Unicam 2016

Carl Curtis button 01Good Frioday afternoon peeps!

Let’s call this a Carl Curtis Friday, where we invoke the name of one of Nebraska’s favorite Reagan Republicans (before there WERE Reagan Republicans!).

Give us your takes on all things Conservative — and otherwise — as the debate has been engaged in the Legislature.

Especially if the Repeal the Death Penalty forces DON’T get past a filibuster, consider the 2016 Legislative race on like Donkey Kong.

The national forces will be in whole hog.
By a back-of-the-napkin count, we see 22 races. (Feel free to correct me here if I’ve missed somewhere.)
11 open seats — with 10 of those being sitting Pro-REPEAL votes.
Then there are 11 or 12 (probable) re-elect races — with 9 of those being PRO-Repeal, 5 of those Democrat seats.

Point being, assuming a turn on the Death Penalty is in sight, it could be a BIG issue that would draw national money and attention to the little one house legislature (where a little cash can go a long way).

Oh, and don’t forget the Big Dog in the McMansion who has been known to know a few people who can drop some cash on a candidate or two.

***

Thanks to a loyal reader who pointed out the Roll Call article on some 2016 campaign:

On the Democratic side, vulnerable Rep. Brad Ashford raised $200,000. It’s a bit more than Democrats expected for a guy who publicly decried the need to fundraise and who has been shedding staff, but isn’t the figure he should have brought in given his competitive race.

As another put it though, “Will he likely have plenty of cash to be fully competitive in 2016? Yes.

***

Have a great weekend!

17 comments

  1. Don't Worry About It says:

    Are you seriously projecting that some large national interest is going to come and cherry pick seats in the legislature because of the death penalty? Are there pro-capital punishment organizations that openly endorse candidates based on their death penalty stance? I’m unaware of any…

    Random capitalized letters and phrases aside, this seems no bigger than Winner-Take-All. Nebraska would be the 7th state since 2007 to outlaw the death penalty, it’s the way the country is heading. For those of you who think this is going to be some large issue in a year and a half, I’d like to show you a beach house in Idaho I’m trying to sell.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the state senators got a clue as have others that the death penalty doesn’t stop someone intent on killing. What? They stop, put down their gun, mull for a time and then go back to their comic books instead? What the death penalty serves is the gruesome nature of those sitting in the bleachers calling for blood and guts when all they really got was a long appeals process in a court system at taxpayer expense.

  3. TexasAnnie says:

    Well Macdaddy, I see by the last post that you took on all comers wanting to abolish the death penalty. And you stood pat, which is okay, since you obviously do not believe in the virtue of redemption.

    But here’s another take: Would you be willing to stipulate that no person taken into custody by the state shall be treated otherwise than relevant statute(s) require? Perhaps you don’t care, but some persons taken into custody by the state have been treated very badly, even unto death, without ever having been convicted of any crime!!! Surely we should not be treating criminals better than other persons taken into state custody…

  4. Libertarians Rule says:

    TA…
    You are correct! Police are endangering the public. They should be prohibited from carrying guns, driving patrol cars, use handcuffs, or other activities that remove innocent people from their families. IF someone mistakenly harms society, then they can surrender themselves to a psychologist for treatment.

    We all know that everybody is good deep-down and that they only get out of line when police provoke their bad behavior. If we could only save these people from themselves….Then we can lockup of society’s real enemy…police.

    I am sure that you are cheering on Senators Garrett and Lindstrom to promote Liberty…Even if they lie during their campaigns and vote for the exact opposite position….Ethics do not matter when Libertarians are freeing us from the chains of laws.

  5. TexasAnnie says:

    Libertarians Rule…You Are Incorrect!
    I was referring to those the state has taken into custody at Beatrice (BSDC).

    But now that you mention it, I don’t think police should shoot first and ask questions (or explain “accidents”) later!

  6. Yes says:

    Please focus on Garrett and pay no attention to my record because I am conservative. I ran the Platte Institute.

    Regards,

    McCollister

  7. Cornwhole says:

    Must agree with the first commenter who suggests NE’s death penalty won’t be the national issue driving the 2016 race. Other issues are more likely, such as marijuana.

    While no drug is entirely safe, alcohol and nicotine are known poisons taxed as legal recreational drugs while pot cannabinoids are treating glaucoma, tumors, chronic pain, etc. Pot legalization is coming but how?

    2016 candidates’ positions on weed vary.

    Jeb Bush and Chris Christy are against legalizing any and all marijuana. – That’s political suicide simply because 80% of all Americans are for legalizing medical marijuana and 51% are for total pot legalization for any use.

    Rand Paul and Rick Perry are for decriminalization. — Like Obama’s refusal to enforce federal drug laws, this is yet another half measure that mocks law. In any jurisdiction, it must be either legal or illegal.

    Scott Walker and Ted Cruz are for letting the states decide. – Under this solution, if you either love or hate pot, you can move to a state where pot is legal or illegal. This seems to create the most freedom.

    Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton are for legalizing medical marijuana. Plus, Hillary wants to see how things work out in CO and WA because, “States are the laboratories of democracy” she says.

    Seems the communitarian-neo-socialist Hillary is also a libertarian and an pseudo anti-federalist. But like Walker and Cruz, she has a valid point about states.

    Hillary is scary but she’s not stupid. If she co-opts both the state’s rights and the medical necessity arguments away from the Republicans on this issue, she will win over the vast majority of voters who didn’t care whether her husband inhaled or not.

    On this and other issues, Republicans seem bent on winning segments of the GOP Primary electorate. That barbed wire bitch Hillary is aiming for most voters, and most voters aren’t Republican. Of course, the NRC can always then refocus America on the riveting saga of Nebraska’s Unicameral. Yea right.

  8. The death penalty is a dead issue. Whether you’re for it or against it, we aren’t executing anyone, and there is no reasonable prospect we will ever execute anyone again. As with gay marriage, at this point, it’;s time to find a principled reason to get on the bandwagon.

    I think marijuana is a harmful substance, but don’t think the state should stand in the way of its citizens immolating themselves by whatever method they choose. I oppose medical marijuana, because it’s a travesty to pretend this is about medicine. Just legalize the damn stuff, and let the dopers reap what they toke.

  9. Weed Day Celebration says:

    Libertarians light up!

    The Judiciary Committee voted out LB643; Adapt the Cannabis Compassion and Care Act. First step to legalize marijuana. Senator Garrett should be proud and take credit for every patient who can now grow 12 cannabis pants.

    High times a coming to Bellevue…

  10. Lil Mac says:

    The above are correct. To a degree, freedom is government keeping you from hurting others while tyranny is government keeping you from hurting yourself. Freedom is about your right to make bad choices.

    The boogey man is tyranny by subsidy (taxation and selective spending). Everyone else’s odd behaviors become less rationally objectionable when you aren’t forced to pay for them. When for example government makes you pay for others’ medical care, that powerfully coops you as taxpayer and as a voter to chain people up so they don’t hurt themselves. Our resident chemist is correct that putting any drug into your corpus is silly. But I say that while sipping my coffee and a glass of single malt awaiting me tonight.

    Freedom is individual irrational choices. Placebos work because people quit being rational when life saddles their loved ones with systemic disease and chronic pain. Besides, everything bad for me tastes good and everything good for me tastes bad. Freedom serves the lemming in all of us.

  11. Gerard is right says:

    It is a travesty to pretend that medical marijuana is about medicine. Sure there’s the once in blue moon patient who really, truly can benefit from medicinal use of THC. If I were in such position, I would just go buy some pot and light up, it’s really not difficult to find. Let the damn pot heads smoke so that they have nothing else to talk about. Then let them battle the nanny-state liberals who don’t want smoking allowed anywhere in public, in your house, or in your car.

    Same goes for gay marriage. Let the log cabin Republicans take the lead on Gay marriage while the rest of the party focuses on taxes and repealing Obamacare.

  12. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Anyone that really wants to know about the issue of medical marijuana should find the “WEED” series of programs on YouTube (there are three of them) that were produced by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. I found them to be highly (no pun intended) enlightening and most informative.
    I disagree with you, Gerard, about the viability of cannabis as a medical substance. Research done in other countries, Israel and Great Britain in the forefront, is proving that there are definite benefits to be derived from the plant. It seems the cannabidiols in the plant are the most medically beneficial, while the THC is the component that stoners seek. It is time that serious research is done without being hampered by “ReeferMadness” hysteria.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Amazing how close-minded GH can be, considering his position as a University faculty member and a scientist. Perhaps this is a consequence of the conservative brain, and why institutions of higher learning tend to be populated by far more liberals than conservatives.

  14. TexasAnnie says:

    Cannabidinol, or CBD is what I want for my daughter with intractable epilepsy. It is not THC. It can’t get you high. You have to extract it (oil) from the plants. I don’t want to grow plants, I want to buy the prepared substance just like I already buy the pharmaceuticals that are supposed to work, but don’t. And although on the one hand I hope for enough government regulation to assure a quality preparation, on the other I do not trust the FDA to act in the interest of patients, but rather only or primarily, to act in the interest of stockholder lobbying.
    P.S. Thanx! for sharing, Brian. I saw the three ‘Weeds’ shows and learned about CBD therein myself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.