their role at Ground Zero after Sept. 11. "I think it's part of an effort to turn heroes into villains and pick, pick, pick at a fire department that two studies have shown is a very efficient department," Cook said. "It's time to end these attacks on the fire department."  

In return, Camp accused Cook of twisting his words, trying to get media attention and "trying to cause alarm in our citizens." He said Lincoln has a good fire and ambulance service, but could do better and needs to be "fiscally prudent." "I'm tired of your tirades," Camp said. "And if you don't cease with this, I'm going to ask our colleagues to censure you because you've gone too far." He then called on Cook to apologize to him and the citizens of Lincoln. After the meeting, while Camp was being interviewed by the Journal Star, Cook approached and Camp became angry, calling him a "mouthpiece for the fire union" and saying, "get a life" before stalking away.  

It doesn't appear Camp will be getting an apology from Cook, who said, "I don't owe him an apology. He owes the men and women of the fire department an apology for constantly defaming them".... Cook's motion to restore the money failed by a 3-4 vote, with Republicans voting "no" and Democrats "yes."

It's hard to say where this Cook vs. Camp battle royale has its beginnings. Maybe partisan loyalties have colored the debate, but anyone who follows Lincoln city government can tell you that the idea of the proudly belligerent Camp accusing anyone of making tirades and seeking media attention is quite ridiculous on its face. Camp's made an artform of precisely that sort of grandstanding and - if anything - seems to resent having his own tactics used against him.

Both Cook and Camp were re-elected in Lincoln's May election, so they're probably going to have to put up with each other for four more years on the City Council. Both have also expressed past interest in seeking the Mayor's Office, so who knows just how far their skirmishes might ultimately go?

Go to full text...

Partisan Sensationialism at the Lincoln Journal-Star?

Yesterday's Lincoln Journal-Star ran a Letter to the Editor that pretty well nailed the paper for framing the city's budget process as nothing more than a partisan showdown: I watched much of the City Council budget meetings Aug. 6 and 8. I found the seven members of our Council to be voting for themselves (or, rather, their constituents) more so than down their respective political lines.   Why, then, must Journal Star coverage mislead us where partisan politics are concerned? The Aug. 9 article on the budget mentioned the dreaded R & D words nearly 10 times. Might we remind the reporter that mayoral elections are not partisan and nowhere on the general ballot was there an R, D or any other letter by the candidates' names.   I wish the paper would report the news, not create it. That's why we have FOX News.   Barbara Arendt, Lincoln Maybe we should look at the article Ms. Arendt was talking about to understand the merit of her accusation: It came down to streets, police officers and firefighters Wednesday, as the Lincoln City Council spent several hours putting the final touches on the municipal budget. Campaign promises not to increase the city's property tax rate made for difficult decisions.....   As usual, the fire department budget provided fodder for controversy. In July, Councilman Jon Camp proposed cutting its budget by $175,000. Wednesday, he reduced that to $100,000. The four Republicans on the council went along with that, over the objections of the three Democrats....   Republicans rebuffed a last-minute attempt by Councilman Jonathan Cook to restore the money by using several revenue sources that materialized since the mayor prepared his budget - such as money from a new StarTran advertising contract. Instead, Republicans moved the unallocated money into the city's contingency fund.   Cook said later he was shocked they refused to restore money to the fire department after doing so for the aging and police departments. "What does that say?" Cook said. "I don't believe many councils nationwide would refuse to appropriate that money to its fire department"....   Democrats were unable to dissuade Republicans from cutting the Affirmative Action office in half and folding it into the personnel office.... Republicans on the council were dogged about diverting more money toward street construction and maintenance, and had succeeded in moving about $800,000 toward that end until the end of the meeting. But in a last-minute move, Cook convinced two Republicans to instead move a portion of that - the general revenue - to the police department. After the meeting, Budget Officer Steve Hubka said it amounted to nearly $328,000. In all fairnes, there does appear to be a partisan divide in Lincoln politics where the Fire Department is concerned - as their union has been an important source of support for local Democrats with Republicans frequently targeting the Fire Dept. because of that relationship. But, otherwise, the letter writer makes an excellent point. There seems to be a general trend in the Nebraska press towards over-emphasizing party labels at the local level in an attempt to make local politics (hence, local news) more sexy. While the subjective interpretation of local politics through the prism of partisanship sometimes has merit, this isn't the first time a reporter's laziness has resulted in some spin and manufactured conflict along artificial lines. Then, at the same time, reporters continue to turn a blind eye to the decade-old Republican political machine running our state government that derives its whole power from that label. Ironic, don't you think?

Go to full text...

Lincoln Tribute to Lives Lost at Hiroshima Draws Silly Complaints

Today's Lincoln Journal-Star contained an entirely harmless report on a memorial service held Sunday in Lincoln remembering the lives lost and the scars of suffering that remain from the United States' dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, setting into motion Japan's surrender in World War II. There's no suggestion that this event in any way denounced America for its decision to unleash this devastating technology upon the Japanese...and upon the world. But, the horrors and destruction of nuclear warfare - which once inspired so much fear that they changed the global landscape forever - remain just as real as they ever were, although now far removed from the public's consciousness.  That's why the responses this solemn event received in the LJS article's comments are so disheartening and asinine. Let's take a look at some of the most insulting and reactionary, reflecting most poorly on their writers and our state: "Maybe they could light a candle for the 100,000 US lives lost fighting the brytal [sic] Japanese. Or perhaps they could light a candle for the one million plus Chinese that the Japanese killed during WWII. Nice thought and all, but why is it that activists like this only remember things like this...." "Why are we doing this in Lincoln,Ne, much less the USA. Pretty soon, the Iraqies will be putting lights out on other lakes to mourn their dead." "What a shame there was no memorial to the thousands of Americans killed in the war against Japan, which, most LJS readers remember, was started by a japanese sneak attack. But thankfully we don't need a memorial to the millions more Americans and Japanese who would have been killed in an American invasion of the Japanese home islands, because the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs spared their lives. There is a resurgence in WWII revisionism in Japan. It's curious to see Nebraskans helping the effort."  "I guess I missed the lantern lighting ceremony this bunch held on Pearl Harbor day or to commemoration of the rape of Nanking….atrocities perpetrated by "you know who"...How about blaming the Japanese government for not surrendering sooner and saving their own people from the brutalities of a war they started!"  "As an American do I feel any remorse for the bomb drop on Hiroshima and I say no. Pearl Harbor was an act of aggression by Japanese and because of that American's lost thousand of lives. Do I now resent the Japanese, of course not it's a different time and a different generation, but I'm not going to morn [sic] or feel responsible for their past loss. The bomb was a tool to end horrific act of the Japanese people against Americans and other world people."  "Have these people forgotten that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Have they forgotten the atrocities the Japanese military committed during WWII? Have they forgotten the estimates as to how many Americans would have been killed if Japan would have been invaded because the Japanese would not surrender and would have fought to the last person? Kyoko Matsunaga's grandmother is alive, which is a lot more than many American servicemen who lost their lives fighting Japanese aggression can say." Kind of depressing, aren't they folks? Of course, these are not all of the comments that were posted. Several others were more reasonable and even challenged some of the over-defensive lunacy contained above. It's just so sad that there are those who can't recognize the cry of "never again" is not a finger pointed at the United States. It is a prayer for our future and the futures of our children around the world.  Let's hope it is a prayer that never goes silent and that never falls on deaf ears.

Go to full text...

Congratulations to Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Will Lincoln Voters Reject Republican Lies and Distortions?

Vote Chris Beutler for Mayor of Nebraska's Capital City

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel Says Lincoln Will NOT Support Ken Svoboda

After Lincoln's Republican mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda embarrassed himself and the city he hopes to lead with his idiotic plan to cut off roads funding for the western two-thirds of Nebraska, the hits have just kept on coming.

First, the Lincoln Journal-Star sensibly endorsed Svoboda's opponent, longtime State Senator and proven Nebraska visionary Chris Beutler, as Lincoln's next mayor. Then, in today's print edition, the Omaha World-Herald delivered a harsh rebuke to Svoboda, condemning him for confirming rural Nebraska's worst "negative perceptions" of the state's urban leaders. The World-Herald rightfully accused Svoboda of being irresponsible with his blatant pandering to local political interests.

Unfortunately, the World-Herald forgot to include the Nebraska Republican Party in its rebuke after Nebraska Republicans splashed Svoboda's plan across their website - insulting taxpayers and citizens across the state just to help win an election. It should come as little surprise that they have quickly changed the site's front page - replacing one insult with another, now attacking Beutler by distorting his record on taxes.

It does make sense - when their candidate has just made such an ass of himself - that they should suddenly try to turn people's attention away from Svoboda. Besides, there was never any question that the Republicans would go negative in this race - resorting to the same sort of desperate and dirty tricks they've used in past Lincoln city elections.

I just hope Beutler was right in his two-part NNN Interview (I, II) last month when he promised his campaign was "prepared for anything and everything" the Republicans might throw at him.

But, back to Svoboda, his worst move yet might be the way he's been drawn into the inner-party skirmish between Sen. Chuck Hagel and Attorney General Jon Bruning. In the race to prove who's the most conservative and most loyal Republican of the two (who's got the biggest elephant's trunk?), a Hagel spokesman responded:

Nebraskans will not vote for a chameleon.

When Bill Clinton was president and the Democrats controlled Congress, Jon Bruning was a card-carrying pro-choice, pro-tax Democrat. After a Republican Congress was elected in 1994, he transformed himself into a pro-life, anti-tax Republican.

Surprise, surpise...guess who else besides Bruning was also a Democrat until after the 1994 elections. That's right - Mr. Ken Svoboda.

You heard it here first, folks. Chuck Hagel says Nebraskans will not vote for a chameleon. So, according to Chuck Hagel, Nebrakans will not vote for Ken Svoboda.

As published by the Lincoln Journal-Star and NealO.com

Talk about a tough week. Ouch. But, don't feel sorry for Svoboda. He and his party have brought this on themselves and will hopefully get what they deserve.

Go to full text...

Ken Svoboda's Stupidity Reveals Republicans Don't Give a Damn About Rural Nebraska

I don't like making brash declarations and relying on the politics of us vs. them, but, if the following story does not piss you off, you are either not a true Nebraskan or you are simply a damn fool.

From the front page of the Nebraska Republican Party's website:

Svoboda unveils Lincoln roads plan

Believing that an adequate and serviceable road system is vital for the city’s future economic development, mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda has advanced a forward-looking road and street construction plan for Lincoln.

Road improvement dollars have not been allocated as broadly or effectively as they might have been in recent years, Svoboda said....

“In 2003 the residents of Lancaster County, 90 percent of whom are Lincoln residents, paid over $88 million in road construction dollars to the state and received only $24 million dollars in return,” Svoboda said. “That just 29 cents on the dollar.”

As Lincoln’s next mayor, Svoboda pledges to work with the Lincoln delegation to the Nebraska Legislature to negotiate a better deal for Lincoln taxpayers.

“We’re state residents, and we don’t mind subsidizing road construction in the western two-thirds of the state to a certain degree,” he said. “But there’s more economic development benefit in having roads built in the eastern third of the state than in the western two thirds.”

During his chairmanship of the I-80 Commission, Svoboda proposed a seven-year moratorium on new, non-Interstate-related road construction in the western two-thirds of Nebraska. During that time, more dollars would go to the eastern one-third of the state, especially Lincoln and Omaha.

“The state would get a much better return through economic development and jobs created,” Svoboda said. “At the end of the moratorium, you could probably return to the western part of the state twice what they gave up during the seven years.”

The Lincoln Journal-Star adds of Svoboda's proposed moratorium:

Mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda called for a seven-year moratorium on new road construction in the western two-thirds of Nebraska, except for on the interstate.

If more state road construction dollars flowed into eastern Nebraska, namely Lincoln and Omaha, those two economic engines would be able to produce even more revenue for the rest of the state, he reasoned.

Svoboda said he first proposed the admittedly “politically incorrect” idea as chairman of the I-80 Commission....

[Mayoral candidate Chris Beutler] said he agrees that more road dollars should go to Lincoln, but said Svoboda’s call for a moratorium would just alienate western lawmakers.

The plan put forward by Svoboda and the Republican Party should not just "alientate western lawmakers." Rather, this plan should be denounced and apology demanded by every political leader, every agricultural worker, and every community activist in the state.

Honestly, I don't know who Svoboda thinks he's fooling. There's nothing "politically incorrect" about this selfish, stupid and short-sighted political insanity.

This all calls to mind the editorial pictured at right from last month's Scottsbluff Star-Herald lamenting their realization of Gov. Dave Heineman and Congressman Adrian Smith's empty promises on the 2006 campaign trail.

Read it. Seriously.

What you see are just the latest examples of a pattern of betrayal and a history of neglect by Republican politicians who have abandoned Western Nebraska at its most desperate hour.

Now, not only Republican politicians but also the Nebraska Republican Party itself have proven just how hollow their concern for rural and Western Nebraska truly is by advancing Svoboda's ludicrous and insulting proposal on their own website.

This is an outrage. To help a single failing campaign, the Nebraska Republican Party has shown its willingness to sacrifice the future and the economic well-being of 2/3rds of our state. Any and every Nebraskan - living in Norfolk or McCook; Chadron or Omaha - should take offense and take the offensive against such crass and destructive political posturing.

The backbone of our state's economy - not to mention its heart and its soul - rests in the fields and pastures of rural Nebraska. By pushing this moratorium on highway construction, Svoboda and the Nebraska Republican Party risk condemning those Nebraskans who are already struggling the most to what would essentially be life in an economic Stone Age.

Through Heineman, they have already shown complete disregard to the need for new technological infrastructure (i.e. public broadband). With rural Nebraska's road infrasture now being targeted for disrepair and destruction, those most in need of our investment would see even the possibility of renewed development and economic progress vanish right before their very eyes.

We can not allow that to happen. That it should be suggested - even by a foolish and desperate candidate searching vainly for a message - is utterly appalling and an absolute insult to Nebraska's people and their shared heritage.

I can't imagine what proof voters could ask for that would better demonstrate just how little Republican politicians and the Republican Party really care about rural Nebraska. For decades, they have offered nothing but lip service - delivering on none of it while an entire way of life dwindled and whole counties fell into despair.

This is the Nebraska Republican Party's legacy. Of course, voters bear some responsibility because, rather than staying true to the independence for which they pride themselves, they have allowed petty partisanship and scare tactics to blind them to their own self-interest and self-worth. It's a game that's gone on long enough - maybe so long that the damage has become permanent.

But, it's never too late to change. It's never too late to hope and to fight for your family, your community, and your fellow Nebraskans.

Today, we can see the enemy. Not just Ken Svoboda. Not just Heineman or Smith. No, the blame begins with the cakewalk campaigns, the controlled media and the voters' complacency that have made possible the Republican Party's endless litany of failed promises.

Regardles of where you live in Nebraska, I hope this story drives home that even the race for Lincoln's mayor does affect you. In this state, with the odds we are up against, we really are all in this together. For now, that means writing a letter to the editor, challenging rural Republicans with evidence of their own Party's betrayal and - yes - making a contribution to progressive visionary Chris Beutler's Mayoral campaign.

Then, after May 1st, all bets are off, and our battle for the future of the entire state of Nebraska begins anew.

Go to full text...

Hagel:The Next Chapter and other stories

Unfortunately little is moving me towards a full blown rant today, so let's take a quick look back on some of the headlines we might've missed:

*Washington Whispers reports that Senator Hagel is hard at work on his new book, America:The Next Chapter, "a collection of practical—and reportedly nonpartisan—policy prescriptions" due for release early next year (as the article helpfully points out, that's around the time of the Iowa caucuses). Quote Hagel's publisher:

He's said over and over again that this book is his legacy ... it's what is most important to him right now."

Now I'm not one to cast doubt on the power of the written word -believe it or not, at times I've even fancied myself a writer. But Senator Hagel isn't a blogger or a columnist, he's a public servant, and one would think his legacy might be built around that service. The man's been in the Senate for a decade now... did that not seem to him the proper forum for introducing these "nonpartisan policy prescriptions"?

*Now this is old news, but it's worth noting that NE-03's Adrian Smith was one of only 39 Congressman to vote against tougher penalties for people who promote animal fights. As Smith Watch noted (in a much more timely fashion):

To vote against this bill was, as I said, essentially Smith saying he hates your dog. I can’t even begin to imagine the reasoning behind voting against such a bill!

*Yesterday was Lincoln's first general election mayoral debate. Svoboda, desperate to overcome an abysmal primary showing, tried to address the median care controversy with a mea culpa ("That’s accountability, people"). It seems both candidates remained pretty positive.

*The Grand Island Independent favors an outright ban on the death penalty:

That public safety can be assured with a life in prison sentence rather than the death penalty, that millions of dollars are spent without benefits to the public can and should convince us to consider the abolition of this law in Nebraska.

Now that's another inexcusably old story, but considering this issue will almost certainly dribble into next year's session it's a nice reminder that it isn't the fringe opinions of some Omaha liberals driving this debate. A minority opinion it may be, but it's a growing and sizable minority. A mainstream opinion that will no longer be ignored. The Unicameral's thoughtful consideration of this issue was an outstanding triumph for all of us who desire a true political dialogue in this reddest of red states. Let's keep up the good work, fellas.

Go to full text...

Svoboda Results Reveal Republicans Unhappy With Nebraska GOP

I am so used to Nebraska Democrats criticizing their party's leadership with zeal and reckless abandon on the Nebraska Democratic Party's blog, at party gatherings, and in private conversations that it's really quite shocking - in the wake of Republican City Councilman Ken Svoboda's surprisingly poor showing in Lincoln's Mayoral primary - that these same sorts of criticisms are suddenly being leveled by Nebraska Republicans against their own party.

I'll probably never say this again, but I can't recommend highly enough the latest discussion at the Leavenworth Street blog. Leavenworth - whether intentionally or not - has opened up a real can of worms for the Nebraska Republican Party by inviting readers to offer substantive commentary about the Lincoln city elections.

Considering State Sen. Chris Beutler's outright dominance over Svoboda, the GOP's supposed golden boy, it shouldn't surprise that years-old questions about the competency of the current Republican leadership have come to the forefront. This is particularly the case because of the Nebraska Republican Party's going zero-for-five in their targeted legislative races during the 2006 election cycle. And, Sen. Ben Nelson's landslide victory over that bald guy with lots of money - what was his name, again? - certainly plays a role in the prevailing dissatisfaction as well.

Public criticism? Self-reflection? These are not Republican Party traits, here or nationally. It's a demonstration of just how demoralized Republicans are - across the country, largely thanks to the disastrous course of George W. Bush's Presidency - that we're even seeing this sort of discussion. Needless to say, Nebraska Republicans might be especially demoralized with their being torn by the desire to label Sen. Chuck Hagel a Benedict Arnold while knowing full well that their party has lost its way and their President has gone off his rocker.

While Beutler is a great candidate with an almost peerless record of service to the city of Lincoln - who has not only been working harder on the campaign trail but also speaking with a clearer message - it seems only natural that the turning of the tide against Republican politicians has hurt the over-confident and cocksure Svoboda. All politics may be local, but that doesn't mean local politics exist in a vacuum.

After 12 years in the Congressional majority - the last 6 with a Republican President - the empty heart of the Republican Party has been pretty much laid bare for all to see. Iraq shows all the signs of being the Republican Party's own personal Vietnam, except they are nowhere close to coming to grips with the disaster they have wrought - neither personally, politically, or internationally. And the last remaining principle that any Republican can claim with a straight face is that the GOP truly does stand for the economic elite, the corporate fatcats, and the war-monger$ against the interests of the American people.

Nebraska has been slow to feel this effect, which is quite understandable. We are a majority Republican state that has bordered on one-party rule for the last eight years. We have little independent media of which to speak. We are relatively rural, traditional, and - to be quite honest - sheltered from the the moods and trends that might be sweeping the nation to our east or west.

Of course, Leavenworth's comments do sport their share of Nebraska GOP apologists. Acknowledging their continued dominance in state politics, I can't help but agree that some of the Chicken Little-hysterics are a little bit over the top. But, in the Republican Party, it's not so much the weight of the dissent that matters - just the fact that there is any dissent whatsoever speaks volumes in a political organization that has become totally reliant upon and an absolute victim to its own groupthink, egomania, and feedback loops.

In other words, Republicans have lost the capacity for self-criticism and long ago started valuing blind party loyalty above all else, so there's bound to be some pain, discomfort, and hopefully some further losses as they wake to the consequences of their having violated every campaign promise and every trust imaginable.

Chris Beutler is a great candidate for mayor of Nebraska's capital city, but Svoboda's coming in with only 35% in the primary against Beutler's 48% is an absolutely dreadful performance. Anyone who has been a party to Lincoln politics the last three years, witnessing the negativity directed at Democratic Mayor Coleen Seng in the media and across the city, has to admit that this sort of performance suggests a total failure by Svoboda and the Republican Party to connect with voters on any level.

Some of that failure is local. Some of that blame certainly does rest with local and state GOP leaders. But, the blame also lies with the Republican voter - even those right here in Nebraska - who ever let their party become this monstrous, power-mad entity that for so long has cared about nothing but winning elections with no concern at all for their choices' consequence.

Guilt, remorse, and shame do not make for an excited base. I'd contend that Svoboda and the Nebraska Republican Party are learning that the hard way in this race - easily 2007's most important in the state. Whether or not this works to the long-term benefit of Nebraska's Democratic minority remains to be seen and to be earned. But, an opportunity does seem to have presented itself - evident even on a Republican blog in a vastly Republican state.

For now, Beutler and the city of Lincoln reap the reward but - played correctly - it might soon be shared by all Nebraskans .... change taking hold within our own borders and at our own kitchen tables with the same force and magnitude that have been seen across the country.

Go to full text...

Sounding the Alarms

* With turnout at an abysmal 18%, Lincoln Democrat Chris Beutler managed a convincing 48%-35% victory over Republican Ken Svoboda in last night's mayoral primary. As the Lincoln Journal Star notes, this will likely result in even more good news for the Beutler campaign in the coming weeks as voters and donors seek to hitch their wagons to the prospective mayor-to-be. But make no mistake: this race isn't over, and if the recent history of the Lincoln GOP is any indicator the next 28 days are going to get messy. Or, as NNN blogfather Kyle Michaelis put it on Monday: Svoboda has long thought he had this race in the bag. When that proves not to be the case on Tuesday, expect alarms to be going off at GOP HQ.

* Speaking of sounding the alarms (warning: weak segue ahead): the state corporate farming ban is officially dead. Quote state AG/prospective Senate candidate Jon Bruning of the Supreme Court's decision:

We can’t forget – the family farm built this state and made it what it is today. I’m confident that the strength and character of our rural residents will keep Nebraska strong even without I-300.

The character and resilience of rural Nebraska is strong indeed: strong enough, I believe, to overcome this setback even if all options for appeal are exhausted. Already the Center for Rural Affairs has announced plans to bring this fight to the Unicameral, where state senators have the option of modifying the bill to meet judicial demands.

But as this site noted in January, another option exists. It's time for Congress to step up and preserve the rights of states' to protect family farming. The courts have done their job, now it's time for our elected representatives to do theirs.

First, however, we must do ours. This fight is too important to leave to the lawyers and lobbyists. The Attorney General's thrown in the towel, now it's up to us to throw down the gauntlet. This is a rare opportunity for our representatives to prove their dedication to those small town, family farm values outside of their stump speeches and soundbites. It's a rare chance to prove who really cares and who doesn't... our last chance to save that "rural strength and character" that has distinguished Nebraska and her politics. We can't let this pass us by.

Go to full text...

Why we have a primary (again)

It's rare to see a newspaper that actually discourages civic participation, but the Lincoln Journal Star's Why do we have a primary again? is a worthy exception (and a pretty good question, actually). In a field of 21 candidates, only 3 people will be eliminated? Reminds me of an old Conan O'Brien "Making the Band" spoof: We started with 6 billion contestants. From there we narrowed it down to just 100. And from there, to 98. ("I think we did pretty well, but when there's only room for 98 people, somebody's gotta go.")

The good news? While the city of Lincoln throws a $100,000 farewell party to Roger Yant and Mike Deal, we political junkies can savor a rare snapshot of the real horserace between Democrat Chris Beutler and Republican Ken Svoboda. Who leads and by how much? Frankly, I have no idea. But considering Beutler's strength in the money war and news that Svoboda's lawn care company can't hold up its end of a city contract, any victory for Svoboda on Tuesday should come as a kick in the pants to Democrats statewide.

As published by the Lincoln Journal Star and Nealo.com

Lincoln was once the closest thing Nebraska Democrats had to a stronghold. Today, I'm not so sure. While Lincoln Democrats were able to sweep the '06 legislative elections, they didn't even bother to field candidates against 9 of the 10 county-level Republican incumbents, and Maxine Moul lost Lancaster County despite a relative wealth of resources and an extremely favorable political environment.

Meanwhile, Lancaster Republicans are encouraged by their despicable defeat of Terry Werner and are already employing the same black magic against Beutler, with the NEGOP dropping no fewer than three attack mailers against him over the weekend. Needless to say, the success of such mudslinging does not bode well for the future of Cornhusker politics.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party seems prepared to join them in that swamp. Their recent mailer, an attack piece filled with nasty bits about Svoboda's business and child support, is nauseatingly reminiscent of the infamous Cat in the Hat debacle. One almost wonders if the two parties and the LJS aren't conspiring to drive turnout to record lows. Don't be surprised if they succeed.

Beutler alone has managed to keep his head above this sewage, quickly denouncing the mailer on his website and consistently running a very issue oriented campaign. Beutler has advanced a positive (if somewhat, uhhh... esoteric) vision of Lincoln's future, and it's a shame the NDP can't content itself with spreading that message of hope and change.

This is exactly why the race in Lincoln matters. A victory for Beutler is a defeat for the politics of divide and conquer, of venom and vitriol.... a strategy that should have died along with "Ricketts for Senate".

A defeat for Chris Beutler is a defeat for Nebraska Democrats. All of them. Maybe Lincoln's not a stronghold, but it's at least a foothold. A beachhead. A city worth fighting for. Bravo to the UNO Dems and the Nebraska Young Dems and all the other foot soldiers who've been saying (and doing) that all along.

Go to full text...

Four Years in Iraq Lamented By Hundreds at Local Peace Rally

Saturday, March 17th - Coalition for Peace - Downtown Lincoln, NE
Theme: "Listen to the People Now"

If you're looking for proof that there are Nebraskans who give a damn, take heart from the above video. One thing you won't see, however, is the extent to which that afternoon's speakers went out of their way to express support and solidarity with our men and women serving in the U.S. military.

I am an ill fit for this sort of activism. It's not my scene - it's just not who I am. But, I have profoundest respect for those who are better able to keep alive this hope for a world without war.

These are good people - good Nebraskans - with whom I am proud to stand. Even if I cannot join in their slogans and rallying cries, I am inspired by their passion and thankful for their reminder that peace might just be possible.

For variation on a similar theme when the Iraq war was just a bad idea (Oct. '02), allow me to recommend the following article from my pre-blogging days - Kyle Michaelis: Get Off the Bus.

Go to full text...

Chris Beutler: The NNN Interview - Part II

Continuing from Tuesday's installment, here is the second half of the New Nebraska Network's interview with long-time State Senator and 2007 Lincoln mayoral candidate Chris Beutler.

For readers outside Nebraska's capital city, Beutler here proves ready and willing to look beyond Lincoln's borders - speaking about his vision for a greater Omaha-Lincoln metropolitan area, as well as his two decades of leadership in the state legislature.

********
Michaelis: On the economic development front, Lincoln has been pretty slow in developing towards Omaha along the I-80 corridor even though so much untapped potential for this community and for the entire state seems to lie in that 45 to 55 mile expanse. Instead, most residential and economic development has been to the south, as if Lincoln were almost scared of the future and of losing its individual identity. In your vision, how closely tied are the futures of Lincoln and Omaha?

Beutler: Well, I think we need to be logical about what’s happening. And, the fact of the matter is that Lincoln and Omaha in that corridor with Council Bluffs are all developing into one large, metropolitan area. That’s the way the future will be. And, the question is do we acknowledge that and do those things that create the best environment and the best relationships and the best planning? Or, do we assume that we’re not all together in this but going our separate ways? That’s kind of a fundamentally different way of looking at the area.

But, I believe [in] developing the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, developing the University of Nebraska at Omaha, working together with Omaha. Not becoming like Omaha - we can still be very different on this west end of what will be in the future the metropolitan area - but it’s to our best interests to figure out how we can best work together with Omaha.

Do you foresee that relationship - if you were mayor, with the city of Omaha – as one of competition, cooperation, or kind of a friendly mix of both?

I kind of like your terminology – a “friendly mix of both.” Again, I don’t personally want Lincoln to become like Omaha, and I don’t think most people in Lincoln want to become just like Omaha. We want to develop our own destiny and have our own unique sense of place that’s separate and apart from Omaha. But…there are just so many kinds of cooperative relationships that can develop that we should look to because they’re to our economic best interests and our best interests altogether.

So, I would like us to develop a more flexible attitude with regard to Omaha and be more accepting of the possibilities of cooperation. And be a little less suspicious. Learn what we can from Omaha and teach them what they need to learn.

Now, I hope you don’t mind, I’d love to change gears just a little and talk about your experience in the Nebraska legislature and – hopefully - get your views on some of the major issues being faced this session. Having stepped away from state government after so many years of being right there at the heart of it all, how difficult has that been for you?

Well, I have to say, every once in a while, when I pick up the paper, there’s certainly something I’d like to get my two cents worth in on. But, I’ve turned my mind so completely to the future and to the problems at the local level that – honestly – I haven’t paid nearly as much attention to things as in prior days.

But, leadership in the city of Lincoln – good leadership in the city of Lincoln – requires that I need to pay attention to a number of the issues at the state level. So, I continue to do that – the issues that are most relevant to Lincoln and to municipal government. But, I’m trying to focus on the state issues that relate to local government and the local issues – and not get too far a field and misspend my time on things that I can no longer change.

And, of course, right now you have a campaign to win.

Right.

While running for mayor…you have been quite vocal with promises that you will NOT raise property taxes to balance the city’s budget. Do you believe the state should play any substantial role in providing property tax relief even though they are collected at the local level?

The state does need to play a very strong role in diminishing the burden of property taxes. I might start out by pointing out that has been the history of state government – in terms of shifting the overall state and local tax burden away from property taxes and more onto sales and income tax. If you look at the history of this state from the beginning of the modern tax system in the late 1960s when the sales and income and property tax all came into existence together for the first time, at that point in time about 60% of the total taxes spent were property taxes. Now, it’s down to a little over 40%.

So, over time – mainly through the vehicle of state aid to education but through other state aid programs and through budget limitations and tax levy limitations - even though people still find the property tax the most burdensome and even though we still have a ways to go, the legislature has been and must continue to help us shift away from property taxes.

At the legislative level, I think I voted – it’s hard to remember over 23 years – but I know that I voted almost 100% in favor of homestead exemptions, state aid to education, all those programs that go out to the reduction of property taxes.

The tax plan Gov. Dave Heineman has put forward – LB331 – would eliminate the estate tax and cut income taxes, targeting a majority of its benefits to those currently in Nebraska’s highest tax bracket. Do you feel very strongly one way or another as to how well Heineman’s plan would serve our state – let alone the city of Lincoln?

I don’t want to get involved because I don’t currently, now, have inside information – all the budget details and revenue details that were once available to me. But, I would just say this – I think, in the minds of most people, the property tax is still considered the most burdensome tax, and tax relief should continue to be focused towards property tax relief.

Sen. Beutler - as a life-long Nebraskan - I want to thank you for the 15 years of leadership and dedication you showed in the legislature on the issue of campaign finance reform. In particular, thank you for the important role you played in holding former Regent David Hergert accountable and eventually even seeing his impeachment for his intentional violation of the state’s laws last year. Also, last session you were finally able to overcome years of quite vigorous opposition to get some long overdue reforms to the campaign finance system enacted. Tell me - how confident are you in the system and its disclosure requirements as they currently stand?

Well, you’re asking very complex questions and good questions. The campaign finance situation is another one of those complex and tough situations that I’ve taken on because it was an area that needed leadership.

I think Nebraska has the best campaign finance law in the country. Now, having said that, you also have to acknowledge immediately that the United States Supreme Court has not yet loosened its views on free speech to the extent that would be required in order to get your arms all the way around the subject of campaigns. Right now, independent expenditures are allowed under the law and can not be prohibited by state law. So, even though our mechanism works well for campaign committees, it doesn’t preclude such things as independent committees doing their own thing independently and once again making the influence of money such that a fair fight doesn’t occur.

What we’re seeing in Nebraska is a ballooning of independent expenditures, and we’ll just have to wait and see whether the court allows us to deal with that.

Would you feel comfortable claiming campaign finance reform as your greatest legacy as a State Senator?

I don’t know if I would call it my greatest legacy, but I would say that I think it’s one of the most creative things I’ve done. It’s a unique system that’s looked at all the time nationally. Elements of it I think are being picked-up elsewhere. That we managed to politically get it in place somehow – I’m not sure how we were able to do that actually. [laughter]

But, it’s a unique system and it’s a very good system if we could just be allowed to get our arms around independent expenditures.

Getting back to your campaign for mayor in the time that we have left, longtime legislators often learn that their voting records prove quite the liability in seeking higher office. You’ve had to make choices that are easily taken out of context and spun for whatever purposes an opponent might imagine. How do you overcome these attacks?

I think – how can I put this – over a period of 23 years in the legislature, I’ve made the tough decisions. And, the tough decisions are not necessarily [on] the same side of the ideological divide in each instance. There have been times when I thought the University of Nebraska was being too destructively cut - when state employees were being treated unfairly. In those instances, with two very important groups to the economy of the state and the city of Lincoln, sometimes you have to do things that involve increasing revenues.

I will make that tough decision if that’s what’s the most intelligent thing to do. And that will create a problem for me in terms of campaign rhetoric. But, I think the people want to know that you’re thoughtfully looking at things and doing what is - in a common sense way - the best thing to do.

I’m proud of all the decisions I’ve made in the legislature. I don’t have any regrets. I think I’ve been very balanced and very protective of Lincoln’s interests. So, I look forward to that discussion.

Finally, on the same day you announced your intentions to run for Mayor last September, the Lancaster County Republican Party already issued a press release attacking you as “another recycled liberal” who would be “the most liberal mayor in the history of the city.” Now, with many of my readers, you probably just scored a lot of points, but what do you say to ease the concerns of the average voter who just wants good government, not a government serving first and foremost as an ideological battleground?

First of all, the release was most interesting because it assumed that they had researched every mayor back to the beginning of Lincoln to determine that I was the most liberal. Obviously, they had not done that. But, people who know me know that I’m very pragmatic and not ideological. That I’m interested in a broad and strong middle-class. That I’m interested in fairness - a reasonable and fair distribution in the economic system because I think that’s what has made a strong America and will continue to make a strong America....

Basically, that’s where I stand.

The headline of that first press release was, “If you liked Terry Werner, you’ll love Chris Beutler” – referring to a former Councilman who local Republicans smeared in rather unprecedented fashion during the last city elections. That year, the GOP County chair even went so far as bragging about hiring a private investigator to follow and to intimidate Werner. The Lincoln Journal-Star then said of the Republican Party, “They're not focused on finding the best way to deal with the challenges facing the city. All they care about [is] scoring an election victory.” The Journal-Star also warned, “If the attack ads succeed, they'll multiply in the next election.”

Well, here we are. Considering that Werner was defeated, do you expect and is your campaign prepared for a repeat of these same sorts of ugly and quite vicious attacks?

I think the campaign is prepared for anything and everything. We’re trying to anticipate all eventualities. I’m not sure my wife is so entirely prepared, but we’ll see.

Have you seen any black cars following you around?

No. [humoring his interviewer with a hearty laugh]

Anyone going through your trash?

No. So far, I don’t think they’ve gone to that extent. But, hopefully it won’t devolve down to that level because I do think the people of this city really are interested in ideas – real ideas - about the future of Lincoln. And I think we’ve done very well in that regard, in supplying those ideas.

********
The New Nebraska Network thanks Sen. Beutler for his time and wishes him well in both the April 3rd primary and the May 1st general election. We hope readers enjoyed this peek into the mind and the vision of a true Nebraska progressive who's been paving the way for better government and a brighter future throughout his impressive but unfinished career in public service.

Again, this is THE election of 2007 in Nebraska politics. To learn more about Chris Beutler and his campaign to become Lincoln's next Mayor, please see www.ChrisBeutler.com and consider contributing in any way possible.

Go to full text...

Chris Beutler: The NNN Interview - Part 1

The biggest election in Nebraska in 2007 is the race for mayor of Lincoln, the state's capital city and its second-largest population center. The race will be decided in a May 1st election after an April 3rd primary whittles the field down to two challengers.

Last week, the New Nebraska Network enjoyed the opportunity to sit down with longtime State Sen. Chris Beutler - a proven visionary and a personal favorite in Nebraska politics - who is seeking the mayor's office after serving the city of Lincoln for almost a quarter century in the state legislature. What follows is the first in a two-part interview:

********
Michaelis: Sen. Beutler, I want to thank you for your time this morning. For a local race, I think it’s safe to say that your campaign is really breaking some new ground in Nebraska politics with its use of technology and new media. There’s the video content on your website. There’s your profile on MySpace. And, let’s face it, here you are doing an interview for a blog like the New Nebraska Network. What do you think it says about you and your campaign that you’re trying these new avenues of connecting with voters?

Beutler: I hope it’s a new way of saying the same thing about myself. I want to be accessible to people. When I ran for the legislature, I went out door-to-door because you could do that in a legislative-sized race. I went to every door in the district. I’ve always used every means possible to contact people and to give them the opportunity to express their opinions. And, these are new ways of contacting people.

I think you need to go to where people live, and some people live on the Internet now. They live on MySpace. They live on the various websites – go to your blog. Communication is extremely important to leadership, and to the extent that I can take that leadership and try to communicate on every level with every possible person by every means possible, I think that’s the way to go.

For the last decade, Lincoln has a history of being pretty hard on its mayors. When sitting mayor Mike Johanns first ran for Governor, he did not win the city of Lincoln. He was followed in office by Don Weseley and then Coleen Seng – both of whom had significant problems with the local press and just in public opinion in general. Now, there’s a lot of talk about Lincoln needing new leadership with a new attitude in city government. But, do you have any concerns that the attitude of the community itself might be a part of the problem?

I do have a lot of concerns with the negativism in Lincoln right now. It seems to be building on itself and feeding itself. It’s becoming destructive. When you have a city council person that’s putting in a national magazine language to the effect that this is not a good place to do business, that’s not helpful.

Lincoln is – I think - a hard city to govern. You have some political elements that are maybe unique in the sense that you have a large number of neighborhood associations that are active politically. You have neighborhood associations in other cities but leadership in this city requires incorporating them into the political dialogue.

Instead of having one strong business association, you have two in this city. You have the Chamber of Commerce and you have LIBA [Lincoln Independent Business Association]. They don’t always agree with each other. They take different attitudes toward city government – one, a very critical attitude toward city government. Then, you have...all of the independent thinkers over at the University. Other cities have Universities but still most cities do not on the scale that we have. That’s another part of the political dialogue in this city.

So, it is…a hard city to govern. For that reason, I’ve suggested – you may have seen on our website – this MOVE Council. We have not heretofore brought all those political elements together at one table and asked them to sit around and make some compromises on some of the priorities of the city and to work on a strategic plan that we can call the city’s strategic plan. To devise the necessary compromises on prioritization - on public contribution to projects. We haven’t gotten together in the most meaningful political sense all of the elements to move forward on an economic development plan or a vision for the city. Whether that vision incorporates elements in addition to economic development…in today’s world, everything you do in a city relates to economic development….

But, one of the very most important things to me is changing the tenor of the debate in this city. Changing it from constant bickering and negativism to something much more positive.

The lack of leadership in city government is a pretty consistent theme in all the campaigns for mayor. In this regard, what most seems to distinguish you from your chief opponent, City Councilman Ken Svoboda, is that he wants to lay that blame squarely at the Mayor’s door – as if everything else is perfectly fine. How deep would you say the problems in city government run, and is a new mayor really going to be enough to change the way things get done in Lincoln?

Well, I think the problem is not only in the mayor’s office, but it’s also in the city council. And, I don’t think people on the city council escape responsibility by claiming to be in the minority. You know, for example, I was always in the minority in the legislature. I was never in the majority. Yet, I could get things done. I could work with people and change visions to realities at the legislative level. And, at the city council level, they’re a legislative body. They have the power to offer amendments, to offer ordinances, to change policies, to change this city’s direction. And they have not done that.

They have not come to grips with the major problems of the city…..the lack of roads infrastructure financing money, the failure to come to grips with the budget problems in a long-term meaningful way, and the failure to come to grips with quality management problems of one type or another that have been persistent in our current city culture. All of those things are both the responsibility of the city council and the mayor and - in my opinion - they have sat around and waited - and waited - and hesitated on these major questions and not come to grips with them.

So, a major theme in my campaign is strong leadership and strong leadership means coming to grips with these major problems and moving ahead.

There seems to be a certain perception that the winner of this race will be the candidate who best succeeds at separating himself from Mayor Seng and the perceived failures in city government under her watch. Now, Councilman Svoboda seems to be relying on your being a Democrat - like Mayor Seng - to position you as closest to her record in the eyes of voters. Yet…Svoboda has been in office throughout Seng’s entire term – even serving as Chair of the City Council. If voters really are unhappy with the way things are being done in the city, which do you think they’re more likely to pursue – a change in party or a change in personnel?

I think the voters of the city of Lincoln are a very independent sort. And, frankly, I don’t think they give much weight to party labels. At least, not the vast majority of them. I think they’re going to look to the individual leadership characteristics of the candidates who are offered to them, and I think they’re going to choose the person that they think will provide the strongest leadership and who is offering the best opportunities to solve these on-going problems and restore confidence in city government.

I don’t think there’s been a time in recent history in this city when people have more wanted city government to be restored to a positive system in their minds. I think, right now, they see one unhappy circumstance after another – whether its fire trucks or Verizon or complaints from businesses that they can’t get through the permitting processes. There’s just a number of things that cry out for quality management. I think people want to know that their city government is operating again in an intelligent, efficient manner before they’re going to be willing to go ahead and look at things like strategic plans and visions and to consider city involvement in those kinds of bigger, futuristic items.

I see the movement in the next two years as a kind of two-step process: one, restoring competence in city government and, then, from that point, working with a broad community strategic plan to move forward to new things and better things and a broader vision of the community. Again - I’m repeating myself, but it’s so important that competence in government be restored first.

Now, on the campaign trail, you’ve often talked about Lincoln’s need for a leader “with vision and grit who comes from outside city politics.” What makes these qualities the most important for Lincoln’s next mayor, and why are you that leader?

Those qualities are important because we’re going to be faced with a number of tough decisions. Solving the infrastructure financing problem will involve tough decisions. Solving the budget problem will involve – in the short term - expenditure cuts, and those will be tough decisions. I vow – I promise - to set the budget straight next year without increasing property taxes because I don’t think any mayor can take office and solve a problem by increasing property taxes and have any credibility for the future. So, those will be hard decisions for me because…most of the services we provide are good services. I would be reluctant to [cut them], but I will do it if it’s necessary to – again - restore credibility in government…..

Working with directors and middle-level managers to get going with some performance standards and benchmarks and changing the way they do things so that processes can move ahead more efficiently and effectively, that will also be hard work and some hard decision-making. So - in the short term - a number of the decisions that need to be made are just difficult decisions by any standard.

My history has been one of being willing to make tough decisions at the legislative level. You’ve worked statewide. You know about the water issue. You know how tough that is. And, you know that I spoke up on that issue. My history in the legislature has been taking up those issues that other people don’t want to deal with and dealing with them – whether it’s campaign finance reform or restructuring the court system….

Many of the tough, tough decisions at the legislative level I’ve taken on because other people didn’t want to do it. And, that’s okay because what I get satisfaction out of is solving the hard problems. I enjoy working with public policy and complex problems. I enjoy that part of it a lot more than I enjoy campaigning.

The only element [you didn’t address] is “the new beginning” – bringing in someone from outside city politics. Is that absolutely essential in this election year in the mayor’s office?

I think that it is – especially in the context of this particular election because the main competition is Ken Svoboda. Ken Svoboda has sat on the city council and has watched all these things happening and has not taken initiative. The city is either going to choose Ken or myself, and I think there’s a significant contrast in the way that Ken and I look at things.

I believe in limited government. I believe in tight, disciplined, focused government. But, having said that, I believe in positive government. I believe that government needs to be responsibly responsive to the community and represent the community. And, government is responsible for seeing that economic development goes forward – seeing that there is a strong relationship, a partnership with business. But, not only with business – with the neighborhoods, with the non-profits, with all of the elements of a community. It’s the government that needs to see that we’re moving forward in all these different areas. I believe in positive government.

Ken, on the other hand, I think is philosophically and psychologically handicapped by his notion that government should be diminished. That government should “get out of the way,” as he frames it. That government shouldn’t take the leadership on economic development. That government shouldn’t be going to the legislature to solve the State Fair Park problem. That government shouldn’t get involved with the cable franchise. I don’t think he’s going to be able to effectively use the tool of government to move the city ahead because he doesn’t really believe in it. It’s a fundamental difference between the way we look at things.

********
Stay tuned. The interview with Chris Beutler will continue later this week (click here for Part II) - exclusively at the New Nebraska Network.

Go to full text...

Ken Svoboda & Lincoln GOP Already Using Dirty Tricks

You knew it was only a matter of time, but who could have guessed that Lincoln mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda and his minions in the Lancaster County Republican Party would go so negative, so early in their attacks on Democratic candidate Chris Beutler?

In keeping with Lincoln Republicans' legacy as the worst, most shameless political thugs in the state, Svoboda supporters showed up to Tuesday's mayoral debate armed with the latest in a long line of lies, distortions, and distractions in service to their diseased politics of personal destruction.

Before the three-man debate between City Councilman Svoboda, long-time State Sen. Beutler, and local businesssman Roger Yant had even begun, members of the hosting Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) sat down to their lunches and found an anti-Beutler flyer at their tables purporting to be his "Business Report Card."

Paid for by the Lancaster County Republicans, the flyer went on to attack Beutler for having "spent most of his adult life in the Nebraska Legislature." It also likened Beutler to State Sen. Ernie Chambers and accused him of having an "anti-job creation voting record," resulting in the Republican Party giving Beutler an F "on business issues."

What an utter load of crap! The city of Lincoln is still a full two-and-a-half months away from even its primary election, and already Svoboda's campaign is taking the low road. But, what did we expect? The low road is the only one they know.

The always convenient race-baiting comparisons to Ernie Chambers are one thing, but it's when the flyer stoops to outright deception that the full extent of the Lincoln GOPs depravity again shines through. Citing a Lincoln Journal-Star article, the flyer states:

Beutler argued that the 2006 state income tax cut was not necessary because Nebraska didn't need the money.

Compare that to what was actually written by the LJS:

"I do not want to cut taxes now in good times when people don’t need the money,” Beutler said, and be forced to raise taxes when people can’t afford it....

Because of the property tax increase, “I really don’t know understand why any governor would want his name to this package,” Beutler said.

First, the Republican Party twists Beutler's actual statement to erase his genuine concern that the 2006 "tax cut" would result in future tax hikes. Then, they fail to mention how Beutler completely foresaw and warned against the increase in property taxes that has since left voters up-in-arms.

If the Lincoln Journal-Star has even an ounce of self-respect, it has a duty to call-out Svoboda and the Republicans for these outrageous lies and abuses of its own reporting.

Of course, lies and distortions are nothing compared to the Republican Party's miserable, borderline terrorist antics the last time Lincoln held a city election. In 2005, they engaged in outright hypocrisy in their attacks, not to mention ludicrous assaults on the character of then-Councilman Terry Werner for not supporting our troops and - I'm not kidding - for being an enemy of Lincoln pet owners. All this earned a deserved rebuke by the Journal-Star, which then wrote:

The Republican Party is putting all the warts of partisan politics on display with its attack ads in the race for three at-large seats on the Lincoln City Council....

Republican Party officials don't give a fiddle about the issues. They're not focused on finding the best way to deal with the challenges facing the city. All they care about [is] scoring an election victory.

What's saddest and scariest is that all this was said even before the Chair of the Lancaster County Republican Party admitted to hiring a private investigator to follow Werner and to assist in their efforts at character assassination.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Republican Party relies on the ugliness and the spirit of ill will they've created in Lincoln politics by writing in its self-proclaimed Report Card, "If you liked how Terry Werner voted on business issues...If you like (current Mayor) Colleen Seng's reord of 'leadership' for Lincoln...Then you'll love Chris Beutler." They even go so far as including pictures of Werner and Seng.

Of course, what's ironic about these attacks is that every supposed failure by city government since Werner and Seng were elected has come under Svoboda's watch. He's been serving on Lincoln's City Council the entire time - even as its Chairman - meaning that voters wanting change should be voting for Beutler...unless Svoboda's already desperate attacks work.

In 2005, Svoboda tried to distance himself from the despicable actions of his party. But that isn't the case this time around. At the LIBA debate, Svoboda stood perched at the entrance, shaking hands with people as they walked in, at the same time as these lies and distortions were being distributed to the audience. He was there. He benefitted. He may as well have handed the damn things out.

These people are shameless, and they must be stopped. As the Journal-Star warned in 2005:

If the attack ads succeed, they'll multiply in the next election.

Well, here we are, and that's precisely what we're seeing. After the failure of Pete Ricketts' endlessly negative 2006 campaign for the U.S. Senate - getting only 30% in Lancaster County - you'd expect Svoboda and the Republican Party would recognize that Lincoln's voters are sick of their dirty tricks.

Alas, political hacks never learn. This is how they do it because this is all they know. It looks like the people will have to teach them a lesson once more, proving once again that they are better than this degradation of our democracy by voting for a leader with actual vision and integrity. That man - that mayor - is Chris Beutler.

Go to full text...

"Privatizing Libraries" - Local Republicans' Extremist Agenda REVEALED

The War on Community, Part III

There is a very dangerous and reactionary element on Lincoln's city council. Some of the more embarrassing exploits of Republican Councilwoman Robin Eschliman have been reported before by the New Nebraska Network (1, 2), but the de facto, self-styled leader of the far-right wing Eschliman so well embodies remains - without a doubt - two-term Councilman Jon Camp.

Camp, who ungraciously bowed out of this spring's Mayoral race to instead seek re-election, has proven himself capable of outside-the-box thinking occasionally resulting in a useful bit of perspective on the council's actions and the city's direction. But, despite his capacity to think and speak for himself, a look at Camp's statements and his record quickly reveals a man whose guiding principle is greed and whose values do not represent the voters of Lincoln - Republican or otherwise.

For a taste of Camp's particular brand of self-righteous, right-wing extremism, you need look no further than his comments reported in Wednesday's Lincoln Journal-Star suggesting that the city of Lincoln cut spending and address its biennial budget's $9 million short-fall by privatizing the city's libraries:

“Let’s be conservative, fiscally responsible, not use smoke and mirrors,” [Councilman Jon Camp] said. “Now is the time to really hit the pavement and make meaningful cuts”....

Camp said he’s suggested lots of ways to cut spending, but “No one’s done a damn thing about it,” he said. “I’ve been outvoted”....

When [Councilwoman Robin] Eschliman suggested every city goal be evaluated to determine whether it creates revenue or not, Councilman Jonathan Cook said, “We’re not running General Electric here, we’re running … government.”

You can’t really place a value on pools, parks and libraries, he said.

That inspired Camp to suggest privatizing libraries....

Councilman [Dan] Marvin was amused by that suggestion. “That might be a 6-1 vote there,” he told Camp. “You’re a maverick, there’s no doubt about it.”

Considering that Eschliman had already targeted pools, parks, and libraries for cuts last spring, there's some question whether Camp would really be alone in supporting so ridiculous an idea as privatizing libraries.

Such would be an exercise in pure idelogical extremism with no concern at all for the public good. Though easily laughed away by the Democrats who still hold a slim majority on Lincoln's city council, this is the real Jon Camp we're seeing here, and there's nothing funny about him.

The sort of extremism we've seen from Camp and Eschliman in the last year shoud not be brushed aside and tolerated. It should be talked about and exposed for precisely what it is - an assault on the fabric of our communities. In fact, theirs is a war on the building blocks of a progressive society, violating the most basic precepts of democratic self-government and family values.

Camp is not "a maverick." He's a self-infatuated ideologue. Maybe that's better than Eschliman's empty business suit and empty-headedness, but it makes him no less dangerous to that which the people of Lincoln (and people everywhere) cherish and expect from their city government.

Until we are willing to address Camp, his like, and the threat they represent at precisely this level - speaking to voters' hopes but shaking them to the realization that their entire notion of community is in jeopardy - we run a very serious risk of, one day, having the smiles wiped from our faces and our dreams for continued progress shattered in one fell swoop.

Camp's not joking with his proposal to privatize libraries. Nor is President George W. Bush joking with each and every one of his out-of-touch positions. It's unfathomable, but they actually believe in their respective corporate-driven agendas. And, we should have learned by now that we can't afford to NOT take them seriously.

Nor can we count on the media to challenge them. We have to do it ourselves, keeping vigilant by speaking out and by reminding the people - at every turn - of those ideals and that vision of progress that is the best in all of us.

By exposing them for what they are, we reveal ourselves, our values, and our priorities. More than that, we remind the people of our common identity and the future we will make better by working together.

"Councilman Jon Camp wants to privatize Lincoln's libraries."

"Republicans want to privatize libraries."

It can be as simple as that. Tell that to the people - make damn sure they know it - and the rest will take care of itself.

Go to full text...