Summer Solsticing

Newish poll out from Public Policy Polling, on behalf of the Chuck Hassebrook for Governor campaign.

Looks like this:

Pete Ricketts………………….42%
Chuck Hassebrook…………..38%
Mark Elworth (sic) (uh…who?)…… 8%
Not sure……………………….13%

Looks like Ricketts is in trouble, yeah?

Yeah, maybe not so much.

Look, we like polls as much as the next bloggers. But anymore, unless the poll is coming from somewhat of an independent source, we say, “Feh!

If they’re put out from a campaign — Republican or Democrat or whatever Chip Maxwell is — we really don’t have much reason to put much down on it.

Oh, we can make some generalizations. In this case, “Pete’s ahead”, is a pretty safe one.
But by how much?

Well, we’d say somewhere between what Hassebrook is willing to say and what Ricketts is willing to put out.

Other than that, just consider this is a cutthroat business, and no one is ever going to put out info that is bad for them.

Ever.

***

Sort of interesting story in Roll Call that the NRCC has NOT reserved any air time for Lee Terry in November.

Then again, the DCCC hasn’t done that either for Brad Ashford.

And somewhere Maxwell just declared, “Victory!”

***

In case you missed it, an absolute MUST read about the world’s most uncomfortable dinner seating with Barack and Michelle and Bill and Hillary.

The key quotes from the story (all of which will be denied within the week),

Bill:

 “I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived.”

Obama:

 “That’s why I never invite that guy over.”

***

And oh how the Druids in Alliance danced…

88 comments

  1. 2006 Called... says:

    Look, I know you have to be a cheerleader for Pete Ricketts, but the fact is that he just doesn’t connect with Nebraskans. If you look at the poll he has incredibly high negatives. Chuck’s only disadvantage is he doesn’t yet have the name recognition, which is changing day by day and will not be the case come November. People learn about Chuck’s lifelong commitment to rural economic issues, agricultural production, and education and they’re gonna vote for him. He’s already represented one of the reddest parts of the state for 16 years on the Board of Regents. Chuck’s gonna win!!

  2. FFW says:

    Chuck’s for agricultural production? That’s a laugh. Go check out Gerad Harbison’s Twitter account to see just how wrong that is.

    Chuck represents the party of Barack Obama. Approval numbers for POTUS are in the tank. All Ricketts needs to do is tie UpChuck to BHO and he’s a winner.

  3. Chuck’s ;’lifelong commitment to rural issues’ is a extreme environmentalist war against GM agriculture he has fought for the last 25 years. In 1990 he co-authored a study titled ‘Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest’ which called for
    Banning federal and state fiunding of GM research
    Removing corporate tax credits for GM research
    Regulating GM crops as if they were pesticides
    Advising African countries not to purchase GM grops from the US
    Urging the United Nationas to ban US GM crop exports

    You can ask any real farmer (and I don’t mean the hippy who grows Jane Kleeb’s organic arugula) what this would have done to farm incomes over the last 20 years. Almost all the corn and soybeans grown in this state is GM. As a result we have higher farm incomes, farmers work less, and herbicide and insecticides are used less, so everyone’s environment is cleaner. Only the very fringe of the environmental movement still opposes genetic modification.

    One of the jobs of the governor has historically been to promote Nebraska produce overseas. Hassebrook has instead been telling people not to buy it.

    It gets worse. Some very clever people in UNL’s Biochemistry department, using the federal funding for biotech research that Hassbrook wanted to ban, developed dicamba resistance genes, and licensed them to Monsanto in 2005, for $2.5 m, money that went to help fund UNL. Chuck, who was on the Board of Regents at the time, publicly attacked the deal, and said if he’d been able to stop it, he would have. He opposes all exclusive licenses for UNL inventions, which means he, in effect, would stop companies paying UNL for them.

    And in 2011, Chuck voted against the appointment of the present UNl vice chancellor, apparently because Ronnie Green (who is, on a personal note, the most capable UNL administrator I’ve ever met) previously worked in a biotech company, and Chuck opposes what he calls ‘industrial agriculture’. Instead of doing genetics research, Chuck wants IANR/UNL to study ‘rural sociology’. In other words, instead of reinvigorating rural Nebraska, we should ban modern technology and sit back and study its decline.

    Chuck is an environmentalist radical who has abused his position as a Nebraska Regent (mostly unsuccessfully, fortunately) to foist his radicalism on our farmers and scientists.

    You can still download ‘Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest’ from the Union of Concerned Scientists website. Read it yourselves.

  4. Ricky says:

    Go Chuck and the Center for Rural Affairs! I think he knows more about ag issues than a professor in a comfy office in urban Lincoln.

    I have a feeling Billionaire Pete from Omaha is in trouble.

    ricky

  5. Ricky says:

    Although a lot of people I hoped to have seen last Wednesday at the rally to sign the minimum wage petition at Barrett’s bar in Omaha (on Leavenworth st actually), like Senators Avery and Howard and Cook and Councilmen Gerndant and Jerram (almost Jerram’s favorite pub too) and OPS big shot and Tea Party Favorite Justin Wayne no-showed and also billed but a no-show was Mayor of Lincoln Chris Beutler.
    Anyway, one of the office seekers I did talk to there who knows about the ongoing negotiations between the City of Omaha and the local fire fighters union on their new contract told me that once again the city is using this Republican Mike McQueen to argue on behalf of the city. And McQueen is getting over $300 dollars an hour for this job while meanwhile the city of Omaha is paying a lot of money to their own law department.
    All I know is this McQueen guy must be pretty good and the results should be fabulous but somehow I doubt that will be the case.
    I thought Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert was a fiscal conservative but this does not sound like a good use of taxpayers dollars to me.

    ricky from omaha

  6. Mary Shelly says:

    Frankencorn and Frankenbeans forever! Isn’t it exciting just waiting to find out what GM food will do to the human race in a few generations? I can’t wait!

  7. Yeah, Ricky, what does someone who has created genetically engineered organisms know about genetic engineering?

    ‘Mary Shelly’ should worry about those new motorized carriages we have. I think they will cause our legs to atrophy.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Digging into the poll numbers a bit revealed something quite surprising to me. I always believed our public schools and universities — from which most of our youth graduate — were a bunch of liberal indoctrination centers that also happen to teach math. I based this on having been a student as well as observation of and interaction with teachers and professors. I’d assumed, therefore, that our public education institutions had been turning out a generation of dogmatic liberals. But, if you look at the polling results, Hassebrook is in a virtual dead heat with Ricketts among voters aged 30-65. But he trails by a fairly significant margin among those 18-29. I know some public school teachers who would literally weep at those results. They’ve been trying so hard …

  9. I disagree with #9 when he says our high schools are a bunch of liberal indoctrination centers that also happen to teach math.

    In my experience, they mostly don’t teach math.

  10. Lil Mac says:

    Nice distillation, SS. This poll appears accurate. And it isn’t too difficult to decipher its meaning, unless one is planning on using OPM to bet on Chuck Hassebrook.

    Hassebrook won his Primary by 64,509. Ricketts won his by 57,936. Yet nobody ran against Hassebrook, nobody attacked him. He didn’t run, he strolled. By comparison, Ricketts weathered a GOP storm. Yes, Ricketts’ negatives are high. But he was up against Bruning, McCoy, Foley, Carlson, and Slone which hammered up the negatives. Of course, it is Ricketts’ job to drive those down. But the overall math is not on Hassebrook’s side.

    The combined vote totals for all of Ricketts’ GOP Primary opponents was 160,835, a whopping 250% more than every vote Hassebrook received. Of course, many Democrats stayed home on Primary Election Day since there was no contest invigorating them like Republicans were invigorated by the GOP’s spirited race. But that simply means today large numbers of NE GOP voters are energized, cranky to vote, and they actively loath Chuck’s friend Barack Obama.

    Between now and November, school is in session for average voters who will learn that Hassebrook isn’t a pseudo-conservative like Ben Nelson but a true blue Liberal. Perhaps less impactful is that his NU Regency was based on a measly BA, which a few will find BS and others won’t care. And perhaps even RWP underestimates average voters’ fear of mutant DNA corn-monsters eating human brains, or perhaps not. For betting on voters being extraordinarily smart or extraordinarily stupid is usually a bad bet.

    Voters are distracted and under-informed and often shallow. That shallowness leads some to like Obama’s cute Howdy Doody looks, and it leads them to measure Chuck’s gargoyle countenance against Pete’s smiling bald pate. Even at that superficial level, the math seems to work against Chuck. — Note: Those who don’t believe such matters impact elections tend to own a lot of Ron Popile’s crappy products.

    The greatest impact of this poll being close is that it accelerates shifting 160,835 GOP voters from passive acceptance to active support of Ricketts right now. General votes don’t even wake up until October..

    Pete likely wishes he had started out polling higher but his consultants are probably delighted with this initial poll standing. He has work to do. But the positioning is solid.

  11. Actually, LilMac, I don’t know. I know from keeping in touch with family back in Europe that there was a 20 year panic about ‘Frankenfood’ that kept them from permitting GM crops. But they’ve noticed the US has been growing GM corn for nearly 20 years without us all developing extra limbs and digits, and that our ag. exports are kicking their ass, to the extent their subsidized farming is driving them bankrupt. It has literally cost them tens of billions of dollars. Britain is now starting to permit GM food, not just BT/roundup-resistant cattle feed but vegetables people eat, such as tomatoes and potatoes. Germany will follow, and pretty soon France and Austria are going to find themselves alone.

    Will we, at the same time, slip backwards? I don’t think the average US consumer knows how ubiquitous biotech is, but our ag. sector knows, and I don’t think they’ll tolerate an anti-biotech zealot as governor.

  12. FFW says:

    Waiting for Ricky to say Chuck knows more about ag issues than the members of the Nebraska Farm Bureau and the Nebraska Cattlemen…

  13. P says:

    So I wonder if the Union of Concerned Scientists are also skeptical of all the drugs, such as insulin and GH, which are produced through GM bacteria. Maybe we need to raise more cattle to harvest their insulin for diabetics. Oh wait, that takes too much corn…we’ll need GM food for that.

  14. Pete Ricketts says:

    Hard to know what to think of Pete. His only “big” job was at TDAmeritrade, and unless the world has turned upside down, being the “SOB” — son of the boss — pretty much guarantees a good employee evaluation. What I DO know he masterminded were those gosh-awful commercials from his even-worse Senate race. Also, I think it’s pretty inevitable that a billionaire who’s never had to worry about his future — or the future of his kids — is out of touch with mainstream Nebraskans.

    As for genetically modified crops: The rest of the world has a big problem with them. They don’t want them, or they want them labeled so they can avoid them. Corporate interests know this and fight the labeling. Sounds like consumers have spoken. Is it a good thing to let industries with money and power hide ingredients that people would not knowingly eat?

  15. To Anonymous above. says:

    Why not complete and accurate labels for uber-liberal democrats that will say anything to get elected then do the opposite to make this a socialized country

  16. Actually, #15 is wrong. The rest of the world is racing to catch up with us in adopting them. 10% of the world’s cropland was planted with GM crops in 2010, and it’s increasing rapidly. There’s broad consensus that genetically modified crops pose no risk to human health (remember ‘broad scientific consensus’?) Less than two weeks ago, the EU commission voted to allow member states to control GMO use as they wish.

    As for non-crop uses; #14 is right. Almost all bimolecular research and a large chunk of pharmaceutical production uses GMOs.

    The problem with labeling is that it ignores that food from different sources is often mixed. Keeping them separate costs money and is often impossible. If you want to ignore the science, you can certainly buy ‘organic’ food (and pay for it). But there’s absolutely no reason why the rest of us should subsidize your anxiety.

  17. Ricky says:

    Go Chuck from Lyons for Governor!
    Although I doubt GM crops will be much of an issue in the Governor’s race, I believe Chuck From Lyons knows more about the political implications of opposing GM foods than a know-it-all professor sitting in an air conditioned office in Lincoln.
    Let’s see Pete Ricketts talk with credibility on GM crops; Ricketts knows agriculture about as much as he knows shampoo.
    Hassebrook knows more about farm issues than the RWP and Ricketts combined.

    ricky from omaha

  18. P says:

    Not only is transgenic food “not harmful” it is often better. A great example of this is the “golden rice” that Greenpeace abhors and vandalizes. More than 1/2 a million kids die EACH YEAR as a result of vitamin A deficiency while eating very nutrient-poor rice. Lives are at stake here. A campaign against GM food doesn’t just hurt us it kills those in the poorest countries. Westerners can afford to pay 3 times as much for the organic food. Those living in poverty cannot. Perhaps it would benefit Chuck to take a trip overseas to see the food, energy, and nutrient poverty that anti-development policies cause. I just don’t think we need to elect him governor to make that trip happen. If the Democrats really are for the “little guy” they’d be looking for ways to make energy and food cheaper not drive the cost up. Higher prices hurt the poor more than anyone. When they don’t have food to eat or lights to turn on the poor do not care if the food they eat is produced by genetic modification or if their energy is produced by burning fossil fuels. They are just happy to have food to eat and the electricity with which to cook it. (as opposed to burning ‘renewable’ dung to cook their food)

  19. P says:

    Ricky (from OMAHA), his experience in agriculture makes his opposition to GM foods even more egregious. He should know better.

  20. Anonymous says:

    GM crops won’t matter? It’s about identity. It’s about being out of step. It’s going to matter one hell of a lot. This and many other issues will show how he’s out of step. Just wait..

  21. Macdaddy says:

    Why are Democrats so against science? Here is a scientifically proven easily understood wunder-product and they scream that they want to place even more pressure on the land and increase the need for deforestation. In the meantime, apparently the only mark against Ricketts are some political ads he shot almost a decade ago. Wow. You liberals should go ahead and bet the farm against Ricketts. You were going under anyway with your outdated and inefficient methods.

  22. RWP says:

    Ricky doesn’t know squat about either agriculture
    or genetics. But in my experience, the more ignorant he is of a subject, the louder his opinion.

  23. anonymous says:

    But climate change is not science, Macdaddy? Don’t cherry pick the scientific method or the results of that method. While GMO and climate change are in different domains, science is science is science. We’d have less need for GMOs if we weren’t jacking with the climate. ‘Course if we jack climate too much we can just turn humans into GMOs and sail right along.

  24. GMOs have absolutely nothing to do with climate.

    Did you know that when you eat cheese, you’re eating a bioengineered protein? We no longer get rennet from calves’s stomachs, anymore. And cheese is now actually vegetarian food.

  25. anonymous says:

    True, GMOs have absolutely nothing to do with climate that we know of. I read a paper 3 or 4 years ago asserting an uninvestigated (sic) biomass is airborne bacteria. Rough modeling seemed to show such a mass might be equivalent to the Amazon Basin in size and impact.

  26. Cityslicker says:

    The recent Cattleman’s and Farm Bureau’s endorsements beg the question, how important is Agriculture to Nebraska and Nebraskans? The usually answer, “really important”, isn’t much of an answer.

    Government measures AG output by total agricultural receipts. NE ranks #4. #1 is CA, #2 TX, #3 IA, #4 NE and #5 MN. Dollar amounts go with each but because the states vary in topography, climate, arable land, water, etc., such figures don’t tell us much We’d guess bigger states would produce more, smaller less. But that’s not always the case. In land area, for example, CA, TX and MN are larger than NE and IA is smaller. Yet smaller IA produces more than NE while larger MN produces less.

    As I perused all this data, nothing seemed to stick out. But then I divided each states’ AG revenues by population and suddenly we have an interesting picture. Total AG receipts per capita per annum are; CA $1,015. TX $810. IA $ 7,993. NE $9,436. And MN $2,899.

    NE isn’t the biggest AG producer but, person for person, NE is apparently the most agriculturally productive. Does that mean these AG endorsements matter more in a gubernatorial race? I don’t know. Large numbers of NE voters are urban.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Let’s not confuse GMO with pesticides. GM crops in and of themselves are not a problem. Only when we slather them with carcinogens do alarm bells go off. The anti-GM people I know aren’t saying “make it illegal”, they are saying lets pump the brakes and actually study the effects of these chemicals. Very little public funding is available for such studies due to the strong lobbying arms of the Monsantos and Syngentas of the world, and the private studies are dismissed as incomplete, too small, and political. Can we just finally sit down and study this in a controlled, credible way instead of blindly chugging the ground water cuz the RWPs say its fine?

  28. Anonymous says:

    Everything and everyone alive is composed of atoms that have been consumed, exhaled, expelled as flatus, voided, plopped and oozed. All food becomes poo becomes food becomes living creatures becomes poo. At some stage in the process, it runs for public office.

    Most of you today ate something from a cloaca, Don’t even try to act like you care about where your food comes from.

  29. Anonymous says:

    That’s an interesting theory, Cityslicker. But AG receipts, of course, do not predict voter allegiance, nor turnout. The better predictor is AG subsidies, not receipts!

  30. But with GMOs pesticide use has decreased, not increased. And a lot of the environmental fringe say GMOs are the problem.

    Note that Chuck Hassebrook wasn’t proposing restricting the pesticides. He wanted to shut down R&D on the GMOs.

  31. Interested Observer says:

    Obviously, agriculture is “really important” to Nebraska, since 2 years ago the topic in here was WELFARE GRAZING and fences and now this year it’s GMO’s!

  32. Macdaddy says:

    Oh, you mean climate change (when the f has the climate not been changing) like the “science” using the made up numbers? That climate change?

  33. Question says:

    How does mean jean expect to justify a 45% hike in sewer fees, followed by 9% per year after that with no planned end in sight, when the greatest cut in her recent budget is 1%?

    Any tax increase before 10% cuts is inexcusable. Sorry Jean but you just Kay Orred yourself.

  34. Anonymous says:

    IO, fences and grazing weren’t THE topics in here 2 years ago; they were YOUR topics, since you kept bringing them up time after time after time. Had you not been so obsessive about them , I don’t think they would have been on anyone else’s radar. The only reason they were discussed at all was because you kept throwing it out there. So, don’t try to say those were issues important to the board. It was personal to you and you kept throwing it in everyone else’s faces.

  35. BREAKING NEWS: New Poll Shows Ashford Winning! says:

    Lee Terry: 239 votes
    Brad Ashford: 423 votes
    Chip Maxwell: 299 votes

    Poll conducted within the 2nd Congressional District, June 20-23, Margin of Error +/- 5%

  36. Anonymous says:

    So, Interested Observer admits to being an internet troll. Always suspected but it’s nice to have irrefutable proof.

  37. to anon above says:

    You need to brush up on your history/monty python. Only witches (who are necessarily made of wood because they float) are burnt at the stake.

    But really when are we going to talk about Jean Stothert aborting her campaign promises? She told us she would cut the budget and lower taxes. She did not say anything about tax hikes that would make Obama blush!

  38. After 34 Years says:

    After 34 years as a 7 day subscriber to the Omaha World-Herald, today I decided to cancel my subscription on the news that Warren Buffett gave $100,000 to Chuck from Lyons. There are a million other reasons I am leaving the OWH, but this was the tipping point.

  39. Ricky says:

    I was born and raised in Omaha and know next to nothing about agriculture. (My father in law was a Iowa farmer however).
    I said Chuck from Lyons knows more about agriculture than the know it all professor sitting in his air conditioned office in Lincoln AND Mr Born with a silver spoon in his mouth Ricketts.
    And now Chuck From Lyons will be better able to tell his story now that Warren From Omaha gave him a hundred grand.
    Now I ask you; is Mr Buffet a more respected businessman than Mr Ricketts?
    The answer to that is obvious.
    This race for Governor will be very close.

    ricky from omaha

  40. RWP says:

    By the way, notice that Chuck Hassebrook wants to stop Keystone XL, while Warren Buffett is heavily invested in tank cars and railroads. It was Dick Holland, another Berkshire shareholder, who set up Bold Nebraska. I’m amused by suckers like Ricky who think this is about anything but money.

  41. Lil Mac says:

    “Would modern Liberal Democrats be Tory or Patriots?” A good question as we approach Independence Day.

    They are “suckers”, says RWP. A point that appears to spans the ages.

    Democratic Party Liberal Environmentalists eagerly serve billionaire oil transporter Buffett’s suppression of the Keystone pipeline, while Buffett’s own rail oil transports constitute a thousand mini-pipelines per day rolling across Nebraska at breakneck speed. Suckers indeed.

    Similarly, Tory Americans worked against their own interests by helping our sovereign government of that time, located in London, to actively screw American taxpayers; while King George III, who when not playing golf like a literal madman, was trying to rule by decree, which Tory Americans encouraged, despite knowing that Parliament exempted itself from the burdensome laws it saddled onto the backs of Americans including the backs of Tory Americans. Indeed, the U. S. Congress today has its own better healthcare system and Democrats are urging Obama to rule by decree. There is an argument to be made that the government trusting Liberal and Moderate suckers of today are like the Tory suckers of yesteryear.

    Of course, standing on Lexington Green with a redcoat’s ball in one’s belly might have made an avid Patriots feel like a sucker. You make your choices, you take your chances.

  42. By the way, some of the tank cars that exploded after the derailment at Lac Mégantic, killing 47 people (5 of whom were so vaporized no body parts were recovered) were leased from Union Tank Cars, owned by Berkshire Hathaway. And they were carrying Bakken crude from North Dakota, which is notoriously rich in volatiles. If Keystone XL had been approved in a timely manner, a lot of the Bakken output would be being carried safely via the pipeline to the Gulf. Perhaps those 47 people might not have died. It’s hard to say. But rail terminal expansion and the tank car business have both boomed since Berkshire shareholder Dick Holland bankrolled Bold Nebraska, eventually resulting in the pipeline being delayed over two years. And Chuck Hassebrook fully intends to delay it some more.

    Warren’s response to the safety problems with DOT-111 tank cars that exploded was that if the federal government passed a law mandating safer cars, his company would be glad to build 5000 of them. Classic crony capitalism.

    All these people have blood on their hands, in my opinion. The Democrats are right that the problem is greedy amoral bastards. Unfortunately, the greedy amoral bastards are themselves.

  43. Ricky says:

    Mr Buffett has loads of interests in the energy sector. He will make money if the Keystone Pipeline is built or not. And I have never heard him say one way or another whether he approves of the pipeline. I know Buffett believes in man made global warming, and hopefully the Keystone Pipeline will never be built (and it won’t) so we can stop ruining the planet with fossil fuel.
    Also when I attended the BRK annual meeting last May I asked the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad guy at their exhibit about the double sided box cars for carrying oil. He told me the company was in the process of changing over ALL of their cars to safer ones.
    Dave Domina should also come out against the Keystone pipeline. He knows the issue having litigated the unconstitutional LB 1161 against the state and winning.
    Had not most of the Democrats been bought off by TransCanada they would be calling for Domina to run against the Keystone.
    ricky from omaha

  44. Those aren’t box cars, Ricky. Don’t you ever get tired of being called out for complete ignorance?

    Union could retire all their DOT-111 TANK cars tomorrow. But they won’t because they’re making millions for Warren and Dick, and who cares about human lives?

  45. Logops says:

    Former logistics exec here. The chem guy is correct. Box cars are for either freight or they get temporary grain doors to carry dry bulk (grain). Hoppers also dry bulk. Gondolas for coal. Flat racks for containers. But, come on, grade school kids know the big round black cylinders are tank cars for oil. Then again, we are dealing with people dim enough to try to justify Buffett being an environmentalist.

    Buffet’s BNSF Railway transports 6 out of every 10 BBLs of oil from N. Dakota. The Castleton, ND derailment last year was an environmental disaster that caused 1,500 people to be evacuated. That was Buffett’s greed. People have died in these accidents. It was the fourth major North American derailment in six months by trains transporting crude oil.

    Trains go through urban areas pipelines tend to avoid

    Watching Democrat environmentalists justify Buffett and his oil train greed is like watching whores squirm in church.

  46. Ricky says:

    Warren’s Berkshire Hathaway is one of the leading producers of solar energy in the world and has billions invested in solar powered plants. Buffett has a stake in the oil fields in Canada and in new car battery technology.
    Buffett and Munger are interested in modernizing the electrical grid in America, which they describe as antiquated. Berkshire is making a ton of money in the energy sector and whether or not the Keystone Pipeline is built would have little impact on Berkshire’s bottom line.
    So to say Mr Buffett is holding up the Keystone Pipeline to make money is just dumb. Like I said Buffett has never come out for or against the pipeline. It’s not his decision to make.
    The pipeline is being stopped by the people of Central Nebraska who will not let it go through their land, not Warren from Omaha.
    And I bet if Mr Domina comes out today against the Keystone Pipeline, that is if the Dems bought out by TransCanada money let him, he would go up 5 points and get a dedicated group of supporters behind him.
    Ricky From Omaha

  47. Anonymous says:

    Is there anyone out there who actually likes David Domina? He won the Democrat primary by default and Mike Meister’s gubernatorial campaign is proof that three-fourths of Democrats vote for whichever candidate has the D no matter what. So, Domino will get votes. But does anyone actually like the guy?

  48. Logops says:

    Gerard, reading about things is how we survive and advance, else long ago you’d have tasted potassium cyanide and I’d have let tonnage crush me. Monkey see monkey do results in dead monkeys.

    Unfortunately, that is how most Americans vote, with a magical hope that they can pull that trigger without having honed their knowledge so as to aim it. Ask any Deming analyst and he will tell you that 99% of everything people think they know is really a veneer of habit over scant knowledge. Americans increasingly don’t even have the scant knowledge to maintain the thinnest such veneer.

    Everything we know as experts in our area, and everything we know as generalists who risk all by voting against our own interests, comes from a lifetime of reading and doing the math. Unfortunately, from birth to Election Day, most Americans are encouraged to be empty husks filled with more self-esteem than a Galileo rates. And yet possessing knowledge tends to make a Galileo less apt to act like he knows everything, while the most dead-certain of voters are often those who know the least. They also tend to be the most emotional, because as empty husks what else in rattling around inside but ego?

    Emotions of leftist altruism and rightist patriotism are chimp-like impulses which, lacking a foundation of knowledge and inability to assess and thus predict what such impulses may result in down the road, heavens or horrors unseen, makes voters their own worst enemy.

    Liberal Conservationists support the environmental pirate Buffett, like veterans support the military dunce Hagel, like Conservatives support GOP federal solutionists. People unthinkingly emote themselves into situations that twist them like pretzels. We read and do math because it either that or be the dead monkey.

  49. Heineman - Hawks connection says:

    So now it turns out Gov Heineman had a secret meeting with Super Regent Hawks on state time.
    Lobbying for the office of UN President no doubt. Was it after that Hawks put out that press release saying Heineman could not meet with Regents now that he declared?
    That was a smoke screen, just like the Regents saying they wanted public input on the new pres right after Hawks asked Hadley of the Unicam to pass a bill allowing the search to go on in private.
    This was the same Hawks who held a secret meeting in Mound City to avoid the states public meetings laws last search.
    This is the same guy who loves to get his names on buildings, likes BO’s temper because it shows fire, and probably was the guy who bought out the great Steve Pederson and Bill Callahan and brought back T O as Athletic Director at NU. That did not turn out so great.
    And this is the same super regent who’s wife just gave a huge chunk of change to Republican Ricketts campaign for Gov. Hmmm I wonder where she got that money.
    Raise your hand if you think Heineman and Hawks already have a deal to make the lame duck Gov the next NU President. Wow lots of hands up out there in cyber land.

    ricky from omaha

  50. OpusDay says:

    GM foods can have copyright protection, that is my major concern. Even if I had never planted GM crops and monsanto’s soybeans blew onto my property I would either have to kill all those plants or face severe consequences(the monsanto mercenaries). Is that fair? is it even a little disconcerting that one company could and can control so much of our ag? As far as their safety is concerned I think they are fine, maybe some problems with bees(yet to be peer reviewed), but overall they are better for human consumption than the crops they replaced. But if people can still refute climate change then I can understand the sloppy science that keeps GM seeds out of the world seed bank.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Liberal Media jabs Obama for reaching his filthy hands past the sneeze guard at a fast food restaurant. He is complicit in the criminal deaths of border patrolmen, diplomats and veterans and yet the problem Democrats have with Obama is bad hygiene?

    As a boy, Obama wrote verse about his adult male babysitter’s “yellow stains” in the man’s undershorts matching the yellow stains in little Obama’s own underwear. To normal people, this raises the terrifying specter of a serially abandoned, horribly abused child holding the nuclear trigger.

    But what bothers Democrats? Probably that his underwear was not laundered.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Bringing TO in as AD didn’t work out so great? Ricky, quit sniffing glue. TO got rid of Callahan. No brainer. Delivered us out of the big Texas conference and into the Big Ten. Frickin awesome. He hired Tim Miles, perhaps the best coaching hire since Devaney. And he hired Erstad, which was also a great hire. He removed only three coaches, and each time he replaced them with someone better. And the facility improvements that he engineered have worked out fantastically well. Just shut up. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

  53. T O's legacy as Husker AD says:

    What a disaster that was as no coach T O hired has ever won a conference championship. And of course T O gave us BO; enough said about that; TO will never live that one down.
    Miles I give you was good enough to get the team to finish fourth (that is: 4th. meaning three teams are better that is out of the money.) Of course Miles is following in BO’s footsteps got kicked out of the most important game in Husker basketball history in 19 years. Miles will move on somewhere else before he wins a conference championship in Lincoln.
    And the Big Ten was the worse thing to happen to the Husker fan since 1995:
    What do these teams have in common: Illinois, Rutgers, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa and Wisconsin. Those teams come to Lincoln in the next two seasons. That is really boring. The Big Ten treats NU like crap.
    Had T O not come back Steve Pederson and BIlly C would have had a national championship by now.
    And I think it was Super Regent Hawks that brought T O back. Nebraska should stop paying attention to Hawks.

    Ricky From Omaha

  54. Anonymous says:

    Most of the members of Congress are millionaires and the Democrats are wealthier than the Republicans. And that is after they lost zillionaire Ketchup King John Kerry.

    As for fat cat donors, per Open Secrets, over the past 25 years $416 more went to the Democrat Party than the GOP. Of the 16 top donors, 10 are strongly Democrat and 6 fence sitters. You have to drop down to #17 before you find the first GOP leaning donor… the United Parcel Service. (I bet you thought I was going to say Koch Bros. Koch are actually #60 well below and behind many, including behind 18 unions,) Of those who don’t sit on the fencet, most donate to Democrats. The highest Democrat donor was $108 mil. The highest GOP donor was $33 mil. Koch Bros donated 18 million. Don’t know why Democrats are so afraid of Koch. Sort of a piss ant among the big hitters.

    Analyze all that as you will. Frankly, Fiscal Republicans are cheap bastards with their money. Liberal Democrats who “share the wealth” do that sharing with other people’s money. That grows government. If your aim is to buy influence in government, you don’t back a Republican who promises less government thus less influence.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Bull….! If your aim is to buy influence in government go ahead and back Republicans. They promise less because they lie.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Dear frustrated donkey person at #74.

    I will take your advice and back Republicans. They are as candidates as ambitious as any Democrat candidate, though statistically less wealthy than the richer fat cat Liberal Democrats in Congress.

    However, you are correct that some Republicans lie about reducing government. They promise less and yet instead increase government size, spending, waste, intrusion… in short, they are bad because they are too much like Democrats.

    Thanks for clarifying that.

  57. Anonymous says:

    You get “A” for cherry-picking, #73, And again prove that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with right-wing nuts. It’s a psychological problem where you latch onto the first piece of info that “proves” your point.

    Look into PAC donations (at least where donors aren’t hidden). That’s where the huge sums of money from the Kochs and their ilk end up. And that PAC money by far goes to Repub causes and candidates.

  58. Anonymous says:

    #76. What I latched onto at #74 was your words. There were 21 of them. Not much cherry there to pick.

    Democrats in Congress are richer than Republicans per the Democrat’s own financial statements. If you don’t like that, take up with your donkey.

    You also think federal reporting is wrong ala political donations. That is under the control of President Obama’s administration. His IRS is right now in the legal crapper for harassing donors whom you don’t like. That’s not scrutiny, that’s them digging into donors with a vengeance. But if you want to think the donor reporting is wrong, once again, talk to your donkey.

    But here’s the thing. The richest people in Congress really are Democrats. The biggest donors per administration records are Democrats. That’s not cherry picked. That a huge pendulous dingleberry hanging from your donkey’s rump. Your donkey. Your problem.

  59. anonymous says:

    What’s the beef about some – actually a few – Democrats having money? It’s as if Capitalism has suddenly become dirty, or that the economic foundation of our Republic has split into virtuous Capitalism & unvirtuous Capitalism – and that virtue and the lack are clearly & cleanly split along party lines. When was that ever true? Of course it’s rich (sorry) for the Dems to complain about the Koch Brothers.

    The story goes that when Nancy Pelosi buys lunch for her staff, thanks are given to Mr. Pelosi and not God. Why? Because the Mr is a successful stock broker, whose millions financed Nancy’s political career. More like Rush Limbaugh than different. It’s just plain old Capitalism, part of the least bad system yet devised.

  60. Anonymous says:

    I’m trying to figure out if these straw man arguments Democrats keep making are deliberate or just a product of Democrats being daft. Take post #80 for instance. Nobody bu nobody is complaining that there are rich Democrats. The point that was being made is that Democrats are being hypocrites with their collective outrage and histrionics over the Koch brothers when their own major donors make the Koch brothers look like pikers in comparison.

  61. Anonymous says:

    Democrats suffer reality well. Their path is too easy. Liberals runs so fluidly downhill, riding waves of voters demanding free stuff, that Democrats grow careless. Like “poor” Hillary.

    It is infinitely more difficult to sell the idea that one can go to Washington to reduce government. But how? For every American, right and left, is immersed in federal control and largess.

    Our Constitution originally gave every individual citizen X amount of freedom from government. Since then, every few years, voters like dumb virgins have given away a kiss here and a feel there in exchange for bits of Uncle’s costume jewelry, always more freedom for some trinket. Republicans today suppose themselves to be the same 1787 virgins and indignantly demand they not be raped by creepy old Uncle Sam. But that boat has sailed.

    American voters are today like welfare mothers who approach a vastly more bloated and degenerate Uncle Sam, begging not to be impregnated again.

    Grim? Perhaps. But as delusions go this Paleo-GOP delusion has a nostalgic decency about it. There is nothing so soothing for Liberal Democrats. Not these days anyway.

    Working Democrats are forced to listen to Hillary’s protestation of poverty, watch millionaire Democrats in Congress hypocritically vilify the wealthy, and NE Dems are forced to defend the environmental rapist Buffett who bought the NE Democratic environmentalist candidate. That’s really got to hurt.

  62. This is the truth says:

    I’ve been reading RWP’s posts about Chuck Hassebrook with keen interest. Back in 1986, when I was a liberal, I met the man at the Democrat State convention. I came away impressed. He wasn’t running for office; he was just running a little ag think-tank in Walthill, Nebraska. I had a chance to sit down and speak with him one-on-one.

    This was right about the time that Congress passed Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy act giving farmers their own type of bankruptcy to file so that they could reorganize their debts and continue with their family farms (assuming they were able to meet the reorganization requirements under the code, of course). Family farmers were in crisis at the time. Many were going under. There was a consolidation of more and more ag land under fewer and fewer owners, which drove down rural populations, and threatened the very existence of small towns.

    I wasn’t educated in the area and so I don’t know if his contentions were accurate, but he made sense. Ag Policy, he told me, benefited major corporations more that it did small farmers. For instance, he described how federal research dollars were allocated to the development of chemicals — pesticides and herbicides — to make crops more productive. But the effects of these research developments gave an advantage to larger and larger operators who could afford bigger and bigger equipment to apply more and more chemicals.

    This was bad for a number of reasons, not least of which was that it created kind of a farm machinery arms race because the more efficient economies of scale in applying more and more chemicals favored the guy who could cover more ground by himself with bigger and more expensive machinery. But too many guys couldn’t cash-flow the expensive equipment purchases and were driven under by the high production costs that the smaller guys couldn’t spread over enough acreage.

    Chuck Hassebrook’s solution to this serious problem was to suggest that the Federal Government should direct more research to weed and pest resistant crop seeds, which would require less repeated application of harmful chemicals, wouldn’t require the significant investment in fixed capital costs (such as HUGE tractors and combines) and would allow the smaller operators to compete.

    Now, you can argue all you want with the underlying contentions, but let’s just accept them at face value and then explain to me one would reconcile Hassebrook’s position in 1986 with what the Right Wing Professor had to say about Hassebrook’s opposition to GMOs 5 years later?

  63. That’s an interesting question. You don’t have to take my word about how Hassebrook felt about biotech in 1991, by the way. Download ‘Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest’ and read it for yourself. It’s online in several places.

    It’s possible Chuck did not know in 1986 what Monsanto had in the pipeline (I did, but I’m good friends with one of the guys who did some of the original work on Roundup Ready). I think Chuck’s so knee-jerk anti-corporation he could have changed his views just because it was Monsanto that was developing the technology. But, in fact, #84 is right. Herbicide-resistant crops were exactly what a lot of the environmentalists were dreaming of in 1986. They don’t just reduce herbicide use; they make no-till much more feasible, which reduces erosion and help soil structure (and increase carbon retention).

    Are these guys capable of changing their views 180 degrees just because Monsanto instead of the government developed what they want? Yes, I think they are.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Soooo, Lee got a pretty lackluster response to his speech at the convention today. He didn’t seem very happy about it either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.