To boldly go…

In honor of the new Star Trek movie coming out, and a Cheez-It related site, we always figured Hal Daub and Jim Suttle would be interesting Klingons Vulcans and Romulans.

Click here to hear Hal as Spock.

***

Saw the recent Keith Olbermann screed against Ben Nelson. Quite honestly, just about any time Olbermann opens his mouth it’s like nails on the blackboard. So his “Worst Person in the World” (gee Keith, hyperbolize much?) really meant nothing to us. His rant about how he is much different than Limbaugh or O’Reilly was nonsensical.

But he is correct in his criticism of Nelson’s statement about what people listen to. We will give Nellie that those that only get their news from John Stewart are going to be less informed. It’s a comedy show. On Comedy Central. Sure it’s topical, but not much of a news source.

But Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Olbermann, Maddow and the like are all based on news channels. Listeners and watchers, at the very least, get network news at the top of the hour on those shows. And those viewers and listeners are usually well informed anyway.

Are they looking to bolster their own opinions? Sure, usually. But where exactly is one to get fully unbiased news? The New York Times? The Omaha World Herald? FOX? CNN? Please.

Heck even C-SPAN, that bastion of unbiasness, just shows Members of Congress giving their own spin on the issues of the day. Th intelligent viewer goes to multiple sources and filters out whatever they can. But one could do worse than going to Limbaugh or Olbermann as a news source.

Does that make the Benator the Worst Person in the World? Well not the worst…

***

Our good pal Jane Flemming Kleeb is keeping herself in the news these days. She is employed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and is pushing for the “card check” legislation where unions can jam a union down a business’s throat — without the vote of the workers. (Yeah, yeah, there are lots of other spins around what the legislation will do.)

And we’ll give Jane her spin on the issue if she wants. That’s her job. But what we find more interesting is her take on who should vote for it and why.

For some reason she gives Democrat Ben Nelson a pass on his leaning to vote Nay. But when she discusses Republican Senator Mike Johanns she says,

The Republicans in our state generally get a free ride on these kinds of issues, but Johanns took union money and should stand up on this.”

Wow. You got that?

If you, Elected Official, accept campaign donations from an organization, according to Jane, you are expected to tow their line. So Mike Johanns, if you take union cash, you had better vote union, no matter how bad the legislation. That’s what taking their money is all about, yeah?

Amazing.

So keep that in mind should Mr. Jane Kleeb ever seek office again. With all his super-lib backers, you know how he’ll vote. Just follow the money.

(Thanks to reader One Out in the Third for pointing us to this.)

47 comments

  1. Macdaddy says:

    Mrs. Kleeb sounds very cynical with that statement. I thought The One declared cynicism to be our real enemy. But if she’s correct about how things work, I will start opening my wallet to politicians in order to get my way.

  2. Anonymous says:

    “If you, Elected Official, accept campaign donations from an organization, according to Jane, you are expected to tow their line. So Mike Johanns, if you take union cash, you had better vote union, no matter how bad the legislation. That’s what taking their money is all about, yeah?”

    Uh, wasn’t that Hal Daub’s exact argument last week when the firefighters endorsed Suttle? And wasn’t that Jim Vokal’s argument before him?

  3. Street Sweeper says:

    Not positive where you’re coming from on this, but let me help:

    Daub is saying that it’s BAD to take money and vote with the contributor, based on the contribution.

    Kleeb is saying she EXPECTS Johanns to vote the union way, because of the donation — and that it’s GOOD.

  4. Anonymous says:

    There is usually not a cause and effect with contributions, but most times there will be a correlation between money and votes. Of course it will always result in a classic chicken and egg argument, but it is the reality. Is it rampant corruption?, of course not, but with money comes access and influence, no doubt about it. Why else would you do it and esp. since a lot of the big donors give to both candidates.

    Just look at tobacco industry contributions compared with recent cigar bar vote and will probable see some “patterns”.

    Of course most politicians are more savvy than Jim “not so” Suttle who accepted a check from Big Red Keno just a few weeks after giving them an exemption to the smoking ban. Of course his response was that was just a coincidence – yeah right.

  5. Geosuser says:

    Haven’t the Kleebs finally abandoned Nebraska in favor of more politically suitable east coast location and hasn’t some other sacrifical lamb transplant taken their place?

  6. Anonymous says:

    No, Daub suggested that Suttle was going to do the firefighter’s bidding because he took the money.

    Heck, this line of argument was used by Jim Esch’s campaign in the 2008 campaign, too. Is it only wrong when a Democrat uses it?

  7. Street Sweeper says:

    You couldn’t be missing the point more.

    Jane Fleming Kleeb is saying, explicitly, because Johanns took union money he SHOULD support their cause.

    Daub said Suttle should not take union money because he may then be corrupted — i.e. will vote a certain way based on the contribution. (Daub’s point it also based on the fact that the Mayor is the one who is negotiating with the contributor, and that there is a major issue on the table.)

    Daub’s point is nearly the exact opposite of what Jane Kleeb is saying.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Looks like the stalker also had an article in the GI Independent on Wednesday. It shows signs of intelligence. Somewhat shocking.

  9. Right Wing Professor says:

    @11:21

    Just looks like the standard union talking points to me.
    Conflate ‘the workers’ with ‘the union’, and then claim the workers can ask for a secret ballot, when only the union can (and won’t).

  10. Street Sweeper says:

    Jane,

    You’ve been around here long enough to know our “No Linking” policy.

    Please resubmit your statement.

    -Ed.

  11. Street Sweeper says:

    Since we always strive for fairness here on L. St, and b/c she was a subject of our post, I’ll add Ms. Jane’s comment here, sans link:

    As far as Johanns goes, his actions should back up his words. He just touted union training programs in Chadron, but cant seem to vote for an honest debate on the bill. Seems like old style politics when you say one thing and do another.

  12. jane says:

    Forgot about the linking thing–i also pointed out that since you were keeping tabs on me, folks should come to a healthcare forum we are having in GI on Wed at 6:30pm. You can go to our facebook page called “Change that Works Nebraska” to get details

  13. Street Sweeper says:

    And Jane, we generally frown on people pimping their web pages here — sort of the point of the No Links policy.

    But, we’ll let it slide here, as long as you muster up a reason of what Senator Johanns’s acceptance of union campaign donations has to do with anything involved in your political project. Or why you would even mention it.

    Yours waiting,
    SS

  14. jane says:

    sure thing, i like honest debates, its too bad Johanns doesn’t–because if he did he would vote for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act…

    On the donations piece, i think we should demand more of our leaders. I think its unacceptable to take hard working union members money (because political donations come from their dues) and then turn around and not even give a bill that would help reform outdated labor law an honest debate on the Senate floor.

    And so no, i dont think if a politician takes money from a group they should vote “yes” on everything that groups cares about.

    But i do expect politicians to allow bills to have an honest debate.

    I also expect politicians to speak out against TV ads that are misleading, which Johanns has also failed to do with Chamber ads that lie about the bill (Nelson did speak out against the ads calling them misleading).

  15. Street Sweeper says:

    Wait a minute: So if he takes their cash, he needs to “let honest debate occur” (even in a majority Democrat run Senate). But if he DOESN’T take their money he doesn’t have to do that?

    Jane, isn’t giving money to a candidate about helping to elect the right candidate, and not about trying to buy special access for your agenda?

    (Oh and btw, were those harding earned union dues TAKEN from the employees, or did they get to choose who the donations went to?)

  16. Anonymous says:

    Wow! Thank God we don’t have Senator Scott Kleeb now if this is how he and his wife think our political process should work. Scary! And very enlightening.

  17. Street Sweeper says:

    Btw Jane,
    Your “suggestion” on Cloture, I take it, is meant to imply that I don’t know that it takes 60 votes for it to proceed.

    But of course my point is that with a Dem majority, the Cloture vote is really the one that will determine whether the Card Check bill passes.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Access = more time to make your case, meetings with the Senator instead of staff, pro active phone calls before votes, closer analysis of materials, review of draft legislation, periodic back rubs, etc. All the things that the average joe/joelene the plumber who gives $20 does not get. Is this surprising to anyone?

  19. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t the real issue here that unions in Nebraska were dumb enough to give money to Mike Johanns in the first place?

    Sure, Johanns was probably going to win, but anyone with half a brain knew he was never going to support the unions’ pet cause. So why give him money?

  20. Open Debate says:

    Jane,

    Thanks for defending your position. Your Johanns should vote cloture to allow ‘open debate’ argument is a bit vacuous. There is plenty of ‘debate’ on the issue right now going on throughout the country and most Americans don’t like ‘Card Check’. All cloture does is allow the DEMS to cease with the public discourse and cram it down America’s collective throats…ala the Stimulus Bill. If that is your view of an ‘open debate’, I’ll pass.

  21. Anonymous says:

    So, just so we’re clear:

    2005-2006, GOP in majority: filibuster evil! cloture good!

    2008-2009, Dems in majority:
    filibuster good! cloture evil!

    This is why I hate Congress so much.

  22. Union Member says:

    Jane, I applaud what you’re trying to do with EFCA but I think you are wrong. I was furious when so many unions backed someone who was campaigning against our interests. He should vote the way he wants and unions should work to elect pro-union leaders instead of guys like Mike Johanns.

  23. Open Debate says:

    You’re missing the point:

    2005-2006 – Card Check is a bad idea.

    2008 – 2009 – Card Check is still a bad idea.

    A cloture vote or filibuster were not being defended or supported as ‘tactical’ procedures in the case of one party’s control over the other. Rather, Jane is intimating that cloture in this case somehow fosters debate when, in fact, it will only end it.
    As long as Johanns and Nelson (he is really what she is upset about and why she is organizing in NE, this has nothing to do with Johanns)don’t vote for cloture there will continue to be plenty of debate on the issue in this country.

  24. daub fan says:

    Suttle won’t say what he wants to do on the Pension Issue. The only thing he has said is, “I will talk with the unions and about this issue after I’m elected.” He is so vague and demogogues every issue. No one knows what his stance is or even what his ideas and plans are for this issue.

    Thus, he receives a union endorsement from a Union who has taken advantage of a Democratic mayor and his brother who assisted in the negotiations on this issue.

    What is your plan, Jim? Give us some insight into what you believe.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Leave the Suttle’s alone. The Suttle family has fine history of service in our community. They helped a lot of troubled teenagers over the years.

  26. Insider says:

    Really?! … Anon 8:24 PM? I would LOVE to know what you mean that the Suttles have helped troubled teens and what “non-self-serving” servies they have provided. Mind you, I know this terrain very well. Please explain. Thank you.

  27. Anonymous says:

    To Anon. 4:16

    It’s worth looking up… at the DodgeStreet.blogspot or the Channel 3 Action News.

    It appears that Jim Suttle stuck BOTH of his feet in his mouth this time!!! But what’s new since he comes up with such wacky ideas and things to say. He missed up BIG this time though !!! It’s an eye opener !!!

    Check it out…it’s worth reading for Dems or Reps (for Daub or for Suttle).

  28. Anonymous says:

    It was on Channel 3 Action News today that:

    The mayoral race has taken an unexpected twist.

    Smoothe talking Suttle said,
    “we need to go to the source of the problem and quit making criminals out of companies, quit making criminals out of people, however, they might come across the border.”

    Daub’s response: “Hal Daub thinks we should enforce all of the laws of the land.” Brinker Harding added, “I question why Jim Suttle wouldn’t want to enforce federal laws against those who come here and commit violent crimes.”

    AND, my question is, how does he propose to fight against crime ???

    And what is this he says on his buy ad about crime being up 34% because of Daub … he doesn’t make any sense… is Suttle really going to fight against crime or NOT… or is he just full of empty promises ??? Just to get some votes.

    NOTE: Suttle was seen last Friday evening at a dinner and dance put on by the “Hispanic Chamber of Commerce” held here in Omaha at the Scott Conference Center. Most likely looking for donations and a few extra votes.

  29. One Out In The Third says:

    So in other words if Speed Racer was a sellout to anyone with a wallet…then Johanns should be too? Can’t Johanns support the unions in other ways? Didn’t the unions write Kleeb a check or two? If that’s the case…Tarzan’s Jane should be working non-gratis.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Looks like Suttle is in favor of illegal immigration.

    Wow, this is getting more and more interesting. You never know what that guy is going to say next. He just rambles on and on and seems to forget what he previously has stated and is supposed to stand for.

    He doesn’t need Daub or anyone else bashing him. As he appears to be his worse own enemy.
    It’s too weird!

    If, this wasn’t so serious it would be comical.

    Either how stupid is he, or, how damn stupid does Suttle think we are anyway?

  31. Anonymous says:

    I believe Jim thinks we are all sitting in first-class seats on the short bus, although the sticker on his helmet matches ours.

  32. Anonymous says:

    What the heck??? No matter HOW they cross the border???

    How can we expect to get a handle on jobs, crime or anything else if you don’t care if someone is in our country illegally or if businesses are hiring illegal workers.

    This is just incredible!

  33. Anonymous says:

    Hal Daub=
    aggressive
    enemies list
    mean
    knowledgeable
    talks a lot
    Qwest Center
    helicopters
    talks tough
    self-destructive
    recall
    unstable
    leader
    crack down on crime
    with fight with anyone (unions)
    career politican

    Jim Suttle=
    unknown
    grandfatherly
    broad, general talk, no details
    engineer
    liberal
    who is this guy?
    boring
    steady
    dull

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.