Mello hello?

It was nice of them to invite Heath to the Bernie rally

Yesterday Leavenworth St. noted the Wall Street Journal article discussing the ambitions of Brad Ashford and his family in pursuing Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional seat (which he lost to Congressman Don Bacon last year).

But also yesterday, another Dem took to the Twitter to discuss more than his dog, kids or the latest from @MeanStreetsOMA.

Yes, there was Heath Mello up tweeting about:

1) Joe Biden’s support for the Paris climate treaty

2) John Kasich’s support for the Paris climate treaty

3) The NYT’s support for the Paris climate treaty

And then he is still cranking away today, presumably at Mayor Jean Stothert, that she’s not green enough.

(Note to Heath: You lost.)

Hmm. It’s almost as if the former State Senator is looking for his “in” on the national discussion.

One wonders what he’ll do with his long preferred desire to discuss national issues over local ones.

Could a run for Congress be in his future?

He’d have to split the middle between Kara Eastman on the left and Brad on the right. (And maybe that’s the plan.)

Or…would he be up for a seat in Congress…a Senate seat?

There’s still an opening for the Dems there, and Mr. Mello may have a bit of statewide name ID.

But if St. Bob Kerrey of the Bridge couldn’t beat Senator Deb Fischer, could young lefty Heath Mello? And then what of the effect of just running and running and running for office for 3 years straight — with very probably nothing to show for it?

Tough decision.
Especially for someone itching to stay involved.

 

**And an afternoon update (already)**

This from Senator Deb Fischer’s page on The Facebook:

It’s been an honor to serve you in the U.S. Senate. That’s why on June 24th, I’ll be on my Strong Families, Strong Communities tour across our great state of Nebraska to announce my campaign for re-election.

If you’d like to join us, please be sure to RSVP. RSVPs are required and space is limited.

It would seem that the surprise announcement has been announced.

 

Climateers

And since The Commenters will want to discuss it anyway, here’s one note about the above referenced Paris Climate treaty:

It was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Oh, wait it wasn’t a “treaty”? Well, right, because President Obama decided to run around the Constitutional obligations and call it something else. Same with the Iran treaty, right?

There apparently was quite the debate in the Amin on both sides of this. But note that if President Obama had gone to the Senate and ratified the Treaty, it would have required the Senate to dissolve it (probably). Now? Not so much.

And it is always fun to watch the media and others go nuts when they see the President do something he said he was going to do.

Elections, eh?

 

Requiescat in pace

…to Sean Weide, who passed away suddenly. Weide was involved in local media in Omaha for years (OWH, KPTM and KMTV) and had a love of cycling, in which he was involved extensively.

But he was also an early blogger of sorts in Omaha with The Reader’s “Media Notes”. He carried on for a number of years while Leavenworth St. was in its early stages and we had similar story interests.

Weide and I also attended the same grade school — he was a year older than me — and he was a great speaker at an early age.

We send our prayers to his family and friends.

28 comments

  1. Gerard Harbison says:

    “It was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.”

    I thought Sweeper had a law degree? In any event, executive agreements have been used since 1792. Apparently bad old George Washington ran roughshod over the constitution too. Except SCOTUS doesn’t think so; in 1937, it said executive agreements have the force of law.

    And in any case, the agreement is provided for by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), a ratified treaty which commits us to

    Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change by addressing anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change.

    • Bluejay says:

      Obama just ignored the law, custom and tradition and never submitted the Paris Accords to the Senate because, er, pen and phone. And he would have lost the vote in the Senate. It purported to be an agreement of major significance amongst nations. It is a treaty. More lawlessness by the Dems. A big reason why I switched parties.

    • The Grundle King says:

      I have to ask, Gerard…did you support the Paris climate agreement?

      It appears America’s withdrawal from the agreement amounts to little more than symbolism. American power generators are already moving towards lower-carbon fuels, such as renewables and natural gas…the latter of which has increased so massively, as I’m sure you’d agree, almost entirely due to fracking.

      Consistently lost, or ignored, in the conversation on power generation and carbon emissions is the only power generation source that can provide steady, base-load reliability AND low/no carbon emissions…nuclear. Personally, I feel as though our nation’s focus on energy production should be more focused on thorium reactors than on massive, noisy, and unsightly windmills…or devoting large tracts of land towards solar.

      • Grievously Obstructionist Party says:

        Over the loud objections of environmentalists in his own party, Obama chose the more difficult path of leader in championing nuclear power throughout his tenure.

        Christian Science Monitor, Feb 16, 2010 –
        Obama advances nuclear resurgence with US loan guarantees
        In announcing $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for the first new nuclear reactors in the US in 30 years, Obama is setting the stage for a nuclear power comeback. But many challenges lie ahead.

        Nov 11, 2010, CNN –
        Obama has been pushing nuclear power in a big way since taking office.
        The president’s 2011 budget — still not passed by Congress — calls for $36 billion in government loan guarantees to build new nuke plants..
        ..For his part, Obama planned on paying for the new nuclear plants and other energy developments with money raised from restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, known as a cap-and trade plan. But with the economy in stall mode, Republicans in the House and voters in no mood for new taxes, that plan is dead.

        Stanford.edu, March 16, 2015 –
        “Since President Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012, he has made a push to increase the amount of nuclear energy in the United States.”

        From Forbes, Sept 20, 2016 –
        “Obama’s Energy Secretary Champions Nuclear Power To Fight Global Warming”

        MIT Technology Review, June 28, 2016 –
        Obama’s Ambitious Clean-Energy Goal Will Depend on Nuclear—and the Next President

        The problem Obama faced at every turn, for 8 years – a Republican party whose raison d’etre was the opposition of everything Obama. Unprecedented in history.
        And the GOP base guffawed, rallied and revelled in their do-nothing intransigence. They celebrated failure and rewarded political inaction and the disablement of reasoned governance on behalf of the people.
        Country be damned.

      • Yep says:

        Is it the reading, or the comprehension you find challenging?

        the first new nuclear reactors in the US in 30 years

      • Anonymous says:

        Thorium never advanced beyond small, proof-of-principle experiments by the AEC in the Fifties.

        Bill Gates has got money in what amounts to just barely critical pebble-bed reactors with heat output in the low-kilowatt range. Sealed boxes, can’t go critical, no control rods, no leaks. Comparable to high-end PV and Wind in electrical output. Unlike renewables the output is constant. Put Elon Musk’s batteries on there and renewables move into the constant output regime, as long as you can keep the batteries charged.

        I can’t say economies of scale that go with large nuclear plants ever proved viable. Not because of some intrinsic problem in fundamental thinking, but because of human factor(s) problems. Nuclear power plants are complex in design, manufacturing, operation and eventual deconstruction. Couple that to the changing energy market, e.g. fracking and natural gas, and it becomes difficult to follow through and make money. Power companies HATE uncertainty and pay to avoid it – just ask the former employees of the now-bankrupt Westinghouse.

        Alas, fusion, if it ever works at all and affordably, will solve most problems. Unless somebody gets Mr. Fusion working its always 50 years out. Controlling a hot plasma, the 4th state of matter, is really, really difficult.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Many would say that thorium reactors never got the attention they deserved, because thorium isn’t used to make nuclear bombs.

        Maybe it’s time to take a serious look at them.

  2. cause.. Obama says:

    Thanks for reminding us the Republicants in the Senate were petulant, bible-thumping, ant-science, Big Oil owned trolls long before Dolt 45 waddled onto the scene.

    Thanks to an intransigent GOP there was no chance the 2014-15 Senate was going to ratify a forward thinking climate change treaty embraced by 194 other nations around the world.

    • Bluejay says:

      Yeah, US Senators would never vote for something that screws American voters. Check out energy prices in Europe; through the roof.

      If you want to send your own money to China, North Korea and Yemen then go right ahead.

      • House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi says:

        The rules of the Paris Accord stipulates a 4-year waiting period for any country choosing to exit the treaty. Trump has stated he will abide by those rules.

        The Paris Accord formally went into effect on Nov 4, 2016, meaning the earliest the U.S. can exit the accord is Nov 4, 2020.

        Election Day 2020: November 3.

        The Paris Accord will be on the 2020 ballot.

        Warren / Klobuchar 52%
        Pence* / Nugent (Ted): 36%
        Palin / Kaczynski (Ted): 12%

        The crazed GOP is about to bring to ‘Murrica a whole new version of TED Talks. Armor up!

        *Trump imprisoned

  3. To the Punk says:

    So the loser thinks he can make himself relevant again. Ok Heath, think about this. You got beat in the Blue part of CD 2. You ran in none of the Republican dominated areas of Western Douglas and Sarpy County. You and Bernie are permanently enjoined and you ran half of your Mayor’s race on liberal issues. You lost any pro-life support you garnered with your previous vote in the Unicameral. Did you even win your parish? Last I saw you were down a few votes. So Heath in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood in regards to a possible congressional race on your part, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?” Well punk, after getting punked, “Do you feel lucky?”

  4. Bluejay says:

    1. Run Heath, run.

    2. Loving how Trump is dismantling all things Obama.

    3. CAGW is not science. It is a projection or estimate about what might happen in the far distant future based on failed, wrong and flawed models and adjusted numbers. Scam. Great day for America.

    4. And, of course, the biggest loser today is …. Janie Kleeb! Completely unhinged.

  5. anon says:

    Mello, praised by his peers in the legislature isn’t a good politician or legislator. I doubt many can or do watch the Unicam but he was no mayor material for Omaha.

  6. Faux Christians says:

    Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, stated he believed the U.S. oil lobby was behind Trump’s decision to pull out of the pact:
    “Saying that we need to rely on coal and oil is like saying that the earth is not round. It is an absurdity dictated by the need to make money.”

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
    “The Scriptures affirm the value of caring for creation and caring for each other in solidarity,” Bishop Oscar Cantú, chairman of the groups Committee on International Justice and Peace, said. “The Paris Agreement is an international accord that promotes these values. President Trump’s decision will harm the people of the United States and the world, especially the poorest, most vulnerable communities.”

    During Trump’s visit to Rome, Pope Francis purposefully gave Trump a copy of his 2015 encyclical, “Laudato Si.”, in which he wrote:
    “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it..
    ..Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals.
    Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention.”

    • Anonymous says:

      secular suckers,

      Jesus told the Romans to stop persecuting his people and they should withdraw from their conquered lands and have open borders, especially to the east.

      I’m sure I just missed that activism in the bible some where. The church can’t even take care of it’s own biblical mandates. But the best part is, the church pushes it’s responsibilities off on the government and still maintains it’s tax exempt status. Which means it is the suckers of government and it’s supporters who support the bible and the church in two ways that cost them a lot of money.

      Oh yeah, and let’s not forget, the church still gets involved in politics.

      Faux christian = secular suckers.

      • Bye Bye Bye says:

        Tou f’ing che’.
        Couldn’t agree more.
        It’s long past time the secular community kicked the church to the curb.

        Zero exemptions.
        The whole community – churches, schools, daycares, bible camps, thrift shops – no one spared.

        After all, isn’t the free market supposed to be some kind of nirvana?
        If they’re incapable of making it unattached from the subsidized teat, then let them fail.

      • double edged sword says:

        Get rid of the Johnson amendment. And you think they are involved in politics now. Unbridled religious intervention in elections. There is no win here for seculars. You’re screwed no matter what you do. Those who laugh last… all the way to the bank with their non taxed monies.

        Mean while, many clergy keep writing public letters how the government needs to do more and more and more. And the compassionate progressives keep adding to the cost. As they swallow it hook, line and sinker.

        Religion rules!

  7. Disgusted Midwesterner says:

    The video about climate change is definitely NOT what scientists are saying about climate change. The evidence is quite clear as it stands. If you’re interested in real information, and not the political propaganda put forth by money grubbing leaches, then you should check out Nature.com, climate: ww w.nature.co m/nclima te/index.html
    It is, just as it is for other scientific subjects, biology, physics, etc, a preeminent source of scientific publishing and data at the edge of state of the art. There, you can learn what a real climate debate sounds like and just how far the propaganda has thrown your ignorant brains out of whack. As examples:

    Understanding the regional pattern of projected future changes in extreme precipitation
    Australian climate extremes at 1.5 °C and 2 °C of global warming
    Peak growing season gross uptake of carbon in North America is largest in the Midwest USA
    Amplification of wildfire area burnt by hydrological drought in the humid tropics
    Forest disturbances under climate change
    Drylands face potential threat under 2 °C global warming target

    Its easy to tell just from the above titles taken from the front page of the recent issue, that actual climate science lays far out of range from denial of climate change. That, there is no questioning of the phenomenon, and quantification of its observed direct ecological effects are now underway.

    This is the reality. Ask yourselves, would you question, or have you ever questioned the veracity of a report titled, Next-generation cancer drugs boost immunotherapy responses, or LIGO spots gravitational waves for third time? I didn’t think so. So what makes you an expert on climate?

  8. Wondering says:

    Is Jeff Fortenberry cool with Deb Fischer ripping off his motto that he’s had since he first ran for Congress?:

    Strong Families Strong Communities Strong Nation
    Jeff Fortenberry for United States Congress Committee

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.