Does Republican = Conservative?

Screen Shot 2015-04-16 at 10.31.20 AM
Self-described “Conservatives” against the Death Penalty

A group of Senators and their hangers-on took to the Capitol Rotunda yesterday to express their desire to repeal the Death Penalty in Nebraska.

They called themselves, and were described by the local media as being “conservative”.

They were all Republicans as well.

So here is the question: If you are a Republican state Senator, are you automatically a “conservative”?

Because anyone can be a Republican. All you have to do is check the box and PRESTO, you’re a Republican! Many politicos would argue that if you want a future in Nebraska politics you’re much much better off registering as a Republican, no matter where you actually land on the political spectrum.

So, lets look at the 10 Republican state Senators who have stated they want to repeal the Death Penalty, and a few of their recent votes:

Colby Coash: Against allowing open votes for Committee Chairs; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Al Davis: For giving illegal aliens drivers licenses; Against allowing open votes for Committee Chairs; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Laura Ebke: For raising the Gas Tax; Against Winner Take All in Nebraska; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Tommy Garrett: For giving illegal aliens drivers licenses; Against allowing open votes for Committee Chairs; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Mark Kolterman: For raising the Gas Tax; Against allowing open votes for Committee Chairs; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Bob Krist: Against allowing open votes for Committee Chairs; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Brett Lindstrom: For raising the Gas Tax.

John McCollister: For raising the Gas Tax; Against Winner Take All in Nebraska; For repealing mandatory minimums.

Now I happened to pick 5 votes — one of which hasn’t come to a vote of the full body yet. And I’m looking at this group, because THEY’RE the ones who have declared themselves “conservative”. (There are others who have comparative voting records on these issues.)

Feel free to pick yours.

At what point does your actual VOTING record trump your declaration that you are “conservative” or, as Bob Krist, who endorsed Democrat Brad Ashford for Congress, declared on the radio:

“I am Republican enough. I am conservative enough.”

Enough for whom?
For your own conscience?
Or how about for those that elected you?

Lindstrom, for one, said his “view of capital punishment has changed since he took office in January.

So, from December to say, February his position changed…on the Death Penalty? You’d think that is something the voters may have been interested in, no? And he flips on such a major issue in a span of 3 months? What’s next?

And he and the other “conservatives” say their support of the repeal say it’s based on money — it’s too expensive to put someone to death. But Governor Ricketts says he has a study that says the cost is negligible.

So if that is the case, then what is the real reason? (And where does someone like Lindstrom stand on that?)

Look, you can be for or against the Death Penalty, for whatever reason you like. But let’s stop calling every Nebraska Republican a “conservative”.

Especially once they have a voting record to review.

***

And it would seem that we can pretty much declare that the honeymoon that Governor Pete Ricketts had with this overwhelmingly Republican legislature lasted only about a fortnight longer than that of Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell. (Look it up, kids.)

Here, we’ll make it more up to date: The Cigar Bar law was the “connection” date that the girls make with The Bachelor, and then everything after has been the hounding of the now-split couple by TMZ after the Final Rose ceremony.

Winner-Take-All, Gas Tax, Licenses for Illegals, Repeal of Mandatory Minimums, Death Penalty — where is the Governor and his team on this stuff?

When the session started we were convinced that it was all about back-room deals, and that the Gov was playing Chess against the Checkers players in the Unicam.

Instead there is a tremendous leadership void. Many say it goes back to Team Ricketts failing to mend any fences after the primary. It was a dangerous move and was bound to negatively impact huge swaths of the administration — and we are seeing the ramifications on the legislative side first. Where will we see it next?

And here’s a question: Is anyone in the Unicameral afraid of Governor Ricketts? Are there any repercussions for crossing him? Does anyone care? Usually there is significance when you cross a leader. You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

And do these types of situations usually get better?
We are watching and wondering.

***

Brad Ashford’s fundraising numbers were announced yesterday — raised about $200K with $162K COH — and the reactions varied.

Some local pols thought they were decent enough. Others thought the comparison to Lee Terry (by the OWH) — an eight term Member — were not on the ball at all. They thought a better comparison would, obviously, be to a freshman member who should be working his butt off to raise cash — as opposed to just grabbing the low hanging PAC fruit.

(For instance, Iowa Republican Freshman Rep. David Young, whose district includes Des Moines and Council Bluffs, has raised over $333K, with $351K COH.)

But the OWH is going to support Ashford no matter how goofy he gets. Heck, they wrote an editorial about mandatory minimums and the legislature, and instead of talking to, you know, a member of the legislature, they took quotes from Congressman Ashford! Wha-huh?

A frequent lament of the political class in the 2nd District is that INCUMBENT Ashford just is not going to be easy to beat. They knew that to be the case, no matter how many newbies to the party thought it would be great to get rid of Lee Terry so they could put in a “real” conservative (sniff).

But now you’ve got Ashford. And he is actually able to say the right thing when asked an easy question (“I’m not concerned about campaigning. I’m here to represent the people…“) — even if it IS true that he is a campaigning flake.

Oh, and when Hillary comes to the 2nd to campaign, and dumps a bunch of cash for the local Democrats because Nebraska doesn’t have Winner Take All, just remember how awesome it is that the state bucks what the rest of the country does on that one.

***

Back to the “conservative” question, remember back in 2006 when Ben Nelson was “conservative enough” for Nebraska — then was the final vote for ObamaCare?

Now there is another consequence of that vote, with a mandate of ObamaCare coming down that will change the definition of small group market from 1-50 employees to 1-100 employees in 2016.

This means employers with 51-100 employees would be subjected to modified community rating, increasing their premium rates and impacting coverage, in addition to dealing with the employer mandate which also takes effect in 2016.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry is working to fix that by co-sponsoring a new bill (HR 1624) that would let the states decide how to define those markets. And the aforementioned Brad Ashford may be jumping on it as well.

And the wheels spin.

***

ICYMI, Senator Fischer spoke to the press on her Equal Pay amendment. See it here:

Don’t be surprised if you see her, more and more, in the national press…

70 comments

  1. PoliticsJunky says:

    The information I’ve picked up from numerous senators and others in the capitol is the exact opposite of what the 2nd section says. I’ve heard that the governor has been calling Senators and breathing down the necks of those who vote against him. Supposedly he is working the phones hard on the death penalty bill. Not sure what the sources are on that part of the pieces, but I’d say there’s another side to the story.

  2. Conservative Enough says:

    I have had conversations with many of these ‘Conservative’ Senators and during their campaigns, when they claimed to support conservative issues. But since they have become Senators, their positions have ‘evolved.’ Sounds like these conservative Senators have learned from Senator Ben Nelson (great comparison SS).

    We have to wait until the next election; but Governor Ricketts needs to lead. I am hoping that the Governor has not evolved…The people of Nebraska have not ‘evolved’.

  3. Re: PoliticsJunky says:

    Which is worse, PoliticsJunky – The Governor losing control because he isn’t calling enough, or the Governor working the phones and having meetings with Senators and still losing?

    I’m not trying to be snarky, but I think either way illustrates Sweepers point.

  4. Matt Butler says:

    I hope the Senators listened to the presser this morning with the Governor, AG Peterson, Douglas County Attorney Don Klein, Sheriff Tim Dunning, OPD Chief Schmaderer and others who called for NOT REPEALING the death penalty. Death can be a valuable tool in a prosecutor’s tool kit. Frankly there is no reason for a guy like Carey Dean Moore to still be alive on Death Row for the murders of 2 cab drivers after having gamed the system since 1979. Remember crime victims were denied ALL of their rights, and get no appeals.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Can folks here remind us why we should trust the government to execute people? Why is this the one policy to write the government a blank check, especially on something where an error is truly irreversible?

    Lock ’em up for life without parole and be done with it.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Matt’s just a typical uber-conservative who will never change his mind about anything. “The death penalty was good enough for my great-grandfather so it’s good enough for me.”

  7. To Matt says:

    Senator Hilkemann just announced that he supports the Senator Chambers bill.

    Just another Senator who forgets that he represents his/her voters.

    Where is Governor Moenning?

  8. Anon says:

    Krist said today he is a conservative and Republican, Krist could say he is a democrat and a liberal, no matter, what is seen is that he is a phoney.

  9. Conservative Wall of Shame says:

    Death Penalty Repeal Wing (building additional wings for growing members):

    Davis
    Ebke
    Garrett
    Hilkemann
    Kloterman
    Lindstrom
    Mcallister
    (note…Krist has his own conservative whiner complex)

    Senators who refused to take a picture for the Conservative Wall of Shame (but deserve a spot light):
    Bloomfield
    Larson
    Smith
    Stinner

    I long for the good old days when Senator Adams (Lathrop) ran the Unicameral….

  10. What the governor needs to do says:

    1) Visitors can sit in the gallery without an invitation. The Gov should go sit up there in person while people vote. 2) Get voters to be calling their senators so their legislators can feel the heat. 3) Provide polling to the senators on hot issues so they know where their constituents are on issues.

  11. Matt Butler to Anonymous at 11:30 AM says:

    My reason for supporting capital punishment is because in the summer of 1979 I was a cab driver. Today, Carey Dean Moore is still on death row. I was going into my junior year of college. He didn’t get me. He got two other cab drivers. I guess those weren’t my days to die. Nonetheless, Moore took those poor souls out into remote areas with his younger brother, and executed them with a bullet to the back of the head. So if being for the death penalty makes me old-fashioned, and uber-conservative, so be it. For the record, I have changed my mind about a number of things over the years. It’s just that murdering cops and cab drivers is not among the things I’ve changed my mind about, along with what the penalty should be for committing such crimes.

  12. Anonymous says:

    We don’t have a death penalty. The Electric Chair has been outlawed and at least one of the lethal injection drugs can’t be gotten. We havent had an execution since 97. The leading cause of death on death row is old age. Ricketts should use his juice (if he has any) to try to get his tax package thru. What a cluster.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Matt, the death penalty does NOT deter murderers. Your example proves it. So the only reason to support it is because someone “deserves” it. However there have been enough mistakes made in its application to those who were innocent that don’t deserve death. No way to fix those mistakes. Personally I think life without parole is a much more severe punishment than death, especially if one believes in an afterlife.

  14. Res Judicata says:

    It’s little wonder that the Republican party is so fractious these days when so many of its members have the irreconcilable litmus test for politicians to be Pro-Life on abortion, but Anti-Life when it comes to the death penalty. The death penalty isn’t a deterrent – no one in the history of ever has refrained from committing a crime on the basis that they would get the death penalty over life without parole. The death penalty is a ridiculously expensive policy (bad fiscal sense, no matter what pro-DP proponents wish, and yes the appeals process are necessary), and assumes that people are irredeemable/supports a societal revenge complex (I believe there’s a Thou Shalt Not on this…). But I digress.

    SS is right that Republican =/= Conservative, but he misses the mark on how. Not being a conservative is voting for big government, whether it be for self-proclaimed criminal justice purposes (surveillance, DP, low-level drug prosecutions), regulation of the banking industry, or a gas tax. Too many Republicans are all too happy to support such big-government schemes. Conservatives see them for what they are: expanding the powers of the already too-powerful government officials and agencies.

  15. Macdaddy says:

    Where to begin? I know I’ve been hard on Ricketts but if these so-called conservative Senators are voting the wrong way just because Ricketts didn’t call, then either they are too stupid to know what they are voting for or they were out and out liars during the election. Neither is flattering.

  16. Anon says:

    1) How is Winner Take All considered a “conservative issue?” It’s really a “state issue.” I say that because the republican party in another state (was it West Virginia?) want to do away with winner Take All and split electoral votes like we do.

    2) Is there something that says you have to agree 100% with the conservative republican platform or you are not conservative enough??? Wow. Kind of sounds like the libs who say everyone has to accept gay marriage, everyone has to accept abortion on demand etc etc.

  17. Macdaddy says:

    Anon 2:32: Once you guys get the death penalty abolished, life without parole will be next. Europe is already there. Res Judicata, I would be happy to abolish the death penalty in exchange for making abortion illegal except in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. I would consider throwing in rape and incest as a compromise. In the meantime, executed people will never murder anyone else so yes, it does prevent murders. About 70 people a year are murdered in prison. Lawrence Taylor’s cellmate was just found dead. Did he deserve to be allegedly murdered? In addition, I am fine with using execution as punishment by society for the ultimate crime. Don’t you think Timothy McVeigh deserved to die for what he did? I do. Do you think the two men who killed the Petit girls in Connecticut by tying them to their beds, raping them, then setting the beds on fire and burning them to death deserve to be killed by the state? I do. So if you want to tighten up the evidence needed for the death penalty, fine, but until you have a just answer for what to do with the Timothy McVeighs and the Boston Marathon bombers of this world, then the death penalty is indeed the right thing for the state to have.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Macdaddy espouses “conservative” philosophy perfectly in his last post. Much more important that bad people are punished even to the point of death, ignoring the innocents who were punished very unfairly.

  19. Macdaddy says:

    Oh, BTW, I did stand up for the 1.5 million innocents punished by death every year in the name of liberal power.

  20. Faux Don Klein says:

    I’m a Democrat and I’m more conservative than these Republican Senators. Are they smoking from Brad Ashford’s pipe?

  21. The Eye Ball says:

    The Winner Take All and transparency on committees were never conservative issues. These were Republican Party issues and if the party had had more money to explain their position, perhaps these issues would have had gravity but clearly they did not.

    Instead, Streetsweeper should have focused on the voter ID bill which was bracketed but nothing said here.

    The death penalty is a strong law and order issue but not necessarily a conservative issue. Numerous conservatives have come out against the death penalty for the manner it is carried out and because more evidence has shown innocent people have been executed.

    As the drivers license for illegals, the issue focused on those who had been brought to the US as children. While currently this issue is in the conservative camp, it is a populist issue. However, when coupled with the voter ID issue, all conservatives should be concerned with how Senators voted on these combined issues.

    As for the gas tax, not all taxes are the same. If we are going to have taxes, consumption taxes are best. However, by focusing on the gas tax, many good proposals to reduce tax cuts have been left behind. Conservatives are right to be concerned about the direction of votes here.

    As for the criminal reforms, conservatives have to face facts. A judge could put out a ruling to reduce the prison population or taxes could go up to build new prisons. The reforms are worthy of a second look.

  22. Bob Loblaw says:

    Mac daddy,

    would you have cheered the death penalty for the two suspects in the farm couple murder in Murdock a few years ago where the crime lab director from Omaha planted evidence and the investigators railroaded a confession out of a mildly retarded young man? Everyone thought they were 100% guilty.

    There’s corrupt prosecutors, over zealous cops, bad judges, idiot public defenders, and lazy lawyers all over this country. There have been many convictions of death row inmates over turned recently. I don’t know why we’d trust the government to have the ultimate sentence and carry out the one thing that can’t be reversed. Being against the death penalty is the most conservative position somebody can hold.

  23. Res Judicata says:

    MacDaddy, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post – you raise good points, so thank you. All I will say is that I’m exactly as certain that those people (and others) “deserve” death as I am that they cannot be redeemed. Their death does not bring their victims back, and we should be well beyond the belief that an eye for an eye is any way to conduct ourselves. All life has value and potential to be redeemed by God, no matter how horrible their past acts.

  24. The ultimate penalty says:

    For those of you who have closely held beliefs that the death penalty should be overturned, fine. Good for you. But, if you would, and if you can, take a look at the crime scene photos of the murders that merited the death penalty. Look at the what Otey did to Jane McManus. Look how John Joubert raped and murdered little boys. Look how Matta cut off the head of a child and placed it in a heating vent as a warning to his girlfriend not to cross him. Please, look at the horror. Feel for a moment the pain of the family and the victims. Look at the carnage these murders caused. If you still believe the way you do, that is fine. But no vote should be taken until that happens.

    And if you think the endless appeals and the cost of a death penalty case is too much, you don’t think those same appeals, post conviction and habeas proceedings aren’t going to take place in a life sentence? Of course they will. The cost won’t go down, the playing field merely shifts.

    The death penalty is about deterrence. The death penalty is about society saying sometimes crimes committed are just to horrible to go without the ultimate retribution. It is about revenge.

  25. Ed Stevens says:

    Betcha Lawrence Taylor will be real surprised to learn that his “cellmate” is dead, considering the fact that he is not in jail. Taylor – Phillips … potayto – potawto … Ah well, you know them black football players – they all look alike to us heartland Republicans …

  26. Macdaddy says:

    Man, am I embarrassed. I guess I thought TO was a better recruiter. You are right, UW. I don’t think any of Lawrence Taylor’s cellmates ever ended up dead. My bad.

  27. Macdaddy says:

    Res, this isn’t about bringing people back, it’s about the value we place on their lives. Let’s take you for example. In Nebraska, your life is worth the life of someone who is going to murder you. In New York, it’s worth 3 hots and a cot, TV, cable, free lawyers, free health care, and a lifetime of leisure for someone who was not going to be living in the lap of luxury. In Mexico, it’s worth twenty years of inconvenience. Who values your life more? Me, Andrew Cuomo, or Mexico? It’s because we value life that such a price has to be paid. Eye for an eye may be grisly, but the underlying principle that an eye is worth something still holds true.

  28. The Reaper says:

    I am a former professional killer. You can only sugarcoat that so much when you have awards for being good at wiping out cities. I’d be happy to drive to the prison and kill them all, thus dramatically easing the appeals process and overcrowding. And I don’t need another medal for it. But I’d not do it if I’d then go to prison for solving your problem of voters and incumbents being soft-headed.

    It is your laws that keep people in prison for life and which execute some. And I’ve heard it costs more to kill them than to house them forever due to your appeal laws. If that’s true, then the “conservative” thing for taxpayers is to eliminate the death penalty. That however is subject to several potential variables.

    This equation changes if America: a) Limits appeals and make execution easier, or, b) gets rid of life sentences. Frankly, I think spending a useless lifetime in prison makes execution a no brainer. Life in nice cell seems more cruel then death. And taxpaying voters paying for Charles Manson to get married today in prison is stupid.

    Another insidious factor is, c) fewer voters today pay taxes and more taxpayers are dependent on government bureaucracy that is fueled by its work of housing people in prisons, in projects, in ghettos and in suburbia; a politically profitable effort that cannot happen when people become corpses. Its what keeps drug companies and nursing homes draining terminal patients for their last penny. Yet life at any cost, even as a slave or a vegetable, isn’t I think better than death.

    One sensible but emotionally prickly solution might be to have prisons be worse than any military fox hole and shorten all sentences to a few years max. But then you’d have to punish rather than house criminals. Today you arrest people for hitting their kids. I doubt you are up to torturing criminals into them wanting to avoid prison.

    Until average people as voters stop confusing softhearted with softhearted, government bureaucracy will continue to “house” problems rather than solve them, which can at times means leaving them alone.

    Keeping problems going is profitable, a condition that conservatism coopts and liberalism champions.

  29. Res Judicata says:

    Mac – I get that we’re just going to see things differently, but I guess we view what shows valuing life differently. For me, valuing life means trusting that there is some inherent value to all life, from the smallest of fetuses to the most heinous criminals. The best way to honor life is by honoring life – not everyone can be helped or redeemed, but in much of the US and here in NE, we don’t even try. But that’s a larger issue.

    It’s funny, as Republicans, we often take pleasure is noting how many Dems boil down their beliefs to emotion. Yet with issues like the death penalty, sentiments seem to boil down to what is most emotionally satisfying, rather than what brings the most good.

  30. Anonymous says:

    7:58 grasps the situation. Most don’t. But even then, the bottom line is whatever “brings the most good”. A fuzzy altruism at best. We are all so ill wrapped by nature.

    Human altruism is as irrationally emotional as is patriotism. Both have roots in valid urges of self and group survival yet spring from chimp DNA that squirts out as human hormones. Therefore when your choices in what you “believe” are based on what you feel is right or wrong, you are guessing like an ape.

    The best thing you can do is be skeptical. Not the false skepticism of those who play coy to present their own chimpy solutions but the real “I am not sure”, because with all your chimp genes, you really cannot be sure. Do the math and quit using your brain to justify what your glands tell you is real.

  31. Anon says:

    This bears repeating:

    “It’s funny, as Republicans, we often take pleasure is noting how many Dems boil down their beliefs to emotion. Yet with issues like the death penalty, sentiments seem to boil down to what is most emotionally satisfying, rather than what brings the most good.”

    Amen.

  32. 2 Sense says:

    Sure, there is an inherent value in all life. Even a serial killer’s. Punishing him with death, thus taking away whatever scrap of value his life holds, is the price to be paid for not respecting another’s right to life. It is in society’s punishing one who does not respect another’s life with capital punishment that we affirm society’s ultimate respect for the right to life. This is why capital punishment is not an acceptable form of societal retribution for rape, child molestation, etc. They are extremely reprehensible acts, yet they did not disrespect society’s values enough to warrant society’s ultimate punishment.

    I would also propose a theory for why capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect. 1. Who is surveyed on whether threat of death is something that prevents people from committing murder? The convicts themselves. What would any convicted murderer, especially looking at highly intelligent ones like Joubert, say when asked this question? No, of course. 2. The deterrent effect may also be affected by the fact that these murderers know that they’ll probably just wait in line on Death Row until they die of old age, since many states’ systems are clogged up like ours with the politicians’ meddling. Knowing that the politicians will probably keep the needle out of your arm if you get caught for murdering someone is probably an extra incentive for prospective murderers.

  33. Thomas Aquinas says:

    “It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body.”

  34. Thomas Aquinas says:

    “The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

    “They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”

  35. God Almighty says:

    Leviticus 19:18
    “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
    Romans 12:19
    “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.”

  36. Anonymous says:

    “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Genesis 9:6

  37. to God (or some liberal posting) says:

    Never quote Leviticus for your liberal point. I suspect you agree with this verse as well since you quote scripture?

    Lev. 20:13

    “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

    I think that supports capital punishment

  38. Res Judicata says:

    A lot of posters have alluded to/explicitly stated that the death penalty is marred by exhaustive appellate processes, etc. I’ll also go out on a limb and guess that at least some of them profess to being Constitutionalists/supporters of the Constitution.

    A little reminder: let us not forget that our exhaustive and sometimes ridiculously thorough criminal system stems from the promise of due process outlined in the Bill of Rights. It was inspired by the tendency of the British regime to hold unfair and biased trials in a misguided effort to punish all (alleged) offenders, even at the expense of true justice. Indeed, in ye olden times, every felony in GB was met with “forfeiture,” including of life and property.

    Holding that not only should we keep the death penalty, but that we should remove the safeguards we have developed to ensure that justice is truly administered to expedite the process is more consistent with Crazy King George III than even the most conservative readings of the Constitution. The Constitution is foremost about protecting the innocent and providing our nation with freedom, even (and especially) when it’s inconsistent with what the minority “deserves.”

  39. Macdaddy says:

    Well, I think there is some debate as to how much of our appeals process adheres to the Constitution. I am very open to tightening up the rules for who is eligible to be put to death, things like has to have more than one eye witness, video evidence, forensic evidence, etc. However, Nikko Jenkins does not deserve to be alive and his guilt is not in doubt.

    I do have one other compromise for abolishment of the death penalty: for LWOP, if you get sick, you get pain meds only. No antibiotics, no surgery, no chemo, no Alzheimer’s meds, no heart meds, no diabetes meds. Nothing that will get in the way of The Reaper coming through. Any takers?

  40. God Almighty says:

    11:06, Your tattoos are an abomination to me.

    Conservatives, see what I had to say in Leviticus 19:34 when you bitch about “illegals,” and remember that vengeance shall be mine.

  41. Concerned Citizen says:

    Can we be honest, please? How many of you anti-death penalty people would seriously consider switching your position? What would it take for that to happen?
    The main reason for the long delays is because it takes so long to see a judge. What if we doubled the number of judges and could seriously reduce the lag time for all of these lawsuits? What then, “conservatives concerned about the death penalty”?
    See, the problem is that all of these politicians (in office and also on here) hide behind arguments of “cost” or “delay” and all of that…. but no one is willing to consider what it would take to change their mind.
    Why? Because no politician will ever admit they were wrong. They just “evolve” like Pres. Obama.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Lawrence Taylor, Lawrence Phillips? Potato/Potatoe? Who cares if they’re the wrong guy sitting on death row, right Macdaddy? Kill ’em all and let God Almighty sort ’em out!
    See you back in the front pew on Sunday!

  43. anon says:

    These senators may define what conservative, or the republican party is. Ashford is like a benchmark. and Ernie is Independent

  44. Macdaddy says:

    And if they are the right guy sitting on death row we aren’t allowed to kill them because somebody else might be the wrong guy? I know the distinction is lost on your tiny brain, but there are clearly guilty people whose guilt was established beyond not just a reasonable doubt but any shadow of a doubt. The answer is to execute those guys and figure out criteria to hold back on the others. Of course, that would require a level of sophistication that’s well beyond Anon 2:57. Maybe you could let the adults talk, mkay?

  45. Macdaddy is an idiot says:

    Macdaddy, you are incapable of an adult conversation.
    As for killing out of revenge, what makes YOU get to decide who dies and who doesn’t? How is killing for revenge any different than killing for fun? Do you get a thrill every time someone is murdered?
    I would prefer that anyone that killed someone that I cared about would have to sit, alone, in a cell for the remainder of their natural lives. They would get to think about what they took from me every single day, every hour and every minute and they would suffer for a long, long time. Killing them would be providing them an easy way out.
    If the convict turned out to be innocent, they could at some point be freed. Death is too final.

  46. Macdaddy says:

    “what makes YOU get to decide who dies and who doesn’t?” Do I really need to go over again how our government works, Obama?

    “Do you get a thrill every time someone is murdered?” No, that would be the murderer, not me.

    “I would prefer that anyone that killed someone that I cared about would have to sit, alone, in a cell for the remainder of their natural lives.” Well, you can certainly tell that to the prosecutor while she’s preparing charges or you could tell that to the judge during sentencing. Then your Pajama Boy conscience would be clear.

    “They would get to think about what they took from me every single day, every hour and every minute and they would suffer for a long, long time. Killing them would be providing them an easy way out.” Now who’s being vengeful? It turns out that the European Human Rights Court agrees with you and has declared that LWOP is too cruel and inhumane as is the death penalty. Guess what’s coming next? That’s right! Abolishment of LWOP. But let’s get back to them thinking about what they took from you: First of all, they would indeed get to think about what they took from you and they would be happy to write you letters and go into every gory detail. Second, they are probably bragging to their fellow prisoners about what they did. Thirdly, this is probably the only thing of any significance that they have ever done in their lives. They are reveling in it. This isn’t a Lifetime TV movie. These people are truly depraved and they don’t think like you, who is wracked with guilt because you got the Prius with leather seats and not ones made from 100% sustainable non-conflict hemp.

    “If the convict turned out to be innocent, they could at some point be freed.” And if their guilt is not in doubt? Why do they get to live?

    “Death is too final.” Yes, it is, which is why we save the death penalty for people who act as judge, jury, and remorseless executioner of innocent people.

    You’re welcome.

  47. Anonymous says:

    “If the convict turned out to be innocent, they could at some point be freed.” And if their guilt is not in doubt? Why do they get to live?

    Think about that statement for a moment. Obviously people convicted of a capital crime were guilty, or so it appeared at the time of conviction. But wait! Some turned out to not be guilty. Who decides, MD? Do we leave this in your expert hands? Nikko Jenkins might be an open and shut case of guilt, but so were lots of others that turned out not to be.

  48. Anonymous says:

    Why isn’t our media asking Tea Party leaders what they think of McCollister and Ebke now? Didn’t they run with strong Tea Party support? Why do we have media that can’t figure out what a story is? In the meantime, Krist writes nastygrams on Kintner’s Facebook posts. Oh and lest we forget, Ernie Chambers rules because the Legislature is the equivalent of the whipped kid on the playground who lets the bully get the best of him him time and time again. And that folks, is your Nebraska Unicam.

  49. Brandi Preston says:

    I support the death penalty. For two souls particularly, Aaron Shepherd and Sam Irvin, who raped and beat my best friend to a point where she was no longer recognizable. She was found lying on a gravel road by a nurse on her way to work the next morning. They thought she was a dead dear in the road until Chrissy moved her leg.

    But neither of these boys were sentenced to the death penalty. Nor were they sentenced to life without parole. One will be eligible for parole in 40 years. The other was released via “early release furlough” program AFTER he was denied parole. He was walking the streets 3 months after the incident.

    And we have state senators who want to abolish mandatory minimums? We have yet to “fix” the good time law. For me it’s principle. For being an accessory to rape and attempted murder (because of tampered evidence, couldn’t nail Sam on the rape and murder itself) a young man walks the streets with you and me, our sisters and daughters…

    They better not vote to take away my right to a concealed carry permit. I will rely on myself for protection because we clearly cannot rely on the justice system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.