Chuck Hagel: Casualty of War?

Sen. Chuck Hagel made some enlightening remarks in today's Lincoln Journal-Star that might just be the best indicator yet of where he's at mentally and emotionally looking at the 2008 elections:

Hagel said he willingly accepts whatever political price he may be asked to pay for opposing a president of his own party on the war.

“A senior statewide Republican politician berates me now around this state on Iraq and immigration,” Hagel noted.

Attorney General Jon Bruning already has entered the 2008 GOP race for Hagel’s Senate seat. Hagel said he still has not decided whether he’ll seek re-election to a third term.

“I may be a political casualty before people figure this out,” Hagel said. “I’m prepared to take that risk. I accept that. I couldn’t do it any other way.

“Your career could be ended,” he said. “But you’re here to do what you think is right.”

Hagel hasn’t ruled out the thought of a 2008 presidential bid. “Is there a place I could fit in nationally where I could make a difference,” he wondered, “maybe even be elected president?”....

No matter what he decides to do, Hagel said, he will not withdraw from the policy arena. “Whatever I do, I want to continue to have the opportunity to influence the world and the outcome of policy,” Hagel said. “That does not have to be within politics, as Bob Kerrey and others have demonstrated.”

Berated by Bruning. Still imagining the presidency. Ready to follow Bob Kerrey's footsteps, perhaps even trading places (Hagel's not heading into Academia, but you know what I mean).

As for Hagel's willingness to be martyred by the Republican Party over the Iraq War, it's impossible to know whether that's a genuine stand on principle or a calculated political risk, but it sure is a refreshing contrast from the silence of our Republican Congressmen and Bruning's pandering to the far right-wing.

If President Bush doesn’t change policy in Iraq, the Congress will force change through its appropriations power this autumn, Sen. Chuck Hagel said...

“The American people have left Bush on this,” Hagel said, “and many Republicans will not stay with him now” if he doesn’t change course.

“The political reality is coming down the track, and my Republican colleagues know it.”

On Iraq, the time of reckoning is at hand. Chuck Hagel knows it and hasn't been afraid to say so. The question is whether his fellow Republicans - especially those in his home state - have any real understanding of what's truly at stake, or are they so sheltered in their partisan bubble that even after 50 months they're still incapable of acknowledging this war for the disaster that it is.

And, for Nebraska's purposes, here's maybe the most interesting question of them all - just when Republicans seem ready to break from Bush on Iraq, does Jon Bruning really believe he can position himself for a Senate seat by riding Bush's tattered, lame-duck coattails straight into 'stay the course'-oblivion? When the tide has already turned, does Bruning really think it smart to condemn Hagel and make an enemy of him for having had both eyes open and daring to speak the truth?

Of course, this is Nebraska. Maybe the real question is just how far removed from reality and lost to their partisanship our average Republican voter truly is. For that answer, the coming months will be most telling as the fall approaches and our empty suit Congressmen meekly position themselves on the most important issue of our day.

What will our Timid Trio of Lee Terry, Jeff Fortenberry, and Adrian Smith have to say? How will their supporters respond? How will the rest of Nebraska respond? The time is now to stand up and be heard - to force the change of course that Hagel predicts. Where is the pressure? Where is the outrage? With these Congressmen, do we really expect them to take the initiative? Have we given up on reaching them? If so, have we given up on beating them? Or - despite all the polling data - at the end of the day, do we really just not care what happens in Iraq?

If so, the true casualty of this war will be a far more tragic loss than Hagel's political career but rather the loss of our faith in the character of the American people and the genius of democracy.

Have a safe and happy Independence Day tomorrow. Celebrate that patriotic spirit. Then, live it, and - by doing so - earn it.

Go to full text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Republican Leader Defends Hagel By Denouncing GOP

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Omaha World-Herald earlier this week:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel is honest enough to publicly state what he believes, and he is one of very few Republicans who will do so....

While I do not always agreee with Sen. Hagel, I will support him because I am comforted by his virtue, I believe in his character and I trust in his leadership.

So, thank you, Sen. Hagel, for your fortitude and willingness to speak out. I wish there were more Republicans in Congress with your courage.

Pat Dorwart, Sidney, Neb.
Republican National Committeewoman, 1992-2004

Take Dorwart's comments on Chuck Hagel for what you will, but it's hard to deny that so established a leader within the Nebraska Republican Party expressing such open disdain and disappointment in her own party's leadership should send a powerful message to Nebraska voters.

In particular, this should force people to take a good hard look at our Republican Congressmen - Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith. Each of them fails Dorwart's tests of courage, character, and leadership - proving time and again that they truly are the Timid Trio.

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...

BIG SURPRISE - Jeff Fortenberry Supports Nelnet's $300 Million Swindle

There was a bit of a delay in processing, but this March 9th Lincoln Journal-Star article should be of interest to anyone who believes corporations (and the politicians who protect them) should be held accountable for committing fraud against the American taxpayer:

The U.S. Department of Education is under fire from members of Congress for its decision to allow Lincoln student loan company Nelnet to keep $278 million in profits earned from a disputed loan subsidy.

Two different groups in Congress sent letters this week to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings asking her to better explain the department’s January settlement with Nelnet. One group of seven Republican and three Democrats called for Spellings to consider rescinding the deal.

The settlement allowed Nelnet to keep the about $278 million it earned from a government subsidy that guaranteed a 9.5 percent return on certain loans, even though the department’s Inspector General recommended that Nelnet pay back most of the money....

The first letter to Spellings, dated Monday, from seven Republicans and three Democrats called the settlement “irresponsible” and said it is setting precedent that “will encourage further abuse by lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan program”....

None of Nebraska’s three representatives signed either letter.

In the last election cycle, Nelnet was First District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s biggest financial contributor, at $26,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Fortenberry, a Lincoln Republican, said the decision on the Nelnet case was Spellings’ to make, not Congress’s.

“However, the congressman respects the concerns of members of Congress and welcomes any additional information regarding the secretary’s decision-making process,” Fortenberry spokesman Josh Moenning said.

The two letters asking asking that both the Dept. of Education and Nelnet actually be held accountable to the American taxpayer can be read here:

10 Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee

Bipartisan group of 7 Republican and 3 Democratic Representatives

The decision "was Spellings' to make" - can you believe that is Jeff Fortenberry's response? He "respects the concerns" of those who actually think Congress has a role in holding American corporations accountable when they rip-off almost $300 million from taxpayers, but he personally thinks Nelnet should get away with it scot-free.

I suppose that shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering that Nelnet was the largest contributor to his 2006 campaign and the largest contributor to the House Republicans' Campaign Committee. No wonder that Fortenberry was named to the Campus Progress Hall of Shame for being such a lackey for student lenders against students' interests.

For some perspective, Nelnet directly contributed $26,000 to Fortenbery's campaign. For that investment, they seem to have bought his complicity to their walking away with $278 million of the American people's money. That's a return of more than $10,000 for every dollar spent - though, of course, Fortenberry's was only one voice of the many Nelnet tried to buy in the last election.

A small price to pay and probably a sound investment when you've got politicians like Fortenberry eager to play along.

Then again, none of Nebraka's Republican Representatives had the decency to stand up for enforcement of the law and fiscal discipline by asking that Nelnet be held accountable. And, they never will - at least, not until they themselves are reminded that they are accountable not to the Tom DeLays, George Bush's, and Nelnets of the world but to the voters and taxpayers of Nebraska, who have just been screwed royally on the Timid Trio's watch.

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...

Jeff Fortenberry: Thin-Skinned, Congressional Con Artist

After accusing a student newspaper of being biased against him and writing a series of letters to the editor (1, 2) whining in similar fashion whenever anyone takes him to task for his voting record, it's becoming clear early in Congressman Jeff Fortenberry's second term just how sniveling and thin-skinned a politician he actually is.

In his first term, Fortenberry generally went unchallenged on the issues - getting a pass from Democrats and the media - and that carried over into his election match-up with Maxine Moul. Well, there's still a long ways to go, but there are definitely signs that things are starting to change and that Fortenberry is going to have to start answering some tough questions - questions he clearly does not feel comfortable with anyone asking after his weak attempts at intimidation and accusation to silence his critics.

This weekend, Fortenberry was at it again. After the Lincoln Journal-Star - the largest newspaper in the First District - published an editorial charging Fortenberry with "march[ing] lockstep to the Bush administration’s drumbeat" on Iraq and calling on he, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith to rethink their blind support of party and President, Fortenberry again complained about this unfair and unfamiliar treatment better known as accountability.

Acquiescing to Fortenberry's paranoia, the Journal-Star agreed to publish the floor statement Fortenberry had made during debate of the House's non-binding resolution opposing the Bush plan for escalation of the Iraq War. In preface, the editor of the Journal-Star wrote:

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry took issue with the Journal Star editorial criticizing his vote against the House resolution opposing the Bush administration’s troop surge in Iraq. With his agreement, we are publishing his statement on the House floor as his reply to the editorial.

Although the New Nebraska Network doesn't like to see such easy buckling to political pressure by the press, we're always happy to see a politician's actual words and record reported. So, in this case, we have little trouble with letting the baby have his bottle:

Madam Speaker, when I left home this week for Washington, my 6-year-old Kathryn was very sad. She has big beautiful brown eyes, and they had filled with tears at the prospect of my leaving again. And she said to me: “Daddy, why do you have to be a congressman?” And my thoughts went to the words of Thomas Paine, the Revolutionary War author, when he said: “I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.”

Madam Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for our nation and a very grave and solemn policy debate. We cannot afford to allow the ups and downs of the daily news cycle to set the course for our deliberations. The stakes in Iraq are too high....

We must provide meaningful and vigorous congressional oversight. I commend Chairman Lantos for taking the lead on this in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and for his commitment to a substantive and reasoned debate. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to support a constructive bipartisan initiative, drawing upon the substantive resources, like the Iraq Study Group, to enhance congressional oversight and set out meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward stabilization of Iraq and drawdown of our troops.

While it would be politically easier for me to vote for this resolution, I cannot....

If we flinch now — regardless of the goodwill behind our motivations — if we are perceived as weak and divided and eager to throw up our hands in frustration, we will pay a heavy price. And every nation that counts upon us as a friend and an ally will pay a heavy price. None of us wants to see a repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon. I urge my colleagues: Let’s find constructive ways to get the job done.

With a line of BS like that, I have to join Fortenberry's daughter in asking "couldn't we find a better Congressman than this?" Seriously, I can not believe this man would have the audacity to quote Thomas Paine while making such a self-serving argument intended to stifle the freedom of dissent that is and forever shall be Paine's legacy as both a writer and a patriot.

To be honest, while I completely support the Journal-Star publishing Fortenberry's statement, I think they have a duty to do more than hand Fortenberry the microphone and let him say anything he damn well pleases. They have a duty to provide the context readers require to be less easy prey to Fortenberry's manipulation.

For starters, Fortenberry should not get away with perpetuating the myth that the troubles we're seeing in Iraq somehow result from the media's negativity. What a slap in the face to logic and the American public to suggest that four years of directionless death and destruction, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, has made for an unpopular war only because of how the media has presented it.

Sorry, Fortenberry...we're not that stupid.

I would also love to know when Fortenberry suddenly started supporing "meaningful and vigorous congressional oversight." In his first two years in Congress, he certainly wasn't challenging his party's totally irresponsible dereliction of their constitutional duties as a separate but equal branch of the federal government. No, Fortenberry stayed silent - like a good little rubber stamp Republican - and he would still prefer to stay silent on Iraq if it were not for the new Democratic majority forcing the sorts of debates we should have been seeing for the last four years.

Fortenberry claims he wants a "constructive bipartisan initiative." Sounds great, but what the hell did he do in the last Congress to actually make it a reality? NOTHING!

This is nothing more than empty rhetoric to hide the entire Republican Party's four years of failure and incompetence behind an illusionary call for compromise that they did everything they could to prevent when they were in power. Now that they are out of power and the people again have a voice, they make these sorts of disingenuous and insulting declarations that every voter in this country should see right through.

Sorry, Fortenberry....we're not that stupid. Not anymore.

With his record of being nothing more than a rubber stamp, it's also hard to understand what Fortenberry's talking about claiming it would be "politically easier" for him to support the resolution. All he's done on this latest vote is continue his two year record of voting as told by Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and various other string-pullers in the Republican Party. Being a good little puppet seemed like the easiest thing in the world for Fortenberry in his first term, and it's just plain ridiculous for him to suggest that still isn't easier than being the actual representative Nebraska's First District deserves.

Probably the saddest and most revealing of Fortenberry's comments is his warning us to avoid the perception of weakness and not to flinch in Iraq. He knows as well as anyone that the pereception of our weakness is not the problem - it's the reality of our weakness and our inability to establish any sort of control that makes our situation in Iraq so perilous and perhaps even hopeless.

Fortenberry's talk of not wanting to see "a repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon" is also quite troubling. If that was an instance of America "flinching," what would he have honestly preferred happen? Would he prefer that we still be in Vietnam - that we still be losing soldiers and sapping resources in a vain attempt to save face? Is that really better than realizing this isn't our war to fight, this isn't a war we can win, and we were probably wrong to have ever thought otherwise in the first place?

If Jeff Fortenberry's main worry is the appearance of weakness, then he is a far weaker man and representative than I'd previously feared. He offers platitudes like "Let's get the job done," but he shows no understanding and little concern for what that job is and what it truly entails. He seems to imagine that by will and stubborness alone, there's some victory that is ours for the taking. But, if he's wrong, all he's done is invited even greater catastrophe and more horrific tragedy - seemingly without reason and without end.

Sorry, Fortenberry....we're not that stupid. Not anymore. And, hopefully, never again.

Go to full text...

Should the Unicameral Take a Position on Iraq?

Seriously, what do you think?

The New York Times reports:

Frustrated by the inability of Democrats in Congress to pass a resolution opposing President Bush’s policies in Iraq, state legislators across the country, led by Democrats and under pressure from liberal advocacy groups, are pushing forward with their own resolutions.

Resolutions have passed in chambers of three legislatures, in California, Iowa and Vermont....

Letters or resolutions are being drafted in at least 19 other states. The goal is to embarrass Congress into passing its own resolution and to provide cover for Democrats and Republicans looking for concrete evidence back home that anti-Iraq resolutions enjoy popular support.

“The end of this war has to start sometime and somewhere,” the president of the Iowa Senate, John P. Kibbie, a Democrat, said Thursday. “And stopping the expansion of these troops needs to happen now”....

Many Republicans in state legislatures have remained silent on the resolutions, seeing no advantage in signing or voting for them. Others have called the actions essentially votes of no confidence in the troops on the ground.

“These resolutions are a colossal waste of time,” said Kris Kobach, chairman of the Republican Party in Kansas, where a resolution was killed in committee. “Legislatures are spending valuable and limited time acting in an area where they have no authority. If all we are doing is sending messages, we should be concerned about the fact that soldiers are being told that their states are not behind them. I think that is particularly troubling.”

Many resolutions use language from the Progressive States Network that apes language in a proposed resolution in Congress that says President Bush should obtain explicit Congressional approval before adding troops in Iraq.

Other resolutions go further, calling for a deadline for departure, immediate troop withdrawal or stopping the financing of the war. The votes have largely fallen along party lines — Democrats for and Republicans against — although there have been exceptions. In North Dakota, a Democrat and a Republican are sponsoring a resolution urging Congress and Mr. Bush to “disengage American combat forces in Iraq.”

In a vote [last] Thursday in the Iowa Senate, Republicans insisted on a voice vote rather than a roll call on a resolution to condemn the increase in troops. The measure, which passed, is headed to the House, where its fate is uncertain....

In states where Republicans control the legislatures, passage of such antiwar resolutions seems unlikely. Kansas lawmakers held a perfunctory hearing, only to have the committee chairman, Senator Pete Brungardt, Republican of Salina, say he would not schedule a vote.

“A number of people felt that was a rather public vote without an upside,” Mr. Brungardt said. “There is not really a winning answer for them.”

It's interesting that neighboring states such as Iowa, Kansas, and even North Dakota should figure so prominently in these actions. According to the Progressive States Network, Missouri, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas also have such resolutions before their state legislatures, provoking public debate and pressure on Congress regardless of their likelihood of passage.

Believe it or not, that leaves Nebraska the only Big XII state in which no such legislation has beeen introduced. Using the model language provided by the Progressive States Network for an Anti-Escalation resolution, it would read:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the state of NEBRASKA, on behalf of its citizens, urges that in a period when the Iraq Study Group, leading military and diplomatic officials and allies around the world are calling for a reduction in troops and withdrawal of the US from Iraq, the United States government should not escalate its involvement in Iraq or increase troop levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, at a minimum, the President should obtain explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, to the Congressional delegation of NEBRASKA, and to the United States Congress.

I'm genuinely curious how readers would feel about Nebraska's Unicameral taking up such a measure. I can't say I'd make it my highest priority, but - with the over-taxing of the National Guard, more than 30 Nebraskans killed, and a reported cost to Nebraska taxpayers of $2.7 billion - it's hard to say with a straight face that the war in Iraq is not a state concern.

So, tell me: should the Unicameral be considering a resolution opposing Bush's escalation of the Iraq War? And, in all honesty - in our supposedly non-partisan legislature, on an issue that has become such a partisan lightning rod for politicians and activists - how would you really see such a resolution faring before our state legislature?

Nebraska is home to two U.S. Senators who have played absolutely essential roles in opposing Bush's escalation, including the leading critic from Bush's own party. Yet, we're also home to three Congressmen who couldn't exercise more deference to Presidential authority and the dictates of the Republican Party. With our hypothetical resolution, which of those opposing mindsets wins out in our non-partisan Unicameral?

Please discuss.

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...

Nebraska Unites in Rejecting Bush's Iraq Escalation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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...

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...