Chuck Hagel Lashes Out

From Friday's Omaha World-Herald, here are some choice quotes by Nebraska's Republican Senator Chuck Hagel on last week's brutal killing of the comprehensive immigration reform package that would have probably created as many problems as it would have solutions:

Three of the four U.S. senators from Nebraska and Iowa joined with a majority of their colleagues Thursday in killing a controversial immigration bill and likely putting off action on the emotional topic until after the 2008 elections.

With 46 senators supporting it, the bill fell well short of the 60 needed to clear a procedural hurdle.

The legislation, backed by President Bush, included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a large guest-worker program and increased border security and workplace enforcement.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., was the lone Midlands senator to vote in favor of keeping the legislation alive. Voting against it were Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Hagel had harsh words for those who helped bring down the legislation.

"We walked away from a tough problem, and we failed America today," Hagel said....

Even supporters weren't in love with the bill that was before the Senate this week. Hagel said it was inferior to one the Senate passed last year.

But the country's immigration problems have to be addressed, Hagel said. "We continue to defer the tough choices," he said.

Hagel blamed TV and radio talk shows and "political hacks" for giving the public the impression that nothing was being done on border security when, in fact, the country has spent billions on such efforts.

He said the number of illegal immigrants — there are an estimated 12 million in the country — will continue to balloon before the matter resurfaces in Congress.

Hagel said the illegal immigrants will remain hidden, not pay taxes and not be as productive as they could be. He said unscrupulous employers will continue to hold workers' illegal status over their heads as a means to hold down wages.

"Most are decent people who came here for the right reasons," Hagel said. "We lose all the way around".....

Hagel's office...was getting plenty of correspondence. A spokesman said the office had received more than 3,000 contacts related to the immigration bill over the past few weeks.

"My phone lines right now are jammed — nobody can get in, people upset with me," Hagel said during a conference call immediately after the bill died.

I'm not for passing bad legislation just so Congress can show its accomplishing something. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin call this bill "an unworkable mess." Even though he's gearing up for a re-election campaign and surely taking those considerations to heart, I'm inclined to agree. Still, I appreciate Sen. Hagel's apparent sense of moral duty on this issue and his calling out the rightwing talk show circuit for their shameless lies and fear-mongering about the present condition of our nation's borders. It's also pleasant to see Hagel speaking of our undocumented workers as true human beings who love and support their families rather than the law-breaking vagrants imagined by most Republican commentators (and whatever the hell Lou Dobbs qualifies as).

Still, even though an overhaul of our entire immigration system is long overdue, it now falls on Congressional Democrats to take charge of the border security debate by using their majority to pass practical and humane solutions that don't betray our national character. This issue has been left to fanatics such as Iowa's Steve King and Colorado's Tom Tancredo for far too long. Furthermore, it's time to make some headway on new security, identification, and enforcement measures so that questions of what to do about the 12 million-plus immigrants who are undocumented can no longer be dismissed by the likes of Sen. Nelson, who at least seems to have backed away from his previous progress-impeding rhetoric that drummed up opposition to any plan with a perceived Amnesty component.

By the way, an anonymous Republican Senator just denounced Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to Washington Post columnist Robert Novak because of McConnell's flip-flopping on immigration and his inability to rally the party faithful behind their President's agenda. Although it would be incredibly uncharacteristic for Hagel to say anything off the record - giving up the opportunity to get his name in the headlines - there is a definite air of familiarity to the statement below:

"If this were a war, Sen. McConnell should be relieved of command for dereliction of duty."

Hagel may still want to keep his options open for 2008, and a good way of closing those in a hurry would be his publicly attacking the only national party leader this side of John McCain (who doesn't have such a hot track record in Nebraska) who would actually came to Nebraska to campaign on his behalf. Still, that definitely reads like a Hagel statement, and the fact that it ran in the always Hagel-friendly Washington Post certainly doesn't dissuade from this quite reasonable inference.

Go to full text...

Will the Democratic Party Follow Ben Nelson's Lead on Immigration?

Sen. Ben Nelson is a man who knows how to get things done. We've seen that on Iraq, where Nelson has quietly but confidently helped lay out the pathway for establishing accountability and Congressional oversight over a war that was allowed to spiral out-of-control unchecked for almost four years under the Republican Congress. Now, on immigration, the other cable news-approved BIG ISSUE of the day, there are reports that the Democratic Congress again seems ready to follow Nelson's lead, keeping faith with the American people and proving to them the Democratic Party can overcome the gridlock and partisan procedural hurdles that have too long stood in the way of progress.

The following U.S News article is based on a story from the ultra right-wing Washington Times, so it's somewhat suspect. But, what truth there is in the report reinforces Nelson's place as one of the Democratic Party's premiere power-brokers and expert navigators through treacherous political waters when people are finally ready to listen to the American people and get serious about getting stuff done.

The immigration bill is back, with the Senate expected to debate it over the next two weeks. Senate passage is by no means assured, but the measure appears to have a fighting chance of surviving the legislative maneuvers and counter-maneuvers expected of the next couple of weeks. Keen observers of the current debate, however, have long expressed reservations about the chance of anything close to the Senate "grand bargain" (the bipartisan legislation including both border security measures and a "path to citizenship") making it through the House. In the House, Republicans seem firmly opposed to the legislation -- while Democrats are wary of passing any immigration bill without GOP support.

But now Democratic leaders may have found a partial way out of this impasse. The Washington Times reports this morning House Democrats "say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support." That "could buy Democrats more time to work out the tougher aspects of immigration, such as what to do about the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now here, but it would go against the Senate's massive catchall approach and contradicts President Bush's call for a broad bill to pass."

I've long advocated comprehensive immigration reform and have taken issue on numerous occcasions with Nelson's playing the "Amnesty" card with such unprincipled abandon. But, comprehensive reform does not require a single piece of comprehensive legislation if our politicians are truly willing to tackle the full scope of our nation's immigration problem in a responsible and timely manner.

By adopting the "Border Security First" approach that was so successful in Nelson's 2006 re-election effort, there is a definite opportunity for Democrats to make a reasonable start tackling what is understandably a very complicated issue. But, the problem is actually backing-up and proving their commitment to a total overhaul of our broken system after getting the easy stuff out of the way.

Border Security First is a great slogan....it's probably even a good strategy....but, just like saying we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq, the American people must demand a more complete answer from any elected official who is honestly deserving of their trust.

Although I differ with Sen. Nelson on a number of issues, his political acumen is not in question. In fact, as we've seen on Iraq and perhaps now even on immigration, national Democrats would do well to take his counsel and his example seriously if they have any real intention of restoring their party as a viable alternative in America's Heartland. My only hope is that they cut a few less corners and avoid Nelson's unfortunate tendency to occasionally use a good soundbyte at the expense of good policy.

Nelson is a politician - a damn good one at that. On immigration, though, real lives are at stake. It's important to establish who is here as a matter of national security. But, figuring out where things stand so we can move forward in a humane and responsible manner does not support lining up millions of people as if they were pawns on America's political chessboard.

We're not the party of Iowa's xenophobic, Joe McCarthy-loving Congressman Steve King (featured in yesterday's Omaha World-Herald). Thank God for that - we can do so much better. By learning from Nelson's success but improving upon his message by answering the tough questions, that's precisely what we'll do.

Go to full text...

Ben Nelson's Position On Immigration Is A Joke. . . Literally

I've never shied away from criticizing Ben Nelson's continued failure to recognize how important it is that the United States do something to address and relieve the plight of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants already living in our country.

In 2006, I grew to have a begruding respect for his "Border Security First" campaign theme because he was right that the political exigencies of the day weren't going to allow for any true comprehensive reform of our nation's immigration policy. But, as soon as the Democratic Party assumed control of both Houses of Congress - with a Republican President desperate for some action that might give him at least one issue on which his presidency might one day be considered something more than a complete disaster - Nelson's most persuasive argument for not supporting comprehensive reform quickly lost its credibility and became an inevitable source of contention.

I won't deny that Nelson has a great fallback line declaring the current proposal before Congress "Amnesty with a Roadtrip." But, shame on him for debasing this important debate that affects millions of lives by using these cheap, Republican-inspired scare-tactics to suggest that amnesty is some great evil against the American public.

Of course, it's pathetic how so many lawmakers fumble about in vain efforts to prove the current plan does not include amnesty, but it's downright unconsciounable for Nelson to exploit their cowardice, playing games with hot button buzz words rather than dealing with the issue in a fair, honest and reasonable manner.

Nelson makes some valid points arguing for a different course than what we currently see before Congress, but he undermines them completely by engaging in this absurdist anti-"amnesty" campaign. The absolute worst example of this is when Nelson justified his position by declaring to the Omaha World-Herald:

"I plan to vote against the bill. . . It's amnesty any way you look at it. Amnesty in the dictionary is a sort of forgiveness. There is a forgiveness here."

How can Ben Nelson dare to call himself a Democrat, let alone a Christian, making foolish arguments like that - as if forgiveness were not a virtue and compassion were some sort of sin?

Like it or not, the current proposal mandates stiff penalties of thousands and thousands of dollars. If that's not tough enough for Nelson, that's one thing. But, there's no logical limit to his lock'em up and throw away the key (toss'em out and build a higher wall) philosophy. Nelson is contributing to an American society so ruled by fear that it can no longer even find the capacity to forgive. For that, he deserves the harshest rebuke.

I'm sorry, but these sorts of comments are beneath Ben Nelson, and they're beneath the people of Nebraska. I can respect Nelson for not doing a total flip-flop and forgetting his campaign promises post-election. But, he owes his country and his constituents better than representing his position in such silly and insulting fashion.

What's funny is that, despite my long-standing advocacy for comprehensive reform, I can't even say I'd support the proposal currently before Congress. Though we can't - as a matter of common sense and national security - afford to wait years before recognizing those in our midst hiding silently in the shadows, there are legitimate reasons to question and to challenge the proposed guest worker program that could create a permanent under-class without any opportunity to truly partake in the American dream.

Regardless of these principled concerns, though, this debate deserves better than what we're seeing from Nelson and company, whose manipulation of over-hyped rhetoric calls into question the integrity of our democracy with their childish adherence to A-word hysterics.

As for the headline of this little article, Ben Nelson's position on immigration has most definitely been a joke up to this point. Nor am I the only one who seems to think so. I suspect people will get a kick out of this clip from ABC's late night Jimmy Kimmel Live that puts Nelson's rhetoric in the silly light that it deserves.

Of course, it's the Kimmel show....so we're not talking about comedic gold. In fact, some people might not even find the clip funny at all - a sentiment I understand completely when it comes to Nelson's running gag on immigration policy.

What we've seen from Nelson so far - with all his talk of "amnesty" - most certainly is a joke, but - no - there's not a damn thing funny about it.

Go to full text...

Lee Terry Is An Irresponsible Twit

Paranoid Congressman Abandons Constituents; Passes the Buck to Ben Nelson on Omaha Earmark Requests

Two months ago, I wrote about Lee Terry's political stunt, playing games with essential federal funding for the city of Omaha to advance his self-serving partisan agenda. At that point, Terry had neglected to request any earmarks for his constituents using the silly excuse that he could not do so under newly-imposed ethics requirements by the Democratic Congress.

At the time, David Obey, the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, gave all representatives a one month extension to get any concerns addressed to the point that they could make requests with confidence of their ethical propriety. In that month, Terry's fellow super partisan stooge, Adrian Smith, decided to do what was best for his 3rd District constituents rather than continuing to play this partisan game with their best interests. Terry, however, was just stubborn, stupid, and self-centered enough to persist in this intelligence-insulting gambit jeopardizing a number of essential projects in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District.

The Omaha World-Heard reports:

Earmarks are special provisions that individual members of Congress attach to spending bills to direct federal money to specific projects.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Lincoln and Iowa Rep. Steve King, both Republicans, are among this year's earmark seekers. Rep. Adrian Smith, a rookie with barely four months on Capitol Hill, sought earmarks on behalf of Nebraska's sprawling 3rd Congressional District. But not Rep. Lee Terry.

The Omaha Republican said he was too worried about those ethics rules, which require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in an earmark.

Terry said he was afraid that House Democrats might attempt to show that he stood to profit from one of the earmarks.

Terry has shown little hesitation in the past about seeking federal funding to finance city sewers, local university research and other projects.

This spring, The World-Herald examined two sets of earmarks by Terry and other Nebraska congressmen: to fund construction of an Interstate 80 interchange in rural Sarpy County and to subsidize an Omaha business, 21st Century Systems Inc., as it tries to develop computer software for the Defense Department.

Terry, who received campaign contributions from people wanting earmarks for those projects, vigorously defended his role in both instances.....

Democrats, who won control of Congress last year, instituted new ethics rules, including ones on earmarks....

Terry said others seem to be willing to take the risk of submitting requests, but he isn't. He said he needs to be above reproach because he previously spoke out in favor of reforming the earmarks process.

Terry also said there was considerable confusion over the rules. He said his staff was told informally by ethics committee staff members that an earmark to pay for sewer separation projects in Omaha could be interpreted as a financial interest for him, because it might affect property taxes on his Omaha house.

He also said the Democrats controlling the House seem driven to find violations of the policy: "This is truly the most vicious 'gotcha' atmosphere I've ever seen," Terry said.

Others described the new rules as simply an attempt to provide transparency in the process as well as guidance to congressmen.

The rules make it clear that there has to be a direct and foreseeable benefit to a congressman before there is a violation, said Brian Svoboda, a Washington attorney who primarily advises congressional Democrats on ethics rules.

"They were not intended to preclude members from doing anything to help their constituents through the appropriations process," Svoboda said. According to the rules, a financial interest would not include "remote, inconsequential or speculative interests."

The rules encourage lawmakers to seek advice from the ethics committee if they are worried that specific earmarks could represent a financial interest.

Terry previously released the list of earmarks he had planned to ask for, including $6 million for a project to separate waste and storm water sewers in older parts of Omaha.

Typically, only a fraction of the multimillion-dollar requests are awarded; the city has been receiving about $500,000 a year for sewer separation.

Still, losing a half-million dollars a year could stall the efforts, said Paul Landow, chief of staff to Mayor Mike Fahey. Landow said Terry has been supportive in getting that money before, and the city hopes Terry will reconsider ending his support....

Nebraskans can always hit up their senators, Democrat Ben Nelson and Republican Chuck Hagel. Nelson sits on the Appropriations Committee, which wields a great deal of influence over how federal funds are doled out.

"Lord Nelson will be their savior," Terry said. "'Just go talk to Ben' - that's what I'm telling them."

Nelson, who also owns a house in Omaha, submitted a request for the City of Omaha sewer separation money, said his chief of staff, Tim Becker. Nelson signs statements that say he has no financial interest in his earmark requests, Becker said.

A Hagel spokesman declined to comment, but Hagel previously has talked about how appropriations are the result of the state's entire delegation working together....

Becker, the Nelson aide, also cited the importance of having support from other members of the delegation. "Those projects that have support in both houses stand a better chance of getting funded," he said. "They're not going to give you what you don't ask for."

Lee Terry has just told the people of Omaha that he doesn't give a damn about their concerns. Driven by either paranoia or political ambition, he's given up any pretense of true representation. By adopting this new philosophy of "Go talk to Ben," Terry has completely turned his back on his own constituents, demonstrating a total lack of character and courage without any sense of responsibility or shame.

No one can say exactly what game Terry thinks he's playing. But, one thing is certain - he's screwing over the city of Omaha in the process. This is a man who just last year thought of himself as next in line to run for statewide office, yet who's now so scared of his own shadow and so conscious of his weak political position that he's gone from being a very poor representative to one who is absolutely pathetic.

A number of new nicknames for Terry quickly come to mind. Lee "Off Duty" Terry? Lee "Talk to Ben" Terry? How about Lee "Fire Me & Give Someone Else a Chance" Terry?

Seriously, Omaha couldn't do much worse than what they've got. That realization started to sink in last fall when insurgent Democratic challenger Jim Esch shocked Terry with the closest race of his career on a shoestring budget. Right now, Terry has just admitted that the Second District is without representation and doesn't have a voice in the House. Thanks to Terry's cowardice, all they have is Ben Nelson - a powerful ally who still can't possibly make up for Terry's incompetence.

Nebraska's Second District deserves so much better, despite the voters' repeated mistake sending this cowardly incompetent back to Congress. 2006 demonstrated that more and more people are waking to the need for change, and they'll have that chance again in 2008.

Ultimately, Omaha doesn't need to look to "Lord Nelson" to be its savior. By getting rid of Lee Terry, the voters can save themselves.

Go to full text...

Congratulations to Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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...

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...

Nelson and Hagel 'Walk the Walk' on the Iraq War

Dave Sund of the UNO College Democrats' blog - and a frequent contributor at Daily Kos - has put together two excellent reports on the deciding votes cast by Nebraska Senators Ben Nelson (D) and Chuck Hagel (R) in Tuesday's 50-48 showdown over keeping an Iraq War withdrawal date attached to the latest Appropriations Bill. As much as I love the sound of my own typing, I'm happy to let Dave tell you the rest since he's already done such a good job with the story. Definitely check out both of the above links.

But, please be sure to come back to the New Nebraska Network for our next big report on State Sen. Kent Rogert's inexplicable fondness for Nickelback and Poison - the white-trash poet of my generation and the shame of 80s hair bands, respectively.

Go to full text...

A Little Bit of Fun With Ben Nelson

In my lifetime, I can't say that I ever expected that I might one day see a headline reading "Sen. Ben Nelson: Crazy Stones Fan." Yes, the "Stones" in question are none other than The Rolling Stones - those ageless rock gods who might be the only thing other than cockroaches to survive the next Ice Age.

Ben Nelson a Stones fan? The same Ben Nelson who sings indescribably catchy country songs about his love for Western Nebraska? The same Ben Nelson whose musical choice I was forced to defend last October when he told the Lincoln Journal-Star he "likes Sousa marches"? THAT Ben Nelson listens to the Rolling Stones?

Well, that's what we're supposed to believe if the Washington Post's headline writers and behind-the-scenes political blogger know what they're talking about.

The Post's The Sleuth "reports":

Just how big and crazy a Rolling Stones fan is Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)? So big and crazy... that he's linking to the legendary rock band's European tour schedule on his official Senate web site.

The Benator, as his staff calls him, has one of the more fun-for-Congress Web sites....It has a "Benformation" news ticker, where you can plan your Summer trip to the nation's stinking hot capital. Or learn about the "Budget Vote-O-Rama" on the Senate floor. Or... keep up to date with the Stones' concert schedule.

The Benator's ticker provides a hyperlink to the official Rolling Stones Web site touting its "A Bigger Bang" summer tour through Europe....

Nelson's site also features a 10-second riff off Keith Richards's acoustic lead-in to the Stones' hit song "Factory Girl" off the band's 1968 "Beggars Banquet" album....

Nelson...manage[d] to score tickets to the Stones' first show in Omaha in close to 40 years last January. (Yes, it was Nelson's first live Stones' concert; He's not exactly a live-music kinda guy.)

To think, it's not even April Fools Day yet. Sadly, it seems Nelson's website has been rearranged since last week, when the above article was published, and I've been unable to find any trace of the Stones' tour schedule or Keith's "acoustic lead-in." The always handy "Benformation" does, however, mention its being featured in the Washington Post - with a link - so at least some remnant remains of whatever ridiculousness previously occupied the page.

I'm just sorry I missed it. Not the biggest Stones fan - more of a Who man myself. But, I'm glad Nelson's staff has found such creative ways to amuse themselves, and the New Nebraska Network salutes the Benator's efforts to broaden his musical horizons.

Skip the Zeppelin, check out some Bowie, and I think this could be the start of something beautiful.

Go to full text...

Ask Senators Nelson and Hagel to Embrace Online Reporting

The Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S.223) has been introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan coalition led by Russ Feingold (WI) and including such Senators as John Kerry (MA), Barack Obama (IL), Dianne Feinstein (CA), John McCain (AZ), and Ken Salazar (CO). The Sunlight Foundation explains this worthy and long-overdue reform of the U.S. Senate's rules for Campaign Finance reporting:

Before an election, money pours into the coffer of candidates. And because of online reporting, the press, citizens and you can see which lobby groups are trying hardest to buy their lawmakers' favor...except if the candidate is running for the Senate.

Election rules require every candidate for the House of Representatives and the Presidency to file finance reports online with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Voters can immediately see which interest groups are supporting each candidate.

Yet despite nearly seven years of grassroots efforts, the Senate has refused to subject itself to the same rule. Senators file their campaign finance reports on paper, and then taxpayers pay a quarter of a million dollars for those paper results to be entered into a computer, which is then shared with the public months after the contributions are made and weeks after they are filed.

Members of the public go into the voting booth not knowing who has paid for the campaigns of the people for whom they are voting. In 2004, voters entered the voting booth while $53 million in campaign contributions were still unreported.

It's time to bring some transparency to the Senate. Please tell your Senators that you want them to support S. 223 that would require FEC reports to be filed online.

The bill is now in the Committee on Rules and Administration of which Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Chuck Hagel are both members. According to the Sunlight Foundation, it is important that the bill leaves committee without amendments or it will be killed.

Nelson, Hagel, and the entire U.S. Senate should not fear accountability and citizen oversight. Nor should they feel entitled to play by different rules than the U.S. House and Presidential candidates. Online campaign finance reporting has been a positive step for our democracy, giving citizens and sites such as this the power to exercise an important check on the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Please sign the Sunlight Foundation's online petition, and contact Senators Nelson and Hagel to ask that they support S.223 - as is - on behalf of the people of Nebraska, itself home to one of the best and most progressive campaign finance systems in the country.

Go to full text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Iraq: As Ben Nelson Goes, So Goes the Nation

I have no doubt the time will come that I am again compelled to challenge Sen. Ben Nelson on his moderate-to-conservative voting record. But, for today and for the manner he's conducted himself in the last month, I could not be prouder to be represented by this man and to have shared in the wisdom of Nebraska's voters by playing some small part in his landslide reelection last November.

With the newly emboldened and newly Democratic Congress finally putting the Iraq War at the forefront of its agenda where it belongs - finally reflecting the American public's concerns - Ben Nelson has been an inspiration and, I dare say, a vision of moral clarity.

Personally, I do not believe there is a Senator more in touch and attuned to the American people on the issue of Iraq than Nebraska's own Ben Nelson.

Now, that is not wholly praise because we all bear some burden for this situation ever getting to the sad point at which it now stands. But, it remains to Nelson's and Nebraska's credit that he now offers such a voice of passionate pragmatism that will no longer stand silent as the U.S. Armed Forces and the Iraqi people suffer for President Bush's "stay the course" status quo.

Nelson - like the voters he represents, like the American public - has given Bush the benefit of the doubt and has strived, for four years, to see our mission in Iraq clearly articulated with honest and achievable goals. Finally - in unison, in Nelson's voice - Bush's bluff has been called after a painful period of realization forced by Bush's plan to escalate military operations without any real change in our disastrous course.

We, the people, are torn by the Iraq War. Most of us do not have the luxury to claim, in any absolute terms, that we know how to make the best of this horrible situation. What we do know and what unites us is the simple understanding that President Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership are, each day, failing this country and our troops by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that their strategy and their assumptions have been so flawed that we must totally rethink this war or suffer casualties and long-term consequences almost unimaginable in scale.

The line has been drawn. There is no single, dominating idea for where we go from here, but the people will not and should not tolerate more of the same. Yet, "more of the same" is precisely what Bush proposes, and that defiance of reason and democracy has wakened the unexpected wrath of Nelson, a mild-mannered Midwestern Senator who has often been a Bush ally but who can not stand for this persistent imperiling of American lives in the name of a cause that long ago lost any shred of credibility or pretense of principle, giving way to more empty and cynical war-mongering rhetoric than was seen even during the Vietnam War.

In the last month, Sen. Nelson has emerged as a titan in the shadows demanding an honest debate of our policy in Iraq. More than that, he has demanded that the American people at last be heard in opposition to Bush's escalation. There have been legitimate questions about how best that opposition should be expressed - not all have agreed with the resolutions that Nelson has played such an indispensable role in crafting - but Nelson has earned the respect and the thanks of the nation for the integrity he has displayed in making every attempt to forge a powerful and substantive statement of opposition that could achieve the true bipartisan support it holds in the American public but not in the halls of Congress.

Best of all and truest to Nelson's character, he has made himself clear on this issue not by putting himself front-and-center in the media spotlight but by doing the work and by getting things done. No other U.S. Senator has been as close to this debate and as essential to forcing each Senator to take a stand on Iraq as Sen. Nelson. And, certainly, no other Senator has played so great a role with so little fanfare and self-aggrandizing. That's just who Ben Nelson is.

The New Nebraska Network takes this opportunity to salute Sen. Nelson - thanking him for all he has done and will do to give the American people the debate and our Armed Forces the honesty that is the very least they all deserve.

In closing, I will let Sen. Nelson speak for himself - quoting, first, his statement from the Senate floor preceeding yesterday's vote on the House Resolution and, second, his expression of outrage and dismay at the Republican leaderships' continued tactics suppressing the dissent of the American people whose voice they so clearly fear.

Before Vote

[T]oday I think it's pretty clear there's been much debate about the debate. My friend from Kentucky indicated that he is frustrated. I think we are all frustrated.

We're frustrated because it's time to end this charade and move forward to the consideration of the Resolution so that the Senate can be on record with senators voting for or against the surge plan. The American people can see what's happening here. They know that some want to prevent a vote at all costs....

Let us debate and vote on this Resolution. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the American people because of the importance of this Resolution to making clear that we do not support...putting our troops in harm's way in the middle of a civil war or a war that is simply between Shias and Sunnis, Shias and Shias, and other civil groups within the community.

We don't have to understand 1400 years of this battle to know that this is an inappropriate to put our troops into the middle where it's impossible to identify the enemy. We put our troops into a situation where they are going door-to-door, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi troops, hopefully with some support from Prime Minister Al-Maliki, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi government. But, in any event, the surge, which the president has said is going forward, will put our troops in that situation.

I, for one, do not believe that that is an appropriate use of our troops, and I believe today that this is the opportunity for the Senate to be able to say "no" by saying "yes" to moving forward on this Resolution

After Vote

This is a dark moment in the history of the United States Senate. By failing to consider this measure, the institution has failed the American people. Blocking an up-or-down vote on this Resolution prevents the Senate from expressing its opinion on the most pressing issue facing the nation: the proposed deployment of troops to the crossroads of civil war in Iraq.

The Majority has offered the Minority several proposals to allow votes on different resolutions. All offers have been rejected. And now, again, the Minority has obstructed an up-or-down vote on the Resolution passed by the House of Representatives yesterday.

Above, Nelson may speak for himself, but he expresses the frustration and outrage of a democracy that will no longer be denied this overdue debate. Nelson may be Nebraska's junior Senator, but - on the issue of the Iraq War - he has proven himself an unheralded leader to the entire nation.

Go to full text...

Nebraska Unites in Rejecting Bush's Iraq Escalation

Thank you to Sen. Ben Nelson (D) and to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) for their votes this afternoon to allow the U.S. Senate and the American people to be heard in opposition to President Bush's plan for escalation of the war in Iraq.

Hagel was one of seven Senate Republicans who sided with the Democratic majority in support of advancing the non-binding resolution passed by the House of Representatives earlier in the week. Still, with only 56 votes, the measure was unable to overcome a filibuster by the Rubber-stamp Republicans - maintaining their 4-year blockade on honest Congressional debate of this continuing debacle Bush & Co. have created.

Only 33 Republicans (& one Joe Lieberman) actually had the audacity to tell the American people they couldn't be heard on this Resolution. But the abstentions by 9 Republicans on the most important issue of our day served the same cowardly purpose and will not be forgotten by the voting public.

It's nice to see that Hagel has come around and realized that the Republican leadership will do everything in their power to prevent this debate from happening. How unfortunate that just 2 weeks ago, in the vote on the Warner-Levin Resolution, Hagel sacrificed so much credibility in service to their bad faith agenda.

Chalk this one up as another in a long history of Hagel flip-flops on Iraq. Still, though it's taken four long years, this vote is probably worth celebrating as Hagel's first real vote outside of committee and before the full Senate challenging Bush's Iraq policy with something more than talk show rhetoric.

For once, Hagel backed-up his bark with just a little bit of bite. Guess we'll have to wait and see how he handles that tiny taste of principled defiance. Sadly, the Iraq War isn't going anywhere, and Hagel will have plenty more opportunities to prove his dedication to truly changing the course of this disastrous war.

Of course, our embarrassing House delegation - the Timid Trio of Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith - all fell in-line on President Bush's escalation and will spend the next two years blaming the Democratic majority for every failure in Iraq for their emboldening "the enemy." But, I have faith that our Republican Congressmen's gamble on Nebraskans' gullibility won't be paying-off as they hope in 2008. By then, voters might even be ready to collect on their false promises and empty spin, finally holding these jokers accountable at the ballot box.

At the same time, these last several weeks, it has been a pleasure to see Sen. Ben Nelson demonstrate such courage, conviction, and consistency on the war in Iraq. With the same voice of common sense and steady leadership with which he has always served the people of Nebraska, Nelson is to be commended for his realizing - along with the people he represents - that the time has come to take a stand against Bush and the Republican Party's "stay the course" policies.

The New Nebraska Network has a representative in whom it can be proud in Sen. Ben Nelson. Today, we can even say that of both Nebraska Senators, as they stood up for the people's right to be heard in opposition to Bush's escalation. Nelson and Hagel may have been on the losing side of a procedural vote today, but the people of Nebraska and their loved ones fighting overseas clearly won an important victory.

Though it may take more time - and some new faces in the House - the tide is turning, the truth will be heard, and the people will have their day.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel's Credibility Gap

I have mostly recovered from my painful two-day-long realization that Sen. Chuck Hagel will never have the courage to truly back-up his tough talk on the Iraq War.

1. Chuck Hagel & Ben Nelson Do Nebraska Proud in Iraq Debate
2. Chuck Hagel's True Colors - Party Before Principle
3. Chuck Hagel: Shoe Salesman
4. Chuck Hagel Loses the War With Himself

I don't know if this is a symptom of his 30 years in Washington D.C. or if it's just the nature of the beast that is Republican politics, but the mix of Hagel's ambition with his ranking as the Senate's #1 supporter of President Bush's agenda have left him all but incapable of standing up to Bush when it really counts - even on this issue he's called the most important of our day.

Hagel now wants to reimagine his Monday vote to filibuster the Warner-Levin Resolution and to keep debate of Bush's Iraq policy off the Senate floor as nothing more than a procedural vote. He has to say that to avoid looking like the overhyped phony and hypocrite he continues to reveal himself as at every opportunity. But, as the leaders of both parties and as Hagel himself certainly understood, Monday's vote was a moment of definition and declaration, drawing the lines that will shape Congress' role in the Iraq War through the next election.

Less than two weeks prior, Hagel had insisted that it is time for all for all 100 Senators to be "on the line" and to take a stand on our nation's Iraq policy. Monday's vote put Hagel on that line - it demanded that he take a stand - and, when all was said and done, he stood with the President and his party rather than the American people and the supposed principles he's espoused.

This Republican filibuster had one primary intent - to kill the momentum building against Bush's "troop surge." By insulating Bush from criticism and by delaying the debate of his Iraq policy as long as possible, it becomes harder and harder for Congress to effectively challenge Bush's policy without taking extreme measures that would divide Congress and the American public along reactionary lines that may be the Republicans' only path to regaining power.

Hagel's vote enabled the Republican Party to continue playing games with American soldiers' lives for political purposes. Now, to save their skins in 2008 and to salvage some shred of credibility, Hagel and a tiny band of six non-Neocon Republicans have denounced the "stalemate" Hagel helped create.

They say they will force the debate by other means if they must, but it's TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. On Monday, Hagel had the opportunity to stand on principle to give the Iraq War the fair, open, and official debate it deserves - that owed to more than 3,100 dead and to untold scores of the physically and emotionally wounded who have been all but abandoned by Congress over the last four years.

As we all know, that isn't the choice Hagel made. Instead, he chose to play along with the Republicans' political games. And, when he's being criticized for such unprincipled hypocrisy, his answer is to play more games with procedure - as if two wrongs make a right. But, he's already had his chance to stand and be counted in defense of this long overdue debate. Hagel had that chance, and he chose not to take it. Whatever his justification, he can't hide or deny that choice - as shameful as it was.

But, Hagel is right about something. This debate is going to happen - the Democratic Party will make sure of that. What we see here is just Hagel's usual attempt to take the credit for it and to position himself for media glory. But, on Monday, he showed his true colors. The New Nebraska Network has seen Hagel for who and what he is, and we won't be fooled again.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel Loses the War With Himself

Can’t we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people?

-Sen. Chuck Hagel's opening statement to the Foreign Relations Committee, calling for debate of President Bush's policy in Iraq (01/24/2007)

Nay!

-Sen. Chuck Hagel's vote against cloture on the Warner-Levin Resolution, preventing debate of President Bush's policy in Iraq (02/05/2007)

You are welcome to give Hagel the benefit of the doubt and to believe whatever nonsense justification he makes for his vote in today's Omaha World-Herald. But, after four years of pulling this crap on vote after vote after vote, I'm through trying to sort out Hagel's inconsistencies on Iraq.

The vote speaks for itself. Though not a show boat or a glory hound, it is nice to have one Senator, Ben Nelson, who has maintained some semblance of clarity and credibility on this issue.

Having played a vital role in crafting the Warner-Levin Resolution and yesterday voting for it receiving a full debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Nelson's was the lone voice of reason in our Congressional delegation:

It seems that even when it comes to the lives of our troops, partisanship prevails.

Here we are after weeks of negotiations, after weeks of public proclamations, after weeks of consideration, we're about to witness the minority choose politics over progress....

The time has come. If not now, when? If not now, do we wait for [more] troops to die before we oppose the president's plan? If not now, do we wait for more violence, more unrest, more danger for our troops before we act?

Politics over progress - that's precisely the choice Hagel has made. When is enough enough?

To be honest, so far as Hagel is concerned, I'm not sure I even care about his answer because what he says doesn't seem to mean a damn thing.

Talk is cheap. It appears Chuck Hagel's integrity is even cheaper.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel: Shoe Salesman

"I think, all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.“

-Sen. Chuck Hagel

As promised by his party leaders and predicted this morning by the New Nebraska Network, Sen. Chuck Hagel today voted AGAINST the cloture that would have allowed floor debate on the Warner-Levin Resolution. A bipartisan expression of the Senate and the American public's "disappoval" of President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq with anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops and personnel, Republican efforts to forestall this black eye to Bush's failed stay-the-course policy have succeeded....temporarily.

Both Hagel and Sen. Warner (VA), who introduced the resolution, voted with their party not to move it to floor debate. Republicans needed 40 votes to filibuster and - with Hagel and Warner's voters - they had 46. The actual roll call lists 47 votes because Democratic majority leader Harry Reid changed votes for procedural reasons. And, in a pinch, the Republicans' efforts to censor the American people could probably claim 48 supporters - including Senators John McCain (AZ) and Mel Martinez (FL), who abstained from the vote.

Still, it's worth noting that the Republican leadership was not able to deliver on its guarantees of 100% party unity, with Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Norm Coleman (MN) both voting for cloture. No surprise, both are up for re-election in 2008. Their votes put Hagel's hypocrisy in full view, and it's my hope that the Democratic leadership will continue bringing this cloture vote to the floor, forcing the likes of Hagel and Warner to go on record as the puppets that they are each and every time.

Eventually, this debate is going to happen. Eventually, Hagel, Warner, and all those Republican Senators who hope to be re-elected in 2008 will have to break and allow the American people to be heard on the Senate floor.

They have no choice. The truth will have its day. And, when it does, there are going to be lots of Republicans seeking new lines of work. Forget running for President. With this vote, Hagel's spoken loud and clear as to his chosen profession.

Finally, a job he's cut out for, where a man who's full of BS might finally be appreciated.

***This post's title is written with compliments to an anonymous comment below and to the UNO College Democrats, who beat me to the punch.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel's True Colors - Party Before Principle

Last week, Senator Chuck Hagel insisted that it was time all 100 U.S. Senators take a stand on President George W. Bush's plans for a "troop surge"/escalation of our military operations in Iraq. Yesterday, he faced down Sen. John McCain on ABC's "This Week," repeating his insistence that the U.S. Senate should take action to oppose Bush's plan - at least, in principle.

Well, it looks like Hagel's All Talk Express might have reached new levels of ridiculousness and hypocrisy, as Senate Republicans are counting on his vote to forestall and filibuster the Senate's even debating the resolutions opposing Bush's plan.

CNN reports:

A Senate showdown on Iraq loomed Monday as Republicans said they would block a measure stating opposition to President Bush's plan to send additional troops into the nearly four-year-old war.

Attempts to reach a deal to allow voting Monday as scheduled have failed, Democratic and Republican leadership aides said Sunday night. But talks were slated to continue on Monday, they said.

Democrats need 60 votes to cut off debate and move forward with the resolution of opposition.

"It's an important first step, but if you can't get past a procedural motion to debate it, it's obstructionism," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told CNN. "And I would really urge the Republicans to reconsider. I think it's a terrible mistake to prevent this debate."

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that "as a matter of fairness," all 49 GOP senators would oppose a procedural vote that would let the chamber take up a bipartisan but nonbinding statement of opposition to Bush's "new way forward" -- a plan to send 21,500 more American troops to Baghdad and western Iraq....

McConnell, R-Kentucky, said senators should be allowed to vote on alternatives that would express support for Bush's strategy and one that would pledge the Senate to keep funding the U.S. presence. A GOP leadership aide said the chamber's Democratic leader, Majority Leader Harry Reid, has not yet agreed to set votes on those measures and require a 60-vote threshold to pass.....

If Republicans hang together, they could force Democratic leaders to pull the proposal from the floor until an agreement can be reached. But Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said GOP leaders and the White House are trying to keep their members from embarrassing the president with a vote against his plan.

"Any suggestion that Democrats are standing in the way of a full debate is simply not credible," Manley said. "Senate Republicans have rejected three compromises that would have permitted the Senate to vote on the president's plan and other Republican proposals."

Meanwhile, NBC News' "First Read" has taken direct note of Hagel's nonsensical positioning, putting party before principle and party before his own integrity:

The highly anticipated vote on a non-binding resolution opposing a troop increase is on the verge of not happening at all, unless a deal is reached quickly between Senate leaders Harry Reid (D) and Mitch McConnell (R), NBC's Ken Strickland reports. Reid has scheduled a 5:30 pm procedural vote that would allow the process to begin. But McConnell announced late Friday that all 49 Senate Republicans, including those who are chief sponsors and supporters of the resolution, will vote against the "motion to proceed," thereby keeping Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to move forward toward a vote.

Democrats contend that Republicans, at the White House's direction, are trying to avoid a vote that is likely to demonstrate a bipartisan majority opposing Bush's plan. McConnell says his conference is "using procedure to ensure a fair process." Even so, it's striking that McConnell managed to get all Senate Republicans to agree to vote against the motion -- including John Warner, the resolution's chief sponsor, and Chuck Hagel, the GOP conference's most vocal opponent of a troop increase.

Could it be that Hagel really doesn't want an open debate and an honest vote on the floor of the Senate? Could it be that he's scared of the consequences of actually following through on his big talk...scared of finally backing it up with action?

On "This Week" yesterday, Hagel seemed genuinely rattled when asked to respond to the likes of Rush Limbaugh declaring him "Senator Betray-us." For fear of offending Rush and the radical hordes of the Republican Right, Hagel did not even make an attempt to defend himself.

And now, Hagel shows signs of making the same cowardly choice in deference to his party's bosses, falling in line with them rather than staying true to the issue that defines him in the public's imagination.

I would like to imagine that some encouraging words would do Hagel some good - a bit of "to thine own self be true" from Hamlet, perhaps - but those of us who are familiar with Hagel's record know all too well that for Chuck Hagel being true to himself means being true to his ambitions.

That's what this is all about. Not the principles. Not the troops. Not the millions of Americans so desperate for a leader who speaks with courage and clarity. No, this is about Chuck Hagel - nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel & Ben Nelson Do Nebraska Proud in Iraq Debate

In general, I've avoided the on-going debate before the U.S. Senate on challenging Pres. Bush's escalation of the Iraq War. Both Senators Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson have played essential roles in shaping this conversation and its contours, finally answering the people's concern by forcing the issue onto the agenda. I would say both have served Nebraska well in seeing that the national debate on where we go from here in Iraq might finally take place in a respectable fashion.

For Hagel's role, he's taken quite a lot of heat from fellow Republicans who would prefer that Congress continue to play doormat to Pres. Bush's thus-far disastrous foreign policy. In fact, he was singled out for scorn by Vice-President Dick Cheney in the latest issue of Newsweek when Cheney stated, "I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it’s very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.”

In the video you see above, Hagel doesn't specifically respond to Cheney's personal criticism, but he more than proves that he's not backing down from this fight and that he'll continue to do what he thinks is right for our American forces mired indefinitely in this miserable Iraqi civil war.

I don't pretend to have the answers to the Iraq conflict, and I'm embarrassed for those who think they can honestly reduce this ugly and endlessly complicated situation to one of anything approaching clarity. The only thing we can say with any certainty is that our country has made some very poor choices on some very faulty assumptions. But, from here, we must be careful to avoid the same reactionary impulses in the opposite direction as we navigate through the treacherous course we've created for ourselves.

Although I wouldn't claim either of their positions as my own, I respect the work of Hagel and Nelson these last several weeks, and I wish them continued courage and thoughtfulness as floor debate on the Senate's course of action begins in earnest this week.

By the way, the Lincoln Journal-Star reported this week on Hagel's appreciation of Nelson's contribution. Hagel said, specifically:

"I appreciated the willingness of Sen. Warner, Sen. Nelson and others to take a serious look at how we could work together....

“I expect strong bipartisan support (and) I’m grateful to Sen. Nelson..."

To those who know the lay of the land of Nebraska politics, this is quite the mind-blowing turn of events. While Nelson has been known to say quite positive things about Hagel, there has been no reciprocation at all on Hagel's part....at least, until now.

What do you think? Did Hagel actually learn something from his ill-conceived, behind-the-scenes orchestration of Pete Ricketts' 2006 campaign? Maybe he realizes that Nebraskans actually like Ben Nelson - an area in which Hagel could use a little help both here at home and on the national stage.

Otherwise, wars might simply have a way of making strange political bedfellows, and temporary ones at that. It seems quite likely that Hagel's gesture of goodwill - surprising as it may be - was more of a one-night stand born of convenience than any indication of a warming in their cold-to-frigid relationship.

So, I wouldn't expect a full-blown detente. But, it certainly is nice to see Hagel acting like a grown up where Nelson is concerned. Took 3,000 lost American lives and $12 million of Pete Ricketts' money to get us to this point, which is pretty sad. But, here we are nonetheless. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.

Go to full text...

Nebraska Politics: More Stories Told in Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for our Representatives in the House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...