Fire Fighters endorse Terry

Today, the Omaha Professional Fire Fighters Union endorsed Lee Terry for re-election to Congress.

Darren Bates, president of the local union said,

“Lee Terry has always been there for Omaha’s fire fighters. We’re going to be there for Lee this November.

 He has been a staunch supporter of public safety issues since his days as a member of the Omaha City Council.”

The Local 385 is affiliated with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), a union of the AFL-CIO.
Endorsements have been flying fast and furious these past few weeks. But endorsements like this, from a traditionally Democrat group are certainly a plus to Terry’s camp.


The DCCC has a new ad out attacking Lee Terry, briefly entitled, “Lee Terry’s Big Government: He’s Part Of The Problem“. See it here:

These ads always sort of crack us up. On the one hand the Dems scream, “Lee Terry hasn’t DONE anything!”
Then we’re offered the ominous screen:
“Lee Terry’s Washington”

We always figured it was Lee pulling all the strings. But now we know. And HOW do we know? Because Lee is raking in all that craaaazzee fine Congressman payday!  

(Did you know that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with this? Well now you do…apparently.)

Again, this is a stupidly generic ad. But then what did you expect? An ad touting Jim Esch’s wealth of experience?


And speaking of Jim Esch, a Leavenworth Street reader was at a recent talk Esch gave to First National Bank employees.

We’l let our reader tell it:

Esch was at First National Bank on Friday to speak at a PAC coffee event.

While it’s assumed that I am biased, hard core Democrat co-workers that I spoke with afterward stated they were not impressed with him avoiding most of the questions.

One even stated that he was voting for Esch before and changed his mind after his poor performance.

As we have continued to say, Lee Terry’s secret weapon in this election is…Jim Esch.

Bookmark and Share


  1. Anonymous says:

    Uh yeah. Those firefighers. You neglected to mention that Lee Terry’s very own district director’s husband is in that group. Certainly not a conflict of interest there! Nooooooooo!

  2. Street Sweeper says:

    Yeah, I’m sure that was the deciding factor.

    (using their Nextel phone)
    “Who’s related to a candidate? Oww-kay, that’s who weer goin’ wit.”

  3. Anonymous says:

    In an election dominated by economic news, the firefighter’s endorsement really doesn’t matter.

    Today consumer confidence hit a 40-year low. I’m willing to bet that leads tonight’s local news.

    It’s the economy, stupid.

  4. Anonymous says:

    In an close election, I don’t think it’s wise to say anybody’s endorsement “doesn’t matter.” And to anon 2:54, what has Jim Esch done to give the Firefighters a reason TO vote for him?

  5. asecurityguard says:

    Endorsements have been flying fast and furious lately, though in my opinion they dont make much of a difference. Oh sure there are some endorsements that might carry alot of weight, but I dont believe the Firefighters Union carries that type of clout. And personally i dont give a damn what group or person endorses what candidate, I base my vote from my own research and opinion.

  6. asecurityguard says:

    Referencing that commercial for Nextel, its amazing how Sprint and that specific Advertisement makers realize that the budget should be balanced, but the party of “fiscal conservatism” doesn’t realize it. I guess that GOP is dead and gone, replaced by the party of religious nutjobs and high deficits. And i never thought i would say this, but to bad Jesse Helms wasn’t around to block this bailout and other budgetary deficits.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Oh and about that congressional pay raise, under current law Members of Congress receive an automatic pay raise every year unless someone introduces a bill to stop it and it is passed. Democrats fought to stop the payraise unless the minimum wage was increased. Has Lee ever introduced anything to stop himself from getting a payraise?

  8. Ryan the Angry Midget says:

    We’ll know in a week if it matters or not. I know a lot of Republicans who aren’t endorsing Terry this year, so it’s hard to imagine that when your own party is jumping ship, an endorsement from a relative is going to help that much. I guess we’ll see.

  9. Street Sweeper says:

    On the pay raise issue, here is how it was explained to me:

    Every year, a Republican has requested a procedural vote (previous question on the rule)to force the pay increase (which is a COLA)to be a stand alone vote.

    Every year that request has failed. In 2007, Terry was the Republican that made the request. This year, there was no Appropriation to vote on (Treasury was dumped into the CR in October), so no one had the opportunity to make the request.

  10. asecurityguard says:

    About those pay raises: To be fair, the $169,300 isn’t very much money. In fact there is only $19,300 left over after buying your wardrobe.

  11. Anonymous says:

    So how many of his payraises has Lee returned back to the Treasury? It’s not like he’s maintaining two households to need all that money or anything.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Furthermore, did Lee Terry support allowing topping off Firefighter pensions before they retired when he was on the City Council??

  13. Anonymous says:

    Well, Lee Terry’s secret weapon is certainly not his own abysmal record. He’s running as far from his own record as he possibly can.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I just received an invitation to watch Lee Terry give his speech and congratulate the new Congressman from the 2nd District.

    Guess where it is at?? The Fire Union Hall.

    Seems that Congressman Terry received their endorsement after he paid them to use their hall.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Under Obama’s plan, even a Congressman’s taxes would go down.

    “And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.” Sarah Palin

  16. macdaddy says:

    I can’t believe you guys are griping over Congressional pay raises. The federal budget was almost 3 trillion dollars this year before the bailout. It will increase by hundreds of billions more under a Dem Congress and President Obama. But, hey, maybe they’ll give up that extra $300 a month, ’cause, you know, that’s like really breaking the bank. I’d pay every last one of them $2 million a year if they’d cut the federal budget down to $2 trillion.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Lee has been endorsed by firefighters, veterans, pro-life folks and more. With 500-700 firefighters in town and they tell their families and friends, yes in a close election it can and will matter.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I think I’d be more pissed off if a young lad who lives in a downtown loft was receiving farm subsidy checks than worrying about congressional pay raises. OH, sorry I forgot we DO have someone running for Congress who is using the government to the full extent. While ACTUAL farmers struggle to make a living farmer-wanna-be Jim Esch pockets money and laughs all the way to the bank

  19. Anonymous says:

    I heard Congressman Terry today at First National…he was polished, smart and very dedicated. He gave a good talk and it sure opened my eyes, no comparison between him and the guy who wants to be a congressman. Lee Terry won hands down.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I’ve heard some radio ads for Lee. Does Jim have anything on radio or will he have to sell some of his “farmland” to pay for it?

  21. asecurityguard says:

    I wouldn’t gripe about congressional pay raises if they earned it. Its hard to argue that its been earned when the deficit has been rising every year, absolutely no regard for the long-term future of this country is being thought of. The trickle down theory is clearly broken, we are to far on one side of the laffer curve, our kids and their kids and their kids will be paying for the sins of their fathers. They will be paying more in future taxes so some irresponsible morons can have it easy now. People gripe now about high taxes and approaching “socialism”, think how bad its going to be for your kids. If your in the baby boomer generation, your welcome and eff u too.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Let’s see the actual poll that has Lee up by 12 points — crosstabs and all. If that’s true, no way the Cook Report would have moved the race to “toss up.”

  23. Anonymous says:

    ‘It’s the economy, stupid”, You Betcha’ and Dumbass Esch couldn’t find his way out of a well lit bar, let alone the Economic Crisis we are dealing with and Congressman Terry voted to help ease and correct.

    BTW, did you happen to notice the Dow Close yesterday? Haven’t seen any overnight numbers, but we can all be hopeful that yesterday was the start of something much calmer.

    The downside is that Energy prices will begin to go back up between OPEC cutting supply (you know that old high school econ musical called “Supply and Demand”) and the promising gains in the stock market, we will be right back where we were at the gas stations a month ago-GOING INTO WINTER!

    Esch must have stuck his head up someone’s a** to come up with “I will not support drilling in ANWR.” (OWH-3 days ago!)

    Instead of “Drill Here, Drill Know!”, Esch is now saying, “The DCCC cut off my b***s when they handed me my check and I won’t ever vote for drilling and recovery of America’s very own energy resources. I could be wrong, but it’s either the DCCC’s money or all the Northern California Money that began flooding into his campaign in the last days of September? Check it out at

    Vote Lee Terry for Congress for America’s Energy Independence!

  24. Anonymous says:

    8:11 – “It’s the economy, stupid” here:

    Which Bush administration economic policies did Lee Terry disagree with over the last eight years? Terry did vote for Bush’s bailout package, but only after $150 million dollars in “sweeteners” (aka pork) was added to the bill and after a few terrible days on Wall Street following his vote against it.

    Yes, I saw the Dow’s close yesterday (9,065.12), which is still down almost 500 points from where it was when Lee Terry took office in January 1999. That’s ten years with negative net growth under Bush/Terry economics.

    The world economic crisis is far from over. Credit is still extremely tight. Oil prices are affected greatly by global economic conditions, one good day on the Dow will not change the overall trend.

    On ANWR, take a look at the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA is a branch of the Dept. of Energy) “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” EIA concluded that ANWR production could potentially reduce the cost of a BARREL of oil by 75 cents. Even if that reduction were passed on directly to the consumer, we are talking about 1.8 cents per gallon. Of course, EIA recognized that OPEC “could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.” EIA concludes that “ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.” So we might get a little less dependent on foreign oil (EIA puts peak ANWR production at 780,000 barrels per day, the US currently imports about 14 million barrels a day) if our demand for oil doesn’t grow, but a price impact is unlikely.

    So, weighted against the significant environmental risks, Esch has concluded that drilling in ANWR just isn’t worth it. That’s the same conclusion reached by the Ben Nelson, the Senate’s most conservative Democrat.

    Lee Terry’s plan for energy independence is an unrealistic, unsupported joke. He hasn’t even provided a hint of how he thinks we’ll get to 13.5 million barrels a day of cellulosic ethanol when the Renewable Fuels Standard has set a goal of 1 million barrels a day by 2016 and Obama’s ambitious plan is to reach 4 million barrels a day by 2030.

    Vote Esch.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Every single government employee got a larger percentage COLA than any MOC, including all of the Department Heads that can’t be bothered to reduce their budgets by even 1% per year. That is the law and in the last 10 years there has never been enough Democrats to vote with the Conservatives (note I did not say the Republicans because we all know it took some of them to fail the request)to become the Majority and force it as a stand alone.

    So much for the Democrat promise of Bipartisanship! Now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are trying to make you believe that if you give them a BIGGER MAJORITY, they will be even more bipartisan?

    Give me a break! Vote Lee Terry for Congress because of his ability to work well with others (yes, a kindergarten principle that very few people in Congress have mastered!), willingness to cast an unpopular vote that is vital to our Nation’s Economic future, and his expertise in the field of Energy and Telecommunications (remember, he cast a similar tough vote in favor a vital 2nd District employment source).

    All Jim Esch can offer is a constant Change, of his positions, that is! Which side of the coattails will he decide to be on today?

    Lee Terry for Congress, an Independent Lawmaker for an Independent America!

  26. Anonymous says:

    Dumbass changed his “ideals” about drilling one F***ing week before the Election. If you really want me to, I will call Little Jimmy exactly what he is a


    The only reason Jim Esch hasn’t changed his position on Embryonic Stem Cell Research, AGAIN, is because the Dems in this Country have finally figured out that they are on the WRONG SIDE of this issue-BASED ON SCIENCE-and are allowing their candidates to sit the fence and be all about Life in a variety of ways except saying they would outlaw Abortion in this Country if it were put to a stand alone vote in Congress. So Jimmy, would you vote to outlaw abortion in this Country and refuse to fund other Nation’s Population Control Policies?

    YES or NO, Jim?

    The only “Change” that Jim Esch supports is the Right to Change His Position Every Single Time He Gives It. Guess what, in Congress, you only get Yes or No, and you only get it ONCE (I suppose if you are striving for Senate and then President, you could vote Present as much as you wanted to)!

    As for the Economy, I said let’s hope this is “the start of something much calmer.” What are you, an instant gratification kind of guy? I bet you are disappointed every time you walk out your front door and face the world of reality.

  27. asecurityguard says:

    Anon 9:32
    Love what your saying, the best way to win an argument is to be able to back it up with facts. The bad part is the facts dont coincide with what some morons have already taken as gospel despite all the evidence to the contrary. “DRILL BABY DRILL” is catchy i must admit, but short sighted and childlike logic. Unfortunately some adults are only armed with childlike logic. But keep trying, the herd will be thinned somehow.

  28. Street Sweeper says:

    How’s this:

    Oil from ANWR would increase our energy supply and the environmental impact would be negligible.

    There. Done.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Huh? You can’t be serious.

    Wait. I guess you are serious. That’s all that is behind the whole “Drill baby drill” mantra, huh?

  30. Anonymous says:

    SS, sorry to burst your bubble, but an OFFICIAL Dept of Energy report released earlier this year made it clear that drilling in ANWR would not produce usable oil for approximately 10 years, and when it did, the cost would average out to a decrease in price by 75 cents a barrel, and have little to no impact on actual imports. The fact is if all that time, effort and money was instead used to invest in renewable energy and research, that would have more impact in reducing dependence on foreign oil than drilling. Again, all in the DOE study.

    Now where did you pull your claims from? The GOP Exxon-Mobil-Chevron talking points they’ve stuck to for a year now? Too bad it’s not reality.

  31. Street Sweeper says:

    Government can’t predict ANYTHING including the weather) 10 years down the road.

    Will it increase supplies? Yes.

    Do we need increased supplies? Yes.

    Will it damage the environment? No.


  32. Ryan the Angry Midget says:

    Drilling in ANWAR and saying that it will increase domestic oil supply appreciably is like saying that you can notice a difference when I take a leak in the Missouri River 10 years from now. By the time that oil hits the market, we’ll all be driving cars fueled by Republican tears.

  33. Street Sweeper says:

    So it was YOU who peed in the river! I knew I smelled something.

    Tell me again about those salt-water powered jets, not to mention all the other things produced from oil.

    Oh, and I’ll fly over on my jet-pack to discuss it with you. You see, by the year 2000 we’ll all be flying around on jet-packs.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Have fun while you can jimmy because come the morning of 5 Nov it’s back to your 10K a year vaccation on the family fund.


  35. Anonymous says:

    anon 11:31AM
    Oh great soothsayer, all knowing prognosticator and political profit please unveil your identity. Please grant unto us lowly slobs thy name so we may bow and worship your eminence.

    Some nonbelievers howl that your hubris harbors secret doubt in thoust predictions. Blasphemy! Please cast out your fear and reveal thyself so these heretics are shamed into the darkness.

  36. asecurityguard says:

    Back to the child like logic i see. Well then, if in ten years YOU are going to be happy having gas that is 1.8 CENTS a gallon cheaper because of drilling in ANWR that is your own prerogative.
    Would it increase supplies?
    Yes, on a miniscule amount.
    Do we need increased supplies?
    Yes, but more than a miniscule amount, especially considering the increasing demands of Asia.
    Will it damage the environment?
    Are the better ways to maximize the fuel we use now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.