The OWH took it from the view of the Death Penalty repeal and the LJS took a broad view of “conservatives” and “liberal” issues.
And interesting quote in the LJS from Speaker Galen Hadley:
“Hadley said there is a longstanding theory that Nebraska’s Legislature is comprised of about eight members who always take conservative stands and eight who opt for liberal positions. The rest make choices issue by issue.”
OK then. So for the 36 seats held by registered Republicans, we may need to go ahead and establish those 8 who can be counted on to vote conservative — and then those who are “moderate” or whatever other moniker you’d like to befall them.
But then what?
And what are the voters to think?
For instance, the LJS looks at Senator Tommy Garrett, a big proponent of medical marijuana. Now that may or may not be a good thing or a bad thing. But Garrett says, Hey, if it’s not on GOP agenda, he still has to “use his brain”.
And that’s great. Use away. But if you’re going to veer significantly from your party platform, please inform the electorate.
This whole, “well the voters don’t seem to mind” business is a crock.
The voters don’t know. (And obviously, that’s mostly on them.)
There is a very strong argument, for instance, that if Garrett had announced that he was pro-medicinal pot and pro-death penalty repeal, he would NOT have been elected in his district.
You can make a strong argument that “Conservative” — at least for the average voters — will be defined by a few issues. Death Penalty is probably one of them.
But at what point does the PARTY step up and say, “Uh, said Senator is listed as a Republican, but that doesn’t mean he/she votes with us.”
And of course the actual Party apparatus is between a rock and hard place if said “Republican” is running against a Democrat. Not to mention that the Party’s hands are tied to a great extent about what they can or can’t do.
But just because the Party has to eat it, does the state’s top Republican?
There has to be hard ball, no?
You can’t always just be “liked” and “easy to get along with” or “a great listener” — if you really want to accomplish something.
A famous Nebraska Republican likes to quote:
“There’s no movement without friction.”
The Don Waltons of the world will counter with something like “And with all friction, it comes to a halt!”
But one would think it’s time for a little hard ball.
Asking around, there was this suggestion, at least regarding the Death Penalty Repeal:
The real conservatives should counter with a filibuster, or at least an amendment, that if passed and the Governor’s Veto overridden, would automatically cause the Reporting of a Constitutional Amendment to be placed on the ballot.
Or make a deal with Senator Chambers and Senator Krist, for a commitment to place this question on the ballot in November of 2016, in exchange for letting the bill go into law effective January 1st, 2017.
What would be interesting about something like that would be you would see a lot of the interested money — from the George Soros types who are REALLY pushing this — come out of the woodwork.
You’d likely learn about how hard the Catholic groups and their lobbyists are pushing this — and some of the heavy hitters in and out of government who are backing them.
And could the pro-Death Penalty “forces” organize against them? It could be tough. The conservatives these days are mainly just concentrating on economic issues, and letting many of the “social” issues fall by the wayside.
Could be just a true grassroots issue.
Senator Deb Fischer was on the Sunday shows yesterday, appearing on FOX’s America’s News HQ.
See it here:
Senator Fischer was her straight-forward self. She is an excellent GOP spokesperson and represents the state well.
Are there real conservative leaders, like former state Senator Fischer was, in the Unicam now?