The OWH got a few more quotes on the Jon Bruning story — but buried the interesting ones at the end.
State Treasurer Don Stenberg has jumped on the “oooh that nasty lakehouse” bandwagon, along with the Dems, saying that buying the house with the Nelnet guys was “reckless”.
Well, as we pointed out yesterday, that’s not really the crux, is it?
There are a couple of questions, that we noted yesterday that should be asked:
1) Should Bruning have gotten out of the Nelnet matter BEFORE the investigation / settlement if he was such good friends with the top guys; and
2) When did he become friends with them? In the story about Bruning’s investments it was noted that his partners were almost all fraternity brothers of Bruning. But it never mentioned how or when he became friends with the Nelnet guys. If your question is on any impropriety of the lakehouse, then when he became “friends” with them is sort of important, yeah?
Thankfully Robynn Tysver asked an uninvolved third party this time, instead of every Democratic official (like the last article).
So Prof. Patrick Borchers from Creighton Law noted:
As for whether Bruning should have recused himself from previous Nelnet dealings, Borchers said that depends on the closeness of Bruning’s friendships with the Nelnet executives.
All right! Is Borchers a Leavenworth Street reader?
Anywho, here’s the next one:
Bruning said he has long been friends with two top Nelnet executives — President Jeff Noordhoek and Chief Financial Officer Terry Heimes — but that they became closer after the settlement.
Um…what was that about “after”?
Don Walton at the LJS followed up on the story yesterday as well.
He notes that he will be talking to Bruning this week.
Both Bruning and Stenberg have received numerous endorsements already in the campaign. Looks like State Senator Deb Fischer has gotten her first newspaper thumbs-up.
The York News Times (“All the Fits that Prints the News!”) said she has “true grit”.
Not sure if they’re talking about John Wayne true grit, or Jeff Bridges true grit. Either way, there’s an eye patch involved…
The Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson gives a thumbs up to the Canadian Tar Sands Oil, and the pipeline.
On point we hadn’t heard before:
If Obama rejects the pipeline, he would — perversely — increase greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has made clear that it will proceed with oil sands development regardless of the American decision. If the United States doesn’t want the oil, China and other Asian countries do. Pipelines would be built to the West Coast. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. markets.
There’s a twist for you…
And an ultro-gracias to you for clicking Leavenworth Street’s Amazon link when you’ve bought stuff on Amazon (that you were going to buy anyway). Your enthusiasm has been great, and we very much appreciate your support of Leavenworth Street!