FLASH: Hassebrook is IN

Chuck Hassebrook

The LJS’s Don Walton is Tweeting (remember when reporters just reported stuff?), that Democrat University of Nebraska Regent Chuck Hassebrook will announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.

No word from Democrat state Senator Steve Lathrop. OWH’s Robynn Tysver tweeted yesterday that Lathrop sounded like he was not going to do it, and noted today that he would announce his decision on Monday. Watchdog’s Deena Winter countered that she did not get the “likely not running” vibe from Lathrop when they spoke.

At this point we would be very surprised to see Lathrop get in. In theory, a primary could benefit the winning candidate — if they really thought they could win in November. But find us anyone who really thinks that is likely.

Updates and more later…

**Update 11:25 AM**

The OWH has confirmed the LJS report — via unstated sources (how come people only get angry and indignant when WE do that…).

Robynn Tysver follows up with this on Lathrop:

State Sen. Steve Lathrop said this morning he plans to take the weekend to decide on the race. Lathrop denied this morning that he was moving away from running. He also said Hassebrook’s decision would have no impact on his.

You hear that Chuck? NO impact! None!
And if he decides he doesn’t want to run, it’s because of his family! You hear that??? Not you! His FAMILY!

(Consider this a Double Dog Dare, Senator Lathrop…)


  1. Anon says:

    Hassebrook doesnt stand a chance because he looks like a troll, its not a beauty contest but you cant look like a halloween mask either…

  2. Anonymous says:

    Lathrop has work to do to shore up candidates for the NSEA to run for the open seats, let alone at least one incumbent………

  3. Political Insider says:

    Rumor on the street is Ashford’s operatives are looking into Suttle’s handlers. Why is the uniter of Omaha doing divisive investigative work. I have to say Brad is being very aggressive by hiring Republican consultants and saying an announcement is coming in May.

  4. RWP says:

    Rumor on the street is Ashford’s operatives are looking into Suttle’s handlers.

    Good heavens, are there any heterosexual staffers in the entire city of Omaha?

  5. RWP says:

    Let’s not be rude about Hassebrook, now. 18 years of rubber stamping proposals for new gym equipment purchases for the UN Kearney rec. center, and the like, are all the experience a man needs to serve on what was once, before Harry Reid took it over, the world’s greatest deliberative body.

    I’ve always said the Nebraska Board of Regents are worth every cent we pay them.

  6. Anonymous says:

    You ever notice this wanna be never has been RWP is always ripping on people who have the courage and the ability to step up to the plate and try to make a difference. They may be Republicans, Independents or Democrats . He always finds a way to make fun of people and tell the world he is superior. Yet when you read his writings on this blog and his own. You read the rantings of a bitter man who wants to be in the lime light yet knows it will never happen , because some people don’t have the right stuff. So go away RWP your shameful statements are not needed any more.

  7. Gerard's Mommy says:

    Gerard: We have birds to save from wind turbines…..and from domestic cats so let’s lay off Hassebrook.

    How can RWP (Gerard) tout the KXL (which I support, and I also support wind), bash the Sierra club and THEN say the reason he hates wind energy is because it KILLS BIRDS!!!??? Anyone else find the sarcasm in this garbage?? It sounds like you work for the Sierra Club, Gerard!!

    How can you be pro guns, pro KXL (which I am too) and then also bash the Sierra Club for their environmentalism and then claim wind energy (esp. turbines) kilsl birds and that’s why Nebraska doesn’t need wind farms??!! YOU ARE INSANE

    You can’t be both an environmentalist AND a gun toting atheist. You just can’t!!


  8. Everyone says:

    Stenberg is old and senile.
    Fischer is short on dough and a girl.
    Bruning is corupt, a cheater and Repubs are starting to turn on him.

    …..Hassebrook is moderate, rational and respected throughout the state.

    It comes down to more than money. There is no Heineman, Hagel or Johanns to walk away with this one. And for those who don’t know, Hassebrook isn’t an out-of-state, wrastling promoter like Scott Kleeb. This is gonna be a race.

  9. RWP says:

    It seems I have a deranged stalker. Evidently, the comments section on my blog isn’t good enough, so he’s tracked me here.

    If you want to discuss what’s on my blog, do it on my blog.

  10. RWP says:

    Hassebrook is a socialist. Plain and simple. He supports collectivized health care, redistribution of wealth, and knee-jerk environmentalism. He is neither moderate nor rational, and most people have never heard of him, let alone respect him.

    Ad hominem attacks on me are beside the point. I am not running for anything; nor do I intend to.

  11. Lil Mac says:

    Hassebrook? Normally, I say State Attorney Generals are too inexperienced to run for the US Senate. But in this race, such constitutes maximum qualification in lieu of anything heavier. Compared to Stenberg and Bruning, the state senators running have slimmer experience in governance and responsibility. And yet now there is Hassebrook; a director of a rural cow group turned school board member. It’s a big school board but still just a school board. Hassebrook is nearly devoid of experience compared to the others.

    Hassebrook may indeed be a socialist. Yet he could reregister as Republican or Libertarian or as a Martian and he’d still be the small potato here, except in the eyes of delusional socialists. …And truth be told, he is also one ugly dog faced boy. Since 1913, voters have been required to actually look at senate candidates and this guy having a clown face is a hard sell. Hassebrook makes Stenberg look downright debonair.

    Hassebrook may be the ugliest socialist school board member in Nebraska. A real shoe in.

  12. Where does Fahey Stand? says:

    Assford is telling people he has a former mayor supporting him. It aint Daub, Boyle, Anzaldo or Morgan. Anyone seen Mike Fahey lately? How does Suttle feel about that one?

  13. shrinkwrap says:

    9:36 “Mommy”. You attack RWP wildly, calling him insane, while you are masquerading as his mother. Have you seen the film Psycho?

  14. Anonymous says:

    It’s really rude and childish to attack someone because they’re not George Clooney. Grow up and find something substantive to sling at Hassebrook but lay off the personal attacks. No wonder it takes a strong stomach to run for office when people are reduced to commenting on someone’s looks.

  15. Lil Mac says:

    Principles do NOT completely trump physical appearance in elections. Don’t confuse civics with persuasion. “Civics” studies how you exercise your own concern for issues and policy. “Persuasion” studies how the distracted average voter, the ones who decide elections and don’t give a fig about issues and policy, look for a pretty face they can trust or like. And so do we all.

    Money wouldn’t be poured into TV ads if door hangers worked as well. Video ads send a message that is 98% visual/aural non-verbal cues that flood the senses, bypassing cognitive centers and slam directly into image processing areas which release floods of hormones causing you to “feel” strong emotions before those cues later arrive at your cognition areas where you, like everyone else, then try to justify logically why you already “feel” that you like or dislike this cookie or that candidate. Sure you can talk yourself into pushing a principle above what you viscerally feel is a beady-eye sneaky- looking candidate. But that takes real effort. Unfortunately, it is the least concerned voter, the last to vote, who expend the least effort, who are the easiest persuasion targets. And you would ignore them and you would lose.

    Admittedly, a pretty face without a valid message will lose credibility over time. But over time. A pretty face is a foot in the door and that’s enough for a distracted voter to decide. — I too wish that people were less animalistic, more in control, elections more noble, people more noble. But, sorry. They are just people.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but voting (democracy) has some really horrible attributes. Ethically, voting means the 51% kills the 49%. And in terms of creating wise government; the least interested voter and last to visit the polls is the most persuadable and tends to decide elections. That is why our founding fathers gave us this Representative Republic (not a democracy) and limited direct election to only the House of Representatives, because voters are just awful. But vote are also the raw source of all power and a human good spirit, if that goodness can be distilled from the human awfulness. The beauty of our constitution is that it understands human weakness, even that of too easily persuadable voters, and it limits such. It grasps what you don’t, i.e. that people care how candidates look. And that’s how they vote.

    If you want to play ball with the big boys in politics, you need to look deeper than your own feelings.

  16. It is unfortunate that our democracy depends upon such shallow considerations as laid out by Lil Mac, a person that has kept their own beauty/ugliness a secret from us all. I find it disturbing that anyone could be elected to office based on such shallow qualifications. It was bad enough that many consider the quantity of money spent on propaganda a primary inducement to casting a vote; now we have to contend with the same level of regards that determine who will be prom queen?
    Wouldn’t it be great if we could choose people to assume the positions of power based on more substantial considerations? After all, they get to decide all the rules by which we must all live.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Lil Mac,

    You hit the ball out of the park on that post. Look at JFK, especially in light of the latest revelations. Bill Clinton too, bottom line is Hassel is one goofy looking guy. It’s not like Lee Terry isn’t too, but he has run against uglier people. Oh and by the way none of the current viable crop is much better. Just look at the great hair Nebraska Poli’s at the national level have.

    The voters do tend to be somewhat lazy these past years, Snow Plow Conrad with her issues or McGill and her inability to get a job. Yet they both get a pass as they ran against goofy looking guys.

    So in the Senate race who is the better looking? Heck if I know, but all of the candidates on the Right side are a heck of a lot less goofy looking than Hassel. Heck Chuck makes the troll running the NDP look better, well not really but they would make a SAB now wouldn’t they?

    BTO you are right, it would be best if the issues and positions were what mattered, but then how would the NDP get anybody in, outside of the gimme’s in Omaha and Avery? If the NDP didn’t manufacture a whole lot of fiction they would not have Conrad or Haar. Anyway the ground truth is the NDP has fallen down on the job. They let Kerry play them and took their eyes off the Legislative races. Oh the proverbial poo should hit the fan sometime on Wednesday for the operatives out there. The NSEA is scrabbling right now to figure out how to resolve an issue within their ranks as to why someone flew under the radar for so long. Guess they were trying so hard to keep Stoj from being found out.

    That’s right boys and girls, Mark Stoj, the guy who lost in the treasurers race to Stenberg is not a resident of Sarpy County, The NDP parachuted him in to take on the ONLY filed candidate for LD49. Brian Mickleson of the NSEA thought it was all good and was just lying in the weeds waiting for the deadline of Mar 1st. Oh well Brian, your boy posted it a while back on a social media site. Now Stoj used to live north of fort street according to his NADC fillings so where does he live now???? Well according to the Secretary of State Voter check he is miraculously now a resident of LD 49! Well done there Brian.

    Oh and lest we forget our manners, Good evening to Ms Robak, and avid reader of Leavenworth by her own admission:)

  18. I have no clue what the NDP is up to these days. I’ve been keeping myself too busy re-arranging my own sock drawer to care. I will have to say that I did hear Mr. Hassebrooke speak in Valentine some time ago and was impressed with his intelligence, his eloquence and his awareness of matters that genuinely matter to rural Nebraskans. I think he will make a formidable senatorial candidate despite the fact that he is better looking than me.

  19. TexasAnnie says:

    Neither Hassebrook nor any of the three Republican candidates take the best interests of Nebraskans to heart: tax justice! Any of them will then proceed to D.C. with an idea of promoting greater tax injustice. So I guess it really doesn’t matter who wins, except, that Bruning is especially adept at screwing taxpayers. Y’all need a Libertarian!

  20. Catholic Reader says:

    It seems Noelle Obermeyer has been busy once again rallying for liberal causes at Creighton Law School

    In today’s OWH
    (Obermeyer, 27, said she’s hoping to rally students who are in favor of this aspect of the health care law. “As someone who grew up in the Catholic Church,” she said, “I don’t think I should be forced to make a medical decision based on what the church says I can and cannot do.” )

    Evidently Ms. Obermeyer did not take constitutional law or attend sunday school, as she does not understand freedom of religion or Catholic teachings. If you don’t like what the Pope teaches, don’t hold yourself out as a Catholic. You can always join another church.

  21. Macdaddy says:

    Is Hassebrook going to vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader? He sure is. He could look like Mila Kunis or in fact be Mila Kunis and he wouldn’t get my vote. How far did Scott Kleeb get in his pursuit of the Senate? How did Lee Terry get elected in the first place? Looks work to your advantage or disadvantage only around the margins. It’s the policies, stupid.

  22. Progressive Omahan says:

    It doesn’t make a difference if Suttle or Ashford win. We get a more progressive city, better discrimination laws, a fun urban climate and no tea partying Daubesque retread. The republicans once again are on the outside looking in!

  23. Lil Mac says:

    I am an ugly mutt but I’m not asking for votes. I was responding to a blogger who said physical appearance doesn’t matter at all. I pointed out measureable facts to the contrary. And I began by saying, “principles don’t completely trump physical appearance”. And they don’t completely.

    Bravo to BTO and RWP and 11:56 and others for taking a mostly reasoned approach to my comments. For if there is hope for this Republic, it is in that more people must think before they let raw emotion rule their words and their voting.

    Of course voter shallowness is bad. Picking candidates and spouses by their good looks is what leads to bad government and divorce. And, of course, principles and issues matter. But they matter more to political bloggers like you than they do to most voters. We can teach more civics in school but we need good government right now and in every election. And that must come from an electorate that isn’t as savvy and caring as you. So, what can we do? Hold our breath until voters care more?

    Consider this example. BTO and RWP both sincerely want the optimum policies that best serve America and Americans. But they disagree on what is best. So they vote. But also voting, are people who don’t really care, who like pretty faces and the sparkly commercials and fall victim to illusory stimuli that can grab them and their vote. BTO and RWP both want their competing ideas to survive an election so as to translate into policy. If one of them wraps those ideas in ribbon and has them delivered by a pretty face on TV, and the other has an ugly dude hang it on your doorknob… well yea. It boils down to that.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Looks don’t matter a lot. Just take a peek at most of the mugs that are serving us in the Legislature. It does appear that the Democrats have better looking ones in there than we do. Can’t we do something about that?

  25. Northeast Nebraskan says:

    “Conservatives” here are dismissing Hassebrook for some of the same superficial reasons they dismissed Scott Kleeb against Adrian Smith. They do so at their own peril. Hassebrook is smart, savvy, and I would guess has a substantial national fundraising network (the “rural cow group” he directs is actually a pretty big deal on rural advocacy issues). And it’s not like the GOP crop of candidates is setting the world on fire. If Hassebrook moderates himself on social issues, he could make a run of it. He’s not Stormy Dean or Mark Lakers; this will, at the least, be a contest.

  26. Ashford? says:

    I sure hope someone hammers him on the OHA debacle. The choices made under his leadership got OHA involved in the HIO projects, which is why OHA is on HUD’s trouble agency list now. Then there was the whole Frank Brown getting paid for doing practically nothing.

  27. Macdaddy says:

    If Hassebrook wants to win, he should register as a Republican, disavow Harry Reid, vow to vote to overturn Obamacare, and pledge to actually cut government spending. Any other scenario means he’s just going to be wasting his cow group buddies’ funds. And I bet they know that and will give accordingly. He’s probably starting 30 points behind any of the GOP candidates.

  28. Macdaddy, Why would Mr. Hassebrook do any such thing? Why would he move the reputation that he has built on a solid foundation over to one of shifting sands, merely to appeal to the uninformed? I think his grasp of the issues that are of major concern to rural Nebraskans, and the work he has done on their behalf, will probably serve him sufficiently well. He might be starting from 30 points behind, but the only thing that matters is where he finishes on election day.
    I believe Mr. Hassebrook will do quite well with the farmers and ranchers in this state. I have a good friend that is in the bull breeding business. He tells me that real cowboys wear seed corn hats and Nikes. I’d imagine Mr. Hassebrook to be that kind of guy.

  29. TexasAnnie says:

    Pat Paulsen? You’re dating yourself as an old guy, Brian.
    And don’t worry about how Ron Paul looks. His message is resonating loud and clear across America. Disaffected Republicans and Democrats are fed up with tax injustice, offensive rather than defensive wars, and other injustices inspired by constitutional malfeasance. Don’t you have a place in your heart for him also?

  30. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    NE Nebraskan: There’s no moderating on pro-life issues for Hassebrook. He already outed himself in the other camp during the Regents’ grappling with aborted fetal tissue and embryonic stem cell votes.

  31. Texas Annie,
    Pat Paulsen was the Steven Colbert of my youth. Before him there were comedians, like Will Rogers, that served to expose our Emperors as delusional nudists. It is a sad state of affairs that comedians seem to make the best observers, and analysts, of the political scene; but it is, and has long been, true, from the time of the court jesters to now.
    Sorry, Julie, I can’t support Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate. I have a place in my heart for him – as a human being – just as I do for you and all the other denizens of Leavenworth Street. Believe it or not, I’d probably even like Jon Bruning and Ben Nelson – as people – just not as politicians.
    I will believe all of you “pro-life” people when you quit supporting the military-industrial complex and advocating vengance/murder on behalf of the state. Until then, I will file you all under H, for hypocrites. When you begin to care as much about those already bore as you do for an indeterminate dividing cell, then perhaps I will begin to take you seriously.
    I will admit that I am hardly a Ghandi in disguise. I voluntarily served in the military, where I would have killed, had I been ordered to; and I have no qualms about the state putting unquestionably guilty monsters to death. So quit calling yourselfs “pro-life” if all you are is “anti-abortion.”
    By the way … how many adopted children do you have?

  32. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Brian, are you suggesting that all of those who advocate against the death penalty need to clean up all the crime in the streets and house violent ex-cons before they can speak out against the death penalty?

  33. No, Julie. Please don’t try to put words in my mouth. I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself.
    There are other ways to clean up all the crime in the streets than by murdering the perpetrators. If one wants to wear a sign that says, “I am Pro-Life,” then they mustn’t advocate killing anyone. If, on the other hand, they wear a sign that says, “I am Anti-Abortion,” they can advocate killing everyone that has been born already in any way they choose … and many do. I just get irritated by the hypocrisy of the “Pro-Life” label.
    I believe those that advocate taking away the right of a person to do with their own body as they see fit must then bear the consequences of their actions. If you want every fertilized egg to be brought to term, even against the will of the person within whom it must occur, then you should take the responsibility of raising any children that result. You can’t just concern yourself with zygotes and fetuses. Real people result, and they can affect our society for decades and decades. If you aren’t willing to bear the social burden of dealing with THEM, then you shouldn’t be interfering with the CHOICE that their mothers might make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.