New Stenberg spot and more

Don Stenberg has a new ad up. See it here:

This is a very good spot, just Don talking to the camera. It has pretty much been him and Bruning talking to the camera, stating who is more conservative and throwing out a few points. This is a good piece by Stenberg, and is a good way to close out the media campaign.

If we had to criticize? Put the hands down at the end, and who the heck was that announcer giving the “paid for by”?

As we noted the other day, we think Deb Fischer could benefit from an ad like this, but she may not have the time or money to do it.

***

Some thoughts on Fischer’s Sarah Palin endorsement: Palin has liked to go counter-culture in her candidate support, so it made sense that she would go with Fischer or Stenberg over Bruning. It also shows that Fischer has some momentum going into Tuesday. But being able to brag about this earlier may have helped her.

Palin endorsed Richard Mourdock in Indiana, and Stenberg and others are pointing to Mourdock’s win over Richard Lugar as a Tea Party strength sign. But the parallels between Indiana and Nebraska are thin. Lugar is 80 years old, and has been in the Senate since 1976. Stenberg is 21 years older than Bruning, and they have had roughly equal time in public office. And Bruning has Tea Party endorsements like Stenberg does.

The effort to get rid of Lugar was as much the toss-the-old-guy-who-has-lost-his-way as anything else. The only similarities are that the DeMint and Club for Growth types supported Mourdock and are supporting Stenberg. But would anyone have been surprised or raised a stink if they had supported Bruning?

And then in the Washington Post today, a CFG person, seeing that Stenberg could possibly come in third now, says their campaign was “anti-Bruning” and that Fischer could beat Bruning now. So really, CFG and SCF’s goal is to have the NRSC and Mitch McConnell lose. And if Bruning is carried up in all that, well and good. But other than not being beholden to CFG or Jim DeMint, does any Nebraskan really see Bruning voting ANY different in the Senate than how they would? Stenberg wants you to think so, but the polls would indicate he hasn’t accomplished that.

The differences between the Senate candidates right now are personality driven. People have their reasons for why they want one candidate to win over the other. But from everything we have seen, it has almost nothing to do with who is more or less conservative or Republican.

(And at some point after the primary, we will discuss Lugar’s post-election manifesto.)

***

Mike Hilgers

In our last-minute, “Better Know a Candidate” edition, meet Mike Hilgers, a Republican running for the Legislature in District 21 (NW Lincoln, including Malcolm and Raymond). He is a lawyer with a degree from University of Chicago (where he had a “senior lecturer” named Barack Obama) , and lives in Lincoln with his wife and daughter. He is a member of the Lincoln Rotary Club, the Lincoln Independent Business Association, and the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce.

He has been endorsed by…

Governor Dave Heineman
Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation as a “Friend of Agriculture”
Lincoln Independent Business Association
Nebraska Right to Life
Nebraska Chamber of Commerce

Oh, and he is running against liberal Democrat Ken Haar, who hates conservatism and, reportedly, puppies.

There will likely be more to talk about this race come November, but we thought we would give a shout-out to Mike now.

***

If anyone gets a photo of Mitt Romney drinking out of a Leavenworth Street mug today, they will get a FREE follow from us on the Twitter (or something).

Thanks for your support via Amazon.com! And tell your friends about Leavenworth Street!

26 comments

  1. CC Music Factory says:

    Interesting ad on Don’s part, probably the best one of his or on his behalf that’s been out there. Not likely to make much of a difference, but a good ad to close with.

    Thanks for the shoutout for Hilgers, SS. Good candidate who could use the name recognition and help. Harr’s going to have liberal money from Lincoln, and all the conservative help we can give him will help ensure he sends the lib packing. This is a liberal whose wife heads up Planned Parenthood, and who wholesale supports abortion. Harr is also the guy who proposed the legislation that would have given away Nebraska’s electoral votes to whoever wins the national (popular) vote. It was a campaign across the country to try and negate the influence smaller states were given by the founders, and to allow more populous areas and states to hold more sway. Liberal idiocy at its finest.

    Hilgers in ’12 for 21!

  2. Oracle says:

    CC, why don’t you do a bit more studying on National Popular Vote. Your ignorance is showing. Due to the large variance in state’s electoral votes and winner take all, studies show that smaller states don’t really have greater influence. And even if they did, is that fair? (I guess IOKIYAR since this system gives Repubs more power than deserved based on population.) I’d just as soon see presidential candidates campaign in states other than swing states. A few states have too much power, and I’d hate to see another president in place without winning the popular vote (Dem or Repub).

    By the way, the good senator’s name is spelled Haar, and his wife no longer runs Planned Parenthood.

  3. Senator Snowplow says:

    Say what you want about Ken Haar. He’s formidable. He absolutely slaughtered the James Arthur Vineyards guy last time. I think it was a comfortable victory margin of at least 11 votes. And Ken is doing it without all the out-of-state money Hilgers is bringing in.

  4. Fake Trent Fellers says:

    There is no Fischer surge and we are winning, wanna know how I know? Our interns told me!!!

    from todays world herald-
    “One endorsement by Sarah Palin doesn’t mean there is a surge. We’ve been making thousands of phone calls each day, and we see no evidence of a Fischer surge,” said Trent Fellers, Bruning’s campaign manager.

    Never mind the fact that she has climbed 10 points in the past two weeks regardless of which poll you look at

  5. CC Music Factory says:

    Then get a constitutional amendment passed to change it, instead of trying to piecemeal and backdoor a system that will only handicap those states that actually pass it. It’s not ignorance to not agree with basically giving away ANY power we have in this state. Where is the proof that we’d see ANY more focus in Nebraska than we see today? We’d see more focus in more populated areas and less if any focus on Nebraska. Would the focus shift from swing states? And by Nebraska passing the law, and not having other states pass it, we’re basically handicapping ourselves at the expense of others. It wasn’t a good idea for Nebraska when he introduced it and it’s not a good idea now.

    And I apologize for not knowing his wife didn’t work for PP anymore. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s radically for abortion, radically for environmental extremism, and radically for pushing through tax increases in this state to support his radical ideas. And you may think he’s a good senator. I don’t. I didn’t intentionally misspell his name. But I will do anything within my limited means and power to get Haar out of office. Already have a sign in my yard, and will likely be walking precincts in the fall when all is said and done.

  6. JC says:

    CC

    You might think about changing the slogan to “Hilgers for 21 in ’12” which could then turn into “Hilgers 2112” and give him an in with fans of the band Rush and their awesome 2112 album. Just a suggestion.

  7. CC Music Factory says:

    Nice, JC. And we’ve probably got some parents and potential voters in the Highlands that would even remember the band and remember the album. 😀

  8. Oracle says:

    CC, you still don’t have a clue. NPV does not handicap any state, whether they pass it or not. It effectively gets a president elected by popular vote through a completely constitutional interstate compact (don’t you believe in state’s rights?). And what power does Nebraska have? None, except for the Omaha CD which is a mini-swing state. (Doesn’t you party want to go back to winner-take-all which would guarantee no candidates would come to Nebraska?)

    Sure, a constitutional amendment would fix things, but there are so many ignoramuses on the subject that you could never get a majority, let alone a super-majority. If one could somehow tie abortion to the subject, it probably wouldn’t get one Republican vote.

  9. CC Music Factory says:

    Again, unless you’re going to do it so the whole country abides by the same rules, it IS going to handicap those states that do it. It IS giving up state and local control to whatever the masses across the country want. All of a sudden, the coasts make a LOT more difference under that system than we do here, and their media markets will be the ones that are targeted. So how exactly does this make us any more valuable?

    Regardless, this isn’t getting out of committee here. It won’t even be on the radar with the plethora of other issues facing us. Also fortunately, I’m not sure the movement will find another senator in Nebraska that will waste his time to introduce it, and I believe Haar is done this go around. So the argument becomes moot for two reasons, that we’re not going to agree (and I’m always willing to agree to disagree, and respect the time you took to put forth your view, Oracle), and that it likely never comes to a vote in this state anyway.

  10. Oracle says:

    CC, you’re right in that it will probably never pass in Nebraska, so our 5 electoral votes (out of 538) can continue to go to the Republican candidate. In the entire scheme of things, we don’t count for much in either system. However eventually I believe enough states will have ratified NPV to effectively elect presidents by popular vote. Currently states comprising 49% of the majority 270 electoral votes have enacted it.

  11. CC Music Factory says:

    More for research purposes, do you have a site to link to? Curious to see which states have passed it.

  12. RWP says:

    a president elected by popular vote through a completely constitutional interstate compact

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Good Old I’m a man so killing babies is ok Haar. The guy is seriously flawed. On another note he is raising lots and lots of $$$$ from front groups who get their money from out of state. Oh and if your moniker is Snowplow, well nuff said.

  14. Oracle says:

    Sure, RWP, NPV which has been operating for several years would be promoting something unconstitutional. (Or it took the brilliance of RWP to figure this out.)

    The Supreme Court in 1893 and again in 1978 ruled that the Compacts Clause cannot be read literally. So instead of wasting our time, why didn’t you complete your research before trying to prove how smart you are? Is this standard operating procedure for research you do in your actual profession?

  15. RWP says:

    Oh please. The Supreme Court also once ruled a black man didn’t have any rights a white man was bound to respect. That changed. You know how far arguing a clause of the constitution ‘cannot be read literally’ will fly in front of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy? NPV is an obvious attempt to subvert the Constitutional provisions for electing the President, a compromise without which we would never have passed the thing in the first place.

    Your arguments that it won’t reduce the power of small states directly contradicts modern political science research, which indicates that in a federal system, votes of subdivisions should be weighted as the square root of the number of voters (the geometrical mean of one-person-one-vote and one-state-one-vote). The Constitution, mostly accidentally, comes quite close to that number.

    I should ignore your stupid ad hominem, because as far as I’m concerned, the more time you twits waste on transparently unconstitutional nonsense, the less you have to do us any real damage.

  16. Senator Snowplow says:

    I just read with HORROR how Republican Pres Candidate Mitt Romney bullied a gay student in high school in 1965. Clearly, the man is unfit to hold high public office . It gives us a window on his character to see what he was like in 1965. I am so glad that so many media sources are looking into this, from the Washington Post to Slate to Huffpo and beyond. People need to know how bigoted Romney was in 1965.

  17. Oracle says:

    RWP, do more research. Other people with expertise in the field (unlike you and I) come to a different conclusion. Large states, because of winner-take-all, badly skew the process and outweigh any advantage that smaller state have because of the +2 votes each state has over population base. Theoretically a change in one vote could shift California’s 55 electoral votes from one candidate to another.

    The constitution also states that it’s totally in the hands of state legislators on how electors are selected. As usual you pull the ideologue’s trick of finding a small inconsistency and magnify it to primary importance. I see this on Fox all the time. But I’m sure you’re smarter than anyone in the 9 states that have signed the compact.. You were able to land a cush job that allows you to waste time on this blog while supposedly working and being paid by my tax dollars.

  18. Senator Snowplow says:

    Anonymous at post 16, you talk about Ken Haar killing babies as though its a bad thing. Don’t you know anything about a woman’s right to choose? So typical. I bet you’re against gay marriage, too. If that’s the case, vote for Mike Hilgers, then. I, and dozens of others like me, perhaps even some from his own district, will proudly support Ken Haar on election day. Ken would support a woman’s right to choose. And gay marriage. And illegal immigration. And higher taxes on wealthy people earning more than $50,000 per year. And spending money on child welfare programs — including ones like head start that apparently don’t work. Because Ken understands our children are our future. Except the ones that get aborted.

  19. RWP says:

    Theoretically a change in one vote could shift California’s 55 electoral votes from one candidate to another.

    No one seriously believes this. As amply shown by Bush vs. Gore, one vote cannot decide an election. Rather, there’s a fuzzy region around 50:50 where the result is decided by things like how you interpret ambiguously cast ballots.

    The constitution also states that it’s totally in the hands of state legislators on how electors are selected.

    Doesn’t change the fact they can’t make an interstate compact without Congress’s approval.

    I see this on Fox all the time.

    If you despise the network, why do you watch it all the time? I don’t watch MSNBC.

    But I’m sure you’re smarter than anyone in the 9 states that have signed the compact.

    Than the Democrats in those states, certainly.

    You were able to land a cush job that allows you to waste time on this blog while supposedly working and being paid by my tax dollars.

    More ad hominem, and stupid ad hominem too. I’m not paid by anyone once finals are over, even though I’m still, today, working for UNL.

    You get really nasty once someone calls you on your bluster. Do you beat your wife?

  20. Oracle says:

    RWP, there are currently interstate compacts that were not approved by Congress, and were upheld by the Supreme Court. There are at least 2 Supreme Court precedents that uphold the belief that one cannot take the ban on compacts literally. (However with the activist supreme court we currently have, precedent doesn’t carry nearly the weight it used.) But since you are obviously smarter than I, and have an advanced degree, you win the argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.