Big Game Hunt

ole-s-big-game-steakhouseThe OWH published a biiiiiiggg story on Sunday about how the Heineman administration had made it a point to stop pursuing the death penalty.

Except they had to step back on that story, after they actually got more info and Governor Heineman said the opposite.

Of course the first story also said that former Governor Dave had “no comment”. But now…

“Sunday’s story incorrectly stated that Heineman declined to comment.”

As it turned out, they just never got ahold of Heineman — as opposed him saying he WOULD NOT comment. Big difference there.

So they retold the story today, Tuesday. But let us just note the difference in the placement of these two articles:

Here’s the first story:

OWH - sunday 04


Sunday paper, front page, above the fold — nay, above the mast!


And here is Tuesday’s version:

OWH - tuesday 04


Midlands (2nd) section of the paper. With the actual Correction not until the second page of the that second section — in the 11th paragraph of the story.

So, a touch of credit to the OWH for at least stepping up to make this correction, and research the story further.

But how about next time putting the correction in the same place as the original?

Oh, what that isn’t sensational enough? Doesn’t sell enough papers? Oh, and it doesn’t jibe with the OWH’s narrative? Oh well.


Back on June 26th, the question was asked here on Leavenworth St.:

Will Democrats continue to hold “Jefferson-Jackson” dinners honoring their favorite Democrats, who also happened to be slave-holders?

Well, the answer for Georgia, Connecticut, Missouri…and now Iowa is NAY!

Iowa will be changing the name, because those two old white men no longer “align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party.”

So what WOULD align with them?

My vote for them would be the Kennedy-Clinton dinner.

Then they could just switch around Kennedys and Clintons, depending on how their “values” aligned.

Today we are FOR abusing interns.
Tomorrow we’re FOR destroying evidence.
Soon we’ll be FOR lying under oath.
And of course, eventually, we’ll all be pantsless.

See how malleable it is?


@RepBradAshford has taken to the Twitters much like a 7th grade girl passing a note in class:

Should I vote for the Iran deal?

Yes ☐

No ☐

In the mean time, GOP #NE02 candidate General Don Bacon is having none of it:

“I call on Congressman Ashford to make his position known unambiguously.

This is a grave national security issue, and straddling the fence and shifting positions will not be acceptable. I urge him to clearly oppose the agreement.

His vacillation to date is an affirmation as to why we need more folks in Washington DC with real world national security experience and less career politicians.”

Oh, what does Bacon know?
So he’s an Iran expert???

Well, as it turns out…

“I’ve read the agreement and have studied the analysis of those supporting and those opposing this agreement.

I’ve studied Iran in multiple assignments, helped stand up ballistic missile defense capabilities in Israel, been part of our intelligence community, been deployed four times to the Middle East and have seen the nefarious actions of Iran close up during my year in Baghdad.

The end result of this agreement is crystal clear… Iran will become a recognized nuclear power, will grow economically and militarily, will grow as a regional power, will have increased abilities to fund terrorist groups in the region and world, and will become a larger threat to Israel and to our nation.

Therefore, I oppose this agreement and recommend we continue the economic sanctions and weapons embargo.”

No but Brad wants to know, seriously.
Do you just like the Iran deal? Or do you like-like the Iran deal?


Want a concise, clear and understandable video explanation of the faults of the Iran Nuclear Deal?

Watch this 5 minute version by Dennis Prager:

And I’d add that most of the stuff from Prager U. is very good.


National Review’s Kevin Williamson has an interesting (short) piece on emerging technology — and how it was viewed back in the day.

He points to a sort of meme going around how back in 1985, the New York Times was mocking the laptop computer — “Who would want to carry one back from the office with them?

But Williamson doesn’t harp on the NYT. Instead he just notes how difficult it is to predict any sort of technology in the future. That’s because with free-markets, things constantly get better and usually cheaper.

Pivoting, he contrasts that with nearly anything run by the government.

Social Security, the public education system, public pensions — all run pretty much the same way going on a hundred years.

Yet for some reason, people think government takeover of a system is a good thing.

Anyway, Williamson is almost always insightful (and funny) and this is no exception.


I appreciate that Warren Buffett needs to keep buying bigger and more expensive companies.

But I think we can all — in the wake of the murder of Cecil the Lion — how inappropriate it is for him to keep calling these “elephant hunts”.

The majestic elephant is for admiring at a distance — or occasionally keeping penned in a zoo — not for “bagging” with an “elephant gun”.

(Unless of course, you’re stopping by Ole’s Big Game bar in Paxton on the way to Colorado…)


  1. Macdaddy: that’s the Henry Doorly Concentration Camp for Oppressed Species. Please don’t use the speciesist word ‘zoo’.

    BTW, my niece was over from England doing an internship in the clinic at Yellowstone. On her last day here one of her co-workers was eaten by a bear. She has decided to continue her medical career on the other side of the pond.

  2. Sparkles says:

    I find it very possible that Heineman is indeed a staunch supporter of the Death Penalty.

    I also find it highly plausible that regardless a of his intense desire to kill, and the decade in which he had to accomplish the feat, neither he nor Bruning could muster the competence.

  3. Anonymous says:

    So take off on Ashford ,who is known for not being able to make up his mind, on the Iran deal but ignore the fact that Fortenberry said at his 8/3 Town Hall in Lincoln that he has not yet made up his mind on the Iran deal, that he owed his constituents a “deliberative process” (uh, no you don’t, just grow a pair.) He also said, quoting the Donald (Walton, not Trump) that
    “I will not be dismissive of the (Obama) Administration’s attempt” to reach a reasonable agreement. Fortenberry said. LJS 8/3/15
    Once again NO constituent outcry against Fort in terms of Primarying him. They only reserve that for the likes of Lee Terry in the 2nd Dist. What makes Fortenberry the Teflon Man?

  4. I polled the Twitternet on the question of whether we should exchange Brad Ashford for the four American hostages in Iran. RT for yes, favorite for no. No one cared enough to vote.

    If Terry was a nonentity, what would you call Ashford?

  5. Omaha Voter says:

    I think it is great that we have a candidate (Bacon) who actually is an expert on national security matters. The world is dangerous and we need people who understand these challenges and know how to address them. The last several years have proven what a disaster it is when you have clueless people running things, starting with a few people in the Bush administration who didn’t listen to those on the ground, followed by the far worse disaster of Obama (let’s hug it out) and Hillary (TS on private email servers…what difference does it make).

    I listened to a Bacon recently and he has an in depth knowledge that is second to none. He has won my support. A proven leader, not just another talker, Bacon is what we need on the ticket.

  6. Council - Combs Dinner says:

    Please come to the Council – Combs Dinner where the NDP will show how we take care of donors and the elderly as Democrats. Tickets are $100 a piece or more if you have a power of attorney. See you there!


  7. The OWH story says:

    Kinda sad that the former Governor is attacking a long time public servant who actually did execute (pun intended) the law. The former Governor deflects the issue in the OWH and on other media outlets by saying there were “legal challenges”. Of course there were legal challenges. There are always legal challenges. The issue is why didn’t he order the Department of Corrections to start looking for a new acceptable drug protocol via a rules and regulation process? Why didn’t the AG’s office move to set a date for execution? Did they simply want to keep the issue alive as opposed to actively attempting to do something to enforce the law? Actions speak louder than words and there really doesn’t appear to be much “action” during that time frame.

  8. Big Game Ben says:

    Speaking of big animal heads on walls, how is Ben Nelson doing these days? I recall him being on a few elephant hunts back in the day.

  9. NotChuck says:

    Or the annual Kerry (John Effing Heinz-Kerry) – Obama dinner: “I was for it before I was against it! Or was I against it before I was for it? Uhh . . . PRESENT!!”
    War, illegal immigration, mandated healthcare for everybody (no exceptions, except for . . ), homosexual marriage, Israel, terrorism — you name it; they’ve both taken more sides of the same issues than most schizophrenics!

Leave a Reply to Sparkles Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.