At least Terry won his primary

by Street Sweeper on June 13, 2014

Bash n Terry 01At least Lee Terry won.

You can say that about his recent primary victory over his Republican opponent.
You, obviously can’t say the same about the House Majority Leader, who took a shot from a much lesser known and under-financed opponent.

Sound familiar?

At this point there are many who are trying to compare the Cantor situation to Lee Terry’s, but that of course has already flown. The comparative horse has left the barn, and all that.

Had it preceded the Nebraska primary, a comparison could have been made between Cantor’s and Terry’s primary. But the primary is over and Terry won.

But what of Chip Maxwell?“, we’ve heard commentators — and Maxwell — say.

Well, Maxwell would be Cantor now, if Cantor decided to run in the General.
And then the Democrat would win Cantor’s old district.

See how that works?
As the Nate Silver aficionados like to say, “Math!“.

***

And now, Chip Maxwell has taken to the OWH writers to declare that not only is he NOT a Republican, he barely ever was!

Maxwell has alerted the OWH and anyone else who will listen that he has always been an Independent, and only ran for the County Board as a Republican because he had to.

Hmm.
Well, that’s interesting.

Because we could have sworn that the very first thing we heard Maxwell say in his Congressional campaign roll-out was that he would “caucus” with Republicans if he won.

Too good for Bernie Sanders, we guess.

And to that, we say, “feh”.
Not that we would suggest he do otherwise, because, of course, he won’t be winning.

But by pointing out his Republican-ness, and former party status, he still splits the Republican and conservative Independent vote in the General.

Maxwell didn’t run in the GOP primary because he knew he couldn’t win in a three way race.
The irony is that he still can’t.

A few months back, Maxwell could have been Dave Brat.
Now he’ll just be Ross Perot.

***

Lee Terry has a long…long, long, long, long, long row to hoe ahead of him in his race.

But we will just note that we still — STILL!!!!!! — wish he would stop reading the stage directions, and stop playing political prognosticator while he is a Congressman.

See Terry’s recent interview with CNN’s Dana Bash here:

Now what should Terry say here, when asked about “compromise”?
He should say…

“I always look at a bill and see if it is good for the people of Nebraska’s 2nd District. If it is good or bad for them, it is probably good or bad for the rest of the country. You take certain values with you to Congress, and you never compromise your values. But that doesn’t mean you can’t speak with members of the other party. But they, and my constituents should know that the people of Nebraska are my first concern, as I represent them and they sent me here.”

Or some such.

Instead, he starts talking about who should compromise and what the political considerations are and….and… JUST STOP IT! You’re not a talking head! This isn’t in private!!!

Terry has always done this, and it’s not getting any better.

If his campaign and office staff have any hair left in their heads after yanking at it every time Lee makes one of these statements, we’d be just as shocked.

***

We aren’t sure if we specifically predicted that Chuck Hagel would end up being the Obama Administration’s fall-guy in the Pentagon, back when he was nominated. But others certainly did.

And now, look who’s taking the blame for the President’s severely questioned decision to trade Taliban leaders for Bowe Bergdahl.

When it was all parents and heros, it was Obama in the Rose Garden.
When things went south, it was Hagel in front of a Congressional committee.

Shocker.

***

Hey, and then there is poor Hillary Clinton.
And we mean POOR!

Di you hear her? She and Bill were flat-broke when they loaded up the U-Haul truck and headed back to Arkansas…and then pulled a quick U-ey and carpet-bagged it up to Chappaqua.

You see, Hillary and Bill were just working to make ends meet — of course $10 million at a time on their post-Presidency speeches and the like.

Now, the GOP has shown that they’re not buying that kind of crap.
Mitt Romney was rich, but he never tried to pretend that he was struggling.
He always pushed the narrative of working hard.

But when Bill and Hillary’s cash comes from making speeches and selling books based off their time in government, it is pretty tough to try to pretend they’re all about the hard work.

Be interesting to see if Dems reject that crap now, like they rejected her 8 years ago.
But who would they take?
Joe Biden?
Elizabeth “You didn’t build that!” Warren?

Heckuva team they’ve got working there.

***

Our favorite weekend of the year coming up.

See ya at T.D. Ameritrade.

{ 98 comments }

1 Anonymous June 13, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Sweeps, if you’re talking about my post when you mention commenters comparing Maxwell to Cantor, you’re just as far off as Fort Street Fury on the prior thread. I’m not comparing Maxwell to Cantor or to Brat. I’m comparing Terry to Cantor and saying Terry is vulnerable for the same reason Cantor was. The reason Maxwell is going after Terry is basically the same reason Brat went after Cantor. Sure, there are differences in the situations. But, bottom line, Terry is only vulnerable and being targeted because conservative voters in his district are dissatisfied and his support is waning. Perhaps this should be a message to guys like Jeff Fortenberry.

2 Any mouse June 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM

OK, all you smart people, answer me this. How would the Arab Spring have treated Saddam Hussein if we hadn’t invaded The Iraq (such as) back under Geor Booosh? Think he woulda survived it? I have my doubts. But it’s either civil war a la Syria or a bayonet up his butt and a bullet in his head a la Gaddafi, amiright?

I ask this because if Brad Ashford is elected to Congress, we’ll need to know whether he supports committing U.S. troops to cleaning up the mess that will be left of Baghdad after ISIS gets through with it.

3 There you go again... June 13, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Not only did Maxwell say he would ‘caucus’ with Republicans but that he would SWITCH BACK following his election!

4 A 20-Year Registered Republican June 13, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I am a Conservative person (both socially & fiscally). For as flawed as they were, I believe the framers of the U.S. Constitution were divinely inspired (that’s “by God” to those of you in Rio Linda) as they set-out to form this nation of ours. I have a family. I am a Christian. To me, and many like me, this race isn’t about having someone with the “Republican” label win. Lee Terry has proven time and time again that he absolutely will vote for bills that could legally pave the way for our federal government to someday place the boot of Fascism on the necks of my children, future grandchildren, and so-on down the line (NDAA, Patriot Act, initial support for SOPA), not to mention his support for legislative actions that spit in the face of Capitalism while continuing to bury us into even more debt ($700 Billion bank bailout, Medicare Part D, Debit Ceiling Increases).

The aforementioned actions and choices of Lee Terry makes him unelectable (in my mind) by anyone who truly identifies with both the Conservative Movement AND The Cause of Liberty. A few years ago, I started to think I was more Libertarian than Republican, but after much research and reflection, I realized this just isn’t true. I’ve now come to believe that the Republican Party is the best hope to defend our Constitution and all of the things that make America the best nation on the planet. Problem is, we have allowed the Republican Party to become overrun with both corruption and ineptitude. I don’t believe Lee Terry is corrupt, but I do believe he is weak and that he is utterly devoid of either the ability to convey a dual-message of Conservatism and Liberty or the personal beliefs and conviction necessary to propel the Republican Party and this nation forward. Either way, he needs to go.

If this means Brad Ashford wins, then so be it. There are enough people who call themselves “Conservative” in the 2nd Congressional District to take the seat back in 2016. I will be voting for Chip Maxwell. I know enough about Chip to know that he is far away better qualified to accurately deliver our message to Washington DC. Chip is no coward, nor is it likely that he can he be bought or intimidated by corrupt GOP Party Leadership (this is based upon my observations of him over the past several years).

To you folks who are standing by Lee Terry; then I ask you, if you’ve been paying attention over the past 16 years and if you truly identify with the Conservative Movement and The Cause of Liberty, then how could you possibly continue supporting this guy? By now, you know in your hearts that Lee is not the best person to be representing us. Let’s give Chip a shot – if he screws up or lies, I will be the first to call for his replacement.

- An Omaha Republican

5 Anonymous June 13, 2014 at 8:42 PM

What is this “Cause of Liberty”?

6 Fort Street Fury June 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM

@20 year blah blah
Stop posting the same thing over and over again. We get it.

7 Ricky June 14, 2014 at 7:46 AM

Where and when is this pizza party again so I can sign the Maxwell for Congress petition?

8 Dead Elephant June 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Lee will not win, but if he wins in November then he will be forced out.

He is a Dying Elephant…the NEGOP leadership is working to find a solution…their best idea is to find a job for him

Why Lee will not win: Try to find a republican (other than a forced politician) that has anything good to say about him. The best his supporters can do is say how he is better than a democrat. The message is – Vote for Lee because we have no other choice. Soon it will be hard to find a politician that publicly supports Lee.

Good bye Lee, start writing that speech now…or you could continue the theme and speak off the cuff?

9 anonymous June 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM

What is with the “…I’m a 20 year Repubelican” posts that keep appearing here?” No more please. Cut & paste something else.

10 Anonymous June 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM

I’m a 47 year old Caucasian dude who ate too much Indian food last night and I support Lee Terry because a vote for Chip Maxwell is a vote for Brad Ashford, which is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, higher taxes, spending money we don’t have on stupid stuff we don’t need, forcing everyone to marry gays, outlawing flush toilets and light bulbs that work, and all kinds if other stupid stuff that will make life miserable for everyone except the poor and the super rich. So, if you don’t want a bunch of bad laws that will make life miserable for everyone except the poor and the super rich, then don’t vote for Nancy Pelosi (aka Chip Maxwell.)

11 anonymous June 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Make Terry a NU Regent, he can do nothing there as well as in DC.

12 Macdaddy June 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Terry can redeem himself. All he has to do is call out Boehner like he did with Jesse Jackson, Jr. Good news for Lee! Boehner doesn’t know karate and isn’t mentally ill. I wish that Cantor getting kicked to the curb would solve the problem but there are many months left in this Congress for amnesty to get passed. Terry needs to defend this state and this country against that. I agree 100% with Sweeper that he needs to save the pontificating for when he becomes a talking head. He needs to start showing some fire for conservative principles and he needs to direct it right at Boehner’s orange ears.

13 anonymous June 14, 2014 at 10:40 AM

‘ cause if karate is needed, Geary is your lad.

14 64 year old transpolitical congressional candidate June 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

To Scott Peterson,
Keep up the good work. Nancy Pelosi and I are counting on you.

15 Re: 13 June 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Sorry, but I paid Christopher Geary to stay out of the race. We won’t have any the Karate ticket in the race.

16 Anonymous June 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Back off Scott. He’s a busy guy getting business for his multiple firms. He doesn’t have time to groom winners. Why is the guy talking about getting his name on the November ballot getting so much attention when he hasn’t gotten any signatures verified? Talk is cheap. Right now, we all could be running for Congress or exploring the same.

17 Raising the Minimum Wage June 14, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Man that endeavor is well funded. Seems to be well organized too.
Next Wednesday is an event at Barretts to sign the petition to get the minimum wage on the ballot.
And one of the people hosting the event is OPS Board President Justin Wayne. I thought he was on the Charlie Janssen/ Scott Lautenback wing of the political spectrum? What’s Wayne doing hanging with the left-leaning Dems?
But time to leave Tea Party Wayne alone I guess. Although I disagreed with he and Loserbaugh and Becka forcing the other OPS board members to run again, there effort to get charter schools in Ne failed, so now OPS needs to figure out how to succeed with Chamber of Commerce Approved yuppies on the OPS board. (Actually I had lunch with Anthony Vargas and he seems qualified).
So, best of luck to them.

Ricky From Omaha

18 Anonymous June 14, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Yeah, something smells rancid with this minimum wage petition stuff. If any conservative cause had paid petition circulators, the local fishwrap would decry the practice as un-American. When it’s the minimum wage bull crap, they just casually mention in passing that both the paid and the volunteer petition circulaters were at such and such a place getting their marching orders and what a wonderful thing it was.

Paid?!? WTF? I thought that was a bad thing. At least it was the last time Republicans were trying to get something on the ballot.

The hypocrisy of the left burns me.

19 Mark June 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM

My guess is the 20 year registered Republican might be from Rio Linda

20 to dipshit ricky June 15, 2014 at 12:42 AM

JWAYNE is a democrat. He supports democrat causes. He just happens to support charter schools so you want to throw him in with laughtenbach amd Janssen?

No. I know a right winger when I see one- afterall I love them… Wayne is not one. He is just a reasonable Democrat.

21 Ben Dover June 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Maxwell’s entry into this race has unleashed stupidly on all sides. But mostly for Chip. (Do you Chip’s mom was high when she named him after cow flop?)

Lee Terrible. Brad Asswad. Chip Maxweird.

Better get yourself a supersized tube of KY-jelly. This is going to hurt.

22 64 year old transpolitical congressional candidate June 15, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Leave Chip alone.

23 Anonymous June 15, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Good to read the high level of intellectual thought and discussion that has shown up here.

24 Chip Maxwell = Real Tea Party June 15, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Chip Maxwell is what Ben Sasse is not, part of the authentic Tea Party movement. The Tea Party was formed in 2009 after 8 years of the Republicans controlling the White House, Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress for the vast majority of the time, and grassroots conservatives watching Bush, Cheney and the rest of them abandon conservative principles. Ben Sasse is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the same people who got Bush and the faux-Republicans in the 00s elected in the first place.

25 Drew June 15, 2014 at 9:38 PM

In a two man race, all the anti-Terry votes go to Ashford and Terry has difficulty bringing conservatives to the voting booth.
In a three man race, the anti-Terry vote is split and now voters focus on being anti-Ashford. With two conservative candidates running, more conservatives will show up to vote.

I can see Terry lose in a two man race, but I can’t see a win for Ashford in a 3 man race.

26 angster June 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM

Apart from losing Terry’s influence chairing a HOR subcommittee, which is the only influence one can possibly have in the House of Representatives, the outcome of the Second District Nebraska race mostly doesn’t matter.

One Nebraska Governor being empowered to steer the state, that matters. One U. S. Senator among 99 others who just show up and vote, that matters less. But one U. S. Representative among 447 others in the HOR, that is a battalion.

As the size of any group grows, opportunities for full participation and intimacy lessen. Research suggests groups of 7 to 15 participants are ideal for decision-making and problem-solving. That means the U. S. House of Representatives is forty times larger than the size of a group most wisely able to solve problems. And yet this bloated bag holds the purse strings. And it gets worse, for our nation’s founders created this system for a tiny federal government with most power in State, Local and individual hands. Today the federal government is ensuring everything up to and including your colonoscopy, the money for which is ripped from your wallet and literally rerouted up your rump.

Of course this leads to disgust for Congress reaching a new low. A 2013 poll by Public Policy Polling finds Congress less popular than root canals, being stuck in traffic, used car salesmen, cockroaches, body lice, Genghis Khan and, you guessed it, colonoscopies.

Still, its only 1 guy out of 447. So while the House’s decisions matter, and influence over those decision via a House committee is useful, 2D voters actually sending 1 of 447 there warrants less angst than other races that perhaps merit such to a greater degree.

27 Interested Observer June 16, 2014 at 6:08 AM

Five paragraphs to try to substantiate your claim that it “mostly doesn’t matter”? It apparently DOES matter to you!

28 Interested Observer June 16, 2014 at 6:37 AM

I see that Bill Kintner wants to have a Constitutional Convention. The group wants to “save” the Constitution by CHANGING it!

It reminds me of the famous line from the Viet Nam war, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

29 angster June 16, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Interested Observer. Your point that a thing matters simply because it is being discussed at length, is a valid point, up to a point.

There is much angst here over the Second District race while many seem to ignore races for greater focused power. The Congressional job is relatively dilute and people here may be swatting a mouse while not looking for a camel that may climbing in elsewhere.

The House race doesn’t matter in the sense that so many should ignore other races to focus on it. Terry said he was only going to run X number of times. He set his own expiration date and he exceeded it. While all Nebraskan’s should appreciate the fact that him being a subcommittee chairman brings some influence to Nebraska, those with a voice in any incumbent’s ear are always his few special familiars. A Democrat Ashford in a GOP dominated HOR, or an Independent Republican-stabbing Maxwell, are both newbies who won’t have Terry’s committee influence. And yet, among 440+ members, even a Subcommittee Chairman Terry has vastly limited influence compared to a Senator or a Governor. A House member’s influence is extremely dilute. Yet people here don’t act like that, else they’d care more about how this may impact more important races for more focused power.

The biggest potential impact of Maxwell’s decision to run, from a Nebraska voter’s viewpoint, is probably on the gubernatorial race. Ricketts won his primary by a squeaker. Any sense that Ricketts is safe must be mitigated by the fact that gubernatorial power is full strength as compared to the dilute relative uselessness of one House Rep. Of course, to Brad, Chip and Lee, their race means everything and they don’t care who wins the other races. Nebraska voters require a wider and more responsible view than that of power hungry candidates. For it is we who will end up hoisted on the point of the power they all seek to wield over us.

30 Bob Loblaw June 16, 2014 at 8:43 AM

IO,

It isn’t unconstitutional to amend the constitution.

31 Macdaddy June 16, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Angst is correct that it doesn’t matter. My vote doesn’t matter. Congressman Lee Terry only matters if his is the deciding vote for who gets to be Speaker. If enough of us are pissed off, though, the collective we matters. So far, the Republicans don’t seem to understand that.

32 Interested Observer June 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Bob Loblaw, did I EVER say it was?

33 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Interestingly, when Republicans get “pissed off” they tend to cannibalize each other. Democrats who get emotional tend to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Being motivated and coordinated as voters is good. But then we should not characterize that as anger. Getting emotionally spun up, hating this or that, pissed off, etc., works especially against Republicans (Fiscal Conservatives specifically) who by conserving money act like adults.

The playing field is never level between thrifty adults and wasteful children. It is the difference between responsible parents painfully balancing income, bills and debts, and teenagers happily thinking money springs from thin air. — There is always enough swag to go around for Democrats because as Social Liberals grow more government and print more dollar bills, unaware of the deadly consequence of such. Fiscal Conservatives, however, fight tooth and nail over every tax, expense, and perceived need that can be cut and must be cut if we all are to survive. — For Conservatives, political life is a terrible kitchen table discussion by grownups avoiding bankruptcy, maximizing every penny, so as to maintain freedom and prosperity; a deadly serious discussion that when fueled by the drunkenness of heated emotion ends with Conservative Republicans tearing out each other throats. — Money being limited is a main reason why marriages and nations break up.

It is ironic and tragic perhaps that Liberal environmentalists, who see nature as a limited resource, often do not see money as similarly limited. And that some money-wise responsible fiscal adepts don’t grasp that every limited dollar has the value of something real and equally limited, like a board foot of lumber.

Whatever deadly myopias we start out with as a voting electorate, they all get much worse with emotional drunkenness. And the least myopic, most rational, most adult, suffer most from the debiliting effects of emotion. In war, business, science and politics, getting mad can kill you.

34 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 6:37 AM

Name the last Republican to balance the Federal budget? Hint it was more than 50 years ago. Republicans are good at talking the talk but terrible at walking the walk. Maybe that is why they have lost 5 out of the last 6 popular vote Presidential elections..

35 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 6:38 AM

The reason Republicans “tend to cannibalize each other” is because they are not a cohesive group.
They are loosely held in place via a party platform that the vast majority of them ignore anyway!

36 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM

And Democrat Unionists, Gays, Environmentalist, Socialists, etc. etc, are a cohesive group? Not at all. They are held together by sheer grasp for power PLUS knowing that as long as they can milk the system bigger, they get a slice. Republicans power wannabes are just as grasping, But as I said, Republicans have a harder row to hoe because they ask voters to do with less, to endure more personal hardship in the name of freedom. The GOP offers hard but voters prefer soft. So you get GOP rightwingers who aren’t fiscally responsible and want to was billions pumping Right wing fascist solutions down your throat instead of Left wing socialist solutions. Americans seem to gobble it all up,

GOP voters have the difficult task of sending GOP incumbents into Federal power specifically to disempower themselves as Federal power. You can call Democrats more honest for actually seeking tyranny they enjoy wielding but that’s word juggling. All freedom is individual and when most individuals as voters trip that threshold from adult thrift to adolescent grasping, there is no going back. Don’t be so proud of having encouraged that.

37 Dr Feelgood June 17, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Obama obviously needs the love a good man and appears obsessed by the lack of such; so will some patriotic Democrat please step up and take one for the team? Consider it your civic duty.

Islamic Terror is expanding faster than you can say “Nobel Prize”. Iran and NK are getting WMD. Russia and China are taking territory. And the Taliban have Obama on their thank you list. Yet if this caricature of a US President isn’t playing golf, he is turning homosexuals into a national treasure.

Who cares, I mean really? Anything can be normalized. Europe legalized incest. Native Americans prefer to eat dogs. Most people don’t. The human mind can adapt to anything. And while nobody really cares if their neighbor humps his mutt or his pal in private, we draw the line at paying for aberrations and being forced to call such “good”. Getting it in the Hollywood canal may not be the end of the world, but it’s also a long way from healthy wholesome goodness.

Unless Mother Nature has changed her mind about her sexually dimorphic approach to propagation and she suddenly now regrets letting us evolve beyond yeast who bud themselves, so to speak, in the bum, all this LBGT legitimization is like raising jerking off to the level of a religion, while the raiser blithely watches his own children chew on lead paint. And, just so you know, all marriage deductions are unfair. Paying people to have sex and cohabitate with anyone or anything in anyway is wrong. Most Americans today are divorcees and bastards. And here’s Obama like some kind from Billy Graham preacher in a Fire Island thong trying to make Gays appear happily married couples?

Somebody please give Barry some love. Then perhaps he will quit wallowing in this idiocy and instead act like a President. We wouldn’t mind, except this guy has his finger on the nuclear trigger and his apparent need for the sexually bizarre is interfering with America surviving.

38 Anon June 17, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Regarding the NU President’s search: I may like Heinemann from a policy perspective, but do we really want to hire someone who’s administrative experience incleds DHHS and the state Prison system?

39 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM

It sounds like Dr. Feelgood is jealous that someone other than him is getting it up the poop chute.

40 To Anon June 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Newt Gingrich and the 94 election forced Clinton to balance the budget

41 Macdaddy June 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM

That and the advent of e-commerce and the Y2K windfall.

42 To Macdaddy from 11:33 June 17, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Give Clinton credit, he went with Welfare reform. Obama’s issue he will never cut any program that makes people dependent.

43 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Then how did JFK and LBJ balance the budget? They had a liberal congress. Plus Reagan and Bush part 2 had a conservative congress. Why did they fail and the Democrats get it done? would Eisenhower be a democrat today?

44 To Anonymous above. June 17, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Really, you want to equate what we spent on welfare in the 60′s to today!!!!!!!!!!!

45 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 5:46 PM

But we had a real space program and the Vietnam war,then. Plus we did real road building and the war on poverty. I just don’t get it. How come the Democrats balance budgets by raising taxes and the republicans cause debt by cutting taxes? Maybe trickle down does not work?

46 Ricky June 17, 2014 at 6:11 PM

If Chip Maxwell wants 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot for NE2 Congress, then why have I not seen him or anybody out there with petitions?
So I am inviting Mr Maxwell to Barretts bar tomorrow evening (Wednesday) to a gathering of progressives there to promote the minimum wage petition drive.
I am sure Maxwell and his petitions will be welcome there, and I bet he can get 200 signatures, or ten percent of what he needs, in one place in a single evening.
So come on down to Barretts Chip ! See you there!

ricky from omaha

47 Gerard Harbison June 17, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Getting the malware again, Sweep.

48 Gerard Harbison June 17, 2014 at 6:14 PM

JFK most certainly did not have a liberal Congress, He had a Democrat Congress. In 1963, that wasn’t the same.

49 Lil Mac June 17, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Rickett’s recently got the endorsement of the Nebraska Cattleman’s Association. Not my area of expertise. I once salted green hides but not for long, buckaroos. So if any of you real wranglers wish weigh in, please do.

Rickett’s worked at the 90th and Center Burger King and went to Omaha’s Westside High. He’s not rural. But his Democrat opponent is. Hassebrook is the longtime director of the Center for Rural Affairs (CFRA), in Lyons, NE, Pop. 851. I looked up its website. Its like reading The Grapes of Wrath.

The CFRA site has a video with pre-candidate Hassebrook with a beard and people talking about “opportunity… healthcare… equal access… micro business“ A non-profit that is all about people who don’t have rural success somehow needing to be massaged into being more rurally successful. So Hassebrook is what? A community organizer like Barry O but with a banjo and a smaller clientele?

I then looked at the Cattleman’s Association website and it oozes with the kind of money and success one thinks of when one says “Beef State” or “Cornhusker State”.

This endorsement seems like a slap for the rural Hassebrook. But maybe I am over-reading that.

Perhaps Ricketts with an MBA and being a former COO makes his endorsement slam-dunk sense to the cattle business. Or perhaps they look at “Regent” Hassebrook and see a community organizer with only an undergraduate degree posing like a big shot. Either way, it looks bad for Chuck. I suppose this translate into a win for Ricketts. But how big a win?

50 Anonymous June 17, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Cattle men are some of Nebraska’s biggest welfare queens.

51 Macdaddy June 17, 2014 at 10:02 PM

JFK never ran a budget surplus. LBJ managed to his last year in office. Clinton did for 4. Obama’s budgets aren’t even on the same side of the Milky Way as a surplus.

52 populist patriot June 18, 2014 at 2:38 AM

Check out DanforNebraska for a pro-Nebraska platform. Then volunteer to help Dan Buhrdorf collect signatures now to get on the U.S. Senate ballot. We need more “boots on the ground” in Nebraska! DanForNebraska.com

53 Anonymous June 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM

But Macdaddy, how do you explain the poor job of Bush and Reagan? And according to the historical records JFK did run a surplus. And according to Gerard all those Dems of the 60′s who grew up with a New Deal tradition are not liberals. But Barry Goldwater sure thought they were liberals. And Obama has cut the budget in half from the Bush years.. Is that not good in conservative land?

54 Lil Mac June 18, 2014 at 6:19 AM

You call Cattlemen “queens”? Don’t say that while they are holding an electric prod.

You also say Cattlemen take “welfare”. That is ironic, because Hassebrook’s organization was originally federally funded and today works on donations and has always aimed to help rural people who are not successful. Hassebrook would say they aren’t successful “yet”. His group hopes the unsuccessful may through charity, a crutch, grow stronger, while also hoping that wannabe farmer knows seed-corn from popcorn. That is very different from subsidizing a thriving AG production that contributes significantly to NE’s economy.

I don’t like subsidies. It feels like boosting those who don’t need it. And yet China and Russia and other competitor nations subsidize their production hoping to put every Nebraska family under their economic boot heel. That playing field is tilted against the USA. And so we subsidize.

I like welfare even less, for it is a crutch that weakens and cripples the very people is it intends to strengthen. It robs one of self-respect and gives false pride to effete bigots cloaked as altruists who “help” people and so profit by others’ victimhood. — Hassebrook literally earns his living by giving money to unsuccessful people. Call that charity, hope, welfare, whatever, but it is not the tip of Nebraska’s economic spear that is keeping our families’ heads above water.

Rural folk are somewhat more immune to the deleterious impacts of “free money”, but people are people. The successful rancher takes free dollars as subsidies and the unsuccessful wannabe farmer takes free dollars as whatever form of helpful welfare that is. Who do you think uses those dollars more wisely?

As voters and taxpayers we need our limited dollars be spent wisely. It is nice to gamble altruistically on the so-far unsuccessful. But it is imperative that we boost the proven production that already contributes to our state’s power as an economic force.

55 Anonymous June 18, 2014 at 7:10 AM

Liberals and Conservatives are both criticizing Obama’s weird and damaging lack of leadership. Yet the mainstream media ignores that and focuses instead on Dick Cheney and Cheney’s daughter Liz, a fmr Dep. Secretary of State, criticizing Obama. The big anti-Cheney blame being the absence of WMD in Iraq a dozen years ago.

Holy crap but that nonsense again! This forces us to unleash Obama’s own fmr Secretary of State’s view on that WMD bugaboo.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

56 Anonymous June 18, 2014 at 7:37 AM

Yes, it’s actually a shock the Dems want to run Hillary as their presidential nominee. It takes away their chance to whine and shriek about Iraq.

57 The Real McCoy June 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM

#50 – Cattlemen are some of Nebraska’s biggest welfare queens, huh?

Well if you’re such an expert on the issue then why don’t you tell us which “welfare” programs they are a part of?

From my experience the cattle industry is one of the few sectors in U.S. agriculture that doesn’t benefit from any direct subsidy programs. If you don’t believe me then go ask a cattlemen. They’re sure proud to tell you that that is the case. Sure in a time of a major natural disaster (Example – 2012 drought) there may be a federal indemnity program put in place, but that would be the case for any property/house owner.

Get your facts straight before you try to slander a group of people as hard working and modest.

58 The Real McCoy June 18, 2014 at 2:42 PM

By the way, I commend the Nebraska Cattlemen for coming out and making a clear statement on who they think has a better vision and understanding for rural Nebraska. It doesn’t matter if you have a business in an urban center like Omaha or the open range of the Sandhills, you understand what helps and hinders your ability to be successful. Pete gets it. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Chuck.

59 Gerard Harbison June 18, 2014 at 5:31 PM

And according to Gerard all those Dems of the 60′s who grew up with a New Deal tradition are not liberals.

No, but remember that over a third of the Democrats in the 88th Congress were from the former confederate states, and over 90% of them voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would say if you voted against the ’64 Civil Rights Act, you were not a liberal.

60 Gerard Harbison June 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Oh, and spending in Bush’s last full f.y. (2008) was $14.7 t; it is now (f.y. 2014) $17.3 t. Deficit in f.y. 2008 was 3.12% of GDP. f.y. 2014 it’s 3.74% of GDP. Debt end f.y. 2008 was 68% of GDP; end f.y. 2014 it will be 103% of GDP.

61 Macdaddy June 18, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Anon 53, I got my info from the White House site. JFK did not run a surplus at any point in his 2 budgets. I’m baffled, however by your contention that “Obama has cut the budget in half from the Bush years.” You apparently are on the other side of the Milky Way with Obama. Or in Colorado, typing while high.

62 Anonymous June 19, 2014 at 6:34 AM

So Gerard you admit that the today’s republican party is the old bigot southern DEMS? All those solid south states are solid GOP today. Good for you.. Macdaddy, so you still have no answer to why republicans NEVER balance budgets, but Democrats have done so. Gerard study the yearly budgets. You will see a steady decline in yearly spending during the Obama years. Since Junior cooked the books, and never put medicare part B or the wars on the budget and Obama did of course the over all debt would ride up during his term.

63 Anonymous June 19, 2014 at 7:38 AM

Obama had budgets? When?

64 Anonymous June 19, 2014 at 8:24 AM

Yeah Gerard, everybody knows all Southerners are bigots. In fact, it’s exactly the same group of people living there now as Republicans who were living there 50 years ago as democrats. No one has been born, nor has anyone died, and no one has moved in or out of the south in the last 50 years. It’s all the same people with all the same attitudes and they’re all bigots. They just woke up one day and decided to wear a different hat, that’s all.

65 Canadian Pipefitters Local 362 June 19, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Big shout oot to our good friend Jane Fleming Kleeb for helping stop the Keystone pipeline, hey. Now, the pipeline will be built in Canada by Canadian tradesmen. All the way from Alberta to the Pacific coast. You hosers. We’re laughing all the way to the bank, hey.

66 Anonymous June 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Any update/analysis on the recent gubernatorial polling I saw mentioned in the paper? Sorry, no link. But what’s the upshot?

67 Street Sweeper June 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM

We will talk about the PPP Poll in our next post, but suffice it to say this:
Eric Cantor’s poll days before the primary had him winning with 60%.
In the mean time, see it here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/NebraskaPollMemo.pdf

68 Anonymous June 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Speaking of polls, recent polls showed a majority of people don’t believe Obama’s capable of leading and disapprove of his foreign policy. So, his solution, obviously, is to run out and hold a press conference saying basically, “nah, we are not going to do anything. Oh, and, they need a more inclusive government.” And people think this guy is ineffectual? Why?

69 Ben from BC June 19, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Just try building your pipeline through British Columbia, Pipefitter from Local 362. We’ll shove that thing up your ass so far that you’ll be able to use it as a straw.

70 well that does it June 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Just as Jean is quick to turn on her own, I am quick to turn on her. Her proposal to increase sewer fees by 45% is completely unacceptable. Our taxes are high enough!
Guess how I know? Because other cities are making it on lower rates and fewer taxes. Because we are some of the most taxed people in the country.

We have things to pay for. Make cuts. 1% cuts across the board (excluding police and fire) arent enough, & a 45% increase is way too much. Sorry Jean but that’s it.

71 Anonymous June 19, 2014 at 2:23 PM

70. Sewer fees are higher here because bloggers here are full of more crap than elsewhere.

Since you complained, please stop flushing your toilet.

72 Anonymous2 June 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Eric Cantor’s poll days before the primary had him winning with 60%.

Nice try, but all this proves is that Republican pollsters are crap. Virginia allows a voter to pick any primary ballot, and many Dems and Independents enjoyed voting against Cantor, especially since there was no competitive Dem primary. His pollsters never considered this situation and only polled Republicans. Smart! (not)

73 Canadian Pipefitters Local 362 June 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Ben, you don’t scare me. I will just bring some union goons along with me while I’m laying pipe all throughout BC. And I’ll have army besides with all the union jobs this pipeline will create. If you think you can stop us with your fancy anonymous name and all, you don’t know what yer talking aboot.

74 Tonic & Tonic June 19, 2014 at 5:17 PM

I lay more pipe than the whole lot of you.

75 Question June 19, 2014 at 6:00 PM

What happened to Matt Pinkerton?

76 Weedkiller June 19, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Rename it the “Keystoned Hashpipeline” and Obama will endorse it tomorrow.

77 Macdaddy June 19, 2014 at 10:37 PM

#62, Republican Presidents since Eisenhower have not balanced a budget because they spend more than they take in. Obama has not balanced a budget ever because he spends more than he takes in. Clinton balanced his because of fluke of technology: the internet boom that created trillions of dollars of wealth. Welfare reform helped as well (thank you, Newt Gingrich). Obama jacked up federal spending by 18% his first year in office. He has added $6 trillion to the national debt in his 5 years in office. But hey, spending is flat! It’s flat at unsustainable levels and most people would call that irresponsible, but what does Obama care? Fore! What difference, at this point, does it make? BTW, do you think he’s going to keep Gulf War III off budget, or will he insist on cuts in other programs?

78 Macdaddy June 19, 2014 at 10:42 PM

And speaking of budgets, Stothert is really piling the taxes on, not like she cares. She has yet to repeal the restaurant tax and now she’s jacking up the sewer tax. Between that and OPPD moving to more expensive “clean” energy, we ought to be able to keep economic growth stagnant for years to come. Maybe the new motto should be Omaha, We’re Small Town and Getting Smaller.

79 Ben from BC June 19, 2014 at 11:54 PM

“If you think you can stop us with your fancy anonymous name and all, you don’t know what yer talking aboot,” said a lame-brained anonymous Edmonchuck. Jesus Murphey! You’re such a hoser.

80 Gerard Harbison June 20, 2014 at 7:38 AM

So Gerard you admit that the today’s republican party is the old bigot southern DEMS?

Huh? No. George Wallace was a Dem until he died. Robert Byrd was a Dem until he died. William Fulbright was a Dem until he died. And the list goes on. Almost none of the Dems who voted against the Civil Rights Act switched parties.

Please stop telling lies, Bud.

81 Gerard Harbison June 20, 2014 at 7:39 AM

Gerard study the yearly budgets. You will see a steady decline in yearly spending during the Obama years.

Are you just too stupid to read the numbers I posted?

82 Anon June 20, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Since Suttle’s relatively minor restaurant tax that really hasn’t hurt anyone and wound up being kept in place by his republican successor lead to a recall effort, should we expect one for Stothert based on the sewer fees?

83 Canadian Pipefitters Local 362 June 20, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Ben, complain all you want, hoser, but all those jobs that would have been created in the states to build Keystone will now be Canadian jobs done in Canada, and we’re headed your way. When we get to BC, you can buy me a Molson, hey.

84 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 8:27 AM

So, RWP, you think post #62 is Bud? Where are all the misspellings and misplaced punctuation? It has some of the hallmarks of a Bud post but he must have had some help with proofreading.

85 colormeAmerican June 20, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Well said, RWP. Democrats started the Civil War to own black slaves. Democrats created Jim Crow to suppress voting by black citizens. When Civil Rights began to crop up with Truman and Eisenhower integrating the military, Humphrey came storming into the DNC with the pseudo-Liberal idea of patronizing black Americans into one gigantic welfare addicted dependent Democratic Party ghetto voting-bloc, under a steady DNC drumbeat of eternal victimization and perpetual adolescence that has created a lesser element of citizenry.

What had been freedom-creating Equal Opportunity, Democrats turned into human-dignity-crippling Affirmative Action. And everyone buys into this horrid nonsense today.

My immediate family is racially mixed. It is sad that I must mention that. But I must. For else you here will condemn me Right and Left because Americans are so damnably bent on believing in the Democratic Party’s ownership of Black Americans as vote slaves. The impossible mantra of demanding respect and sympathy simultaneously for one’s color flows freely like a river of poison.

Americans fully accept that Black Americans are the exclusive property of the Democratic Party. But really, can anything be more essentially Un-American than that?

86 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Wow, colorme, great post. Thanks for that thought-provoking perspective.

87 Lee will lose June 20, 2014 at 9:37 AM

In 137 days

88 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Hate to break it to you, colorme, but the 1860 Democratic Party is not the same as the 2014 Democratic Party. The label may be unchanged but that’s about it. Can we elevate the discourse on this site above an elementary school level?

89 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Anonymous at #88, you need to back up a bit and review the whole thread rather than argue one post as though it took place in a vacuum. Your post does not respond to the point colorme was making. Your post is a straw man.

90 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM

#89, my point is that too many on this site posit that the qualities and beliefs of the Democrats are unchanged since 1860 since they have the same identifier label. Republican try to claim they are the friends of minorities because Abe Lincoln was a Republican. These are imbecilic statements.

91 Tonic & Tonic June 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Screw the Mayor’s new taxes, screw OPPD and their move away from good ole American coal.

92 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Tonic, why don’t you and MacDaddy form your own party. No-Nothing would be a good name. I know logic is beyond most of you, but Omaha got by on the cheap by combining storm and sanitary sewers. Now the bill is coming due and someone has to pay it.

93 Anonymous June 20, 2014 at 5:00 PM

#90, exactly, a straw man. It was Bud Pettigrew or other similarly misinformed liberal upthread who tried to claim that the people who were Southern Democrats 50 years ago are the same exact people who are Southern Republicans today. RWP and colormeAmerican were refuting that particular canard. Try and keep up, would ha?

94 Macdaddy June 20, 2014 at 5:17 PM

I prefer the Rent is Too Damn High Party.

95 Gerard Harbison June 20, 2014 at 5:31 PM

I’m just reading a lengthy ‘study’ cowritten by Chuck Hassebrook in 1990 in which he urged ending all federal and state support for research into GM crops, eliminating the research tax credit for private development of GM crops and regulating GM crops as pesticides. He also urged the UN, no less, to prohibit US export of GM crops. Nice to see he was on our side.

Since then, of course, GM crops have made additional billions of dollars for Nebraska farmers, substantially reduced their workload, and greatly reduced our use of herbicides and pesticides (the opposite of what Hassebrook predicted in his study). I wonder how this will play in the Third District (or, for that matter, rural parts of the First District).

Oh yeah, Hassebrook, while on the Regents, publicly condemned a deal whereby Monsanto gave UNL $2.5 m to license dicamba-resistance genes developed in our Biochemistry department. And he opposes all licensing of NU inventions to private companies.

I hope Ricketts, AFP or Club for Growth run with this. Hassebrook is a technology-hating Luddite who would have our farmers riding around in Amish buggies and pulling weeds by hand.

96 Macdaddy June 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM

RWP, that’s not true at all. There would be no farmers. Instead there would be a fair-trade consortium of national and international “Earth stewards” some of whom are elected and some appointed on a biennial basis. More of a quorum, actually. Anyway, this collectivist would vote as to whether any individual weed would be removed by the designated steward, provided of course that no steward would remove any more weeds than any other steward. All such weed removal decisions would be ratified by the Fruitarian Council to ensure that any particular species of weed is not being unfairly discriminated against. The Amish would run rings around Hassebrook’s vision of the future.

97 Gerard Harbison June 21, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Yeah, I guess it was unfair to compare Chuck and his crew to Amish, who are law-abiding, hard-working and amazingly productive, given the limitations they put on themselves.

On the other hand, no Amish are going to read this and get offended.

98 Lil Mac June 21, 2014 at 9:48 PM

History suggests Luddites were insincere, for they famously assassinated a mill owner by shooting the fellow in his groin, thus necessarily having used a firearm mechanism for that purpose. Since higher principles matters to our “Luddite of Lyons”, we are certain that Mr. Hassebrook would have attacked the mill owner’s groin with a flint knife. — Is flint knapping technological? Perhaps a stout stick then.

Lord Byron opposed Parliament when it made industrial sabotage a capital crime.

Byron was a famous defender of Luddites, an infamous frequenter of Sodomites, and a national hero of, what else, the Greeks. Were he alive today, Byron would write verse defending Chuck Hassebrook’s heroic stabbing of Nebraska’s agricultural DNA in its groin.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: