Governor Dave at the plate

Gotta love Governor Dave calling it like he sees it.
Joe Jordan did a nice job asking questions of Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle and Governor Dave Heineman about the Mayor’s completion of the Fire Union contract before the CIR reform went into effect.

If you haven’t watched his video, see it here:

But here’s the thing: State Senator Steve Lathrop (coming to a Governor’s campaign near you?) says today that the impending new CIR legislation clearly helped push Fire Union to complete their negotiations.

Well, exactly.

So why wouldn’t the Mayor wait until it kicks-in to see if he can negotiate a better deal? Heck, the fact that Lathrop and Suttle are so hap-hap-happy about the new union contract should give any watcher pause anyway.

Argue the details of the deal if you like.


As noted in the newsys, Jon Bruning was endorsed by Mike Huckabee and Don Stenberg by the editor of

Which are fine.

Bruning had endorsed Huckabee when he ran for President of Iowa, so that was a good one for him to lock down. But RedState editor Erick Erickson’s (Erick the Red?) dependency on Bruning’s law school writings was a little suspect.

In his list among eleven other Senate race views, Erickson quotes the old Bruning stuff — from twenty years ago — as if Bruning wrote it last week. If he wants to endorse Stenberg for a myriad of other reasons, fine. But depending entirely on the very old Bruning stuff is a little goofy.

Nonetheless, each endorsement should help the candidates in their nationwide fundraising.


In a follow-up from our post yesterday regarding a possible run by state Senator Chris Langemeier against Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, we would point you back to our update there and Langemeier’s statement to Leavenworth Street.

Which was not a “yes I’m running.” Wasn’t a “no” either.

If we were to guess, we would say Langemeier is keeping coy in case Ben Nelson decides not to run and Fort jumps into the Senate race. Though it seems as the weeks wear on, that gets more and more unlikely.

Or maybe he’s just waiting…


Congressman Lee Terry has gotten engaged on the Keystone XL Pipeline issue. Terry has called for a deadline for the federal decision on whether or not the pipeline will go through.

The concept is basically that the feds need to dump or vacate the commode, so that everyone can get on with their business and their lives. Deadlines have a way of keeping people honest that way.

And Senator Mike Johanns, who is for the pipeline but wants it moved, is for the deadline.
Jeff Fortenberry, who we don’t think has expressed an opinion on the pipe, doesn’t want Terry’s deadline. And Ben Nelson, who we are sure is for the pipeline, but then again is against the pipeline, is against the deadline.

But the Merrick County Board, who live smack in the middle of the part of the Sandhills* where some of the pipeline will run, have again given their endorsement to the pipeline, writing a letter to the State Department to show their support.
(*Update: My mistake. Merrick lies southeast of the Sandhills.)

Shockingly, Jane Kleeb, a self-proclaimed nutrition expert who lives in Hastings, thinks that those yokels on the Merrick County Board hate their children (and puppies). But of course, Jane isn’t just against the pipeline. She, and her enviro buddies like California Rep. Henry Waxman, hate the Canadian oil that would flow through it. And they would be against the oil even if it were vaned down to the Gulf by Bob and Doug McKenzie themselves, one Molson can-ful at a time.

Hey before you head out for Memorial Day, be sure to vote!


Yes, vote — for your favorite Nebraska food…Runza!

No it’s not an advertising thing for them. Capitol Hill’s Roll Call newspaper is hosting a country-wide brackets thing where each state’s (and territory’s) feature food is represented, then voted on.

So far, Nebraska’s Runza has beaten Kansas’s steak, and is going strong against Illinois’s Chicago hot dog.

But the Runza can’t do it without YOUR vote! A hot dog against The Runza? Please.

You can’t complain if you don’t vote. Go here:



And on this Memorial Day, take a moment to remember all those Veterans who have served and fought so that you can bitch and complain to your heart’s desire on a blog.

In China, you would be in jail right now. Next to us.


  1. Kortezzi says:

    Awww, no, really? Bruning endorsed Huckabee in 2008 and Huckabee now backs Bruning? That’s enough for me to become a Stenberg supporter again.

    Starting to wonder about Fortenberry. He won’t support the Keystone XL pipeline which would go mostly through his district. And his positive reaction to Obama’s speech on the mideast, and failure to criticize the outrageous 1967 borders proposal. Not quite ready to advocate primarying Fort, but these are discouraging signs. So I wanna know more about Chris Langemeier.

  2. John Galt says:

    I’m no fan of Bruning, but at least he’s fighting the libs on $ocial $ecurity and medicare.

    How about this deal: Stenberg can complain about the Tea Party Express endorsement as soon as he gets behind Paul Ryan’s proposals. Is Erickson going soft? Why would he support someone who can’t even find the guts to support a conservative budget?

  3. Merrick County says:


    While I realize western Nebraska begins at York for you Metro types, we aren’t quite out in the Sandhills.

  4. Anonymous says:

    “Outrageous 1967 border proposal”? Though not often articulated, that has been the official US position for the last several decades, regardless of the party in power. All he said was that those borders should be the starting point for land swap negotiations. Why do people – again, in both parties – insist on spinning this into something that is not?

  5. RWP says:

    Both Dana Milbank and Glenn Kessler of the WaPo have dissected Obama’s ‘1967’ blunder in the last couple of days. Kessler in his blog has a nice compilation of statements such as these:

    It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”

    — President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968

    “In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”

    — President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982

    “Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”

    — Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988

  6. Anonymous says:

    OK, so for every part beyond those borders that is rightfully Palestine’s but currently occupied by Israel and vital to their security will be retained in exchange for concessions elsewhere.

    Obviously bringing peace to this region is extremely difficult, but I can appreciate Obama stating, and Fort not rushing to condemn, what many think but few have the balls to say. Israel is occupying Palestine, and the US and others with interests in the region must acknowledge that Isreal’s ongoing expansion into the West Bank – land that was not part of the initial State – is one of the primary reasons peace is not possible at this time.

  7. Geopolitics 101 says:

    For Palestine to have ‘rights’ it must be a country. Had it agreed to the 1967 boundaries (as Israel was willing to do) this would be a mute point. Instead it rejected ‘State’ status opting instead to attempt to annihilate the Jews along with Syria, Jordan and Egypt, relegating it a nation without a ‘State’. Ever since their unsucessful attempt to wipe-out Israel the Palestinians have been crying ‘fowl’ and want to go back and renegotiate the 1967 boundary deal they rejected.

    See above for why the sovereign State of Israel cannot be considered ‘occupiers’ of a non-existent Palestian country.

    You and Barry would have caught these basic tenets of geopolitics had you spent a little more time in college going to class and a little less time sampling the latest score of lower California sensimilla.

  8. NE Voter says:

    Sadly, the best chance for peace came and went when Israel abandoned the talks led by President Clinton. They walked, in part, because of the canard that the PLO was a terrorist organization (Arafat, too).

    Now they’re suck with Hamas, a much much more extreme organizations.

    For the record, it has been Israels conservative leaders since Rabin that have blown up the process. Netanyahu in particular.

    If Netanyahu wants to blame someone for the failed peace process he should look in the mirror.

    And weep.

  9. MacDaddy says:

    Obama also said that the Palestinians should have a contiguous state. The only way to do that is for Israel to either be divided in two or give up huge amounts of land to the Palestinians. I doubt Obama even realized what he was saying, much less the implications of what he said. He is a man much in love with the sound of his own voice. The actual words coming out of his mouth mean little to him. But I guess Fort thought it was a great speech. Of course, that’s all you get from Obama these days is a speech.

  10. Eating Healthy with Jane says:

    Sweeper I am very disappointed with you on supporting Runza. Whats so Nebraska about a Runza?? Here are the Nutrition Facts on a Regular Runza.
    Calories 497, Calories from Fat 153.0, Total Fat 17g, Saturated Fat 7g, Cholesterol 30mg
    Sodium 360mg, Total Carbohydrate 65g, Dietary Fiber 4g, Protein 22g
    That is a Heart Attack waiting to happen!!!

    My suggestion is that our state food be Ahi Tuna. It’s very nutritious and it is served in all the restaurants that Scott and I go to.

  11. RWP says:

    The ‘canard that the PLO is a terrorist organization’! BWAHAHAHA! Tell that to the athletes in Munich in 1972, or Leon Klinghoffer. Yasser Arafat was a murderous, larcenous thug.

    Between 1949 and 1967, Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank by Jordan. Neither country was willing to set up a Palestinian state for the benefit of their Arab brothers. Jordan wanted the territory for itself, and both wanted the Palestinian issue as a weapon against Israel.

    Israel has settled literally millions of Jews displaced from other countries, many of them driven out of Arab nations. With their vastly greater wealth, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations haven’t done a damn thing for the Palestinians, except give them the minimum to maintain them alive in camps surrounded by squalor.

    You can’t have a peace settlement with someone who denies your right to exist.

  12. RWP says:

    And, NE Voter, for the record, it was Arafat who rejected the 2000 Camp David agreement, at least according to Bill Clinton, and to Nabil Amr.

  13. Macdaddy says:

    Anon 4:18, you are correct about Osama. Obama ordered the mission and then went and gave umpteen speeches about it. Oh, wait, he’s bombing Libya. Forgot about that one. And his policies are keeping gas prices high, unemployment high, and he’s spending money we don’t have at a record pace. And he’s played a lot of golf and had several vacations. Wow, I guess I did have blinders on. Thanks for setting me straight.

  14. anony says:

    Did anyone catch the Kleeb Dweeb throwing out the accusation that Canada is just using our Sandhills to ensure delivery of their oil to China? Yep, heard it on KFAB-she is definitely losing her mind.

  15. Macdaddy says:

    Senator Nelson’s e-campaigning is getting more and more inane with each passing one. This time he was bragging about asking the USDA Secretary a couple of questions. Wow. Impressive.

  16. Anonymous says:

    anony 9:43 I am some one who does not think much of the Kleebs. But she is right about the pipeline. and the that most of the oil will go to China. Check the facts before you throw out your thoughts. Or you will end up with egg all over your face on this one.

  17. RWP says:

    Oh yeah. Because if you want to transport oil from Alberta to China, the most economic route is to pipe it to Houston, load it on a tanker, and then take it all the way south to the Panama Canal. Might as well take it a seventh of the way around the world in the wrong direction first.

  18. Kortezzi says:

    Where oil goes isn’t all that important. What matters is INCREASING RELIABLE SUPPLY, thus lowering the price. It’s a world market, folks.

    The Keystone XL pipeline would help open up a huge new supply of oil from a friendly nation. Tanker spills are much bigger and more common than pipeline leaks. Jane & Co’s crusade against the pipeline, if successful, will result in more tankers of Mid East and Venezuelan oil.

    Don’t kid yourself that windmills and solar panels and hybrid cars can make even the slightest dent in our dependence on oil. They just bleed dollars out of our gov’t budgets, and make liberals feel good.

    And they really cared about the Oglala Aquifer, the Bold Nebraska types would be crusading for the pipeline and against ethanol subsidies. Ethanol plants pull so much water out of the ground to turn corn into ethanol, it is insane. Aquifer depletion is a far greater risk than contamination from pipeline leaks.

  19. Lil Mac says:

    The Huckabee vs Redstate endorsements reflect different objectives.

    Huckabee endorsed Bruning while mentioning three critical issues, i.e. balancing the budget, deficit reduction and repealing Obamacare. Huckabee focuses on what is hurting America and on that basis he endorsed Bruning.

    On the other hand, on Stenberg’s website, Redstate blog’s Erick Erickson endorses Stenberg while mentioning seven different Republican incumbents who Erickson hates. Erickson attacks Mitch McConnell and other Republicans and the GOP itself, “the same GOP that tried to stick the right…” meaning Republicans who fail to match what Erickson thinks is right. — Reagan’s GOP was a “big tent”. Erickson and Stenberg seem to have flea-sized tiny tents.

    Erickson doesn’t mention Ben Nelson. His endorsement of Stenberg is all about ridding the GOP of bad Republicans, all of whom won GOP primaries to become incumbents.

    Erickson and Stenberg are ideologues. They are less interested in making good government happen than in suppressing what they see as evil within their own party. Like Medieval Inquisitors, they dislike other groups (Democrats) but they reserve their real hatred for their own people. They focus their efforts on destroying their own heretics, which in this case are any Republicans that Erickson and Stenberg don’t agree with. There are a lot of Republicans they seem to hate.

    Bruning wants to ride the elephant. Stenberg wants to ride the elephant or see it dead. That is why Erickson likes Stenberg and why Huckabee didn’t give Stenberg a second thought.

  20. Anonymous says:

    “Heineman wonders what’s buried in the fire deal”? Maybe he should read it before crying foul… This air of pessimism continues to divide Omaha. The Gov should stay out of local affairs until he has facts to support his suspicions. Or better yet, stay out of local affairs all together.

  21. Anonymous says:

    RWP again you don’t know what your talking about. Canada’s government denied Transcanda the right away to build this pipe line to the Pacific. You see they know it will do damage to their countries environment. So you see they have no place else to go. And only Leavenworth street economists have said this pipeline line will cause the price to go down. Real ones say the opposite.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I hear that Lyn Rex’s name is mud in the legislature within the majority party. The gall of the woman to stand up with Suttle and say the reform didn’t help Omaha! It will be interesting to see what she gets accomplished in the next couple of years. What a piece of work she is.

  23. RWP says:

    Anonymous and coward @ 1:08 p.m., aka Bud

    The Canadian National Energy Board, which approves pipelines, denied a shale oil pipeline application by TransCanada between Alberta and BC? That’s odd. I can find absolutely nothing about it using the Google. Moreover, Canada already pipes shale oil all the way across Saskatchewan to Manitoba, in the opposite direction.

    You wouldn’t be making stuff up again, would you?

  24. RWP says:

    So, with a little more research, I found that in fact there is a project to build a crude oil pipeline from Bruderheim Alberta to Kitimat British Columbia, for export to China. The project is currently under review, and has not been rejected, as Anon. Cow. @1:08 claimed. The major objection is not the pipeline itself, but the necessity for large oil tankers in Queen Charlotte Sound.

  25. Hot Scott says:

    I was such a fool to work as a ranch hand when all the money is in Clean Energy!! Keep that pipeline from being built Honey…errr…I mean Ms. Kleeb.

  26. quad.50 says:

    Here’s to the river of white male blood shed in battle to keep Americans free. No, I have no heartburn with Tuskegee Airmen or the relatively few women who died in combat, Navaho code talkers, Alaskan native battalions, etc, etc. They all died keeping us free. But since so many of the living today feel the need to make some distinction as to this or that subsection of dead American soldiers; thus using veterans and our war dead to push this or that agenda; I thought I’d point out here that the bloody river of our American freedom was blasted from the living guts of regular white guys who were mostly scared kids.

    Maybe it would be better if we all quit chopping up Americans into hyphenated organs of the same national body. Differences? Diversity? That’s nonsense. I have seen what’s inside people and it is all the same bloody death.

    So here’s to the white guys who died to keep you free. We can stop saluting them the moment everyone quits telling the lies that it is a river of this or that minority blood that matters on Memorial Day. Christ, all of our war dead died with no other purpose than that we wouldn’t chop them into bits of Americans. But that is what some do on Memorial Day. Just for this one day, maybe we can let them be just good Americans who served and sacrificed.

  27. Omaha Independent says:

    We’re all for landowners and small businesses, unless they’re in our way. Eminent Domain Rulez! -The Republicans

  28. Jenn says:

    In OUR way? You mean, in the way of a foreign company that decided it was convenient to run this pipeline across OUR land, so that they can sell it to other countries. I don’t understand why this is “conservative” thinking at all. Where is the economic benefit to us? Seriously, if this is a good idea on any grounds, it should be easy to show how Nebraskans are going to have access to more, cheaper oil because of it. I’ve asked the same question here before, and people object to the question being asked, but nobody has any clear factual answers. How do we benefit? Turning a blind eye to the risks is also pretty much the opposite of conservative thinking. I feel like people oppose this because they dislike Jane Kleeb, so since she’s against it, they’re for it. If that isn’t asinine, I don’t know what is.

  29. Macdaddy says:

    Eminent domain is now the law of the land thanks to the liberal Supreme Court justices, OI. Kelo v. New London.

  30. brainyjaney says:

    Interstate 80 is bad for Nebraska. I-80 is a four lane pipeline of product that comes in one end of Nebraska and goes out the other. We don’t get to keep the cargo. And the pollution spewing from trucks moving through Nebraska is killing the wild birds that migrate through Nebraska.

    We should close all such pipelines in our state and put barricades at our borders. Then we can enjoy lives of good nutrition and bowel cleansing in peace, without letting in those outsiders who call us “liberal hillbillies”. We aren’t that. We had our teeth capped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.