Bob Kerrey: THE CHAMPION debater

Slick Willy & Cosmic Bob

Bob Kerrey wants to debate Deb Fischer.
Wait, scratch that.
Bob Kerrey wants to debate Deb Fischer several times.
No, that’s not it either.

Bob Kerrey wants to lock Deb Fischer and himself in room with nothing but two bean bag chairs, a trough filled with Triskets and a vat of Fresca. And then from now until Election Day, do nothing but debate, debate, debate (take a break for Imus) and then debate, debate some more.

And why does Bob Kerrey want to debate Deb Fischer? Because Bob Kerrey is the World’s Greatest Debater!

Heck, don’t believe us, just ask HIM!

As reported in none other than Cosmic’s Bob’s own hometown paper, the New York Times:

I mentioned in passing to Kerrey, as we walked on a tarmac, that I wouldn’t want to be a state senator debating him on the intricacies of Medicare and terrorism. “Neither would I,” he flatly replied.

And then Kerrey took a long, haughty, sniff and gave a sneer that would make Ray Lewis cringe…

(If Kerrey were a golfer, his colleagues would call him FIGJAM.)

***

And so we finally have our chance to watch The Master take on the little ranch gal from Valentine. And could their debating records be much different?

She debates state Senators from Fremont and North Platte.
He debated Senators from Texas and Ohio.

She debated (and few would say beat in the debate) Jon Bruning and Don Stenberg.
He debated (and many say got the better of) Bill Clinton.

This is her first Senate debate against the other party’s candidate.
This will be at least his fifth debate against a Republican in a Senate campaign.

So, no wonder Bob wants to debate, yeah? He will strut out cool as an October morning with the knowledge that he can debate the pantsuit off Deb Fischer.

Anything less would mean a major, major fail by The Master Debater Kerrey.

***

But ya know, we like debates. They’re interesting. Make for great TV, sometimes. Can show how a pol can think on their feet in front of an audience.

But…is that REALLY what is most important in a Senator?

Hey, we think it can be a good way to find out certain positions, and all that.

But, as the OWH says, we get to, “see would-be office-holders face off, with no sound bites, no second takes, no campaign staff for support.

Yeah, because in the real world of being a Senator, they…never…have…staff support? No people to look up facts for them? No experts on certain issues? No tax assistant? No farm person?

Hmm, interesting thought, that.

Hey, we want our pols to have working knowledge of the issues, but we found the OWH’s List Of Questions They Want Answered At Debates…interesting.

So if we understand the OWH, it is much better to get an answer to:

What are the best ways to address the government’s fiscal problems? Can you balance the budget and reduce the debt without raising taxes?

…in a 30 – 45 second response in front of a corn-dog fattened crowd in Grand Island, than to get a thought out position paper from a candidate on how they see themselves voting?

Hey, it’s just a question we are throwing out. Because the OWH doesn’t have just ONE of those multi-layered uber-questions. They list TEN deeply involved essays that they want answered in a 90 second spurt by each candidate (with a 30 second follow-up).

***

And oh by the way, we don’t need a debate to find out that Bob Kerrey has taken the ideological position that he will vote to raise taxes, keep and likely expand ObamaCare and support Harry Reid as the Majority Leader.

Of course, many did feel that Kerrey out debated Bill Clinton.
Though somehow Democrats didn’t give Kerrey the nom.
Hmm…

***

And the sure fire zinger for Bob will, of course, be:
“Is there a bridge where you can walk from Omaha to a field in Council Bluffs with YOUR name on it? Didn’t think so. Boom, roasted. Out!”

At least that’s how we’d do it.

***

We will do our very best to provide some coverage of the debate, possibly live.
(Because we have NOTHING else to do at 4pm on a Saturday…)
Be sure to follow Leavenworth Street on the Twitter @LeavenworthSt.

Oh, and if you are buying your books on Amazon, buy ‘em via our Amazon links up top and help us keep the light on!

And tell your friends and enemies.

146 comments

  1. Political Insider says:

    Spoken like a true insider Sweeps. I’m sure Bob Kerrey and Chris Trebisch have been working on Bob’s Master Debating skills late at night.

  2. Lil Mac says:

    Bob Kerrey cannot be a “champion debater” until he actually wins a debate with Fischer. But assuming he is very good at debating, we can more accurately say he’s a quintessentially adept arguer.

    In other words, Bob Kerrey is a MASTER DEBATER. And considering how he’s doing in the polls, I’d say that’s a understatement.

  3. D. Winger says:

    Kerrey is begging a female Nebraska State Senator to drag him up to her level. Seeing him crash and burn in November will be greatly satisfying to real Nebraskans and apparently no big deal to Kerrey’s New York Liberal/Progressive/Socialist Democrat buddies.

  4. Ewing Interview on KFAB says:

    I took from that interview that Ewing would be in lock-step with a liberal tax and spend policy if elected. He tried to claim he would be fiscally responsible, but then attacked Tax Cuts as a loss of revenue for the government.

    Always telling when their primary focus is on ‘the revenue side’.

  5. Interested Observer says:

    Dundee resident at 8:34 AM said, “Is the Kerrey kid actually going to school here yet? Does his wife actually live here?”

    Street Sweeper, are you going to allow comments about Bob Kerrey’s family when you do not allow comments about other candidates’ families?

  6. Questions OWH Left Out says:

    1, Bob, could you explain to Nebrakans why you still support the third-world atrocity known as
    partial-birth abortion?

    2. Bob, could you tell Nebraskans which company of yours in Lincoln was fined for violating child labor laws?

    3. Bob, could you explain to Nebraskans the conundurm you and Ben Nelson cooked up to try to make hay with the grazing issue, and why that failed so miserably?

    4. Bob, you explain to Nebraskans what your thought process was when, as Governor, you supported an attempt to close the people’s College of Pharmacy. And how it felt when the Board of Regents rejected that attempt?

    5. Bob, could you tell Nebraskans how it felt for you to knock a well-known, well-respected, and well-established citizen of the state out of any chance he had to run for the U.S. Senate. Was that a good feeling of power for you?

    6. And finally, Bob, has the moving truck arrived from New York City yet?

  7. Dundee Resident says:

    Bob said his family was moving here. I just want to know if they actually moved here. I wish his wife and son well and I have nothing negative to say about either one.

  8. jake says:

    “Yeah, because in the real world of being a Senator, they…never…have…staff support? No people to look up facts for them? No experts on certain issues? No tax assistant? No farm person?”

    You’re doubting the entire debate format? All because of this Kerrey v. Fischer race?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Bob Kerrey’s wife voluntarily gave an interview to Vogue Magazine in which she said she thinks all Nebraskans are a bunch of hayseed shit heads. She also said her son would be frolicking among dead deer carcasses in Nebraska, a state she obviously dislikes.

    She brought herself and her own child into the shit storm that is a political campaign. Bob Kerrey said she did it to get a laugh, because it is apparently funny in New York to abuse your own children that way. And she did this with maximum publicity, in a magazine, voluntarily offering an interview, while saying she hates notoriety, hates being in the public eye. So, basically, Bob’s wife is a lying sack of crap… just like Bob… and just like anyone who might say they are a Conservative Republican while bashing the GOP candidate.

    That may sell in NYC but Nebraskans flush better stuff than that down the toilet every day.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The last two posts are evidence that many Nebraskans (and most that post here) are thin-skinned xenophobes that have a strong persecution complex due to their insecurities (how’s that for a layman psychologist :))

  11. Macdaddy says:

    A better zinger for Fischer to toss at Bob: “At least I refuse to vote for Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader. Even a ranch wife from the sticks knows better than to do that.”

    She just needs to hammer that point home. The rest of the time she could sit and pick her nose and still win the debate. In any event, if Bob is judged by the commentariat to have won the debate (and that, my friends, is what is known as a sure thing), he will still lose in November. Don’t ya hate when that happens?

  12. Macdaddy says:

    Overall, Deb needs to hang Obamacare, Obama, and Harry Reid around Kerrey’s neck. It doesn’t matter if she also lights it on fire.

  13. Goober Natorial says:

    IO, you annoying twit. Asking whether Kerrey has moved his family here relates directly to the question of Kerrey’s intentions. It would be quite different if the poster above had revealed arrest records of Kerrey’s older children or something like that. There is nothing pertinent about smearing someone who happens to be related to the candidate. Amazing that you can’t wrap your tiny Mensa mind around such a simple concept.

  14. Goober Natorial says:

    So, anon, you have three anecdotal examples to prove your thesis that many Nebraskans are thin-skinned xenophobes. I take it all back. You should quit your day job and become a full-time, professional psychologist. Good luck with that and I hope you know the address of the nearest soup kitchen.

  15. IO (aka Anon @ 10:53) says:

    Goober….Anan @10:53 is a dem intern (also known to this and other blogs as Interested Observer) who is working to earn a full-time gig with the Democratic Party. Who else would have the time it takes to write posts under the IO name and the countless other names that she posts under.

  16. Anonymous says:

    10:53, you seem to be projecting. By throwing out accusations of psychological insecurity toward commenters who mention published facts that show your candidate in a negative light, without you offering facts or reasoning to support your accusation, that appears to be classic projection stemming from your own deep frustration.

    Perhaps you struggle with the idea of a New Yorker running as a candidate to the disadvantage of your Nebraska Democratic Party. Perhaps you felt pain when Kerrey called real Nebraska Democrat Senate candidate Chuck Hassebrook his friend and then drove Hassebrook out of the race. For all you know, Fischer could be trailing Hassebrook today. You see the damage done to the Party you love and respect. This is Nelson’s seat, your NDP’s seat. Without Kerrey, Nebraska Democrats did the impossible by delivering to President Obama Nebraska’s 2nd District. Now Kerrey comes to your state to use your party as a means of moving himself and his wife, whom you have seen belittle you and all Nebraskans, to Washington and for what? Bob Kerrey is losing the race to a state senator.

    All that Kerrey has done can be forgiven if he wins. But he is losing. Your frustration is immense and needs to lash out and share that pain. You want to do the right thing. You want to support Kerrey even as he brings down that which you value. And so you lash out, unfounded,

  17. Spike says:

    Kerrey’s wife was right on about Huskers in General, nothing but a bunch of Shit Heads!

    About the debate SS; sounds like you’re peeing your pants for Fischers sake. Not to worry, if she’s worth her salt, she can always try to “Baffle with Bull Shit, if she can’t Dazzle with Brilliance!! Of course that’s a stretch because as you point out, She’s totally out of her league. But then, Nebraskan are Shit Heads in General so whatever she spouts should suit them just fine. After all the GOP isn’t looking for anyone with brains or morals in a rep, just a sheep to go BAH along party lines in their attempt to take out the Middle Class in this country. The Blind Leading the Blind!!

  18. Citizens United says:

    I am not sure what is lower, SS’s expectation she/he/they set for Fischer or the manners of many of the poster’s on this site.

  19. WTF? says:

    Why is Chris Scott constantly promoting his illegitimate blog. Now he’s now going to be on KLIN tonight. This bastard needs to go away.

  20. Interested Observer says:

    I see Deb is going to address the Republican National Convention. Wonder if she’ll defend her WELFARE GRAZING?

  21. What's to Defend? says:

    I wonder if Barack Obama or Bob Kerry will be onhand at the DNC Convention defending their opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which called for saving the life of a baby born alive in the course of a botched abortion.

  22. What's to Defend? says:

    Oh look who else will be on hand at the DNC Convention, Sandra Fluke, the college chick who has so much sex she needs Federal Financial Aid to pay for all her contraceptives. But if that doesn’t peek your interest, you might look forward to Eva Longoria, Carolyn Kennedy or Nancy Keenan all of whom are in the lineup. Throw in a Claire McCaskill (You can bet she’ll be on hand) and we might really gain some intelligent insight on the DNC Family Values Platform. Can the DNC find anyone who ISN’T a total abortionist to speak for them?

  23. Anonymous says:

    You folks are bizarrely obsessed about abortion. Why don’t you worry about people that are actually alive and human instead of a clump of cells?

  24. RWP says:

    Bob Kerrey voted to support the sucking the brains out of viable fetuses so they could be more easily removed from the womb. That ain’t no ball of cells.

    But (no doubt for lack of opportunity) he’s slightly less grisly than Barack, who voted to allow doctors to kill live-born babies who had survived abortion.

    No, we’re not talking balls of cells here. My oldest daughter was born at 33 weeks. Kerrey was willing to allow her to be killed in the womb. Obama would have let her be killed outside the womb.

  25. Ask a union teacher says:

    Please as a teacher who belongs to NESA, the Nebraska teacher’s union, how the NSEA can support Bob Kerrey, a guy who believes it is simply okay for a doctor to pull the head of a baby out of the birth canal, then puncture it’s skull with a sissors? How could a teacher believe that is a good thing.

    I assume that Nebraska teachers, even union members, want the very best for their little students. If that is true, how can they support Bob Kerrey who owned a company in Lincoln that was fined for violating child labor laws? Was that child one of your students? How can a teacher believe that is a good thing?

  26. Interested Observer says:

    I’m amused that there are almost never any comments posted about Deb’s legislative record that would support her candidacy for the Senate.

  27. Chumpion Debater says:

    Bob was so good as a debater he never turned down a debate…oh wait he frequently turned them down. Bob was such a good debater he won the Presidency…oh wait he got crushed

  28. Anonymous says:

    RWP, I know you’re not an idiot, so I must assume that you are again trying to “win” an argument without presenting all the data. Late term abortions are only performed when the fetus has NO chance of surviving outside of the womb. Guess you’d rather let the mother wait a few more weeks and deliver a dead fetus. How a scientist like you can align with a virulently anti-science party is beyond me.

    (And I’m sure the brilliant researchers on this site will find an exception or two to my claim. Key word is “exception”. I’m talking about the vast majority.)

  29. RWP says:

    BS 7:20. A majority of states have an exception for the health of the mother, and that includes ‘mental health’. That loophole ensures anyone who elects for a late term abortion can get one.

  30. RWP says:

    And, by the way, don’t patronize me, particularly if you’re going to follow it with a series of blatant untruths.

    The democrat party is te one that’s virulently anti-science. They’ve cooped ‘science’ to follow an anti rational agenda. . I’ve been watching it happen 25 years.

  31. What's to Defend? says:

    Late term abortions are and have been performed even when the child could have survived. Not in every State but it is happening and it’s not in small numbers.

  32. Nate says:

    Anon @ 7:20

    Martin Haskell, the guy who was credited with inventing the partial birth abortion procedure, is on record saying that a solid 80% of abortions he performed weeks were purely for elective reasons on healthy mothers with healthy babies. Haskell’s statement was given to American Medical News in 1993 and published in a Congressional report. Within another year or so, both the president and the director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted to lying through their teeth (in response to Haskell’s interview) that the partial birth procedure was only done as a medical necessity, and that they said so in the interest of preserving public support for it.

  33. Some Thoughts says:

    Here’s the thing about late-term abortions: it shouldn’t be done for the “mental health” of the mother. However, mothers shouldn’t have to go on carrying a fetus that cannot survive, or that threatens her health. Most pregnancies that get past 20 weeks have gone that far because the parents really want to have a child. I think elective abortion is totally morally wrong, btw. I just don’t think that some of these later-term cases, like when the baby has a brain growing outside the skull, are anything like an elective abortion. The irony is that the laws are starting to restrict cases like that, but not the cases where someone simply doesn’t want to be pregnant, so kills a 10 week old baby in the womb.

  34. Some Thoughts says:

    Oops, I was distracted from the main issue when abortion came up! The real point is that Deb Fischer simply has to stand there and be her very appealing, common-sense, normal self in the debate. She doesn’t need to be fancy. Her sensible approach to fiscal restraint is the most important issue today. Kerrey will look like he’s trying too hard, and like someone else said, even if he “wins” it won’t matter to the election. Most people don’t watch or think about those debates at all, especially the undecided voters.

  35. Anonymous says:

    RWP elucidates very clearly a grotesque philosophy that I find common among those on the right. It’s better to ban a procedure, process or program that may be used as was expected the vast majority of the time, if a small minority somehow is able to use a “loophole”.

    And calling Democrats the anti-science party….. You are really drinking the kool-aid if you believe that. It’s not the Democrats that are pushing creationism, denying evolution or anthropomorphic global warming. Or the belief that lowering taxes will raise government revenues (even Laffler doesn’t believe in his supply-side curve when tax rates are at current levels). I could go on but I’m tired of wasting my time on an insane person.

  36. Political Insider questions says:

    A few legitimate (word of the week) questions about the new Political Insider blog that I would like legitimate answers to:

    The twitter account has a profile picture of Chris Scott. Is he the political insider or are all the contributors considered the insiders? I don’t understand how it can be Chris when he has only one year of campaigning under his belt. Politics is built on relationships and it takes years to build those.

    I think it interesting that many of the contributors are in leadership at DCRP. Is Leavenworth Street for the old guard and NE Insider for the newbies?

    Since the contributors and founders are DCRP leadership, why are they giving Democrats a platform to appeal to Political Insider’s audience? Shouldn’t Chris be trying to bring more people into the mix by convincing them that the Republican Party is the best option?

  37. Interested Observer says:

    Some Thoughts at 9:40 PM said, “Her sensible approach to fiscal restraint is the most important issue today.” Deb’s roads funding bill, LB84, as she originally proposed it, included bonding authority for additional road construction to put the State of Nebraska HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT!

  38. Interested Observer says:

    From the Omaha World-Herald, April 21, 2012, “Fischer:Don’t count me out” article,

    Deb Fischer’s Financial Status

    Total assets range from $2.2 million to $6.69 million. They include:

    513.35 shares in Sunny Slope Ranch Inc., valued between $1 million and $5 million.

    Spouse, Bruce, 513.35 shares in Sunny Slope Ranch Inc., valued at $1 million or more.

    Other assets, including checking account, IRAs, life insurance and golf club membership: valued between $240,000 and $695,000.

    Total liabilities range from $1.7 million to $6.5 million. They include:

    Personal guarantees on three Sunny Slope Ranch promissory notes, total amount ranging between $1.55 million and $6.1 million.

    Other liabilities, including debts to John Deere credit and life insurance premiums paid by Sunny Slope Ranch Inc., range between $80,000 and $400,000.

  39. Anonymous says:

    When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious. – That, from a board certified Chicago trained clinical forensic psychiatrist, explains why Anonomostly can’t seem to get through to Liberal Democrats. No one who thinks like an adult can.

  40. Interested Observer says:

    Sweeper delete IO at 6:37 AM said, “Dont attempt to attack Deb’s personal finances of which you have no clue. Stick to the issues”

    This issue IS Deb’s claim to be a “fiscal conservative” when her record in the Legislature proves that she is not a “fiscal conservative”.

    She tried to put the State of Nebraska a half billion dollars in debt. She created that brand new excise tax on motor fuels at the wholesale level. She created the biggest earmark expenditure in the history of Nebraska. When she was the President of the Valentine Rural High School Board of Education, we had one of the highest per pupil costs in the whole state, much higher than other towns our size in the area.

  41. @ Anonymous 7:15 AM says:

    Have you been eating the bullshit produced by Deb Fischer’s cattle? Must be because you are so full of it.

  42. @7:39AM says:

    I just wish some state senator would have proposed and passed an “Idiot Tax”. IO could be the major revenue producer in the entire state. Why, with all of that revenue, the state would actually be able to afford the skyrocketing drain on state resources caused by LB599.

  43. IO the Intern says:

    Your posts are not going to dampen Republican support. Your candidate has a history of talking conservative in Nebraska but voting for every spending bill proposed by the far left.

    I hope that you convert this intern job into a paid position because you are persistent and I am sure that your parents would like you out of their basement.

    Also, please quit pretending to be a rancher…this insults Nebraskans.

  44. RWP says:

    In contrast, the Democrats have turned the NSF and other federal research agencies into devices for social engineering. Fully half of an NSF grant application these days is devoted to explaining how you’re going to increase the number of women and minorities doing science, make your equipment available to unqualified individuals in tribal and predominantly minority colleges, and cure various other social ills. The subject of your grant better be solar power or some variant on renewable energy. Obama has gutted NASA. He has gagged other federal agencies far more stringently than Bush and with far less media attention. He has turned the DoE research arm into a patronage operation. NIH has been politicized, so that powerful pressure groups successfully direct funding into their pet diseases, and funding for pure research is gone. The EPA’s scientific findings of fact are now little more than bad comedy. Ken Salazar did a political rewrite of the NIE’s recommednations on offshore drilling. I could go on for hours…

  45. RWP says:

    Arrgh. it ate most of my reply! let me try again…

    RWP elucidates very clearly a grotesque philosophy that I find common among those on the right. It’s better to ban a procedure, process or program that may be used as was expected the vast majority of the time, if a small minority somehow is able to use a “loophole”.

    What’s grotesque is that you call a policy that allows the killing of thousands of viable autonomous human beings a “loophole”. What kind of bloodthirsty ogre are you?

    FWIW, I’m not ‘pro-life’, and I have no problem with late term abortion if it saves the life of the mother or in case of gross deformity of the fetus.

    And calling Democrats the anti-science party….. You are really drinking the kool-aid if you believe that. It’s not the Democrats that are pushing creationism, denying evolution or anthropomorphic global warming. Or the belief that lowering taxes will raise government revenues (even Laffler doesn’t believe in his supply-side curve when tax rates are at current levels). I could go on but I’m tired of wasting my time on an insane person.

    I’ve been fighting creationism for 20 years, and I’ve decided it’s largely moribund as an effective political force. Neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan has any problem with evolution. There are AGW skeptics in both parties. I’m not one. What I do agree with the GOP on is that the proffered cures for AGW I see from the left are mostly worse than the disease, as is their bizarre, Rousseau-esque conviction that if we all went back to living in grass huts, we’d be better off.

    The remarks about economics shows you don’t know what science is. If economics were a science, we’d contrast the results of Reaganomics with those of Obamanomics and draw appropriate conclusions.

    The rest of my commentary on science is above.

  46. Political Genius says:

    We have known for months Justin Wayne may challenge Ben Gray. Real Insiders knew that long ago. Any more old news you want to peddle?

  47. Marketing Genius says:

    Might want to read article again it does not talk about Justin Wayne getting in the race being new news but rather the impact. But what do I know you are after all a political genius

  48. Anonymostly says:

    I see Romney went from having a 6 pt lead in Missouri pre-Akin to having a 1 pt deficit against Obama now. Granted, what Akin said was a poor choice of words but it was no worse than Obama’s remarks about blue collar white folks “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.” He still got elected. Nobody made a big fuss about Obama’s comments and the attention died down.

    Akin himself dropped from I believe a lead or at least a dead-heat to now a 10 pt deficit against Clair McRoadkill. That’s understandable that Akin would have cost himself support. But the ripple effect that appears to have cost Romney doesn’t. Except to the extent that Romney and the Republicans allowed the media to take them off message and respond, instead, to the things Akin said.

    Personally, I think Romney drops in the polls whether Akin drops out or not. And I think it should be somewhat of a lesson to Republicans to not respond to these kinds of things in the future by rushing to fall on your sword to disavow what someone else said.

    There are 435 House races every Presidential election year and better than 30 Senate seats up for grabs in addition to the Presidential race. That’s more than 450 Republican candidates who will be followed around and tape recorded and whose every word will be scrutinized by opposition researches looking for and hoping to find something to jump on. We’re talking millions of comments every election cycle. And, in those millions of sound bytes, the chances are pretty good that every single election cycle, they’ll find an Akin who sticks his foot in his mouth.

    Henceforth, every time that happens, are we going to demand that nominee for whichever office drops out of the race? How absurd would that be? No, liberals in the national media are trying to hang Akin’s unfortunate choice of words around the necks of every Republican candidate everywhere. And their doing it not out of principle but purely for reasons of political opportunism. They see a weakness and are looking to exploit it.

    By asking Akin to withdraw and pulling money from his race, Republicans have further damaged the guy and have granted legitimacy to the charge that Akin’s words are so utterly awful that they deserve extreme punishment. That no right-thinking, reasonable person could utter what Akin uttered. Romney’s 7 pt drop in Missouri isn’t just Akin’s fault. It’s also the fault of the people who publlicly withdrew their financial support and those who demanded he withdraw.

  49. Macdaddy says:

    Akin is a prideful ignoramus. Period. He continues to dig his hole deeper and deeper. Michael Gerson had a great column today about the shock value of Akin exposing his hard heart. He is hurting the pro-life cause, a cause that is supposedly close to his heart. We see however that his ego is even closer to his heart. That dumbass is threatening Republicans capturing the Senate and the Presidency. Is that what he wants? To keep the most pro-abortion President ever in office? The only way to be even more extreme than Obama is to go the full Peter Singer and give parents a month grace period to kill their baby, no questions asked. Akin himself is threatening this. What an ass.

  50. Nate says:

    Akin’s words belied a lack of preparation for a national race. It’s more or less a slam dunk if the debate stays on economics, and he threw the ball right off the cliff into the quagmire of social issues that the Dems desperately want us to live in.

    For that alone, should have saved the larger conservative movement the trouble and gotten out of the way, rather than listening to his echo chamber (and Claire McCaskill, for that matter) and staying in the race.

  51. Spike says:

    rwp @58

    You are one Horses Ass!! Reaganomics were based on one of the biggest government hand outs in history. He took the national debt from about $800B to over $3T during his, remember the S&L crisis, term & most of the GDP growth during his tenure was generated by, guess what? Jerk! Government SPENDING!!

    BTW; you know shit about the NIH or the NIS. And just why is a Harvard boy working in Nebraska???

  52. Harvard says:

    Our brightest grads go on to make money in the real world. The dimmer ones go on to teach. The dimmest go to schools like UNL.

  53. Anonymostly says:

    Harvard, I always thought you were a pompous ass. There are some damn good professors at UNL. Including some who were educated at Harvard.

  54. Anonymous says:

    IO could be snowplow Conrad, one one of the bopsi twins Nordquist-Mello. With all the blathering about the roads funding bill. Now correct me if I am wrong but didn’t that bill require a few more votes than just Senator Fischer’s? Hmmmm at least 24 others through three rounds of debate with amendments to boot (Gave Ben The BOOT). oh and how many years does the bill redirect the one quarter of one percent .0025 to take on an ADDITIONAL 17 road projects across Nebraska? What don’t you want safe roads for children to get to school? Or how about roads for commerce, or are you all about the Obma model of killing the the economy ?

  55. Anonymous says:

    Yup LB 84 passed with 33 votes, of course the 10 votes against we’re the usual Libs. What is interesting is how Senator Steve Lathrop was there and wouldn’t vote? Lots of courage on the part of Senator Lathrop.

  56. Anonymous says:

    And when the liberty caucus is in control they better not screw it up and get more Dems elected because the RP’S only support a radical agenda. By the looks of things in Douglas County the ability for the RPs to get quality candidates to oppose the dems sure doesn’t bode well for the statewide picture. If you guys, and Ebke, aren’t careful you will hand Steve Lathrop the Governors office. Time will tell, and it won’t be kind,mic the new peeps are as capable as they make themselves out to be.

  57. TexasAnnie says:

    Macdaddy: Bored with the abortion “debates” years ago, I’ve kept silent since we all became aware of Akin. But your bashing of Peter Singer inspires a response. You are misrepresenting his position on euthanasia. He has not and does not espouse a parental right to kill one’s offspring up to one month after birth, “no questions asked,” as you stated above! He does, however, espouse a utilitarian belief that persons born severely disabled are better off dead, and could escape the misery of life IF the parents possessed a power of choice. Like early term abortion wherein the fetus has tested positive for Downs Syndrome, Peter Singer argues that euthanasia is merciful. While I am not an apologist for utilitarianism, I will say that Singer’s argument is rational and humane and should not be discounted by you, A NEBRASKAN!!! (Surely you haven’t forgotten the BSDC killings already…)

  58. Interested Observer says:

    Anonymous at 10:49 PM said, “didn’t that bill require a few more votes than just Senator Fischer’s?”.

    All I said was, “Deb’s roads funding bill, LB84, as she originally proposed it, included bonding authority for additional road construction to put the State of Nebraska HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT!”

    I didn’t even mention, at all, the final vote or even care who voted which way. But since YOU want to talk about the final vote on that bill, how many Nebraska State Senators voted, in the final version of LB84, FOR the half billion dollar bonding? NONE! That terrible, extravagant, wild spending idea of Deb’s got completely blown out of the water early on. It’s a good thing that there are many, TRUE “fiscal conservatives” in the Nebraska Legislature, since Deb obviously ISN’T a real one.

  59. Interested Observer says:

    It’s one thing for a drunken sailor to spend his own money, but at least that drunken sailor is spending his OWN money, not the taxpayers’ half billion dollars of bonds. I really don’t seen any difference between the concept of Deb wanting to put the State of Nebraska a HALF BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT with highway bonds and Obama’s trillion dollar deficit annual spending. Wild, unjustifiable deficit spending IS wild, unjustifiable deficit spending! It’s just that simple. Also, Deb tried to get her deficit spending in 2011, 4 years after the financial crisis and after Nebraska had already been forced to slash the State Budget to make it balance.

    I’ve known for years that Deb is a “tax and spend” . . . ummm . . . hold on . . . wait for it . . . “fiscal conservative”.

  60. Anonymous says:

    So nobody voted for the final bill that passed with a 33-10 with Senator Steve Lathrop and unwilling to vote? Ok IO I guess you are the smartest person on the board. I just can’t for the life of me figure out how a bill sponsored by Senator Fischer was passed, and signed into law that nobody voted for?

    Now if you are trying to refer to the original bill that was amended, then say so. It is obvious the introduced bill was worked on in order to pass. But the real question isn’t about the bill now is it? You put forth a world view that will never accept the fact that Government is the construct, result, of the will of the people, and NOT the other way around. The People are not the result of government! Yet I am able to understand you are incapable of comprehending the concept so I won’t try to sway your beliefs. However, i will continue to work to ensure the People don’t get snowed by your belief that they OWE the government anything by virtue of them surviving the abortion mentality. Bottom line is this country became great because it was founded on some basic and revolutionary concepts. A few old world concepts like slavery crept into the new world but even those old ideas of European origin were eliminated by the new process. Again the new concepts that government wasn’t the salvation but rather the burden really opened things up. Government is just a construct, a tool, old the people and not the salvation of the people.mthe constitution prescribes what the government shall be and do.

    So anyway IO you should review your post and if you can walk us all through therocess of no one voting for a final bill that passed and became law?

  61. Interested Observer says:

    Anonymous at 8:51 AM, the half billion dollar bonding idea was deleted from the bill, as it was originally proposed by Deb, early in the process. That’s why no one voted in favor of the bonding authority in the final version of the bill as it was passed, because it had long since been deleted.

    So, when I specifically said, “how many Nebraska State Senators voted, in the final version of LB84, FOR the half billion dollar bonding? NONE!”, the key phrase of that was the “in the final version of LB84”. Many amendments were proposed and some were included in the final version of LB84, which ended up to be quite different from the original version of that Bill. So, you just said, “Now if you are trying to refer to the original bill that was amended, then say so.” That’s exactly what I was saying when I said, “in the final version of LB84”. Do you understand now?

    The whole point of even mentioning LB84 was to point out that Deb likes to spend money, (hers, yours, mine, ours) even money that we don’t even have!

    Now, as far as your next segment about some world view about Government and construct and all that other gibberish, well, whatever . . .

  62. Anonymostly says:

    So, IO, the “final version” of the bill — the version that passed — doesn’t do what you’ve been complaining for months about. Is that about the size of it?

    So you’ve been playing games this whole time. I’m shocked. That’s so unlike you. /sarcasm

  63. Scott Lautenbaugh says:

    Let me explain one thing. I voted for LB84– I supported it when it wa seven a larger sum. It takes revenue we are already collecting, and devotes it to roads. It is not a tax hike by any rational definition. With fuel efficiency rising, the gas tax as it existed then and now would not bring in the revenue needed to build/maintain roads. I’m no big government guy, but I do concede that governemnt should, inter alia, build and maintain roads (if there are no other practical funding mechanisms for a given road). In my district as it existed when we voted, I had a fairly major road that linked Fremont to Blair. It had to be closed to semi traffic, as it was crumbling, unsafe, and we didn’t have the funds to fix it for a year or two. Try to imagine that: we were literally losing the ability to ship goods from one city to another (and Fremont and Blair are pretty significant as Nebraska cities go). And we don’t live in Burkina Faso– we live in Nebraska. How do we just “lose” a road? I had Highway 133– a very heavily-travelled road connecting Omaha to Blair. It is a winding, two-lane road. It isn’t merely “inconvenient” as it is– people die on it every year. It must be widened to accomodate the current traffic levels. The state had to commit more of our resources to our infrastructure. Deb Fischer was a leader on this. I was happy to help.

  64. Interested Observer says:

    Scott Lautenbaugh, did you support Deb’s half billion dollar bonding proposal from LB84, as originally submitted?

  65. Scott Lautenbaugh says:

    I don’t recall it being in there, but conceptually, yes, I would have and may still, for a specified, demonstrable infrastructure investment like roads.

  66. Interested Observer says:

    I posted a comment in the Lincoln Journal-Star last year during the LB84 debate:

    Interested Observer said on: May 18, 2011, 5:41 pm
    I really don’t think that this minor issue of fuel efficiency in passenger cars is the whole answer to roads funding, nor is it the whole problem of roads funding.

    Many different studies of road wear prove that “The relationship between axle weight and inflicted pavement damage is not linear but exponential.”

    “An 80 kN (18,000 lbs) single axle does over 3,000 times more damage to a pavement than an 8.9 kN (2,000 lbs) single axle.”

    “In other words, a 40 ton truck can easily cause as much damage to a typical road as 60,000 1 ton cars.”

    In reviewing NDOR online Statewide Traffic Flow Maps from 1980 and 2008, the total number of heavy commercial vehicles crossing Nebraska on Interstate 80 has increased from approximately 3,000 per day near York to approximately 8,000 per day near York.

    So, when we see just how many heavy commercial vehicles, trucks, are using Nebraska roads and we see how much more damage these heavy trucks inflict on the road surface than light passenger cars do, the whole notion of passenger car fuel efficiency is not nearly as relevant as is the specific issue of truck traffic.

  67. Great IO, thanks for pointing out the obvious, which is that heavy trucks do more damage to the roads than passenger cars.

    Now explain how we should fund road repairs.

    Oh, and as I’ve asked, and now someone else asked…who are you voting for, Mr. REAL Conservative Republican…Republican Deb Fischer, or ultra-liberal Democrat Bob Kerrey.

    BTW, your refusal to answer this question will be interpreted as a vote for Bob Kerrey.

  68. Anonymostly says:

    So, how much did Lincoln spend in “bonding” for the new arena? How much did Omaha spend on their arena? Half a billion buys you less than two new arenas. Sounds like a big number but in the grand scheme of building roads …

    See, building roads is actually something I think government is responsible for. An essential function. So, for the government to use tax dollars to build roads, I can support that. We’re getting bang for our buck when governments do that.

    IO, you’re so pathetic. Thanks for Sen Lautenbaugh coming on here and shutting you up on at least one of your many pathetic distortions.

  69. RWP says:

    John Hinderaker of PowerLineBlog just exposed two of the women in Obama’s new ‘Republican Women for Obama’ ad as hard core Democratic activists.

    Don’t know why it reminded me of IO.

  70. RWP says:

    Many different studies of road wear prove that “The relationship between axle weight and inflicted pavement damage is not linear but exponential.”

    So many people use the word exponential. So few know what it means.

    Far as I can tell from the literature, dependence on axle weight is approximately 4th power. That is, a vehicle with an axle loading of 20 kN will cause in one trip the damage a vehicle of axle loading 10 kN will cause in 2^4 = 16 trips.

    IO will now define for you what a kN is.

  71. Macdaddy says:

    Dangit, RWP, you beat me to the item about the Obama campaign making an ad where they get women to lie through their teeth. I really liked the woman who said that if you are a conservative woman, you should vote for Obama because he will ensure the government will keep its hands off your body. Obama’s administration will keep its hands off your hoohaw, but every other body part, kidneys, lungs, colon, body fat, and even breasts, will be subject to whatever Obama thinks is important.

    Women of America, Obama thinks you are stupid and can be tricked by lying women spouting untrue and illogical arguments.

  72. Anonymostly says:

    “I really liked the woman who said that if you are a conservative woman, you should vote for Obama because he will ensure the government will keep its hands off your body.”

    So, conservative women should vote for Obama, huh? What do you suppose a conservative rancher from Valentine would do?

    It’s funny how this nitwit, IO, can misrepresent and distort all over the place but can’t bring himself to admit he’s voting for Kerrey. Or deny it. How easy would it be for IO to say, “I’m voting for ____.” Can’t be verified either way so it doesn’t have to be true. Little else he says is.

  73. Anonymostly says:

    No, IO is NOT BTO. Won’t believe that. BTO isn’t the type to rely on subterfuge. He comes right after ya with what he thinks and wouldn’t feel the need to portray himself as something other than exactly what he is. Why couldn’t he make the case about “welfare grazing” by just being himself?

  74. Millard days says:

    Were all the Mayoral candidates at Millard Days parade? With the rain did one of the candidates eyeliner run? I’m not talking about Jean either.

  75. Scott Lautenbaugh says:

    Te debate is over. Deb Fischer did well. Doesn’t that mean Bob Kerrey lost, simply based upon the expectations he set?

  76. Interested Observer says:

    The Lincoln Journal-Star debate article has a poll at the end.

    Who do you think made the best points?
    Deb Fischer (30%)
    Bob Kerrey (70%)

  77. Dundee Boy says:

    Wow… Deb Fisher exceeded all expectations She was amazing. Bob Kerrey looked old and and was incoherent for most of the debate. Deb was clear, concise and straightforward.

  78. Macdaddy says:

    And whom will Kerrey vote for to be Majority Leader? Harry Reid. Kind of makes a debate a waste of everybody’s time.

  79. Anonymostly says:

    Thanks for posting the poll results. Given that whacked out libs on the LJS comment area outnumber conservatives by a factor of 10-1, that polling suggest that a good number of whacked out libs crossed over and thought Deb Fischer made the best points.

    IO, you are a deliberately annoying piece of human debris and I, for one, wish you’d stop posting. Let’s form our own little non-scientific poll (just like the LJS’s) and see how many agree with me.

  80. Anonymostly says:

    I just did my own non-scientific poll here in my family room and 100% of respondents think IO is a lying sack of poo who deliberately tries to agitate people on Leavenworth street. My poll results were unanimous so, clearly …

    So, Interested Poo, did the LJS poll provide a “margin of error”? Didn’t think so. And so you bring it up because why?

  81. Interested Observer says:

    Anonymostly, you’re most welcome. I’m just glad that I can help out by showing you nice people some things that you might not notice on your own. We all do what we can.

  82. Anonymostly says:

    Hey, RWP, I know you’ve long complained about the LJS habit of omitting race when describing crime suspects. You’ve even suggested that such omissions could pose dangers to the innocent public. I have a question for you: Have you heard about a situation in which black male in his mid-30s has been driving around rural Lancaster County driving a specified body-style and color of car, breaking into rural homes to rob them? This black individual is considered armed and dangerous? Have you heard anything about this?

    I haven’t seen it in the media but a friend who lives in rural Lancaster County told me that the police have informed him to be on the lookout. Seriously, has this been reported in the media anywhere and I’ve just missed it?

  83. RWP says:

    I’ve heard a little. There were several home invasions/burglaries around Davey last week. Some people were home when i happened. I hadn’t heard there was a perp description. But you’re right, if it were a black male, th LJS would simply censor that detail. And it’s not racist to say that around most of rural Lancaster Co., a black male would be relatively unusual.

    He’s living dangerously. Most of us out here are armed.

  84. Deborah says:

    I saw the debate tonight. I’m a registered independent who doesn’t pay close attention to politics until it gets close to election time, so I am no expert on politics. With that caveat, in my opinion Mr. Kerrey won tonight. He seemed to have a better grasp and understanding of the issues. I am not thrilled with the Democratic party, but some of the social issues on the far right scare me even more. My mind is subject to change, but as it stands now, I’m with Kerrey.

  85. Scott Lautenbaugh says:

    Talking to more and more people in media and not, online and not. The Kerrey supporters think he did well. The Fischer supporters (like myself) think she did very well ( and some -like myself- think Kerrey seemed a little petulant and maybe even whiny sometimes). The non-partisans I talk to say they both did well. All of this, again, adds up to a big win for Fischer. Anyone who knows Deb never bought the whole line about how she couldn’t stand on the same stage with the great Bob Kerrey. She blew that myth away today for the few who ever believed it in the first place. I don’t see how this can be spun otherwise.

  86. Anonymous says:

    BTO was a honest liberal democrat blogging under his own name. He took a pseudonym to keep from being harassed but he is the sailor he talks about as IO. IO’s sentences are Brian’s. a liberal democrat posing as a conservative republican rancher. Anonymity gave him the ability to lie but he didn’t have to go that way. This is what people sink to when they have candidates so bad they cannot support them honestly. So if Kerrey really won the debate maybe IO goes away and BTO returns.

  87. RWP says:

    In the clips I saw Deb looked confident and polished. Kerrey looked frenetic and grouchy. Petulant is a good word. He has this obsession we can’t return federal spending of 18% of GDP, which was the level it was when he left the Senate, though he’s clearly unaware of that.

    He needed a win, and he got at best a tie.

  88. Whatever says:

    Deb is out of her league. She didn’t even know that there are illegal immigrants serving in our military. Many died in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in this debate she tried to stick to the tired old talking points that we’ve heard from every Republican candidate for 3 decades, and that have no actual substance to them. Bob, at least, showed he had a true grasp of the issues and spoke his mind.

  89. Macdaddy says:

    Whatever, if there are illegal immigrants in the military, then they got one past the DoD, because by law they can’t serve. I didn’t see the debate, but if Kerrey is claiming that they can serve, then he is just repeating a tired, bulls*** argument that the pro-amnesty people like to toss out to try to tug at our heart strings and trick people onto their side. In order for an illegal immigrant to serve, they would have to undertake quite a bit of forgery and fraud. Those who get through will be exceedingly rare exceptions. Therefore, Deb is right and Kerrey is a political huckster.

  90. Anonymous says:

    Kerry did not say that “illegal” aliens are serving in our military. He did say that aliens are, and that is a fact. They have been doing so for decades. Why do some of you insist on twisting facts to fit your biases?

  91. Anonymous says:

    The German magazine Der Spiegel, in an October 2007 article, stated, “Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has granted US citizenship to 32,500 foreign soldiers. In July 2002, US President George W. Bush issued an executive order to expand existing legislation to offer a fast track to citizenship to foreigners who agree to fight for the US Armed Forces. About 8,000 non-Americans have joined the US military every year since then.”
    Deb Fischer is absolutely clueless on so many issues. The one about “illegal” aliens serving in our military is but one of them. No wonder she doesn’t want to debate Bob Kerrey any more than she has to.

  92. AnOnYmOuS says:

    Is it just me or has my post from last night been removed? Why? It was completely appropriate. Apparently SS doesn’t like criticism?

  93. Lil Mac says:

    The nice thing about Biden’s stupidity and Obama’s social relativism is that it is sincere. They ignore reality while embracing socialist fantasy. One’s stupidity and the other’s upbringing in a psycho-politik freak show, has in effect prompted Joe and Barry to drop their drawers, bend over, and let the public get a good look up inside the Socialist ass of the Democratic donkey. It ain’t pretty.

    Voters want to like these two guys, just like voters want to like Bob Kerrey, just like we want to like Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms, the dentist pulling out his own tooth, in The Hangover. The problem is, the charm of personable idiots diminishes when you move from enjoying the entertainment of tag team mudslinging, to having to actually vote for guys who will chug a mug of their own urine to prove some hazy point. But this is good in the long run because voters have to learn in order for government to improve.

    Obama and his angry monkey “Plugs” are a dose of the salts about to split the donkey with explosive diarrhea, and out will fly all its disingenuous crap –including Bob– that has bound and crippled a Democratic Party its old-timers remember as having been at times a noble, intelligent force for good.

    Kerrey is a New Yorker who out-Obamacares Obamacare. Nebraskans have always wanted to like Bob, but now he’s asking Nebraska voters to chug a mug of NYC urine. So it’s bye bye for Bob too

  94. Like so many liberal idiots, the commenters who added posts #116 & #120 can’t tell the difference between an ‘illegal immigrant’ and a ‘non-resident alien’. Just because those soldiers were ‘foreign’ or ‘non-Americans’, doesn’t mean they were illegal. They were, like any GOOD immigrant, likely residing in our country in accordance with our laws, but had yet to obtain citizenship.

    You see, those are the kind of people that we conservatives don’t mind letting in…the kind that come here and follow the rules. It’s a difficult concept for liberals to wrap their brain around, I understand, so I’m not going to spend the next three hours explaining it. I’d be wasting my time and theirs.

  95. Macdaddy says:

    I read the quote by Kerrey that he will challenge Harry Reid as much as he will annoy Mitch McConnell. Apparently he thinks that makes him sound even-handed and wise. Unfortunately for him, we know his record and how the Senate works. It makes him sound like an amateur liar. After supporting and voting for Dirty Harry Reid as Majority Leader, his lifetime ACU rating of 8 lets us know Kerrey will say one thing for the rubes back in Nebraska and vote for his neighbors in DC.

  96. Anonymous says:

    Any President who stoops to damning an opponent’s convention before it happens has to have the most flaccid tiny wiener and shriveled raisins in the history of politics.

  97. West O voter says:

    Dave Nabity will win this race hands down. He doesn’t have the skeletons in the closet like the other candidates

  98. Anonymous says:

    And you know this about Nabity because you have been inside all of his closets? Nabity could have birthed a child, ate it, and had a sex change and it wouldn’t be on his resume. But you know he has no faults or hidden things because God told you? Or what? The guy is running for a job that manages public policy not sainthood. And it is well meaning buttheads like you who make it bad for every Republican office holder who falls short of being a celestial being. Hell man, it a management job. And later when his closet opens and out pops some minor crap, after all of your blabbing about his sainthood, it cripples him from doing the policy work we need him to do.

  99. Lil Mac says:

    Dad, good point. But I see this as perhaps more and worse than just Kerrey lying to gain power. When Kerrey frames his main role as challenging Harry Reid and annoying Mitch McConnell, he seems to be running the “Insufferable Asshole” ticket. Is that what Kerrey and Democrats really think is the role of a U. S. Senator? I find Congress as frustrating as everyone else does, but good government has to come from something more positive than just a gigantic F-U. Bob Kerrey has a terrible image of Nebraska voters. And it is so similar to the image his wife put out in Vogue. Maybe she got her condescending hatred of Nebraska voters from him.

  100. Macdaddy says:

    Lil Mac, that’s a great description of Kerrey’s constituency. Kerrey is advertising himself as the least likely to get things done Senator. And he’ll end up kissing Reid’s a$$ and voting against Nebraska values.

  101. Anonymous says:

    Grundle King – the problem is that Deb Fischer, not Bob Kerrey, is the one that confused “illegal aliens” with “non-resident aliens.” Therefore Deb is the idiot, as are you.

  102. I was responding to this…

    #116: ” She didn’t even know that there are illegal immigrants serving in our military.”

    Post #120 is so disjointed it’s hard to tell what point he/she is attempting to make, so maybe I should have left them out of my response. Clearly #116 hasn’t a clue of the difference.

  103. Anonymostly says:

    I didn’t see the debate, but, according to IO, 80% of Democrats voting online in some journal star poll thought Deb Fischer made the best points during the debate. Clearly, it’s a scientific poll with a high degree of reliability (why else would IO have gone to the trouble to trumpet the results?) therefore we can clearly declare Deb Fischer the winner of the election right now. It’s in the bag. Bob has to get damn near 100% of Dems to vote for him plus a healthy share of Republicans and if he can’t even get all the Dems (represented by those who post on the LJS website) to support him.

  104. Interested Observer says:

    What I ACTUALLY said was, “Interested Observer August 25, 2012 at 6:19 PM

    The Lincoln Journal-Star debate article has a poll at the end.

    Who do you think made the best points?
    Deb Fischer (30%)
    Bob Kerrey (70%)

    How in the world does Animosity come up that that perverted distortion of my comment?

  105. Anonymous says:

    Again it’s NOT about bobby actually getting elected! It is ALL about driving up voter turnout in the 2nd CD for Obama. If Obama wins a 2 nd CD bobby get a new plush job as some ambassador or such. That was the meeting subject with Sen Ried….. Hey Cosmic Bob you go out and stir up the 2nd CD in Nebraska and if we win…..hehhehhhe.

  106. Anonymostly says:

    IO, the part YOU LEFT OUT is also important. And that part is that the comments section of the LJS website is absolutely DOMINATED by leftists. Everyone can see what you actually wrote. My point, which anyone with a brain could easily discern from the context, is that only an irritating ass would post those results on here and act as though they were the least bit meaningful.

  107. Anonymostly says:

    I should rephrase what I just wrote. The part that IO left out isn’t also important. Rather, it’s the only thing that is important about what IO wrote because what he left out was the context. The meaning. What he posted was worthless without the context. And it’s actually less than worthless with the context because, without the context, it leaves (and was meant to leave) an impression that is inaccurate. IO wants you to think that 70% of Nebraskans think Bob Kerrey kicked Deb Fischer’s ass in that debate. In reality, since that on-line, unscientific poll at the LJS is undoubtedly skewed heavily in favor of Democrats, those results are completely unreliable and not predictive of anything.

    But that’s IO’s stock in trade: Give you only a portion of the story but present it as though you’re getting a full picture so that you’re left with a false impression. Where I come from, we call such people “liars.”

  108. “Grundle King – the only thing disjointed is you. Maybe you should smoke one, it could clear your mind.”

    No thanks, I have no interest in pondering the reason why the word ‘dog’ isn’t spelled ‘c-a-t’.

  109. Anonymous says:

    Grundle King – Why wouldn’t you choose to use alternative spellings? You readily accept an alternate universe – one in which reality is suspended.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.