Ashford votes Pelosi over Ryan

Brad Ashford 102815Brad Ashford has taken to the airwaves and Twitter bits and declared that new Speaker Paul Ryan is serious and innovative. And he thinks the House is moving in the right direction.

And of course Ashford has been gunning for more “bipartisanship” and amity that he says you’ll find in the Unicameral.

Oh, and then he voted for uber-partisan Democrat Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

So here’s a quick question:
If Ashford KNEW Ryan was going to win…
And if Ashford had nothing but praise for Ryan…
Why not VOTE for him?

He could have shown that he is TRULY bipartisan, on the most partisan vote there is.
Wouldn’t THAT have been changing the rules in Washington?
Wouldn’t THAT have been what Don Walton and the OWH and all the others are clamoring for?

But no.
Ashford thinks Nancy Pelosi would do the best job of leading the House of Representatives.
Expect a load of deafening silence from the usual suspects.

 

CNBC you…in HELL!

The best part of last night’s debate was when the Royals scored four runs to take, and never give, up the lead.

Wait, what?

Oh, the rest.
OK, OK.

A seasoned “reporter” for CNBC asked a Presidential candidate:

So where did I read this and come up with this?

And that was in the middle of the mess.

(And FWIW, that was Becky Quick, Warren Buffett’s personal reporter from CNBC. But golly, she sure does have that casual-raspy voice thing down…)

Ted Cruz knocked it out of the park and flipped the bat into the stands with his takedown of CNBC. Not only did he criticize them generally, but deftly nailed every idiotic question they had presented before getting to him.

Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?
Ben Carson, can you do the math?
John Kasich, can you insult two people over here?
Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?
Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?

I don’t know if he was writing all this stuff down as it came, but you gotta give it to Cruz, at the bare minimum, that he is Indian Jones whip-smart. And there’s no way he could have prepared any of that.

That being said, I’m still not sure Cruz is eventually electable. He says he’s not the guy you want to have a beer with, but the guy you want to drive you home. I dunno.

“Wow, thanks Ted. I’m good though. No really! It’s so nice out tonight, I think I’ll walk. But thanks!”

And as long as we’re going with the analogies, every time John Kasich started into his yelling points, I felt like the kid itching to get off the living room couch and to the movie as my date’s dad tried to explain why Daylight Saving’s Time is corrupt.

And speaking of analogies, every time Mike Huckabee made one of his analogies (“It’s like a 400 pound man saying, ‘I’m going to go on a diet, but I’m eating a sack of Krispy Kremes before I do.‘”) I kept waiting for a Family Guy-like breakaway, with a skit of the actual analogy.

But maybe it was just me…
(Still, Peter Griffin as Mike Huckabee…)

Trump and Carson were fairly muted.
Paul was so quite, he is probably just prepping for his Senate campaign.
Christie was top notch, but I wonder if the mountain is too large for him still.
Fiorina was good, but her candidacy seemed to flare and is now just smoldering.

And then there was Jeb! and Rubio.
Or, really just Rubio.

Jeb made his ill-fated attempt to attack Rubio on missing votes, and got completely neutered in the process. Was his campaign figuring that Rubio wasn’t prepared for such an attack? That he didn’t have a 100% prepared comeback?

Have they NOT been watching Rubio for the past 6 months…nay…YEARS?

I’m not sure that finishes off Bush, but I wouldn’t be surprised to look back at that debate and see that ID’d as the beginning of the end for Jeb(!).

And Rubio was crisp, confident and never missed a beat.
But there’s still…something about his delivery.
His stern, clipped delivery makes it seem like he has written down every word then practiced it 30 times, then rattled off.

I’m not even sure what his conversational tone sounds like.
And for all you Rubio fans, I’m not even sure that’s a knock. His biggest battle is going to be convincing voters that he’s not too young and inexperienced. Then again, that’s sometimes easier than looking too old and out of date.

So more debates, yeah?
But not by CNBC, right?

Well here’s your schedule:

Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Fox Business/WSJ Republican Debate
Moderators: Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo, and Gerard Baker

Tuesday, December 15, 2015
CNN/Salem Republican Debate

January, 2016*
Fox News Republican Debate
*Date TBD

Saturday, February 6, 2016
ABC/IJReview Republican Debate

Saturday, February 13, 2016
CBS News Republican Debate
Moderator: John Dickerson

Friday, February 26, 2016
NBC/Telemundo Republican Debate

March, 2016*
Fox News Republican Debate
Date TBD

Thursday, March 10, 2016
CNN/Salem Republican Debate

They say it costs about $2 million to put on a debate, so only the big boys are currently involved.

Though one wonders how soon these would or could go to the web or maybe Netflix or somesuch. Maybe you’d kill the viewership too much — but then again, going up against the World Series couldn’t have helped either.

So weigh-in, commenters.
And for those conspiracy theorists among you, know that Leavenworth St. has NOT sided with any candidate.

There are a few I’m not nuts about — but I can honestly say that ANY of them would be good candidates and would be good Presidents. And that’s saying something.

But of course there are other factors at work, and persuading the American people that you’re the right one is a big deal.

Have at it.

 

The Gov’s fix

Following up from yesterday, Governor Ricketts announced that

…he’s instructed the Nebraska State Patrol to improve the way it tracks his security detail’s overtime and he will begin including personal trips on his official calendar.

Not clear if this will be grandfathered back to January with all of the accompanying data.

 

Easier than yelling out of an upper story window?

Hey happy to see all of you who have subscribed to Leavenworth St. to get email updates for new posts (via the button on the top-right). That’s how I get updated for new posts from other sites, and I think it is the most handy method.

Also thanks to everyone for sharing Leavenworth St. with a friend (and/or enemy).

Leavenworth St. has been here over 9 years, providing you (gratis) the talk of Nebraska politics.

So as a way free and easy way to say “Thanks Sweeper!”, please click one of the “share” buttons at the top or bottom of this post — or any other post that you like.

You can then share on your The Facebook or Twitter feed. Or you can just email it to a friend (or enemy).

Could it be any easier?
I say not!

Because, you’re the reason Leavenworth St. has been the talk of Nebraska politics since 2006, and you are how we will expand and continue!

Thanks again!

36 comments

  1. Sparkles says:

    Nancy Pelosi received 184 votes for Speaker of the House.
    (may I suggest a little Wisconsin cheese with that whine)

    And to last nights ‘debate’.
    Last nights debate was the first ever in the GOP’s new Pyramid Scheme Primary.

    Ben Carson – on stage – peddled Mannatech’s herbal supplements;
    “Do I take the product? Yes, I think it’s a good product.” “I take it myself”.

    Mannatech is a Multi Level Marketing scheme that was fined $7 Million for lying to people when telling them its products would cure autism and cancer. Ben Carson, MD, was their high profile paid spokesman.

    And Mike Huckabee, twice, mentioned that his fix for our broken health system is to simply find a cure for cancer, diabetes and alzheimer’s. Volia’.. trillions saved.
    If elected President, I’m assuming the Huckster would make the cure part of his agenda for his first 100 days in office.

    You’re of course award, the Huckster actually has been, for some time, peddling herbal supplements.
    Herbal supplements that are promised, coincidentally, to cure diabetes. In addition he’s part of a scheme peddling cancer cures based on bible verses.

    GOP
    Grifting Obtuse People

  2. An elephant never forgets says:

    We have so many of our own, right here in Douglas County, to thank for Congressman Ashford. And now, CD2 voted to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House.

    Thank you folks.

    But don’t cry when nobody shows up to do jack squat for the party. And don’t cry that you have no money because I and many others decline to send the usual donation.

  3. Ricky says:

    And Ted Cruz used up all of his time needed to answer a serious question by arguing that the media asks irrelevant questions.
    Nobody outside that hall is buying the sorry old story that the media is out to get the GOP. They have their own network, FOX, that gets better cable ratings than anybody else.
    As somebody who does NOT want to see a Republican president, the only ticket on that side that could beat Hillary is Rubio/Kasich. Lets see if they are smart enough to nominate them.
    Ricky

  4. Ed Stevens says:

    Dunno who is ahead or behind or catching up or falling back … don’t much care at this early stage. Here is a thought experiment : take all the candidates, Demmie and Pubbie, and ask them each to write, say, a 100 word statement outlining their thoughts on some policy initiative (doesn’t make much difference what said initiative concerns – budget, Iran, abortion, taxes, kale, Tucson AZ, or adult beverages). Put all the pieces of paper into a large sack and shake well, then draw one out and without looking at the name of the writer, try to figure out who wrote the statement.

    My prediction is this: if the writer isn’t either Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, you won’t be able to determine who wrote it. Note that I do not say that either Cruz or Paul is the best or even an adequate candidate … only that they seem to think … differently … than the rest of the crowd.

    I liked Cruz’s deft skewering of the moderator last night, but make no mistake – it was a carefully planned and skillfully executed tactic – nothing more, nothing less, Look up Cruz’s record – he was a championship debater both in high school and college. Does that qualify him for POTUS? Who the hell knows. It’s clear that being editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn’t seem to offer much in the way of enhanced leadership ability … maybe winning a few debate championships does.

    All that being said, I still think its a little early to get our Hanes all in a bunch over what may or may not occur 12 months from now.

  5. Actually, Ricky, most of the MSM seems to agree with Cruz that Harwood was way over the top.

    As the faculty advisor for ‘UNL Students for Rubio’, I’d like to thank Sweeper for his kind words about our candidate.

    It takes some gall for Sparkles to criticize Carson (who has never been elected to office) for peddling quack cures, when Tom Harkin, long-term Senator from the state across the river, actually forced NIH to start a division of ‘alternative medicine’, and then tried to make sure homeopathy would be covered under PPACA. And Iowa Democrats repeatedly sent this snake-oil peddler to the Senate!

  6. Sparkles says:

    Re the Becky Quick comment to Trump.

    She was, of course, right.
    She quoted the Donald’s very own words back to him and he simply denied it.
    Flat out lied,

    And the TeaPeople, unable to quell their glee, cheered.

    Quick also asked a tough but fair question of Rubio about his seeming inability to manage his own finances, yet desiring control of the finances of our nation.
    Rubio response.. lie:
    “You just lis­ted a lit­any of dis­cred­ited at­tacks from Demo­crats and my polit­ic­al op­pon­ents,”
    Sorry Marco, none of what Quick inquired about has been discredited. All of it proven true.

    And angry and deceived TeaPeople cheered.

    • “Sparkles”,

      I’m not surprised that you’re missing the point and changing the subject about Quick.

      She didn’t know where the quote came from ON HER OWN QUESTION.
      That’s the level of panelists we got.

      And if you want to go further, once someone gave her a piece of paper telling her where it came from, she didn’t even follow up with Trump to ask WHY he was changing his position on something from his own site.

      And if you’re looking for LYING, you need go no further than Hillary’s videos that caused the Benghazi attack.

      And thanks for reading.
      -Ed.

  7. Oracle says:

    GH, unlike Carson, did Harkin make any money from his support?

    And Harwood, quoting from the Tax Foundation, got it completely right about Rubio’s tax plan. Google honesty-took-big-hit-wednesdays-debate if you somehow think my anonymous moniker makes me less credible.

  8. The Grundle King says:

    Sparkles, you liberals need to get your sh** together when it comes to diseases and pharmaceutical companies. Half of you seem to think the diseases can’t be cured by traditional medicine, the other half seem to think that the companies already hold the cure, and are just withholding said cures for bigger profits generated by ‘treatments’.

    Of course, the latter conspiracy assumes that none of the people working for pharmaceutical companies have ever experienced such diseases themselves, or within their families.

  9. Oracle says:

    Did Harkin ever lie about his actions? Even the National Review is calling out Carson for his lie about having no involvement with Mannatech. They helpfully put up a video on their site with Carson endorsing the company and its products.

    That’s rich that you’re a Rubio supporter, GH. Joe Scarborough, on his morning show, said: “Marco just flat-out lied to the American people, there..”. He was referring to Rubio’s brush off of a question about his personnel finances (they’re a mess!). Rubio just called them “discredited attacks”. He’s a very good liar; didn’t flinch a bit. Birds of a feather…..

  10. Harkin was a beneficiary of all sorts of campaign contributions from the quack drug industry.

    But why does it matter? The guy promoted woo for a quarter century, giving major problems to institutions like NIH who are trying to cure diseases by sane, scientific methods, and y’all kept electing him. I don’t care if his wackiness was a freebie; it still did a lot of harm.

    There’s no way I will ever vote for Ben Carson. But millions of Democrats have already voted for Tom Harkin.

  11. And Rubio’s personal finances are not a mess. They were attacked in a hit piece by the NYT. HE HASN’t gotten rich by screwing small colleges out of speaking fees, like the Clintons, or creating a phony ‘foundation’ where foreign oligarchs can contribute in return for favors, but these are good things.

  12. Actually, in the Spring, when I have time, maybe I’ll write a real article about Harkin’s malign influence on US health policy. No one will read it, but when the focker finally croaks, his life no doubt extended by real medicine, I want something to go up against the glutinous eulogies.

  13. Oracle says:

    You have a point about Harkin. Didn’t know about his heavy involvement in alternative medicine. However you can’t deny that I’m right about Rubio. We’re dealing with facts and hard numbers here, not speculation. Just google: Marco Rubio’s Financial Messes. That’s not a hit piece unless you call anything negative about your candidate a “hit piece”.

  14. Sparkles says:

    “Sweeper”,

    So you’re position is that the BIGGEST issue is that a channel watched by a minuscule number of people, featuring a hostess, Becky Quick, recognized by virtually no one, was unable to immediately cite the source of a direct quote from Donald Trump, the the leading GOP contender for POTUS.
    I’ll grant – maybe it was poor preparation on the part of Ms. Quick.
    Then again, most people would assume said hostess couldn’t have imagined The Donald would actually flat out F’ING LIE about a statement he made only weeks ago.

    Note to self –
    The fault is in Ms. Quick’s lack of preparation.
    The fault is NOT that the leading GOP contender for POTUS flat out lied on a highly publicized, nationally televised Presidential debate.

    Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Love the blog, grateful for the opportunity to be among your readers!

  15. You don’t know much, Oracle. That’s a problem.

    Marco Rubio’s personal finances are as important to me as Abraham Lincoln’s. But in any case, the New York Times made a big deal of his owning a (small) boat. Guess what. Everyone in Florida owns a boat. Politico shredded them on that.

    ‘$80,000 on a luxury speedboat’. Yeah, and I just laid out $10 K for a Gulfstream.

    Beam down to earth, guy.

  16. bynd says:

    So, there is a debate by the front runners for one party put on by those who, obviously don’t like them.

    And yet the best those who are asking the questions can give their minions is that some one lied? Out of all the things that matter? And the libs condemn the Benghazi show?

    Do you libs have a clue on what is going on in this nation or world? What a pathetic bunch.

  17. TexasAnnie says:

    Street Sweeper: It’s better to have Rand in the Senate, than no Rand at all! And he did go VOTE on the budget deal this morning! Where was Marco? So now we’ll have more defense spending, but we won’t default on our debts. This is the best compromise our Congress could deliver. Oh, and we’ll screw the doctors who take care of our Medicare patients!

    Ed: Demmie and Pubbie? For one so critical of another’s “rationality,” you owe an explanation for your use of such infantile descriptors… At any rate, I think your thought experiment proves true in the case of both Ted and Rand, native sons. Sure, Rand is in Kentucky now, but he’s from Texas!!!

  18. Sparkles says:

    “Sweeper”,

    I watched the Bengahzi-Benghazi!! video of Rubio on CBS.

    I understand why Rubio supporters would be inclined to like it, but I found nothing novel or striking about it.
    Please know, I pray the GOP continues to mercilessly flog Benghazi-Benghazi!!
    The greatest election gift the GOP can hand HRC is yet another Special Committee on Benghazi, more millions wasted, another opportunity for HRC testify and increasingly relentless and ever more ruthless attacks on HRC’s character

    I’ll try to do you the courtesy of explaining why I’m non-plussed about Rubio’s statement and why I think this will find no traction beyond the right.
    Rubio has latched onto 4 words from an e-mail HRC sent to Chelsea shortly after the attack. Those four words are “al qaeda-like group”.
    So now, after 8 investigations spanning 3+ years some (apparently not including Trey Gowdy) in the GOP think they’ve unearthed the magic words, the smoking gun that will finally put HRC behind bars.
    She described the attackers as “al qaeda-like”, we’ve got her now!

    But, even if the attack were proven to have been inspired by a video, the attackers and their mode of attack could still have easily been described as “al qaeda-like”.

    And an objective review of all the reports clearly shows the confusion at the time was legitimate – it’s was simply not a black or white incident in the days following the attack. Because there was in fact unrest throughout Libya at that very same moment, unrest spurred the video cited.

    But again, most importantly, the term “al qaeda-like” is NOT the smoking gun Rubio is trying to make it.
    It is nothing more than a generally descriptive phrase.
    A descriptive phrase not unlike that in this headline from the Dec 18th, 2013 Houston Chronicle:
    “Mystery surrounds flu-like illness that has killed 4”

    Doctors hadn’t yet concluded exactly what it is that killed those 4 people, they only knew it was “flu-like”.

    And for a bit of perspective that the right choses to ignore –
    There were 13 Embassies attacked, and 60 people killed, under “my brother kept us safe” GW Bush.

  19. Sparkles says:

    Is Hillary Clinton a liar? The question calls for a yes or no answer. Not an explanation. Not a distraction by talking about other candidates. We are talking about Hillary and her alone. Is she a liar?

  20. Mark Andrews says:

    Sparkles, the Clintonesque answer is “It depends on what you mean by ‘liar’.”

    The objective answer to your question is “Yes, Hillary Clinton is absolutely a liar, regardless of how she defines the words “lie” or “liar,” and regardless of how she feels about anything.”

  21. Dems are arsewholes says:

    What is it about Social Liberals that draws them to Spec-ops, assassins, drone killing and other nickel and dime operations that allow enemy to grow until Fiscal Conservatives have to send in troops under a Lemay, Halsey, or Patton type who bombs their men, women and children back to the stone age?

    Here’s a plan. Drop Obama and all who support him into Iraq. And later, if you wish, mail them some parachutes.

  22. Sparkles says:

    Hillary Clinton has lied on numerous occasions and she’s lied throughout her entire political career.
    Just like every other politician ever to have drawn breath on our planet.

    But the fact remains, after the years long GOP mania of Benghazi-Benghazi!! they’ve been able to turn up absolutely nothing of significance.
    Nada.

    In fact –
    “the GOP House has given a five-year display of its inability to successfully demonstrate anything. From Benghazi all the way back to Operation Fast and Furious, its hearings’ impact on public perception has been either zero or negative.. ..as a PR disaster for the GOP, nothing compares to Benghazi,”
    – Charles Krauthammer
    October 29, Washington Post

    An even better read from today’s New Republic: “The GOP’s Grotesque Festival of Lies”

    Hillary is a ruthless operator surrounded by a brilliant political team.
    And the fact remains, Hillary is hands down the most well qualified candidate currently running for POTUS.
    She’ll clean the clock of whomever emerges from the miracle cures sideshow that is the current GOP scrum.

  23. repentinglawyer says:

    Dems are, Lemay did not command troops and Halsey was a naval aviator though he probably had Marines on his ships. Neither Clinton nor Obama was reluctant to use airpower,while Patton was never sent into combat under a fiscal conservative. A certain ignorance of history seems to be required for your level of bad manners. Rather like suggesting that Brad was afraid he might be voting for another “Coach,” when he was paraphrasing the new Speaker’s favorite author and asking,”Who is Paul Ryan?”

  24. Sparkles says:

    Dems are,
    Would you be referring to “fiscal conservatives” like the treasonous Richard Nixon, who, for political gain, deliberately prolonged the Vietnam War?

    Examination of the Nixon tapes show, quite conclusively, that in 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide (Anna Chennault) working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the negotiations.
    The South Vietnamese were promised that if they walked away now, Nixon would assure them a much better deal when elected President.

    Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973.
    A peace agreement he sabotaged in 1968 in order to benefit his political campaign.

  25. Sparkles says:

    While the Rubio fan club is willing to believe his inability to manage his personal finances should in now way preclude from a crack at managing the world’s largest economy, his fiscal foibles are certain to eliminate him from a crack at a Subway franchise.

    Kinda funny, don’t ya think.

  26. repentinglawyer says:

    Prof GH, Nixon was a fiscal conservative by the standards of the time, though he believed tight money cost him the 60 election and pushed Burns into a loose monetary policy. He was not a neoliberal fiscal conservative, but then that position had not really been worked out as a coherent position while he was active.
    Sparkles, treasonous is over the top about Nixon and I am not one of his fans. He like Johnson was haunted by the “who lost China” issue, instead of seeing it was never ours to lose. In addition he like LBJ saw Vietnam through false lenses created by trying to fit the World into a single USA vs USSR matrix.

  27. Mark Andrews says:

    “managing the world’s largest economy” – um, what kind of economy does the United States have? Not a command economy, Sparkles.

    repentinglawyer, Nixon violated his oath of office, to “preserve, protect & defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign & domestic.” I did not “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Nixon was a treasonous, lying turd.

  28. repentinglawyer says:

    Mark Andrews, Treason is defined in the Constitution, and I do not see a violation of that provision. I am old enough to remember 1954 and his party of communism speech in Denver. He made a similar speech in NE the day before, attacking the NE D candidates including my father among others. I need no lecture from you on his character and I stand on my opinion on treason, a subject not usually covered in library science courses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.