Fortenberry: I will not do anything that would empower Hillary Clinton as President

FortenberryNebraska 1st District Congressman Jeff Fortenberry appeared on The Wheels Down Politics Show, and made it clear that he will not be joining a third party movement against Donald Trump.

When Fortenberry was asked whether he would support Trump as the GOP nominee, Fortenberry responded:

“I cannot in good conscience do anything that would empower Hillary Clinton as President. Let me put it that way.”

Fortenberry’s position differs from that of Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse who has said that not only would he not support Trump as the GOP nominee, but may seek out a third party candidate if that were the case.

Fortenberry was an early supporter of Carly Fiorina’s Presidential run and campaigned for her in Iowa. Since then, he has not specifically endorsed any of the remaining candidates.

“I will tell you that I thought Marco Rubio did a nice job when he came to Nebraska,” said Fortenberry. “I would incline more towards his framework, if you will. There’s some hawkishness on foreign policy that I think needs to be rounded out.”

As far as Trump goes, Fortenberry was somewhat reserved.

Like so many people, I’m conflicted.

I have felt like Donald Trump’s past life, as well as some of his current statements that drift into vulgarity are offensive to many people and offensive to me.

Yet what he has done is successfully leverage this deep anxiety in America with short simple declarative statements about what he is going to do. People want clear answers — even though his policy specifics are lacking — they want clear answers and strong character and are willing to overlook the dynamics of his personal life in the past as well as his non-specifics.

Fortenberry also noted what he feels is another dynamic in Trump’s rise.

So many people feel like their perspective has been just repressed by the politically correct environments in which we live.

That they can’t give an opinion, they can’t say something that might be a little bit out of bounds or they will be attacked by media or education establishment or the current administration, if you will, because it doesn’t fit those narratives.

I think that inability for Americans to be a little more freewheeling, a little more expressive, has actually helped Donald Trump because that is exactly what he exemplifies.

Hear Jerry Kratochvil’s entire interview with Fortenberry on The Wheels Down Politics Show at or on iTunes by searching Wheels Down Politics.


Another NEW post coming at 1pm today (Tuesday, 3/8).


  1. More on Trump: google “Add Another Yuuge Failure to Trump’s Pile: The Trump Network”. Basically, a pyramid scheme based around quack ‘nutritionals’ , started in 2009 (so he can’t blame the downturn). By 2011, they had stopped paying vendors. The losers did not include Donald Trum, who sold the company in 2012. They do include 21,000 people who fell for the con.

  2. Latest: Hillary beats Trump soundly on ‘honest and trustworthy’ (You can’t make this up)

    Hillary: Honest 37:59 Dishonest
    The Donald: Honest 27:69 Dishonest

    He’s spectacularly unelectable!

  3. Sparkles says:

    Diligent Reporter Person:
    Mr Fortenberry, please tell us your thoughts on the candidacy of Honey Boo Boo for POTUS.

    Well, obviously Honey Boo Boo has limited life experience from which to draw, and when you’re able to actually decipher what she says, it’s apparent she faces some severe cognitive limitations. Obviously we’d have to be sure to clearly explain to her that the nuclear football, is not something she can kick around in the Rose Garden and closed captioning of her SOTU addresses would be likely be mandatory.
    But, if she’s the chosen champion of the Republican base, I will absolutely throw my full support behind her!
    You can be certain I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton.

    • Sparkles says:

      Diligent Reporter Person:
      Mr. Fortenberry, it appears Honey Boo Boo has narrowed her selection of V.P. to Ernest T. Bass, and Hannibal Lecter. Would you care to weigh in, Mr. Fortenberry?
      And while I’ve got you, any thoughts on her proposal of switching to Monster Trucks for the official presidential motorcade?

      As long as Hillary is kept out of power..

  4. Sparkles says:

    I know this site attracts a number of lawyers. Here’s a real treat –

    Yesterday, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, John Cornyn (TX), said of President Obama’s yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee:
    “I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata,”

    They have no idea who the nominee will be, but it’s guaranteed to be someone of great accomplishment and stature.
    In an unprecedented pre-emptive strike, the Republicans have made clear their plan is to mindlessly hammer away at whoever is set before them. To beat them, like a child would a piñata.

    And the base cheers them on.

    It’s not just Trump that is vulgar and offensive. Clearly there remains no depth to which the Republican party won’t sink.

      • Sparkles says:

        The revisionist history is relentless. It’s nothing like what happened to Bork.

        Bork was rejected 9-5 by the Senate Judiciary committee, with both supporters and opponents predicting his rejection by the full Senate if Reagan insisted on pushing for the vote.
        It was Sen Thad Cochran (R-MS), who then publicly gave up the ghost, admitting that pushing ahead with Bork would pay ”political dividends” for the Republicans.

        As preordained, Bork was again rejected, in bipartisan fashion, by the full Senate.
        And 30 years later, Republicans are still trying to cash in “political dividends” from an account that has long been sucked dry.

        The Senators that rejected Bork is the very same Senate that has previously confirmed uber-conservative Antonin Scalia, 98-0, and would go on to confirm Kennedy, in the final year of Reagan’s Presidency, by a vote of 97-0!!

        Bottom line – Bork was, supremely, ill-suited to the role.

        What was it that Jeffery Toobin, Harvard Law JD (magna cum laude) and former editor of the Harvard Law Review, penned about Bork? Oh yes –
        “ unrepentant reactionary who was on the wrong side of every major legal controversy of the twentieth century.”

      • Sure. It’s entirely different. LOL.

        Bork was torpedoed by a deliberate and quite vicious campaign from the left wing of the Democrat Party, which at the time held a majority in the Senate. By the time it got to a vote in the judiciary committee, the Democrats were uniformly against, and the GOP was uniformly for, except for Arlen Specter, who at the time was theoretically a Republican (but we all know different).

        So it was a partisan exercise, where the Senate, in Democrat hands, turned down a Republican nominee in an unprecedented fashion. And it’s never been the same since.

      • Significantly, even before Bork was nominated, the Democratic leadership in the Senate vowed “to form a ”solid phalanx” of opposition if the President’s nominee was an ideological extremist”. By ideological extremist is meant “someone who disagrees with us”.

        Bork was opposed because he replaced Powell, and would have therefore swung the court to the right. Scalia replaced Rehnquist, another conservative; Kennedy was the third nominee after two previous rejections, and couldn’t have rejected barring extraordinary circumstances. Thomas was the next nominee to face a hatchet-job, and squeaked through 52-48 on a mostly partisan vote.

      • Sparkles says:

        ..”the GOP was uniformly for, except for Arlen Specter,”..

        It was SIX Republican Senators voted in opposition to Bork.

        ..”And it’s never been the same since.

        How is it that Kennedy was confirmed, by this same Democratically controlled Senate, 97-0?

        Your excuses ignore entirely Bork’s record. But of course, examining Bork’s record prior to and subsequent the failed appointment kind makes your argument look silly.

        Also, Clarence Thomas deserved the scrutiny he received. It’s nearly impossible for anyone who closely examines the testimony and proceedings to walk away without legitimate suspicion and concern.
        Thomas snuck through his confirmation only by nuking the Senate panel with the unfounded accusation of “high tech lynching”.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH, I agree politics is politics and SCOTUS nominations have become very partisan on both sides. The base of each party wants blood. Damage done to the judiciary and its reputation is tragic, but it is hard to persuade politicians to stick their necks out.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH, Sort of, maybe, but there were hearings and a vote on Bork.
        Interesting that once of Bork’s close friend Robert George is one of authors of Catholic statement on Trump and Mrs Bork is one of the signers.

  5. repenting lawyer says:

    Sparkles, I do not know if it is offensive, but why does Cornyn anticipate more than one nominee? He said”they.” Actually the pinnate image is strange. I thought the plan was to ignore the nominee. Only with hearings and floor debate before a vote could you beat up on a nominee, though the Senators could rant on Fox.

  6. NE Voter says:

    Regarding Fortenberry — It cannot be disputed that one has been in Washington too long when one intones, “I would incline more towards his framework, if you will.”

    Out of touch much?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.