BREAKING: Speaker Flood drops out of 2014 Nebraska Governor race

In astounding news, Nebraska Legislature Speaker Mike Flood has dropped out of the 2014 Nebraska Governor race, announcing that his wife Mandi has been diagnosed with breast cancer.

A statement from the Speaker:

“It has been a true joy to have traveled the State of Nebraska the last six months, and to serve as Speaker of the Unicameral the last six years,” said Flood. “This is a great state, with a bright future. Nebraskans set an example for the rest of the country, we are hard-working, we don’t spend more than we earn, we are good neighbors, and we take care of our families,” said Flood. “Now it’s time for me to take care of my family. This week my wife Mandi was diagnosed with breast cancer. I am going home to Norfolk to take care of her and our boys Brenden and Blake.

“I am deeply grateful for the opportunities I have had here in the legislature to move our state forward, and for the opportunity to get to know so many Nebraskans in communities across the state. I am hopeful for the future of our state but I am committed first and foremost to my wife and sons.”

Flood was one of the leading GOP candidates for the office and was seen to be in a likely high-dollar battle with Lieutenant Governor Rick Sheehy.

Anything can happen in this race now, and we will likely see more candidates enter.

That being said, we send our thoughts and prayers to Mandi and Mike Flood and their entire family for a hopeful speedy recovery.

48 comments

  1. Macdaddy says:

    Well that is just horrible news. I’d like to send my best wishes to Mrs. Flood and her family for strength to get through this. It’s nice to see that Mike knows what is truly important in life.

  2. Sad... says:

    Someone told me that Don & Jon have already laid out plans to announce. The Rumbling you heard during Floods presser was them jumping for joy…

    Absolutely sickening…

    Thoughts and prayers are with speaker flood and his family through these troubling times.

  3. Koxie Comie says:

    So sad for the Flood family and for Nebraska. He was by far the most qualified candidate in the field. Thoughts and prayers go out to the family.

  4. Anonymous says:

    What is sickening is saying Don and Jon “were jumping for joy” to hear about Flood leaving the race. By God, if there is anything that doesn’t care about political ambitions it is cancer. Yes, this awful news will change the candidate field. But it is just as wrong to say that here and now, as it would be wrong for those of us with medical experience to dryly muse about cancer treatments here and now. This diagnosis has hit Mandi and Mike and their family like a ton of bricks. It changes many things; including a gubernatorial race. If Flood later jumps back in, and I rather hope he can and will, that won’t change the fact that he has right now done the right thing in this awful circumstance. On our part, civility requires some restraint. The time for pot shots is later. God be with them and us all.

  5. The Nabster says:

    My wife and I are having a New Year’s Eve Party. Under no circumstance shall Jean Stothert celebrate New Year’s Eve! If you do Jean, I’m calling Joe Jordan!

  6. To the Nabster says:

    Where can I find a copy of your calendar so I can schedule events around your schedule? I do not want you calling the press on me.

  7. Chris Scott says:

    I find it rather tacky to attack a Mayoral candidate on a post about someone dropping out of a political race because his wife has breast cancer but maybe that’s me. Stay classy!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Hey Scott Petersen,

    Tell us, how can the DCRP central committee adopt a resolution without meeting? Or are you still playing by the Paulbot rules?

  9. Answer says:

    I think Scott and others were working on the wording before proposing a resolution but who needs the facts when Paul Bot smears are more politically expedient.

  10. It seems you don’t even read your own County Constitution, I suggest doing so before saying things that make you look dumb. It can be found right on the DCRP website under the About section. Here’s the answer to your question.

    Article V (Party Administration)
    Section 7 (Executive Committee)

    There shall be an Executive Committee which shall consist of the County Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, Legal Counsel, and a maximum of five (5) assistant chairmen, who shall have a vote thereon. The immediate past County Chairman shall also be a voting member of the Executive Committee, but shall not in this capacity be entitled to a vote on the Central Committee. The assistant chairmen shall be deemed members of the Central Committee. The Executive Committee shall meet regularly to assist in planning and carrying out the activities of the Party and all expenditures of the Executive Committee shall be subject to approval of the Central Committee. The Executive Committee may take any action which the Central Committee might take if it were in session; provided however, any action taken by the Executive Committee may be disapproved by a majority vote of the Central Committee and if so disapproved, shall insofar as possible, be of no force or effect.

    Of course the important part there is the following:
    “The Executive Committee may take any action which the Central Committee might take if it were in session”

    If the Central Committee disappoves by a majority vote in the next duly called meeting they may vote the resolution out.

  11. DCRP says:

    So now Scott P is actively picking IND and DEMS to run in seats. hmmm…. How does that work?

    Face it. The DCRP is now a joke and more of a social club than anything… How much COH do you have Scott? Still paying yourself for services rendered?

  12. Chris Scott says:

    As a member of the candidate recruitment team, I can tell you that is not happening or what Scott is promoting. In my personal opinion, if a candidate feels that he has a better opportunity to win his area by changing party affiliation, so be it. Only care how they vote and not about a letter next to their name. Democrats do it masterfully so why not learn from them. After all, I can name countless Republicans that vote like Democrats so who should conservatives support? Republicans that consistently vote like Democrats or Democrats and Independents that vote conservatively. The reality is there are some districts that you will NEVER get a conservative Republican to win. In one of those districts that are unwinnable wouldn’t you rather have a reasonable moderate versus someone far to the left?

  13. @ Chris Scott says:

    Show me where it says the Republican chairmen can expend party time and Monday in supporting independents and democrats.

    Since your in the group Chris, would you like to explain how much money Scott Peterson has paid himself or his company this year on behalf of DcRP donors?

  14. Chris Scott says:

    No party time or money to my knowledge has been used on non-partisan candidates. I have used my personal time to help good candidates elected but have received no compensation. I could not speak to where donor money does and does not go. I simple want good government and do not let my personal feelings about about party leaders interfer with the business of electing good people. I am personally of he opinion that I would rather get 50% of something versus 100% of nothing. What that means to me is conservatives should prefer an Indepent that is fair and reasonable when a conservative Republican can not win. I consider that a win.

    Of course Republican status quo is an option. Probably the reasons Republicans have had their hats handed to them in city election the last decade. I prefer to learn and evolve.

  15. Anonymous says:

    If the Executive Committee acts on those letters, then they should read “the Executive Committee of the Douglas..”, NOT “the Central Committee”

  16. @ Chris Scott says:

    What about Virgil Patlan? He was introduced as a candidate at the last central committee meeting, yet he’s not a registered Republican. So yes, party time has been used on non-partisan candidates.

    Also nice to see that as, apparently, a member of the party’s candidate recruitment team, you’re perfectly fine with people leaving the party just to win an election.

  17. Chris Scott says:

    @20- You know what was also nice to see? Watching the “conservative” Douglas County Republican Party supporting a pro-choice candidate in the district #9 primary race because you liked that individual. So the message is apparently values are secondary to if you are liked.

    You did not like Erica Fish for whatever reason so many openly supported a pro-choice candidate. I have heard time and time again that pro-life is an important plank in the party platform but apparently is just behind likability on the hierarchy of what is important in a candidate.

    Do not lecture me on having candidates take a play out of the Democratic handbook when many in the party regularly abandon party values. Please feel free to respond anonymously!

  18. @ Chris Scott says:

    You’re the one who said he supported candidates leaving the party in order to win in certain districts. So don’t get all pissy because I’m calling you out on it.

    And who exactly are you saying was the “pro-choice” candidate the DCRP endorsed in the primary? To bring something like that up now, whether its true or not (I highly suspect it’s not), just shows that you’re using the Chip Maxwell model to explain the loss: blaming everybody else.

  19. Chris Scott says:

    I did not say DCRP supported candidate. I said that many longtime party goers did as well as a Congressman who threw this person a fund raiser. Do your homework and use the process of elimination to figure you out.

    I am not blaming anyone. I do not live in the district nor I work work for Mrs. Fish just making a point that those who question my values in supporting candidates that are non-partisans live in glass houses.

  20. Brandon Petersen says:

    The only Pro-Choice candidate during the LD 9 Primary race was Sarah Howard, the Democrat. All of the other candidates in the race opposed abortion and any claims to the contrary were/are grossly inaccurate.

    So, be careful in making false claims like this going forward, no matter who you heard them from. Check your sources, it doesn’t help your credibility. Also, this is very divisive and and it doesn’t help to bring our party together as we approach future races.

    Enough is enough, cut the crap.

  21. @ Chris Scott says:

    Nice dodge about Scott Petersen and the Paulbots that run the DCRP providing a non-republican time to promote his candidacy at the DCRP’s monthly meeting

  22. Up in Omaha says:

    Hey Chris, Who was the “pro-choice” Republican candidate in D-9 who ran in the primary? Are you afraid to name that person because you don’t want to be labeled a racist? Come on Chris, name that person. I dare you.

  23. Chris Scott says:

    Brandon,
    I never said the candidate was not against abortion. I said the candidate is pro-choice which allows the woman to choose. Many catholic Democrats are personally against abortion but support the right for a women to choose.

    I will be the first to apologize if I am wrong but there is a clear distinction between being against abortion and pro-choice, I do not do well with thinly veiled threats so you be careful. Btw good job getting the peanut gallery to chime in accusing me of being a racist.

  24. Brandon Petersen says:

    I will take no blame for your choice of examples and the conversations you start. You can take that responsibility.

    I will gladly take responsibility for calling out false statements. I do not have any more control than you with what others say, but again, I didn’t start this conversation about the primary race.

  25. Omaha Native says:

    I rarely view this site, let alone post. However, what I have come to realize is simple…..Chris Scott has no life! Go get a hobby.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Pro life means caring about what happens to those fetuses after they are born into this world. Unfortunately, Repuglicans only care about them when they are still inside their mothers.

  27. @32,

    Aside from you post being utterly false, I fail to see how not fully providing for a child’s upbringing is morally inferior to sucking a unborn child’s brains out until the skull collapses.

    Maybe you can explain it to us.

  28. Speculator says:

    Not to be missed is the Journal Star’s endorsement of approving the Keystone XL pipeline over the weekend. From the BOLD website…crickets.

  29. Macdaddy says:

    Anon. 5:47, the dodge of all Democrat Catholic politicians is that they are personally against abortion but will happily vote for the pro-abortion position so they can stay in the good traces of the Party while at the same time make their feckless priests happy. They are classified, however, as pro-abortion, especially the male ones since they will never get to make the choice. And the charade continues.

    Anon 10:12, yep, you nailed us Repuglicans. None of us ever volunteer in schools or service organizations, or contribute to charities, or try to keep filth away from children, or raise kids in a loving home, or adopt. Except for all the studies that show we do those things in higher numbers than you self-centered liberals.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Grundle, you have not brains. Did yours get sucked out or were you just born that way naturally?

    Macdaddy, all of those Fox News studies are false.

  31. Macdaddy says:

    Anon 12:43, try coming up with a real comeback. The old Fox/Faux/whatever news thing is old and tired, just like Obama’s tax and spend ideas.

  32. Some Thoughts says:

    My prayers are with Mr. Flood and his wife and family. I hope she may be cured quickly and that we see him again down the road in some form of public service.

  33. Interested Observer says:

    There’s an interesting article in the New York Times this morning about the fiscal cliff negotiations. The last 2 paragraphs are the most telling for me:

    “Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a loyal Boehner lieutenant who nonetheless has been advocating compromise on higher rates, puts it differently. He frames it as this: tax rates are going up Jan. 1, when the Bush-era tax cuts expire, whether Republicans like it or not.”

    and

    ““I don’t think voting to cut spending, restrain and reform entitlements and make the Bush tax cuts permanent for 98 percent of the American people is voting against the will of anyone’s constituents, including my own,” he said.”

  34. Lil Mac says:

    I agree. Off the cliff is best. But let us be clear about what is really happening. This isn’t a purposeful base-jumping with eyes open and gear checked. This is our elected lemmings holding a gun to their own heads and going off backwards with eyes closed. The cliff doesn’t bother me. It is the elected idiots in DC on all sides who back off the cliff without checking to see if we are wearing parachutes. This is our government failing its most critical duty, to rationally look where it is stepping.

    Our dynamic self-reinforcing system of balanced government has evolved into a thing that cannot act maturely and responsibly short of throwing itself off a cliff.

    I say, screw it. Let’s do a cannonball. Go for the splash. If it turns out to be a splat, we cannot help that. But at least we can go over with style. Life is short and the USA is an experiment. All this timidity would make our founding fathers puke.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.