Bob Kerrey: Not a Big Fan of the Blogosphere?

Omaha World-Herald columnist Robert Nelson e-mailed Bob Kerrey for his response to the Nebraska Republican and Democratic Parties using their websites to attack potential candidates of the opposing party - himself and Mike Johanns, respectively.   Kerrey's reply to Nelson suggests he's not particularly fond of the effect blogs and the Internet have had on American politics. "In the old days (before the Web)... a 'name-caller' had to get a newspaper, radio, or television to include their insult in a story. Today the parties publish their own stories and the blogs add to the mix. "The fact that The World-Herald asks me to respond to a political Web site is evidence the world has changed. The tail is wagging the dog. "Couple this...with a decline in the number of radio, television and print reporters who cover politics and you have a lethal mix. The public drinks this stuff and something good dies." There's definitely a lot of truth to Kerrey's concerns. But, despite the polarization and raw partisanship with which Kerrey is right to take issue, it's unfortunate that he should fail to acknowledge the positive contributions to democratic discourse in our country made possible by the new media.

Also, it's worth noting that here we're talking about partisan attacks by political parties that are inherently - by definition - partisan. It's not very idealistic, but there's something to be said for this being their primary purpose. Either way, such attacks certainly didn't begin with the advent of the Internet - just one more outlet beyond the parties' traditional press releases, which have often tended towards ugliness and spitefulness over the years. If anything, the Internet has made it possible for political parties to bypass the middle men in the press and take their message directly to the people. This certainly changes the dynamics of modern campaigning, but it also heightens the dangers for political parties that go too far and run the risk of shooting themselves in the foot with voters when left to pursue their worst impulses unchecked. Such a system provides more information to the people and puts more power to hold politicians accountable directly in their hands. That can't be a bad thing - at least, not entirely. At the same time, there are sites like New Nebraska Network - which I like to imagine being above the fray...even while admitting we don't always live up to that standard. Still - despite his understandable comments above - I hope Kerrey recognizes our potential to serve the good rather than simply snuffing it out. As we look to 2008 and what is already shaping up to be a very contentious campaign season, I trust NNN will be a positive force in Nebraska politics - overcoming the cheap and the easy while still having fun in the process.

Go to full text...

Harold W. Andersen Announces World-Herald Departure

Under the guise of entering the "electronic telecommunications age" upon the suggestion of friends, it appears the Omaha World-Herald is finally kicking former editor and publisher Harold W. Andersen to the curb after years of filling its opinion page with increasingly insufferable inanity.
 
Andersen is, of course, an institution in the Nebraska press, but his ultimate legacy is one of unprincipled partisanship, protecting and projecting the World-Herald's singular position of power in Nebraska politics.  Andersen has always been keenly aware of the World-Herald's influence, and he has never been shy to use that influence to advance the paper's corporate, conservative agenda - in its reporting as well as on its opinion page.  Since retiring as publisher in 1989 (after being implicated in a series of bizarre allegations involving influence-peddling and even child sex abuse), Andersen has been been officially confined to duties as a twice-weekly columnist. But the spirit of his reign has survived pretty well intact.  One hopes the symbolism of Andersen's departure, the need for change in the face of declining readership, and a new generation of reporters and columnists untainted by past regimes might allow for a true change of course at the World-Herald, embracing an ethic of responsible reporting that actually challenges Nebraska's powers that be rather than positioning itself for pre-eminence amongst them.  But, let's face it - this is the World-Herald, folks. I wouldn't count on it.  By the way, Andersen promises that he will continue to make new columns available at www.HaroldAndersen.com after his last World-Herald column on September 30th. Thank God for that. I can't imagine what the people of Nebraska would do without Andersen telling us what to think.

Go to full text...

Obermeyer's View of....the Omaha World-Herald

Nebraska cartoonist Neal Obermeyer had a pair of classics this week. I'm not quite scoundrel enough to lift both of them for NNN purposes, no matter how big a fan.

Still, I'm happy to share the following as we kick-off the Labor Day weekend. As published in this week's Omaha Reader:

Also, be sure to check out Obermeyer's most recent depiction of Hal Daub. I've given the old man a hard enough time lately, but it would be downright impolite of me not to share.

Go to full text...

Absurdities of 2008 Senate Race Explored in Detail

Two of the more respected old-timers of the Nebraska press corps, the Lincoln Journal-Star's Don Walton and Nebraska State Paper's Ed Howard, each published separate accounts today updating readers on the outlook for next year's race for the Senate seat currently held by Chuck Hagel (whose recess activities are the topic of our latest poll). Walton reports on Jon Bruning's attack dog tactics before taking a wider look at the campaign landscape: Target: Johanns. The bulls-eye has moved. Here are a couple of paragraphs from a Jon Bruning news release issued last week: "Attorney General Jon Bruning criticized the recent decision by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to close 10 Federal Farm Service agencies in Nebraska. 'These closings are not in the best interests of Nebraska,' Bruning said. `I intend to protect and defend our family farms as a member of the United States Senate.'   As mounting circumstantial evidence points toward the likelihood Chuck Hagel will not seek re-election, the spotlight begins to turn toward Johanns. Bruning, who had been targeting Hagel for his views on Iraq and immigration, may see Johanns emerging now as the chief obstacle standing between him and the 2008 Republican Senate nomination.....   Hagel has not announced whether he'll seek re-election. That decision presumably will come soon....Although he'll be in Nebraska for a number of events this month - including a visit to Husker football practice last Friday - Hagel has not scheduled his usual August congressional recess swing across the state. Meanwhile, Johanns isn't talking. But the wind is whispering yes....   Bob Kerrey is interested - if Hagel doesn't seek re-election.... "Is Bob Kerrey heading back to Nebraska?" The New York Post asked in its featured Page Six column last week. "At the recent fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton..., several Dems, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, were urging Kerrey to run for the seat of Sen. Chuck Hagel...." the report stated. It's not the first time Kerrey and Schumer have talked.   No matter how this all shakes out, Nebraska is going to be a nationally-prominent Senate battleground state in 2008. For all intents and purposes, Walton should be absolutely right about this race making Nebraska a battleground state. But, national attention has remained relatively scant - probably under the assumption that this doesn't become a race until Hagel decides not to run for re-election. In that sense, the national press is waiting for Hagel to announce his intentions every bit as much as the other potential candidates - whom Howard examines in greater detail:

Bob Kerrey and Mike Fahey and Mike Johanns are politicians from Nebraska, but it only seems like they are endlessly waiting for Senator Chuck Hagel. The situation has become an overlong example of politics of the absurd.... Johanns has not said he will not run against Hagel. Johanns and Hagel are not pals. Never have been. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  There are very strong signs, subtle and not so subtle, that Johanns wants to run.   There is no question that Johanns represents the strongest possible Senate candidate the GOP can offer. Attorney General Jon Bruning has declared for the Republican Senate nomination. He can't beat Johanns.   Kerrey and Johanns were both popular governors. Kerrey is known for a touch of charisma. Johanns is not.... Several political watchers in Washington anticipate Hagel's retirement, but no one is certain, at this writing, what he will do....   [N]o one can ever be certain of what Kerrey will do. In addition, Kerrey has a reputation for sometimes changing his mind, even after he says he has decided what he will do. Seems a rather bold statement to declare that Bruning "can't beat Johanns" in a Republican primary. Howard may be right, but I think he might be over-estimating voters' affinity for Johanns - who definitely carries some baggage from his days as Governor and his involvement with the Bush Administration that would provide some easy fodder for Bruning if he's truly willing to keep those guns-a-blazing. Also, in contrast to Kerrey's legendary charisma, Bruning has a lot more personality than Johanns - even if it is the fake charm of an overgrown frat boy who seems to be permanently running for student body President. So far, much of the speculation around this race has relied upon some expectation of coordination between Hagel and Johanns - which Howard goes out of his way to refute. Regardless, the unspoken idea driving this whole hypothetical is that Johanns (and his blandness) could reunite Nebraska Republicans - both those who've been offended by Hagel's criticism of President Bush and those who've been offended by Bruning's criticism of Hagel - and see them to an easy victory. Sounds like a perfect little plan, doesn't it? But, politics rarely play out in these sorts of paint-by-the-number schemes - especially with wild cards like Hagel and Kerrey in the deck. That first card should be played soon, though....stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed for as much chaos and ridiculousness as possible.

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...

The Hagel "Purge"

Don Kuhns draws our attention to a blog post by Matthew Yglesias deserving of our consideration: When Joe Lieberman faced a primary challenge for the sin of relentlessly supporting a catastrophically failed policy, the political establishment reacted as if this was the End Times. Now that Chuck Hagel is facing a primary challenge for the sin of mildly gesturing toward the idea that maybe we should avoid catastrophically failed policy, nobody seems to care. To this, Kuhns asks "Why isn't the media focusing on Hagel's "purge"? It's true that the 2008 Nebraska Senate race is pretty far off the RADAR for the natonal press. Some of this has to do with the Presidential race leaving little oxygen in the room for down ballot politics. Then, there's the simple fact that the Nebraska primary is still 9 months away. We bloggers and blog readers have to remember that Ned Lamont's challenge to Lieberman wasn't exactly making headlines in August 2005. Also, Lieberman had run on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2000 and for the presidency in 2004 - making him far more of a national figure than Hagel. There's also the added difficulty that there's little to report but speculation until Hagel makes his 2008 intentions clear. Finally, more than simply blaming the media, we have to give credit to the Right-Wing noise machine for its portrayal of Lieberman as a man being martyred for daring to take an unpopular but supposedly principled stand. If people want to see the "purging" of Hagel covered to the same extent, someone has to speak on Hagel's behalf. It probably falls to left-wing blogs and the Democratic Party to do some of the legwork and start spreading the word that Republican Party activists are a bunch of war-mongering zealots who are out to destroy a decorated combat veteran and true American hero like Sen. Hagel. Of course, by embracing Hagel in that fashion, we'd essentially be conceding our votes to him. Unless we're willing to play these games and give Hagel that sort of leverage (looking at his voting record, there's no way we should), we can't honestly expect this race to receive the same sort of coverage as Lieberman-Lamont.

Go to full text...

New Nebraska Network Libeled in Omaha World-Herald

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

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

Shameless cowards! See for yourself:

Public Pulse, OWH 06/14/2007

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

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

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

Lloyd J. Smith, Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Who Will Stand Up to Governor Heineman?

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

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

OWH Editorial (06/03/2007)

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

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

OWH Editorial (06/04/2007)

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

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

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

OWH Editorial (06/05/2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle Michaelis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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

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

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

That being said, I'm proud to present:

Kyle Michaelis on
"Nebraska Politics in the New Media"


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

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a blogger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, why do people care? Why do blogs receive this attention? Again, why am I here?

The beauty of blogs is that they do have a way of leveling the playing field. They might be the purest example of the marketplace of ideas that our country has ever seen. There is little-to-no cost of entry. There is no corporate censorship and, for better and worse, there isn’t much in the way of self-censorship either. It’s an emerging form of communication without any specific bounds or standards, so there’s still the perception that anyone with something worthwhile to say who’s able to say it effectively can find an audience.

Still, the question of why the news media seems so fascinated with blogs is a legitimate one. For some, I think it’s an admission that they haven’t done enough to integrate diverse viewpoints and perspectives into their reporting. For others, I think it’s a simple matter of following the hype and giving the people what they seem to want.

It might just make good economic sense. The audience for traditional media – whether the people in this room want to hear it or not – has been stagnant for years. It’s understood that, in the coming years, increased emphasis on more engaging online content is probably going to be essential just to maintain a market share foothold. From an advertising standpoint, who wouldn’t want to attract those who read blogs and watch video clips on YouTube – they’re young, they’re tech-savvy, they’re educated, and – whether to an ideology or just to John Stewart – they already tend to be loyal. They may not reflect the larger population but that’s still a demographic any advertiser wants on board.

The problem is that this idea that the new media can serve as a supplement to the traditional media seems to underestimate that the online world really is a new medium that needs to be thought about in new ways.

Then again, I wasn’t asked here to offer my thoughts on the 21st Century marketplace. That I have opinions on the matter and am only too happy to share them without invitation, however, is very reflective of my role as a blogger.

Basically, the only requirement for blogging about politics is an abundance of opinions. Writing skills come in handy. Being informed is generally a good idea. But, by and large, we are commentators.

Despite my pretenses to the contrary, bloggers are not journalists. Many of us adopt a vaguely journalistic, truth-seeking mission. Some of us do our best to uphold journalistic standards of form and objectivity. But, the only real checks are the ones we impose upon ourselves, and those can change day-to-day or as the situation dictates.

Maybe I’m projecting my own faults and my own weaknesses onto the blog community with that assessment. But, from what I’ve seen and from what I’ve written myself, there’s a critical stage of fact-checking essential in journalism that is not expected of a blogger. For lack of resources – mindful that this isn’t a job – a blogger has the latitude and might even be encouraged to rush to judgment and jump to conclusions.

Speed is a factor, but not in the same marking your territory sense as scooping your rivals. No, on a blog, the speed with which you respond is essential to the relationship with your readers. There is an intimacy born of blogging’s instantaneous and immediate nature. Bloggers are not in a position of authority. They stand in the place of the reader, the viewer, the listener – except they don’t do so passively.

Personally, I write when I hear something on the radio, read something in the paper, or see something on TV and feel the real story has not been told. When some critical bit of context has been left out, when there are obvious questions that remain to be asked – that’s when I log-in to the New Nebraska Network and share my two cents with the world.

Blogs can flesh out a story. They can provide the context that most people will not piece together themselves because they’re busy living their lives and have other priorities. Now, I think the best journalists do a good job of building that context into their own reporting. This may invite charges of bias, but it’s called informing the public. What could be more unethical and in greater violation of the public’s trust than remaining silent on an important point just to avoid the appearance of bias.

Blogs are less concerned about appearance. We’re expected to be biased, and there certainly isn’t any pressure to be polite.

While these are all strengths, they aren’t without their drawbacks. As much as it pains me and insults my fellow bloggers, I’m very concerned with the parallels between blogging and what’s become of cable news. There is definitely a level at which Bill O’Reilly serves as the televised template for what many people consider good blogging. There’s a point at which every blogger seems to declare his or her own personal “No Spin Zone” – where a single truth prevails and the fools who disagree will no longer be suffered. I find this ironic because, like O’Reilly, spin is all most bloggers really have to offer. Spin is what we do.

The difference is that your average blogger is not presenting his or her work as something that it’s not. They’re partisan and proud of it. Their readers come for the spin that caters to them or challenges them from a perspective they might not otherwise consider. This spin is not an active attempt to mislead in the worst sense of the word, but it does require that one be willing to go out on limbs and not shy away from innuendo.

I’ll be perfectly honest that I take comfort in the fact that I can be wrong and can be misled because, like anyone else, I’m relying on the news media for the facts that inform what I write. If you don’t do your job providing unbiased, in-depth, investigative reporting, the bloggers of the world will still have their opinions, but they’ll be a whole lot more ignorant and ill-informed – just like the public at large.

The people in this room, you have legitimacy. You have credibility. You have the people’s trust – whether it’s deserved or not. Take that responsibility seriously, or it will be no time at all before the talking heads, the talking points, and the worst excesses of our dueling political dichotomy have completely taken over.

Blogs can be part of the problem, or they can be part of the solution. Regardless, I think it goes without saying that blogs are here to stay. Eventually, the topic won’t be so trendy, but the medium itself will continue to develop. How much good they’ll do – what size of audience they’ll actually reach – I can’t really say. But, they’ll be around. And I expect certain voices will emerge online that become quite credible and influential – probably even here in Nebraska.

They’ll criticize bad reporting. They’ll claim bias from the left and from the right. They’ll mock our politicians and try their best to hold them accountable.

The traditional media will do what it can to co-opt the new media – to make a buck, to broaden its audience, and to keep a check on the competition. Meanwhile, politicians and their staff – who are so obsessed with image and message control – will no doubt find new and evermore creative ways to manipulate the online community for their own purposes. It’s already ridiculous now, and it will only get more ridiculous with time.

As for me and the New Nebraska Network, I’m not sure how much longer we’ll be in the blogging game. The only reason I’ve stuck with it as long as I have is because I truly believe those who share a progressive vision for this state have been horribly under-represented and their issues under-reported by the media. Also, there are important debates about Nebraska’s future that simply aren’t being discussed or even acknowledged as they should.

I have no delusions that the New Nebraska Network is going to single-handedly change Nebraska politics. But, I’m happy to have been in on the ground floor as this new medium develops, and I hope – when I’ve finally gotten sick of the sound of my own typing – there will be a few other voices to step up and follow in the New Nebraska Network’s footsteps.

There are so many important things to be said and no one way to say them – just so long as someone believes enough in the power of ideas and the strength of democracy that they’re at least willing to try.

Go to full text...

"The Fix Is In" On Unicameral's Tax Cut Plan

I can't apologize enough to readers for being unable to focus on Nebraska's ongoing tax cut debate these last few weeks. The Revenue Committee advanced its plan to the full legislature on March 29th and the next day's headlines were so outrageously one-sided that I still haven't fully recovered from the shock.

The Omaha World-Herald read:

Tax Cut Plan Called Good Balance
A proposal advances that would set aside $100 million in 2007-08 to pay property taxes.

The Lincoln Journal-Star read:

Tax Cuts: Everyone Benefits
Governor offers support to proposal that provides more than $200 million in tax relief.

I can't compete with that. It's not journalism - it's advocacy. And, it's not a damn bit objective by any stretch of the imagination.

Right then and there, the state's two largest newspapers decided for the people of Nebraska that the Revenue Committee's plan was going to go through. For almost three weeks now, I've been meaning to dissect the Revenue Committee's proposal - acknowledging that it's nowhere near as hideous and appalling as Gov. Dave Heineman's original tax cut plan but that it's also nowhere near as beneficial or equitable as the headlines would let on.

Now that the debate has actually begun on the floor of the legislature, it's probably too late to really make any attempt to beat back all the hype and the one-sided coverage likely to carry the Revenue Committee's plan through the legislature.

Only yesterday did the Lincoln Journal-Star finally carry an article admitting "there are winners and losers with the plan." But, guess what - that admission came in an article entitled:

Tax Cut Package: A Bit For Everybody

Maybe it's not the journalists - just the copy editors - who are using the full force of the press to curry favor with Gov. Heineman and to prevent an honest assessment of the weaknesses of the current proposal.

And, what of "the losers" under this tax cut plan? Who will speak for them? Who has even acknowledged that they exist in the Nebraska media but as a throwaway line in a heap of spin? They are the unmarried. They are the working poor. They are anyone in the middle-class who owns their own home because they would see so much more benefit under alternative proposals (that, polling shows, people actually prefer).

I haven't spoken up for them these last three weeks. No one else has either. And, in the rush to go along and get along with a plan specifically crafted to please everyone....so long as there is no critical analysis and no questions are asked, I doubt that anyone will be able to truly make a stand for the quiet majority of Nebraska voters who have been deliberately silenced and manipulated by the media and by the politicians in whom they place their trust.

Go to full text...

Special Event - Blogging vs. the Mainstream Media

Sorry to be so last minute, but Lincoln readers who don't have to work afternoons might still be able to make the following event, the details of which I've known for a few weeks but forgot to post. Don Kuhns suggests that you attend:

Blogging vs. Mainstream Media - "The Daily Howler" Comes to Nebraska
Tuesday, April 17th; 1:30 - 2:30 pm
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN, City Campus Union

Bob Somerby, editor of THE DAILY HOWLER (www.dailyhowler.com), a prominent political blog that de-constructs the New York Times, will discuss the mainstream press coverage of recent White House elections, especially the history-altering 2000 campaign which sent George W. Bush to the White House. Somerby will also discuss the mainstream press coverage being extended to candidates in Campaign 08. He will focus especially on the coverage of Hillary Clinton and John McCain....

Don further suggests:

Somerby has probably done more than any one person to encourage liberals and Democrats to embrace full-time media criticism as a necessity for fighting back against conservative propaganda and anti-Democrat MSM "scripts". Before Atrios, before Media Matters, it was Somerby's Daily Howler that reminded us every day that so-called "liberal" pundits and other screwballs of the elite Washington press corps are not doing us any favors. Liberal media criticism is playing a vital roll in today's politics. Anyone who is happy with the outcome of the 2006 election owes Bob Somerby a big debt of gratitude, and a listen.

I haven't read much of Somerby's work, but I'm willing to take Don's word that this is a great opportunity for local blog readers to get a taste of the national blog scene.

I must say, blogging really seems to be coming of age in Nebraska. This last weekend, I had the honor of delivering the keynote address at the Nebraska Associated Press Broadcaster Association's annual awards dinner. The topic of my speech was the the similarly-themed but more locally-flavored "Hope vs. Hype: Nebraska Politics in the New Media." The text of those remarks should be posted at some point this week (if I can find time to edit what was a 20-minute speech).

Regardless, I'm hoping to make Somerby's talk at UNL Tuesday afternoon. Maybe we'll even get the chance to compare notes. New Nebraska Network Meets the Daily Howler - sounds like an old Abbot & Costello film or an episode of Scooby-Doo. I could dig that - most definitely.

Go to full text...

The Birth Of "The Nebraska Bloc"?

Iraq War Creates Total Chaos in Nebraska Politics

Longtime Foes Nelson & Hagel Present United Front As Hagel Condemned By Mentor McCollister

The Omaha World-Herald's Thursday Editorial page - so foolishly and short-sightedly hidden away from view by online readers - was an absolute hodgepodge of political intrigue centered on debate of the Iraq War, opening whole new worlds of speculation about the future of Nebraska politics.

Unsurprisingly, in its lead editorial, the World-Herald offered an unqualifed endorsement of President Bush's expected veto of a Congressional appropriations bill including benchmarks for progress in Iraq, a possible redefining of the mission, and a non-binding target date for troop withdrawal. I'm not going to waste any time typing up what was essentially an endorsement of Bush's authority to conduct an endless war without oversight or input by Congress.

To be honest, I respect certain Constitutional concerns about Congressional interference in military operations, but denying that Congress has any powers and responsibilities over these matters is an assault on democracy itself. Congress - and the American people - must have some means to assert themselves against a President whose dictates have become increasingly tyrannical and out-of-touch.

If the World-Herald is going to condemn Congress for the actions it has taken to make some end possible to this unpopular and unjust war, then it has an obligation to discuss how Congress might better oppose a President and his policies unless he's considered to have absolute authority over U.S. Armed Forces.

But, the real action - the important stuff on Thursday's editorial page - had nothing to do with the World-Herald's opinion on Iraq. No, for the purposes of Nebraska politics, there were two other eye-popping elements that could well reverberate and have unforeseen consequences for years to come.

For starters, Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel wrote a joint article explaining their united front in casting what can honestly be called the two deciding votes allowing Congress to take this next step in challenging President Bush's Iraq War policy.

Just one week prior, both Nelson and Hagel had voted against similar measures imposing timelines for troop withdrawal. The vital role each played in crafting a more acceptable alternative proved indispensible, with the resulting changes in their respective votes making all the difference, turning what had been a two vote shortfall into a two vote advantage.

Thanks to Nelson and Hagel, the bill passed 50-48 in the Senate - on final reading passing 51-46. So, as soon as joint legislation between the two Houses of Congrss can be worked out in Committee at some point in mid-April, it will be off to President Bush's desk, where he will veto and disregard the voice of the people at his own peril.

Now, the fact that Nelson and Hagel are voting together is one thing. Then, there's also the fact that both their votes and their voices have proven so disproportionatly important in the national debate. As a political observer, though, the most intriguing fact might simply be that Nelson and Hagel have demonstrated such an unexpected and previously unheard-of united front.

Voting together? That's going to happen in a legislative body, no matter the years of supposed bad blood between Nelson and Hagel going back to the 1996 election and still very much in evidence in last year's race pitting Nelson against Pete Ricketts. But now, suddenly, they're not only voting together. It seems like they're actually working together.

On the most important issue of our day, the American people just saw the power and potential of what could be called the Nebraska bloc.

Although very different in terms of personality and approach, both Hagel and Nelson have revealed a willingness to break with strict partisanship that is very much reflective of Nebraska politics' singular emphasis on the nonpartisan ideal. In so closely divided a Senate with their respective positions as outsiders in their own parties - Nelson because he's more conservative and Hagel because he's too outspoken - I believe there is real potential for Nebraska's Senators to set the agenda for the entire country. And, maybe - just maybe - Nelson and Hagel are starting to see this for themselves.

This may all be circumstantial. Perhaps this alliance is nothing more than the product of one writer's fertile but fevered imagination. But - looking at what we've just seen, regardless of whether or not it actually exists - is there any denying the potential of the Nebraska bloc?

I really don't think so. And the benefits to our state from such a partnership could be downright beyond belief.

Sure, that could mean a lot in the way of bringing home the bacon (i.e. pork-barrel spending), but the real potential lies in exercising influence and exporting Nebraska's own particular brands of common sense and pragmatism to which we so often lay claim.

Well, here we have the opportunity to prove it - perhaps remaking the entire country in the process. Not in our image but certainly to be more reflective of our political character.

Sound crazy? It should. We're Nebraska, for crying out loud. 1.7 million people. A statewide identitiy crisis since the collapse of our college football team. So Republican that we can't possibly be considered a Swing State or even a Bellwether. Still, none of this means that some positively ridiculous levels of influece aren't a distinct possibility.

The problem is that Nelson and Hagel remain very different people, and their animosity might even remain intact. Moreover, there aren't a whole lot of issues on which they currently stand united. But that, in itself, is just one more example of how their working together could set the terms for our national debates. On immigration, on Social Security solvency, on Medicaid reform - these are all issues on which plans by Nelson and Hagel could take front and center...if they were only able to resolve their differences and come to some sort of compromise.

On some of these issues, I'm not at all convinced that I'd like what a Nelson-Hagel teaming might come up with. But, be it in the name of Nebraska's nonpartisan ideal or driven by the media's buzz word mentality towards all things bipartisan, I stand by my estimation that our Senators' potential to do great things and to make big changes really does exist. The Nebraska Bloc could be a reality, though I can't yet honestly assert that it actually is or that it ever shall be.

Which brings me to my final point - after way too much typing and way too long a night. Just days after publishing a letter to the editor from a three-term National Committeewoman of the Nebraska Republican Party defending Chuck Hagel at the expense of every other Republican in Congress, Thursday's World-Herald included a letter from former 2nd District Congressman John Y. McCollister taking a much different approach.

McCollister served three terms of his own in the House from 1971-1977. In that time, he's responsible for giving a young Hagel his start in Washington D.C. while also serving as his political mentor. The two have evidently remained close throughout the years - as evidenced by any number of statements by both men - which makes McCollister's letter so remarkable for its unmistakeable criticism of Hagel.

McCollister wrote:

Regardless of one's view on the Iraq War, the congressional votes setting deadlines for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are a tragic mistake. The president will veto the bill and give Congress a chance to do it right. Unfortunately, the votes will strengthen our enemies and dishearten our soldiers....

I believe that some people disregard the awful consequences of a premature withdrawal and want to end the war, period. Others have a consuming, burning hatred of George W. Bush as their dominant legislative priority. Those who carelessly throw out talk of "impeachment" are of the same stripe.

There is no place for blind hate, however disguised, in any legislative body.

John Y. McCollister, Omaha

No matter how vague and without mentioning him by name, there is no room for doubt that McCollister's stunning and stinging rebuke is targeted squarely at Hagel.

Hagel's has been the most prominent voice in the entire country to even mention the possibility of Bush's impeachment. According to McCollister, Hagel's "careless" use of the word speaks to "a consuming, burning hatred" of Bush that has "no place" in Congress.

In essence - looking at these statements - I'd go so far as saying that McCollister has just declared open season on Hagel's Senate seat. Hagel's friend and political mentor just said there's "no place" for him in Congress. If that's not an invitation to another prominent Republican to step-up and challenge Hagel, then I really can't imagine what would qualify as such.

The green light has been given. Gentlemen, start your engines. I still have a hard time seeing a legitimate primary challenge actually happening, but the implications from McCollister's letter are perfectly clear. There's really no mincing his words. They make quite the impression, and I'm sure Hagel got the message loud and clear.

I won't speculate any further what consequences might result. I've personally exhausted one day's editorial page to its breaking point. But, please, share your thoughts. The Freudian dynamics of McCollister vs. Hagel as father and son? The proper extent of Congress' war powers? Whether my theory about "the Nebraska bloc" makes me a Nebraska blockhead? It's all fair game, and we want to hear what you have to say.

Go to full text...

Media Spins Stories (About Bloggers Spinning Facts) To Fit Own Agenda

The New Nebraska Network received mention in Tuesday's North Platte Telegraph in an article surveying Nebraska's political blogs and our respective coverage earlier this month on the confusing reports of more than $140,000 in payments from 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith's 2006 campaign to his father, Neal Smith.

Honestly, it's a pretty fair report with a mostly accurate depiction of the events. It's only the unfortunate headline - Bloggers Can Spin Data To Fit Own Agenda - that needlessly (and so hypocritically) challenges the integrity of sites such as this and SmithWatch.

See for yourself:

Political pundits blog opinions about elected officials and sometimes, putting out information leads to criticism or kudos. The story isn’t always complete before it gets posted for the world to see, as one Nebraska blogger, Lisa Hannah, found out....

Some choose to be public with their names, like Hannah, who started SmithWatch, and Kyle Michaelis with New Nebraska Network. Others like BeatriceFiddler are anonymous, as is Uncle Wiggily who hosts a pro-Rep. Adrian Smith blog....

Nebraska Democrats are vocal about the actions of Nebraska’s elected officials, and post opinions discussing information found in newspapers, on-line news resources, and on other Web sites, like OpenSecrets.org.

OpenSecrets.org is the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics, which claims it is a “non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy.....

Hannah’s SmithWatch blog picked up on more than $116,000 that was paid to Smith’s father, Neal, for payroll processing. She quoted the source as OpenSecrets.org, which listed amounts paid to individuals and vendors for services during the election campaign.

Hannah admits she is keeping an eye on Smith; she voted for his opponent, Scott Kleeb. Michaelis blogs at New Nebraska Network, generally on the Democratic side .... However, even the information from OpenSecrets.org can be skewed, depending on the blog site.

The expenditures listed for Smith were totals, with no additional comments, memos or disclosures. Hannah and Michaelis picked up on the disclosure posting the totals to their blogs and other blogs picked up Hannah’s posting.

Smith supporters were quick to challenge the disclosures, and Smith detractors praised Hannah for telling the story....

Hannah blogged shortly after that other FEC documents showed the salaries listed in order...The salaries paid from the amount given to Neal Smith equaled the amount paid out to Smith’s employees as wages.

Although some bloggers are fielding comments that Neal Smith was paid that amount, he did not receive the money as a salary payment. And, the Smith’s did nothing illegal by paying salaries this way. Unusual, perhaps, but not illegal.

Although I was careful not to outright accuse Smith's campaign of any wrong-doing, I'll be the first to admit that I probably still overreacted to the underlying story. I've also expressed my regrets to the author of SmithWatch for helping to put her in a tough situation where she continues to be held responsible for little more than relaying to NNN and to AmericaBlog what OpenSecrets.org had already reported.

We're the ones who ran with the story and put it in the headlines, but she was left holding the bag. And, it was she who - the very next day - did the follow-up on the story that largely clarified the situation. Through it all, she never complained or attempted to blame anyone else for the confusion even though she would have been well-justified in doing so. For that, I can't possibly commend SmithWatch highly enough.

Still, I'm not going to apologize for NNN's original response. Recognizing that there are very obvious limitations on this site's resources - and that blogging/citizen journalism is a different medium with separate standards and expectations from its counterparts in the traditional media - I trust most readers would agree.

The New Nebraska Network asked a question - Did Adrian Smith's Family Cash-In on [the] 2006 Campaign? Thanks to SmithWatch, we have since received an answer that was immediately reported. The situation may not have been so suspect as it first appeared, but it remains disturbing that the press would turn a blind eye to these suspicions - or use them to undermine bloggers' credibility - rather than analyzing all the very legitimate issues and potential for impropriety raised by Adrian Smith's campaign's activities.

Payments made to a candidate's family members in such massive sums - more than $140,000 - damn well do deserve to be brought to light. Creative and still-unexplained accounting practices by politicians and their campaigns also demand investigation and disclosure to the public. Yet, it's unlikely that there would have been any sort of scrutiny whatsoever were it not for Nebraska bloggers.

This may not be our finest moment, but it's absolute proof of just how much of a need there is for the independent and progressive voices we provide that are otherwise so lacking in our state. The media won't do their job, and it's our democracy that has paid the price. So, here we are doing what we can to pick up their slack.

Our methods are somewhat different. Our motives are a hell lot more clear. And - damn it - we're not going anywhere. Deal with it.

Go to full text...

Welcome to Don Walton and Readers of the Lincoln Journal-Star

Thanks to long-time political reporter Don Walton for his (half-)mention of the New Nebraska Network in his Monday column. A nice surprise only one day removed from what is technically NNN's 2nd birthday.

The site isn't much to look at, but - please - take some time to read a couple of articles and check out the archives by searching your favorite Nebraska political topic on the right side of the page.

See for yourself what the New Nebraska Network is all about - http://NewNebraska.Net.

Easy to remember, isn't it? The name says it all. Leave a comment or two. Let your voice be heard. Hope you like what you read and that you'll join us again real soon.

Go to full text...

Hype and Hypocrisy in Unicameral Scandals

Freshman State Sen. Danielle Nantkes of Lincoln made a very poor choice on Tuesday night, apparently driving while under the influence of alcohol and crashing into a snow plow. Thankfully, this foolish mistake did not end in outright tragedy, and no one was hurt in the crash.

Still, the news media have jumped on the story - on tv, on the radio, in the newspapers - and already public cries of outrage and indignation have reached borderline ridiculous levels. For proof, look no further than the Lincoln Journal Star's website, where a mind-boggling 170 comments have already been made in response to this story.

Without making light of the very real, very dangerous, and very illegal decision Nantkes made to drive while impaired, it's hard to reconcile the amount of criticism she's receiving with the generally lackadaisical approach of the Nebraska media to our elected officials. The New Nebraska Network's archives are replete with stories of politicians making just as grave of decisions, except in a public capacity and with much more lasting effect.

Of course, I understand that a controversial vote is never going to be as sexy as a scandal. But, I have to question the priorities and the integrity of those who've made such a spectacle of the Nantkes incident while turning a blind eye to the would-be scandals of even greater public concern that abound in Nebraska politics. For a perfect example, let's take a look at the following story from Wednesday's Omaha World-Herald:

Ex-Senator Lobbies for Deal He Initiated

Fomer State Sen. Don Pederson is being paid $20,000 to help push through a $12 million deal for the state to buy a Lincoln office building - a deal that he helped initiate while a member of the Nebraska legislature....

The possible purchase of the Assurity Life building became public last month, when Gov. Dave Heineman included it in his budget proposal. The purchase must be approved by the Legislature....

William Schmeeckle of Assurity Life said Pederson was the first person the company approached, about 18 months ago, to learn whether the state had an interest in the building. Pederson took the idea to the governor.

Pederson said Assurity Life President Tom Henning asked him about the idea at church one Sunday. Both men attend First-Plymouth Congregational Church in Lincoln.

Jack Gould, a spokesman for Common Cause, criticized Pederson for taking the job and said he found it particularly concerning that the purchase was under way before Pederson left the Legislature....

"State Senators are entrusted by the public to serve the public," Gould said. "When you turn that public trust into profit, that's wrong."

Schmeeckle said $20,000 was the amount Pederson requested for the job. As a state senator, Pederson was paid $12,000 a year.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that this is not the sort of "scandal" the media typically hunts because, frankly, they are so commonplace at all levels of government.

Here, there's not going to be a smoking gun. Rather than a shadowy backroom, we're talking about a deal that was supposedly made at church. None of that changes the fact that this entire situation stinks and that - yes - it represents a much greater threat to the people of this state and the integrity of their democracy than Nantkes getting ticketed for drunken driving.

Has Pederson broken the law? Probably not. But, I would contend that the impropriety of his receiving what is basically a "finder's fee" for actions taken as a state senator is a far more serious problem, more relevant to the future of our state than the potential illegality of Nantkes' conduct.

But, which story will get the Letters to the Editor? Which one will invite more complaints and calls for investigations? Which one are we going to hear about for months - if not years - in strawman arguments and partisan attacks? Sadly, I think we all know the answer to those questions.

A promising young woman just starting her political career made a terrible choice that jeopardized other's lives, and - for it - she will pay a steep price. At the same time, however, a man in the twilight of his political career also made a terrible choice that betrayed the public's trust, but - for it - he will cash-in on $20,000.

The scandal-mongers have spoken. Their concerns are clear. But, those concerns are most definitely not the best interests of Nebraska or we'd be talking about a much different balance between these respective controversies.

State Senators are only human. Of the corporations that own our major media outlets, I can only ask, "What's your excuse?"

Go to full text...

Why Heineman's Tax Plan is Just Plain Wrong

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that some semblance of balance had finally been attempted by the media as both the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal-Star reported on the very real shortfalls of Gov. Heineman's proposal to shift the tax burden onto the working class and the poor. The World-Herald's article was particularly relevant because it also delved into the raw numbers that show Nebraska's tax problem is a property tax problem - one the people will not forget and the state can no longer ignore.

The World-Herald reported (it's not always I can write that with a straight face, but here deserved):

Supporters of a broad income tax cut being pushed by Gov. Dave Heineman say it's a simple way to get significant change for nearly all taxpayers.

The governor's plan, Legislative Bill 331, also would deal with what business leaders long have argued is one of the biggest impediments to job growth: an income tax rate on top earners that is among the highest in the nation...Nebraska's current top rate, 6.84 percent, is the 17th-highest in the country....

National tax comparisons do show that the state's property tax rate stands out more than income taxes. Nebraska also is one of about a dozen states that don't have an exemption, credit or lower rate for property taxes for the typical homeowner....

Sen. Ron Raikes of Lincoln, a veteran member of the Legislature's Revenue Committee, defended the way Nebraska treats higher incomes. The other primary taxes that fund state and local government - property and sales taxes - take a bigger amount, percentagewise, from modest earners' paychecks.

"Income tax is the only progressive tax we have," he said....

Overall, national rankings do suggest Nebraska's property taxes are more out of step than its income taxes....

[T]he state's property taxes rated 18th nationally and income taxes ranked 29th. Income was the one tax area that was in the bottom half, with sales taxes (18th) and automobile taxes (10th) also ranking high.

Even at the $150,000 income level, the study put Nebraska's income taxes 23rd - still below the state's property tax rank.

So, let's just get a few things straight about where Nebraska stands in terms of high taxes:

Automobile Taxes - 10th
Sales Taxes - 18th
Property Taxes - 18th
Income Taxes (at $150,000) - 23rd
Income Taxes (generally) - 29th

And, here is a nice look at what percentage of the state's total taxes come from what source (courtesy of the Legislature's Revenue Committee):
With numbers like these, Heineman's focus on income taxes clearly doesn't make much objective sense - except for the fact that he is a Republican and benefitting the rich is generally what Republicans do.

The income tax is our least burdensome tax (in national rankings) and our only progressive tax (in asking more of the wealthy). While the system could certainly use some tweaking, it has no place being Gov. Heineman's main priority because it is not the people's priority. Nebraskans want property tax relief, and the facts are on their side.

As the illustration shows above, the people of Nebraska pay more than 20% more in property taxes than they do in income taxes. The property tax is regressive. It undermines our communities and our stake in home ownership. And, we are actually out-of-touch in our treatment of property taxes as one of the only states that does not provide some sort of credit or exemption on a taxpayer's home.

The facts speak for themselves. And, the people have spoken as well. So far, Gov. Heineman has refused to listen. We can only hope that the state legislature will respect the voters who elected them enough to speak with one voice - loud and clear - rejecting Heineman's agenda and demanding that the state focus on property tax relief.

Go to full text...