Polling, polling, polling…

We have word that another group is out there polling on how Ben Nelson would do against Jon Bruning (and this time, Don Stenberg, Pat Flynn and Deb Fischer have been left out).

The League of Conservation Voters is calling around asking:

  • Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Jon Bruning?
  • Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Ben Nelson?
  • If election were today who would you vote for Bruning or Nelson?
  • Are you a Republican or a Democrat?
  • Do you think the EPA does too much or should it do more?

Of course you should not be shocked to learn that the LCV is a liberal enviro group who last election endorsed Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and a bunch of other Democrats.

Now why, oh why, would a Dem group be polling about Nelson in February over a year before an election? With no other questions to get the positions on your reasoning — you know, to help form an election strategy?



But KETV tells us that Nelson has hired longtime campaign manager Paul Johnson for a potential Senate campaign.

They note that Johnson worked for Bob Kerrey and Mike Fahey.

Of course they don’t note that he also worked for Tony Raimondo.


And just to comment on all things Nellie, Nelson said he isn’t going to the Democrat retreat because it is just too darn partisan and he wants to go to the Nebraska Breakfast.

Nelson says he doesn’t “find partisan talking points helpful for me”.

Is that it?  Or is it that he is trying to run as a Republican, despite the fact that,

“progressives here are very happy with him,” and that “he really does vote the right way on the big bills like health care, food safety, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

So you, know, vote one way, and talk at Republican voters another.

Nebraska voters will continue to eat that up, right?


And this from the Nebraska GOP:

The Nebraska Republican Party has officially filed a formal complaint with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission against Bold Nebraska editor Jane Kleeb and the Vote Kleeb Committee for violations of campaign finance laws that occurred during her 2010 campaign for Hastings School Board.

“It is clear that Jane Kleeb knowingly and willingly violated basic campaign disclosure laws during her race for Hastings School Board,” said Mark Fahleson, Chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party. “Throughout her campaign, she demonstrated a flagrant disregard for laws that seek to hold candidates accountable, and Mrs. Kleeb must be held responsible for her violations.”

The complaint filed Tuesday alleges that Mrs. Kleeb and her candidate committee repeatedly failed to file necessary paperwork, failed to report major expenditures on the dates they occurred, if at all, and failed to report major out-of-state contributions late in the campaign, all violations of the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act.

Of course, if Mrs. Kleeb did everything above board and according to the law, she has nothing to worry about, right? Sure…


  1. MacDaddy says:

    Nelson didn’t want to be seen staying at a $350 a night resort in this economy and what would he add anyway? All he does is whatever Harry Reid pays him to. I doubt his prices have changed from 2009.

  2. JB says:

    Speaking of polling, anyone seen the cigarette tax poll results that are floating around the Capital?
    Had a chance to look it over and they are pretty amazing. 73% voter support – and pretty balanced by party, political leanings, etc.

  3. Anonymous says:

    “failed to report major out-of-state contributions late in the campaign”

    She has major donors from out-of-state?! Seriously?! Must be nice to have so much money that you can affect the outcome of far-away school board elections. What a ridiculous concept. I’d expect that from the God-fearing, evolution-denying hillbillies in Texas, but not here.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Hey JB. Those polling numbers don’t mean a thing unless you know who did the poll. I haven’t been able to find it on-line but I am guessing it is some leftist outfit that did the polling.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I was in Law School in Lincoln at the same time as John Bruning, although we were a year apart in law school class. I knew who he was but I didn’t *know* him and I certainly didn’t know his politics. And I didn’t read the Daily Nebraskan editorials. Mark Fahleson had soured me enough on those. I was a liberal Democrat at the time. I had campaigned for Democrats for various offices and was somewhat politically active. If I had written anything to be published in the Daily Nebraskan or elsewhere, it would have conveyed a leftist world view. And then a funny thing happened with my life. First, I got a job and started paying taxes. And, for the first time in my life, I began to wonder whether the government was spending the money (MY money) carefully. Then, I got married and had some kids. And I realized that the world was not as wholesome a place to raise children as the world in which I was raised. And then the people that I dealt with in my legal career — it occured to me that many of them were not pulling their weight and too many people made too many excuses for too many of their own failings. I began to see that the liberal notions of fairness and justice that I had harbored weren’t based on what I found reality to be like. And I also began to see that liberals weren’t the people I had always imagined. While I was very much in favor of the freedom of speech and expression and thought it was a peculiarly liberal value, I found it was liberals who were shouting down speakers at various events and who were trying to prevent certain ideas from being expressed.

    I don’t hold it against John Bruning for having been a Democrat at one point. Heck, I was as well. But I sure would hold it against him if he hadn’t grown out of it.

  6. JB says:

    To Anon 12:38

    The poll was conducted by an outfit called “Public Opinion Strategies”. Checked out their website and their client list is a who’s who of Nebraska Republicans (Heineman, Terry, Fortenberry, Johanns). So yeah, the numbers are legit as far as the strong voter support for this particular tax increase.. I think Senators and staff would be wise to take a close look.

  7. Spike says:

    Anon @ 1:25

    Cute little story but you forgot to add that in fact, You Are Jonny Bruning!! Good try anyway for a slimeball lawyer!

    About the Cig tax; should be at least $5.00/ pack if not $10.00. Hard liquor should be the same! Both are total poison that cost the HC system more then any other legal toxic substances!!

  8. UNL Alum says:

    Who would have thunk the DN would be the breeding ground for Nebraska’s political class: Fahleson, Bruning, Jessica Moenning, Jamie Karl. Anyone I’m missing?

  9. Anonymous at 2:24,

    It is my understanding that Bruning was #1 in his Law School class (or if not #1, he was Law Review editor) and was #1 in his HS class as well.

    Say what you want about his politics, but I don’t think the “dim bulb” thing pans out.

    (And by the way, who keeps or has bulbs in a shed?)

  10. Not Buying It says:

    Some of his changes seem all too convenient, specifically related to fundamental social justice issues. The best example is his complete 180 on healthcare. He went from advocating sweeping changes to our healthcare system (dare I say socialized medicine) at a time when costs were well below what they are today, to being one of many Attorneys General that filed lawsuits to stop implementation of the very reforms for which he previously pleaded. He went from advocating Affirmative Action to standing idle while out-of-state petitioners successfully made it illegal. He lauded the benefits of diversity, then sat back and watched Nebraska Latino’s fall victim to deplorable scapegoating tactics. He said that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else, then changed his mind to appease Nebraska’s dominant Christian voting block. He went from pro-gun control to shill for the NRA. He went from unapologetically pro-choice to Nebraska Right To Life whipping boy.

    I am the product of a liberal upbringing, and my views did not simply change as I got older. Sure I get pissed when 35% of my income magically disappears every other week, but it doesn’t make me any less sympathetic to the struggles of the uninsured, under-served minorities, gays, working poor, immigrants, etc. I have a hard time believing that these drastic changes in not only his political ideology but also his morals are simply the result of maturation. Mr. Bruning’s track record smacks of political opportunism. He is guided by his own ambition above all else.

  11. Spike,
    I’m pretty sure I only pointed out his class rankings.
    If that equates to “love” in your book, I hope you never watch “Are you smarter than a 5th grader”.
    You could get put on a list.
    (Btw, it’s “…bulb in the box” or “bulb on the tree” or simply “…bulb”. “Shed” is generally reserved for “…sharpest tool”. Oh and more exclamation marks and CAPPSS!!! next time. Show us the crazy.)

  12. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Sweeper for the last post. Not to digress, but I was confused about the shed with a bulb and what was in the box. My shed? Bulbless. But, my box? There’s another story.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Hastings Trib says Jane was given a dispensation by NADC because she was new to Nebraska and didn’t realize she needed to report donations over $1000 within 24 hours. So any other time she wants to be known as a native Nebraskan for just settling in a couple years ago except when it benefits her to pull the “I’m just new here” card. Too bad she couldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to Heineman and Bruning for their TransCanadian donations. She ripped them for not knowing the law. Seems she wasn’t paying much attention to the law regarding local school board races. Unfortunately for Jane the $1,000 donation reporting is the least of her problems.

  14. Omaha Independent says:

    Seen on the CNN crawl this morning. “Tea Party Express makes Ben Nelson D-Nebraska a top target for 2012” Too bad all the GOP has in the queue is Bruning. I’m bettin’ that boy has some Mark Sanford sized scandal in him.

  15. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Omaha Ind: Tea Party can take a number and get in line behind a zillion Nebraskans. We made this a priority on December 20, 2009 after he ran to the Senate floor with Harry Reid.

  16. halfnelson says:

    What is it about you Dems? How close can you get to Ben Nelson without it becoming incest? And how scared do you all have to be of a simple Attorney General that you, and your Blob-o-Ben, feel the need to throw dirt clods at Bruning this early in the game? If you feel that Ben is going to drag you with him through the sausage grinder, why even waste your time on Nelson?

    In case you haven’t noticed, Nebraska’s “Independent” Ben Nelson, who has been pilloried in the polls ever since he voted for Obamacare, just voted for Obamacare AGAIN.

    Not to take anything away from Bruning and his skills as a campaigner, but whatever positive effect he can have pushing himself upward, seems pretty tame compared to Nelson’s powerful flushing of his own career down the crapper. Nelson is going to need a wave of Alzheimer’s washing through the Nebraska electorate to ever have a chance again in this state.

    Nelson has become the Democrat’s Don Stenberg. He’s the walking political dead.

  17. Mr.Mojo says:

    progressives here are very happy with him,” and that “he really does vote the right way on the big bills like health care, food safety, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

    Cuz we all know you Republican rubes love no health care, toxic food and rampant discrimination. It’s just in your nature. Zillion Nebraskans,Julie? Oh, I guess that’s how many there’d be if not for aborting the little angels.

  18. Grundle King says:

    Mr. Mojo, I had health care before ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ entered America’s lexicon, and I still have it now. The only difference between now and then? It costs me more now.

    This may come as a shock to you, but I didn’t bust my ass all the way through college with the hopes that, someday, I’d be paying for someone else’s health insurance premiums.

  19. BRM says:

    `I got called for that survey last night. I was wondering if this was a liberal group given the tone and nature of the two descriiptors regarding the EPA. One was about the EPA going after polluters and the other was the EPA needs to do less to the corporations.

  20. Jenn says:

    Mr. Bruning seems like an intelligent person whose resume supports his ability to perform well in higher office. That said, what’s the evidence that he was first in his law school class? That’s new to me. Nor was he the Editor in Chief of the Law Review. As far as I know, he was first in his High School class, and was one of the (several) executive editors of the Law Review. Now, anyone smart enough to be on the Law Review is fine by me. I just like to keep the facts straight.

  21. Shoe Salesman says:

    Sweeper – who’s smarter than a 5th grader??

    You indicate that LCV is polling FOR Ben Nelson? Hmmm. Interesting. And you say a question in the poll is on EPA? Hmmm.

    Now, Nelson is against the EPA – on everything, from Superfund, to climate, to emissions regulation. LCV is for the EPA on all of those things. So, you think LCV is testing EPA messages for Ben Nelson? I’d bet you lunch at your local elementary school they are testing messaged ON Ben Nelson.

  22. Brian T. Osborn says:

    I find it interesting that the Republican Party is all upset about someone not filing the proper documentation over the meager funds involved in a small town’s local school board election, and yet they loves them that Jon Bruning, the guy who closed the door on an investigation demanded, by a Democrat no less, that blew the whistle on Ben Nelson’s “coordinated campaign” misusing NDP millions during the 2006 election. I would guess he didn’t want to go there because the NEGOP’s hierarchy is just as deeply involved in defrauding the rank and file of their party as the hierarchy of the NDP was doing so then.
    I’m getting really fed up with people on both sides of the aisle who’s only purpose is to suck the lifeblood out of the grassroots to maintain their own egomaniacal positions of “authority.” I have always made my claim that the true power of either political party belongs to the people. Each succeeding layer of representation is not one that is higher in authority, but one that is deeper in responsibility – or at least it should be.
    I would suggest that the “leadership” of both parties set to getting Nebraska’s ass out of a billion dollar hole and quit bickering over which team has the cutest cheerleaders! That’s probably the final nail in my own political coffin, but dammit, someone needed to say it.

  23. anonymous says:

    Jane Kleeb is accused of not reporting contributions to the NADC. Did she raise hell when the Governor and the Attorney General did the same thing. Oh wait the Governor and the Attorney General did report the contributions but were confused over the address on the contributions. Jane just forgot to report. Does anyone else see a double standard on her part. The press forgot to report the fact that Jane did not report the contributions. Amazing.

  24. @ JJ says:

    In case you are new, Leavenworth St tends to focus on tabloid-style gossip and mudslinging rather than acual policy issues. It is the Sarah Palin of political blogs.

  25. Brian T. Osborn says:

    In case you are new to Nebraska politics, the political parties prefer to attack any person that criticizes them than they do actually dealing with the criticism. It is far easier to say that a person that works to reform the political process is “damaging the party” than it is to fix the problems that infuriated the whistle-blower in the first place. That is how the oligarchies are defended, and the voice of the people is muted.

  26. Pot - Kettle says:

    I keep reading how Jane Fleming Kleeb and her coven at BOLD keep attacking Sen. Johanns and AG Bruning because they used to be Dems, but Jane herself used to be a Republican. What gives?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Parties and candidates “serve” people like a bull serves cows. While that can end up producing useful calves, the only ones left smiling are the bulls on top.

    You wonder why parties attack critics instead of dealing with the criticism? That’s because the criticisms Democrats direct toward Republicans and the criticisms Republicans direct toward Democrats are usually valid. Parties smash and silence critics, especially when the critics are cows from within the bulls’ own herd. But they will smash any critics because the criticizm is based in truth.

    All political parties exist to gain and hold power over individuals. They always say they want to “serve” you, But remember the bulls and the cows. You may feel like the bull in the voting booth, but once you walk out of the polling station, quit smiling because you are a cow and you are going to bear the weight of the egotistical candidates and power hungry parties that can’t wait to “serve” you.

  28. Dennis says:

    I didn’t know we were ruled by political parties. I thought we were an autonomous collective, a self-perpetuating autocracy, othewise known as an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where we take turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in other cases.

  29. Brian T. Osborn says:

    You’ve got some good points there, that’s why my main goal has always been to ensure that the bulls born into the herd stay that way. The entrenched oligarchies that run the show want all the other potential bulls to be castrated as soon as they start to bellow. They don’t know what to do when they find those that evade the knife.
    It would be a good lesson for everyone to go back and read George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

  30. Dennis says:

    It’s interesting to see that nearly 11,000 Omaha voters who signed petitions to recall Mayor Jim Suttle last fall did not vote in the January recall election. Did the recall people forge 11,000 signatures? Or did these no shows see through the millionaires’ failure to tell them how they would cut the budget?

  31. Sonny says:

    Boy, not sure about anyone else, but the blog seems to have lost a little steam. Most interesting posts were about the poll results showing almost 3/4 state support for the cigarette tax increase.

  32. Sweetwater Woods says:

    Sonny, if you don’t like Leavenworth Street, please go somewhere else. This is, after all, still America, and you have the freedom to visit other sites on the internet.

  33. OmahaNewBlood says:

    I find it interesting that Jeremy Aspen continues to dismiss what a ground game could have done for their numbers. The fact they had no groundgame shows they had no plan and furthermore shows that Cleary and McPherson are totally washed up and had no real power in the commitee especially after Nabity got his grubby little fingers on it.

    For Aspen to assume that they should only rest on the laurels of the petition process showed how green this aspiring newsmaker was in the realm of politics. Had they had a true Get out the vote effort, they very well might have succeeded. But to sit there and completely dismiss door to door, etc is a point well taken. Only using radio and TV ads NEVER works in a turnout type election. No wonder the recall failed. Mayor Suttle’s team understood this was a turnout election and needed to turn out their people, $5 homeless people included. They won because they turned out their electorate and the recall team failed to do their own due diligence and turn out their voters.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Suttle managed to generate enough union thug support to win a recall election. That means he’s the proper tyrant to lead. Frankly, he looks a little brain damaged. But I guess not. After all, beat a recall. There simply aren’t enough bums you can pay to get that many votes. So he has some sort of gang structure behind him. That’s good. Remember how he said he’s above the law and people don’t have the right to vote for or against recalling him? He’s the kind of tyrant we need to get things done. He will make the trains run on time or he will kill the engineers. I like that kind of efficiency.

  35. NE Voter says:

    Dave Nabity’s ego killed the recall effort. Period. In a typical recall election, the incumbent is in the difficult position of “running against himself/his record.”

    In this case, Nabity gave Suttle’s team a gift by injecting himself into the recall, essentially standing as an opponent to Suttle. This gave voters a clear choice which they would not have had if Nabity could control his ego and hubris.

    David Nabity — The gift that keeps on giving.

  36. IDK says:

    The “ground game” arguments bear a lot of credibility. Suttle’s people did a great job on the groiund and the MSRC had next to no ground game. However, to say this was about one person (Nabity, Simmonds, Aspen…) is ignorant.

    The anti-recall people spent over four times as much as the recall people. BTW, funded in large part by a few wealthy millionaires (funny how that is looked down on for one group but not the other).

    Even with all of this, it is clearly not a Suttle victory. He survived, and treating it like a mandate is a very stupid move.

  37. Sonny says:

    Perhaps there was also an overestimation of how deeply people resent taxes. Hard to believe that Omaha could not recall a moron who raised taxes. I think Omaha Republicans/KFAB were overly confident that the recall would an easy sell if they just kept chanting that he raised taxes.

    Mike Johanns raised taxes in 2002 and voters seem to be more than OK with him.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of KFAB being overly confident in the recall….
    Near the end of the recall campaign, didn’t Becka kinda remind you of Clubber Lang in the Rocky III, panting, ranting, “i pitty the fool…”!

  39. Anonymous says:

    I think the outsider from Arizona doens’t know how to run a ground game and was trumped by big yellow buses via DiSylvestro and Samp. There’s a sorry story to think they are now figuring they are brilliant.. No–I think Becka sounds more like someone you’d find in say….Eygpt where there’s some passion for involvement where the peasants here sat on their ass complacent.

    What no Valentine greetings and all we get is photo of Ben Nelson? Talk about a rock in my stocking.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Ron Paul is the best you guys can come up with? Obama is going to win in a walk. 400 plus electoral votes. !2 GOP candidates for President.? None of them really have the stones for the job. . Romney is the only one who could do the job and be a decent President. But there is no way the bigots of the religious right will allow him to get the nomination. 1964 is a close election compared to what 2012 will be. This is a good thing. Maybe after 8 years of a decent president the country will get the borrow and spend policies of the reactionary boys out of our system.

  41. Dennis says:

    Return to a winner take all electoral vote system appears to be a big priority for the Republicans in the legislature. If Nebraska reverts to the old winner take all system, Nebraska will once again be irrelevant in the Presidential election. Apparently, the GOP lacks confidence it’s nominee will carry NE-CD-02 next year. Otherwise, the GOP would be OK with keeping the present law that created so much interest in the election in the Omaha area. This is a sore loser’s bill.

  42. notasdenseasdennis says:

    7:35 Dennis, only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. So, you are saying 48 states are “irrelevant in the Presidential election.”

    You are a true political genius. You better let the people in those other 48 states that freedom only exists in the lands of lobster pots and corn husks.

  43. Dennis says:

    Very few Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates came out to Nebraska in the years before 2008. In 2008, Obama, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin campaigned in Omaha. If the Nebraska GOP gets it way, expect Nebraska to be ignored once again.

  44. Grundle King says:

    So Dennis, the problem isn’t the winner-take-all system, it’s the fact that the liberal idiology…err, ideology hasn’t yet permeated the residents of this state (it’s probably because they’re all too dumb, right?). Of course, winner-take-all works great (for the left) in highly populated (and liberal) states like California and New York, because those two consistently blue states account for over 80 electoral votes on their own. One can only imagine the thunderous, angry shouting that would erupt from the left if those two were to split their votes the way Nebraska currently splits them.

    BTW, who really cares if presidential candidates come here? Do you think that, because they stop in to visit for a couple hours, they truly grasp what Nebraskan’s want in a President? Do you think they actually care? I could give a scat less where they’ve been, because I don’t vote based on the stops in their campaign trail. I vote for the candidate on his/her own merits. Yay, they do a quick touch-and-go at the far eastern edge of the state…they might as well be giving the finger to the rest of the folks between there and Harrison.


    Please have California, Minn, NY, NJ, PA, MI and the other larger states split their electoral votes. Old Barry would be buried in 2012 if that happened.

  46. Anonymous says:

    The McCoy bill for winner take all will pass, but it will leave a lot of damaged R’s in it’s wake. The Gov could care less about the foot soldiers, as is usual.

    So by the end of this session the Legislature will have cut aid to Counties & cities, Repealed a lot of Omaha’s Wheel Tax, held the line on Education increases, revamed or removed the CIR, redistricted to help CD02, made public funding for abortion’s even more limited, and bring the state back to Winner Take all……. all in all a pretty good year!

  47. Idiot Reactionary Right. says:

    I don’t smoke. Liberals are the good guys. The reactionary right are the bad guys. And i think Obama will win a smashing BIG victory in 12.

  48. Anonymous says:

    The “Reactionary right”?

    Did you ever notice how Liberal Democrats often talk like cartoon Bolsheviks in a bad remake of Doctor Zhivago?

  49. Badenov 4U says:

    Natasha: Boris, how are we going to steal 2012 election from reactionary right?
    Boris: Easy, we are going to become Liberal Democrats.
    Natasha: On purpose?

  50. Anonymous says:

    Hello reactionary right guys don’t you know your true nature? . But seriously where are your Presidential candidates? Why are they scared to announce that they are running? Or do they know the truth? Obama is unbeatable. They will let the kooks like Michelle Bachmann or Sara Palin have the nomination this time . Then grid their loins for 16. Then you might get Jeb to be the third Bush to run. Will he be the third bad Bush President? My other question for you reactionary right people, who do you want to run against Obama? Who will you give money to? i gave to Obama. I hope you will too.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Boris: Hey Natasha did you know there are no more communists?

    Natasha: How about Red China?

    Boris: Ha, ha, nope they are better capitalists than the reactionary right of the corporate military complex of the good old USA.

    Natasha: So who are the boogey men of the reactionary right now?

    Boris: What ever Rush and FOX news tells them.

  52. Dennis says:

    Obama is going to get re-elected in a walk. The GOP field for 2012 is very weak. Who do they have? Sarah Palin. The half wit, half term former Alaska Governor. Then you have Multiple Choice Mitt Romney who has been on both sides of every issue. Romney’s support of Obama/Romney Care is going to kill his chances. What about Haley Barbour? His former career as a lobbyist won’t endear him to voters. In fact, as a lobbyist he lobbied for immigration amnesty representing the Governor of Mexico. The GOP has got so desperate they began pining for a Bush restoration. Jeb wisely bowed out since a recent poll shows him running 20 points behind Obama. I guess the American people still remember Dubya’s trainwreck of a Presidency. Bushy did a heck of a job!

  53. Anonymous says:

    I just don’t see any Republicans on this blog saying they can or will beat Obama in 12. That race is over. Come on Republicans at least put up a fight. Who do you want? Who can win? Your silence is what i expect. Maybe that is why you are so hoping some type of miracle saying Obama is really a Martian comes out. Don’t worry Republicans you get to start over maybe in 2016. By then the Bush years screw ups are just a distant memory. Americans have screwed up before and put a rightie in the White House. They will do it again. Just not in 2012.

  54. Dennis says:

    Further diminishing GOP chances next year is that birthers make up a majority among those voters who say they’re likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don’t think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. What this means is that the GOP will produce an extreme nominee next year who will be well outside of the mainstream.

  55. I am the Anonymous says:

    Don’t be a dope, Dennis. Until the GOP shuts down the openness of its primaries – allowing Dems and Independents to vote in them – the result will be a candidate palatable to them, ala John McCain. Until it comes time to vote in the general election, that is.

    But who are we kidding? You guys call anyone to the right of John Kerry “extreme.”

  56. curbfeeler says:

    Of course Obama will be reelected. Did you think someone switched juries? We have the same electorate as before and most of them have webbed toes. We see them right here arguing that Obama isn’t as inept and insane as opponants they imagine might run against him.

    This country never was in a ditch. We are heading toward a cliff at high speed without breaks and people are arguing about whose going to fix the rear view mirror.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Still not one republican saying we are going to win in 2012. Not one republicans name comes up saying he or she can beat Obama. You guys are all ready beat. It is over. Live with it. The nation is not voting for loons.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Dennis thinks two years is a long enough time for Ben Nelson to repair his image and get re-elected but not enough time for the Republicans to field a candidate to challenge Obama. Interesting.

  59. Hey, Leavenworth Street says:

    I’ve heard that influential people read this blog and I’m hoping that’s true.

    I listened to Sen. Dubas on KFAB yesterday talk about her breast-feeding bill and I got a little concerned because she couldn’t really answer what the ramifications of her bill might be.

    This bill is steamrolling its way through the Legislature right now and I’m telling you this is going to be the “Drop Your Child (meaning anyone up to age 18) off at the Fire Station” bill of 2011.

    No one has thought this thing through.

    The bill is one sentence long and says that a mother may breast-feed her child anywhere, public or private, that she is otherwise authorized to be. Without any limitation whatsoever.

    Sen. Dubas wasn’t able to answer any of the KFAB crew’s “what if” questions. Those “what ifs” are real. You can’t just pretend them away. And if the legislation doesn’t address them, the courts will have to. For instance, Gary asked basically what if a woman goes into a restuarant, whips off her blouse and starts nursing without covering up? Sen. Dubas’s response was, well, women won’t do that. And then she said that if the woman causes a disturbance, she could be asked to leave (or words to that effect.) The problem is THE BILL DOESN’T SAY THAT.

    It’s astonishing to me that a State Legislator like Sen. Dubas doesn’t seem to understand how the laws they pass are interpreted by the courts. Is no one down there in Lincoln going to stand up and ask any questions about the effects of this bill and suggest that, maybe, before they pass it, they need to think through it more carefully?

  60. Anonymous says:

    Still no candidates from Nebraska Republicans on who they favor to run against Obama. You guys chicken?. Or maybe I need to give you credit. You know it is a lost cause. Come on 2016.

  61. MacDaddy says:

    Obama is a one term President. Even Sarah Palin can beat him. His latest budget proposal shows that he is not serious about tackling the problems of our country, the biggest of which is the rather large budget deficit that grows larger every time you turn on the news, and if the Lame Stream Media is noticing it, you know that everyone else has been watching it with alarm for quite some time. Obama would rather do anything other than doing the things that would make it easier to create jobs in this country. He and the democrat Congress did their darnedest to pass legislation that will keep unemployment high well past the elections in 2012. Everyone is screaming jobs, jobs, jobs, and Obama and the Democrats decided to give them the middle finger and work on crappy unconstitutional legislation in a pathetic attempt to ruin America. Don’t even get me started about his foreign policy.

    Obama is trying to be Bill Clinton II by making the Republicans make the difficult and responsible choices and then demonize them with the usual “Republicans hate Grandma” boilerplate. Unfortunately for him, he’s too stupid to realize that this is not 1995 when we had the luxury of ignoring our problems. People see right through him. The problem with a meteoric rise, is that if you can’t deliver, people will turn on you in the blink of an eye. Obama can’t deliver, not in 2 years, not in 4 years, and certainly not in 8. Guess he isn’t smart enough to undo all the damage that idiot cowboy Bush did.

  62. MacDaddy says:

    Hey, LS: I am more than a little dismayed with the legislature wasting time on bills that do nothing to address the big problems that Nebraska faces. A ban on toys in kids’ meals? A breast-feeding bill? Are these people serious? Do they actually get up in the morning, look in the mirror and think, “you know, this state will crumble to the ground if women can’t breast-feed in the middle of West Roads Mall?” I realize that a lot of legislating is dry as toast, but you have got to be kidding me.

  63. Anonymous says:

    MacDaddyy thank you for saying some thing about a GOP candidate. Do you want Sara Palin? I hope she gets the GOP nomination. That means Obama get 500 plus electoral votes. The other candidates just mean 400 electoral votes for the President.

  64. Anonymous says:

    I don’t care if you like Obama or not . We know you republicans don’t. But I would like to know who the republicans on this blog want to take his place? Who they would GOTV for. Who they would give money too. Who they think could keep them from the butt kicking all the experts on both sides say is coming. i don’t think you have an answer. The Civil war of the GOP is just starting. A year from now it will be in full flame. The winner is going to be a loon. Because the real movers and shakers of the GOP will wait until 2016.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.