New Fischer ad from EndingSpending

Joe Rickett’s EndingSpending group has a new ad out in favor of Deb Fischer.

It features Nebraska Legislature Speaker Mike Flood, State Senator (and Air Force Veteran) Bob Krist and Stanton, Nebraska Mayor Colleen Paden.

Good piece for the closing week.

See it here:


  1. Nebraska Lawyer says:

    I’ve been following this Fischer v. Kerrey discussion about the land dispute and, as a lawyer, I think I can provide some perspective that has been sorely lacking.

    Here is Interested Observer from yesterday:

    Interested Observer October 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM

    Since Senator Johanns is an attorney, he should know that an Adverse Possession action is the hostile attempt to take land belonging to another. Has the Senator actually read the lawsuit and the ruling?

    Is the Senator endorsing taking your neighbor’s land? We in the Third District would like an answer to that.

    Actually, Interested Observer, you completely mischaracterize the law of adverse possession, as does the Kerrey campaign in its ads. It’s not a hostile attempt to dispossess someone of their land. The law of adverse possession developed as a means of quieting title to land where the deeded owner could clearly be said to have abandoned it.

    We don’t allow people to just go around randomly grabbing other people’s lands. But if someone has been using the land as though it was, in fact, theirs (openly, notoriously, exclusively and under a claim of right) for a specified (lengthy — 10 years in Nebraska) period of time, then the law says we should just call it theirs rather than the title owner who, by that point, could be said to have abandoned it.

    Kerrey implies this process is some sort of mysterious and obscure legal maneuver. It’s not. It absolutely is not. I can tell you that the rules of adverse possession are among the first things you learn in law school. It is a principle of common law that has existed for centuries. And it’s in Chapter 1 of the first year property text, right after you learn that possession is nine tenths of the law.

    By the way, Interested Observer, I don’t know if Sen. Johanns has read the lawsuit, but I have. I have also read every single page of every deposition posted on Kerrey’s website and I’ve read the court’s ruling and I disagree with much of what you and the Kerrey campaign have stated.

    More to follow.

  2. Macdaddy says:

    I’m not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I concur with the above post. I also wonder if IO and Bob Kerrey got permission from either Les or Betty Kime to use this against Deb Fischer. If so, did they do a seance or use a ouija board?

  3. Nebraska Lawyer says:

    I am not a conservative republican rancher. I am not a liberal democrate either. I am a registered independent who thinks both sides political gamesmanship that I find objectionable. For instance, when the Republicans were in the process of trying to impeach President Clinton, I was among those in favor of just Moving On.

    In this Fischer v. Kerrey election, it is my neutral impression that the partisan gamesmanship has been played almost exclusively by the Kerrey campaign. And I think the hits have been below the belt. Here again is Interested Observer from yesterday:

    Interested Observer October 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM

    Would Senator Johanns please state specifically which facts are wrong?

    Again, I’m not Senator Johanns, but I can definitively tell you one of the facts that is absolutely, incontrovertably wrong with what the pro-Kerrey ads have said. And that is that there was a “gentleman’s agreement” by which the Kimes allowed the Fischers to graze their lands free of charge for however long a period of time. That simply is NOT true. There is not one single shred of evidence in the case that supports that conclusion. NOT ONE.

    At one point in time, there was possibly a gentlemen’s agreement in place with regard to the subject property but it was not an agreement between the Fischers and the Kimes but, instead, if an agreement existed at all, it was between the Arnolds and the Sawyers. And neither the Fischers nor the Kimes were parties to this agreement, NOR were they even aware of it. This is absolutely incontrovertable.

    Some background is necessary at this point. Elizabeth Kime testified under oath in her deposition that she purchased some and inherited other parts of the Snake Falls Ranch from her father, George K. Sawyer. (Their neighbor was Tom Arnold whose land was eventually purchased by the Fischer family in 1971.) The extent of her knowledge about this alleged “gentlemen’s agreement” was that in approximately 1935 when she was approximately 23 years old, Mr. Arnold met with her father. She was not privy to the discussion and does not know what was said. There are no writings that she was aware of that memorialized the discussion. However, after the discussion, Mr. Arnold erected a fence along an area that, by survey, would have been part of the Sawyer holdings.

    That fence was built in 1935 and Mr. Arnold began pasturing his cattle in that area from that point on. Mrs. Kime assumes that there was some sort of gentlemen’s agreement by which her father allowed the Arnolds to use that land free of charge. Arnold needed access to water because there weren’t enough windmills in his holdings in the Federal forest to satisfy his needs and this fence allowed his cattle greater access to the river.

    Again, Mrs. Kime assumed that this was simply a gentlemen’s agreement but she wasn’t a party to the discussion and no record of what was agreed exists. It is equally plausible that Arnold purchased that 100 acres (+/-) area and simply failed to get it recorded with the register of deeds. But the fact is that a fence was erected. And the Sawyers acquiesced to the location of the fence. The Arnolds (and later the Fischers) used the land to the west of the fence and the Sawyers (and later the Kimes) used the area to the east. This is incontrovertable.

    It is further incontrovertable that no such gentlemen’s agreement existed between the Fischers and the Kimes. In fact, Elizabeth Kime, whose father was her predecessor in ownership, testified under oath that she was not even aware that they, they Kimes, owned land to the west of the fence (the disputed land involved in the suit) until the Fischers had bought the old Arnold property. In Elizabeth Kime’s deposition, there is a discussion about when Elizabeth became aware that the disputed land belonged to them.

    On page 17, line 2, the opposing attorney asks, “Do you remember when that would have been when you started to realize that that was your property?” Elizabeth struggles to remember when she first became aware of her ownership of the disputed lands and the opposing counsel prompts her, “Was Mr. Arnold still the owner? And Elizabeth Kime responds, “No, that would have had to have been after him.” The next question is, “Do you think it was when the Fischers owned it?” And, on page 18, line 7 of her deposition under oath, Elizabeth Kime answers, “It would have to be.”

    So, how can the Kimes have had an agreement for the Fischers to use land that the owner, Betty Kime, didn’t even realize belonged to them? The answer is they can’t. And Kerrey’s claims (and Interested Observers claims) to the contrary are clearly false.

    More to follow when time permits.

  4. Assassins Creed says:

    I respect this strategy of Bob Kerrey’s. Burn your opponents village so-to-speak to the ground and cover-up your involvement. This guy must have dome this before.

  5. Chris Scott says:

    Might wanna check the IP addresses. Not me attacking the YRs. In all honesty fighting over YR leadership is small potatoes and not even remotely on my radar. You clearly think too highly of yourself. Gotta go and prep for an interview!


  6. To stuff nobody says: says:

    Safe bet few voters know these three on sheer name recognition. But Speaker, State Senator, Retired Lt Colonel USAF, Former Democrat, Mayor of Stanton – all who know and love Deb Fischer. It is a nice bouquet of voter cred.

    So sorry for you if you are sour grapes because you don’t rank anywhere between getting on camera- to having any say in who does get on camera – to anyone thinking your lame post is insightful.

  7. Interested Observer says:

    OK, so this new ad says that Kerrey is distorting Deb Fischer’s record but then it doesn’t actually say how that is happening or what it actually is that is “distorting”. Also, the ad refuses to clarify why anything from Kerrey is not accurate. Why is that?

  8. Macdaddy says:

    IO, I applaud you for having the courage to post here while Nebraska Lawyer is burning your contentions down around your ears. I’m thinking maybe you were out and out lying about knowing the Kimes. Seems like you were lying about knowing details of the case. So, did Les and Betty Kimes give you permission to use them in your vendetta against Deb Fischer? Please answer.

  9. Anonymous says:

    In the end all that matters is Kerrey leave…….. just go. Maybe BO will have some room in his u-haul to give you a hand…….

    What a joke the Kerrey effort has been from the day he set his suitcases back in Nebraska. He is just an old, bitter fool who took one more fight he never had to take. Whats great about it is not only did he soil his posterity, but he really soiled the D brand in Nebraska for a long time. What between Benedict and Old Dick they are toast for quite a while.

  10. Nebraska Lawyer says:

    Hopefully, this will be my third and final post on the matter. Maybe there will be more. But, as far as some of the legal issues relating to Fischer v. Kime:

    1. I do not buy this claim that the Kimes spent $40,000 on legal fees. These were not metropolitan-area lawyers. You’re not talking some white shoe Omaha law firm that might charge $200/hour. This is just a guess, but in 1995, I’d be surprised if the attorneys were charging much more than $100/hour. If the Kimes were paying more than $100/hour, they overspent. So, let’s say they paid $100/hour. The trial itself was pretty simple. No jury, which streamlines things. If this trial took more than 3 days, I’d be shocked.

    Figure maybe 20 hours of trial prep in the week before and 30 hours to try the case (10 hour days x 3) and you’ve got 50 hours. That’s $5K in attorneys fees and that would be the bulk of it. You have two days for depositions. That’s another ~$1500. Answering discovery probably took 2-3 hours but we’ll give them credit for 5. So, now we’re up to $7,000? Driving up there, initial meeting with the clients and walking the area to familiarize yourself with it. Ten hours for that?

    Drafting discovery requests and reviewing their responses? Maybe another 2-3 hours … if there was a LOT of paperwork involved. Pre-trial conference with the judge would be maybe another 10 hour day if they had to appear in person and that would include travel time and preparation. Miscellaneous phone calls and drafting and reviewing correspondence, maybe another 2-3 hours? That’s a grand total of $10,000 in legal fees. Even if they charged a substantial $150/hour, that’s still only $15,000 in fees.

    I find this claim of $40,000 in legal fees for this fairly uncomplicated case to be absolutely preposterous.

    2. The Fischers’ lawyers were disappointments. And I’m being charitable. The only real glimpse into their work was during the depositions. Warren Argenbright was seriously no more effective than a potted plant during the depositions. I don’t think he asked a single question or voiced a single objection. And there were many areas where questions and objections were needed.

    For instance, during Bruce Fischer’s deposition, Deborah Gilg committed one of my absolute pet peeves for lawyers taking depositions and that was to ask a question of a lay witness using legal terminology and expecting some kind of useful or informed answer. A claim for advserse possession involves establishing what we call a prima facie case. Each of the elements of that prima facie case is a legal term of art that has specific legal meaning and so when Deb Gilg asks Bruce Fischer at what point in time his interests became “adverse” to the Kimes, he needed to understand what that term meant as it relates to the claim.

    He understands the facts of his own case, of course, but he might not understand the term “adverse” as it is defined legally. In fact, during the deposition, he clearly didn’t. This should have prompted an objection from either of the two attorneys auspiciously there to represent the Fischers but neither objected and Bruce was pushed into an answer that was clearly not an accurate reflection of his contentions in the case. This came back to haunt them and I’ll get to that later, time permitting.

    So, neither lawyer objected to this line of questioning. The proper objectionsw would have been both to form and foundation. And I would have asked the witness, “Bruce, do you understand what she means when she says ‘adverse’?” After he gave the answer he gave — which was that, as far as he understood, the interests became adverse when he discovered in roughly 1995 that the Kimes claimed to own property he thought he owned — his lawyers should have clarified at the time of the deposition during their chance to inquire by asking Bruce what he meant when he said “adverse.”

    The answer actually depends on whether the disputed property was deeded to the Kimes. If it was, then his interests were “adverse” the moment he bought his land and started using the disputed property. But Bruce thought the land was actually his until the Kimes claimed otherwise. And, in that case, as Bruce sees it, his interests aren’t adverse because the land would be his. Unfortunately, this gaffe on the lawyers’ part came back to bite the Fischers.

    3. Which leads me to the judge’s order. Judge Cassel is a decent judge but I think he really blew this call. In my view, from reading all the depositions and other material the Kerrey campaign has posted, this was a very clear case of adverse possession. I’m not sure the Fischers’ attorneys did a good job of making a record for appellate review, but I would have been tempted to appeal the court’s decision. It was flawed.

    Without getting too detailed, he messed up the analysis of hearsay with regard to the admissibility of the existence of this gentlemen’s agreement between the Sawyers and the Arnolds. But that should have been a moot issue as the Fischers should not have needed to bootstrap off of the Arnolds’ potential adverse possession claims.

    The evidence clearly reflects that a fence was constructed within the Kimes’ deeded property. It also clearly reflects that the Kimes did NOT use the area of the property to the west of that fence and that the Fischers did. And had for at least 25 years. Further, the evidence is undisputed that the Kimes never gave permission to the Fischers to use the land (which is an essential element in the case.) In fact, both Betty and Les testified in their depositions that neither of them ever spoke to the Fischers about their use of the land to the west of the fence that had been installed by Arnold in 1935. Everyone had treated that fence as the property boundary for 60 years by the time this case came to trial.

    Where Cassel gets crossed up is in looking at the element of “exclusive.” In my opinion, he gave inordinate weight to the fact that the lands were sometimes hunted and fished by other people. The fact that there is occasional use by others of a subject property, which use is not in conflict with the dominant use of the person asserting the adverse possession claim, should not defeat an adverse possession claim in my opinion. In this case, it did. Moreover, Cassel inappropriately applied the “non-exclusive” analysis to other elements of the adverse possession discussion.

    Finally, I think Cassel really botched his analysis of the import of Bruce’s deposition testimony that I discussed above. He basically determines that Bruce has made admissions against his interest when, in his deposition, he stated his claim wasn’t “adverse” (the opposite of which would be “permissive”) until 1995. I read the deposition. Bruce made it very clear he didn’t understand the question. His lawyers didn’t object and didn’t clarify — which I think were big mistakes — but, still, the judge should have been able to see that the answer was not based on a legal understanding of what the term “adverse” meant. He should have given the answer no weight at all and, in my view, was mistaken for having done so.

    Basically, the facts are these: This was ranch land and that was the primary ownership use; there was a fence that existed on the property at the time the Fischers bought their place; they used the area circumscribed by the fence as though it was theirs for as long as they owned the adjacent land and the Kimes did not use it during that timeframe; and the Kimes admitted they were aware of the use and never gave their permission for it. It was open and notorious, continuous, adverse to the Kimes’ interests, and under a claim of right (to the extent Bruce Fischer testified he believed the old Arnold fence represented the boundary of the property for as long as he had owned it).

    This was not a frivolous claim. It was not a “land grab.” This was the Fischers attempting to secure a boundary that both the Fischers and the Kimes acted as though it was the legal boundary between the two ranches. And the Fischers should have won. Period.

  11. Anonymous says:

    So Kerrey is still a douche bag and maybe the IRS should investigate the $40,000.00 claim to see if taxes were paid by Gilg?

    Maybe the dolt in charge of the D party, the atty, Vinny Powers knows something about this?

  12. Interested Observer says:

    WOW, Nebraska “lawyer”, now you ARE challenging Nebraska Supreme Court Justice, William Cassel’s decision in DEB FI$CHER’S failed lawsuit here. Are you throwing everybody under the bus now, well, except for Deb?

    You’re also throwing United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska Deb Gilg under the bus. How is it that you know SO much more about this case than these 2 very highly qualified individuals who were actually present during all the proceedings?

    Nice arrogance! Too bad Deb didn’t have you working for her then, like you seem to be now.

  13. Macdaddy says:

    Thank you, Nebraska Lawyer, for blasting IO’s lies. I don’t know if you read this blog regularly, but IO has been wasting everybody’s time for months with what are clearly made up facts.

    IO, you are a poseur who never knew the Kimes. My guess is that you work for the Kerrey campaign and Kerrey should be ashamed that he ever hired you.

    Matt Hansen of the BWH must be a cub reporter. IO took him for a ride. His editors are either incompetent or too lazy to care about the facts of the last straw that Kerrey was clutching.

    Nebraska Lawyer, thank you again for your time, effort, and insight.

  14. Interested Observer says:

    Nebraska “lawyer”, you do realize that DEB FI$CHER lost the lawsuit, don’t you? Judge Cassel’s ruling said in Findings:

    2. “A party claiming title through adverse possession must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the adverse possessor has been in actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious and adverse possession under the claim of ownership for the statutory period of 10 years.”
    3. Actual “The use by the plaintiffs is sufficient to constitute actual use as required by the statute.”
    4. Continuous “The court concludes that, as to these particular tracts and under the particular patterns of usage, the plaintiffs have not sustained their burden to show the continuous usage for the statutory period.”
    5. Exclusive “The plaintiffs have not established exclusive use for the statutory period.”
    6. Notorious ” . . . the plaintiffs have failed to establish that their usage was notorious as to both of the predominant uses of the property.”
    7. Adverse “The court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to establish adverse use for the full statutory period.”
    8. Claim of Ownership “The court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a claim of ownership for the full statutory period.”
    9. 10-year Period ” . . . the plaintiffs have failed to establish that all of the elements existed at the same time for a continuous ten-year period after they acquired the property in 1971.” and ” . . . the plaintiffs failed to establish adverse use by the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-title.”
    11. “The plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of proof. The defendants are entitled to judgement in their favor.”

    1. The plaintiffs petition is dismissed with prejudice.
    2. The defendants, Leslie S. Kime and Elizabeth S. Kime, . . . are the owners . . . of the following described real estate . . .

  15. Macdaddy says:

    Deb Fischer lost the lawsuit and IO lost the argument. I bet it really galls you that in a week and a half we’re going to be calling her Senator-elect Deb Fischer.

    BTW, did any of the Kimes give you permission to use them for Bob Kerrey’s political gain?

  16. Interested Observer says:

    In Bruce Fischer’s deposition, he stated “So I’m not disputing that the purchase didn’t include this, but it, nonetheless, was still part of the purchase.” in describing the 105 acres he and DEB FI$CHER were trying to take from the Kime’s. That’s kind of twisted logic.

  17. Interested Observer says:

    Macdaddy, DEB FI$CHER’S failed lawsuit occurred in open court and the records of that failed lawsuit are a matter of public record. Deb’s treatment of the Kime’s is now in the public domain and therefore no permission is needed. But since you bring up this question, did the Kime’s give YOU permission to use them for political gain? At least I’ve known the Kime’s my whole life, very well and personally visited them at their ranch many times.

  18. Interested Observer says:

    Also, my 1967 Cherry County plat map very clearly shows the Arnold land exactly where it was when FI$CHER’S bought it and the map very clearly shows the Kime land exactly were it was when DEB FI$CHER filed her failed lawsuit to try to take the land from Kime’s. All Deb had to do was to simply look at the map.

  19. Anonymous says:


    Employ a lawyer if you want to argue with the lawyer above.
    His (or her) point is that 1995 is the wrong date to judge from (and the judge shouldn’t have used that date). Bruce Fischer’s mention of that date in any legal sense was wrong, but him not being a lawyer, it should not have been given any weight.

    But moreover, this shows that it was very much a legitimate dispute.

    But you will come back here and tell us that Deb is mean or whatever the next misogynistic thing is you can come up with. It will be nice to see you gone after Election Day.

  20. Lil Mac says:

    I appreciate Lawyer’s keen argument, yet 2,555 words is a lot of effort to say the liar is lying, especially since Kerrey uses the term “Adverse Possession” only because it sounds bad. He isn’t making a legal point. He is throwing turds to see if they stick. To dissect the legality of Kerrey’s fence lie as being a lie, when NY Bob began his candidacy by lying to Democrat Hassebrook and then gutting him, is a waste of legal insight, akin to a wine aficionado sniffing a turd and declaring it stinks. Of course Kerrey is lying. He never stopped lying. Just ask Hassebrook.

    Speaking of lying, a national headline today says “Obama up 4 percentage points over Romney in Ohio”. 50/46. Really? No, not really. — This CNN poll questioned “1,009 Ohio adults, including 896 registered voters and 741 likely voters”. That means 113 were not registered to vote and 155 of those who were registered are unlikely to vote. In sum, 27% of those questioned won’t vote. CNN hired a fake poll to spin its losing buddy Barry upwards. — To what purpose such lies?

    Polls already skew Obama upwards due to oversampling on 2008 turnout and pollsters stupidly disregard a Bradley Effect that kicks in only when Obama has negatives, and Obama is nothing but negatives this year. All this inflation, purposeful or inadvertent, means the day after Nov 6, Obama’s lower numbers will seem stunning. But the lies don’t impact the outcome; they only skew the polls today. It is a like Kerrey hitting Fischer’s family, which lowers Fischer some but it lowers Kerrey more. Its pointless.

    We are left wondering if Democrats in 2012 are being driven by a suicidal Obama-esque urge to double down. This is Progressive Social Liberalism at its least reasoned and most damaging. It seems like their shame of America’s success has turned inward against themselves. Good. Let them implode.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Lawyers! They are the bastards that write the laws that allow them, and the people that hire them, to rape, plunder and pillage the average citizen. Then the sons of bitches come on here defending what they do because it is “legal.”
    Is it any wonder that the most of the people running our political parties, and are the candidates for those parties, are — lawyers?

  22. Anonymous says:

    For a bunch of fools that screamed bloody murder about the “rule of law” when President Clinton had a hard time keeping his horse in the barn, you are falling all over yourselves to defend the legality, and morality, of the Fischers’ attempt to steal their neighbor’s land.
    The kind of “law” being discussed is the kind that lawyers love. It makes owning your own stuff, even if you’ve owned it your entire lifetime, questionable. How would you guys like for your neighbors to be able to “legally” sell your car to a fly by night auto stripper just because you let them drive your car a couple of times and they “legally” had the keys in their possession?

  23. Macdaddy says:

    IO, you were the one who dragged the Kimes into this. You traded on their reputations to try to smear Deb Fischer. You were the one who claimed you were friends with them, not me. Now it turns out that all you know about them is a very sloppy reading of court documents. You are a fake. You obviously work for the Kerrey campaign and I will give you points for planning and creativity, but ultimately what you have been doing is cheap and disgusting. Kerrey should be ashamed for hiring you.

  24. These Little Town Blues says:

    I got push polled today about this very fence issue. The caller ID said New York, New York. Must have been one of Kerrey’s neighbors.

  25. To: Nebraska Lawyer– Thank you for your detailed, logical refutation of these Kerrey ads. You expanded on something I pointed out elsewhere: Some, like IO and Bob Kerrey, seem to argue this was a frivolous law suit– a mere land grab. Frivolous lawsuits don’t go to trial– they get dismissed on summary judgment (sometimes with sanctions– like paying the other side’s fees). Further, frivolous suits don’t cost $40,000 (in 1990’s dollars, mind you) to defend. It is absurd.

    And all of this leaves aside the false ad about the bill in the Legislature, the non-existent conflict, and its effect on the sale of the land in question (which was none). I suppose this is what people who are way behind feel like they have to do to try to catch up, but it really doesn’t fit with how the Kerrey supporters portray their guy.

  26. Question for Senator Lautenbaugh says:

    Thank you for your service. I have a legal question however. Could Brenda Council claim adverse possession on her campaign donations. If the money sits in her back account long enough wouldn’t it be assumed to be hers and therefore would be able to legally used for gambling!

  27. Anonymous says:

    @ Scott Lautenbaugh,
    Would your “expert” advice be the same were the tables turned? Somehow I doubt it. No need to answer, we already know what a partisan tool you are.
    @ Question for Senator Lautenbaugh,
    The joke is that Republicans will defend to their death that what the Fischers did to their neighbors was “legal”, completely disregarding the morality of it, and will swear that it is nothing but a campaign trick by the Kerrey camp. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be screaming bloody murder.
    As for Brenda’s dilemma, I think you might have hit on a good defense for her. After all, if it’s good enough for a Republican, it should be good enough for a Democrat. But, then again, we all know what hypocrites you all are. You’re always saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

  28. Interested Observer says:

    Nebraska “lawyer”, what’s up with the clip on bow ties? Also, why are you so critical of Judge Cassel? You DO remember, don’t you, that he was appointed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals by Republican Governor Mike Johanns and then he was appointed to the Nebraska Supreme Court by Republican Governor Dave Heineman? I sure hope you aren’t saying that BOTH Johanns and Heineman didn’t know what they were doing when they both appointed Judge Cassel to higher positions?

    As I recall, DEB FI$CHER was about the only person in the entire State of Nebraska who opposed Judge Cassel BOTH times he was nominationed! Man, she can sure hold a grudge!

  29. Lil Mac says:

    You can represent yourself in a court of law. You can also cut your own hair and sew your own clothes. Good luck with that. When you get your tit in a wringer, suddenly a lawyer is useful. Are they slimy? Shakespeare thought so. But even The Bard used lawyers when he needed them.

    More to the point, I agree that practicing law is very, very different from lawmaking and from executive leadership; as different as driving a car is from designing a car or being the CEO of a car company.

    You don’t learn anything in law school that lends special ability to crafting law or being a chief executive. Legislation requires a broad grasp of life that doesn’t come from immersion in cloistered courts. And the leadership of a Governor or a President doesn’t come from a lawyer “leading” a few secretaries, for that is light supervision not even management; or, in Obama’s case, Barry working for his wife. Don’t get me wrong, law school is good. It sharpens the mind. But it is sauce not meat.

    But fret not, for Kerrey has a BS in Pharmacy and Fischer has a BS in Education. Neither is a lawyer.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Fischer above Kerrey by 16, among likely voters a 14 pt lead. 52% favorability for Fischer, 49% UNfavorable for Kerrey. Votes respect Fischer as much as they think Kerrey stinks. Kerrey has not budged an inch since he fannounced his candidacy. If anything, he has lost ground.

    Kerrey won’t quit, but if he keeps running these attack ads to the bitter end, he will forever damage his reputation in Nebraska, like Hagel did. Coincidentially both Chuck and Bob ended up pissing in their own shoes for sake of helping out that clueless crackpot Obama.

  31. Anonymous says:

    @ Lil Mac,
    Nice words you threw together to make a tasty tossed salad, but my comments about lawyers weren’t directed at Mr. Kerrey, nor Mrs. Fischer. They were directed at the the self proclaimed “Nebraska Lawyer” that suffers diarrhea of the keyboard.
    And yet, you don’t address the issues I have with lawyers and politics. Why is it that the overwhelming majority of officers within both the NEGOP and the NDP are all lawyers? Why is it that far too many of the federal and statewide candidates advanced for our consideration come from the legal profession? Is there a conspiracy involving this herd of barristers? Do they do with politics as they do with justice, deciding everything that happens to the rest of us over a game of golf?

  32. Inept Hubby says:

    Nebraska Lawyer did a GREAT job of explaining the details of the Fischer / Kimes boundary dispute to us non-lawyers. My take away includes:

    1. Boundary disputes are common.
    2. $40k in legal fees is false.
    3. [Fischer’s attorney did a poor job.]

    I feel sorry for IO.

  33. Anonymostly says:

    IO sez: “As I recall, DEB FI$CHER was about the only person in the entire State of Nebraska who opposed Judge Cassel BOTH times he was nominationed! Man, she can sure hold a grudge!

    Yeah, well, you know for grudges, doncha IO?

    Exactly which are you, the pot or the kettle?

  34. Interested Observer says:

    Why don’t you people just read the Omaha World Herald articles in the Sunday paper that is already available in Omaha. Front page article talks about a new poll with a statistical dead heat. Inside, full page article talks about a Valentine resident going on the record telling how he had a deal to buy the Kime property and the FI$CHER property from DEB FI$CHER BEFORE the lawsuit ever happened!

  35. Anonymostly says:

    Anonymous October 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM wrote:

    @ Lil Mac,
    Nice words you threw together to make a tasty tossed salad, but my comments about lawyers weren’t directed at Mr. Kerrey, nor Mrs. Fischer. They were directed at the the self proclaimed “Nebraska Lawyer” that suffers diarrhea of the keyboard.
    And yet, you don’t address the issues I have with lawyers and politics. Why is it that the overwhelming majority of officers within both the NEGOP and the NDP are all lawyers? Why is it that far too many of the federal and statewide candidates advanced for our consideration come from the legal profession? Is there a conspiracy involving this herd of barristers? Do they do with politics as they do with justice, deciding everything that happens to the rest of us over a game of golf?

    So, exactly which offices have you run for, irascible anonymous quoted above? I didn’t get any memo saying only lawyers could run for office. Apparently you did. Instead of bitching about it, though, here’s a novel idea: why don’t you run for some elected position? Hmmm?

    That’s a really strange thing to complain about, by the way. Especially considering that neither of the two candidates involved in this discussion are lawyers and the person in this thread who identified him or herself as a lawyer was describing a legal issue, not a political one. A bit of advice if you do run for office: People don’t generally vote for candidates who act like jackasses on steroids.

    Man, some people love to bitch, huh?

  36. Anonymostly says:

    Thanks for that heads up, IO. So, the Buffet World Herald is carrying water for the Kerrey campaign, huh? I’m shocked — SHOCKED! — that they’re using their bully pulpit to assist the Kerrey campaign.

    This deserves a Captain Louis Renault Award.

  37. Some Thoughts says:

    Great showing by the Cornhuskers tonight!

    I think it’s a bad idea for lawyers to second-guess what happened in the lawsuit or what the Judge decided. Legal rules can be tricky and I’m sure Judge Cassel did a fine job of sorting out the issue. The important point is that losing a lawsuit doesn’t mean you were wrong to file it, or that you did it out of malice or bad character. People have disagreements all the time, and someone has to win while another loses. None of this has the slightest bearing on Fischer’s qualifications to be a Senator, and Kerrey knows it.

    The only relevant issue here is whether Fischer tried to interfere with the subsequent state purchase of land, based on an old grudge, or misusing her office to do so. As Sen. Lautenbaugh points out, none of these things happened, and since he was in the Legislature I think he should know. If Fischer had been abusing her authority to exact revenge, I think maybe someone–we have some Democrats in the Legislature still–would have noticed that before and complained!

    I know this is a lot to ask, but any actual arguments against Deb’s positions on the issues, or has the Kerrey campaign simply conceded that her ideas are better and that people respond positively to her as a person?

  38. Anonymous says:

    So, Anonymostly, how many offices have you run for? You would know, from experience, how well jackasses on steroids fare. Bitch!
    An appropriate quote to explain the dilemma I complained about? “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.” – Josef Stalin

  39. Anonymous says:

    @ Some Thoughts,
    You stated, “If Fischer had been abusing her authority to exact revenge, I think maybe someone–we have some Democrats in the Legislature still–would have noticed that before and complained!”
    At the time, not many were aware that she, and her husband, had attempted to steal their neighbor’s property. She didn’t file the appropriate paperwork required to indicate the level of her conflict of interest. Obviously no Republican would snitch her out. There is, after all, honor amongst thieves.

  40. Macdaddy says:

    Some Thoughts, Kerrey grossly misread the political climate in Nebraska and so this is all he has. None of his parlor tricks are working so he’s copying the monkeys at the zoo and throwing poo. It’s sad, really.

    Hey, IO, how well did you know the Kimes again, you fake?

  41. LD 3 Voter says:

    I was upset because Kerry is pro choice,pro cap and trade, pro Obama care, pro taxes, pro big government, but after hearing about Deb’s shocking land dispute I am switching my vote to Bob said no voter EVER. See you at Carnegie Deli Bob!!!

  42. Interested Observer says:

    Some Thoughts at 12:30 AM said:

    “The only relevant issue here is whether Fischer tried to interfere with the subsequent state purchase of land, based on an old grudge, or misusing her office to do so. As Sen. Lautenbaugh points out, none of these things happened, and since he was in the Legislature I think he should know. If Fischer had been abusing her authority to exact revenge, I think maybe someone–we have some Democrats in the Legislature still–would have noticed that before and complained!”

    The World Herald article said:

    “Fischer never publicly opposed the Game and Parks deal. Accounts differ on her behind-the-scenes posture.

    State Sen. Jeremy Nordquist, a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, says Fischer talked to her colleagues about her opposition “off the mike, colleague to colleague.” “

  43. TexasAnnie says:

    Wow! So glad y’all got that Fischer v. Kime lawsuit sorted out. I won’t dump on you, Interested Observer, since everyone else who comes here to bitch already has. Except: Where’s RWP? No matter what y’all think of Interested Observer, I will say he/she has been effective. We first learned of the Fischer v. Kime issue from that source!

    As I recall, this ugly argument started when y’all bitched because Bob Kerrey returned to his HOME state to run for office. Y’all certainly don’t mind taking his tax dollars as you have done continuously since he left for New York, but you couldn’t bear having him represent you in the Senate. So you idiotically claimed he is not Nebraskan. Then came the retaliation from his side, that Deb is a welfare rancher, which she is, if you’re going to call Medicaid welfare also, which you do. Her ranching style (on the backs of beleaguered taxpayers) is LEGAL. That much is true. But what many of us are hoping for is that we can get folks elected who want to streamline the tax code or outright repeal it and initiate a fair, equitable, no-exemptions-no excuses, type of tax code. And that’s unlikely when electing folks like Deb and Bob who want the injustice which is serving them so well to stay in place.

    Then, almost like a miracle, Deb and Bob agreed that he wouldn’t call her a welfare rancher IF she wouldn’t call him a carpetbagger, and Leavenworth St. bitching had to focus on a new ploy: the Fischer v. Kime frenzy. Yet all the while y’all could have been extracting promises from Deb or Bob that once elected, they would work to assure future tax equity. Instead, you wasted weeks and weeks bitching, and now no matter who is elected, you will have the same old same bad governance… ’tis a pity!

  44. @Texas Annie says:

    I am glad that you outed yourself and that you are not wasting your vote.

    You are voting for Obama (not Gary Johnson).

    It is sad that Democrates take on a personality to argue their points. As I read Republican comments, they are factual and logical. I guess that Democratic arguments can not stand on their own.

    IO tells us that the Dems recruited her to write filth about the Fischers (IO, I find it interesting that conservative Western Nebraska Rancher would see a Sunday OWH paper at 9:48. You are such a fraud.

    Texas Annie. Was your job to write filth on Rommey? But since your boss could not get any traction you gave up? Or did you have so much fun playing IO that you neglected your Libertarian misinformation?

    You don’t care what lies you tell or who you hurt as long as your pro-choice liars get to continue to destroy this country.

  45. Lil Mac says:

    Interesting difference in polls. Fischer/Kerrey show a wide 11 point difference between two different pollsters, in polls both taken on Oct 23-25 among Likely voters. Is one pollster lying or stupid? Are they using different polling methodologies?

    Fischer’s Public Opinion Strategies (POS) of Alexandria, VA, shows her with a 14 pt lead among Likely voters. The OWH’s Wiese of Omaha (WOO) polled a Fischer lead of only a 3 pts among Likelys. POS is a national polling firm with a good record and is widely known for criticizing cheaper polling “autodial” methodologies as inaccurate, which includes WOO’s autodial methodology, which WOO recently changed mid campaign. (How’s that for stupid?)

    On September 23rd, the OWH linked Kerrey’s fate to Obama’s fate and, based on a WOO poll, suggested “2nd District could be blue again”. This sudden polled strength of Liberal Democrats seemed to come out of nowhere. Yet at the end of the story was added, “Editor’s note: The methodology for conducting the scientific survey of Nebraska opinion has changed from past World-Herald Polls. In consultation with Wiese Research Associates, we determined it was worth the added effort and expense to include cellphones in the telephone survey.”

    Cellphones? Autodialing was already inaccurate. Now these pollsters suddenly included cellphones, altering the way they collect data. — Consider for a moment those voters who have cellphones but no land line, and those who have a land line but no cellphone; which do you think is Liberal and which is Conservative? That, and other technical aspects, make autodialing to cell phones a skewing mess. — Yet, in the bigger picture, who ever heard of a pollster changing polling methodologies in the middle of a race? It is like changing from a yardstick to the metric system while you are building your house.

    The OWH endorsed Fischer, so we might assume the paper wouldn’t want Kerrey closer to Fischer in the polls. But the paper is a for-profit enterprise. A closer race sells more papers. The cheapest pollster that can offer a more entertaining race for paying readers is a better investment.

    My guess is, Kerrey’s hammering has had some effect. But it is hard to measure that effect when those doing the polling change their methodology mid race. … and yet even the new polls show Kerrey’s negatives higher than Fischer’s. So one wonders what really is going on. We shall see on Nov 6th.

  46. Interested Observer says:

    @TexasAnnie seems to be very confused and contradicted himself/herself. First @TA said “As I read Republican comments, they are factual and logical.” As a conservative Republican rancher from the Valentine area, I agree completely. I always strive to be factual and logical.

    But then @TA said, “IO tells us that the Dems recruited her to write filth about the Fischers”. Please show where I ever said anything like that at all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Isn’t it interesting to observe that when I mention a specific event or fact in DEB FI$CHER’S record, I usually get blasted in here, but then the mainstream newspapers in Nebraska do their own investigation and report the same thing, with even more detail and specific quotes and documents! So, come to find out, some of you more outspoken “insiders” and “experts” in here have been mislead by the Deb Mafia all summer long. Deb knew all along about her record, all the things that she’s done in the past and how she did them and she still decided to seek the United States Senate in spite of all that “baggage”. That’s not showing much respect to the Nebraska Republican Party to not disclose all of her skeletons before she filed for office.

    By the way, a friend from Omaha called me last night to tell me what was in the paper. I was not actually able to read the articles until early this morning online. It did make for some very interesting reading.

    What did you think of what the article had to say? I sure think that it is factual and logical!

  47. Interested Observer says:

    No, I’m pretty sure that I’m a conservative Republican rancher and I have to get going here to go feed. Just waiting for the pickup to warm up a little bit first cause it’s really covered with frost right now.

    What do you mean “You are willing to say anything no matter who you hurt.”? Do you excuse DEB FI$CHER’S actions in suing the Kime’s to take their land that she had ALREADY committed to sell to Davenport when she didn’t even own it?

    Did you read the article yet?

  48. Anonymostly says:

    Anonymous October 28, 2012 at 12:30 AM

    So, Anonymostly, how many offices have you run for? You would know, from experience, how well jackasses on steroids fare. Bitch!

    I”m not the one complaining about all the candidates who run for public office. You are. So, if you’re not going to do something about it, then put up and shut up.

  49. Anonymostly says:

    The way I see it, if Deb Fischer loses this election, Interested Observer will come on here to crow about if for awhile and then will disappear (hopefully forever, but could we be so lucky?)

    If Fischer wins, Interested Observer will be on here complaining about it for awhile and then will disappear (hopefully forever.)

    So, as I see it, election day is sort of a win-win for Leavenworth St. Personally, I’m really looking forward to it.

  50. @Anonymous 12:45– What “advice” did I give? I simply stated fact– you could not run up $40,000 in fees defending a frivolous lawsuit in the 90’s. That’s not advice to time travelers – that’s reality. I don’t think I’ve ever run up $40k in fees defending suits that go to trial for several days– it just doesn’t happen.

    And how could I be a partisan tool? After all, Kerrey is “half Republican”, right? I’m going against one of my own then– at least half way?

  51. Anonymous says:

    This blog had a throbbing painful hemorrhoid this morning. There it was, doubling down with “I am a Conservative Republican” who just happens to hate the GOP nominee.

  52. Some Thoughts says:

    To various “anonymous” complainers (gee, at least pick some other anonymous name so we can have a discussion):

    I have never heard Sen. Nordquist say on the record that Fischer approached him to try to stop the sale of the Kimes land to the state. Is that a fact or just speculation? It’s one thing to intimate that she went around behind the scenes peddling influence, and another thing entirely to prove it! Where is the list of Senators–I don’t care what party they are–who are willing to state unequivocally that she approached them privately to make this argument? Without proof, the charge is just more mudslinging.

    I will give IO credit for one thing: the one-note bandit routine has been effective at shaping discussion. I find it very frustrating both on the local and national level that nobody seems to care about real issues or facts anymore. Why are the innuendos so much more interesting? Suppose also that Fischer is some kind of horrible ogre the way IO keeps shouting. Does that mean she’ll be a poor representative for Nebraska, or a real fighter for us? Nobody bothers to consider that one. I don’t want some kind of wilting flower in there.

    IO keeps talking like Deb tried to outright steal someone’s land. No, it was a dispute. That’s why it goes to court, because uncertainty needed to be resolved. The fence is in one place and the property line is in another. This happens all the time, and that’s one reason why we take it to a judge. It doesn’t mean someone is a thief! Every time someone loses a lawsuit, does that mean they were wicked and immoral? Absolutely not. We have courts to settle disputes fairly when private agreement doesn’t work out.

  53. Some Thoughts says:

    I find it very frustrating that the polls now seem to be moving based on anything-but-the-issues discussion. I am also very unhappy that the World-Herald spoke of Kerrey trying to campaign on the issues, even though the only ads I’m seeing now are about the Kimes land. Is that “the issues”? Come on!

    What concerns me even more is that Fischer may lead in the third district, but if Kerrey is able to put up big numbers in Omaha, that won’t matter. Anyone have a breakdown of polling in the different areas among likely voters? I don’t trust all the spin being put on the polls, either.

  54. Interested Observer says:

    Michael J Fox or L D 3 Vote, why won’t you talk about DEB FI$CHER’S lies and attempt to steal her neighbor’s land?

    What do all of you think about being lied to by DEB FI$CHER all summer long?

  55. Interested Observer says:

    Some Thoughts, did you read the Omaha World Herald article this morning titled “‘Perfect’ land at heart of Fischer dispute with neighbors”?

    Go read it and then come back and tell me “No, it was a dispute.”.

  56. Anonymostly says:

    Obsessive Observer, what lies was Deb telling all summer long? All summer long, I remember you complaining that Deb Fischer was nowhere to be seen. You kept asking “Where’s Deb Fischer?” Now you say she was telling us lies. Seems like you can’t keep your own straight.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Well in 10 days it will be US Senator Fischer, IO can go play on the range………good bye.

    BO, can pack up and retreat to Hawaii.

    Biden can go chase biker’s, wonder if he gets a pass the next time he snuggles up on someone:)

  58. Macdaddy says:

    I just read the BWH article and IO is still full of s***. What the Fischers did wrong was to pick the wrong lawyer who gave them bad advice. IO’s allegations are just her fevered imagination that sees conspiracies and the “Deb Mafia” everywhere. Get real. It’s amazing that a guy who gets paid $800,000 to do no work for a company that specializes in scam science would allege that somebody else was corrupt. Bob Kerrey is engaging in projection.

    BTW, that BWH poll says that Fischer’s lead is the same among both registered and likely voters. That would be the first poll in the history of the world that showed the same amount of support in registered and likely voters. It’s a crap poll. Oh, and you know what they’ll call Deb Fischer if she wins by 3 points? Senator-elect.

  59. Anonymostly says:

    Interested Observer October 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    It’s particularly odd that some of you want to talk about me instead of the truth about DEB FI$CHER

    So, the most prolific poster on this site over the last several weeks, who has made herself the centerpiece of discussion, finds it odd that people want to talk about her. Yes, it’s just baffling, isn’t it?

  60. Michael J Fox says:

    IO- really crickets !!! you can not find one thing with Kerrey as a “conservative republican” you ARE a conservative rancher??

  61. IO is a moron says:

    IO- just FYI any republican would take a candidate with a perceived character flaw over a candidate who is flawed with respect to voting as his constitutes want him to. Kerrey is a liberal hack

  62. Goober Natorial says:

    If you take IO at her word that she’s a conservative republican, then she’s living proof that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. She would rather sentence the whole state to having a liberal Senator than stand by and let someone get elected who crossed her back when. #letitgoalready

  63. Eve of Destruction says:

    IO has no interest in Nebraska. She is only interested in turning neighbor against neighbor and destroying Nebraska communities. Just like her role model Bob Kerry.

    Bob hired IO to destroy the Fischer family and to that end she has damaged Warren Argenbright’s reputation and caused a community to be torn apart. Valentine will never be the same.

    Does Bob and IO care? No! They both slash and burn to misinform the voters about their objective.

  64. IO is a moron says:

    Why won’t conservative IO answer the above question. As a conservative name one thing you dislike about Kerrey? All the conservatives here could name a million things.

  65. Some Thoughts says:

    I’ll tell you what I know about Bob Kerrey. Way back in 92 when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination and lost to Bill Clinton, he was the candidate who wanted universal health care of some kind. That was his big defining issue and he was always talking about it, how he was going to solve health care in this country because he was a businessman and pharmacist and who knows what else. Why doesn’t that one come up any more, I wonder? Can you guess!

  66. Interested Observer horked:

    “The World Herald article said:

    “Fischer never publicly opposed the Game and Parks deal. Accounts differ on her behind-the-scenes posture.

    State Sen. Jeremy Nordquist, a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, says Fischer talked to her colleagues about her opposition “off the mike, colleague to colleague.” “

    It’s peculiar* that a ‘conservative Republican rancher from Valentine’ puts more weight into the words of a liberal Omaha Democrat than she does of one of the staunchest conservatives in Nebraska, Scott Laughtenbaugh.

    * It’s only peculiar if you’re foolish enough to believe IO is actually a ‘conservative Republican rancher from Valentine’.

  67. Barb Wier says:

    The neighbors Deb didn’t sue seem to like her just fine. That’s good enough for me. I mean, who better to lead this state than someone who’ll follow a lawyer into a losing court battle. I can’t imagine anything more noble than relieving your aged neighbors of the responsibility of property ownership. Deb can hold her head high, in my book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.