Always look on the bright side of life

Lots of talk these days about the Tea Partyin’ gang because, well, they’re a fun bunch to talk about.

So here is what we’ve noticed. Many say, “these people are angry!” Well, maybe. But more like, these are people that see momentus changes going on in government — don’t like it — and want to get involved.

But how do the “regulars” get involved?

Well, they go to a Republican Party meeting.

Now picture that in your head for a moment.

We’re seeing a small, faux-wood panled room in the basement of a library.
Bad ventilation, with a coffee machine in the corner.
And someone in a polyester suit passing out an “agenda” at the front with an elephant at the top and a bullet point that says, “new business”.

Does that inspire you to get involved?

Of course not.

Now how about something with the idea of “revolution” in the title? And you don’t have to sign-in? And you don’t have to wear your best Sunday suit (and no one else will be wearing one either). (And forget about “smart-casual” too.)

And instead of an “agenda” there will be bull-horns and chanting! Oh, and the whole thing is at a lake!

See, Tea Partiers want to be involved but they don’t want to have to join.
They are free-spirited at heart, and would rather just show up and don’t want to end up on a mailing list.

That’s the way we see it.

***

But we giggle at those who write and speak about the outrageousness of the Republican Party wanting the Tea Partiers or, frankly, claiming them as their own.
Because, why wouldn’t the GOPers go that route?

Let’s put it this way: Suppose there was a “movement” out there — let’s call it “Woodstock Now!” — who wanted free health-care for everyone, supported increased taxes to support lots of new social programs, had Jesse Jackson and John Edwards speaking at their events and very specifically denounced various Republican politicians, programs and initiatives. And suppose that movement started to catch-on and was getting decent media exposure and popularity.

Now, let’s pretend said movement claimed they weren’t part of the official Democratic Party, but most of the people at the events voted Democrat. Would the official Democrats claim that Woodstock Now! should really support the Democrats? Well of course they would. Would Democrats show up at some Woodstock Now! events? Yes. And would people question whether WN! was really a wing of the Democrats? Of course. But those going to the rallies might claim otherwise. And even though George Soros was funding Woodstock Now!, again, those going to the rallies wouldn’t care — as long as their voices were heard.

That’s what is happening with the various Tea Partiers. And if you saw our email inbox, you’d notice that we get daily updates from about five or six different entities, each calling itself a Tea Party.

Like it or not, that’s the way such a movement it going to be. You’re going to have your People’s Front of Judea, the Judean People’s Front, the Judean Popular People’s Front, the Campaign for a Free Galilee, and the Popular Front of Judea. But in the end, they’re all going to be screaming “Romanes Eunt Domus!

***

And don’t get us started on you “Coffee Party” guys.
“What do we want?!”
“MODERATION!”
“When do we want it?!”
“SOON!”

***

So that brings us, tangentially, to the question of who do the “Tea Partiers” support in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District Republican Primary? That of course begs the question (and we’re pretty sure we’re begging the question here, but it’s usually up to grammar debate), what the heck are the Tea Partiers doing fighting in the Republican Primary? Are they independent of the parties or not? Is Mike (er, Matt) Sakalosky a GOP candidate or a Tea Party candidate?

We have been told specifically that MattSak is a GOP candidate, and not endorsed by any groups (such at the 9-12 Tea Partiers). But Sakalosky doesn’t have any history of involvement in the GOP or local politics at all (as far as we know).

There are some particular Tea Party groups that have taken him as “their” candidate, and if cornered we would be surprised to hear Sakalosky denounce any of their causes or groups. Then again, we don’t think we would would hear 2nd District Congressman Lee Terry denounce any of their groups either.

But, like it or not, Terry is the clear standard bearer of the Republicans in the 2nd District — seeing as he is the current Republican Congressman. And, he is in agreement with probably 99% of Tea Party ideas anyway — if it were possible to itemize what those are.

But we would simply suggest, that if there are those who want to change the standard bearer of the GOP, they will need to fill their glass with Republican, as well as Tea. As it were.

***

So here is a final question that we will put out to the Comment gallery:

Should Lee Terry debate Matt Sakalosky, and if so, how many times and what sort of forum.

Wait, let us answer for each of the campaigns:
LT: Never.
MS: Eight times, on broadcast TV at PrimeTime right after Dancing with the Stars.

OK, so onto the arguments. For Lee, the argument, first politically, goes: Debating the guy gets you nothing. You win, you get nothing. You lose, you lose.

Then you could ask on a sort of subjective basis, what sort of threshold does a candidate have to reach to be “entitled” to a debate?

X amount of money?
X percent in the polls? (Whose poll?)
Involvement in the party, at some level?
Having held elective office?
Something beyond a fringe candidate?

We’re not sure what the standards are — or if those are all of the standards. But we would ask if Matt Sak has reached any or all of those points to be entitled to a debate.

And for those of you who think anyone should be “entitled” to debate an incumbent in an organized forum, we’d just ask if Ben Nelson or Mike Johanns should have to debate say, Mort Sullivan on statewide TV. There will be some of you who say “no”. Others will reasonably say, of course not, because Mort hasn’t met a certain reasonable threshold. And many wouldn’t argue against that.

We’re having internal arguments here at the salon at Leavenworth Street HQ regarding this.

We would like to hear what you think, and why. And if you can do it, try to address some of the points made above.

144 comments

  1. Jamie says:

    don't dignify sak with a debate. if he were an actual threat, could raise money, or run a campaign, i'd say "yeah, go for it." but the guy's a joke. lee's going to win this primary, contrary to sak's cult, by a huge majority, and will keep his seat in november by a smaller majority.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Why single out NE2?

    Fortenberry has two opponents in the Republican primary–how about a debate there?

    Adian has a primary opponent, too.

    But don't forget the Gov–he has two primary opponents–how about a debate?

  3. Tommy Carchetti says:

    Well, there isn't anything more to be said than what Jaime and Anon and Anon said.

    Back to work, everyone.

  4. Street Sweeper says:

    In case anyone's confused, I separated the posts, and made the Pat Flynn post all its own, below.

    Carry on.

    -Ed.

  5. Anonymous says:

    SS, I had to go take a nap after reading your post. Damn, it was soooo long!

    I think we should have the wives debate, wonder what the line would be on that winner. LOL

    Maybe they could do it on Becka's show during drivetime-that ought to get a few comments.

  6. Ricky says:

    Should Rep Terry debate MattSak? What threshold should a primary opponent meet to warrant a debate with the office holder?
    Good questions. Obviously a contender like Sen White would love to see members of the opposite party debate, bring the differences within the party to light, and possibly capitalize on any mistake Rep Terry might (and probably would) make.
    For entertainment purposes, the people interested in these things would like to see a debate.
    This Republican primary is exhibit A for why office holders hate to be "Primaryed"
    But in this case, with the attention the "Tea Party" has drawn and issues the movement has brought forth, I think it is appropriate for Rep Terry to debate MattSak.
    I think there is merit to such a debate and I hope to see one.

    Ricky From Omaha

  7. Shoe Salesman says:

    Should terry debate Sak? Seems to me that the Tea Baggers are angry that their government "doesn't listen". If they have adopted Sak then Terry runs the risk of alienating them by not allowing their candidate a forum to be heard.

    But terry is a professional politician and a dolt at that. Cant imagine he would debate Sak, tea bag pressure or not.

    SS you left off one question: If Lee Terry supports "99%" of the tea party agenda – does that include racism, violence and homophobia? or the anarchy and anti-education positions? What about the "I've got mine, screw you" platform?

  8. Street Sweeper says:

    Shoe,
    You're really a complete idiot and a perfect example of why many people have no respect for Democrats.
    Everyone is dumber for having read your comments.
    Good luck in life.
    SS

  9. Anonymous says:

    Matt is an empty candidate. He does not meet one standard that supports the argument that Congressman Terry should give the guy the time of day. The only way this guy even gets noticed is trying to get free press pushing for some debates. Face it he is not a news maker unless he uses the Congressman's name before his. That doesn't win elections Matt.

    Which proves my point…. Name recognition he does not have and will not have in this or any election. That takes experience and time not to mention involvment. He has none of those qualities. As far as I'm concerned he should take the remaining money all $97.00 and donate it to a good cause.

    I would even throw this out there…. Could Matt be running as a double agent… Try to soften Lee up for Mr. Support of Government run and owned healthcare? Sure looks like that to me…..

  10. Jamie says:

    no, it's simply a failed campaign. all evidence points to it. the fact nobody but the sakaloskys and their personal friends ever do anything on his fb page, the fact he has relatives running his campaign…

    if the dems were trying to soften him up, they'd know how to do it. this is not how you do it.

  11. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Hey Sweeper, "Always look on the bright side of life" … a tune from the finale of Monty Python's "The Life of Brian?" Seriously? I hope you're not envisioning me up on a cross ala Lisa Hannah are you? God knows we Democrats already have had our fill of martyrs!

  12. Dayton Headlee says:

    All I know is I want to see Steven Laird debate someone. With a mad website like that, I want to see him behind a mic and podium.

  13. Nathan says:

    Matt Sak is probably more conservative than Terry Lee, but only the tea bagging idiots are going to care about that. Terry is conservative enough for republicans in district 2, and thats why he will be the nominee. As for refusing the debate, I agree with SS. From Terry's point of view it does nothing but legitamize Sak, which is something Terry doesn't want at all.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I'd rather watch Adrian Smith in a debate. The guy is so dumb he could come out second in a debate against himself. Club for growth bought a real champ to represent western Nebraska there.

  15. Bud says:

    Well I got a neat phone call last night from a GOP couple. They are changing and becoming Democrats today. They had a lot of questions about what the Democratic party believes in. They are not 100% sold on what Democrats believe in. But they no longer can be GOP, becasue of the Tea party people. They see it has the ugly side of the super right. They don't feel comfortable in the small tent Republican party any more. Since Democrats don't have a purity test to be a member they think they can find a niche in the party. The Tea pary to them and I think many Americans seem to harken back to a day when it was ok to be against some one because of their race, or life style, who they might like to marry etc. Hating some one just to hate is not the American way. I really don't think main stream Republicans feel that way either. But where are they to go? The Dixie crats tried to ruin the Democratic party 40 to 50 years ago. Now they are GOP and trying to ruin the party of Lincoln. That is a shame.

  16. Right Wing Professor says:

    they're all going to be screaming "Romanes Eunt Domus!"

    No no no. Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?

  17. Right Wing Professor says:

    They had a lot of questions about what the Democratic party believes in.

    Don't we all.

    Bud, the old "Republican decides he doesn't like the way the party's going, decides to become a Democrat"' shtick has been worked to death. Go take a look at the polls, and try to come up with an original thought.

  18. Right Wing Professor says:

    don't dignify sak with a debate. if he were an actual threat, could raise money, or run a campaign, i'd say "yeah, go for it."

    You're saying, he's a sad Sak?

  19. GeosUser says:

    Matt "Sad Sak" Sakalosky should be careful what he wishes for. If Lee Terry did agree to a debate, you can be sure he would "mop the floor" with Sad Sak. Just take a look at Sad Sak's first interview with Joe Jordan and you'll see what would happen in a debate. On the other hand, Lee should already be in debate prep when he goes up against Tom White. Tom can fling the BS like nobodies business and you can be sure he won't be constrained by the use of facts.

  20. Jamie says:

    bud,
    how have the republicans ruined their names lately? by returning to the same small-govt principles they shared with the founding fathers? those people would rather align themselves with a party using questionably-legal parliamentary procedures and backroom deals to get unconstitutional legislation passed?

    … you dems can have that couple. we don't want them in the gop.

  21. Bud says:

    RWP. I will tell those two that you don't approve of them going in a different direction. Since your "POLLS" say different. i just don't understand the super reactionary right wingers. The GOP had some great leaders at one time. I mean it had Lincoln, TR, Ike, then Nelson Rockfeller. Then it really changed in the 80's. The Nixon plan to get the Dixiecrats into the GOP have made the GOP the angry WASP"s. I don't get it why you hate change so much. You never used to? So gay people want to get married? You complain about tax and spend Democrats. But the Right wing borrows and spends. One way is an attempt to pay now. The other is, let them take care of it in the future. The super right wing say no government in health care. But has no problem with vet care or Medicare. Or writing a constitution for Iraq that gives national health care for all of the people in Iraq. I don't get it? You say no abortion. But they expect a some young girl to raise their rapeist kid. Or once the kid is born no welfare to help pay for it if they are poor. But when rich people get great amounts of corporate welfare and tax breaks that no one else can get. That is Ok. I don't get it? Or it is bad for Mexicans to honor their mother country with holidays. It is ok for Virginia to have a Confederate month to honor people who fought to keep slavery. I just don't get it?

  22. Anonymous says:

    I don't think Shoe is a democrat. I think she or he used to be a Republican and is now a nothing. No one wants her/him and she/he can't suck off the politician they used to be in awe of.

    As far as a phone call last night? Yeah, I really believe that closet Dems are calling anonymous bloggers to confess their sins and ask for forgiveness. As for them wanting to change parties for the reasons you've stated? Great, there are 2 Dems that will, more than likely, vote for Lee Terry in November.

  23. curbfeeler says:

    The GOP is the "coffee party" for "moderation".

    That is the problem.

    Neither of the two major parties are Conservative. One is liberal, the other is run by moderates.

    Rank and file Republican members are conservative. But GOP leaders are not; incl Chmn Steele, McCain, and Bush who started the bailouts and pushed federal control into many new areas.

    The national GOP says it is for limiting federal goverment, but many Americans see the GOP wanting to limit federal goverment to GOP control. That's not limiting govt.

    Of course Liberal Democrats are gutting America. But that doesn't mean Republicans should be embraced for sake of being less toxic to individual freedom.

    Frustrated Americans don't want to drink federal kool aid by the gallon from Democrats or by the ounce from Republicans.

  24. Right Wing Professor says:

    Bud:

    You're right about one thing. You just don't get it. You seem to have bought your view of the GOP wholesale from Keith Olbermann. Try looking and thinking for yourself.

    I have no difficulty with (or enthusiasm for) gay marriage, and don't have a problem with legal early abortion. The Republicans are 'borrow and spend'? Then why is the deficit higher this year than in any year of Bush's presidency? And why is the national debt, using Obama's own numbers, projected to keep growing for the next decade? Medicare is a Ponzi scheme that is in the process of bankrupting the country. The Iraqi constitution was drafted by 55 Iraqis and not one American. I don't support any form of corporate welfare, but I do think the corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world, puts America at a huge competitive disadvantage. And I couldn't care less what holidays they celebrate in Mexico, or Virginia, for that matter.

    So stop making stuff up, or somebody might unkindly call you a liar.

    Ponder this also. Which is more believable, the tooth fairy, or a story written by a pseudonymous blogger about an anonymous couple who just happened to call him up the previous evening to provide an illustration of his favorite hobby-horse?

  25. Anonymous says:

    Holy moly, SS, that was faaaast. OK, fair enough, but you understand my point.

    Neither of the two words I used were naughty words (until you put them side by side). What you allow Brian and shoe salesman to say in reference to the Tea Party movement is basically no different. They are knowingly using terminology with a derogatory sexual meaning to refer to concerned citizens, and you and I both know damn well they would not put up with the shoe being on the other foot, so to speak.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Bud says "I don't get it?"

    Bud, you can say that again. Oh, wait, you did say that again … and again … and again. Well said, Bud, and very true — you don't get it.

    I posted a couple of days ago the results of a Gallup/USA Today poll that showed that, other than party affiliation, the Tea Party movement is very much a reflection of broader America. In terms of age, education level, economic status and RACE, the Tea Partiers represent a cross section of America.

    So, you can keep on repeating your Huff Po narrative of Tea Partiers as racist homophobes but that won't make it true.

  27. Anonymous says:

    RWP, I hate to say it but I think you're fighting a losing battle trying to get Bud (or other libs) to understand. You can give them the numbers, you can show them graphics, you can try logic and reason, but, for all practical purposes, you're still talking to a brick wall.

    Bush's biggest deficit was just over $400 billion. Obama's first budget deficit will end up perhaps 5 times that amount by the time all the numbers are added up. And the CBO projections of Obama's 10-year budget window don't show a deficit of less than a trillion dollars. To the point that, by 2020, the Federal debt is projected to be 90% of GDP. That is atronomical. The highest the Federal debt was as a percent of GDP during the entire 20th Century was 28.05% in 1943.

    The numbers are staggering. But all that these liberal wackos can do is rant and rave about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich." (Bud, when only the rich are paying taxes, ANY tax cut will necessarily be for the rich.) This year, it is projected that 47% of U.S. households will not pay federal income tax. That means that payment for these programs is going to be borne by the 53% of households who actually pay in.

    It's no wonder, in the face of such a dire economic picture, that we see the formation of a Tea Party movement. But, instead of dealing with the reality of unsustainable spending and the potential economic catastrophe looming on the horizon, all the libs can do is demonize and villify the tea partiers. And then go on spending like there's no end to the money.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Bud –

    Lincoln, Roosevelt, Ike and Rockefeller were NOT great Republican leaders. Rockefeller was a RINO; Ike's Interstate System is a waste of billions of dollars and destroyed hundreds of neighborhoods; Roosevelt established an imperial America; and Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended civil rights.

    So pray, do tell, how are they great leaders?

  29. Street Sweeper says:

    10:11,
    Rocky – OK, if you feel that way;

    TR – certainly an argument can be made, especially considering the fact he wanted to go his own way later;

    Ike – America would certainly be a different place commercially w/o the interstates (but I'd say a little nostalgia goes a long way); and some argue that Ike didn't fight the programs of the previous Dem admins.

    But Lincoln? You're arguing the greatness of Lincoln? You think that whole freeing the slaves and keeping the union is overrated, huh?

    Next time, quit when you're ahead.

  30. Mark This Down says:

    Just saw that NE GOP Chair Mark Fahleson is officially endorsing Michael "I OK'd spending Republican donor's money at sex clubs" Steele to continue on as chief of the RNC.

    I wonder if that will drive more Nebraksa GOP donors to pass on donations to the party establishment in favor of independent candidates and groups?

  31. TedK says:

    Funny! A Fox poll shows the IRS with a higher favorable rating that the tea party movement, 49% vs. 36%. I'd save you the trouble of googling the actual poll, but SS wants no links. Still looking for another blog with the same restriction.

  32. Right Wing Professor says:

    The percentage of Americans with a favorable opinion of the IRS seems to be identical within statistical error to the percentage of Americans who don't pay federal income tax.

    Hmmm….

  33. Bud says:

    Maybe you guys over looked the major reason why Obama's budget is higher than Bushes. That reason is that he does not use the accounting tricks that Bush used to keep the costly two wars we are fighting now off the books. Bush never put them on his budget. Obama did. If Obama did what Bush did, his budget is 2% less than Bushes. I get my stuff on this from the CBO report of 2009. Street Sweeper thanks for saying Lincoln was a great President. I thought all Americans even righties could have agreed on that one. I told you guys who I thought were great GOP leaders. Do you have any one on the Democratic party you would think is great? Just curious. RWP. You should never call some one a liar unless you know for certain. I am not in that habit of doing that. If I said some one phoned me last night on the matter I said. You can believe it.

  34. Oh mander says:

    All these constradictory polls, infighting and competition amongst participants, and arguing over the identity, role, party affiliation, message, etc. of the Tea Party movement demonstrates exactly why us left leaners aren't worried about the Tea Party.

    Please continue to fracture the conservative base so Dem pols can confiscate your guns, ban all religious practices, dismantle the military, and redistribute wealth 😉

  35. Anonymous says:

    TedK, nice try but you should stop relying on Daily Kos for all of your political information (googled the poll and Daily Kos was the first link that popped up.)

    Instead of just spitting out uninformed stupidity, why not look at the poll itself? The result you quoted was just the percent positive responses. You neglected to list the percent who'd said they'd never heard of it. Nobody said they'd never heard of the IRS. Nearly 20% of Democrats had never heard of the Tea Party movement.

    Overall, there were more negative responses toward the IRS than the Tea Party. Significantly fewer people registerd unfavorable opinions of the Tea Party than of Nancy Pelosi.

    Nice try, though. Thanks for playing.

  36. Oh mander says:

    Oh, and to (sorta) answer the question, I agree that Junior has nothing to gain from a debate, but I'd sure enjoy it if they had one.

  37. Anonymous says:

    It looks like there are more posts on NNN this week than on Levenworth Street.

    Investment tip of the week: Buy rocks.

    Any time Lisa Hannah starts ranting on NNN it's a sure bet that there will be a demand for items of the right size for throwing.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Bud, you're full of baloney. Accounting gimmicks? Name them. Was the stimulus on-budget or off? I'll give you a hint. It was off-budget.

    And whether an expenditure is on-budget or off, it still goes against our debt limit. It was the Democrats — not the Republicans — who recently voted to increase the debt limit by 2 trillion dollars to accommodate all of Pres Obama's irresponsible spending.

    Please quit trying to advance the claim that Obama's spending is lower than Bush's. It's really making you look silly for you to do that.

  39. TedK says:

    Anon 1:25: Huh? Love how you think you can read my mind. For your info I get RSS feeds of many sites, including Red State, the RWPs. I did look at the poll. First, what is the significance of those who had never heard of the tea party? You would think that the IRS would be less favored since everyone has heard of them. Considering that 20% of Dems had never heard of the Tea Party, this further lowers their unfavorables from the expected. Let's look at the net favorable/unfavorable. Tea Party is at +2%. IRS is +11%. But I'm sure you'll somehow find this an unacceptable argument. Trouble arguing with you right-wingers is that you get an idea planted in your brains and no amount of new info, no matter how persuasive it is, can change your mind. I shouldn't be too surprised since by definition a conservative would be resistant to change.

  40. Bud says:

    So anonymous 1:59 You did not want to increase the debt ceiling? I guess you wanted the USA to default on everything and cause a depression that would make the one of the 1930's look like a really mild thing. I don't like debt either. It was not a Democrat, but Dick Cheney who said that President Reagan proved that deficits don't mean anything any more. Like I said (earlier) this is not your Grandfather's Republican party any more. I could be Republican in the 1950's. But not now. Another thing Anon: 1:59 You are not silly just cluess. Open a book some time and stay of the FOX and fools network.

  41. Anonymous says:

    OK, Ted, great, now you're giving us net differences instead of just a % favorable number in a vacuum. Well, we're making some progress now. IRS was still 38% negative whereas the Tea party was only 34% negative and most of that came from Democrats. Speaking of Democrats, they were 49% negative. Nancy Pelosi, by herself, was 53% negative.

    And as long as nitwits like Bud continue to insist that conservatives get all their info from Fox News, I'm going to continue to say that all you libs get your info from Daily KOS, Huff Po and MSNBC (which is probably closer to the truth).

  42. Anonymous says:

    Let the voters decide the argument here….

    Political Wire says the Repub lead in the generic congressional ballot could translate into a gain of 50 to 70 seats for them.

    Sounds like the voters are already starting to decide…

  43. Anonymous says:

    Oh, the irony of Bud telling me I'm "cluess." (Yeah, it's your big thumbs, right, I got the memo.)

    No, Bud, I don't want the U.S. to go into default. I also don't want the Democrats to continue spending money like it just grows on trees.

    As far as budget deficits, it's a matter of degree. Reaganesque budget deficits weren't as big a deal. He reduced marginal tax rates and ended up generating higher tax revenues. This happened because, by allowing people to keep more of their own money, these people (i.e., taxpayers a/k/a "Republicans") generated economic activity that produced a rising tide that floated all boats.

    It's like lowering the price of a good but making it up by increasing volume. (That's sort of a business concept and you Democrats would understandably be foregiven for not understanding such things, having so little experience with, y'know, running businesses.)

  44. TedK says:

    Anon. 2:43, what are you talking about? After Reagan's tax cuts, our deficit skyrocketed. Unlike today's irresponsible Republicans, they soon instituted the largest (at the time) tax increase in history to reverse this. Please study history before starting a rant.

  45. Bud says:

    Ok let me see if I got this right. Regeans debts were not that big of a deal. Bushes debt does not count because Obama has a bigger one. While when Clinton got a balanced budget that does not mean anything? What did Clinton do that resulted in the budget being balanced? I know you will say it was a GOP congress that did that? Why did that not work when that same GOP congress ran up the bill during the Bush term in offfice? Why did they stop doing what was working in the 90's? My answer was they had nothing to do with the success of the Clinton years. I think having the top 2% of the wage earners in America pay more in taxes had a lot to do with the budget getting balanced in the 90's. The GOP got rid of that in the Bush era. Just like Regean did in the 80's that caused that huge debt to be ran up. Obama has cut most of middle class and poor Americans taxes even more with out increasing revenue from the higher tax earners. Plus he has put the war on the budget. Remember the war was always part of the debt but was never part of the budget. You can say Democrats, tax and spend. You are correct. But the GOP started the heavy usage of borrow and spend. It will take both sides and lot of hard work to fix this mess. The GOP way has been proven not to balance a budget. The way we did it under the Democrats did do it. Maybe it was a fluke. (I don't think so) But it did happen. Maybe we should try that way again.

  46. Right Wing Professor says:

    Maybe you guys over looked the major reason why Obama's budget is higher than Bushes.

    Uh, no. Whether you put the war on the budget or not, the effect on the debt is the same.

    And I didn't quite call you a liar, Bud, although I could have, because did accuse me of holding various positions I don't hold.

  47. Bud says:

    RWP. Thanks for not calling me a liar. There is a difference between the debt and the budget. The budget can either add to the debt or take away from the debt. If we have a surplus and use that money to pay on the debt. Bush never put the war on the budget. Yes it will be on the debt because we borrowed money to pay for the war. We did pay our debt off once in the Jackson (a democrat) era. RWP. I don't remember saying anything about your beliefs.( I do talk about right wingers in the generic sense) If I called you a liar when I have no knowledge of that. That too would be wrong. I think we both want our debt payed off. We just have different means to see that done. I believe in mine. I know it will work. History has proven that. I don't think yours will. I believe history so far has proven that. Your a chemist you know a lot about that. More than I will ever know. I teach about history for a living. Give me a little credit for knowing some thing about it.

  48. Right Wing Professor says:

    The problem, Bud, is that Obama doesn't plan to pay off the debt. He plans to increase it. His lowest projected deficit in the next ten years is over $700 billion in 2014. That lowest deficit of the decade will be higher than any previous deficit prior to 2009. His promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250 K per year makes it essentially impossible to balance the budget without slashing spending, and he won't do that.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Bud, I wanted Obama to QUIT THE FRIGGIN' SPENDING! Not increase the debt limit of the United States of America in order to enact more spending programs!!!

    You are an idiot!

    And now my headache is back-THANKS again, A-hole.

  50. Bud says:

    RWP. Finally we agree. I think all wage groups need to have their taxes raised to some degree. Even so I don't want mine to go up. It is very hard to do that in a middle of a recession. That is why nothing has been done to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the well to do. They will just let them run out . Now I talked about this earlier. 75% of the budget is Social Security, Medicare, Military, and the debt. Hard to cut those things and keep a job in elected office no matter who you are. 1% is the hated foreign aide. Around 8%-10% is welfare. Really hated by the right wing. 90% of those people on welfare are kids ages 14 and under. 8% are older people(65 or older) or disabled people. 2% are the so called welfare kings and queens. Any program that has only 2% waste is a pretty good program. All of us waste 2% of our own personal income. But go ahead get rid of welfare and foreign aide 100%. That is a drop in the bucket. So make the cuts and get re elected. Not an easy thing to do. Some on the left say gut the military. I was in the military we all ready tell those boys that their gear is made by the low bid. The right says get rid of SS and Medicare. Even if you think government programs like them are wrong . How do you do that? They are being used. And many people can not live with out them. Some say across the board cuts. Ok. 10% cuts on everything. Not really much economic sense there. So it calls for more taxes, and targeted cuts. That is what we will be argueing over. If I had my choice I would see us going back to the tax rates of the 1950's. Our debt was a lot lower than.

  51. Anonymous says:

    The Republican Party is on the fast track to being obsolete (only 5 states in the nation currently have Republican pluralities) because it will not embrace ANY NOTION of progress. It will not even fake-embrace progress, like the Democratic Party.

    It continues to use fear, xenophobia, and class warfare as the way to appeal to a dwindling constituency with declining electoral power. Great f-ing idea. It takes most of its direction from a fat AM radio gangster who wouldn’t piss on an impoverished member of his Party if they were on fire. Their most outspoken and *viable* elected officials are crazier than a shithouse rat, constantly ejaculating bile and unfounded rage into the gleeful ears of anyone with a video camera or tape recorder handy. The “Moderates” in their brood are cast asunder as socialist terrorist Commie sympathizers who don’t hate immigrants enough and all-of-a-sudden-now get uncomfortable when one of their ancient and atavistic crackers makes a joke about rape or faggots.

    And with that said, I still expect them to make something of a comeback in the 2010 midterm elections, because it’s not good to have one political party so dominant over the other(s). But they’re so bloody ignorant they’ll probably invent a way to dick themselves out of the few Congressional seats they were likely to win back by default.

  52. Anonymous says:

    I'll let John Boehner know that you speak so highly of him.

    And: Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Marsha Blackburn, John Thune, Lee Terry, Devin Nunes, Jason Chaffetz, Jeff Flake, Thaddeus McCotter, Kevin McCarthy, John Kline…

    I could go on and on and on and on, but it is a beautiful day and I would like to get moving to enjoy it.

    BTW, you're an idiot.

  53. Roger Snowden says:

    The Republican Party seems to fall into two broad groups: those who identify with the Tea Party movement, and those who view Tea Partiers with scorn.

    Well, then there are those registered voters Republicans who still don't quite have a clue. We'll disregard them.

    But anybody who has paid attention to the issues, and has some idea of their representative's voting record, surely falls into one group or another.

    Of those here who mock Matt Sakalosky, I wonder if any are actual Tea Party enthusiasts?

    I doubt it.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Intercine Warfare!

    It's going on over at NNN–hilarious. 114 comments posted on the Ben Nelson thread–mostly personal attacks by Montana Hannah, Vile Kyle to BTO, etc. They retrace Hannah getting ousted as CD3 chair, funny read.

    Amazing the effort these guys put into attacking one another. Nate E said it best, summing up on comment #114: "You're acting worse than school children."

    NDP–good leadership for NE…lol

  55. Macdaddy says:

    The leftists posting here have become too predictable. All you can do is accuse Republicans of racism and Tea Partiers of homosexuality. Oh, and Bud starts screeching about the budget deficit under Reagan. Bud, you do realize that none of your students were even alive then, don't you? History has kind of, you know, MovedOn.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Hey Bud—everyone's waiting for your comments over at the hot debate at NNN–you can be commenter #116…go for it!

    Get involved in that fight–so everyone can see the great leadership that's now in NDP.

  57. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Further thoughts on A 9:24 (Nate E.)'s post.

    What is happening over on that NNN thread is exactly the kind of debate that the NDP, and most likely the NEGOP, could use a lot more of. Unfortunately, debate is the LAST thing that most party leaders actually want to get involved in (thus the demands for silence). They prefer the sheeple to just sit quietly on their hands during the meetings, modestly bleating their assent to whatever the leadership proposes; and that is what generally occurs.

    Boooooooooring!

    I'm the very first to admit that I am not much of a follower. I readily confess to being a bit of a rabble-rouser. I revel in stirring the pot, taking the road less traveled, and waking the sleeping dog. But what, pray tell, has ever been accomplished by letting all the beans settle to the bottom of a boiling pot, following the tails of the leading lemmings, or taking a lazy dog hunting?

    I have proven my point that, whenever I fan the flames over on NNN the threads, like the Energizer Bunny, just keep going, and going, and going. Just a cursory glance at the threads without my anarchist bombs reveals that they quickly die ignominious deaths. Usually, it is just Kyle pontificating on something with Nate E. or Lisa popping in to say, "Me too! Me too!"

    Do I go overboard? You betcha! But, c'mon, you all have to admit, like me or not – except for those of you lemmings that can't tolerate hearing anything that clashes with your dogmas – I really do spice up your daily blog reading.

  58. Anonymous says:

    BTO–the point is, the 'debate' on NNN is little but smears, personal attacks and venom spouted by a few posters. I'm not blaming you–it looks like you're the one trying to shake up the status quo and get the NDP back to winning elections. I'm sure that's why the attacks from Vile Kyle, Mountan Hannah and others. They've benefitted from the current structure through consulting contracts and appointments, and obviously don't want to give that up. But the debate there just seems to have no civility or respect–party activitsts ripping each other apart. Just shows Vile was right when he said NNN itself has become too shrill and hypocritical.

  59. Anonymous says:

    If Lee Terry debates his primary opponent, does that mean it will be on a parade float for instant recognition?

    I can hardly wait. The battle for nothing to say.

  60. Anonymous says:

    I see that Mark Fahleson has now embraced using contributor money for lesbian bondage clubs, buying liquor and calling it "office supplies," purging the staff, wasting money on luxury jets and five-star hotels, etc., etc. He signed a letter fully endorsing RNC Chair Michael Steele, and all the corruption that has occurred on Steele's watch.

    Doesn't it make you want to whip out your checkbook and write a big one to NEGOP?

  61. Anonymous says:

    Is Steve Laird in the NE2 race or not? He has a web page but isn't listed in the SoS candidate page. What gives?

  62. Anonymous says:

    We'll take Fahleson–you can have, what's his name, Cobalt? Good job of recruiting candidates Vic, especically the opponents for Bruning and Foley! lol

    Interesting about all the Dems who want to run as L.G. with Lakers. Does that tell you something?

  63. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Oh my! Kyle has threatened to ban me from NNN! Is it OK with you guys if I camp out here in the future? Nearly everyone but Uncle Wiggly has been pretty accommodating so far, and Sweeper has given me a lot of leeway … I like that.

    I've probably posted my last comment on NNN. Now just sit back and watch it dry up.

  64. Bob Loblaw says:

    BTO,

    I'll take your liberal, communist, freedom hating, flag burning, tax and spending, anti-capitalist, bleeding heart ass any day.

  65. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Bob – A few minor corrections, just to keep the record straight. I'm a:

    Liberal
    Socialist accepting (not a Maoist – not a Stalinist – not too crazy about Castro or Ho Chi Minh)
    freedom loving (6 yr. USN vet /American Legionnaire)
    flag respecting (have had a big one lit on my porch 24/7/365 since 9-11 and every holiday before then)
    tax & spend (as opposed to Republican borrow & spend)
    anti-corporate greed (I like small business folks and responsible corporations)
    bleeding (blood donor) arm
    ass (as in Democratic Donkey.

    Sorry to spoil your preconceptions. 😉

    Kyle's latest retort, and the nutcase flamer that just HAS to let the whole world know about his sexual proclivities at every opportunity, have proven my point. It will be interesting to sit back and watch NNN wither on the vine.

  66. Jamie says:

    BTO there's a couple of problems with your self-identity.

    1) Being "socialist-accepting" but being against leaders like Mao and Stalin is not possible. Socialism, throughout history, has invariably given all powers to the state and has led to evil dictators like Mao and Stalin. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    2) Socialism and freedom cannot co-exist. How can the govt tell what to buy and sell at set prices, and still call that liberty? You can call a dog a cat, but in the end of the day, the dog is still a dog.

    3) Just because you were in the military does not mean you're freedom-loving, nor free from criticism. My father served in the AF for about 3 decades, and yet he's one of the most staunch advocates. Timothy McVey was an Army veteran. He wasn't very freedom-loving.

  67. Jamie says:

    Oh, and bonus points-

    Republicans are not fans of spending, period. Yeah, there are a few black sheep here and there like Snowe and McCain, but on balance, a lot of Republicans want to cut inefficiency and overall size of govt.

    The most praised Republicans are great government-cutters. Rick Perry, Dave Heineman, and Chris Christie are known for their ability face financial crises and solve the problems.

    I understand why it seems to make sense to call Republicans borrow and spend, but most of them have had these problems due to negative externalities. Democrats have started huge entitlement programs that are simply dangerous and difficult to remove.

    Reagan, for example, inherited a LOT. Beyond the decades of Dem-controlled Congresses, he faced a recovering energy market, a post-stagflation economy, almost 10% unemployment, and top income tax rates at 70%. He lowered taxes while increasing the deficit, but it decreased unemployment to 5%, increased disposable income a real $13,000, and doubled the value of stocks.

    Oh, and that whole crippling the Soviet Union thing.

  68. Bud says:

    Jamie there are very different forms of Socialism. Just like there are very different forms of democracy. BTO is a lot more correct on that then you are. Sweden is a socialist nation. I don't think any one thinks they are like Stalinists Soviet Union. The CSA was a democracy. I don't think any one thinks the are like the USA. Most of the western European and the USA are a mixture of socialism and capitolism. All of those nations elect their leaders in variey of ways. They all believe that making a buck is a good idea. China likes making a buck too. They are the best nation in the world right now at doing that or at least a close second to us. Yet they are not a democracy. McVey is a good example of a man who did not love America. I bet your father is a good example of of some one who loves America. BTO is some one I know who loves America. And no one is free from criticism. The number one thing I think you were right about is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Name one American national leader that really ever has done that? And for Bob L. I bet you would call me a liberal. If you tried to burn the American flag in my presence you would be in a whole lot of hurt. That is my emotional response. But I guess if the Supreme Court can say corporations are people. They can say burning the flag is freedom of speech.

  69. Bud says:

    Jamie my bonus points. We live in a Democratc republic. Those bad social programs, that you don't like. Get rid of them then. Like Clint Eastwood said( Go ahead make my day) They seem to be very popular with most Americans. Do you have a problem with what the people want? I know Stalin and Mao did.

  70. Jamie says:

    Actually, Bud, speaking about finances, Sweden is not very socialist. Sweden is in fact the 21st freest nation in the world when it comes to economic and financial issues. It boasts ease to invest, make contracts with people, a plethora of financial services from banks, and an above-average trade policy.

    And I would submit the CSA was not a democracy. A democracy is a government reflective of the will of the people. The CSA did not respect the voting rights of a good chunk of its constituents- minorities and women. That being said, the CSA was not all bad- they left on the principle that states have rights, including that to secede. Many legal scholars actually have concluded that the succession of southern states was indeed legal.

  71. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Jamie – I'll be blunt. You are an ignoramus. You're grasp of historical fact slips through your fingers faster than a fistful of water.

  72. Bud says:

    Jamie . I have been involved in the teaching of history since 1985. I have read a variety of history, from every point of view that is possible. You are the first person that I can think of that says the right to secede is legal. There is not a legal scholar today that would say that. You are a Dixiecrat If you are saying that the CSA was not a democracy, than the USA of that same time period was not either. Your opinions about Sweden and then not seeing that the USA and many western European nations are just like that is leaving me speechless. I really did not think that people like YOU existed. It is scary. I read what many GOP think on this blog. I disagree with them. I think they are wrong. They think I am wrong. That is the American way. You have a right to your opinion. But you don't have a right to your own facts. If you really believe what you have said then you are a scary person. More scary than any person with gun. You have done it Jamie. I am impressed. You leave me speechless for now.

  73. Anonymous says:

    Personally, I am glad that BTO and Bud are posting here. It shows the openess of this site–a big contrast with NNN where, if you don't agree with the host, you get booted off.

    Welcome, libs!

  74. E. V. Debs says:

    Actually, Bud, what Jamie has pointed out with his confusion about Sweden is that modern socialism and freedon are not mutually exclusive. We just need to convince the rest of the folks around here that the chains they need to throw off of themselves are the corporate ones that are ruining our country and government.

  75. Anonymous says:

    Unbelieavable!

    The latest from NNN–Kyle said BTO is "making ALL OF US look bad."

    No, Vile, you're the one who looks bad–embarassing really.

    Another poster pointed out that Kyle has banned BTO for "personal attacks" when he (Vile) called anther poster's mother a ….. (rymes with witch). Nothing really to add except Kyle is a hypocrite.

  76. Anonymous says:

    No wonder so few posts on NNN:

    Other than the nuke war going on in the Ben Nelson thread, no one seems to care about Kyle's thoughts.

    Articles this month–four. Total comments posted 20. Wow.

    You'd think they'd talk up the current thread which is about Lakers. Nope–not a single comment.

    Does Kyle realize the damage he is doing to NNN?

  77. Anonymous says:

    Gallup

    New Gallup poll has Dem party favorable "at an 18-year low"–41%

    Never been worse since Gallup began asking the Q.

  78. Anonymous says:

    The format over on NNN has become totally predictable. No one shows any interest in Kyle's drivel for 3 or 4 posts in a row so then he puts out a love letter to Ben Nelson. That gets some growling from the Dems who seem to hate Nelson worse than any Republican, and at that point Lisa Hannah jumps in and says she's being picked on.

    Has anyone ever met Lisa Hannah? I'm starting to wonder if it's just Ben Nelson's alter ego.

  79. Brian T. Osborn says:

    A 8:41,

    Kyle has not banned me from NNN, he has merely threatened to do so if I don't get into line and treat his good buddy, Lisa, with the respect he believes she is due. He doesn't understand that I have been giving them all exactly what they are due.

    Because I don't want to carry any more water for those two, and a couple of other idiots that agree with them, I'm going to leave NNN alone for now. I think my point will be proven that, when the only voices on NNN are those of Kyle and his coterie, no one else reads the damned thing. Meanwhile, Leavenworth Street is quickly becoming THE place to find genuine political commentary in Nebraska.

    Who knows? LS may soon become the state's premier source of progressive online political commentary as well as continuing to be the state's premier source of conservative online political commentary. Just as Sweeper put in LS's headline, it is "the talk of Nebraska politics."

    I appreciate that Sweeper invites debate here and allows it to unfold freely, without the threats of excommunication and the crass hypocrisy that Kyle so often exercises on his little blog.

  80. Anonymous says:

    9:37–you're right but need to add the other tactic: when someone responds to Lisa's diatribe, she plays the 'mailbox' card–claiming that a 'right winger' has just placed another threatening letter in her mailbox. Sure. Right. Tell us more, Lisa.

  81. Anonymous says:

    Wow, she must have had some tramatic childhood. Most girls stop putting letters to themselves in the mail box and start passing notes to their friends by the time they get to 4th grade.

  82. Nathan says:

    BTO,
    I wrote this on NNN but I wanted yo to make sure you got it so I'll post it here.

    My apologies to you BTO.

    I didn't think Kyle would have the gall or stupidity to do something, well, that stupid. I agree the power structure needs to be shaken up in the NDP. Some people are just too self-righteous, petty, condescending and pathetic.

    Oh, and I always sign my posts with my alias, than anonymous poster earlier wasn't me.

  83. Anonymous says:

    Nathan–it probably will take an across-the-board loss by NDP this cycle for the message to get through. That, the days of special treatment for the Hannah, Kyle, Samp & Rogers clique, is over. We'll see.

  84. Anonymous says:

    Roger, maybe they were not only Tea Party enthusiasts, maybe they were Tea Party members and only gave up the "membership" part because of those of your group that have chosen to make the Omaha T.P.G. about the election of a candidate, rather than the mission of "Hope and Change".

    Did you every consider that while eating your Wheaties?

    Those that have left you didn't leave the cause, they left the people. Kind of like when someone gets a divorce. They don't give up on the idea of a couple being 2 people, they just couldn't take the abuse anymore.

  85. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Jamie,

    The etymological root of Socialism is from the Latin word socius (associate, companion; ally; sharing; associated; allied). In other words, it means US. If you live in a society, are sociable, like to socialize, have social values, then it can be said that you live in a socialist state. But then again, you may be a sociopath and would be better off living in a nation without a government, like Somalia.

    The myth that a socialist government enslaves the people is false because in a truly socialist state, the people ARE the government. It is true that many states that have enslaved the majority of their citizens call themselves socialist, or have the word Socialist in their names, but that is a ruse not unlike that used by Fox News. Fox News is, as their golden boy, Glenn Beck, recently stated in a Forbes magazine interview, "… an entertainment company,"

    In Socialist countries like France, Italy, Germany, England, Sweden, …. , the government doesn't make every decision for you. And, I would wager those countries have quite a number of self-made billionaires. Now how does that happen according to your twisted logic?

    One thing you don't get to do is question my patriotism, punk. I served, my father served, three of my brothers served, most of my uncles and one of my aunts served. I come from a very patriotic family. Your dad served, good for him, why didn't you?

    You know, Jamie, you should know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

  86. Anonymous says:

    I'm all for diversity. BTO & Company may add something to the debate if not the quality of the content, but I hope Vile Kyle doesn't decide to fold up shop and come over here with his ego boosting clap-trap.

  87. Anonymous says:

    I'd say let him post here. Who cares? This site runs on ideas and a back-and-forth of respectful discussion–alien concepts to Vile.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Here's what Darwin just said on NNN about Kyle deleting a comment by BTO:

    Lisa Hannah has, historically, been one of the nastiest posters at this site. her husband, Roger, came to this site solely to pick a fight with BTO. Huskersolon regularly posts comments that are devoid of any content other than invective and insults You have never criticized a single one of them, let alone, threatened to ban them.

  89. Anonymous says:

    Tea Party

    Hope alot of people turn out for the Tea Party on 4/15. Location has changed to Walnut Grove Park, 152nd and Q. Time is same–5 to 8 p.m. Good speakers and good food!

  90. Anonymous says:

    I'm not sure about this Sak guy. I asked him last week whether or not Gov. Heineman should accept the federal stimulus $$$–he told me it was all addressed on his web site and to look there. I did, but there's nothing about it. I thought Mr. Sak is for straight talk–could have fooled me.

  91. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Wish I could make it to the Tea Party. Like Capt. Picard, I prefer Earl Grey. Will there be crumpets?

    Actually, I hope a lot of lefties show up for this. It is never good to allow facts to be distorted to the point they become commonly accepted as the truth. Only by having both sides of all issues honestly represented can it be said that there is a dialogue taking place … and dialogue is good … even between candidates like Mr. Sakalosky and Mr. Terry. Hell, I'd say make it a three-way and toss Mr. White in the ring with 'em. Make it often and a free-for-all forum.

    On a side note … did y'all hear that I have "henchmen?" Yeah, surprised me too!

  92. R. Schommer says:

    I've been accused of being one of your "henchmen" BTO. When do I get my black trench coat and mafia style hat? Pay up or I'm gonna start looking for someone else to lead me around. What does Kyle pay that pack of Mighty Chihuahua's that follow him?

  93. Anonymous says:

    All I know is Tom White is on this site just about every day he is on the floor of the Legislature.

    Hi Tom:) Hope you enjoy your final days in an elected position.

  94. Anonymous says:

    OMG, we have a right-wing spy ring on the floor of the Legislature. Watch out Heath. Once they've ruined what's left of Tom they'll be coming to get you.

    Carry on. Nice work guys.

  95. Anonymous says:

    There wasn't much left of Tom to start with. He has a terrible reputation and no one believes that he can keep his crap attitude toward those that disagree with him in check long enough to survive until November. If he had a Primary opponent, it would already be over for him.

    Tom White's potty mouth and attitude will be what gets him thrown out of politics, not some "spy" in the Legislature.

    BTW, if Tom White had not voted for keeping phone and internet logs out of the Freedom of Information Act a couple sessions ago, he could prove that he wasn't on Leavenworth St Blog when he was getting paid by the taxpayers of Nebraska to be a State Senator.

  96. Anonymous says:

    BTO describes himself thus:

    I'm a:

    Liberal
    Socialist accepting (not a Maoist – not a Stalinist – not too crazy about Castro or Ho Chi Minh)
    freedom loving (6 yr. USN vet /American Legionnaire)
    flag respecting (have had a big one lit on my porch 24/7/365 since 9-11 and every holiday before then)
    tax & spend (as opposed to Republican borrow & spend)
    anti-corporate greed (I like small business folks and responsible corporations)
    bleeding (blood donor) arm
    ass (as in Democratic Donkey.

    My question is: So which item on that list puts you at odds with your fellow dems over at NNN (and in the NDP)?

    It ain't the "liberal" tag nor the "Socialist accepting." It sure isn't the "tax and spend" or the "anti-corporate greed" part.

    That just leaves "freedom loving" and "flag respecting." My guess is they don't like either but the "flag respecting" probably bothers them the most.

  97. Anonymous says:

    BTO–

    The new three-day average of the Gallup poll shows Obama's approval at a new low (43%). Do you think it is higher/lower in NE?

  98. Anonymous says:

    What BTO says here:

    "Is it OK with you guys if I camp out here in the future? Nearly everyone but Uncle Wiggly has been pretty accommodating so far, and Sweeper has given me a lot of leeway …"

    "I appreciate that Sweeper invites debate here and allows it to unfold freely, without the threats of excommunication and the crass hypocrisy that Kyle so often exercises on his little blog."

    But, here's what BTO said at NNN on 4/9/10:

    "You'd make a great Republican, Hukster. They like to shut people up too, they really dislike hearing others voicing opinions that they haven't approved."

    Kinda hard to reconcile the above quotes. Your own personal experience so emphatically argues against what you posted over on NNN that it's hard to understand what you could possibly have been thinking. Maybe you need to rethink your whole world view. All this time, you thought black was white and up was down and it must be a terrible shock to run headlong into the truth.

  99. Brian T. Osborn says:

    A 8:17,

    Just because I am a Democrat, it doesn't mean that I mindlessly follow the dictates of the party leadership. My main impetus in participating in the NDP is, and has been, to get ever more Democrats to freely voice their own opinions, and not just play follow the leader. That has frequently put me at odds with NNN and the NDP. The fact that I have unauthorized opinions is what I believe bothers them the most.

    You should try it sometime.

    A 12:28 (same as A 8:17?)

    I guess you failed the "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" test, eh?

    Sweeper, although undoubtably a Republican, is NOT the NEGOP – just as I am not the NDP. Unlike some of you, he seems to have his own opinions, and doesn't mind hearing the views of others. I respect that. Uncle Wiggly is the only one I recall asking to have me thrown off of here.

    I did run headlong into the truth, early in my life; it was shocking, and that is why today I am a Liberal. No need to rethink anything.

    Try again, Lisa.

  100. Anonymous says:

    No, Brian, I ain't Lisa. And if someone failed the 5th Grader test, it must have been you.

    First set of quotes from here, you acknowledge how the Republicans over here (other than Wiggly) have been pretty accommodating and allowed debate to unfold freely.

    Second quote from NNN, in the midst of complaining about censorship, YOU said "THEY" (in reference to Republicans, not NEGOP) like shutting people up.

    I cannot for the life of me see any other reasonable way of construing your comments to mean anything other than exactly what you said: "You'd make a great Republican, Hukster. They like to shut people up too, they really dislike hearing others voicing opinions that they haven't approved."

    Where in that quote do you say anything about the NEGOP? Where? It ain't my reading comprehension, Bri. That leaves …

  101. Paige says:

    A certain nasty tempered state senator with to much time on his hands is probably Huskersolon on NNN and Anonymous here on Leavenworth Street. If not, they could be another Separated at Birth.

  102. Anonymous says:

    Paige, separated at Birth doesn't seem like quite the right award. Maybe a Sybil award for multiple personalities? No, that wouldn't work either since it's just the same bad personality that just keeps showing up again and again.

  103. Brian T. Osborn says:

    2:20 PM, April 12, 2010

    Anon 2:20, wrote (parphrasing here) "No I'm not … you are … double! Hahahahaha!" As the great Italian comic, ToTo said, "Quisquiglie e pinzillacchere!"

    Wow! Give the dinkus the master debater award and let him out of the straight jacket before he twists his panties into knots that even Houdini can't undo.

  104. Anonymous says:

    Recent revelations are going to make it hard for me to decide who to vote for in the Congressional race in November. Do I support the guy that swears at taxi drivers, or the one who swears at everyone and then jumps on the internet to post more bile under a nom de plume?

  105. Husker Solon says:

    Sweeper – I'm glad btox and his henchmen have found solace here in your loving arms. That's fantastic. I do have one question: Who the hell is Tom White?

  106. Anonymous says:

    Tom White is a State Senator, Trial Atty who made millions, and the son of a former Nebraska Supreme court justice. He goes around acting like he knows the plight of the common man, even goes so far as to talk up his summer helping a brick layer. He is a hot tempered, ego driven,….. BUT he is smart!

    He has hopes he can distance his record or being the wanna be Rahm E of Nebraska. He portrays himself as an independent because he knows the Dem brand isn't selling here. Kind of funny him running from who he is, and the NDP letting him do so. Oh well.

    So if he is afraid to be who he is now, how to you think he would have been if elected?

    anyway enough of the almost "Former" State Senator Tom White.

    Oh and by the way Hi Ian et al.

    To bad you folks over at the NDP and NNN didn't encourage Bill Avery to run. Maybe next time you can ask Heath Mello to run?

  107. R. Schommer says:

    For all the trolling you do on NNN Hukster I'd have thought you might have noticed Kyle's second favorite political hack to wave his pom poms for.

    Your question reminds me of a recent post there by BTO. It seems as apt for you as it did for Lisa Hannah:

    "They have a joke in Italy about the Carabinieri, that always travel in pairs because one knows how to read, and the other knows how to write. I'd suggest you learn to read."

  108. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of Congressional races, the Dem who is challenging Fortenberry in the 1st CD was being interviewed on a Lincoln Radio Station yesterday. Wow. She's just … bad. Honestly, where did they find her?

    How would you have voted on health care? "Well, I, uh, am, uh, don't know how I, uh, would have voted on it but something needed to be done (but I might have voted against it just like Mr. Fortenberry). And those big banks are just not very, uh, good for us, or something."

    A lot of the debate surrounding health care concerned abortion. What's your position on abortion? "Well, my mother was an anti-abortion person and, so, I, well, am, uh, pro-life too … except when I'm not, like in the cases or rape, incest, condom failure, etc. And I won't answer questionnaires about this because I think the issue is too nuanced. And those big banks are bad because they're so big."

    Where do you stand on immigration? "Well, immigration is a big deal and we need to seal our borders and keep all those bad people out but we also have to remember that no one chooses the womb they're conceived in and so … I feel strongly both ways. It's very nuanced. Oh, and big banks are very bad for us."

    The sad thing is she'll get at least 33% of the vote.

  109. Anonymous says:

    Here's a headline from AP — "Foes of tea party movement to infiltrate rallies"

    Seems they want to go around to Tea Party rallies acting like racists and bigots so that they can discredit the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racists and bigots.

    Many of us kind of suspected that was going on. Now, there's some proof.

    But I'm sure that won't stop a certain couple of posters over here from claiming that Tea Party supporters are a bunch of racists and bigots. The desire to believe something is often as much proof as some people need.

  110. Anonymous says:

    I'm voting for the candidate that swears at cab drivers trying to run him over in a cross walk. I would never vote for a candidate that swears at people when he is trying to get something from them. TW is an ass in spite of being a Democrat.

  111. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Anonymous 11:32,

    This reminds me of the old joke about the minister and the piccolo player, since this is a family friendly blog, I won't repeat it here but Google "joke minister piccolo" and you'll find it.

    Sooooooo. I take it your purpose here was to infiltrate Leavenworth Street so that you could discredit Sweeper's new Liberal posters?

  112. Anonymous says:

    BTO, I'm anon at 11:32 but I'm not the only person posting anonymously. I can only speak for my own posts.

    Not sure I understand your point. First, there's no infiltrating necessary. I just … post. And I don't portray myself as a liberal and say things to try to make liberals look foolish. That's what Bud does. Maybe he's your culprit.

  113. Anonymous says:

    I can see why you're so loved and admired over at NNN, Brian. All those charm school lessons are really paying off. Instead of running for head of NDP, maybe you should set your sights higher and run for more important and worthy of your immense talents and abilities. Sanitary and Improvement District, for example, if there is one where you live. Or maybe you could volunteer for jury duty.

  114. husker solon says:

    R. – My reference to Senator White was a humorous way of pointing out that I AM NOT Senator White – as was inferred in previous posts here.

    I can't tell if you are dense or so consumed with attacking and insulting everyone you can't read – just like your carabineiri!

    Good to see that it may be a different blog but its the same old R! Are you and the rest of Btox's henchmen enjoying the new digs?

  115. Husker Solon says:

    Anon 1132:
    Did you read the AP story on the drunken doctors on the flight from LA to Boston harassing Rep. Frank? Maybe they were these so-called infiltrators?

    Nah. I think you can now add "drunk and disorderly" to "racist, homophobic, violent bigots" to the description of the tea baggers.

  116. Anonymous says:

    Two drunk docs on an airplane = an entire movement is drunk and disorderly. Riiiiight.

    Isn't that what you libs call a "hasty generalization"? In fact, the Journal Star is so consumed by the fear that readers will employ the old "hasty generalization" that they no longer refer to race in identifying certain crime suspects.

    But I guess it's OK when you're trying to smear a group you don't like. Let me try it: BTO, Bud and Solon are @$$wipes; therefore, all Democrats are @$$wipes. Hey, works for me.

  117. Brian T. Osborn says:

    A 9:47 – I'm not a Pollyanna-Goodie Two Shoes. So what else is new? At least I don't hide behind Mommy's skirts after throwing my doo doo at people, as you have.

    And Hukster, I certainly hope everyone here doesn't judge the entire NDP by your cowardly barbs or Kyle's draconian dictates.

  118. Nathan says:

    To 11:32 AM, April 13, 2010,

    Using your infant-like logic that means the idiots who threw eggs at the tea bagger busses in Nevada are actually tea baggers trying to get sympathy votes.

  119. Husker Solon says:

    Anon 10:54:
    Aren't you the Pot? Geez, for years the right winger/tea baffers have blanketed all dems with rash generalizations – so I'm just playing by your rules.

    Here's another revelation: Politico reports that the Tea Party Express is just a public relations front put up by a group of GOP operatives. Of the 4 million raised by the Tea Party PAC – 2 million went to these GOP hacks. They prop up the "tea party express" – something Gov. Heine has endorsed – and it turns out it's not a movement – its a scam!

    So, adding more to the Tea Baggers description. this time it's drunk disorderly. racist, homophobic, bigoted and PHONY.

    BTOX – don't go changin' for me.

  120. Anonymous says:

    Hukster, is BTO going to get you a black trench coat and mafia style hat too? Over here you're just another one of his henchmen.

  121. Brian T. Osborn says:

    A 8:06 – If you really want to know, check out Legistorm.com. You will find a lot of eye opening information about who is really bribing, (ahem, excuse me) funding the golf trips (ahem, excuse me again) the fact-finding missions of our Congress Critters and their staffs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.