Checking the balances

gal-bush-gore-nov09-jpgIt will be a while before we get to Live Tweet a political debate, so we can let that season wash over us. Or take a shower. Whatever works for you.

But my question is, what is with the media and politicians getting their dresses over their heads about Donald Trump saying we’ll have to see if he accepts the election results — and that if he doesn’t it’s “unAmerican”?

Oh yeah? OK, then how about this person who is only…the Senate Minority Leader!:

However, when Reid cited the 2000 election between George W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore, he said he did not believe the Supreme Court’s final decision.

“Everyone knows I wasn’t a supporter of George Bush the second. I was a close personal friend, still am, of Al Gore. He got 600,000 more votes than Bush. We believe he won in Florida.”

He is saying the exact thing, that Hillary and others are saying is so outrageous. And he’s not just a sitting Senator, but the Senior most Democrat in Congress!

But crickets.

And here’s a question: What if a warehouse of votes gets torched in a swing county in Pennsylvania? Or what if the FBI discovers a hack of a Florida voting system? Or what if the Democrats decide they don’t like the way a ballot was put together in Colorado?

To say Trump is in-artful, is of course an understatement. But the idea that the voting can’t get screwed up is to somehow ignore the history of the system as recently as 16 years ago, when Al Gore got “snippy” at George W. Bush.



After yesterday’s 2nd District Congressional debate, the person Brad Ashford twice voted for Speaker of the House claimed that the Founders’ concept of “Checks and Balances” in the American system of government is “code for obstruction”.

So Nancy Pelosi, Ashford’s choice for Speaker thinks, as National Review’s David French put it, that America is electing a Queen.

Once again, this is getting to the theme of, if Hillary is considered the slam dunk favorite to win the election, what sort of Congress do the people want? One that will let Hillary and Pelosi’s vision of America slide through?

Or should there be vigorous debate before letting a bill become a law, “so that you can find out what is in it”?

This is what’s at stake 2nd District voters.



Ah, the local Democrats…
They had ONE job!

The Democrats have ONE close race for state Legislature where a Dem is pitted against a Dem. And what do they do, but trip all over themselves to call the other corrupt.

Here is the literature put out by the campaign to elect John Synowiecki in South Omaha’s District 7:


So, because of that, the Douglas County Democrats decided to leave his name off their ballot mail drop, and to include ONLY that of Tony Vargas. They left one of their own candidates off!

Naturally, Labor leaders, backing Synowiecki are freaking out at the party officials — who are now pointing to a divide between Labor and Latinos. In the mean time, it looks like there may have been an actual vote to decide to keep Synowiecki’s name off, simply because of a comparative mailer.

And Vince Powers and Jane Kleeb are sitting back ignorant of the situation because neither apparently owns a cell phone or an email account to have been in touch with party officials who would have made the decision.

But hey Democrats, these are the leaders you have chosen to run things at the granular level.



The Twitter: @LeavenworthStThe Facebook: Leavenworth St.

Because that’s the way to do it.


  1. Free clue: the Democrats (whom I believe were wrong) challenged the result in Florida because it was incredibly close, and it really came down to how the partially-spoiled ballots were counted. Moreover, while they whined about the result, they accepted the Bush presidency.

    Trump wants to deny in advance the validity of the election, an election he isn’t going to lose by a narrow margin. In doing this, he is showing a contempt for democracy. Indeed, he’s trying to corrode it. He will likely lose so badly he will drag down the GOP in the Senate (especially) and the House. And then, it’ll be back to 2009, entirely thanks to the choice of the Republican establishment (which includes, IMO, the owner of this blog) to play footsie with an entirely toxic candidate.

    The big problem is not that the Dems will sweep the election. The problem is that they’ll have power and no coherent opposition.

  2. pat says:

    You mix what you hope with what you know with what you refuse to admit. If you approached lab work that way, you’d have poisoned yourself long ago.

    By the way, this is a republic. We are voting indirectly for an executive function that is limited by checks and balances which will disappear per the Democrats you abet, who by pushing super-sized government find checks and balances an impediment to their forced federal benevolence.

    In the auld sod, you’d be known as an informer.

    • Anonymous says:

      As opposed to Trump, who appears to regard even the concept of co-equal branches of government as fiction. Why? In Trump’s world there is only unchecked executive power, constrained by other executives alone. Legislators? Judges? Gee, don’t I buy those?

      I don’t want Clinton because I don’t like dynastic politics. And I don’t want Trump because I don’t care for the world of The Hunger Games. This election DEFINES America’s political anus. Let’s work our way back up the alimentary canal, shall we?

    • Don’t lecture me on lab work, you patronizing little twerp. And you don’t know crap about the ‘auld sod’ either.

      If the founders thoguht having both houses and the presidency controlled by the same party eliminated ‘checks and balances’, they would have done somethign to prevent it. As it is, it’s been the case for much of our history.

  3. Anonymous says:

    It’s blatantly obvious that the overwhelming winner of last night’s debate is Alec Baldwin! SNL is going to have such a great time. “You’re the puppet”, “Such a nasty woman” and the suicidal coup de gras, “I will look at it at the time”.

    Will SNL have a skit based on the old Dr. Pepper song, I’m a puppet, he’s a puppet, she’s a puppet,
    we’re a puppet, wouldn’t you like to be a puppet too?

  4. State Convention says:

    A bigger scandal with the Democratic Elite was this summer when Bill Romju, Dee Austin, John Yoakum, and Mike Meister cut almost 100 of us Bernie supporters from being able to run as delegates to the national convention to try to suppress votes for Jane Kleeb and to railroad Chuck Hassebrook and Maureen Monahan into the top spots. It didn’t work the way the establishment had planned, and us Bernie supporters aren’t going away…and we have long memories.

  5. TexasAnnie says:

    Missing from this opinion of last night’s debate, Street Sweeper, was the very important issue of dilation and evacuation, a medical procedure used in 0.2% of all abortions. Although I have not known anyone who has undergone this procedure, just knowing that some women (and enlightened men) must endure the pain of carrying an unviable fetus and/or fear for the mother’s life, tips the scale in favor of the presidential candidate who understands the difference between medical necessity and anti-abortion dogma.

    I have been assuming for many weeks now that I would vote Libertarian in this presidential election. But since hearing Hillary’s strong statement about the importance of keeping abortion safe and legal, I’m thinking that the WOMAN in this race is the correct choice.

      • Anonymous says:

        Where are the edibles?

        Has he really vowed to have a jar of edibles on his desk in the Oval Office like Reagan had the jelly beans?

    • Viability of a child says:

      Difference is that Hillary wants to allow the murder of babies up until the day before they are born…even if the unborn child is viable or not a threat to the mother’s life.

      In the VAST majority of cases of saving the life of the mother, the child is not viable. As in “it will not survive. period.” However, this point is lost when it comes to Hillary. She believes that even if that child is viable, it is okay to murder it.

      • Sparkles says:

        I’m going to guess you’re unable to support your claim.

        The Clinton campaign is on record –
        HRC “recognizes that Roe v. Wade provides that restrictions are constitutional later in pregnancy so long as there are clear exceptions for the life and health of the woman.”

        And during a Fox News Town Hall on 3/17/16, Hillary’s exact response to the claim you have made is:
        No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.”

        The full transcript of this debate, moderated by Brett Baier, is available for all to read.
        HRC’s position in quite clear.

        You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        That’s not what she said last night. She said third trimester abortions are constitutional and she supports the Constitution. Abortion is not murder any more than execution and warfare; do you support these other examples of the taking of human life? Over 99% of all abortions have been occurring in the first trimester. But when states like Texas and Nebraska impede the availability of this constitutional right, some abortions are now being deferred to the second trimester due to otherwise unnecessary travel and expense. And I consider this circumstance a “crime” against the woman (and man?) involved.

        I realize another’s (anyone’s) fervent desire to squash all abortion, the life of the mother be damned. And I would not take a strong stand on this issue at this time because I do not believe Trump is truly pro-life. But since I heard Trump’s description last night of the D&E procedure as “ripping the baby out,” it reminded me that the importance of this issue has not diminished.

        GO Hillary!

      • Viability of a child says:

        There are many third trimester abortions performed because the mother simply does not want the child. I do support saving the life of the mother, but I do not support third trimester abortions for women who simply change their mind. And I have read many articles quoting HRC’s unabashed support for the allowance of abortions up until the date before the child is due. If she TRULY believes third trimester abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the mother, she will help pass legislation banning it on a federal level. She won’t though. PP won’t allow it.

      • Sparkles says:

        Viability of child at 10:28,

        You claim:
        And I have read many articles quoting HRC’s unabashed support for the allowance of abortions up until the date before the child is due.

        Yet, you can’t cite a single one.
        Thank you for confirming what I had assumed. You, and those who share your alternate reality, just make this stuff up as you go along.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Hey, Viability, I just came across this article while trying to find stats demonstrating abortion decline in recent years. Check it out. It’s penned by a doctor but could have been written by a philosopher.

        Forbes: “Abortion, Distortion and the Elephant in the Room.”

    • The Grundle King says:

      So with your vote for Clinton, will you finally admit that you’re really not much of a libertarian (notice I didn’t capitalize the ‘l’)? After all, one cannot possibly hope to claim they hold libertarian values whilst voting for someone whose political ideology is about as far away from libertarianism as one can get.

      • Sparkles says:

        TA simply chooses to be one of the legions of informed women, America’s most powerful -former- silent majority, to take part in the historically remarkable feat of flipping Texas from Red to Blue.
        She’s going to join the millions of proud Republican and Libertarian women who are going to walk into a voting booth and tell the Orange Vulgarian and his apologists to go f*^k themselves.

        Donald Trump truly is, making America great again.

      • Sparkles says:

        Her vote, for Hillary, will matter in Texas.
        That is informed.

        And.. it’s unfortunate, but Gary Johnson is a tool, his campaign comical.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Sparkles, you’re missing the point…badly.

        I don’t care who TA votes for…it’s her vote, and she can cast it as she wishes.

        But she cannot continue to claim, in any sort of good faith, to be a libertarian whilst voting for Hillary Clinton. The ideologies are completely incompatible. A vote for Clinton is a vote against libertarian principles…end of story.

      • Sparkles says:

        “But she cannot continue to claim, in any sort of good faith, to be a libertarian whilst voting for Hillary Clinton. “

        Of course she can.
        10’s of millions of Republican’s voted for G.W. in in ’00, and again in ’04, claiming to be “fiscal conservatives”.
        10’s of millions will vote for Forrest Trump in a few weeks, calling themselves “patriots” and “constitutional conservatives”.

      • Sparkles says:

        The Libertarian and Republican party’s left her no viable option.
        TA is choosing to put country before party.
        It’s what millions of engaged, informed, truly patriotic American citizens will do this year.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Oh Grundle…what’s the use!

        Sparkles you have guessed my voting predicament correctly. Will you please tell Grundle, as I have since 2008 (wherein I was a Texas delegate to the Libertarian National Convention), that I am an Independent registrant. I have not claimed Libertarianism nor libertarianism since that time. But when I was a Libertarian, the Libertarians were constitutionalists and their primary focus was tax justice. That’s what drew me to the party but the party has been over at least since 2008, so, rather than be hoodwinked again by the R’s as Street Sweeper evidently has been (party-over-principle) I choose registering Independent. And you know what: the great thing about registering Independent here in Texas is that I get to use my primary AND general election votes to either help, -or hinder, any candidate of my choosing. Aaaww, choice! It’s one of the best attributes of being human. Thanx.

      • So, Sparkles your point is that millions voted for Bush because they wrongly thought he was a fiscal conservative. And therefore it’s OK to vote for Hillary because you think she’s libertarian.

      • Gary Johnson was not my first choice, but he’s infinitely more qualified and less corrupt than the awful main party candidates.

        I have no idea why TA was in the Libertarian party, since I’ve never seen her argue for a single libertarian idea. Just lost, I guess.

      • Anonymous says:

        Sparkles, Gerard believes you think Hillary is a Libertarian. And since he’s evidently too timid to address me directly about the issue of libertarianism will you tell him for me that my experience with the philosophy began with Ayn Rand. And my experience with the party began as I said in 1990, when Newt put out a contract on America. That’s when I couldn’t stomach identifying with the Republicans any longer.

      • Anonymous says:

        Gerard, in response to your inquiries: Oct. 20th, 9:40pm, 2nd sentence.

        And, ‘Anonymous’ because my TexasAnnie logo (which used to maintain automatically) fades away if I don’t check in and write something every day, I guess. Anyway the sign-in space is below my screen when I hit ‘send’ and I haven’t always remembered to check it. So, sorry about your ‘confusion.’

      • Anonymous says:

        Why is that? Is it because when I read in the Neb. Const. (Art. VII, Sec. 1) that “all persons between the ages of 5 and 21” get to go to school? I took that to mean your disabled get to go to school too! I’m fed up with Nebraskans telling me how I think and feel. I know how to maneuver these mental and physiological processes by myself. I’m telling you, I’m Independent. I’m much more an issue voter than party registrants, and I am never a party patriot. Have been this way since 2008.

      • How Unfair says:


        they pegged you for a liberal when the discovered that you actually read things and thought about them.

  6. Sparkles says:

    Two things have been true in each debate.

    1) Trump has been, at every turn, underprepared, undisciplined, and operating with only the faintest outline of a strategy. A strategy which is quickly abandoned in it’s entirety. Trump begins calm, but as Clinton deftly prods him, he visibly falls apart, gets angrier and launches bizarre, conspiracy fueled, personal attacks.

    2) Clinton has been, at every turn, prepared, disciplined, and coldly strategic.
    Masterfully goading Trump and triggering meltdowns that became the main story the day after every single debate.
    All while demonstrating immense knowledge of, and insight into, every topic presented.

    Wow, this is really a difficult decision about who should lead our nation.

  7. Millennial voter says:

    What if a bunch of gun-toting idiots decide they’re going to prevent non-whites from going to their local polling station because Trump said they should? Or the hack ends up favoring candidates on the right? Or, god forbid, a Republican precinct captain throws a bunch of ballots away from people they assume might be voting for Clinton?

    Your “what if?” games are incredibly stupid and assume that it’s only Democrats who could possibly steal an election. Sweeper, where is the evidence of voter fraud or vote rigging? We’ll wait for that blog post…

  8. repenting lawyer says:

    Sweeper, checks and balances has nothing to do with parties, Founders did not anticipate parties. They feared religious enthusiasm. Checks and balances worked despite parties because of big tent parties and compromise. The rise of highly ideological parties arguably turns the system from checks and balances to pure obstruction when the branches are divided. A point Wilson anticipated in his prePresidential writings, and the point Pelosi was making.
    “Queen”was funny, though Prime Minister might have been more accurate. “UnAmerican” caption was not even second rate.
    If recounts are part of the system then a recount accepts the system. Trump seems to be saying he may reject the system if he does not like the result, particularly with his talk about rigging. A far different thing from complaining about Bush v Gore decision of SCOTUS, which Posner convinced me was probably right though badly written.

    • TexasAnnie says:

      So tell us, did the founders -or- the checks and balances suggest any means to get out of the two-party trap that we’re in? I tried the 3rd party route myself from 1990-2008. But that went nowhere.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Texas Annie, the answer to your question is no. Sad truth is that 2 parties seem to be dictated by the system of presidential elections since the beginning of third part success is electoral votes and elections by the House. In addition first past the post pushes toward 2 parties.

      • Sparkles says:

        Six days ago a noted Republican strategist, former McCain campaign chair Steve Schmidt (who has repeatedly proven quite a sage throughout this election cycle), predicted the GOP itself is about to split into two distinct parties.

        The article is at Vox, titled:
        A GOP strategist explains why the Republican Party is about to break in two
        On many levels, it’s a remarkable read.

        It was 6 days ago Schmidt predicted Trump would say exactly what he said on stage last night, Schmidt states
        “.. there’s a long-term implication for the civic life of the country, the vandalism being done, which will culminate for the first time in American history with his refusal to make an ordinary concession where he grants to the winner legitimacy by recognizing the legitimacy of the election. I think it’s very clear he’s going to go out saying it’s a rigged system.”

        Schmidt continues –
        “As a conservative Republican, I find anathematic the regulatory and tax policies of liberal Democrats. But there’s no question that Republicans — as an institution and what we’re led by — are unfit to run the country, or to govern the country.

        You have a massive reckoning coming due..”

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Sweeper, I should have mentioned that at a certain point recounts are required in NE though loser may waive. We had one in i958, still I think the closest race for gov. in US history. Also mayor’s race in Omaha in 1961. In recounts candidates may challenge ballots, made 1961 closer but end result stayed the same.

  9. Sparkles says:

    Sasse just tweeted out his support of the storyline that –
    “Trump Basically Launched His Media Company on Debate Night”

    But it’s become quite clear, for ten’s of millions of Republicans there is no depravity too heinous, no character too manifestly unfit for office, that would lead them to choose country before party.

  10. ricky says:

    In their wildest dreams Nebraskans in the state Republican Party would not realize what a disaster Trump has been and will be for the GOP.
    The only question now is how far down will Trump take the party?
    I doubt Bacon will come close, and we hope all those candidates for the Unicam Mr Ricketts endorses will win. I bet they all lose.
    Three cheers for Hal Daub and Aimee M and Fischer and all the other dopes that backed Trump at the state and national convention.
    The first woman President of the USA! Hillary!

    ricky from omaha

    • what a Ricky post means . . . says:

      Trump will not be a disaster . . .
      Bacon will win.
      “Hillary” will lose.
      (No one is ever more wrong ever than Ricky)

  11. Anonymous says:

    Come on Ricky, I’ve defended you on occasion when others picked on you, but calling my baby, Trump, ugly just is not becoming of you. Maybe Trump is helping the GOP see that it needs to change. Lord knows the flashback to 1992 isn’t exactly progress and to say “first woman President” sounds awfully sexist by singling out gender. Isn’t that a new low? To categorize rather than simply accept a person based upon their skills, expertise and knowledge? Rather shallow to just chime in “woman” as something of an accomplishment of being anatomically correct. Oh Wow. Go Donald Go! First male president with a tower named after him.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Thank you, Republicans, for your feckless failure in national politics. We now have a 1.5 party “system” (I hesitate to use the word system as it implies a design and order we don’t have). Yes, Nebraska is run by Republicans, as if that mattered. Pete? Ricketts? The best of the equestrian class? We don’t care who gets elected, just spend as little as possible.

    Meanwhile our love of dynastic politics continues. Another Clinton, and The Red Queen this time. She will wonk us to death and make us pay for the privilege, while the Republic and the Union of States stumbles along like a drunk who suffered a stroke, mumbling “FML” as he gimps to the next crisis. So thanks, Republicans. America was a good idea, but nothing more. The only real part is your failure.

  13. blogspeak says:

    Trump is correct that America’s job-crushing NAFTA was in fact signed into law by Bill Clinton. But Trump’s critics too are correct that it was GHWB who initially signed the agreement that started NAFTA.

    To ponder this is to see the Bushes in cahoots with the Clintons. But instead of Trump simply saying that aloud, saying the Bushes and Clintons are political royalty who epitomize what’s wrong with America, which every Sanders’ socialist voter and Trump’s market voter intuitively knows is true, Trump simply opens the gate and allows voters to find that water themselves. And that isn’t a bad tactic. Requiring people to do the discovery footwork convinces them like nothing else. And while many today say this approach isn’t working for Trump among November voters, it is the approach he has used all along.

    The proof of this family royalist collusion is that the Republican Bush family has tacitly endorsed Democrat Clinton’s campaign by refusing to cheer for their own party’s candidate.

    Imagine a group of former Univ. of Nebraska Regents and NU Chancellors refusing to take sides in a Nebraska football season because they don’t like their coach. For them to say “I am not taking sides” is in fact them taking sides against their own, to specifically make the wrong side win.

    Fans grasp that intuitively. But so too do voters. Fans and voters may be ignorant of facts but they aren’t stupid. Thus, while Trump isn’t saying the Republican establishment is as rotten as the Democratic establishment, that is obvious is to those who walk through that gate and are convinced.

    There are however others addicted to the establishment. Orwell’s willing. O’Briens who have no use for Winston Smiths. For them the comfort of blinding PC that raises propriety above truth is a pure good. They like Orwell’s world. And they also vote. Not all revolutions work. We shall soon see.

  14. bynd says:

    Interesting section in the OWH today comparing Clinton’s plan to Trump’s as seen by experts.

    Trump will give us hell while Hillary gives us utopia.

    What matters though, is how close either one, when elected, gets to the proposed analysis in the paper. People seem to forget that there are always unintended consequences. And in either case, I can handle it is not an answer.

    In any case it will be a fun project to keep this part of the paper and see how all the predictions pan out.

    Final question, Warren thinks rich people should pay higher taxes. Yet, the vast majority of his wealth is being given to charity. Therefore going to what he wants to spend it on and screwing the USA out of, at a minimum, the inheritance tax. Not a big deal if the money donated stays in the USA. But the vast majority does not. See Gates Foundation, Susie Buffett Foundation, Warren’s deceased wife’s foundation, NOVO foundation and a couple of others I can’t remember right now.

    So while government spends more and arguably the rich are taxed more, when they end up paying less by loopholes and more donated to charity, the burden always falls on the middle class. Remember, Obama said no tax raise on the middle class. And that was fine until SCOTUS reminded him of what a tax is and what his authority is. It seems rather back handed and hypocritical of Warren though.

    • TexasAnnie says:

      So I guess you’re saying, bynd, that the tax injustice we suffer is okay? ‘Cause that’s just the way things are!

      As a postscript to the above, days-old exchange about Libertarianism, or libertarianism, tax justice WAS the main focus of both the philosophy and founding party. But since Bob Barr, 2008, the Libertarian Party particularly and the idea of self-sufficiency generally have given way to an “I’ve got mine now you get yours” mantra.

      There can be no government without institutions and there can be no liberty without egalitarian institutions. I still believe that egalite’ and liberty are two sides of the same coin. I still believe we can and should solve the looming Social Security and Medicare crises without simply reneging on moral and financial obligations. I still believe that the IRS should be abolished and replaced with a consumption tax. I still believe warfare is properly only about defense, and only a policy protocol of last resort. Yet the Libertarians I have known now seem to be seeking something different (—anarchy?). No longer do they seek the tax justice and self-sufficiency idealized by Ayn Rand before Congress in the 1950’s. No longer is Rand’s philosophy of ‘objectivism’ guiding the party platform. As with the Republicans, the Libertarian leadership exists FOR itself and it exists for the ‘idealism’ sufficient to sustain itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.