Interesting article in The Hill today, talking about Nebraska’s combative GOP Senate primary, and how it pits different Senate backers against each other, depending on their candidate choice.
On the one hand, you have backers of Jon Bruning, who are characterized as the traditional GOP leadership. Then you have the Tea Party type “outsiders”, lead by South Carolina Jim DeMint, along with the Club for Growth who have backed Don Stenberg.
So the national press, as shown in The Hill’s article, therefore sees this race as some sort of ultra conservative outsider versus a liberal GOP insider. Tea Party against Good Ol’ Boys.
The Hill says,
Yet conservatives remain concerned about Bruning’s record, and the candidate has been dogged by questions over how he amassed personal wealth while serving in public office.
Except, no they don’t, and the OWH pretty much canned that other issue on Sunday.
Now if you want to say “Bruning’s opponents say that…”, well fine. But some suggestion that conservative Nebraskans don’t think Bruning is “conservative enough” is utter foolishness.
And any idea that Don Stenberg is some sort of “outsider” is a laugh. The state Tea Partiers are pretty evenly split on the candidates, and probably give plenty of allegiance to Deb Fischer and Pat Flynn as well. And ask any Democrat if they think there is a millimeter of difference between Stenberg and Bruning. Or if they would prefer Bruning to Stenberg.
We are sure that Stenberg has a case to make against the poll-leader Bruning — and we are not saying that either is preferred, by the way. But the suggestion that Bruning would cave taxes or earmarks or ObamaCare, and because of that national conservatives like DeMint should prefer Stenberg over Bruning is preposterous.
Why is South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint (who calls himself a “recovering earmarker“) pouring millions into Stenberg’s campaign? Because Don Stenberg is unable to raise that much money on his own. And Bruning does not NEED DeMint’s cash. And DeMint figures that if he goes full-hilt with Stenberg, Stenberg will forever owe him, and it will assist in DeMint’s Senate power grab.
That. Is. It.
So national commentators, know that while Don Stenberg would be a fine conservative Senator from Nebraska, all in all, other than his potential DeMint-iness, there would be little difference between him and Bruning on their votes. As far as this primary goes, Don Stenberg ain’t Marco Rubio, OK?
Hey look, if Bob Kerrey keeps talking about it, WE will keep talking about it.
Kerrey has TRIPLE-downed (can you do that?) on his “Even though no one else has suggested that we put troops on the ground and invade Iran, I don’t think we should do it!” mantra.
Kerrey writes in the Huffington Post:
It’s not front and center — yet. But there are folks in Washington building an under-the-radar case for an invasion right now, so I’m not waiting to speak out.
Look Bob, if you want to say there is a lot of talk about bombing Iran or even battling Iran on the seas, and you are against that, hey, have at it. (Though last time we checked, you are NOT saying that.)
You are saying, “No ground invasion!” And frankly everyone is looking at you going, “Uh, Bob, no one is suggesting that.”
Our guess this is a push by Kerrey to get the uber-libs off his back for Kerrey’s support of the Iraq invasion…which he supported. You know, the one in which he points to talk about all the troop loses, and how much worse it would be in the much bigger and more populous Iran. That would be the one which essentially doomed his gig at The New School and made all of his students hate him.
So we can see why Kerrey is pulling the whole, “Ohmygosh! An invasion of Iran would be HORRIBLE!” Oh, and nice description of that “under-the-radar” plan. Because quoting someone these days is so difficult.
And as we mentioned above that the OWH went through Bruning’s finances with a fine-toothed-comb and found zippo, the same cannot be said for Bob Kerrey.
Kerrey’s post-Senate money parade has yet to be given the thorough review that Bruning got from the OWH. But Nebraska Watchdog’s Deena Winter — our guess, working on her own and without the team of interns and economists that the OWH used — found many, many questions about Kerrey’s cash.
Be sure to read the whole thing here.
A few highlights:
• $800,000 in consulting fees in 2011 from the Sidney Kimmel Revocable Trust to help an Israeli company research cold fusion.
Nearly a million bucks for Kerry’s input…on cold fusion? Yeah? Really? I mean we don’t begrudge the guy money if someone wants to pay him, but WTF is going on there?
• Genworth Financial, an insurance company. Kerrey served on its board of directors from 2004 until he stepped down in March, earning between $160,000 and $215,000 annually.
Genworth tried to buy small, struggling banks in order to qualify for money from the federal bailout program, the Trouble Asset Relief Program. The Project on Government Oversight – a nonpartisan government watchdog group – was critical of the insurance company’s bid to buy banks, saying it was “trying to jump on the gravy train.”
We are sure there are many, many questions that can be raised about Kerrey’s post Senate cash. Wonder if Warren’s paper will put the resources into investigating Kerrey that they did on Bruning.
Have a great weekend, and take care of your Mom using our Amazon links up top!!!