The Gov unveiled the new license plate design for the Sesquicentennial and here it is…
Now while I’m not a design major, this does seem a little…minimalist. (And I’m not going to quibble, but isn’t that more of an Oklahoma maroon?)
I mean, hey. It’s no Nebraska Bicentennial plate…
…which seemed to be on the back of my mom’s Buick station wagon with the simulated wood grain paneling for about 15 years. (“Mehhhh, slap a covered wagon and an Indian on there, and maybe some bunting, and we’re good!“)
Though it is certainly preferable to the Nebraska Centennial plate from 1966…
…which has a confusing panhandle outline and could possibly be confused for Kansas.
And then one L.St. follower wanted to point out the Sesquicentennial “logo” — that’s apparently being thrown into everything — has a modern flair to it…
Hey look, it is difficult to NOT be criticised for the plate choice. Remember when Nebraska almost got tricked into the Plain Label Beer Can plate a few years back?
Somehow it would be nice if Nebraska could figure out a classic version to stick with — a la Colorado or Texas.
Until then, enjoy the maroon plates with the Lego corn-horn thing. It will only be on the back of your mom’s
station wagon mini-van for another 14 years or so.
After noting a few Nebraska supporters of Presidential candidates, Leavenworth St. sent out a Legislature-wide survey to all the State Senators to find out if they’d chosen a candidate.
We already know a few — Beau McCoy is on team Jeb Bush and Mike Groene is a Scott Walker man. But emails have gone out to the rest of the Unicameral members to see where they stand. (Assuming, ahem, they have an email address.)
The responses are still flowing in (and a big thank-you to all the Senators who have already responded). Their responses will be posted here on Monday (or possibly Tuesday), and you can get a feel for who stands with whom.
Nebraska legislature members clearly do not have candidates leaning on them like someplace like, say, Iowa. But it is interesting to see where they come down on a national issue that everyone is following.
Speaking of the candidates — and since there is already a Trump reference above — I listened to The Donald on the Hugh Hewitt show from yesterday. (You can hear, or read the transcript, it by following this link.) Trump has been a guest on Hewitt’s show a number of times, and Hewitt’s show has been the radio clearinghouse for all of the GOP candidates.
Hewitt, by the way, will be the moderator of the next debate at the Reagan Library.
And with that, it is interesting to hear his style. He is a clear supporter of Ted Cruz, and also has been pushing Carly Fiorina, to a certain extent.
He pretty much hammered Ben Carson — and his interview with Carson has been referred to a number of times as the standard, “Carson doesn’t know the international world very well.”
How’d that happen? Well, Hewitt started his interview with Carson by saying, “I don’t believe in ‘Gotcha’ questions…” and then proceeded to ask a number of Gotcha questions. He essentially administered a Political History pop-quiz to Carson, who arguably scored a low “C” at best (by some observers, anyway).
When Trump came on the show yesterday, Hewitt did much of the same thing. He declared that he didn’t like Gotcha Questions, then dove in with them.
The fact that Hewitt does this is…annoying. It is a “Let me show you how smart I am“, in much of an Alex Trebek sort of way — when Trebek scowls and informs the Jeopardy player with the “correct” answer…which he has on his card in front of him.
To be fair to Hewitt, he is a fairly brilliant guy, and he DOES likely know the answers to the questions he is asking. But when speaking with Carson and Trump, he knows in advance that they aren’t going to be able to fact-drop about the Nuclear Triad or the Quds or the name of an Iranian General.
Hewitt’s goal is to make then look bad, and then later note that Ted Cruz can answer all of those questions.
Now some will quibble that Trump stumbled in Hewitt’s questioning, confusing a question about the Quds with one about the Kurds (whom Trump seemed sort of prepared for). But otherwise Trump — to his credit I think — refused to play Hewitt’s game. He called them Gotcha Questions, and refused to answer anything about them.
I think it’s fair to argue that Trump should have a better position, in general, about the various groups in the Middle East. But I don’t really see any reason for him to have a CIA Station Chief knowledge of names and places. As he noted, that’s what advisors are for.
And Hewitt’s question about, “What would you do if China sank a Japanese or South Korean ship????” was frankly bush-league.
It reminded me of the Dan Quayle, “What would you do if the President died tomorrow?” questions back in 1988.
Quayle should have/could have followed up with, “What’s the scenario? A long illness? An assassination? A terrorist attack? A heart attack? Where was he?” etc., etc. All stuff very relevant to an overly broad question.
But Trump did Hewitt one better. He refused to answer saying “You don’t want to let people know what you’re going to do with respect to certain things that happen. You don’t want the other side to know.”
Now that doesn’t make Hewitt a “third class radio announcer” as Trump is now (of course) telling everyone. But hopefully it will make Hewitt think a little bit about what it is he really hopes to get out of the candidates — and whether it helps people make the choice about who should be President.
Then again, maybe how they handle a poor question is as beneficial as how they answer a good question.
By the way, don’t worry. I’m not a Trump-guy. But I do find it fascinating how he is showing his mastery of jiu jitsu with the press.
(And once again, Trump dominates the Republican news cycle…)