Our Constitutional Crisis

Patrick Borchers is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

PatBorchers01It hadn’t occurred to me to attach the word “crisis” to the Constitution until Ben Sasse did so in one of his Youtube videos during the Republican Senate primary in 2014. The video went sort of viral after it was linked on the Drudge Report.

Sasse was referring then to one of Obama’s executive pronouncements delaying a date in the Affordable Care Act. (Obama did so 28 times, so it’s hard to keep them straight.)

At first I thought Sasse’s characterization was overblown, but the more I have thought about it the more I think he’s right. The odd thing about crises is that sometimes it’s harder to see them from the inside than it is looking at the long arc of history.

The United States, by my reckoning, goes through one about every 75 years and this one has arrived right on schedule. In each case the response has been the further consolidation of power in the federal government, and lately pulling it in even further into the White House.

Sometimes the strengthening of federal power has been for the better, but lately I think for the worse.

The first crisis brought us the original Constitution, which was drafted in 1787. It replaced the weak Articles of Confederation with a much more robust federal government.

Rolling forward roughly 75 years brings us to the Civil War. The southern states believed that they had a sovereign right to secede and imagined themselves to be fighting the second American Revolution, but with the North as the enemy rather than Britain.

Of course, the social issue of the time was slavery, though several border slave states did not secede. With the Union’s military victory secured in 1865, the Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) were ratified. Most obviously they abolished slavery, but they gave Congress considerable new legislative authority.

Rolling forward another 75 years brings us to the Great Depression. FDR’s New Deal depended on a massive expansion in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to provide federal power for national welfare and regulatory structures. When the Supreme Court proved recalcitrant, FDR proposed packing the Court by adding up to six new Justices (taking the Court to 15 Justices). Although the Court packing plan wasn’t adopted, the Court got the message and started voting to uphold most of the New Deal legislation.

If we roll forward roughly another 75 years, we come to the Great Recession and Obama’s election. Again the response has been a dramatic increase in the power of the federal government, and lately in the White House.

In the two-year window from 2009 to 2011 when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, two enormous pieces of legislation passed – Dodd-Frank and the ACA. Although the scope of the legislation in each case is breathtaking, what’s even more remarkable is the power delegated to regulatory agencies.

What’s equally stunning, however, is that President Obama has claimed both that Congressional action and inaction give him the authority to essentially legislate by Executive Decree. In the case of the ACA – as mentioned above – he 28 times unilaterally delayed implementation of various facets of the act.

In Representative Trey Gowdy’s epic speech on the House floor, he reminded the President that Congress doesn’t pass suggestions; it passes laws.

But even when Congress doesn’t pass anything, President Obama claims the right to act unilaterally. In announcing his Executive action on immigration, Obama said defiantly: “To those in Congress who question my authority to act . . . I have one response. Pass a bill.”

A moment’s consideration is all that is needed to see the patent danger in this line of reasoning. Congress has passed a lot of laws on immigration and there has thus far been no political consensus to pass any more. In the scheme of separated government that we have, the President is to “Take Care” to see that the laws that are on the books are faithfully executed.

But President Obama’s position is that he and the rest of the Executive Branch can decide to enforce the immigration laws it likes and ignore the others, at least until Congress passes an immigration bill that he’s willing to sign. This is, quite literally, Hobson’s choice.

Looking back, I think few now would quarrel with the decision to adopt the Constitution or Lincoln’s resolve in preserving the Union and the Civil War Amendments.

As to the New Deal, in hindsight it provoked only tepid progress against rampant unemployment. In 1938, six years into FDR’s presidency, unemployment spiked at 19%, almost as high as it was when FDR took office. The event that really pulled the United States out of the Depression was entry into World War II. Of course some features of the New Deal, notably Social Security, are stitched into the fabric of most Americans’ expectations of the federal government. But Social Security is actuarially doomed absent significant changes in eligibility and benefits.

In my view, Obama’s expansion and consolidation of power is a bridge much, much too far. He has run roughshod over the Constitution, but perversely the magnitude of his actions has made it difficult to challenge them in court because of the standing doctrine, which requires an individualized injury to sue.

Of course this poses the question of what to do about it. There are more vocal calls for a Constitutional Convention and detailed proposals have been made for amendments that would mandate shrinking of the government, the most prominent of which is Mark Levin’s proposal for the “Liberty Amendments.” While many of these are worth pursuing – I particularly like his redefined Commerce Clause – these are a long-run project.

The more immediate project is to win more elections with candidates who truly believe in a limited government. Unfortunately, the proponents of expanded government have succeeded in capturing the flag of “action” and labeling others as “obstructionist.”

But restoring the size of government to that envisioned by the Constitution is hardly obstructionist; it is greatest imperative of our time.

Out and About

“Lisa Jones” is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

LisaJones01Nebraska is facing a lawsuit to overturn the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. We could know as soon as the end of the week whether Judge Battalion will rule in favor of the plaintiffs raising the case against the state. While this may not mean that the state would immediately recognize same-sex marriage, it would be a clear step in that direction, pending anything further from the Supreme Court.

In general, Republicans have been on the side of traditional marriage, though the opposition to changing the definition of marriage is not monolithic. We are the Party where people who don’t agree with same-sex marriage, especially for religious reasons, can be “out and proud”, so to speak. (This is probably one of the best things about our party for which we never get credit–you can be socially conservative or socially liberal, either way, you can set up shop in the Big Tent if you believe in being fiscally conservative.).

A common criticism, even within the GOP, is whether we should even be focusing on social issues when they prove unpopular or controversial; do we lose traction in the national conversation when our debates discuss contraception more that fiscal policy? I know for me personally, the GOP represents my views on many social issues as well as economic, especially in regard to protecting the unborn. And there is the argument that liberal social policies, by definition, undermine conservative fiscal policy. But imagine if we were not historically the Party of those social issue standards. Would I really ever vote for a Democrat anyway? Probably not, because of their views on fiscal policy. If that is the case for most people, should social issues have that much prominence in our state and national discussion? Does it help us build a stronger GOP? Does that help us win?

I don’t know the answer. Discuss.

This is a time of great change. We will see how much the GOP changes with it.

The Wheels Down Politics Show – Sam Fischer

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

Sam Fischer 01Jerry Kratochvil interviews political consultant Sam Fischer of Meridian Central Public Affairs.

Jerry and Sam discuss some of Sam’s past campaigns, some favorite aspects of his campaign work and the two discuss the upcoming 2016 Nebraska 2nd District Congressional race and some of the candidates for the GOP nomination .

 

 

 

 

Check out an ad Sam and Jerry discussed for the 2014 Dinsdale for Senate campaign…

…and an outtake from that ad.

And here is Sam from his good ol’ days.

Fischer - Bush 02

You can find him:
@MeridianSam on Twitter
http://MeridianHQ.com

You can find this, and all of our podcasts at WheelsDownPolitics.com and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.

Sausage production

Sasusage Chamber01Congress is nice.
The White House and the rest of the Federal Government have their goings-on.

But if you really want to see where gub-mint decisions are being made that could actually affect your life, sit down and watch some city council…or some legislature.

You will be fascinated to learn who is running the place.

For instance, there was a debate in the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee about Charter Schools. We have heard various arguments for and against the bill that was proposed — and did not make it out of committee — on that subject.

But Gwenn Aspen — who ran for the legislature last year — appeared before the Education Committee to argue in favor of the issue.

She brought with her a survey that showed kids who performed at low levels according to various evaluations scored dramatically better when educated in Charter Schools.

Ms. Aspen stated…

In Nebraska, only 5% of African American children, 6% of Native American Children and 10% of Hispanic children are meeting college-readiness benchmarks as defined by the ACT. This is in comparison with 66% of Caucasian children.

Charter schools have obliterated the achievement gap in many parts of the country. Take for instance Success Academy in New York where the vast majority of attending students are children of color from low income families. Success schools have reversed the achievement gap Where 94% of African American students and 96% of Hispanic students passed the Math exam compared with 56% of White students citywide.

Ah, but enter state Senator Tanya Cook. She disagreed with Ms. Aspen.

Well…not so much disagreed.
Here, you figure it out:

Sen. Cook:

I just don’t believe that black people are that much stupider than white people. And that’s what it really sounds like as somebody who is black and who has lived in northeast Omaha her whole life.

It sounds to my ear as a legislator and as a resident of northeast, Omaha, sounds just a TINY bit patronizing.

OK, so you got that?

Senator Cook is insulted by the statistics you have!
She of course ignores that POINT that Ms. Aspen is making, that kids who are in charter schools succeed — based on the SCHOOL and not based upon race.

But you see, this way Senator Cook gets to express her FEELINGS. See, she FEELS that those statistics are being mean. See she LIVED there, her WHOLE life. And how dare Ms. Aspen come in with her mean statistics. (Which is one reason she made a “point” as opposed to “asking a question”.)

(Watch the whole committee exchange here, if you wish.)

This, by the way, isn’t to say the the Charter School bill was better than sliced bread, or that Charter Schools are the cure of all society’s ills.

But it is to note that this is the kind of response that some of these bills get. “The stats are patronizing…”

Awesome. Glad you’re making laws for people.

***

And then we jump to the floor of the Nebraska Legislature where “debate” on the Winner Take All bill is taking place.

You listened to the interview with state Senator Beau McCoy (right?!! Didn’t you???) where he talked about the history of the law and the new bill and the reasoning behind it.

Just to catch you up, the “proportional distribution” of Electoral Votes was passed in 1991 so that Democrats could hopefully pick off an Electoral Vote.

That’s it.
That’s the reason.

Don’t believe me? Hey, here is the former Editorial Writer for the LJS BRAGGING that he was the one who had been arguing for it before state Sen. DiAnna Schimek introduced it and passed it with Governor Ben Nelson’s signature:

The candid hope was that, in overwhelmingly Republican Nebraska, outnumbered Democrats just might have a remote chance in the geographically compact Second District.

You got that? It was a purely PARTISAN plan by the Dems.

Not to induce Presidential campaigns to come to Nebraska.

Not to pump up voter turnout.

Not even the dystopian plan to increase ad revenue for the Nebraska media market.

It was to help the Democrats.

Oh, and prior to the 2008 pickoff, Republicans tried NUMEROUS times to turn this back. Ben Nelson even vetoed a bill that passed back in the later 90s on this.

But now?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh it’s horrrribbblllle!

It’s a GOP plot! (Says the outraged Senator Schumacher.)
It’s about RACISM! (Says the poetic Senator Chambers.)

Senator Schumacher went all Neville Chamberlain and waved a piece of paper in the air (from 2011) that said the GOP demanded that Winner Take All pass.

Hmm. Interesting outrage there. I’m not even going to bother to look, but I wonder what percentage of Republicans have been behind Winner Take All, and what percentage of Democrats have been against Winner Take All.

I’m going to just go out on a limb and say that the Dems have been a solid, unified front against the pulling back from the plan to pick off an Electoral Vote for the Democrats. Republicans, not so much.

Oh, and Senator Chambers says its all about racism! Racism, we tells ya! What else could it be???!

“President Barack Obama is black! And when he was up for election against Bob Dole in 1996…uh…well…

“But when Barack Obama is up for election in 2016…and…then…uh…uh…RACISM! RACISM! It’s OB-VEE-US! And now, let me quote ‘Men at Work’!”

Senator Pansing Brooks regurgitated that in the Voter ID bill — all the supporters are RACIST! — and you just keep hearing it, over and over.

It’s sort of like the adage on Godwin’s Law. If the other side pulls that out, you know you’ve won the argument.

***

The DCCC put #NE02 Rep. Brad Ashford atop their “defend” list.
The NRCC put Brad Ashford atop their “target” list. (With a bitchin’ photo, I might add.)

At least everyone is on the same page, yeah?

***
You want to talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline?
Have at it.

      • The President said he will veto, and will most likely veto.
      • He said he’d listen to environmental points.
      • The State Dept. says it’s fine.
      • They say the oil drilling won’t make a difference on Global Warming or Climate Change or that 2012 movie when the world ended and they built that Ark in China, or that other movie where all the super duper cold winter survivors holed up in the New York Public Library.
      • And the Nebraska expert on the Ogallala Aquifer says it’s cool — and even some of the anti-pipers seem to agree with that.
      • And trains are derailing all over the place and dumping oil.
      • And this would be the safest, best pipeline yet.
      • Oh, and it would absolutely create jobs.
      • They’d be “temporary” jobs — you know like the temporary jobs when a skyscraper is built, and all of the “temporary” support jobs that are created for all of the people that have to supply and house and feed them.

But please remember folks, the anti-pipeline effort creates jobs too!

  • It creates the jobs for people at Bold Nebraska.
  • And it creates jobs for the other liberal efforts that revolve around them.
  • And we are sure it has been a boon for the liberal bumper-sticker industry, so that’s awesome too.

No doubt, the President is taking this allllll into account when he makes his veto decision.

***

Didja know…

Senator Deb Fischer hasn’t missed a single one of her 712 votes since entering the Senate.

That little nugget in a recent story about those in Congress whose voting history is less than stellar.

***

ICYMI, Senator Ben Sasse made a video, similar to the ones back in the campaign, on the Iran nuclear threat.

In is his signature long-form style he takes on the Obama administration for the half-assed (my words) approach they are taking on this most serious of subjects.

See it here:

And if nothing else, you have to give him credit for knocking these out with apparently no notes or anything else. He’s not standing there trying to come up with his next point, or umm-ing or like-ing.

You try it. Not an easy task.

***

Keep coming back to Leavenworth St!
More and more to come!

The Wheels Down Politics Show – State Sen. Beau McCoy

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

Beau McCoy 002Jerry Kratochvil interviews Nebraska State Senator Beau McCoy on LB10, the “Winner Take All” bill, in the Nebraska legislature.

Beau and Jerry discuss the history of the Nebraska law which distributes Presidential Electoral Votes by Congressional District. They talk about the past attempts (including pre-2008) to change the law, the original intent of the law, and the arguments for and against McCoy’s “Winner Take All” bill.

You can find this, and all of our podcasts at WheelsDownPolitics.com and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.

Booze on Campus

“Harry Bailly” is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

Harry Bailly 01Senator Tyson Larson is at it again, with another alcohol related push in the Legislature. Lest readers think me some kind of Puritan, I take a backseat to nobody in the (mostly responsible) enjoyment of distilled spirits and other such beverages.

Also, I was in college once, and (shh, don’t tell anyone) I occasionally drank, even before I was of legal age. (N.B.: I did not attend the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and in fact my alma mater did not have an alcohol ban on campus, although alcohol was not—in a technical sense—allowed in dorms.)

Having established that I am not a Puritan, I am also not a prohibitionist. I have a strong libertarian streak. Live and let live. Small government. Robust social institutions tackling social problems instead of the state. Civic virtue. All that jazz. But giving college students a thumbs-up to drink on campus seems to me like a pretty serious liability issue, especially when university administrators know that a good number of the students on campus are under the legal drinking age. Who is going to be responsible for policing and monitoring the ages of drinkers? And when something bad happens, as something bad will, will the university be held liable because someone will make the argument that the university reasonably could have foreseen a preventable tragedy?

Kids will drink. We know that. Bad things will sometimes happen when kids drink. We know that too. Heck, bad things happen when adults drink too much as well. But while the motivation behind Larson’s proposal seems to be sound, the unintended consequences are potentially devastating.

And perhaps that is not what Larson and Schilz have in mind. Perhaps they are not thinking about turning the campus into one giant speakeasy, but rather contemplate some university sponsored events or parties with professional and bonded bartenders checking IDs. I have no problem with that.

The Legislature needs to remember too that Nebraska has a constitution, and the constitution envisions a board of regents to govern the affairs of the state university system. Nebraska also has a supreme court, which held in 1977—this is highly technical legalese—that the Legislature can’t just boss the regents around. The floor of the Unicameral is not the proper forum to be having this discussion.

Another thing I have no problem with is allowing beer sales at Pinnacle Bank Arena and Hawks Field during athletic events. (Memorial Stadium is likely another discussion.) I am told that at least one member of the board of regents is in favor of this idea, and it should be discussed. Servers could check IDs, and the university could use all or a portion of the proceeds from beer sales to fund programs to help students struggling with alcoholism and to provide alcohol abuse education. Chancellor Perlman says he will consider any option geared at reducing alcohol abuse, right? What do you say, Harvey?

Many of the potential problems could be ameliorated—or perhaps exasperated, who knows?—by lowering the drinking age to 18. But that is a discussion for another post.

Of Yoga Pants and Men

“Lisa Jones” is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

LisaJones01Once again, Republicans do most of the work when it comes to making ourselves look poorly in the national media. Case in point, the latest war against women, and its main casualty, yoga pants.

If you haven’t heard, David Moore, a State Representative from Montana, this week introduced a bill to expand the Montana definition of indecent exposure  to include “garments that give the appearance of a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvis or female nipple”. It has been reported that “he wouldn’t have a problem with people being arrested for wearing such provocative clothing such as tight-fitting beige garments” and that he “also said yoga pants should be illegal.”

Now, I’m going to just assume that the yoga pants comment was a joke (though in the media, Republicans don’t get to have a sense of humor). No word on how something like this would actually be enforced, which begs the question—aren’t we supposed to be the ones opposing unenforceable mandates? After the national brouhaha over this bill, it was tabled in less than a week, but the damage has already been done, of course. Dozens of national media stories, repeated, shared and tweeted . Ongoing blog posts about the war on yoga pants. And, my personal favorite, equating this bill to forcing women into burkas.

Anyone reading this expanded definition can reasonably assume that the main target of the bill would be women. I don’t know that we have too many men wearing tight clothing that shows off their pelvis in an offensive shade of beige (or even how that would happen in the first place). He submitted this bill as a reaction to a group of nude cyclists riding in a community event. Making the language in the statute more clear to avoid those situations? Totally fair. But this seems like an overreaction to say the least, and it fits right into the national narrative about how the GOP supposedly views women. It wasn’t needed. The only thing it did was hurt the brand. Again.

Why do we do things that perpetuate the myth of Republican being a woman-hating, misogynistic group of men? And more importantly—when will we stop?

The Wheels Down Politics Show – Jordan McGrain

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

Jordan McGrainJerry Kratochvil interviews Maverick LLC political consultant Jordan McGrain. Jordan and Jerry discuss topics of the day including the Winner Take All bill in the Nebraska Legislature, the upcoming election in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, and, as a slight diversion, a short review of the “Breaking Bad” spinoff, “Better Call Saul”.

You can find this, and all of our podcasts at WheelsDownPolitics.com and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.

Who is Dan Welch?

“Sheridan Blvd” is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

SheridanBlvd01I must admit when I first heard Dan Welch was a possible replacement for J.L. Spray as Party Chairman I had to do some research.

So as I fired up the ‘ol Google machine, I started to think about what makes a good Chairman.

First I think a good chairman needs to be a “party Guy”, someone who can approach it with the simple view of “Is the candidate the Republican nominee?” and “What can I do to get them elected?” Second they need to have at least a basic relationship with political activists from around the state. Third they need to be able to fundraise. In today’s world of Super PACs, politics is an expensive business and you need to be able to have the money to play the game.

I originally assumed Governor Pete Ricketts would tap a former statewide candidate like Bryan Slone or Shane Osborn, or possibly a former elected official like Scott Lautenbaugh. Or surely a party stalwart like Bob Evnen or John Orr. But the unknown Dan Welch left me searching for background.

According to Google, Welch is a 44 year-old former City Councilman and former Omaha Mayoral candidate. He has been a practicing attorney since 1998 when he graduated from Creighton. He seems to be an okay fundraiser and his donor rolls included Governor Ricketts.

That’s all fine and good, I thought, but this is a statewide Chairmanship with a lot on the table in 2016, not the head of the oft dysfunctional DCRP.

I then decided to ask around political circles outside of Omaha where I was greeted with the familiar Rand-ian refrain “Who is Dan Welch?”.

Which left me with the question of why Dan Welch?

If having an Omaha candidate is a necessity to try and reclaim CD 2 why not Osborn or even Dave Nabity, who also ran for Omaha Mayor with Welch but also has attended a Central Committee meeting? What is so special about Dan Welch?

The only thing this Lincolnite can come up with is “control.”. Is this a attempt to get someone who Governor Ricketts and the M&Ms (Moenning & Miltenberger) can control? Slone and Osborn obviously have plenty of their own ideas. Lautenbaugh and Nabity have been around long enough to be willing to take a stand when they feel strongly. Party faithful like Evnen and Orr, who supported Governor Ricketts tooth and nail from the beginning, also have strong personal compasses, and takes on what’s best for the party. They are well versed in party politics and have many relationships built over decades of involvement, not to mention a close personal relationship with a certain former Governor.

The only reason I can come up with for Dan Welch, is that he is a person who has no real institutional knowledge and who would lean almost exclusively on the Governor and his kitchen cabinet for marching orders.

As near as I can tell, that is the greatest case for the Nebraska Republican Chairmanship to go to Dan Welch

Pete’s peeps

Ricketts 002When a new political leader comes in, particularly in the Nebraska Governor’s McMansion, the argument goes that he gets to choose the rest of the party leadership.

The Governor Pete Ricketts team is taking full advantage of this argument.

J.L. Spray is stepping back as Chairman of the Nebraska GOP.

Dan Welch letterFormer Omaha City Councilman, and 2013 Mayoral candidate, Dan Welch emailed members of the GOP State Central Committee on Monday spelling out his intention to run as the next Chairman of the Nebraska GOP. (See full letter at right.)

This was something that party politicos knew, but was confirmed last week on the Leavenworth St. Twitter feed as well. This was a bit of a twist, since just a few weeks ago it was a foregone conclusion that former 2014 Gubernatorial candidate Bryan Slone was going to be the new Chairman.

After Slone took a pass, Governor Ricketts and his peeps reached out to Welch, giving him their support. As Welch pointed out in his email, his candidacy is at the “urging” of Ricketts.

***

David Kramer letterAnd then, on Monday as well, David Kramer sent out his letter of resignation as Nebraska National Committeeman. (See full letter at right.)

Kramer noted that his decision was greatly based on family considerations — one that is very easy to understand, with a father of young kids.

But Kramer added another line in his letter:

As a partisan, I believe it critically important that the party be led by those who have the ear and the confidence of our Governor…

That can be read a few different ways.
Maybe it is just a generic statement.

Or maybe it is an expression that DK did not feel he had the Governor’s full support.

Maybe…

At this point, it is our understanding that the Gov is trying to convince J.L. Spray to stay in the mix — likely as the new Committeeman. And there are few in the party who don’t think Spray would be great for the gig.

Though many also thought he was perfect to stay in the Chair position as well.

***

In any case, as all of these machinations continue, there still hasn’t been a confirmation on how the Governor’s office will be staffed.

Is it really possible to have a someone who is both a private and public employee?

Take a look at this line from a recent news story…

Criticism had mounted in recent weeks over how (the Governor) had handed (an adviser) roles as an unpaid adviser in his office, and as a consultant paid to promote the same topics.

Now who wrote this?
The Omaha World Herald?
Don Walton at the LJS? (Ha!)

No, this is a story from The Oregonian, where the Oregon Governor resigned because an adviser (also his fiancee) had clear conflicts inside and outside of the Governor’s office.

Of course the difference in Nebraska, is that the conflict in question is based on an office adviser who would be paid not only from outside the office, but INSIDE as well.

Apparently Governor Ricketts thinks this can all be accomplished above board. And apparently his advisers think that will be the case as well.

It just does not make sense why Governor Pete Ricketts would be risking something like this so early in his administration.

One would guess that the Governor of Oregon wishes he had made that decision differently.

***

ICYMI, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (aka DCCC) named Nebraska 2nd District Congressman Brad Ashford to its “Frontline” program.

No that doesn’t mean Brad gets to host some sort of a PBS newshour.

It means they are immediately listing him as one of the 14 “most vulnerable” Democrat incumbents for the 2016 cycle. They will be providing him with “fundraising and organizational support” for his reelection.

In the next two podcasts on The Wheels Down Politics Show you can hear interviews with a couple of politicos who have some immediate thoughts about Brad Ashford’s candidacy, and the direction it may be heading.

Be sure to listen to the upcoming show yet this week. And if you haven’t listened, be sure to catch the interview with Nebraska 3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith — fresh out of breaking the fast with fellow Nebraskans in the Capitol.