Terry on the ‘Tube (You, that is)

Congressman Lee Terry has a new web-ad up on YouTube.
See it here:

It would be easy to see how this 40 second spot could be trimmed down to a 30 second spot for broadcast over the air.

These type of ads are usually good, cheap and effective. Looking forward to see who uses them after Labor Day.


On the Lee Terry for Congress front, he has a new flyer going out to seasoned citizens:

Note each point contrasted to his opponent’s position.


And to continue on the theme, here are a couple of web articles on, and related to, Terry.

The first, a bio/campaign review, more or less at Human Events.

The second was sent to us by a reader who noticed Terry’s name lumped into an article on Gateway Pundit.

It is based on that survey in May of 2009 from The Hill — asking Congresspersons which Members they found to be the most partisan or the easiest to work with from the opposing party.

Terry, you may remember, made the list from Dems as to one of the better Republicans to work with.

Now this article goes on to slam the GOPers who made that list as turn-coats of some sort.

They say:

By marking which Republicans that Democrats think are “easy to work with” we can see which Republicans are not Republicans but are instead an ever hated RINO (Republican In Name Only).

There is only one reason why Democrats would love these folks: it’s because they are reliable votes against their own party.

Which is stupid.

Here’s the goofy thing about the analysis of this year and a half old list:
Terry is a main target of the DCCC this year.
And he consistently votes conservatively.

So now because he’s not also an asshole, Gateway Pundit thinks he should be voted out?

Well, if they are looking for someone who no one likes, that will vote consistently with the Democrats, we can think of someone they should support…


By the way, MSNBC recently came out with a list of 64 House seats likely to flip.

Nine of these were Republicans.

Lee Terry’s seat, was not one of them.


And for those of you outside of Omaha, we see that 3rd District Democrat candidate Rebekah Davis is just itching to debate Congressman Adrian Smith everywhere.

And Smith, in the mean time, is keeping up a busy schedule throughout the (huge) district.

But only problem with Davis is that she hasn’t proven herself to be a credible candidate by any means tests.

Her FEC report shows that she has raised a measly $30K and has only $2,000 COH.

If she can’t get some decent support from within her own party, there is no reason for Smith to take the time to debate her. Heck, the other guy who wants in the race can probably scrounge up two grand. Should he be in the debates as well?

Is there going to come a day when some Democrat from the third wants to work their way up the political ladder before running for Congress?


Finally, you noticed that SecDef Robert Gates announced that he will retire next year.

And our Chuck Hagel news feed just went off again…


  1. Anonymous says:

    Vile Kyle is out with his version of the SS issues. Course he is CLUELESS! I especially liked the exchange where a one GEOUSER points out how Tom White must be for higher TAXES with his stance.

    Way to go Tom, can always count on you to take the easy road only to find out oopps…… I just advocated for higher taxes:)

    Must be all the stellar advice from Ian, or Mello.

  2. Grundle King says:

    I agree with Shoe Salesman…how dare you discuss a Nebraska politician on a blog dedicated to Nebraska politics!

    BTW, searched Youtube for recent campaign ads by Tom White, and couldn't find any…so maybe that has something to do with the lack of Tom White content. (or maybe Tom White just lacks content)

  3. Ivan says:

    The NDP has revived Mike Johanns' video stalker, Lisa Hannah, to muster the troops behind Davis. Just take her word for it, Miss Davis is "amazing!" so send her some money. If that's the best the Dems can do, Adrian has nothing to fear.

    It looks like the lovely Lisa's replacement as Chair of the Democrats' third district, Marion Bahensky, has been ousted only weeks after having been re-elected. Oh, there must be trouble a brewing out west.

  4. Anonymous says:

    It's easy to bring in huge money when you're willing to sell yourself to the highest bidding special interest. *cough* Lee Terry and Adrian Smith *cough*. It's another when you refuse that money. And since when did we because a country that expects politicians to raise hundreds of thousands, even millions? I thought we wanted people who had ideas, not people who were pure puppets for their campaign contributors. *cough* Terry, Smith, Johanns *cough*.

    Don't let Ivan fool you. That's BTO, who will come out and claim he always posts under his name. Wait for it……

  5. Anonymous says:

    Name the lobbyist that Tom White turned money down from.

    Hell, he even took money twice from the guy that beat his ass into submission in the Legislature.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Sorry to change the subject but Chris Jerram's act at the Omaha CC meeting today was comical.

    Is there a bigger bafoon?

    Watch your satelites folks.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Tom White and Ian have all their eggs in one basket. An "October" surprise.

    Well Gomer, Ian, what is already known of tommy white is enough to have people look past him. He is already well established as a guy who will kiss the Pelosi/Ried ring's. Now the Omaha circus has become, in the words of Becka, the Union's Bitch it is only a small effort "Taking".

    ehehehehehehehe nothing but good things from the local to the national level for Terry.

  8. RWP, supersleuth says:

    Here's a minor mystery in Rebekah Davis's FEC report. The biggest donation is $1,300 from a grad. student in UC Davis physics dept.. Very few grad. students have that sort of expendable cash. I notice the same student made a $300 in kind donation, address Chicago. He does research at Fermilab.

    Could just be a boyfriend, I suppose.

  9. RWP says:

    I couldn't care less who her boyfriend is. I just think it's amazing a grad. student can donate almost as much in political contributions last year as I earned in my first year in grad. school.

    Must be one of those people that has 'enough money', the kind our President warned us about.

  10. RWP says:

    I also found it amusing Ms. Davis is burning thousands of dollars in gasoline dashing about the state in search of a nice Washington job, all the time pontificatng (if that's the right word to use about a Lutheran preacher) about the evils of BP, Transcanada, etc..

    Our sermon today is from the book of Hypocrita. "What is good for me is bad for thee. Yea verily, for while I may rack up the mileage on my campaign car, thou shall mount thy pushbike. For the Lord our God has ordained that carbon credits shall be the property of the Elect; but the sinners shall get ye to work by the exertion of thy sinews, so that ye can pay thy holy taxes, as He has ordained. Praise be to Him and his servant Obama, PBUH.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The Medicare stuff in Terry's flyer is a real problem for White.

    I know a few seniors who are being notified their Advantage plans won't cover two free vision exams anymore–totally due to the Medicare cuts in the healthcare law. White's support for the law will do him in.

  12. Anonymous says:

    White's also in trouble since the healthcare law includes about $500 billion in higher taxes–many on individuals who actually own small businesses but report their income as a sole proprietorship.

    Great idea, Tom–raising taxes in a stalled economy. Brilliant.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Gallup yesterday shows the generic ballot has swung bigtime to the Republicans (50-43).

    Add Obama's approval rating of 44% and the Dems are looking at a wipeout.

    Good job on the economy, Dems….

  14. Anonymous says:

    RWP, first you're worried about who one donor is and if it's a boyfriend (yes, you did, or you wouldn't have brought it up), then you go off attacking someone for using the only means possible for traveling. Are you saying she shouldn't get money and that she shouldn't campaign? Of course, what am I'm caring with regards to you. You're not even a 3rd District voter, and you're not even a registered voter. Now, unless you have something constructive, what I'm hearing is that all you DO have is attacks, which means something must be concerning you. It baffles me you're allowed to teach kids cause you're whole attitude is something I wouldn't want my kid to be around.

  15. One Out In The Third says:

    Should be a three-way going in the Third come November. Dan Hill is closing in on the signatures needed to get on the ballot.

    It will be interesting to see if Smith will show up for a debate with Hill. The only difference that I can see is that Smith has money…but then again Hill may be a little bit ahead when it comes to stepping up to the plate…Smith seems to be getting lazy.

    Smith's voting record in the House has slipped over time and the latest numbers I can find shows he only shows up to vote about 2/3rds of the time. Maybe he should return a third of his pay.

    Hill will be worth a listen.

    Davis has to have gotten a warm tingly with Hill joining in…a split vote might give her a chance…her only chance.

  16. Macdaddy says:

    I don't really like the Lee Terry youtube ad. I kept thinking Franklin Thompson was going to deliver a punchline any second. Where was the laugh-track? Couldn't Terry have found someone to talk in a normal voice and act like a real person, not somebody from SNL? Is this how Councilman Thompson speaks in real life? (I've never heard him talk). In any event, if Terry is going to cut footage, he should definitely cut the second statement by the Councilman.

  17. Anonymous says:

    What I like about Richard Carter is that he is independent. He will shaft both Democrats and Republicans to get himself ahead.

  18. Jamie says:

    Carter is a former Democrat who campaigned for Terry's job who lost the primary and, naturally, started working for the Terry campaign.

  19. Anonymous says:

    11:28–go to Terry's You Tube page–click the video with Prof. Carter talking about Tom White's support for 2 trillion more in spending and debt than Terry. Econ 101 for you–there will be more later!

  20. RWP says:

    What's the matter, anonymous coward @ 11:02? Afraid of a little disclosure? Ms. Davis's biggest donor isn't even a Nebraska resident, let alone a 3rd district resident.

    Yes, Ms. Davis needs to get around, though it seems she drives more than most of us. But we all need to get around. So why is Ms. Davis trying to prevent us from getting North American produced gasoline to get around?

    And don't worry about your kids. It's unlikely they have the prereqs.

  21. GeosUser says:

    Yes, Franklin Thompson really does speak that way. He has and uses a huge vocabulary at all times. He can use more big words to say nothing than almost any other local pol…and he does it all the time. After all, he does have a PhD in some pseudo-science that is nothing but a massive collection of buzz words.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I have to admit I was wrong about Jean Stothert. She really has stood firm and represented the taxpayers on the budget and the union contracts. I hope she runs for mayor.

  23. Anonymous says:


    Is that education envy we're sensing? It's OK. Not everyone has your limited education. Thanks to GW's "No Child Left Behind," they're all dumbing down. So you won't have to feel threatened by those people that know those BIG words.

  24. The Popinjay says:

    Hey, I'm the reader that sent the Gateway Pundit story. Yes, GP gets a little over-excited about things. I suspected Terry was an okay Congressman (I'm from Nebraska originally…now in Las Vegas), but I wanted to get the scoop from you to be sure.

  25. GeosUser says:

    Anonymous 10:49,
    Education envy??? You've got to be kidding. I do admire Franklin's vocabulary to be sure and his ability to convince some people that there's actual substance behind that vocabulary…when there isn't any at all.

  26. Mia says:

    Another interesting detail in Ms. Davis' FEC report is under the section "other loan payments" there is a payback on a loan of $1740.00 to a Ms. Lisa Davis. Coincidentally, you see on her operating expendatures payment of her filing fee of $1740.00. So who is Lisa Davis? Is that her Mommy? A cadidate that has to borrow money to cover the candidate filing fee from Mommy, or any other family member, is not a credible candidate.

  27. Anonymous says:

    You might want to check your facts, but I'm fairly sure NDP is not paying, not did they ask Lisa Hannah to stalk Adrian. She's on her own and frankly hurting Davis much more than helping…….She just doesn't like Adrian.

  28. Anonymous says:

    I understand Ms. Davis' car isn't a monster truck like the guzzler the Kleebs have on their road trip to TX this week. Check out the pic on Jane's Twitter page. What kind of a carbon footprint is that sucker leaving?

  29. Anonymous says:

    Wow. Focusing on speculating who Rebekah Davis's boyfriend is, and whining that she wasn't rich enough to set out the initial filing fee. All the while, you all ignore the relationships of Adrian Smith, the silver spoon and clear handouts his parents gave him every step of the way, and ignore the big out-of-state donors that are part of major special interests buying Adrian's vote. What a shallow, pathetic lot you all are.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Anon 12:57:

    Shallow and pathetic would be a good description for that Little Girl's candidacy, especially if her mom paid her filing fee. If she couldn't afford the filing fee, why didn't she file as a pauper? Oh, and Andrian Smith has got a lot more money from in state contributions that Little Rebekah has. In fact, I haven't crunched the numbers, but I wouldn't be suprised if Adrian has a higher percentage of in state contributions and the "Yale Part Deux" candidate.

  31. shallowpatheticlot says:

    11:02. You are baffled as to how RWP is allowed to teach kids "cause" his attitude is something you wouldn't want your kids to be around.

    It is obvious that your kids shouldn't be around you, because you are an insufferable ass – a jackass, your symbol not mine – who embraces tyranny in the guise of helpful government. Your kids would be better off in foster care.

    Your pappy here says we are a shallow pathetic lot. Yet we aren't the ones with our heads up Obama's butt clear to the shoulders. Its dark up there, hard to see what's coming. I will give you a hint… CLIFF!

  32. Right Wing Professor says:

    We were speculating why an out-of-state graduate student in physics at U. Cal. Davis is Davis's biggest contributor. That he might be her boyfriend is the most benign of possible explanations. Actually, he seems to be a perfectly upstanding citizen, albeit liberal and foolhardy with his cash. I doubt anyone is scandalized that a 29 year old woman has a boyfriend.

    Pretty funny some anonymous cowards are getting their panties in a pandemonium over this, given that the usual smear on her opponent, one amply used by the local Democrats, is that he's gay (not that I care about that, either).

  33. Macdaddy says:

    I don't care if Ms. Davis' parents paid her filing fee. She's 29 year's old and is in the ministry. She went to a ridiculously expensive college and probably has lots of debt. What I do hope, however, is that she recognizes her stage in life, how she got there, and recognizes that Democrat policies are designed to keep her poor and dependent on the government. She should recognize that Obamacare is a back-door tax on young, healthy people will low-paying jobs. She should recognize that the level of debt her party is accruing will mean that she will never have a good paying job. That government control of student loans means that colleges will never have to decrease their costs. That cap and trade will hurt her constitutents enormously as they travel great distances just to shop at the evil Walmart.

    Alas, I doubt she will.

  34. Grundle King says:

    @ Anon 11:02…come on Bud, at least take ownership of your posts, or come up with a catchy nick-name like 'Unemployed Former History Teacher'.

    @ One Out in the Third – 11:09…maybe Adrian Smith should do what that noblest of Presidents once did…simply vote "present".

  35. Anonymous says:

    Bold Nebraska was just a mob shy of a pipeline protest "flash mob" in Memorial Park at 4:30 today. I counted about a dozen people in trash bags rolling down the hill, and some of those were small children who presumably were dragged there by their painfully concerned parents (which I think is a form of abuse). All in all, a FAIL.

  36. Macdaddy says:

    Why would you hold a flash mob in a place nobody is going to notice it? I guarantee that nobody driving down dodge saw them. Only the first 4 cars sitting at the light on farnam might have wondered what was going on. And that's only if there wasn't ulimate frisbee practice going on.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Just out talking with one of my Liberal neighbors. He said he was sorry about Obama! And he won't be voting for Tom White:) While he isn't happy with Lee all the time he said he knows White is much worse. So it goes for White.

    In other news Tom White supported Obama Care, and now we see it will cost Nebraska (Medicaid) anywhere between $500-700 Million or more!

    Thanks Tom, any more brilliant ideas you want to support?

  38. Anonymous says:

    It's costing us more in part because it's putting more Nebraskans on medicaid. Good grief, don't people see the dependency culture this is fostering? Let's get more people to think they need the government to do that which they could do for themselves. But, hey, at that point, they'll vote democrat to keep the goodies coming, so it's all good, right?

  39. Anonymous says:

    Heineman pointed out on Becka's show tonight that the $500-700 million is probably a gross under-estimation of the actual end cost.

    It's an interesting, tactic, though, don't you think? When campaigning for office, Obama promised that his agenda wouldn't result in a tax increase on anyone making less than $250,000/year.

    What he didn't tell us was that he was planning on shifting costs to state governments by way of unfunded federal mandates so that the states would have to raise the taxes of people making (significantly) less than $250,000/year.

    Clever, Barack, very clever. And shame on us (actually, shame on Dist 2) for believing it.

  40. Anonymous says:

    What was Becka saying tonight about the amount of money the Nat'l Democratic Party gave to the local Dem party to run all those ads with Ben Nelson right after his healthcare vote? A million dollars in ads they ran? Something like that?

    WTF? Why the hell would they spend a million dollars here in Nebraska for a dem candidate? Was this payback for a job well done? (Thanks, Sen Nelson, for that politically-suicidal vote for Obamacare and now, we'll get your back.)

    I mean seriously, what is that all about that they'd dump a million dollars in TV ads in Nebraska justifying the vote to us Nebraskans AFTER THE FACT? I think all that money smells like fear. That's what I think.

  41. Ron Burgundy says:

    Well, I'll tell you right now that those of us that work in the television broadcast industry in this state are really glad they did it. Talk about a stimulus program!

  42. TexasAnnie says:

    Anonymous 11:13 and 11:19, last evening:

    Medicaid is a state/federal match program. When Medicaid costs Nebraskans more, it simultaneously costs federal taxpayers more. So the "dependency culture" and the "cost shifting" which you complain of is nothing new or different than we had under Bush II.

    The really good thing about the new healthcare law IS it's near universality. Now folks who can't afford insurance for themselves, thereby ending up in emergency rooms for their local taxpayer-funded healthcare, will be able to visit a doctor's office instead, with a shared cost from their own pockets.

    I notice Lee Terry does not shy away from delivering PUBLIC HEALTH CARE in the form of Medicare. Why is Medicaid BAD while Medicare reliably propels Terry and other "conservatives" into office? Do Republicans "conserve" their own government handouts while denying universal application across the nation? Is that what YOU believe in?
    (If rebutting, NOTE: I'm NOT A DEMOCRAT!)

    I wouldn't worry too much about excessive Medicaid cost in Nebraska. After all, the Beatrice killings of last year resulted from the state's refusal to match enough Medicaid dollars needed to care for Nebraska's developmentally disabled population… But if Heineman and the Unicameral slash Medicaid dollars from those able to walk around and talk, well maybe they'll get a fight from expectant recipients!

  43. NE oter says:

    Congrats to NBC news for one heckuva news scoop last night. Live coverage of the departure of the last American combat troops from Iraq. Obama had promised that this would happen by the end of August.

    It took Fox News 40 minutes to break away from its irrelevant and nonsensical mosque-in-lower-Manhattan drivel.

    So, let's review: Healthcare reform? Check. Financial reform? Check. On-schedule withdrawal of last combat troops from Iraq? Check.

    Damn that Obama for keeping another promise! Despite universal Republican opposition.

    I guess the GOP is content to just watch history being made, rather than participate in making it.

  44. NE Voter says:

    As long as we're discusing history, I might as well review some of the history Lee Terry as made in the aughts:

    1. Voted in favor of the one trillion dollar unfunded war in Iraq (which history will deem an unmitigated misjudgment and financial disaster). Those costs went directly to the deficit.

    2. Voted in favor of the one trillion dollar unfunded Medicare Part D entitlement boondoggle. Those costs went directly to the deficit.

    3. Advocated for the privatization of Social Security, which would have hand-delivered hundreds of billions of Americans' retirement dollars to the Wall Street hucksters who nearly destroyed the world economy. Just imagine if the SS funds had been directly exposed to Wall Street's casino.

    4. Advocating for the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (>$250,000 = top 2% of the population). If Lee Terry wanted the tax cuts to be extended, he should have voted against the original bill that put the sunset clause in place. Oh, it just struck, me — The sunset clause was an election year campaign gimmick [slapping forehead].

    Yeah, as a Congressman, Lee Terry has participated in making some history — Virtually all of it bad.

  45. Mia says:

    NE Voter:

    Keep making those points, no one is buying it. You'll see in November. It is particularly disingenious that you seem to give The Great Leader credit for Iraq when he vigorously opposed the strategy that provided for us being able to leave.

  46. NE Voter says:

    Um, Mia, are you suggesting that Obama's predecessor should be credited with last night's withdrawal?

    An essential aspect of being a Republican is the innate ability to ignore facts and make ludicrous connections between unrelated events).

    I would be delighted to read your summary of the high points of Lee Terry's record.

    I won't hold my breath.

  47. Mia says:

    Well, I certianly would no credit BHO for our withdrawal. If he had it his way we would have left in defeat 3 years ago. Bush made this easy for him by ordering to surge. When is the Great Leader going to admit he was wrong on this one? I won't hold my breath. As for Terry's record, nothing I say is going sway your closed mind, so I'm not going to bother. It doesn't matter anyway, Terry by 10.

  48. JJ says:

    NEVoter- You just need to acknowledge Mia's point about Iraq and move on. Any argument to the contrary is just going to make you look blindly partisan, and silly too.

  49. Anonymous says:

    If Barack would have had his way we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, we'd have a trillion dollars less debt, thousands of American servicemen and women would still be alive, Saddam Hussein would be falling into the dustbin of history like every other petty dictator, and the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan would have been our focus.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Anon 9:30

    Some one who makes sense. But don't worry the republicans live in a fantasy world. They still think FOX news is fair and balanced. Laugh, Laugh, Laugh.

  51. Macdaddy says:

    Anon 9:30: You think Saddam would have been in the dustbin of history by now had we not invaded Iraq? Seriously? If so, then you are an idiot. There's really no other way to describe you. The dustbin of deposed petty dictators is extremely small and the reason Saddam is there now is because of George W. Bush, not Obama.

  52. Anonymous says:

    MSNBC does not pretend to be a news channel. They say all the time that they take a progressive view point. But they do have republicans working for them. At least they give the other side a chance to state their position. It looks to me that CBS and CNN also have both Democrats and Republicans woking for them. What Democrat works for FOX? How about FOX donating a million dollars to the Republicans Governors association? Republicans, their way or or the high way . Just ask them, they are always right and never do anything wrong.

  53. Anonymous says:

    MaCaddy was the cost to get rid of Saadam worth it? I am talking blood not treasure. Treasure wise it is a no brainer. I think so in the blood also. Plus the fact we let the real problem in Afghanistan fall by the way side until Obama picked it up.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Anon 10:01-
    Ever watch Fox, or do you just get all your info from talking points from Media Matters, the DailyKos, and MSNBC? If you ever watched fox, you would see such dems as Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Al Sharpton, Martin Frost, Howard Dean, and (your favorite) Jane Fleming Kleeb, to name a few. To some how imply that MSNBC is more balanced is not only factually incorrect, it's just dumb.

  55. Anonymous says:

    moronymous at 9:30, exactly what is our mission in the "real" war on terror in Afghanistan?

    And don't you find it interesting that, after dismissing the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq during the campaign, BHO appoints the architect of the surge to run things in Afghanistan? And puts him in charge of the Afghan version of a troop surge? Y'know, the kind of surge BHO claimed didn't work in Iraq?

    But, again, what is it we're doing in Afghanistan? Looking for WMDs?

  56. Anonymous says:

    Tex Ann, your continued use of the word "killed" in reference to BSDC residents who died just makes you look like a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. The word "kill" means someone took active and deliberate steps to directly cause a death. The situation at BSDC was unfortunate and regretable but show me where someone actually pulled the trigger and killed someone.

    And, in case you didn't hear, the Obamacare unfunded mandate will add half again the number of folks to medicaid as were on it before, so it's not simply just like what we had under Bush II.

    Finally, research I've read suggests the slugs who aren't paying for themselves now and are just dumping themselves on ERs will continue to dump themselves on ERs rather than bothering to find primary care docs (who will soon be in short supply).

  57. Anonymous says:

    If President Obama is supposed to be against the war, why is he just shifting soldiers from Iraq to another middle eastern country?

    You progressives and liberals do understand that not one single friggin' soldier is coming home and that more are being sent everyday, don't you understand that?

    As for lives lost, how many more genocide open graves did you want Saddam to dig? Did you want him to murder hundreds of thousands more innocent middle easterners?

    Just remember, the human beings that were found by the thousands in open graves were not terrorists. THEY WERE HUMAN BEINGS THAT REFUSED TO FOLLOW A BASTARD DICTATOR!!!!!

  58. Anonymous says:

    NE Voter is the one who is wrong. Saddam was doing fine before we sent in troops in 2003. He had active assistance from France, Germany and others to circumvent UN sanctions. He was making Billions with Kofi Annan and the UN's oil for food program.

    And, if Obama wasn't such a pantywaist pushover on foreign policy, Iran wouldn't be near the threat they've now become..

  59. TexasAnnie says:

    Well Anonymous 10:46, I don't accept your strict definition of the word "kill," but I will acknowledge that Heineman vetoed and the Unicam DID NOT override medical care $$$'s intended for the Beatrice institution during state budgeting prior to 2009…

    Was that "active" and "deliberate" enough to suggest "cause?"

    I guess you and I will have our answer to that question when those lawsuits against Nebraska concerning the Beatrice DEATHS have been resolved! And I do appreciate your comment that I look like a "foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic!" Gee, I have been thinking that Nebraskans don't even notice that I still care about their developmentally disabled citizens some four years after having left there. Your characterization that the situation at Beatrice was "unfortunate and regretable" (but not institutional killing), demonstrates your unwillingness to see your state policies for what they are. How unfortunate and regretable that is for you!

    I'm well aware that change is coming to the Medicaid system. And I have no doubt that once again, the developmentally disabled will be the last to get served under any new programming. But I'm too ethically-oriented to object to any political movement toward equality before and under the law when it comes to health care.

  60. Right Wing Professor says:


    Y'all do recognize that there's a whole generation out there now that doesn't realize what a 'broken record' sounds like?

  61. Anonymous says:

    TexA, you migjt not like my definition but you are clearly trying to convey that these BSDC residents in fragile health died because of the deliberate and purposeful conduct of state employees trying to bring about those residents' demise. That's what you clearly are trying to imply.

    Any less strict definition of "killed" renders the term meaningless. For instance, I would say that your neighbor died of old age rather than old age killed your neighbor. If you are now saying that kill doesn't imply a purposeful, affirmative act, then kill doesn't really mean anything.

  62. Macdaddy says:

    NE Voter, your characterization of Saddam Hussein is absolute BS. Hussein had already gotten over a billion dollars in kickbacks through his corruption for oil UN scheme and the whole thing was about to crumble to his favor. As for patrolling airspace and keeping him "contained," do you think that didn't cost money? Also, have you never heard of using proxies to fight your war?

    As for was it worth it? I think it was absolutely worth it. Saddam Hussein is dead and gone. He can no longer cause trouble. His sons are dead and gone. They can no longer cause trouble. Whoever comes up to try to cause trouble now will not have had 30+ years of restructuring the country to benefit themselves. They will be working from a position of weakness.

    BTW, if you think it wasn't worth it, how do you feel about Obama leaving 50,000 American targets in Iraq?

  63. TedK says:

    MacDaddy said: As for patrolling airspace and keeping him "contained," do you think that didn't cost money? That statement set my head spinning like a top. The expense to contain Saddam was a minuscule fraction of what it cost to run a war in Iraq, not to mention the lives of both our armed forces and innocent civilians in Iraq. You lost whatever little credibility you had by making this statement.

  64. Anonymous says:

    To TedK: We're done with combat ops in 7 years. How many years would we have been patrolling his airspace? How many years would we have allowed him to thumb his nose at our airplanes and at UN weapons inspectors? How much other mischief would he have been able to cause in that indefinite period of time? Is there no point at which you put your foot down and say enough is enough?

    You are as big a pantywaist as Obama.

  65. TedK says:

    It simply amazes me how out of touch you folks are with reality. Maybe it's because your fears tend to be exaggerated well beyond what can be justified. You're saying that it was better to bankrupt our country, lose thousands of our own armed forces and kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis than to keep Saddam penned in and wait until he was overthrown or died. Doesn't post-fetus life mean anything to you? Sometimes you people make me sick!

  66. TexasAnnie says:

    You GO, TedK!

    Anonymous at 3:25 —Please review what I wrote at 12:25. It is not what you depict here.

    Again, I remind you and any readers left at this posting, the Governor VETOED and the Legislature did not OVERRIDE for funding needed to adequately staff health care PROFESSIONALS. I do not hold the underpaid and overworked lay staff responsible for the Beatrice killings, and I have never implied that they tried to bring about those "residents' demise." (i.e. killings, eh?)

  67. Macdaddy says:

    TedK, it was claimed that the UN embargo cost the lives of a million Iraqis. How's that for caring about post-fetal life?

  68. Anonymous says:

    If the Iraqi people didn't have enough balls to rise up and overthrow the Sunni of a bitch, they got the life they deserved.

  69. Grundle King says:

    TedK, help me out here, will ya?

    You say it was the Iraqi peoples' responsibility to rise up and overthrow Saddam…so just exactly how was that going to happen?

    Couldn't do it democratically when he mysteriously won 99% of the vote, could they?

    Couldn't do it by force, because they didn't have access to scud missiles, chemical weapons, tanks, or any other military hardware. I suppose that, in your world, a rag-tag bunch of civilians with rusted-up AK-47's could take down a military regime…but reality paints a bleaker picture.

    So what were they going to do…wait for him to die? Oh, that's right, if he died his equally brutal sons would have taken over, and the Iraqi people would suffer through another generation of murderous oppression. Just imagine what Saddam's grandkids would have turned out like.

    So the bottom line is this…you're a friggin' fool if you think this problem was going to fix itself.

  70. TedK says:

    It wasn't worth the price, period. Google: Congressman Rohrabacher: Almost All House Republicans Think Iraq War Illegal, Immoral. Only you right-wing fanatics on this site think invading Iraq was the best option. War is not a video game. It's easy for you folks to pontificate from your easy chairs if you have no skin in the game.

  71. Grundle King says:

    Interesting tact you took there Ted, rather than address the issues I brought up in my previous post…you repeated yourself and tossed in a cliche.

    You forgot to throw in "No blood for oil!", hopefully your next response will feature that one, and others.

  72. TedK says:

    So Grundle, by your philosophy I guess we should be going after North Korea now. Why was it our job to "fix" Iraq? And are you forgetting the ten of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the war we started? I didn't address all of your issues because they were made under the goofy assumption that if the Iraqis couldn't overthrow Saddam, then we had to. Realists (and even the current Republicans in Congress) know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. But you fearful types always want to throw massive force at anything remotely considered a threat. Didn't you ever grow out of being afraid of the dark?

  73. Anonymous says:

    Seriously, you think most republicans currently in Congress would let an R from California speak for their conference?

    ha, ha, ha, ha!

  74. Macdaddy says:

    That's right, TedK. None of these people are threats to us because we are so big and powerful and they love us so much. We can solve all the world's problems if we could just get the right leader elected. Somebody who the world loves and sees as one of them. Someone who understands what it's like to live in a foreign culture. To be the Other.

  75. TedK says:

    After 9/11 we had the world on our side. Then we went into Iraq killing many innocent people creating the next generation of terrorists that want to destroy us. Fortunately unless they gain nuclear capabilities, they pose nowhere near the threat Russia posed during the cold war. Or the Nazis during WWII. When did the right become so afraid of everything? Sure, it's a dangerous world out there. But unlike Bush, we have a president who pays attention to developing threats instead of vacationing on his "ranch".

  76. Grundle King says:

    Well Ted, typically the humanitarian intervention would be handled by someone like the U.N., but when it was obvious that they were bought-and-paid-for with Iraqi oil, yes, I think that humans have a moral obligation to not watch from the sidelines while people are slaughtered by a murderous dictator. By your logic, only those who can arm themselves as well as their government deserve freedom.

    I don't know if we should be going after North Korea just yet, but we should definitely be engaging them and moving them away from nuclear armament…a process that has been moving backwards during Obama's time in office.

    BTW, Obama loves him some golf and vacationing, too.

  77. Macdaddy says:

    Unfortunately, we can't go after North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. They also are holding the 24 million inhabitants of Seoul hostage to their artillery. 10 minutes after Kim Duc Dong, or whatever his name is, says "Go!," Seoul will cease to exist.

    But, yes, we should go after North Korea if the opportunity presents itself. The opportunity presented itself in Iran, which will soon have nuclear weapons, thus making them untouchable, but Obama decided to throw his support behind Imanutjob rather than ordinary Iranians who were dying in the street.

    So when do you think it's easier to act, TedK? When a dictator is relatively weak or should we just turn a blind eye and hope for change?

  78. Nathan says:

    You are pretty adamant about sending other people into harms way. Tell me, what unit did you serve in? Did you ever serve? Have you ever put yourself in danger to protect innocent people? Hell, have you ever thrown fists in anger? Or are you just some anonymous cowardly law school grad who prefers the plebians to do the dangerous stuff to keep you and yours safe?

  79. TedK says:

    Let's assume Iran is close to having nuclear weapons (which is a crazy assumption, by the way). Do you think they would ever attempt to use them? Ever hear of MAD (mutual assured destruction)? If Iran was ever able to build one (doubtful) and shoot it at someone, they would be guaranteed immediate annihilation of Tehran. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. Why do you folks always jump to the most destructive, expensive, radical "solution"? Obviously you didn't learn anything from the Iraq mess and consider it a rousing success. Must be easy to forget the thousands of casualties, billions spent, and the 31,897 of our troops that were injured, 20% with serious brain or spinal injuries. No, let's start bombing instead of trying some less radical and probably more successful tactics such as diplomacy and economic sanctions.

  80. Macdaddy says:

    Good grief, TedK. What planet are you living on? You are the only person in the entire world who thinks it's crazy that Iran that Iran will get nuclear weapons. As for shooting it at someone, they have already succesfully tested the missile to deliver it. As for MAD, when will that happen? Will we nuke them if they nuke Tel Aviv? What if they nuke Dubai? How about if they start capturing every tanker that goes through the Straits of Hormuz unless they get paid a cut? How about if they nuke Riyadh? I know, how about our base in Kuwait? How about a concerted, sustained effort to blow up our troops in Iraq using IEDs and not even bothering to cover their tracks?

    My point is that there are many things they can do to cause mischief with a nuke without lobbing it at the US, which is the only circumstance that you would obviously consider it justified for us to use force.

    As for sanctions, we have those. How well do you think they are working? Crappy. So we need to come up with something better. Supporting the opposition and trying to bring down the regime from within was something better. Obama took a pass which pretty much means that we are going to get into a shooting match with Iran. Unless we capitulate to their demands, first.

  81. Macdaddy says:

    Nathan, call somebody who cares. The only thing about your comment that was even remotely insulting was calling me a law school grad.

  82. Nathan says:

    Thanks for telling the truth by not denying anything I said. It always strikes me as funny how the people who want to go to war the most are never the ones who will have to do the actual fighting, killing and ya know, dying. It says a lot about the character and ideals of a person when they are so willing to let other risk their lives, but wont risk their own. Hope you have a nice life behind that desk of yours.

  83. Macdaddy says:

    Nathan, it's such a lame argument that you are regurgitating. Obama never served a day in his life and yet he is actually sending Americans into harm's way. You got a problem with that?

  84. Nathan says:

    I have a problem with cowardly warmongers, always have and always will. Im a put your money where your mouth is kind of guy, something thats evidently very foreign to you. And while Obama has put men and women into harms way he isn't advocating for war with Iran either because he is intelligent, something that is also foreign to you evidently. And I notice you aren't denying anything Ive written, we'll just go ahead and take that as an admission of truth.

  85. Macdaddy says:

    Nathan, your post about Obama made no sense. I can't be for war because I refuse to say if I've ever served in the military, oh, wait, not just the military, I had to have had a shot fired at me in anger. Or maybe I had to be infantry. During a war. But not just any war, a good war. Grenada wouldn't count. Gulf War I is iffy because really nobody on our side got killed. But Gulf War II was Bush's war so that doesn't count either because I probably deserved it. So Afghanistan it is. But I couldn't just be sitting inside the wire all day. So I'd really have to be Special Forces. But then I'd really need to have won the Medal of Honor for any real authority. And if I were alive, then I probably didn't deserve the Medal of Honor. It was probably all made up, so I'd really have to be dead to have any authority.

    But Obama is OK because he isn't for war. Well, at least he said he's against it.

    So let's try this again. Nathan, I am against war. Are my opinions on what to do with Iran now valid?

  86. Anonymous says:

    Nathan, you are a disgusting, insensitive pig. How dare you post medical waiver reasons as obnoxious humor for your position.

    You must be about 13 years old.

  87. Nathan says:

    Anon 9:55,
    We have very different definitions for what is and what is not disgusting. Listing what are legitimate reasons for not being allowed to serve in the military is not disgusting (though truth be told, nowadays in rare circumstances you can get an asthma waiver, but they are very rare.)

  88. Nathan says:

    If your reading comprehension were up to snuff you would notice I never said you had to be a army ranger or anything similar. I have little tolerance for individuals who openly argue for going to war (you managed to say we should attack Iran and NK in one post!) but never volunteered themselves. Its really just that simple, I feel bad for you if you are unable to understand that. I'll let you have the last word now.

  89. Macdaddy says:

    Thanks for the last word. I was active duty Navy for 5 years and in the reserves for 4. I volunteered for all 9 years. Now that I have told you, I expect you to adopt my point of view towards Iran since I have, in your eyes, the right to advocate for war.

    What? You aren't going to do it? Didn't think so.

  90. Anonymous says:

    Nathan, I served. As did all my brothers and my father before me. Two of my ancestors fought in the Civil War. I have a great, great grandfather who fought at the Battle of Baltimore and another ancestor who fought in the American Revolution. So that apparently qualifies me to say, yes, let's attack Iran and North Korea.

    I trust you can now see the stupidity of your "argument". (OK, probably not.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.