Hagel sleeps in the bed he made

Hagel endorses Kerrey (over Fischer)

What will become of Secretary of Defense – nominee Chuck Hagel? Beats us. If we were wagering on this with an on-the-side barber shop bookie, we’d bet the “over” — as in we bet he gets in. What’s the spread? Hard to tell.

But Hagel will first have to face the Senate Armed Services Committee — and looky-loo who is a new member! That would be Senator (U.S., this time) Deb Fischer!

Now let’s see, the last time we saw Chuck Hagel involved with Senator Fischer he was busy endorsing…her opponent for United States Senate. Idn’t that sumthin.

Of course, the CW at the time was that the endorsement was President Barack Obama’s way of making Hagel swallow a tablespoon of cinnamon to show that he is “one of us” — i.e. a Democrat.

We will see if this backfires on Hagel or not. Hagel was known in the Senate as having few tight friends — and having ditched one of his closest friends, Senator John McCain. Now he also faces a room full of unknowns as well.

Oh, and then there is his statement about people who are super-gay and very Jewish. On the former we chuckle that he now has to defend himself to the liberals he wants to woo. And on the latter, we chuckle at his defense in the LJS, about why anyone would question his super-duper support of Israel. ‘Cause, it’s not like he has gone out his way to knock Israel over the past couple of years, at least. Oh wait…

To us though, the biggest factors that Hagel should be questioned on are 1) his statements about negotiating with Iran and 2) his battle against the “surge” in Iraq — and how wrong he was on how it turned out.

Remember when Hagel called the surge “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam”? Rep. Tom Cotton, an Iraqi War vet does. He does an interesting job of calling Hagel out on this point, and many others in an op-ed in the WSJ (sent to us by quite a few people).

Hagel’s statements about Iran? An interesting thing for a military chief to tell his (potential) opponents.

As we had stated years before, Hagel’s Senate career has been one leading him to be Secretary of ….State. He was on Foreign Relations. He has been big on international finance. On tanks and troops and aeroplanes? Not so much. And when Hagel did comment on those things, he just said that American “surging” troops were going to be “sent into the grinder” to be slaughtered by Iraqis. And he was wrong.

But hey, we’ll let others ask these questions.

***

Former Mayor Mike Fahey (yes, yungins, this is the guy the street is named after…) made the worst secret in Omaha politics official: He hates Jim Suttle.

Er…. we mean, he endorsed Brad Ashford for Mayor! Yes, yes, we know. From all of his Tweets, you assumed Ashford was running for President of his local Nike running club. But we assure you he wants to be Mayor of Omaha too.

We and many others have known about Fahey’s position for months, but we are still fascinated about how this will affect the primary. In theory, “independent” (Democrat? Republican? Who knows!) Ashford could have garnered votes from both sides. Now, in theory, he splits Democrats with Suttle. While Jean Stothert, Dan Welch and Dave Nabity split the GOP vote. Independents? Who knows?

But the overt Fahey involvement adds another layer of intrigue to a crowded primary.

***

Well, Jon Bruning has officially excluded himself from the 2014 Governor’s race.

We never had heard much of anything about him getting in, so we weren’t really surprised. But we still have the feeling that someone from Lincoln or Omaha could get in. And be successful.

Of course, as time wears on, supporters will feel the squeeze to pick sides, and if a candidate waits too long to get in, it could be trouble.

We have heard a few names bouncing around. Nothing certain.

***

Plenty of Republicans voting for Democrats in the Legislature.

Repercussions (from the NEGOP)?

***

We have been relatively lax on posting as of late, so if you have a favorite topic you’re just dying to discuss, feel free to have at it in the comments.

And while you’re at it, go buy some of your New Year’s Resolution workout equipment on Amazon via our links!

Happy New Year!

110 comments

  1. IO was so effective says:

    Strong rumors that many of Hagel’s neighbors near his Virgina mansion secretly don’t like him and this will be a major issue in the confirmation hearings. Who cares about issues like Iran, Israel, the surge, defense budgets and gay rights. Let’s devote Hagel’s confirmation hearings, all press coverage in NE and most of the comments of this blog for the next year to if Chuck was a good neighbor and if he ever received horrible, yet lucrative, legal advice from a self-serving attorney who never got over a failed bid for Unicameral. Then, and only then, will we truly know if Hagel is fit to lead the D of D.

  2. Clint Westwood says:

    So Deb Fischer would oppose Hagel’s SoD appointment because he endorsed Bob Kerrey? What a mature leader she is.

  3. ricky says:

    Mr Fahey’s endorsement of Mr Ashford and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (small).
    Let’s see; You have X number of Republican votes and X number of Democratic votes out there.
    And say both numbers are the same; so that means X Republican votes divided by 3 is less than X Democratic votes divided by 2, and Mr Ashford and Mr Suttle, splitting the Dems vote, means those two go on to the General.
    So maybe one of the three Repubs should drop out, and I am voting for Crabbity. How many times does that guy have to run for office before he gets the message people don’t want him in office?

    ricky

    PS I see that not only did Senator Scott Laugtenbaugh NOT be chosen Speaker of the Unicam, he did not get any chairmanships either, except for the rules committee or whatever small thing that was. Looks like the liberals are taking over in the statehouse.

  4. Anonymous says:

    A) Hagel gets confirmed with the support of Johanns and Fischer. When was the last time a Nebraskan didn’t earn the vote of a Nebraskan for a cabinet position?

    B) Foley in 14! He wins based on alliteration…

    and 3) Ricky, no one listens to you.

  5. BkDodge42 says:

    Clint, who said that Deb Fischer would oppose Chuck Hagel’s appointment because he endorsed Kerrey over her. At least let her speak for herself before you assume what she will do on the conformation hearings.

  6. JO says:

    The Pol of 2012 will make her decision based upon the merit of Hagel to be SOD, not on his foolish endorsement of Kerry. It could however, be said that Hagel’s endorsement of Kerry, is surely a testament of his lack of judgement

  7. Kerrey for NYC Mayor says:

    The liberals are now falling into place for Ashford. Again, one wonders why Omaha would want to replace one liberal Mayor with another…?

  8. To be clear, I and 47 other Senators failed to be elected Speaker. The common trait the 48 of us share is that we didn’t seek the job– only Greg Adams did. The same can be said of me regarding the other chairmanships I didn’t get, and, I guess, the US Senate and the Presidency, come to think of it– all positions I failed to get recently for some reason. A disturbing trend indeed.

  9. Shame of Scott Lautenbaugh says:

    How could you also lose your bid for the OPS school board president? How dare you pay your taxes on time!!! Shame on Scott Lautebaugh!!!

  10. Anonymous says:

    Republicans want Fischer to kick Hagel in the nuggets. But can she afford to appear a partisan vengeful witch hammering a wounded veteran for him endorsing a fellow wounded veteran over her? Sure she wants to kick Hagel, but not at the expense of wrecking herself. She needs to appear strong so maybe she hits him. But she cannot seem to be out for personal revenge, so maybe she lays back and lets others hit him.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, that’s what America is all about today – doing what “appears” to be right. Why not just “do” what is right? Hagel certainly has the stuff for the job, the only thing against him is partisan stupidity.

  12. JO says:

    Hagel has the “stuff”. The “stuff” being the willingness to be a pawn of Oboma in gutting the military that Panetta is on record of not wanting to do. Hagel has surely stated that he believes that the military is “bloated” In confirming or rejecting his nomination, the Senators will be agreeing or disagreeing with gutting the military, in an effort to move the money to further fund Oboma’s nanny state at the expense of the safety of America and the free world.

    Hagel’s anti-Israel, pro-Iran mind-set is well known and probably not significant as SOD, Foreign policy is made in the WH, not by the SOD. His willingness to be a pawn of the WH in the hollowing out of the Military, is what the Senators should be considering in their eventual vote. His own position on the military (he has repeatedly stated the Pentagon is Bloated) is will known.

  13. TexasAnnie says:

    That’s right, JO! And what’s more, many, many, many Americans are weary of pro-Israli warfare and do want to shrink (not gut) the bloated military. Hagel and Obama (note spelling) may just do what so many Americans want done.

  14. ricky says:

    If the Speaker of the Legislature was appointed probably Senator Lautenbaugh would have gotten the post. He benefited from appointments by big shot Republicans a lot. I could get a leg up in politics if somebody would only appoint me to something.
    Hey I thought Senator Krist was going to introduce a bill to end Omaha’s “occupation” taxes. I heard it was supposed to be on day one but that did not happen apparently.
    Maybe Senator Krist is in negotiations with the Omaha Democrats to stave that off. I suspect that a bill pulling the power of Omaha to raise willy-nilly taxes to build a cancer center building for UNMC that they don’t need and can afford themselves would pass easily.
    I suspect the Republicans would act to curb the power of Democratic Senators who went behind their colleagues back and conspired with labor and the Democrats in the Omaha City Council and Douglas County Board to play Santa Claus with a fantastically rich institution like the Nebraska Foundation.

    ricky

  15. RWP says:

    Hagel doesn’t have an anti-war record. He has a record of voting for war and then disavowing his vote in the face of the slightest reverse. He was consistently wrong about Iraq.

    In fact, Hagel is one of the worstb weather wanes in Washington. He flew to Texas to give George Bush his personal endorsement, and then turned around and publicly endorsed McCain in 2000. He chaired Bush’s Nebraska reelection committee while regularly appearing on Sundaty morning talkies to denounce Bush. He was antigay; now he’s progay. He has made statements about rape and pregnancy similar to Todd Akin’s; I’m sure now he’ll claim that was distorted. Wanna bet his prolife views have ‘evolved’ too?

    You can’t run the armed services if you change your mind every time the wind shifts.

  16. Anonymous says:

    You don’t get to decide who is allowed to run the armed services in this country when you don’t even understand how it works, RWP. As for work, shouldn’t you be doing that instead of blogging on our tax payer dimes?

  17. Right on Right On says:

    RWP nails it exactly. Let’s find someone who has a consistent view on foreign policy. Not a equal opportunity shifter.

  18. Anonymostly says:

    Chuck Hagel is a chameleon. He changes color as his needs dictate. He has no princples; only positions that he firmly holds only as long as they advance some personal interest of Chuck Hagel’s. He’s the most embarrassingly self-serving politician I think I’ve ever seen.

  19. Full Page says:

    It was Hagel who paid for a full page ad in the OWH promoting Kerrey for the U.S. Senate over Fisher. And John Gottschalk, former owner of the OWH did the same thing. Now the OWH is editorializing through the editorial page and Mike Kelly’s column that Hagel is absolutely perfect for the job…..not hard to figure that one out. Our only hope for the nation is that Hagel will shoot off his smart-ass and arrogant mouth during the confirmation hearings. He is pretty good a that–being an arrogant smart-ass.

  20. Anonymous says:

    11:28 says “RWP nails it exactly. Let’s find someone who has a consistent view on FOREIGN POLICY…” By saying that, 11:28 shoves the dumb spike up RWP’s butt while attempting to praise RWP. Ouch.

    Foreign policy ISN’T the job of Defense. That is John Kerry’s niche as State. Some of us spent decades in the Armed Forces at a policy level. It isn’t at all the diplomacy one sees at State. You who would save us from Obama can at least spend few hours reading about what a Secretary of Defense actually does.

    Obama hung Hagel out there as bait for the rightwing and they are, as they did for Obama’s reelection, gobbling up whatever baits Obama offers. America needs pro-individual freedom fighters with brains, but too many of them confuse a stupid frontal assault on a baited hook with them being politically honest. Obama is harming this country but thanks to the rightwing’s lack of sense, Obama has repeatedly gotten the elephant to stick its trunk up its own ass. The American people see that and they aren’t impressed. Obama has appointed a Republican in Hagel whom people are now being told isn’t Republican enough for screaming Republicans. Voters are seeing Republicans partisanizing the blood and bone defense of this nation. That will hurt the GOP in future elections.

    This is an elephant trap. And elephants are running headfirst towards it. Do you think by defeating Hagel’s nomination you are going to get a Panetta back in there? I would tell you to pick your battles but you don’t even know which way your political enemy has you facing.

  21. Anonymous says:

    According to RWP, anyone that served honorably in the military is just another baby killer. What the hell does he know about the military? When he had his chance, he tucked his tail and ran. Hagel fought for our country, was wounded twice doing so, and has America’s best interests at heart. RWP has RWP’s best interests at heart.

  22. RWP says:

    The stupid is strong in here today. Let’s deal with the sub morons in one post.

    If you sliced up children, you didn’t serve honorably. I don’t teach at 7 in the morning. When I was of enlistment age, I was a citizen of a small neutral country whose military was a national joke. Chuck Hagel has Chuck Hagel’s interests at heart. The GOP are going to use Hagel to showcase Obama’s pitiful lack of a coherent foreign policy, and his confirmation hearings will embarrass both him and Obama.

    Anything else?

  23. Dale Gribble says:

    Thank you RWP! there were conservative columnists who opposed the Iraq War from the start. As soon as the war goes badly then he’s a battle hardened non-interventionist. I’d like to know what he thinks of Obama’s unauthorized attacks against Libya, a country that had made peace with the US.

  24. Anonymous says:

    You are correct that the “GOP are going to use Hagel to showcase” Obama’s lack ala foreign policy in order to “embarrass both him and Obama”. Yes, but embarrass them to whom? Who will be outraged? GOP donors? The electorate rejected a hawkish fiscal genius in Romney and elected a dovish fiscally inept Obama who was saddled with a rotten economy, a growing debt he swore to reduce, and in full view of an Ambassador being left by Obama to be slaughtered. Every American saw that played and replayed and yet Americans not only reelected Obama but voted more Democrats into both houses of Congress. That same electorate mostly hates partisanship. I don’t, they do. The great apartisan, semi-somnambulant political middle that is America sees Republicans saying Hagel isn’t “Republican enough” for a Defense Department that they demand be above partisan politics. And they have a point.

    You can’t fry only half of this pancake. Someone will point out that Hagel’s Senate voting record is rated by the ACU as more conservative than that of GOP Senator McCain or GOP Senator Johanns. And that America’s top politically involved veteran organizations have endorsed Hagel. The VFW and MOAA note his legislation is still being enacted to the benefit of veterans. The USA has 1.5 mil serving on Active Duty. But there are 21.5 mil veterans, who vote. So where do Republicans expect to dig up all this outrage over a conservative Republican Hagel who has a chest full of shrapnel and happened to tell some GOP leaders to go screw themselves?

    I want a stronger defense too but Obama laid this out this as an elephant trap and Republicans are heading towards it. That suicidal GOP myopia worries me more than whomever Obama appoints to obey him as Commander in Chief. That is, after all, what soldiers do. The GOP needs to learn to pick its battles better. Romney was a bad choice, so too is going after Hagel. It’s a trap.

  25. Macdaddy says:

    I don’t understand this talk about an elephant trap. Republicans will vote for or against Hagel. They can beat him up or not. If Hagel gets confirmed, Obama will have gotten his way. If he gets his way without Republican support, so what? If Obama gets what he wants with Republican support how does that change anything? Obama is stoll getting what he wants and he will still refuse to compromise. Being uncompromising hasn’t hurt him in the slightest. The Republicans just lost the whole ball of wax and it’s going to be 2 years before they get their next shot and with the electorate willing to be bought for free condoms and gay marriage, all this inside baseball stuff means nothing. They may as well make a statement about something. By opposing Hagel, when our military gets gutted, Obama declares defeat somewhere else in addition to Afghanistan (the good war, remember?), and China sinks one of our carriers, Republicans can say “told you so.” Of course, the RATS will just dangle another 99 weeks of unemployment and glow-in-the-dark condoms in front of Americans to get re-elected, but at least the GOP will have stood for something.

    Hagel started purring for Obama years ago. It’s pretty bad when people like the Clinton appointee better.

  26. To Chris Scott says:

    Not many police officers are too happy with your promotion of Sam Walker and Tristan Bonn. Why do you promote cop haters?

  27. Chris Scott says:

    It is a blog with various opinions. I would more than welcome a piece by them to balance it out. And thanks for reading but out of respect to this blog, next time send me an email.

  28. To Chris Scott says:

    Chris, YOU select the content. It’s YOUR blog! You are promoting radicals that are anti-cop. PERIOD! What’s next, an opinion about life from Dr. Carhart.

  29. Chris Scott says:

    If you want one narrative meant to carry the water for one agenda without ever having opinions from various perspectives then my blog is not for you. Next time you throw around terms such as radical at least first have a conversation with the person.

  30. Macdaddy says:

    Texas Annie, you need to explain your pro-Israeli warfare remark. Overthrowing Quadaffi had something to do with Israel? How did they benefit by having Muslim fundamentalists in charge of Libya? Last I checked, Iraq had 17 UN resolutions against it and China and Russia gave the go-ahead. Iraq was threatening us. We were the ones enforcing the no-fly zone, not the Israelis. Afghanistan had zero to do with Israel and everything to do with 9/11, unless you are claiming Israel had something to do with that. Let’s go further back: how did Bosnia affect Israel? What was their stake in that? Somalia? Gulf War I? That’s 20 years of wars we were involved in and while Israel may have gotten some hidden gain from them, they were not fought at their behest.

    Ah, but there’s Iran. Iran has threatened Israel. Guess what? They’ve also threatened us. And if you think a nuclear Iran is a good thing and something that we don’t need to do anything about, then I don’t know what to say, other than “you can’t fix stupid.”

  31. Anonymous says:

    You say Republicans might as well lash out in any direction, especially toward Hagel so that when America suffers a military defeat, with China sinking our Navy, Republicans then get the satisfaction of wagging their fingers at Obama. How much does a bait have to stink before you don’t swallow it? This isn’t a trap. It is elephant suicide.

  32. Macdaddy says:

    Please explain what the trap is. I really want to know what horrible things are going to happen to the GOP by opposing Hagel. On the flip-side, if Republicans think Hagel is a bad choice, don’t they have a duty to this country to speak up? Or are we supposed to be in go along to get along mode?

  33. To Chris Scott says:

    Sam Walker and Tristan Bonn have very radical views regarding policing. If their view was supported by Omahans their would be a Police Auditor right now. YOU choose to give them a forum. Your agenda is pretty transparent.

  34. Six Turn-coats, Republicans of 2013 says:

    The current GOP is ineffective as they don’t stand for anything. One only needs to look at recent events at both the federal and state levels. The “cliff” and the ensuing surrender of ground, and the new state legislative leadership. For senator Mello to win , even by one vote, he had to have at least 6 republicans vote FOR him. Of course you expect the democrats to vote for their party, but in the end there are 6 senators who sold the party, and the state, down the proverbial river. One can deduce the gang of six were the following; Gloor (who in turn received a chairmanship), Campbell (who now has appropriations ready to dole out more$$$$ for Medicaid), Harms (who never misses a chance to stick it to R’s), Coash (who is on several leadership committees), Krist( who received the vice chair of the exec committee), and coming in last but certainly not least is ADAMS (the speaker).

    So turncoats are nothing new, and these repugnant republicans have nothing to worry about. For what most people forget is, these people don’t care what you think. They know that the nuetered Republican Party members, and citizens, will just doze off and nothing will change. Not to mention they, in some sort of pervers way, enjoy the “Deal” more than anything else.

    So you want to do something about it? Really, kind of late in the game isn’t it?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Who gets to decide what Republicans are supposed to think and do? For that matter, who gets to decide what Democrats are supposed to think and do?
    Six Turn-coats, what do you want, a herd of lemmings? Nebraskans, are smart enough to think and do what they choose to without having to get in lock step with what two-bit dictators like you demand.

  36. A Winning GOP says:

    First, winning requires that ‘purist’ stop eating the weak republicans. I am conservative based upon economic and moral convictions, and I hate Rinos.’ But I have come to realize, like Ronald Reagan, that it takes a big tent to win elections. The dilemma we face is that the current crop of Rinos cannot be trusted. They are self-serving and will do ANYTHING to promote themselves. For example, Senator Krist engineered deals to promote himself and gain the Vice Chair position on the Exec Board. He sold out countless senators to win VC and cemented his reputation as a scoundrel.

    Second, winning requires that Republicans communicate their message. How many idiots does it take to turn the public against a party when it has the winning positions…Not many…Just ask a Republican Senatorial Candidate their views on rape. Republicans have the winning positions: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our leaders need to trash their speech writers and start talking about our vision for the US and how EVERY American will benefit.

    Finally, the GOP candidates need support. How many State Senator races were impacted by the Teacher Unions? These unions brought massive dollars and more importantly people to campaign for the dems. NEGOP needs to start NOW to build organizationS to fund, promote and recruit workers to begin the process of finding quality Republican candidates to challenge dems and self-serving Rinos.

  37. Omaha Native says:

    @ricky. You will never be appointed to anything. Why? Because you are a Suttle loving moron who has a tendacy to make comments without facts on your side. MECA rocks!

  38. Anonymous says:

    Or the lie that is the Unicameral can be returned to what it was, a two house system! Non partisan my arse. It is one of the greatest hood-winks ever perpetrated on the people of Nebraska, other than Cosmic Bob.

    If it was such a HOT idea, why didn’t more states, the PEOPLE in those states, adopt a similar system? Hmmmm. Nope it is a convenient way for those in positions of influence to stay there.

    In other news did you hear how the medial portrayed the changes in leadership as being more moderate? What a hoot. Sure it is. Why with Libs and turn-coats the following committees are now in their hands; Appropriations, Banking, Education, Health and Human Services, Judiciary, Labor, Government, Retirement, and last and least Urban Affairs. Splendid job on the part of the future NDP candidate Steve Lathrop.

    Time will tell how much this impacts the state, but one can feel fairly sure that there will be an all out assault on those who pay taxes to pay more for the pet causes of these liberals and turn-coats.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Fool at 6:18 PM, So those in positions of influence in partisan legislatures never stay put? Hah!
    Liberals want only what is good for this state and its people, you are a fool to believe otherwise. All that conservatives of your type want is for the wealthy to amass more and more wealth. And I’ll bet you aren’t wealthy, but the oligarchs that yank your chain probably are.

  40. Lil Mac says:

    What ever happened to the pipeline and the carrion beetles? I heard XL moved them. Do you think they get compensation? A rotten carcass condo and a job inside the beltway.

  41. Macdaddy says:

    Liberals only want power. That whole “for the people” schtick has been shown time and again to be just a tool to get it. For some reason, liberals have to tell other people what to do. Money is evil unless they have control of it. Rich people equal Satan unless they pledge allegiance to the Socialist progressive cause, all the while buying dispensations to abuse the masses. Religion? Heaven forbid unless you are willing to put Government above God. The Constitution can either be a club or toilet paper to Liberals depending on which way it increases their power. Progressives aren’t happy unless other people are miserable. The only allowable pleasure is fornication, but even then it had better be kinky.

    The sad part, though? America believes it and all for some free condoms. BTW, how’s that first paycheck of the year looking? A little smaller than last year, no?

  42. Get used to the Democrats being in leadership positions in the state Unicameral. Nebraska grows more urban every year, and more Democratic along the way. You will see this to be true in the next reapportionment. Deal with it.

  43. Anonymous says:

    When the time comes for Nebraska to lose another congressional district, one of the remaining two will be dominated by the liberal Lincoln and the other dominated by the liberal Omaha. America is already turning to the left, the pendulum is swinging back in the direction of sanity and, as usual, Nebraska will lag ten years behind. Bye bye GOP and all of the dingbat “conservatives” that call it home.

  44. A Winning GOP says:

    Progressive Oasis. I am sure that you are enjoying yourself, but the fact is that only one LD shifted from Western NE to an ‘urban’ area. District 49 and last time I checked, Senator Murante is conservative.

    We knew that Senator Ashford shifted between conservative and liberal issues at the time of his election; but is the shape shifters (like Senator Krist) who project a conservative orientation, but quickly support liberal positions in the Unicameral.

    Nebraskans vote for conservative State Senators (review Senator Kolowski’s web page and campaign material); but the NSEA conspires with the dems to project their liberal candidates as conservative. The GOP needs to develop an organization that recruits truthful republicans and actively fights the NSEA with dollars and people.

  45. Anonymous says:

    A Winning GOP: The NEGOP assisted Ashford in re-gaining his seat in 2006 by supporting him as an “R” since he had a viable Dem in Carol Casey running against him. Talk about making your bed and lying in it. Gripe all you want about Krist, et al. The Republican Party has consistently supported RINOS over the years. If you wanted consistency in supporting “true Republicans” then they should never have helped Ashford. The only reason they did is he had the “R” behind his name and they couldn’t afford a “D” getting that seat. How has that worked out for you?

  46. Anonymous says:

    For sake of argument, let’s say Democrats look for any reason to bring someone into their tent and that Republicans look for any reason to keep them out. The reason we don’t hear much about DINOs is because Democrats really are in name only. Union workers, environmentalists, gays, abortionists, pot advocates, etc., have nothing in common but the word “Democrat”. It binds them enough to win power. On the other hand, any Republican who talks to another Republican long enough will eventually decide the other guy is a RINO. That might make sense if the GOP was a religion. But it isn’t. It is a political coalition. It’s about policy not salvation.

  47. Anonymous says:

    I’m sure SS will soon remove this cut and paste, but it sure makes RWP a solid outlier being both a Republican (go ahead and deny it, but you agree with 98% of the positions they espouse on this site) and a scientist.
    One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic.

  48. Anonymous says:

    If the people of Nebraska want a liberal state government then they will get it. Simple as that. However, in the mean time perhaps a few steps can be taken to level the playing field. I would hope there would be an effort to limit organized cri…… I mean the NSEA. Perhaps a few rule changes to raise the number of votes required to pass spending bills? Of course one never knows how the fates will treat everything going on, and some inconvenient event will occur and the Give me More for Doing Nothing crowd will be thinned out, and or have a momentary lapse and begin to think in a rational manner. There is so much that is given to lazy people. Hey how about a policy where the tax man goes into section 8 housing and demands receipts for all the contents of the home. Then if the occupant can’t produce the receipts, and didn’t declare income to substantiate the lifestyle, they are removed immediately from the TAXPAYER funded housing. IF you are truly needy then fine, but if you are needy and yet able to spend $$$ on cars, watches, computers, T.V’s, and such then are you really needy or lazy! Just take down the lying ones, so the $$$ spent on them can go to those who are in need, not lazy. This is the same way they got that thief Capone.

    Either way, the bottom line is the people will get what they put in……..GIGO.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Why limit government intervention to welfare recipients in public housing? Let’s send the cops in to the homes of Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers and take away everything our “subsidies” have paid for. I know too many rich farmers that are that way because of the government checks they receive, not so much for their agricultural successes.

  50. A Winning GOP says:

    Anonymous @ 2:16 PM –> True. Dems are a collection brought together to create and exploit their power over society. However, Dems will not tolerate Pro-Life Dems and have driven them into hiding.

    Anonymous @ 4:07 PM –> Please show me ANY species that has evolved in the last 140 years (natural selection does not count). But I understand if you can’t share….your belief in evolution is unbelievable.

  51. Anonymous says:

    AWGOP, Dems are pro-life, just not in the way you might consider it to be. They value those that are already born, while fools like you value them only when they are in the womb. The Bible even describes life as beginning at birth. The Jewish faith says it begins with the first breath. But you just keep believing what your masters tell you to think.
    Also, while 140 years isn’t a long enough time period to demonstrate the effects of evolution, it takes a lot less time than that to demonstrate the effects of devolution – one needs only look at the GOP.

  52. Macdaddy says:

    Anon 11:02, how do drone attacks fit into your pro-life world view? How about all the government aid programs that have led to unprecedented rates of obesity in poor people? Why has Obama allowed tobacco, which is responsible for over 300,000 deaths a year, to remain legal? What about supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels? Why did it take 26 dead first graders and teachers to rouse Obama to tell Joe Biden to do something about guns 4 years after he took office? The Gabby Giffords shooting wasn’t horrific enough? Yeah, you Democrats are pro-life…unless it’s going to cut into your golf time.

  53. A Winning GOP says:

    Anonymous at 11:02PM.
    Your faith in infinite.

    However, I cannot let you misquote or characterize the Bible. There are over 63 direct verses describing life in the womb (i.e. fetus for you smart folk). In encourage you start with Genius and read until you find the last reference in Galatians. Maybe you might learn something…But you are probably too morally superior to read the Bible.

  54. Anonymous says:

    To 8:04AM: It isn’t that Nabity needs to be medicated as much as the rest of the candidates need a Red Bull smoothie. None have made the case as to why they should be elected otherwise someone would be leading the pack with only a few months to the primary. I get the impression they are all mildly bored which explains why the rest of us have fallen asleep.

  55. To Anonymous above says:

    Someone is leading the pack and has a campaign that is light years ahead of the other campaigns in field work.

  56. RWP says:

    The ‘6% of scientists are republicans’ statistic is phony; it was obtainted from a survey of AAAS members, not scientists. AAAS is a leftist organization; I don’t know a single member in my department.

    The Obama administration has ridden roughshod over science, from its use of bogus scientific studies to promote EPA regulation, to its editing of a National institutes of Engineering report on offshore drilling, to its silencing of scientists in government laboratories, to its termination of the Yucca Mountain project, and its near-shutdown of manned spaceflight and planetary science…Most recently, they sat for seven months on a scientific report that said GM salmon were safe, because they didn’t want to alienate the environmentalist fringe before the election.

    There are a ton of registered Republicans in my department. Not so many Democrats.

    Need I go on?

    Your quote is from Amanda Marcotte, a woman most known for being the manager of John Edwards’ e-campaign. She was wrong about Edwards. She was wrong about Duke lacrosse. Her degree is in English Literature from some podunk school in Texas, fergawdsake. Why would I take her opinion about scientists or science more seriously than, say. the Hamilton Hall janitor, who has at least been in a laboratory?

  57. Macdaddy says:

    Excellent points, RWP. One could also throw in Keystone XL. Oh, and then there’s Larry Summers, former President of Harvard who got castrated with extreme prejudice for suggesting men and women are different. Wait, isn’t that what Darwin said? Hmm, I guess feminists are the Left’s version of creationists. Yup, that’s pro-science.

  58. Interested Observer says:

    What’s supposed to be the perceived benefit of Heineman’s plan to delete the state income tax and replace it with more sales tax, THEN increase overall spending by 4.9%?

    What in the world difference does it make from which pocket the state takes your money, IF they take 4.9% MORE than they took last year?

    Isn’t the total of the tax that they take more relevant that the simple manner in which they take it?

  59. Anonymous says:

    With the elimination of the state income tax maybe some of the freeloaders,and welfare kings and queens will realize what taxes are, a taking. About time to interject some “Fairness” into the equation and have ALL pay some, instead of some Pay all.

  60. Anonymous says:

    Creationists help make the Republican Party dumber and abortionists help make the Democratic Party smaller. And these are bad outcomes for whom?

  61. Anonymous says:

    AWGOP, if you expect to be taken seriously, go back to school and learn to read and write. It is fools like you that make Anonymous@9:42’s statement about Republicans so true.

  62. Anonymous says:

    AWGOP, I’m not so morally superior that I would believe everything written in an ancient work of fiction and practice ritual cannibalism (eating the body and drinking the blood of your “savior,” — seriously?) as an act of “faith.”

  63. TexasAnnie says:

    Interested Observer: Taxation is not so SIMPLE! The perceived “rich,” who pay a lot of income tax AND, usually, a lot of sales tax, may indeed regard tax totals more relevant than where their tax liabilities have been pocketed. However the perceived “poor” will regard the sales tax as more regressive than the income tax. But I’m not buying that argument.

    The true benefit of Heineman’s suggested tax reform lies in it’s equity: TAX JUSTICE! With no income tax and a broad sales tax, poof, we are all freed of corporate welfare and tax subsidies of every type. And I’m for that! Why aren’t you?

    While I lived in Nebraska and at a time when Brashear was Speaker, he tried to eliminate or reduce the income tax which was highly progressive (and which Heineman has partially corrected already) by broadening the sales tax. In the end, the unicameral broadened the sales tax quixotically whereby, for example, new construction went tax-less while remodeling construction was taxed. Other egregious examples were extant and thus the effort failed. The very best route to success will be a complete elimination of the state income tax coupled with a complete sales tax, —no exceptions, no excuses! By doing so, the sales tax could become very, very low, —lower than it is today. But of course, the unicam will not do what is fair. They must look to the greed of those who already benefit from an unjust tax system and keep their interests closest to their hearts. Right?

    And what of the truly poor? Unless the sales tax is lower than it is today, then indeed they will end up paying a higher percentage of their “income” in taxes. But they don’t buy “luxury items,” at least not to a degree as do the rich. Taxation can be made fair. All it will take is the will of the people…

  64. WHAT?! You mean “poor” people might have to pay a little more? But then how will they afford their smartphones and hi-def televisions and premium cable/satellite subscriptions? Where is your sense of humanity?!!

    /snark

  65. Anonymous says:

    AWGOP, you wrote, “However, I cannot let you misquote or characterize the Bible.”
    Please help us heathens out here, what exactly does your DC Comics version of the Holy Bible tell you about “life in the womb?” And while you’re at it, please give us any quotes from Jesus Christ about the topic of abortion. If He were as preoccupied with it as all of you right wing Republicans are, surely he must have had something to say about it.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Grundle, genuinely poor people don’t have smartphones, hi-def televisions and premium cable/satellite subscriptions. That is a figment of your propagandistic imagination. Only the “poor” Republican farmers and ranchers in this state, living off of the federal subsidy teat enjoy, those things. If we’d quit giving the real poor help with keeping a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and health care for their children, then perhaps those “poor” subsidized farmers and ranchers could upgrade their kids’ pickups to Ford 250s.

  67. Interested Observer says:

    Texas Annie, my biggest problem is with the 4.9% INCREASE in taxation, not from which pocket the taxes are taken.

    Inflation is officially stated as being around 1.8%, which makes the Governor’s proposal a REAL increase in spending. THAT is my problem!

  68. Interested Observer says:

    Also Texas Annie, you said in part “we are all freed of corporate welfare and tax subsidies of every type. And I’m for that! Why aren’t you?”

    I’m not sure if you or any of the other regular readers of this site ever noticed, but I think that I may have mentioned, at one point, or so, my opposition to welfare and subsidies, especially WELFARE GRAZING!

    I have harped on and on about personal responsibility for the better part of 9 months now, so I really don’t quite understand you challenging me about welfare and subsidies?

  69. TexasAnnie says:

    It wasn’t a challenge. It was an inquiry. I thought you were a bit tepid about fair taxation due to your comment concerning which pocket taxes are taken from.

  70. Anonymostly says:

    Anonymous at 9:25 this morning, I can find more support in the Bible for my position on abortion than you can find in the Constitution for yours. Just sayin’.

  71. Anonymostly says:

    RWP, you mention Amanda Marcotte being wrong about Duke Lacrosse. I actually have a kind of amusing Amanda Marcotte story on that very subject. After she posted her libelous and willfully misinformed piece on the Duke Lacrosse case on her blog, she began editing the comments and deleting those of anyone who came on and defended the accused Lacrosse players. And then she claimed she was only deleting the pro-Duke comments because the discussion, she claimed, had run its course and she wasn’t entertaining any further comments about it.

    I then posed as an angry black woman named Elizabeth and posted a preposterously inaccurate, anti-Duke take on the matter, which Ms. Marcotte allowed to stay up. She defended this decision by posting that I, Elizabeth, was a long-time poster for whom she would bend the rules and allow the post to remain.

    I’d never posted there before nor have I since. I just wanted to prove that she was lying about trying to be even-handed in her moderation of the comments. Mission accomplished.

    BTW, RWP, did you follow the Duke case closely? Does the name Joan Foster mean anything to you?

  72. RWP says:

    It scares me I’m agreeing with IO again, but she’s right. There is no good reason for the increase in higher ed funding and K-12 state aid. Heineman did a deal with Milliken to increase UN aid in return for a tuition freeze. That makes sense only if he’s running for higher office in a few years. He owes NSEA nothing, and a real conservative would say students should pay more toward their own education, not less.

    There’s only one office he could be running for. Think it through.

  73. RWP says:

    Anonymostly:

    I thought I followed it fairly closely, but you got me on Joan Foster. I’d like to hear about it.

    As for why Marcotte thought she knew a (supposed) angry black woman, you have to realize they all look the same to a white liberal.

  74. Anonymous says:

    Anonymostly @ 4:24 PM, “I can find more support in the Bible for my position on abortion than you can find in the Constitution for yours.”
    Well of course you can. You can probably find, between the lines, what you would like Jesus to have said about Bushmasters and Glocks too. Admit it, you’re one of those “Seek and Ye shall find,” interpreters of the Bible, aren’t you?
    By the way, just as in the Bible, there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, and it should stay that way.

  75. RWP says:

    Incidentally, y’all might be interested to know that leavenworthst.com is apparently blocked everywhere inside the UNL.edu domain. I’ve tried different computers, different browsers, wireless vs. wired; you can’t access this site.

    I’m trying to find out why. While censorship is certainly possible, it’s more likely that one of our IT geniuses did something stupid.

  76. Anonymous says:

    You did all that trying different computers, browsers, etc., on your own time, and not on our dime, right RWP? Yeah, right.

  77. Interested Observer says:

    RWP, you don’t have to be afraid to agree with me, lots of people do. Also, I am not a “she”. I am very much a “he”.

    By the way, I was on campus the other day and once again, I was amazed by the constant, on going construction there. I was told that now Cather Pound are not going to be torn down, after all, as they were scheduled to be, now that UNL has set out on it’s student enrollment expansion, they’re simply going to be renovated instead.

    Now, my question is this, if Cather Pound can now be renovated cheaper than replaced, then why in the world couldn’t they have just as easily been renovated before the last new residence hall was built?

  78. Anonymous says:

    The rational argument against abortion isn’t based in religious illogic of the sort one sees in conservative snake handlers and liberal earth mother worshippers, but rather in the fact that when government condones, advocates, and then forces taxpayers to pay for the ending of human life in any routine form short of an individual court decision for each life it terminates, government has stepped into a role by which it administratively shifts to a bureaucratic ownership of human life. Arguably, the federal government is wrong to tell a woman she must risk death by berthing a child. But federal government is also wrong to establish an inescapable line that legally determines the difference between human murder and wart removal. That is precisely why States and not Federal government decide what is murder, manslaughter, self-defense, etc., laws which differ from state to state. For when the inescapability of federal law is applied to administratively approving the ending of human life, that line tends to shift and there is beyond it a terrible no man’s land. Nazis and Soviets didn’t begin by exterminating ethnic groups and dissenters. They began by doing what many Americans approve of today; they improved society and helped people via routine euthanasia, abortion, sterilization, etc. of individuals. Centralized solutions that apply to all are inescapable and thus inherent tyranny. Such matters are better handled (or ignored) at a State level of legislation where one can escape it to another state, should, for example, you have the cash and desire to raise your retarded child at your expense instead of rightwing or leftwing governmentalists forcing a federal solution to “help” you and society by gassing your kid.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Abortion has a useful side. It is a self-reinforcing solution that improves the human gene pool and the US electorate. Not only is it cruel to force a child to be raised by a mother who wants it dead but such warped children normally don’t grow up to be responsible citizens. Unless a woman can show a bank account big enough to raise her belly lump, I’d have government order doctors to slice off every head coming out of every vagina because I am pretty sure that, statistically, most of that warped spawn grow up to be Democrat voters. Oh, not the few Marxist philosopher kind of effete latte sipping faux revolutionary leftists who spout Buffett but work like Romney. I’m talking about the average “Hey, give me a wheel of free government cheese because my ass isn’t fat enough yet” expedients who vote for hope. I don’t believe in hope. I believe government can’t give an idiot enough free cheese to make their ass smaller.

  80. 5:37 says:

    Nice try posing as a Republican. My
    advice is try understanding who you are trying to impersonate similar to an actor getting into. “character”. No Republican would think let alone say what you said. Second piece of advice is to up your meds.

  81. Just noticied this... says:

    Has anyone noticed the header graphic on the Facebook Group for the Douglas County Republican Party. It has the Libertarian party list above Republican on the left side. Kind of interesting, seems someone is ‘indirectly’ stating their preference.

    This is the DCRP Facebook group and not the Facebook page.

  82. Anonymostly says:

    RWP, no big story behind the name. I followed the Duke case very closely and Joan Foster was someone who contributed to a blog I followed. I wondered if you might have followed the Duke case on the same blog I did but you must not have because you would have known the name.

  83. Anonymostly says:

    Anon at 5:37, it might be nice if liberals could be eliminated that easily. But the trouble with your proposal is that liberals aren’t born; they are raised. By public schools, usually. (BTW, have you had your low-sodium snack and a cup of diversity today?)

  84. RWP says:

    Meanwhile, the fruits of ‘soft-power’ are these; Syria is in civil war, Libya in chaos,; dozens of hostages were killed in Algeria in a spill over from Libya; Mali is in a full shooting war with AQIM, in a worrisome reprise of the Taliban 15 years earlier, destroying medieval antiquities as heretical (they’re Islamic, but the wrong sect) and imposing Sharia. We’re back to the end of the Clinton era, only worse.

    And once we pull out of Afghanistan, history will repeat. Again.

    Meanwhile, we’re set to confirm as Secretary of Defense a man of limited acumen whose primary trait is a hatred of Jews and the Jewish state, the only stable democracy and our only real friend in the region. The religious lunatic we shepherded into power in Egypt says they are the descendants of pigs and monkeys and will be gone in 10 years. Chuck Hagel will enthusiastically help that along.

    Have you thanked you Obamaist morons this week? No? Well consider it done.

  85. A Winning GOP says:

    Anonymous January 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM :
    The Bible is part of my belief system. You can continue to insult my beliefs but you will not change my beliefs.

    I do not use the Bible as a lens to create my political views. I use scientific and economic facts as the filter for my political views.
    Since you are obsessed with killing babies, let’s limit abortions to only those babies that science and medicine cannot support outside the womb. Any baby that reaches the date where science could support outside the womb would be protected and allowed to reach adulthood. Soon science will take away the joy you have in counting abortions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.