Forget about Don Stenberg “following” Jon Bruning’s daughter (all we can say is it’s a good thing he didn’t “Like” her on Facebook…). The OWH has the first debate between the two top candidates and they don’t even have their own audio or video? So now news outlets just use the feed from a Democrat Tracker, eh?
So you have probably heard that Jon Bruning asked Don Stenberg why he was
following trying to follow his 14 year old daughter.
On Twitter (almost forgot to mention that part).
You want to talk reallllllly stupid?
To the extent Stenberg knows what The Twitter is, “he” is following about 1,600 feeds and “he” has about 1,600 followers.
Heck, the other takeaway is his admission that Dan Parsons actually runs the feed. We sort of suspected it when “Don” was tweeting DURING debates — but we also think it is goofy when the Tweeters try to pretend that the candidates or office holders are doing the tweeting themselves.
They are all on notice now — and look for a story sometime soon asking all office holders and candidates who it is that types their tweets.
And we frankly don’t get the “following” thing on Twitter anyway. We follow about 140 feeds — but we actually only read about 10 of them. (Frankly we aren’t sure why we have the other 130, but deleting is a giant hassle.) We narrow down using a #NESEN search as well. Otherwise, what’s the point?
It is possible we suppose that Parsons was trying to get Bruning’s daughter to follow him so he could maybe get some juicy tidbits from the Bruning household. Parsons categorically denies it. Did Bruning’s daughter follow Don first? Did her Twitter description invite a “follow” of some sort — maybe had the words “Nebraska” and “Bruning” or some such? And Parsons makes a good point that the Twitter handles never have an age on them.
But the final point is that THIS is the what people are talking about now, instead of what Stenberg wanted the subject to be — the Holder nomination thing. And it is not a bad point for Don, but we don’t see that carrying him to the nomination.
We have a feeling it is more like this: Bruning has felt battered by Don on many, many points in the campaign so far. And Bruning decided to play hard-ball back, and clubbed him with this one.
But with Bruning using a more or less pedophilic (“kinda creepy”) accusation against Stenberg, figure that the gloves are pretty much off with a month or so to go.
We don’t know where it goes from here, but don’t expect it to be pretty.
Did you know that President Obama, a lawyer, once taught at the University of Chicago law school?
But he apparently did not teach Constitutional Law, because if he did he may have come across Marbury vs. Madison. That is the one that says the Supreme Court gets to review laws passed by Congress.
Yes, Mr. President, even the ones that passed in the Senate over a filibuster attempt. So, just so we are clear, even if Congress passes a law 535-0 revoking Freedom of Religion, the Supreme Court can still strike it down.
Mike Johanns says that Obama is trying to threaten and intimidate the court. And the U.S. Court of Appeals is asking the President to explain himself and his opinions on judicial review.
So, just for fun, close your eyes and pretend that this was George W. Bush suggesting that the Supreme Court could not and should not find a law to be unconstitutional. Now imagine what the liberal media uproar would be like.
There’d be a run on “Bushitler” bumper stickers, no?
Hey campaign partisans, keep it civil in the comments. Got it?