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...

Finally A Reason For Lee Terry's Support Of Iraq War

The city of Bellevue wants to locate a national veterans cemetery next to Offut Air Force Base, and Lee Terry is doing everything he can to see that they get it (besides being an effective Congressman for Nebraska's 2nd District).

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Rep. Lee Terry said Tuesday that he will introduce a bill in the U.S. House to authorize a new national veterans cemetery in eastern Nebraska.

Advocates of creating a cemetery near Offutt Air Force Base have tried for years to convince the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that enough demand exists....

"The bill would be to specifically allow that eastern Nebraska be recognized for a federal veterans cemetery, because right now we don't meet the criteria," he said.

Suddenly, Terry's unquestioning support for President Bush's failed Iraq War policy makes a little more sense. His thinking seems to be quite simple:

More War = More Veterans = More Dead Veterans (i.e. "demand") = A New Veterans Cemetery for Bellevue

Hard to argue with logic like that. With the way Terry voted lock-step with Congressional Republicans (and fellow Nebraska Reps. Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith) against this week's House legislation setting goals and a timeline for troop withdrawal, he's certainly doing his part to get Bellevue the veterans' cemetery they desire.

Pork barrel politics? Supply and demand? Either way you look at it, you've got to give Terry credit for looking out for his constituents - just not those in uniform, their families, or any of the taxpayers who are carrying the financial burden of the Republican Party's directionless and unprincipled war without end.

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...

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...

Lee Terry's Real Message to 2nd District Voters

(click image to see Rep. Lee Terry's actual billboard....
though this one is a hell lot more honest)

Above, you see the work of Nebraska political cartoonist (and legend-in-the-making) Neal Obermeyer, which appears in this week's edition of The Reader.

After a closer-than-anticipated race with Democratic Congressional candidate Jim Esch in 2006, Republican Congressman Lee Terry realized just how shallow his base of support really was - to the point that he actually lost his home city of Omaha. So, he kicked-off his fifth-term by putting up a bunch of billboards across the Omaha metro ironically thanking voters for the "trust" they clearly had not shown in him as Terry won re-election by his tightest margin yet against a completely under-funded and previously unknown challenger.

As Obermeyer's "cartoon" points out, Terry's record during the first month of the new Congress has been abysmal and certainly hasn't given voters any reason to put their confidence in him as anything but a Republican stooge totally incapable of putting the interests of his constituents ahead of the dicatates of his party bosses.

When voters are calling for bipartisanship and simply want to see a Congress that gets things done after the do-nothing debacle of the last two years, Lee Terry has responded by becoming even more radical and more rabidly partisan. That won't serve 2nd District voters well, and it isn't what they want. If Terry is thinking about re-election in 2008, he might want to think again before he continues any futher down this ugly and unrepresentative road.

Of course, political chatter suggests that Terry's really trying to broaden his appeal in a statewide primary by positioning himself as Nebraska's Republican Rubberstamp Royalty. Terry has certainly given every indication that, should Sen. Chuck Hagel not seek re-election in 2008, he'll be throwing his hat in what would likely be a very crowded ring. He probably thinks that by being enough of a reactionary moron, he can win over the party's activist base and make in-roads with those outside of the 2nd District who are generally distrustful of these corporate, big city-types (think "Lee Terry as Hal Daub Jr.").

Regardless, it's going to be hard for Terry to really establish himself along these lines. When it comes to being a partisan hack, he has some pretty stiff competition from 1st District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. Meanwhile, 3rd District Rep. Adrian Smith seems intent on proving just how completely a man can become a wholly-owned subsidiary of his campaign contributors at the Club for Growth - without even the pretense of independence or personal dignity.

Don't know how Terry's going to top that (bottom that would be more appropriate), but he's certainly welcome to try. Just so long as he understands that people are watching - voters are paying attention - and, if he wasn't happy with his performance in 2006, he should be warned that he ain't seen nothin' yet.

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...

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...

Our Lost Opportunity to Expose Nebraska GOPs Extremism

Now that our somewhat entertaining but not particularly enlightening discussion about the feasibility and desirability of a national sales tax has winded down, I'm actually more convinced than ever of just how preposterous a proposal it truly is. It's not a good idea for America or the right idea for Nebraska...which shouldn't surprise after the expert framing of the issue by Sen. Nelson's reelection campaign, turning challenger Pete Ricketts' mere openness to the idea into a disastrous political liability.

This does, however, raise one essential question: considering how effective the national sales tax was in portraying Ricketts as out-of-touch with Nebraska voters for wanting to shift the tax burden onto the working class to benefit billionaire families like his own, why didn't Nebraska's 2006 Democratic Congressional challengers do more to piggy-back on the issue to make it work for their own campaigns?

At the very least, incumbent Representatives Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, along with Congressman-elect Adrian Smith, should have been forced by their opponents and the media to choose whether they would take the idea off the table as Ricketts famously refused to do. The fact that they could escape the 2006 political season without committing one way or the other (and accepting the consequences) is not only a failure of the campaigns they faced but of the entire citizenry who lost their best opportunity to force these men to carve out an honest position for which they could be judged and held accountable.

Nebrask FairTax provides a "Congressional Score Card" that reads accordingly:

* Ben Nelson – Completely misrepresenting the FairTax in his re-election campaign. Unabashed #1 FairTax-enemy in Nebraska.

* Tom Osborne – Officially listed as leaning AGAINST.

* Jeff Fortenberry – Officially listed as leaning TOWARD, but not committed yet.

* Chuck Hagel – Officially listed as un-committed. Running for President so he really owes us a position.

* Lee Terry – Officially listed as un-committed. Has personally told NE volunteers that he supports a ‘flatter’ Income Tax instead.

It's unfathomable that Fortenberry could get through the campaign season without being called out for his supposed support of so dangerous a scheme as a national sales tax. Considering the flack Ricketts took throughout the summer for holding a similar position, it's hard to understate the lost opportunity of turning this into a multi-pronged, party-defining issue by which down ballot candidates could have gained some early, much-needed momentum.

No mention is made on Nebraska FairTax's website of Adrian Smith's position, but he often spoke in favor of a broad overhaul of the tax system, providing no real specifics. Smith did, however, bring Iowa Congressman Steve King, the defacto leader of the Republican Party's "Right-Wing Wacko" caucus, to Nebraska to campaign on his behalf. No surprise, King is the most vocal supporter of the "FairTax" in Congress.

Considering the lengths to which Smith went to avoid taking a public stance on this unpopular idea, it seems safe to say he'll be following the lead of King and Fortenberry rather than Osborne and Nelson. That we were not more vigilant in demanding honesty and accountability from Smith in his bid for elected office leaves me ashamed as an activist, a Democrat, a journalist, and a citizen.

We let ourselves down with this one. Absent Nelson's stature and his campaign's funding, the same opportunity will not present itself in 2008. But there are lessons to be learned in terms of unity, constant vigilance, and foresight that are universal and eternal. We must recognize those and take them to heart if our passions are ever to translate into significant and sustainable Election Day victories.

Go to full text...