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...

A Sad Day for Nebraska Blogs

Leavenworth Street Embraces A New Low in Local Online Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 CfRA's Big Push

More than anything, the netroots have proven themselves through their ability to raise cash. We're now at the point where a candidate like Barack Obama can rise from the political woodwork and challenge the fundraising supremacy of the most established name in the Democratic Party with donations from college students, working people, single parents... people who don't usually shell out $2,000 checks to eat rubber chicken.

This momentum has been trickling down into the state blogospheres, with sites like Raising Kaine using local networks to raise money for candidates to state and federal offices... often with terrific success. In this respect, us Nebraska bloggers are behind the curve.

Not that we've eschewed fundraising in general. I should note (as I failed to note earlier -mea culpa), that NNN founder Kyle Michaelis supported an ActBlue page from this very site for the 2006 cycle, and other Nebraskan bloggers have certainly done their part to generate interest and raise funds. But I don't think we've tapped into our full potential, a potential illustrated by other state and national blogs who have perhaps been a little more forward in their solicitations.

In fact, the Center for Rural Affairs just might be the first organization in the state to break out the ole' fundraising thermometer and dream that big dream:

For years, the CfRA has provided an invaluable voice on progressive issues of concern to rural Nebraska: advocating for the state corporate farming ban, working to eliminate federal handouts to corporate mega-farms, and calling for reform of LB775 among many other admirable crusades. Now they're looking to raise $15,000 by May 15th.

A chance to support progressive causes and help prove our fundraising prowess? Sounds like a good deal to me. Let's help 'em bust this thermometer.

Click here to donate.

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...

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...

Hagel, Prince of Denmark

So there we have it. Senator Hagel's big announcement that he has nothing to announce and won't until sometime later. Wasn't that just thrilling?

Of course, prognosticators now say this is all a ploy to ward off a primary challenger, or that he's really committed to a presidential run and just hoping to get some mileage as a "fresh face" come Labor Day.

What this proves to me is we can't afford to be spectators any more. The Nebraska blogosphere has served as a vigilant watchdog of Chuck Hagel's record. That's all fine and dandy, but there comes a day when every public official must answer those critics and defend that record and for Senator Hagel, that day is Election Day, 2008. If we aren't committed to making that a contest, we can't pretend to be serious about building a "new Nebraska".

Building a new Nebraska, of course, will require a renewed two party system and the return of a true political dialogue. Neither of these goals are advanced by allowing the dean of the Nebraska Republican Party to be re-elected by acclamation. How would a campaign against Hagel work? Easy, just read the blogs:

1. It's not (all) about the War
There's little way Democrats in this state can win on the war: they can't run to Hagel's right without losing their base, they can't run to his left without losing the state. Given that every discussion involving Hagel has revolved around Iraq for at least the last two years, this has led some observers to declare Hagel invincible. In fact, it may be his greatest weakness.

Hagel can scarcely gain ground by making Iraq the central focus of his re-election. He has already isolated many of his conservative supporters, many of whom say they will never vote for him again. On the other hand, his decision to "embarrass Democrats" at the expense of an honest debate over Bush's Iraq policy should cost him whatever credibility he has on the left.

It may be possible to bridge some of the divide between Hagel's critics on the left and the right. Many Republicans seem to believe that Hagel is only attacking his president and his party to get face time on Sunday morning talk shows. Many liberals, frustrated that his passionate rhetoric doesn't match his actions on the Senate floor, feel much the same way. This may provide an opening for a candidate who aggressively campaigns on those issues which have been forgotten under the long shadow of the war.

2. Bread and Butter
Chuck Hagel has been one of the Bush Administration's most active and loyal allies: voting to drastically cut Medicaid, block PAYGO legislation, and slash federal subsidies for student loans. Not only has he voted to block a raise in the minimum wage, he's voted to abolish it altogether. This is a potentially powerful wedge issue, especially considering how effectively Ben Nelson campaigned against "Wall Street Pete".

3. Be Proactive
A high profile statewide race offers a platform to advance new ideas and promote a new vision. By leaving so many races uncontested, we've allowed the Republican Party to dominate and determine the course of political debate. A Democratic Senate candidate could change this by taking the lead in calling for federally aided rural broadband (working side by side with progressive efforts on the state level), or suggesting Congressional intervention to save Initiative 300. Seizing this opportunity to introduce Nebraskans to a true political dialogue would benefit our party in the future, even if this campaign is a bust.

Look, we ran an inexperienced, first-time candidate in the most hopeless race of 2006 and we are a stronger party for it. What good have we done by conceeding race after race after race to the Republican Party? Has it made us any stronger? Given us a bigger bench? More volunteers? Or just more of the same?

Nebraska deserves better than that. Nebraska deserves better than one party control. Nebraska deserves better than Chuck Hagel.

Go to full text...

Promises & Priorities: Unicameral Tax Cut Plans Coming Into View

On Tuesday, the Lincoln Journal-Star's Around the Rotunda column reminded the people of Nebraska that behind the scenes in the state legislature there's a very important but little-talked-about battle going on over what sorts of tax cut options will make their way out of the Revenue Committee and to the full Unicameral for debate.

There's enough momentum behind the general principle of cutting taxes - with a healthy enough forecast for the state's short-term revenue prospects - that some sort of tax cut is all but inevitable. You'll hear no complaint here. Yet, in the eyes of the New Nebraska Network, what's more important now than raw dollar amounts are the priorities we reveal as a people - demonstrated not only by the populations to whom we target tax relief but also by the quality of services maintained and provided by the state.

Unfortunately, it's hard to get much of a sense of what to expect from the legislature at this point. One expects that Gov. Dave Heineman's LB331 will make it out of committee at least somewhat intact considering that it was introduced on Heineman's behalf by its chairman, State Sen. Ray Janssen.

Yet, Janssen has expressed a genuine interest in the legislature's hands not being tied too much to any single tax cut proposal. Thank God for that because the Heineman plan is not only contrary to the will of the people for its neglect of their property tax concerns but is also against the interests of the state with its regressive shifting of the tax burden onto those least able to carry the weight.

According to the Journal-Star, the cornerstone of Heineman's argument for cutting income taxes is job creation. Looking at the actual evidence, however, this argument fails to persuade and is completely lacking in merit:

Tax cuts equals more jobs has become a mantra for Heineman, who is trying to convince the Legislature to return more than $200 million a year in income and other tax cuts.

Heineman’s belief in the power of tax cuts is based on research done by the Nebraska Department of Revenue.

The governor’s income tax cuts would result in an additional 1,500 to 2,560 jobs the first year. By 2011 the total job growth could range from 2,837 to 4,837 jobs, based on an analysis of how the additional income would move through the economy.

The department used a computer model originally developed by the Legislature’s fiscal office to determine how the state’s business incentives might affect the economy. The computer model shows how the money might move through the economy and thus create additional jobs....

The department did not look at how other tax cut options might affect the economy — including a half-cent sales tax [reduction]....

Not everyone believes the Department of Revenue study is the final word on tax cuts and economic growth.

The Nebraska State Education Association has a report on its Web site indicating there is little direct relationship between income taxes and economic development.

“In the last decade there was no difference in average growth in the top 10 most business tax friendly and the 10 least friendly states, according to Richard G. Sims from the Sierra Institute on Applied Economics.

In general, states with high economic growth had relatively higher taxes, he says. Of the 15 fastest growing states, eight had above average individual income taxes and seven had below average income taxes. Three were in the highest 10 taxing states and four were in the lowest 10 taxing state, Sims says.

Of the 15 slowest growing states, four had above average individual income taxes and 11 had below average income taxes. Four were in no income tax states.

To be honest, it's quite appalling that the Journal-Star would even dare to suggest that Heineman's argument is rooted in a "Department of Revenue study." All he offers is a computer simulation that divines some magical number of jobs created under his proposal that would remain utterly preposterous even with some basis for comparison Heineman did not see fit to provide.

Compare that to the real study cited by the NSEA - one relying on actual facts, figures, and state-by-state comparisons - completely debunking the relationship between income taxes and job creation on which Heineman so expressly relies.

The Journal-Star has put Heineman playing a game of SimCity on par with actual science and economics - demonstrating either no understanding of the issues or no respect for the truth.

Over the last two months, the New Nebraska Network has, of course, devoted considerable efforts to challenging the faulty assumptions and unprincipled priorities underlying Heineman's LB 331.

For starters, even accepting the notion that ours is a high tax state, the income tax is one of Nebraska's least burdensome in comparison with other states.

Moreover, any talk of Heineman's simplifying the income tax structure by reducing the number of brackets from 4 to 3 must be seen in light of what he truly proposes - the wholesale elimination of the lowest tax bracket, subjecting our state's youngest and most disadvantaged population to an across-the-board tax hike.

At the same time, there's no denying that under Heineman's proposal the bulk of the benefit is reserved for those currently in the highest tax bracket, particularly those economic elites who benefit most from the outright elimination of the estate tax.

It should not surprise that these same economic elites would continue to see their taxes fall bit-by-bit over the next four years, as Heineman uses a phased-in tax cut for the rich to mask the long-term liability and dangerousness of his proposal when its $240 million in lost revenues balloons to an annual loss of $310 million. That's an additional $70 million giveaway - each and every year - to no one but the state's wealthiest citizens.

Now, as the New Nebraska Network has stated before, there is room for reasonable reform of Nebraska's income tax structure. Heineman's plan just happens to be nothing of the sort. It's true that the middle class should be broadened - but to make the system more progressive, not less so. Cutting rates might even be agreeable if the ultimate benefits were distributed more fairly across the entire population.

Even with these more reasonable proposals, though, income tax reform should not stand in the way of the more essential and immediate task of reducing our heavy reliance on property taxes - hopefully introducing some progressive mechanism to protect homeowners or to at least make the property tax burden more manageable for those on fixed incomes.

A whole host of bills have been introduced proposing property tax reforms, and I regret that the New Nebraska Network has not had the opportunity to delve into them in any real detail - be they Sen. Tom White's highly-touted $500 rebate (LB 453) or a variety of exemptions, shifted expenses, and so-called "circuit-breakers."

Regardless of what ulimately survives committee, at the start of this legislative session it seemed quite clear state senators understood that property taxes are where the voters' interests lie and that they should share those same priorities.

There has been pretty intense pressure from Heineman and the Omaha World-Herald to break this lockgrip of voters' real world concerns. There has even been some suggestion in the press that a few of the more partisan Republicans in the legislature have given up listening to their constituents on property taxes and now plan to fall in-line with Heineman's proposal. Still, it's hard to believe that Heineman could possibly have the political capital to hoodwink a majority of state senators into similarly betraying the people who elected them.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out soon enough, but now is most definitely not the time to sit back and enjoy the show.

The Nebraska media has been totally irresponsible in its coverage and concessions to Heineman on this issue. Substantive analysis has been lacking as has criticism in any but the tamest and most general sense. Last month, there was even a very disturbing sign that the legislature might follow the same weak trajectory when Heineman made the rarest of appearance before the Revenue Committe - arguing on LB 331's behalf - and was only asked a single softball question by its members.

When our public opinion and policy leaders will not offer more scrutiny than that, it is incumbent upon the people to stand up and assert themselves - protecting their own interests when nobody else will.

If you are disturbed at all by the plan Heineman's put forward, the time has come to contact your state senator and to crank out those letters to the editor. There are shapes forming in the haze of legislative process off in the distance. Battle lines are being drawn behind closed doors. The facts are on our side, as is the will of the people. Let us use them both - without fail and without flinching - in defense of the greater future it falls upon us to pave the way for all Nebraskans.

Go to full text...

Hypocrites, Hatchetmen... and Hope

Dismayed that Mike Fahey has somehow weathered scandalous charges that his administration (*gasp*) refuses to raise taxes, former OWH publisher/current Republican hatchetman Harold Andersen took the Mayor to task on Sunday for daring to dream of a career outside city hall:

Omaha's genial mayor, Mike Fahey, is definitely showing signs of "politicus incurabilis." The two term mayor has indicated that he is pondering not so much whether he should run for office again but rather whether he should run for a third term as mayor or possibly seek to become a U.S. Senator.

In regard to the Senate seat, Fahey's comments seem to indicate that if he doesn't run for the Senate, his decision will be based not on lack of desire but on the practical consideration that no incumbent U.S. senator seeking re-election in Nebraska has been unseated since 1942.

Of course, Andersen offers no such diagnosis for Senator Hagel, despite the appearance of this quote in the same edition of the World Herald:

[Hagel] said he won't run unless he's confident he could win, but it's even more important to him that he feels passionately about the race.

But enough of that nonsense. Pointing out these logical inconsistencies might be fun (and it is, believe me, it is), but it's also rather useless. Andersen is nothing more than a partisan hack, and like any partisan hack he lacks the ability to distinguish virtue and vice absent party labels. This is a fact, a perhaps immutable part of human nature, and not the sort of thing a humble young blogger is likely to change with blockquotes and hyperlinks.

Asinine as Andersen's commentary may be, it is possible to extract from this column a question worth asking: why are Democrats so willing to give Hagel a free ride? More importantly, why are we, the "progressive blogosphere", apparently resigned to roll over and play dead if this Hamlet on the Platte decides to stick around for another term in the Senate?

Andersen's criticism of Fahey is unwarranted because candidates -all candidates- naturally have concerns about getting mixed up in races they can't win. Why spend all that time away from your family, groveling for dollars and scrambling from one city to the next if Election Day promises little more than a shot to the ego and a kick in the ass? Similarly, parties, PACs and 527s have to worry about protecting limited resources and reassuring dubious donors. The whole system might grind to a halt tomorrow if it weren't for that one magical component that separates politics from so many other endeavors: hopelessly irrational, starry-eyed optimism.

It's the belief that miracles can happen, that it is possible to effect real change through this convoluted system of democracy... it's that dream that convinces qualified and talented individuals to give up promising careers in the private sector to pursue public life. It's that irrational, illogical, indefensible belief that keeps those coffers filled (well, maybe not filled...), those volunteers plentiful (well, maybe not plentiful...) and those voters lined up.

If the blogosphere -we who can dream without suffering the pains of electioneering- can't supply that hope, can't find it in ourselves to produce that one element capable of lubricating the cogs of doubt and despair, then we're pretty damned useless ourselves.

Can Hagel be defeated? Hell yes he can. Senator Hagel has the misfortune of serving in a field where he can be dismissed for any reason or no reason at all. It's possible to defeat a Goliath with a David... Hagel did it himself in '96, coming out of nowhere to win in a landslide over a popular sitting Governor. But you just can't kill a giant with an empty ballot line.

Let's leave the worry and the practical considerations to others. At the very least, let's leave it to later. If hopeless (even losing) Senate campaigns against powerful incumbent Republicans can lead to a Democratic renaissance in Montana and Virginia, why not here? We need to be bold so others can be brave. Brave enough to give up a promising career in the private sector. Brave enough to weather a shot to the ego or kick in the ass. Brave enough, at least, to stand up to the Harold Andersens of the world and remind voters that virtue knows no party.

Go to full text...