Fortenberry Takes Flak, Smith Gets Smacked for Farm Bill Support

I don't have the time or the expertise to delve into the finer points of the 2007 Farm Bill that recently passed in the House of Representatives with the support of Nebraska Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith. For that, I will direct readers to the Nebraska-based Center for Rural Affairs' blog.

For a fairly quick update of what unfolded, I'd recommend reading everything that's been written since the July 17th post, "This is Not Reform," in chronological order. From there, you should get a pretty good sense of what controversies arose and what contentious issues still remain unresolved as the legislation moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

The House version of the Farm Bill was approved unanimously in committee by both Democrats and Republicans. When the bill reached the floor, the leadership of the Republican minority opposed it in protest to a $4 billion dollar tax newly-imposed on American subsidiaries of international corporations that would fund the expansion of food stamps and other nutritional programs while keeping faith with Democratic promises to pay-as-you-go with all new spending in the federal budget.

Usually amongst the first to dutifully accept orders from their party's leadership, Fortenberry and Smith broke rank by voting FOR the Farm Bill - looking beyond concerns about the $4 billion tax and keeping their eyes on the riches awaiting their respective districts amidst the $286 billion of spending therein approved. Smith's eyes had to be seeing double the dollar signs as the Representative of Nebraska's Third Congressional District, which has seen more ag subsidies than any other in the country in recent years.

Oddly, it's nationally-syndicated columnist Robert Novak (who I'm now quoting for the second time in two days) who's put Smith's vote in the harshest light for so hypocritically betraying the "conservative" themes on which he just won election:

The long and twisted history of U.S. agricultural subsidies continues with a farm bill that improves nothing and perpetuates America's government-subsidized farm economy. But the political lesson of last week's vote in the House is that the farm lobby is so powerful, it can win a tax increase vote from four Democrats and 18 Republicans who had promised publicly never to support higher taxes while serving in the House of Representatives....

Among the most surprising "yes" votes was that of Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), a freshman who last year was carried through his primary and general election with more than $400,000 in contributions and nearly $100,000 in independent expenditures from the Club for Growth. As he represents most of rural Western Nebraska, Smith had always been expected to vote for a farm bill. He would have seemed like the last person in Congress to vote for a tax hike.

It's worth mentioning that Smith tried to use this vote as evidence of his independence from his benefactors in the Club for Growth - a point the Nebraska Democratic Party deserves credit for ably refuting.

What's silly is how the line in the sand drawn over this tax - demonstrating long overdue fiscal responsibility after years of shameless Republican reliance on defecit spending - worked to almost completely obscure the more relevant issue of Congress' refusal to impose caps on federal subsidies directed to corporate and large-scale ag producers. Calls for such limitations have come from Democrats and Republicans, but the vote in the House and the focus of its debate reveals that neither party is truly willing to risk offending so powerful a sector of the U.S. economy.

On this aspect of the Farm Bill vote, it's Fortenberry who found himself in the crosshairs of editorial cartoonist Neal Obermeyer.

As published in the Omaha Reader

Of course, Obermeyer's true target might just as well be most any member of the House - Democrat or Republican, voting FOR or AGAINST the bill - because of their near-universal complicity in avoiding the real questions at its heart.

Go to full text...

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

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

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

Svoboda unveils Lincoln roads plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it. Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel vs. Jon Bruning - Round One

While our anonymous GOP counterpart at Leavenworth Street has set his sights on Jon Bruning for having been a Democrat in his college days - publishing statements he made as a columnist at the Daily Nebraskan that suggest Bruning's either a secret liberal in conservative's clothing or an unprincipled political opportunist - it's amusing that Bruning's supposedly controversial remarks (i.e. “Homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else” - GASP!!!) have only come to light as Bruning attempts to establish himself as the loyal Republican and the "good" Republican in a potential 2008 primary challenge to Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Nevermind that Bruning's statements have been readily available for as long as he's been in Nebraska politics. Nevermind that I'd personally read his columns in the Daily Nebraskan archives four years ago. Nevermind that Bruning's statements have about as much relevance as his run-ins with the police as a frat boy in college. Bruning's gone on the attack against Hagel, so certain powers that be in the Nebraska Republican Party have decided that Bruning is fair game.

Aside from the amusement factor, I don't much care about Hagel, Bruning, and their respective camps going to war with one another on something so trivial. I am, however, happy to see that Hagel is standing up for himself and for our troops in Iraq as the new wave of Republican BS that supporting the troops means letting them die in vain finds Bruning its new champion in Nebraska.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said Thursday that Iraq is "worse off than it's ever been" and that he will continue to press President Bush to change his war policy.

Hagel made his fifth trip to Iraq last weekend, visiting Anbar province and Baghdad's highly fortified Green Zone....

The U.S. military is doing an outstanding job, Hagel said, but it's up to elected officials to guide the development of the mission in Iraq.

"We're not playing with a set of dominoes here," Hagel said in a conference call with reporters. "We're not playing with budgets here. We're talking about real lives. We're talking about the most real and fundamental aspects of the world, our position and security."

Hagel was asked about a possible challenge from Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning in the Republican Senate primary next year....Bruning said Wednesday that he might run regardless of what Hagel does. He criticized Hagel for supporting a timetable to get out of Iraq, saying it could hurt troop morale.

Said Hagel: "I don't accept that. I just don't agree with that. Those who make those kinds of statements maybe should go to Iraq and spend a little time (there) like I have.

"Maybe if they understood a little about the military, had any experience in the military, it might help them understand this better," added Hagel, a Vietnam veteran.

Who is the "they" of which Hagel speaks? Well, about 90% of Republicans in Congress - as well as our Republican President and all announced Republican Presidential candidates - would certainly seem to qualify.

To our discredit, Nebraska's entire House delegation has also adopted the Republican talking points suggesting that, after 4 years of increasing disaster, all our military leaders really need is more time.

Most recently, 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith declared, "We have a long way to go. There is tough and difficult work ahead, but we are making progress." Of course, this progress is never defined as Smith's far-from-expert opinion flies in the face of Hagel's assessment and the facts showing the last 6 months in Iraq being the deadliest for American forces since the 2003 invasion.

So, Jon Bruning and Adrian Smith have their talking points while Chuck Hagel is left talking from experience that may or may not be colored by his own ambitions. Either way, they may all inhabit the same party but not the same reality - not on this issue. It's still politics, though, so one suspects they're all playing the same games.

Round One Score Card:
Jon Bruning - 09
Chuck Hagel - 10

Go to full text...

Catching up

* Following up from my post on Friday, I'd like to thank the World Herald for their Sunday morning cover story about poverty in Omaha's black community. This is exactly the sort of discussion that should have to endure the 24/7 "Imus cycle": Why does Omaha, home of five Fortune 500 Companies, have the third highest rate of black poverty in the nation? Why does the 19th best city for business -the largest city in the 10th best state for business- have the highest rate of black children in poverty?

Fortunately, as the OWH also reports, there is no shortage of possible solutions: "A coordinated effort by government, schools and the business community...", "reduce the isolation of blacks...", "jobs", "homes", "public transportation", and of course, "education." But all of these efforts start with political will, and that will only come when the rest of us stop being satisfied with "cleaning the airwaves" and start tackling the real problems, the ones that can't be solved with a memo from a radio executive. The problem isn't on MSNBC, it's next door. It's in all of us.

But as I've said before, this problem is bigger even than public policy. I've asked why these problems persist in a business friendly state. Now I ask: why does the state with the second highest rate of volunteers have such a large and largely isolated community of impoverished blacks?

There's a statue, just inside Boy's Town, of a little boy on another kid's shoulders. The caption reads "He ain't heavy... he's my brother." Omaha needs more brother's keepers. We all need to invest in a community that is less segregated, less isolated, and richer in ways beyond any dollar amount. In that spirit, the OWH has a list of organizations that would love to have your time and money (and yes, this goes to the preacher as well as the choir).

* We can all breathe a sigh of relief: Adrian Smith has been to Iraq, and he assures us that "progress has been made".

* Harold Anderson is gunning for Hagel's Senate seat:

Don't overlook the possibility that U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, the increasingly controversial Nebraska Republican, will face potentially strong opposition next May in the Republican primary....

I do not suggest that the following report of a recent conversation involving eight Nebraska Republicans approaches a comprehensive survey. But it was typical of almost all of the comments I have been hearing in recent day's when Hagel's name comes up. And it is coming up with increasing frequency.

The consensus of the conversation was strong dissapproval of the nature of Hagel's campaign of criticism over the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq.

I don't doubt the sincere possibility that Hagel could face a right-wing primary challenge next year. Sometimes this anecdotal evidence is ahead of the polls in revealing underlying vulnerabilities, and it isn't necessarily wise to dismiss a growing murmur just because it hasn't been recorded in a survey (then again, this is coming from the man who claims to get floods of e-mails begging to know what his wife and dog are up to).

I still think it's unlikely that a big name like Daub or Bruning (the two mentioned in Anderson's column) will get the ball rolling, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Dave Nabity out there waiting to take a swing at it (Speaking of which... why not Nabity? What's he been up to?).

As always, I can't provide a link to this column because the largest paper in the state won't put their opinion page online. Just saying.

Go to full text...

Hagel:The Next Chapter and other stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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...

Lee Terry & Adrian Smith Play 'CHICKEN' With Nebraska's Future

After 12 years of politically-motivated budget chaos - as the Republican Congress literally went mad with earmarking thinking it could buy its way to a permanent majority with taxpayer dollars - the new Democratic Congress is keeping its word to the American people by taking on earmark reform. One of the chief provisions of these overdue reforms is a requirement that Congressional Representatives register their earmarks and certify whether they have any financial interest in their funding.

While clarification has been sought by both Democrats and Republicans on what this "financial interest" might entail, it's disturbing but not at all surprising that the Republicans should be using this momentary uncertainty to play partisan games. While the American public finally sees Democratic-led reforms for which its been clamoring for years, Republicans are doing everything they can to undermine these efforts and to justify their years of inexcusable inaction.

As a Nebraskan who believes in reform, it is particularly embarrassing and insulting that two of our Republican Congressmen are leading the way in their party's disingenuous assaults on common sense and fiscal discipline. Even worse, though, is the fact that 2nd District Rep. Lee Terry and 3rd District Rep. Adrian Smith are both sacrificing their constituents' interests to further their partisan agenda.

The Hill reports:

Republican legislative directors frantically exchanged e-mails last week as they sought guidance over a rule stipulating what a “financial interest” in an earmark was. Earmarks requests had to be filed by last Friday.

At least three members have decided against filing their earmarks altogether because of lack of clarity on the rules, and they signed a letter to Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) articulating their position.

One of them, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), said yesterday that he has decided against filing any earmarks because of the “ethical uncertainty of any earmark defining personal financial interest.”

For example, said Terry, current language could define a provision for sewer improvement as an earmark if it was done on property near the member’s home. Current rules could classify that as personal gain on a lawmaker’s property if the values increase as a result of better sewer management.

“There is so much uncertainty no matter how pure and emeritus an earmark may be,” Terry said.

Freshman Reps. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) and Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) also have opted not to file earmarks for fear of ethical pitfalls....

A Democratic aide countered, “Republicans are void of ideas, and they are nit-picking.”

This is much worse than nit-picking. This is bullshit - plain and simple. Terry and Smith should be ashamed of themselves for playing these sorts of games, and Nebraska voters should be outraged.

The Omaha World-Herald provides a little more perspective into Terry's and Smith's partisan publicity stunt:

Millions of federal dollars might be funneled to anti-drug programs, research facilities, military operations and other Nebraska projects under a wish list drawn up by Rep. Lee Terry - but those budget "earmarks" are in limbo.

Wrangling between Republicans and Democrats is threatening to keep the items out of spending bills as they pass through the House. Terry did not submit his list of earmark requests by a Friday deadline because of the dispute.

If that dispute is resolved, the Nebraska Republican again will seek money - $6 million this time - for ongoing efforts to separate Omaha's storm water and sanitation sewers. Combined sewers in older parts of the city, primarily north Omaha, mean that heavy rains can push sewage into people's basements.....

Terry said he would like to continue his annual requests for federal funding for Omaha's sewer projects, but that might be construed as affecting his city property tax bill. Does that constitute a financial interest?

Terry said he couldn't take the risk of submitting his request without clarification of the rules. Democrats are expected to issue additional guidelines this week and could extend the deadline to submit requests.....

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., didn't submit any requests, either. A spokesman said Smith did not offer a list because the rules confusion cut short the process.

This is just another instance where it's become clear that Nebraska does not have representation in the House. What we have are Republican hatchetmen who - time and again - put their party's interests before their constituents'.

Does Terry really believe that people are stupid enough to fall for his false concern about having a personal interest in improvements to Omaha's sewers? That's a very fitting example because Terry's argument smells funny and is generally full of crap.

Somehow I bet Terry would be a lot less likely to play this sort of game if it were his basement filling up with raw sewage.

Even taking Terry's lie for what it's worth, there's a whole list of important projects for which Terry has also risked losing funding just to take a cheap shot at Democratic reforms. I would love to know what bad faith financial interest Terry would claim in $14 million that was supposed to be earmarked for the University of Nebraska Medical Center to study vaccines for respiratory infections, to study improvements to battlefield medical equipment, and to provide lung cancer screenings for low income populations.

According to the World-Herald, here are some other funding requests Terry may have just sacrificed:

• $413,500 for Nebraska State Patrol equipment and training for anti-methamphetamine operations

• $800,000 for Heartland Family Nebraska to help establish a methamphetamine treatment program in Nebraska modeled after a successful one started in Los Angeles

• $4 million for the University of Nebraska-Omaha to fund a joint project with the Peter Kiewit Institute for research into improving and accelerating military decision-making

• $2.5 million for Creighton University's Center for Bioterrorism Response for clinical research into biological agents

• $16.952 million for a 97th Intelligence Squadron facility at Offutt Air Force Base

• $23 million for a 338th Combat Training Squadron facility at Offutt Air Force Base

Terry has just tied Omaha's health and safety to the railroad tracks - jeopardizing tens of millions of dollars, not to mention soldiers' well-being, the struggle against meth, and even the war on terror - to make a cheap political point that will only cost Nebraska in the long run.

With Terry willing to play this sort of game with almost $50 million worth of funding targeted for military and counter-terrorism purposes, it's also a very real possibility that he's singled out Omaha for immense budget cuts and loss of its traditional role in national security.

After all, if Omaha's own Congressman doesn't see fit to prioritize these programs - not to mention the thousands of jobs they bring into the community - then that sounds like a pretty damn good place to start making cuts.

As for Adrian Smith, I assume he's just following Terry's lead on this one - straight into political oblivion if the Third District's voters have any sense in the next election.

Both Terry and Smith have made nonsense arguments to justify their own shameless partisanship and outright ineptitude. They have AGAIN shown their true colors - not only by making a mockery of Democratic attempts at reform but also by risking projects and funding that their home districts desperately need in the process.

Making foolish and short-sighted political calculations like that, is it any wonder that Nebraska is the 52nd State in terms of Congressional influence? With two of Nebraska's three Congressman two of the three Congressman nationwide who were stupid enough to make this partisan gambit, you have to assume that, if we can get any lower, we'll be there shortly.

Nebraska - prepare for the worst. With Lee Terry and Adrian Smith in Congress, we've probably earned it.

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...

Follow-up: SmithWatch Clarifies Confusing Payroll Practices

Anyone interested should read SmithWatch's follow-up on the mysterious $116,000 in "payroll processing" fees paid to Adrian Smith's father from his 2006 campaign.

Check it out, and - again - continued thanks to the SmithWatch for the excellent work it's been doing in Nebraska's Third District.

Go to full text...

Did Adrian Smith's Family Cash-In on 2006 Campaign?

Neal Smith Receives $141,666 From Son's Campaign

Right off the bat, I want to make clear that I am not asserting any law-breaking on the part of 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith's campaign or on the part of his family. But, the fact that Smith's father, Neal Smith - an insurance salesman and former chair of the Scotts Bluff County Republican Party - was the second biggest recipient of funds from his son's 2006 campaign raises some pretty big questions for which Rep. Smith definitely owes some answers.

Ranging from $75 amounts for "In-Kind Office Use" to amounts greater than $12,000 for "Payroll Processing," the elder Smith took in a total of $141,666 from 55 disbursements during the 2006 campaign cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org, only the Virginia-based communications firm Greener & Hook received more money from Adrian's campaign, taking in a whopping $535,000 for ad buys and media production.

It's hard to imagine what legitimate purpose there could possibly have been for the total disbursements of more than $116,000 to Neal Smith for this mysterious "Payroll Processing." To a suspicious mind, that has to sound like either a deliberately vague catch-all for a lot of different payments or else a pretty clear cut case of the Smith family keeping some of the controversial Club for Growth's money for themselves.

(Readers should remember that Adrian Smith's primary victory was fueled by mostly out-of-state contributions from the anti-farm subsidies, pro-corporate Club for Growth - the membership of which ultimately donated around $400,000 to his campaign.)

In other words, Neal Smith appears to have been getting while the getting was good. And, there's some evidence he may not have been alone in doing so.

Adrian Smith's mother, Joanna - Secretary of the Nebraska Republican Party - received a paltry $1,500 from the campaign, but Adrian himself had a take of almost $23,000. Like father like son?

Of course, these payments by the campaign might all be entirely on the level, but they just open the door to so many possibilities for corruption as the line between a campaign's accounts and a candidate's personal income all but disappears. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reports:

It is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use, but it is not illegal to use them to pay family members who provide "bona fide services" at fair-market value....

Although paying family members with campaign funds is not an uncommon practice in Congress, election watchdogs say it is controversial because it can be difficult to measure the quality and quantity of services being provided....

The issue of paying campaign funds to family members gained national attention [in 2005] when it became public that [resigned House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay, R-Texas, had paid more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter since 2001...DeLay was indicted in Texas on unrelated charges of conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme.

In Western Nebraska, it takes a whole lot of bona fide services to reach a fair market value greater than $140,000. Remember, we're talking about a Congressional District with 4 of the 10 poorest counties in the nation. This is a sum big enough that it can't help but raise eyebrows and invite a much higher degree of public scrutiny.

I want to personally thank Lisa at SmithWatch for bringing this issue to light. Hers is quickly becoming one of the best politician-specific blogs in the country, and she has done an absolutely wonderful job of challenging Smith's record and holding him accountable - two vital functions in a working democracy that our local media have essentially abandoned.

I commend SmithWatch for its continuously impressive efforts, and I can't help but notice that Smith seems scared about being subjected to this close of scrutiny by one of his own constituents. Not only was Smith searching desperately for an online mouthpiece to counter SmithWatch last month, but it even seems he's trying to obscure his critics by recruiting a blogger from Kearney to start a seemingly worthless blog that will say nice things about him now being referred to as Adrian Smith Watch, This Old House, and the Adrian Smith Report by Nebraska's rightwing blog community.

Try as they might, I've got a feeling they won't have much success at silencing the real SmithWatch - which more and more readers will find so long as Adrian Smith keeps acting like Adrian Smith in Congress.

With this $140,000 payment to his father and this $23,000 payment to himself, Adrian Smith and his family have some serious explaining to do. What was going on in the Smith campaign, and what is this mysterious "payroll processing" that was supposedly worth more than 116,000 dollars? Seriously, I think a lot of people might be interested in that line of work - whatever it is - unless all it entails is Neal Smith just getting paid for being the candidate's father.

The people expect answers and deserve the truth. And, they can count on SmithWatch and the New Nebraska Network standing right here to see that they get them.

Go to full text...

A Reality Check for Smith & Forten-Terry

Freshman 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith's very first floor statement was made in opposition to HR4, which would give the Medicare program the power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. Smith stated:

As a representative of the great State of Nebraska, I rise in concern over H.R. 4. There are 208,040 Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries in the third district which I represent. Everyone wants to make sure that seniors get the prescription drugs they need at the lowest possible price. But, H.R. 4 will not reduce their prices, it will reduce their choices.

In his remarks, Smith also declared, "I disagree with H.R. 4 in a fundamental philosophical way." In that, he clearly was not alone, as both of Nebraska's elder Republican Congressmen - Jeff Fortenberry of the 1st District and Lee Terry of the 2nd - joined Smith in voting against it.

Still, HR4 passed as one of the cornerstones of the Democratic Congress' "100 Hours Agenda," ending up with unanimous support from the Democratic majority and even 24 votes from Congressional Republicans. Now, a new study has been released that should force every Congressman who voted against HR4 - including Smith, Fortenberry, and Terry - to rethink their position and to admit they were probably wrong.

The Washington Post reports:

Federal number crunchers said yesterday that the new Medicare drug benefit appears to be slowing the growth in national spending on prescription medicines because the drug plans are negotiating lower prices with drug companies....

The findings provide new fuel for the debate about whether Medicare could get better drug prices if the government negotiated with pharmaceutical companies. Many Democrats in Congress say it would, and the House has already passed legislation requiring the government to use its negotiating muscle. President Bush maintains that the current system achieves the best prices, and he has threatened a veto....

Several national polls have shown that a majority of the public believes government negotiations would hold down drug costs even more. A survey of 1,000 adults released yesterday by AARP, for instance, found that 87 percent of respondents -- including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents -- supported allowing the government to use its bargaining power.

The American people support giving Medicare the ability to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. It won't solve our entire health care crisis, but it's a common sense solution that is now supported by the evidence.

Democrats support the plan. Republicans support it. Independents support it. The only people who don't are the Republican politicians and their close friends in the pharmaceutical industry who have raked in such un-Godly profits on the back of the American taxpayer.

If this were really a question of doing what's right for the people and keeping prices low, Adrian Smith would come out right now and admit he was wrong about H.R. 4. But, this isn't a matter of finding practical solutions to real problems. No, he, Fortenberry, and Terry all disagree with a bill like this "in a fundamental philosophical way" because it would cut into the billions of dollars in giveaways to private companies using corporate welfare to boost profits and to line their own pockets.

They don't care what the American people think. They don't care what Nebraska voters want. They don't even care what the evidence shows. They have their "philosophy" of greed, and neither public opinion or the basic facts is enough to get through to them.

Smith, Fortenberry, and Terry only answer to power. On every day but Election Day, that power equates with money. That's why, at our next opportunity, we can't pass up the chance to deliver the one wake-up call that voters have left - an Election Day reality check our Republican politicians will never forget.

Go to full text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

The Timid Trio - "Standing Silent" On Iraq

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

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

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

Concurrent Resolution on the President's Escalation Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Tuesday, the World-Herald reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shadegg wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Adrian Smith Plays Guinea Pig for GOP's 'Iraq War' Talking Points

Lisa at SmithWatch made a great catch this weekend, reporting on the twisted logic and say-anything approach of 3rd District Rep. Adrian Smith. In speaking with KNEB Radio out of Scottsbluff, Smith seems to have positioned himself on the cutting-edge in Republican talking points, making probably the most insulting and intellecutally shameless defense of President Bush's plan for a "troop surge" in Iraq that you'll find anywhere:

Third District Congressman Adrian Smith of Gering says a vote for a resolution opposing the placement of additional troops in Iraq is "by default a vote for the status quo. "

The freshman Republican told reporters during a press conference at his Scottsbluff district office that the President's plan offers a "quantified plan" to stabilize Iraq. Smith says he agrees with those that say "the status quo" is not the right policy, but claims because of the lack of alternatives proposed by critics, the resolution amounts to support for the administration's previous strategy.

To be making such a disingenuous argument, Smith - Nebraska's least capable legislator - must have gotten so confused by Sen. Chuck Hagel's recent self- contradictions on Iraq that he can't even think straight.

Either that or the Republican Party is using him as a guinea pig to test out the latest (and the lamest) in bald-faced Republican spin because, honestly, what we see above is about as low and illogical as an argument can get.

Has Adrian Smith even read the Warner-Levin Resolution? I assume not since he fails to recognize the very clear alternatives it proposes in Iraq beyond stating opposition to Bush's proposed "troop surge" (aka "escalation"; aka "augmentation").

Smith now says that "stay the course" is not the right policy, but - by supporting Bush's plan - he's just endorsed "stay the course" on steroids.

To then sit in judgment on those in Congress who are actually speaking up for our soldiers and for the majority of the American public who no longer trust Bush's leadership in Iraq is just utterly shameless.

Make no mistake - Smith stands for the status quo in Iraq. No matter what comes out of his mouth, he stands for the status quo because he wants to see the U.S. Congress be the same rubber-stamp for Bush's disastrous policies as they were during the last 4 years of Republican domination.

Smith doesn't want debate. He doesn't want dissent. He doesn't want the people to be heard. And, the same holds true of fellow Republicans Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry - all of whom have failed their constituents and their country by continuing to write Bush blank checks signed in the blood of young Americans.

The only thing I can say positve about Adrian Smith on this issue - where he's proven incapable of thinking for himself - is that it is nice to see actual evidence he can read the scripts laid out for him by staffers and Republican strategists.

Hey, so long as this guy is in office, we have to take what we can get.

Go to full text...

An opeN iNvitatioN to Adrian Smith

The anonymous "Uncle Wiggily" of Kearney writes in his Heartland Notebook blog:

I received a pleasant email the other day from Rep. [Adrian] Smith’s press secretary offering to make himself or his boss available for “e-interviews” , as well as background information and regular updating from the heady D.C. atmosphere. At first I congratulated myself on making such an impression on the biggies in D.C., then about twelve seconds later realized that probably every other blogger in the Cornhusker state got the same offer. At any rate, I declined the interview opportunity but invited him to send along whatever information he saw fit.

So far I have received a professionally done piece of partisan rhetoric from the research arm of the RNC detailing the latest Hilary [sic] hypocrisies, and a copy of a White House talking points memo synopsizing President Bush‘s remarks at the Caterpillar plant in Peoria the other day. Not exactly the kind of hard-hitting and open-minded political analysis I might have hoped for, but interesting nonetheless. And if nothing else, it at least demonstrates a modicum of interest from Smith’s office about what is being said and thought out here in the flatlands.

As a fellow "Cornhusker state" blogger, let me assure Mr. Wiggily that the New Nebraska Network has received no such offer of an interview with 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith. As a skilled writer who is clearly dedicated to his beliefs, it's unfortunate that Wiggily does not take advantage of this opportunity, as I'm sure it would make for a worthwhile read. Even if slanted-as-hell (as I'd expect), it would be nice to see a Nebraska politician speaking for himself and answering some actual questions.

Although I don't know what precisely Smith would have in mind for an "e-interview," I hope he and his office know that they're always welcome to join us at the New Nebraska Network. I'd be happy to ask them some questions. In fact, I'd be quite honored and can promise that our coverage would be respectful and fair.

And, aware as I am that politicians and their staff are all-too-keenly aware of what gets said about them in the press and on the Internet, I would like to extend this same offer of availability to Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, Dave Heineman or any other Nebraska politician who might have something to say to our readership. This is especially the case if the New Nebraska Network's criticism is ever unwarranted or just plain wrong. By all means, please do us the benefit of correcting me and enlightening my readers.

My soapbox is your soapbox if you want it - the only thing I'd ask is that you answer a few questions and provide some straight answers in the process. That's not asking too much, is it?

NewNebNet@gmail.com - your people should contact my people. We'll work something out. That's a promise.

Oh yeah - Adrian - there's also a woman (and 3rd District constituent) from Grand Island who's probably gotten your attention with her own blog the last couple of weeks. In fact, I suspect she's the reason you're so eager for an online platform. If you aren't interested in reaching NNN's statewide audience, I've got a pretty good feeling Smith Watch would love to talk with you as well.

So, how's next week look on your schedule?

Go to full text...

Nebraska's Progressive Blogosphere On the Rise

In the last month, I've been very heartened to see the emergence of a number of bold new voices in Nebraska's online community. For starters, the UNO College Democrats have re-established their website as one of the best in the state with a flurry of activity. At the same time, the Nebraska Democratic Party's "Blog for Nebraska" has found renewed purpose not only taking the lead on the issues important to voters but also using its voice to build an organization about which we can all be proud.

Even more exciting than either of these more institutional developments, though, has been the arrival of two independent blogs - different in purpose but similar in focus - that have the potential to really contribute something special to those interested in Nebraska political debate and discussion. These websites are Paging Power and Smith Watch, both to which I offer my highest possible recommendations for their short but so-far superior efforts.

Paging Power has offered a wealth of political commentary since kicking-off in December, but its real strength and appeal lies in the extensive coverage it's provided of the Nebraska legislature. In particular, I suspect readers would take some enjoyment from Paging Power's many video offerings of oftentimes unreported but no less important (sometimes extremely amusing) highlights from the floor of the State Senate.

Right off the bat, I'd suggest everyone watch or listen to at least the first ten minutes of State Sen. Ernie Chambers' hour-long scolding of the legislature for its improper and dishonest handling of the state's tax policy, especially with LB344's proposed extension of the do-nothing Tax Policy Reform Commission. Sure, Chambers falls back on many of his familiar rants, but that doesn't change the fact that Nebraska would be well-served by every citizen in the state listening to what he has to say (at least, in this instance).

Smith Watch, on the other hand, is an exciting local example of what was a national trend in 2006 towards distict-specific, online watchdogs dedicated to holding a particular represenative accountable for his votes and for his record. Here, the Congressman in question is none other than the Nebraska Third's freshman Republican, Adrian Smith.

Smith had an undistinguished-to-embarrassing career as a State Senator. If he's going to do any better as a Congressman - or if the voters are going to have the knowledge and the ammunition to rid themselves of him in the next election - a site such as Smith Watch could serve an essential function and prove an incredible resource. Already, I'm impressed by the author's letter to Adrian Smith asking Smith to explain his thus-far insulting votes and pointing-out the continued influence the controversial Club for Growth holds over his every position. I also commend Smith Watch for its challenge to readers and voters of the Third District, reminding them of the role we must all play as citizens to make our democracy what it can and should be.

I am grateful for all the work that has been done by both of these sites. It's my sincerest hope that they will be able to maintain the energy and momentum they've already built - no doubt benefitting our entire state in the process. The New Nebraska Network simply can not devote the time and focus to the legislature and to Adrian Smith that both, respectively, deserve. I trust readers will enjoy the work done by Paging Power and by Smith Watch, generously offering them the active readership and encouragement it sometimes takes to feel our continued efforts are truly worthwhile.

The New Nebraska Network won't be around forever. This state needs more dynamic voices - more discussion - more challenges to the status quo. That requires helping one another out and acknowledging each other's work. If Nebraska's progressive community is to ever be anything more than a collection of disparate voices in the wilderness, it will take real effort at building that community into something worthy of the interests and ideas it claims to represent.

Consider myself and the New Nebraska Network dedicated to this cause - this building of something greater - for as long as we are able. We don't all have to see eye-to-eye on every issue. But, together, we will do a lot of good for this state we love - standing side-by-side, looking to and fighting for a better future.

Go to full text...

The Inconvenient Truth About Adrian Smith

Worse Than A Rubber Stamp....on Global Warming

I asked if Adrian believes in global warming. “No!” He believes many of the “facts” about global warming are in dispute.

-from conservative activist Steve Smith's "Interview with Adrian Smith" (11/23/2005)

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

-President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address (01/23/2007)

It says a lot about 3rd District Republican Congressman Adrian Smith that he's actually slower than President Bush at recognizing a problem. Smith is living proof of the old adage: When ideas fail, being a Republican comes in very handy.

Or something like that.

Could someone please lend Smith a copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on DVD to get him up to speed?

An Inconvenient Truth - funny, that's not a bad description for the fact that this joker Adrian Smith is actually the 3rd District's Congressman.

Pretty sad when you think about it. Even sadder if we do nothing to change it. On that note, please support the new website SmithWatch and do everything you can to force Smith's accountability to the voters of Central and Western Nebraska.

Go to full text...

Adrian Smith: Worst of the Worst

Let's take a moment to remember the Omaha World-Herald's characterization of now-3rd District Republican Congressman Adrian Smith in its October 15th, 2006 editorial:

When pressed aggressively...Adrian Smith falls back on sound bites and slogans....

Smith is not known as a skilled lawmaker. He is not known for an ability to build constructive coalitions for complicated legislation. He is not known as a skilled public speaker. He has no reputation for making substantive issues the subjects for his priority bills. He is not a lawmaker whom backers seek out to be the prime sponsor of major legislation.

He is not known as a leader.

Hard to believe that it was only a little more than three months ago when those words were written. But, from what we've seen of Smith in his first three weeks in Congress, he's more than lived up to his reputation ("lived down" would probably be more accurate).

The record of Nebraska's Republican Representatives in the first 100 hours of the new Congress has been pretty dismal. But, it really says something about Smith that, in just a few weeks, he's already earned distinction as worst of the worst, contributing nothing but partisan-driven vote after partisan-driven vote against an agenda with the over-whelming support of the American people.

Even First District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry and 2nd District Rep. Lee Terry learned enough from the last election to recognize that the days of the Do-Nothing Republican Congress are dead and buried. Although both have so far managed records that would still fail any test with the voters, they at least knew better than to vote in lock-step opposition with the most extremist faction of the Republican Party.

Surprise, surprise....Adrian Smith did no such thing, putting himself in the same league as Iowa nut-job Steve King, who claims Joe McCarthy as a hero and calls the Iraq War a success. Smith and King, clearly birds of a feather, voted against every popular measure brought forward by the Democrats (1) implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, (2) restoring pay-as-you-go budgeting, (3) raising the minimum wage, (4) expanding federal funding for stem cell research, (5) cutting student loan interest rates, (6) rolling back tax subsidies for oil companies and channeling the savings into alternative energy development, and (7) authorizing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

Of these, Terry only had the sense to vote for the rate cut on student loans. Fortenberry voted for the 9/11 recommendations, pay-go, and for the reforms in energy policy. Smith, on the other hand, just voted as told on every measure - as if the man were not even capable of an independent thought.

Adrian Smith: not known as a skilled lawmaker; not known as a leader. And, thanks to his choice to represent the most extremist wing of the Republican Party rather than the common sense people of central and western Nebraska, he never will be a skilled lawmaker or a leader.

One more line stands out from that World-Herald's desription of Smith three months ago:

[I]n terms of qualifications, the 3rd District deserves more...

That's more true now than ever. The 3rd District still deserves more and deserves better than Adrian Smith.I just hope someone will have the courage and faith to give voters the opportunity to correct their mistake before too much irreparable damage is done by Smith's unthinking Congressional incompetence.

Go to full text...

From the NNN Mailbox: "The Blind Partisans"

A reader just sent me the following message with some interesting facts and questions we need to do everything in our power to put before Nebraska voters:

1. On the House vote to curb new deficit spending and reform the practice of earmarks, 24% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith and not Lee Terry. Who is the conservative?

2. On the House vote to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 35% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith and not Lee Terry. Who is for protecting us against terrorism?

3. On the House vote to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in about a decade, 41% of the Republicans voted aye, but not Adrian Smith, not Lee Terry, and not Jeff Fortenberry. Who cares about the working person?

You've got the facts. You've got the questions. Now, use them.

The people of Nebraska did not overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic agenda in 2006, but it's their agenda nonetheless. These are changes that the people want - regardless of label - and those who fail to see that must be held to account by us today and by the voters tomorrow.

But for the tyranny and corruption of the last Congress' Republican majority, much of the Democratic-American-Nebraskan agenda we're seeing in these first 100 hours of the new Congress would have been passed years ago. From their votes, some Republican representatives have recognized their party's failure and wakened to the new possibilities for true progress on the great issues of our day.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Republican Congressmen - especially the 2nd District's Lee Terry and the the 3rd District's Adrian Smith - have been slow to this realization or are simply incapable of operating in any atmosphere but the toxic hyperpartisanship of the last decade.

Over the next two years, these men have a choice: change or defeat. But, we have to make those the stakes by holding their feet to the fires of truth and by helping grow the emerging majority of Nebraskans who will no longer accept empty suit, rubber-stamp Republicans who put D.C. politics before the interests of the people they represent. Terry and Smith should consider themselves warned.

Change is coming. Their time is over. Our time is now. (Even says so in the masthead.)

Go to full text...

Targeting Lee Terry

I know they've got a link on the sidebar, but I want to take this opportunity to praise the UNO College Democrats - especially Dave Sund - for getting their blog back up and running and - again - making it one of the online hotspots for those interested in Nebraska politics.

Sund has done one hell of a job over the last week taking 2nd District Republican Congressman Lee Terry to task for his hypocrisy and hyperpartisanship. Terry hasn't responded well to his new place in the House minority and has put on a pretty good display of pettiness in his floor statements and a total lack of principle with his first votes in this young Congress.

Now that the shallowness of Terry's support has been exposed in the 2006 election, he's been forced to make a choice between continued "Republican-First" extremism or providing the independent leadership that Nebraska voters expect. Clearly, he's chosen the former, revealing himself as a tired rubber-stamp with lots of ambition but only vision enough to read the scripts and play the games laid out for him by his party masters.

On ethics, earmarks, and, now, even on national security, Terry has failed to represent the values and interests of Nebraska's 2nd District voters. In fact, he's made a damn strong case for his being one of the most targeted Republican incumbents across the country in 2008 if he dares to seek re-election after a full decade of failed leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the 3rd District's Republican pool boy, Adrian Smith, has kept close to Terry and seems content to follow his pathetic example on the above issues. But, the 3rd District offers a much different dynamic than the 2nd that likely affords Smith more room for incompetence. With the emergence of what could soon prove a new 2nd District, however, Terry might just be writing his political career's obituary.

One could read into Terry's conduct that he's writing off seeking re-election and is already aiming for Hagel's Senate seat, positioning himself with his party and its base for a statewide primary battle. Otherwise, he's just being a damn fool, unable to break the habits that have served him and his constituents so poorly over the last 8 years.

So, keep up the good work, Mr. Sund. Keep holding Terry's feet to the fire - an uncomfortable position that will only become more unpleasant and, ultimately, more dangerous if he persists in these foolish partisan shenanigans that the embarrassed voters of the 2nd District will not and should not stand for at their next opportunity to be heard at the ballot box.

Go to full text...