DC Sasse supporter attacks Dinsdale’s family

mud-slingingErick Erickson, of the influential conservative blog Red State, and a Ben Sasse supporter, spent the morning making wild accusations against Sid Dinsdale and Dinsdale’s family.

In a post showing that he knows next to nothing about Dinsdale, the Nebraska Senate race, or the people of Nebraska, Erickson wrote an article about the Nebraska Senate race and made the following statements (we will knock down each as they come):

1) “Shane Osborn is done in Nebraska.

Really? That’s news to us.

Osborn is either in first or second place in every poll — almost all of which have been commissioned by Sasse or Sasse supporters.

We can understand the wishful thinking by Erickson, but that is much different than trying to explain the current state of the race to his national readers.

2) “Sid Dinsdale…is a Democrat.

Well, not only is this obviously factually incorrect, the concepts that Erickson puts forward later are laughable.

3) “Dinsdale’s wife and daughter are on the board of Planned Parenthood in Nebraska.

No. No they are not.

And of course, by this Erickson is trying to imply that Dinsdale is Pro-Choice.

But in fact, Dinsdale has been endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life.

4) “His family has married into Warren Buffet’s family.

We have no idea what this even means.

Is he suggesting that the heads of families get together and pair off their offspring? Sort of like with the two kings at the beginning of “Sleeping Beauty“? (We’re sure there’s an apropos Game of Thrones reference here. Help yourself.)

In any case, have you heard a more idiotic statement recently for reasoning why or why not to support a candidate?

5) “Before the campaign began, Republicans in Washington were under the impression he would be the Democrat in the race.

Really? Which “Republicans” were these?

The same ones who thought Dinsdale’s wife and daughter were on the board of Planned Parenthood?

6) “Rumor was that he was meeting with Democrat consultants.

Really? The Republican consultants he currently has would beg to differ.

But maybe this was part of the same “rumor” that had him meeting with the “Buffett Family” to have their families procreate.

7) Oh, but wait! Erickson later “corrected” the article.

He changed one sentence to:

“Dinsdale’s wife has given money to pro-abortion groups and daughter his sister is are on the board of Planned Parenthood in Nebraska. * I apologize for the error. Dinsdale’s wife has contributed to pro-abortion groups, but is not on the board of Planned Parenthood. It is Dinsdale’s sister who is on the board of Planned Parenthood.

First, note how he failed to note that Dinsdale’s wife is NOT on the PP board. And he fails to give any source for the “pro-abortion” groups that he now says Dinsdale’s wife has “contributed” to (something he left out before, in any case).

But we also find it interesting that the most damning thing Erickson can find about Dinsdale is that his sister served on the Planned Parenthood board — fifteen years ago.

By the way, not Dinsdale on the board.
Not Dinsdale’s wife — as Erickson originally told his millions of readers who probably don’t bother to read his follow-up.
Not Dinsdale’s daughter — as Erickson originally told his millions of readers who probably don’t bother to read his follow-up.

But Dinsdale’s sister.

Tell us, do YOU have a sister or brother?
Should someone hire you based on the views of your sibling?

Erick Erickson seems to think so.

Of course, curiously, Erickson has given his endorsement to Nebraska Governor candidate Pete Ricketts.

And Ricketts’ sister, whom he serves with on the Board of the Chicago Cubs, is on the board member of Lambda Legal, a prominent LGBT rights organization. And the Cubs are members of the National Gay & Lesbian Sports Hall of Fame. And the Cubs are sponsors of Chicago’s Gay Pride events.

Ricketts said that he has never voted with his brothers and sister on these matters. But he hasn’t said whether he has opposed his sister, with whom he says he “disagrees”, in Cubs meetings.

But if Erickson thinks it is significant to point out that Dinsdale — who has been endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life — has a sister who was on the Planned Parenthood board 15 years ago, then you would think it would be significant to him regarding Ricketts very current situation with the Cubs board.

8) Erickson has written a follow-up post where he PROVES Dinsdale is a Democrat because…he DONATED to Democrats!

And then a Commenter on his blog eviscerates him by noting that since 1990, of his political donations (according to Open Secrets) 96% have gone to Republicans.

But…of course… none of this is really significant to Erickson.

Because Erickson is of the current DC cabal that is dead-set on putting South Carolina’s Jim DeMint in power over Mitch McConnell.

And Sid Dinsdale has not kissed DeMint’s ring or bowed to every DC group that wants to tell Nebraska who to elect so they can be the victors of the GOP power struggle on Capitol Hill.

But, no matter.

Not only does Erickson not realize, or care, that he is spewing false statements…
He also does not realize that Nebraskans don’t operate this way.
They don’t attack candidate’s spouses and children, and the rest of their family.

It is not the Nebraska way.


So, just as an example, we have pulled a few “facts” about Erick Erickson, in the Erick Erickson style:

  • Erickson has a history of associating with Muslim terrorists on foreign soil. 1
  • Erickson was a close associate of noted Democrat Ted Turner and currently shares working space with Democrat Bob Beckel. 2
  • Erickson is actually an orphaned baby walrus. 3


1. Erickson moved to Dubai, United Arab Emirates when he was 5 and attended the American School of Dubai.
Lord knows how many terrorists he must have played kickball with!

2. Erickson worked at CNN (owned by Turner) and later at FOX (where Beckel is a contributor).

3. Well, you can’t blame us here:

Erickson - Walrus - SAB 01


  1. According to RedState’s “About Us” page:

    “Today, RedState is the most widely read right of center site on Capitol Hill

    They’re lucky we didn’t accuse them of being from Moscow, because “RED State”! Huh, huh!
    (That’s Erickson-style logic there, for ya.)


  2. It’s most widely read on Capitol Hill (which I seriously doubt, BTW). That doesn’t mean it’s located on Capitol Hill. Erickson runs a local radio show out of Atlanta.

  3. wise old man says:

    “The only thing more frustrating than slanderers is those foolish enough to listen to them.”
    ― Criss Jami

  4. Anonymous says:

    Good work Sweeper. Was wondering the same thing about Ricketts. His conservative support should not be and isn’t dependent upon what his sister’s opinions and actions are. It’s just absurd to think any candidate has to account for the what other members of his/her family think and do.

  5. Drew to Streetsweeper says:

    You goofed this up royally. Erick Erickson and many others blog at RedState including Moe Lane. Erickson however is radio show host out of Atlanta and has guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show. He made some errors in his initial article but corrected. Also, can we drop with the DC paranoia, otherwise, if you got any cash on you with a DC building on it or President or other famous government official, you CLEARLY are a DC insider. (sarcasm)

  6. RWP,
    Whether Erickson is physically in DC or not really isn’t the point.
    His criticism of Dinsdale and Osborn are 100% based on his fight for DeMint and the boys against McConnell.
    That’s all about the U.S. Senate. THAT’s what makes it from DC.

  7. This is an outrage says:

    I demand an immediate retraction SWEEPER!!! The walrus looks nothing like Erickson as that walrus clearly has a facial. Erickson however looks like a cross between Chris Farley and a certain mayor of Toronto.

  8. stay the course says:

    Sweeper, you have been doing great until this one. Its a bit over. Like everyone else here, you have favorites. You’d not be human if you didn’t. However, some detachment is vital if this blog isn’t to descend into the florid prose of unreason. Everybody has druthers. Not everyone can blog rationally at this point in an election. Your efforts are appreciated.

    First, Dinsdale is touting his Right to Life endorsement and his sister ran Pro Choice. He has made it an issue for himself, however small such issue may be ala his sister. — Ricketts, on the other hand, isn’t doing anything similar. Ricketts’ own sister may be the queen of lesbians but that was hashed over by Ben Nelson’s boys years ago. And, most importantly, Ricketts isn’t airing ads today saying he’s running on a homosexual-bashing ticket.

    — Sid had to know this might happen. Everyone comes to a race with some baggage however small.

    Second, the issues are very different. Pro Lifers would have abortionists indicted for murder. That’s not the same as Traditional Marriage supporters not wanting IRS marriage-subsidies forcing us as taxpayers to reward men for butt sex. No one is for indicting gays and sending them to prison.

    Third, you had to dig deep to attack Ricketts on this. Erickson is a douche and he had a weak argument against Dinsdale. But even that is stronger than your argument against Ricketts. Dinsdale isn’t bashing Ricketts here, you are. You are better than that.

    And you are smarter than that. Because you spent way too much time giving Erickson more ink than he deserves. His facts are already proved wrong. This smacks of you venting. Take a deep breath. We need you here in one piece.

  9. finally says:

    THAT is how you have real debate! thank you NET and Mike’l, well done.
    Every one else should take note

  10. Quote of the day says:

    Bruning: “I will place the millions I have earned in office in a blind trust.”

    Moderator: “What exactly is a blind trust?”

    Bruning: “ummm… I dont know exactly”

  11. Anonymous says:

    Stay the Course: How exactly is Dinsdale responsible for his sister’s activism on an issue over which they disagree? Would you purport that all candidates’ family members go through smell tests to ensure that they are not at odds with the candidate in their family? What? Not logical; not to mention an affront to the First Amendment.

  12. Sasse lost the campaign today says:

    Took it too far. Nebraskans don’t like families being attacked, especially when it’s something as ridiculous as today.

    Dinsdale will pounce on this and put Sasse away.

    Sid Dinsdale, US Senator

  13. RIcky says:

    Ha good one Mr Street Sweeper. Here is a toast to the old line media like the OWH or the LJS or even Watchdog who would never have gone with a “story” like Erickson did.

  14. We want to add that the statements in the post about Pete Ricketts are in no way meant to be a criticism one way or the other about Ricketts. They are simply a way to point out the hypocrisy of Erickson.

    We understand if reading it you feel like it it is meant to be critical of Ricketts. However that is not the intention and should not be taken that way.


  15. Actual Quote of the Day says:

    Ricketts: I have business experience and have created jobs.

    Moderator: How many jobs have you created outside of your dad’s company?

    Ricketts: Uhhhh, I can’t really give you a number…

  16. US Senator Sid Dinsdale says:

    Thanks Erick for your hatchet job. Nebraska voters will show you a thing or two……….

  17. BensAsse to #12 says:

    Word of the day – eructate

    As I view Mr. Erickson’s picture I must promulgate his need to eructate, once he crosses the Rubicon it will be quite relieving to him while quite unbearable to his guests.

  18. Sasse is pals with slimeballs says:

    His signature hire at Midland, the AD, turns out to be an atrocious sexual harasser — great PR coup there & fabulous judgment call — and now his flack friend at Red Face breaks every rule of journalism to lie horribly about Sid Dinsdale. Apparently because Mrs. Dinsdale, a breast cancer survivor, has donated to Susan B. Komen and they have collaborated with Planned Parenthood that makes her pro-abortion?!?!? Despicable! She’s one of the best Christian women you’d ever meet, totally pro-life. Sasse’s buddy tries to slime a breast cancer survivor! Is that what they mean by the “Republican
    War on Women”?!? Dinsdale’s daughter is a social worker who cares about the disadvantaged — apparently, because of her or her family’s support for Girls Inc., somehow that got twisted into stating that she is pro-abortion & on the PP board!!?! Total B.S. She is hugely pro-life too, like her parents, and just had her first child. So Sasse’s little amigo is trashing new mothers, too?!? Insanity. Sasse has lost our respect & has shown he’ll try anything to get elected. Go home to DC!!

  19. Anybody but Sasse and Ricketts -- says:

    Sasse is a POS who drives an RV, uses his kids as props, has tried to play both sides of everything from the Fremont ordinance to Fair Tax. I GUARANTEE that if he gets elected he’ll run for President in 2020, after which he’ll need surgery in a place where the sun doesn’t shine. He’ll attack Sid on anything that occurs to him and he’ll probably try another BS hit on Osborn’s service record. Of course, he’ll hide behind one of his PACs for whom he has performed the appropriate intimate services. I’d rather see Osborn win, but at this point I’d be fine with Clifton Johnson instead of Sasse.

    Ricketts isn’t the POS that Sasse is, but he’s gotten himself sucked into all of this. Palin and Cruz “endorsed” Ricketts so that they could get a big payday. Anybody who thinks that those “mystery” hits on Bruning don’t come from the Ricketts family needs to consider a couple of things. First, who cares enough about who’s the next Governor of Nebraska? Second, who has the money to do this? The list pretty well narrows down to the Ricketts family. I don’t care whether the money was laundered or not.

    If I had to pick one of out the field to be Governor it would be Slone. The problem is that he got started late, and the realistic choice is Bruning — who could make a very good Governor.

    The next person who utters the phrase “the Nebraska Way” in connection with politics as if negative ads were somehow ineffective or verboten in Nebraska will earn a punch in the gut.

  20. Debate says:

    Entertaining debate all around. Most cringe inducing moment: Beau McCoy being schooled on his own “plan” by Severe and Slone. Note for future: if you are going to announce a bold new “plan” to cut taxes and grow jobs, you should probably check first that your numbers don’t actually amount to job losses and tax increases. McCoy’s lack of preparedness for those basic questions was not quite a Rick Perry moment, but it was close. Welcome to the Big Leagues.

  21. Perfect! says:

    This is amazing sweeper! Thanks for calling out these DC people that are trying to influence a race they clearly know nothing about. I hope Nebraskans can see through all of the lies and choose the best candidate to truly represent NE! I especially like the ‘few facts’ about Erickson! Nice work.

  22. Seriously, #27. These two campaigns should convince anyone the ‘Nebraska Way’ includes anything, up to and including a horse’s head in the bed. And we don’t go after wives and children, just like we didn’t go after Sarah Paley.

    Oh yeah, we did. Why was that?

  23. I wasn’t specifically criticising L street, and as a matter of fact I’d forgotten your post. I’m saying that to proclaim we don’t attack the candidate’s family is risible. Granted, what Paley wrote richly deserved a snarky commentary, but then, it’s doubtful anyone would have bothered if it weren’t a tool for getting at Kerrey. Otherwise, why would anyone care what some more-or-less has-been comedy writer thought?

    What Erickson wrote was pretty despicable, and I’m ashamed of myself for even drawing attention to it. But there are no grounds for hanging it around Sasse’s neck. At least none I’m aware of.

  24. Anonymous says:

    What is up with the “hand’s off Dinsdale” tone? He is rising in the polls. And we aren’t allowed to vette the guy? He is a blank slate running for the highest legislative position on earth.

    We know enough to be concerned. Buffett’s newspaper likes Dinsdale’s promise to work with Democrats (shades of Hagel) and to oppose govt shut downs by Republicans. And Sid himself touts his Pro Life endorsement while his own family served on the Board of Directors, not of his bank, but of PRO CHOICE.

    We are told that that was 15 years ago. What is the statute of limitations on child murder?


    Dinsdale needs to be turned inside out not coddled. He has made zero political decisions with any impact other than his decision to be a U. S. Senator. That really ought to send up flags.

  25. Ben there already says:

    Sid Dinsdale is a “conservative” Nebraskan running for statewide office who popped up out of a money industry with zero political background.

    Ben Nelson was a “conservative” Nebraskan running for statewide office who had popped up out of a money industry with zero political background.

  26. To Debate says:

    You need to watch the debate again. Servere constantly asked Ricketts, Foley and Slone to “ANSWER THE QUESTION.”

    McCoy answered Servere’s question. You just didn’t like his answer. Beau has put numbers around his plan AND understands the underlining details. Maybe you should have your candidate support his plans with measurable results…wait, that requires that your candidate understand something beyond ‘Flat Tax.’

    It is refreshing to have a candidate to take a stand and have the ability to discuss the details. Not just the top-level talking points

  27. You all make it sounds like not having been says:

    in politics is a bad thing…if anything it’s REFRESHING. The guy doesn’t want more than two terms anyway (the only one that’s legitmately for term limits), and he’s said himself ‘if I’m not doing a good enough job, get me out of there after my first term’. He understands what a politician is supposed to do. It’s a duty to the citizens of Nebraska and you can count on Sid to not think of it any other way.

  28. To 21 says:

    Not a supporter of Ricketts, but if you have any knowledge of venture investments you would quickly realize that putting a hard number on “jobs created” is difficult to say the least. Do you count those jobs created for a company that eventually goes under? Do you count jobs created well after your investment is over with? Do you only count jobs created after your immediate investment? These would be just a few of the different questions to consider.

  29. Ben Sasse says:

    strikes me as the type of guy who will say and do anything to win. Like a typical DC politician, but of course Ben is an “outsider”. Nothing to see here, just more of the same.

  30. Anonymous says:

    If you want something illuminating about who Sasse associates with, Google his DC consultant; Jordan Gehrke. Lordy….

  31. Luke says:

    Well done. Erickson is a nasty piece of work and I don’t doubt for a second that his Dinsdale article was a barely edited oppo-dump from the Sasse campaign. The nice thing about these primaries is that if you sit back and wait long enough, candidates tend to disqualify themselves with their own jackassery on the campaign trail.

  32. Facts says:

    Does anyone else who has seen the opposition files on Dinsdale question why Ericson chose these “rumors” to talk about, instead of the fact that Pinnacle Bank lobbied for Dodd-Frank, the $847,889 in federal farm subsidies from the USDA, the number of times he has been sued by the EPA and his neighbors in Palmer for being an environmental terrorist and pumping run-off from his feedlots into the Loup River, or the fact that he has never been fishing, hunting or camping in Nebraska? Seems to me that those facts would make a much more convincing article of reasons not to vote for “Sid Dimsdale”, as the Tea Party Express commercial calls him.

  33. Omaha 68154 says:

    Yes, Erickson went too far, and his tone was silly. But, we don’t have to respond in kind or go down to his level. Filtering through the crap, there are some legitimate points here. Sid hasn’t really been through the ringer like Sasse and Osborn; it’s his turn now.

    1. Family ties. I believe a candidate’s family members ARE “fair game” IF they will influence that candidate’s political decisions. Here, that only applies to his wife. I don’t think any other family members are part of his campaign/staff, but let’s be honest – our soulmate’s opinions, decisions, etc. affect us and can rub off on us.

    It appears that Mrs. Dinsdale has supported Girls, Inc. (just to focus on one organization), which does do a lot of good things, but also some troubling things. The Girls, Inc. advocacy statement says: “We recognize the right of all women to choose whether, when, and under what circumstances to bear children. Reproductive freedom and responsibility are essential to other rights and opportunities, including pursuit of education, employment, financial security, and a stable and fulfilling family life. Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls Incorporated supports freedom of choice, a right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 in R v. Morgentaler.” This is code-speak for being pro-abortion and is more than mere rhetoric, as Girls, Inc. chapters have held joint workshops with Planned Parenthood, for example. Google it.

    2. Sid and his bank PAC have given money to Democrats. This includes his bank PAC giving money to Ben Nelson after the senator cast a vote for Obamacare in exchange for the Cornhusker Kickback.

    The main substantive argument in response to (1) and (2) has basically been that the good outweighs the bad. Maybe Girls, Inc. somehow supports abortion, but it also does a lot of good stuff. Maybe Sid gave some $ to Democrats, but he gave much more $ to Republicans. That’s the crux of the argument. Some people (maybe we can them moderates) are okay with that. But others (maybe we call them tea partiers) are not okay with that. Personally, I fall into the latter camp because it raises at least 4 issues for me. One, are the Dinsdale’s aware that Girls, Inc. does those certain questionable activities? If not, it shows a lack of due diligence that should be done and a lack of awareness they should have. Will Sid fail to do proper due diligence like this in the Senate? Two, if the Dinsdale’s are okay with good outweighing the bad, does it mean Dinsdale will vote for a bill that’s mostly good but also contains funding for abortion (or other questionable activities)? Three, I’m uncomfortable with the bank PAC donation to Nelson after he was a key figure in passing Obamacare. To me, that shows a lack of “fire in the belly” in regards to that issue. Sid claims to want to repeal it, but his bank PAC contributed to a figure who was key in passing it? When pressed about this on the radio yesterday, Sid fumbled through a denial about knowing about the bank PAC’s contribution. Four, this proof doesn’t stand alone but adds to other signs that Sid is more moderate (bank’s support for Dodd-Frank, “put that aside” statement about pro-life stuff; statement about always voting to raise debt limit, statements that perhaps hint at amnesty, etc.).

    On a more 10,000 foot level, here’s what’s really going on. Dinsdale, his staff and supporters know the Nelson/Democrat contributions are a liability. Contributing to Nelson after he voted for Obamacare in a state where that’s the #1 issue?!?!? Potentially fatal. Their best response (more than the “good outweighs bad” one) is crying foul from the mountain-top about coming after family members. That distracts people from the skeleton in the closet.

  34. casual observer says:

    Is it me or is Pete Ricketts the most annoying candidate of anyone in any race?

    And isn’t really starting to resemble that hobbit creature from Lord of the Rings?

  35. Luke says:

    Omaha, I don’t think you’re being unreasonable, I’ll offer some counterpoints, though:

    1. First off thanks for tracking down which group his wife supported, I suspected when Erickson declined to specify, it’s because it wasn’t really an abortion group. What I will say is this: I don’t think giving to Girls Inc. is indicative of any pro-choice agenda among the Dinsdales, as you noted, abortion is little more than a bullet point in their policy statements, it’s not what they’re about. If there’s damage to the Dinsdales here, it’d be under the “fire in the belly” area that you bring up a bit later, basically they aren’t so pro-life that they’ll boycott any organization that’s pro-choice in policy. As a pro-choice Republican (up to 20 weeks), this doesn’t bother me, but I know it’s a huge issue for many in the party, so maybe it’s an issue, but to me that connection seems tenuous.

    2. Sid’s personal donations were all in primaries, which to me is a significant mitigating factor – he wasn’t funding Democrats against Republicans, he was likely either picking the least bad option or helping a personal friend. I think the PAC stuff is a giant meh. I looked on Open Secrets for any similar company to Pinnacle (size/industry) that hadn’t given to both parties, and I couldn’t find one. Frankly, I think it’s just good business practice to have the ear of whoever is in Congress, regardless of the letter after their name, and money is the way to do that.

    3. Dodd-Frank was going to pass no matter what, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate back then and a huge majority in the House as well. Plenty of people will disagree with me on this, but I think when you’re going to lose a battle no matter what, steps should be taken to limit the damage so you can survive the war. That’s how I see Pinnacle’s involvement there.

    4. On immigration, I think he’s right that we’re not going to be able to round up 12 million people and that some sort of legal accommodation should those already here. On the debt ceiling, I’ve gotta be honest that every relevant class I took in college and everything I’ve seen since then indicates to me that it’d be catastrophic to let the government hit the debt ceiling.

    Overall, though, I think that it’s a fair statement to say that if one wants a firebreathing Tea Party-style conservative, Sasse is their guy. If one wants a pragmatic wheeler and dealer, Dinsdale’s probably for them. I’m a more moderate Republican, so Dinsdale’s style appeals to me, and what’s more I don’t foresee the GOP ever having majorities so big where they won’t have to cut deals with Democrats. Just my opinion though, and I understand people who think differently.

  36. Looks like Ben Sasse says:

    and his “clean” campaign are now pumping in 6 figures to run negative ads on Shane Osborn and negative digital ads against Sid Dinsdale. When will Nebraskans wake up?

  37. Omaha 68154 says:

    Luke – good to know me (Sasse supporter) and you (Dinsdale supporter) can discuss in civil fashion. You the man. Your and my back-and-forth proves that when you cut through all the noise and fog, yes, there are differences between Sasse and Dinsdale that are being crystallized. It’s moderate vs. conservative (you may choose different words to depict it). I reiterate my thought that the personal attack noise (which, by the way, Sasse decried and denied connection with on radio this morning, thereby answering Sid’s call to do the same) distracts people from issues that are very real liabilities for Dinsdale (at least with the more conservative side of the electorate). Good campaign strategy by Dinsdale’s group. I would say, however, that if Erickson also denies connection with Sasse (he’s on with Chris Baker at 2pm Central), the Dinsdale folks ought to cease their implications that Sasse was involved (which, to their credit, they appear to be doing already).

  38. . Sid’s personal donations were all in primaries, which to me is a significant mitigating factor – he wasn’t funding Democrats against Republicans, he was likely either picking the least bad option or helping a personal friend.

    According to ourcampaigns.com, Nancy Thompson ran unopposed in the 2004 Democratic Primary. Donations such as Dinsdale’s $500 were therefore carried forward to be used against Lee Terry in the general election.

  39. Luke says:

    Omaha – Good to hear, I despise dirty politics, particularly in primaries.

    I think the moderate vs conservative description within the Republican context in both tone and style is fair. Sasse would likely be in there with Cruz and Lee as some of the most conservative guys in the Senate. I think Dinsdale himself on policy is largely pretty conservative, where I think he’s more moderate is the style he’d bring – I think he’s more open to compromise – and that can be either a virtue or a vice depending on who you ask.

  40. alan says:

    Jim DeMint already helped elect Deb Fischer and now he’s trying to do the same with Sasse and Ricketts. Does anyone in Nebraska see this intrusion as offensive? We are not South Carolina, yet we are letting DeMint, from South Carolina decide our elections? Stop the madness, and keep the racist DeMint out of Nebraska. Shame on you Sasse and Ricketts. Scumbags, all y’all.

  41. Simeon says:

    Luke and Omaha 68154, I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful responses. Dinsdale gave around 3k total to 3 Democrats, all of whom were family friends or spouses of family friends over a span of 30 years. In contrast, he gave around 50k to different Republicans in the same time-frame. He has voted Republican in every primary and election going back as far as we can tell in public records. Now, if that makes you “giving” or “supporting” democrats, I would think we would all be guilty. Surely, this is being blown out of proportion.

    As to what Luke was saying above, PAC money given by businesses to elected officials is very common and most larger companies do it just to stay in good relations with the current elected government officials. There is nothing unusual about it. However, people who are not in the business world would never understand that.

    Lastly, as to what Luke hinted at above, if you understand world economics, you would know that it would be ultimately catastrophic if the USA were to not pay there bills, or if we just didn’t raise the debt ceiling to make a point. That’s not a valid argument and people that say otherwise are simply ignorant of the consequences. If we thought 2008 or the Great Depression were bad, we wouldn’t even know what hit us. The world as we know it, would change overnight, and it would be very, very bad. We can argue about that all day long but the bigger, underlying issue that we can ALL agree on, is that we have GOT to reduce our spending. That is the problem, and I think that is what Sid is trying to say.

  42. Omaha 68154 says:

    Simeon, while I disagree with you, you are not alone in thinking this way. One question, though: if 6 percent D:R ratio is acceptable (roughly 3/53 – using your numbers), what ratio is unacceptable? Or, if “only” $3,000 is acceptable, what aggregate amount is unacceptable? Where is the line and how do we draw it?

  43. Simeon says:

    As with everything in life, I think it is very difficult to always live in the black and white. Life is gray, unfortunately. So, I think it is wiser to look at the bigger picture. If Sid were voting for Democrats, I would be highly more suspect. And if a lot of his money was going to Democrats, i would be highly more suspect. But, in both situations that is not the case.

  44. To tell the truth, I think the attention to Dinsdale will hurt Osborn. Sasse has fairly successfully positioned himself as the anti-establishment GOP candidate. He has all the right conservative endorsements. He’s collared the right flank. If Dinsdale takes the RINO vote, Osborn gets squeezed.

    I think Osborn would win against Sasse, were it not for Dinsdale. And Ben Nelson made people very wary of faux conservatives, so I can’t see Dinsdale winning the primary, particularly with Osborn taking much of the center.

    3 way primaries are all about staking out one fringe or the other, and getting 40%.

    Just my amateur opinion.

  45. LukeinOmaha says:

    Gerard, it’s going to be interesting.

    I agree that I think Osborn in particular is in a difficult spot. Whether fair or not, my perception of how the candidates are getting positioned:

    Sasse: National/Nebraska Tea Party
    Osborn: National GOP Establishment
    Dinsdale: Nebraska GOP Establishment

    I think you’re right that if the national and Nebraska GOP establishment types were all on the same page behind a single candidate, they’d have a good chance of stopping Sasse, but they aren’t so Sasse is the favorite right now. Dinsdale needs to be hoping that the Sasse-Osborn war gets even uglier and involves a complete collapse on Osborn’s part. Disgruntled Osborn supporters vote for Dinsdale over Sassle. That’s Dinsdale’s path to a victory. I frankly don’t think Osborn has a path. He’s got the most baggage. Dinsdale’s got Tom Osborne, Sasse has Ted Cruz, and Osborn’s got…..Mitch McConnell?

  46. TexasAnnie says:

    Simeon, and by reference Luke, touch on a point about PAC donating which deserves more consideration. Because money IS political speech, companies making campaign donations are ‘speaking’ about their main objective: making more money. And when companies ‘donate’ to opposing candidates, they identify themselves as corporatists, NOT as liberals or conservatives.
    Indeed, Simeon, this practice is not “unusual.” But it should be!

  47. Russ Walker says:

    “We can’t lose this fight to another Washington Insider pretending to be a patriot. We need a real conservative with a proven track record of fighting for liberty. Shane Osborn is that fighter – Ben Sasse is not.” – Russ Walker, Freedomworks Thu 11/14/2013 4:36 PM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.