Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been Nebraska's online voice for progressive political change. Thank you for being part of the NNN community!
Nebraska's First District Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry is raising a stink about the possibility that the Help HAITI Act he introduced might be used as a vehicle for passing the DREAM Act in these last remaining weeks of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. After being scheduled for final passage last week, Fortenberry's bill was taken off the calendar - allowing Democratic leaders to keep their options open while votes are tallied in the U.S. Senate. If the DREAM Act isn't passed in this Congress, it's expected to have no chance the next two years when Republicans control the House and are much stronger in the Senate.
Fortenberry certainly deserves to be commended for the time and the effort he's put into the Help HAITI Act, which would clear legal obstacles for as many as 1,200 Haitian orphans to obtain U.S. citizenship. This is common sense legislation that's rightfully received strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. It honors our commitment to these children after January's terrible earthquake in their native country.
However, it does not take a natural disaster to create tragic circumstances that hurt innocent children and can only be corrected by changes in U.S. law. The same principles of fairness and compassion at the heart of Fortenberry's legislation are also at the heart of the DREAM Act, which would open a pathway to citizenship for children brought into this country illegally who graduate from a U.S. high school and pursue military service or a college education.
Of course, these shared principles haven't gotten in the way of Fortenberry and his fellow Republicans spinning a common legislative practice as some gross partisan abuse. Sadly, CNN's Anderson Cooper bought this tale of woe: hook, line, and sinker. On his 360 program, Cooper featured Fortenberry in the following 10 minute segment during which the obvious parallels beween the Help HAITI Act and the DREAM Act went completely unmentioned:
The CNN segment above is titled "Kids Without A Country." Although the connection is never made, it is that heart-wrenching idea that binds orphans from Haiti with so many of their peers who entered this country by no choice of their own. It also binds these pieces of legislation, whether they are enacted together or not.
Anderson Cooper may be too shallow or too biased to see through Fortenberry's self-serving partisan spin, but the heart-felt words of Rebecca Williams - the adopted mother of Darlene Williams, a Haitian orphan - really do reveal the fundamental truth of this situation. Although Williams appeared with Fortenberry on CNN and spoke in favor of passing the Help HAITI Act without any further delay, her story is all-too-familiar for the hundreds of thousands of children who have been or will be cast away into the shadows of American society without the DREAM Act:
We just want a clear path to citizenship for our children....I think it's unconscionable that somebody's playing with these childrens' lives, my family's life. My daugher is - she's 16 - she wants to be a productive American citizen. She wants to get a part-time job. She wants to learn to drive. She can't do any of those things. She can't get a Social Security card.
You know... it's terrible to say, but my daughter will tell you that she does not exist. My daughter will be the first one to tell you, 'I don't have a country. I'm not a Haitian, and I'm not an American.' She says, 'I'm not even a person. I don't exist.' How sad is that?.....
I feel like our family is being dragged through this limbo status interminably...We just want a clear path to citizenship....What makes [Darlene] not a citizen? She's a cheerleader. She plays soccer. She's part of her church family. She's trying to be a productive person and getting a part-time job. What part of that doesn't make her an American citizen?...
One of the first things she did was attend a motorcade for a fallen airman here at MacDill Air Force Base that day. She proudly flew her little American flag that day thinking she was an American. Now she knows she has no status. How sad is it that you have a person who lives in America thinking she does not exist - that she is not a person? She will tell you that.
An entire generation of immigrant children know the pain these 1,200 Haitian orphans are feeling. Can't get jobs. Can't drive. Can't get a Social Security card. They are cheerleaders and play on our kids' soccer teams. Many have been in America since they were infants and had no idea of their own "limbo status" until applying for college and suddenly finding the door to all their hopes and dreams slammed into their faces.
Like Darlene Williams, these children have no country because the America they call home will not claim them.
All that can change if Congress passes the Help HAITI Act and the DREAM Act before this session is through. America must finally acknowledge these children - their existence, their pain, and the injustices they've suffered for the sins of their parents.
The Lincoln Journal-Star's Don Walton quotes Fortenberry asking, "Is this Congress so dysfunctional that we can't even help innocent children caught in the aftermath of an earthquake without playing political games?" But, there is a more fundamental question that Fortenberry himself must answer:
"Is this Congress so dysfunctional that we can't even help innocent children...without playing political games?"
This isn't about the earthquake in Haiti. It's about who we are as a people and where we're headed as a country. Relying on false distinctions to do what is easy rather than what is right is the oldest "political game" in the book.
Every innocent child deserves to DREAM in America. The DREAM Act should have the same strong bipartisan support as the Help HAITI Act. And, Jeff Fortenberry should consider it an honor that his work might be considered alongside such historic legislation that would once again allow our rigid laws to reflect the compassion and character of the American people.
It seems doubtful that I'm going to have much good to say about Republican Attorney General Jon Bruning during his two-year campaign for the U.S. Senate that was all-but-declared within 48 hours of the polls closing in the 2010 election. However, a few months ago, Bruning did right a terrible wrong for which thanks are long overdue.
It was more than five years ago - in NNN's infancy - that I once wrote of Bruning, "[F]or today, I am proud to call him my Attorney General." He had just cast the lone vote in support of commuting the life sentence of Jeremy Michael Herman, so he'd one day be eligible for parole after pleading guilty to a kidnapping at the age of 18. At the time, the Lincoln Journal-Star reported:
Sometimes the get-tough attitude on crime should be tempered by mercy, Attorney General Jon Bruning said during an unsuccessful attempt Wednesday to get an inmate's life sentence reduced....
Bruning admitted this stand could jeopardize his own re-election bid. "We are continually trying to get ourselves re-elected by trying to be tougher than the next guy," Bruning said. "And at some point, it's got to end"....
With the 2-1 decision, the Pardons Board continued its 14-year record of denying requests to commute life sentences. But the decision sparked a passionate debate on being tough on crime. Bruning pointed out that, historically, the state Pardons Board commuted life sentences several times a year until the early 1990s. And Bruning admitted his own get-tough record. "I've been so tough on crime, it makes me want to throw up sometimes," he said. But there is a time to consider mercy.
Bruning said he was willing to commute this sentence "at my own political peril."
Bruning's surprising argument in favor of common sense and compassion evidently carried some weight with Secretary of State John Gale. In 2007, he relented on the "get-tough" attitude he'd espoused two years earlier. Gale was willing to give a second chance to Reginald Bennett, who'd made a terrible mistake as a 21 year-old in 1978, throwing a rock that killed a retired postal worker. But, at this point, it was Bruning who fell back on the same tired rhetoric he'd previously decried.
Gov. Dave Heineman and Attorney General Jon Bruning said Bennett's case was not extraordinary enough to merit commutation. Heineman said Bennett had been offered a choice before his trial to plead guilty to a lesser manslaughter charge, and he decided to go to trial....
Bruning also pointed to Bennett's decision three decades ago to follow his attorney's advice and reject the plea agreement. "Ultimately I'm not sure the system failed him. He could have taken the deal," Bruning said....
In addition, approving one commutation would open a flood gate for the 200 people in Nebraska's prison system with life sentences, Bruning said. "If we open the gate, it is going to be very difficult to say no to anyone. So do we want to open the gate?"
Declaring him "A Man Lost To His Own Ambition", I didn't hold back in my criticism of Bruning for so quickly forgetting the value of mercy. This was when he was campaigning against Senator Chuck Hagel, hoping to defeat him from the right in the Republican Party's 2008 primary. Bruning's entire strategy was built on extremist appeals to the GOP's base, which wouldn't look kindly on a candidate's appearing soft on crime. Nevermind that, within weeks, Hagel announced he wouldn't seek re-election, and the entrance of Mike Johanns effectively forced Bruning out of the race.
Reginald Bennett was made a victim of poor timing and political posturing. Bruning had "forsaken conscience and humanity for his own ego and ambition." He was guilty of "pandering to our worst instincts in violation of that which he knows is right." I don't think I've trusted a word that's come out of his mouth ever since.
Still, the New Nebraska Network gives credit where it is due. This August, three years after turning his back on Bennett and his own principles, Bruning finally reconsidered. Daring to show a sliver of compassion - against fierce objections by Gov. Dave Heineman - Bruning joined Secretary of State Gale in commuting Bennett's life sentence and opening the pathway to his parole.
Neither the Lincoln Journal-Star nor the Omaha World-Herald demanded any explanation of Bruning for his flip-flopping on such fundamental issues of forgiveness and freedom. Although it flies in the face of this site's endless fight for accountability, maybe that's for the best. A man's life hung in the balance for three years as result of Bruning's political ambitions. It's pathetic. It's shocking. But, it's also very human. And, ultimately, Bruning did do the right thing, making up for the weakness he showed in 2007.
In this show of conscience, Bruning hasn't won my trust. He sure as hell hasn't won my vote. But, he does have my thanks - for whatever that is worth.
I don't know that I have a whole lot more to say on the subject. Yesterday, the recall campaign submitted 37,219 signatures to the Douglas County Election Commissioner - rougly 10,000 more than petitioners needed to force a special election on removing Suttle from office. This is a big victory for a special-interest-driven effort that began even before Suttle's swearing-in ceremony. Unfortunately, it's a very big loss for the city of Omaha.
This sort of political game sets a very dangerous precedent. Its success threatens to bring Omaha to a standstill just when the city was finally making progress facing its many long-term fiscal challenges. Those challenges will only grow and become a greater liability to the city as a result of this needless distraction.
There's no doubt that a recall election weakens Suttle's hand in doing the job he was elected to do. The vacuum of leadership should Suttle be removed from office is an even greater threat to the city. But, the worst result - BY FAR - would be the impact on future leaders, who are seeing their worst impulses to pander and put off tough choices reinforced by Suttle's example.
Some elected officials see what's going on and understand just how dangerous its consequences could be. The Omaha World-Herald reports:
State Sen. Brad Ashford, a Republican, suggested that Suttle is getting a raw deal. He said Suttle is being blamed by some for Omaha's generous police and fire pension benefits, for example, yet the mayor is working to address that issue. "People are angry about the pensions, and they should be angry. It's been mismanaged for decades," said Ashford, who opposes the recall and spoke against it on radio ads. "Now this mayor is being saddled with that black mark"....
"I think this is a terrible, tragic process that we're going through," he said. "It's terrible for the city...I'm very saddened by it."
This is a sad moment. This whole effort has been a childish sham that makes the city of Omaha look ridiculous.
Jim Suttle has done what he thinks is right for Omaha's future. Politically, there's no doubt that he should have cut deeper in the city's budget. Close libraries. Close swimming pools. End after-school programs. Fire city employees. Not because it would have been the right thing to do but because the people hurt most by these cuts would have been powerless and couldn't have fought back.
Right-wing radio constantly attacks Suttle for being too close to Omaha police and firefighters. Absent pursuing a course of skyrocketing property taxes and eventual bankruptcy, the only genuine alternative he had was closing stations and slashing their workforces. Suttle could have made a big show of doing so just to show his independence. The city would have suffered, but Suttle would have benefitted. If there was enough of an uproar, the city council could have always challenged Suttle - just so long as they'd take responsibility for raising taxes. Then, rather than negotiating and working for agreements with the Unions, Suttle could have dumped the city's problems on the Commission for Industrial Relations. When higher taxes became necessary - at even greater cost to taxpayers - Suttle would have again had someone else to blame.
Isn't that what we've come to expect? Isn't that leadership the Nebraska way? But, Suttle refused to play these games. Powerful special interests are taking advantage of that - making him pay with this wasteful and ridiculous recall that could very well succeed in undoing an election that was only held 18 months ago.
It's out of the hands of those special interests now. They've bought their way to a mid-winter recall election in which the single biggest factor will probably be the weather. That's what our democracy has come down to. Signatures are being counted. They will be challenged. But, Suttle's fate and the continuation of this charade are almost certain to go to the voters. The danger is less in what they have to say than their having nothing to say at all. That's when the special interests win, and all of Omaha will have lost.
After two years of non-stop obstruction by a united Republican front, there are only weeks remaining for action on a long list of legislative priorities shared by President Barack Obama and the short-lived Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. At this crucial time, it appears Sen. Ben Nelson is hoping to effectively abandon his post for the remainder of 2010.
On Wednesday, Nelson voted against motions to proceed on the Paycheck Fairness Act and the bipartisan FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Nelson was the lone Democratic Senator to oppose either motion. He's been a cosponsor of the latter legislation, which was even supported by Nebraska's Republican Sen. Mike Johanns.
Explaining these votes, Ben Nelson stated to the press:
"When I traveled across Nebraska during the congressional break Nebraskans told me loud and clear that my focus in this lame duck session should be on jobs, tax cuts and debt reduction. I listened, I heard and those are my priorities.
"A lot of other important bills have and may come up in the next few weeks concerning defense policy, a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, immigration, food safety and more. While those should be addressed and they will be addressed, now is not the time as far as I'm concerned. The hundreds of Nebraskans I met with in recent weeks from North Platte to South Sioux City, Omaha to the Sandhills didn't bring those issues up. Only one person brought up anything on immigration.
"What I heard was this: Nebraska families and businesses want all of the tax cuts that expire on December 31st extended at least for a couple of years. With our still shaky economy, they want continuity, consistency and clarity. I've read that businesses are sitting on $1 trillion in cash. That money could be invested overseas if we play politics and don't provide certainty soon. Nebraskans also want Washington to create jobs and to protect jobs they still have. I couldn't agree more. And Nebraskans want Washington to cut the nearly $14 trillion federal debt that is a drag on our economy and a danger for our country's future.
"Everything else can wait, they told me, and I agree with them."
I'm sure Nelson thinks he's positioned himself brilliantly to deflect criticism on any potentially controversial issues that may come up for a vote during the next few weeks. But, I'm not buying it, and neither should you. A sitting U.S. Senator can't appeal for a blanket amnesty for bad votes.
Of course, a change in Nelson's vote would not have made a difference for the food safety legislation (which advanced) or the Paycheck Fairness Act (which did not). But, there's likely to be issues coming where Nelson's support will be key and his hiding behind the people of Nebraska cannot be excused. This is especially true of expected votes on the DREAM Act and the Defense Authorization bill, including a repeal of the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
With Congress likely entering an extended period of gridlock, we have little time left for progress and breaking through years of lockstep obstructionism. Nelson suggests these issues can wait. But, thousands of undocumented Nebraska children can't wait any longer for the DREAM Act. They're being lost to the shadows of our society although they committed no crime and are no less American than any of their classmates through the 12th grade. In the U.S. military's tenth year of war in Afghansistan, it's also shameful to ask gay Americans to wait any longer before they can be honest about who they are and whom they love while risking their lives for our country.
Ben Nelson might be right about Nebraskans' priorities and is certainly entitled to his own. But, we will see more than just his priorities in the coming weeks. In Nelson's votes, we will see his principles - whether he wants us to or not.
In April, NNN warned about the "perversion of our redistricting process to serve the political ends of the Nebraska Republican Party" during the 2011 session of the Nebraska Legislature. That article noted that this threat largely comes from State Senator Scott Lautenbaugh, who has a long record of abusing public office to promote partisan interests and protect Republican candidates.
Gov. Dave Heineman didn't hide the fact that Lautenbaugh's experience as Douglas County Election Commissioner was a "key factor" in his 2007 appointment to the Legislature. It just so happens that Lautenbaugh's experience includes such gross manipulation of state law and betrayal of the public's trust that the Nebraska Legislature had to strip redistricting powers away from Election Commissioners all across the state. On the basis of an entirely separate action, Lautenbaugh also had to be slapped down by the Nebraska Supreme Court for clearly exceeding his authority by taking into account partisan political considerations when drawing precinct lines.
State law specifically requires that Election Commissioners be of "good moral character and integrity" to protect Nebraska voters from the very sorts of abuses of the office by which Lautenbaugh made his name in the Republican Party and earned his seat in the Legislature. Rather than protecting the public's interests in free and fair elections, it was the Supreme Court and the Legislature that had to protect the public from Scott Lautenbaugh.
Now, Heineman and the Republican Party are counting on Lautenbaugh putting that experience to work. His appointment to the Legislature was all about preparing for this very moment. And, Lautenbaugh plans to deliver.
Take a look at what the AP reported last April:
The Nebraska Legislature's Executive Board will appoint a special redistricting committee in the 2011 session to oversee the redrawing of district lines. One lawmaker familiar with redistricting, Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha, plans to make a case for being appointed to the committee.
Lautenbaugh is a former Douglas County election commissioner, and in 2001, he sued the state to challenge the constitutionality of redrawn political boundary lines for state senators. Lautenbaugh alleged that newly drawn districts in Douglas County violated the Nebraska Constitution because they did not follow county lines. The lawsuit was later dismissed....
He's not ready to predict how lines might be drawn, but Lautenbaugh said he stands behind the basis of his 2001 lawsuit. "Our mission and our directive is to follow county lines whenever practicable," Lautenbaugh said.
Just a few months later, with Lautenbaugh coming off an Election Day victory, the Omaha World-Herald now reports on the upcoming redistricting process:
The thorniest question awaiting Nebraska lawmakers is what to do with the Omaha-based [Second Congressional] district, which must lose about 38,000 people, based on current estimates...One of the simplest scenarios would be to carve off another chunk of Sarpy County and place it, along with Gretna, into the Lincoln-based [First Congressional] district.
However, anything is possible. Nothing says Douglas County must remain whole, said Scott Lautenbaugh, a Republican state senator from Omaha who plans to seek a role on the redistricting committee. "There is no argument that says you couldn't shave off a slice of Douglas County," said Lautenbaugh.
Lautenbaugh is keeping the door open to alternative redistricting schemes that would be more in the Republican Party's favor. How quickly he changed his tune from his previous statement that "our mission and our directive is to follow county lines whenever practicable." Now, when it may be to his party's political advantage, Lautenbaugh says that county lines are absolutely meaningless. In fact, he claims there isn't even an argument to the contrary.
Maybe Lautenbaugh needs to reread Nebraska's State Constitution. In every instance that it mentions redistricting, the Constitution states:
"In any such redistricting, county lines shall be followed whenever practicable...."
This is the exact language used for the Legislature, the Supreme Court, and the Board of Regents. Lautenbaugh may be relying upon the fact that the State Constitution says nothing explicit about the redistricting of Nebraska's seats in Congress. However, it clearly demonstrates that Nebraskans care about territorial integrity and take county lines very seriously when it comes to protecting a community's representation and identity.
The people have expressed a clear statement of interest throughout the foundational document for our state government. Yet, Lautenbaugh now attempts to dismiss that interest off-hand. It is absolutely ridiculous and insulting. He is laying the groundwork to continue his long record of abusing his office and betraying the public's trust. It is clear that Lautenbaugh's allegiance to party and power - without regard for principle or the people of Nebraska - make him completely unfit to fill the seat he so desires on the Legislature's Redistricting Committee.
Speaking to the World-Herald, Lautenbaugh also said of redistricting:
Lautenbaugh's one hope is that whatever lawmakers do, they will do it better than their predecessors. He believes that state lawmakers in the past drew districts to their own political advantage. With term limits now, lawmakers will have little incentive to protect their own territory.
"Hopefully, people will be less interested by self-interest," he said.
Lautenbaugh is absolutely right to hope that self-interest will play less of a role in next year's redistricting. What Lautenbaugh actually proposes, though, is that State Senators replace their self-interest with partisan interests, joining him in carving up the entire state to fit one party's political machinations and to feed its hunger for power.
In this year's redistricting, the Legislature has a real opportunity to do what's right by the people of Nebraska, upholding the nonpartisan spirit in which we've placed our trust. The involvement of Scott Lautenbaugh can only hurt the integrity of the process and shatter the people's confidence in our state government. His history and his recent statements show Lautenbaugh to be completely unfit to serve on the Legislature's Redistricting Committee. He should remove his name from consideration.
Since the beginning of the effort to recall Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle, I've assumed that the signatures necessary to force a recall election could be gathered if organizers poured enough money into their campaign. To be honest, I still feel that's the case. But, what's become clear is that every dollar the recall campaign spends and every desperate measure they resort to is proof that Omaha voters have rejected their special-interest driven agenda.
No ideas. No vision. No solutions. For all of the problems facing the city of Omaha, this recall campaign's only answer has been pointing a finger and blaming Jim Suttle. It doesn't matter how long-standing the problem or how short of a time this Mayor has actually been in office. Just blame Suttle. With controversial fees and tax increases, it doesn't matter that so few alternatives were proposed and that even fewer were remotely plausible (Privatize the police department? Bankrupt the city?). Just blame Suttle. Nor does it matter that the city has made giant steps forward closing its pension shortfall and restoring its AAA bond rating, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Just blame Suttle.
Thankfully, somewhere along the way, this message has failed. Despite a lot of hype and some early momentum coming out of the gate, the Suttle recall hasn't caught fire anywhere but a couple of Tea Parties and KFAB's studio. Promises of a volunteer army fizzled and the all-important push for signatures on Election Day also proved a total flop. The hunger for a recall just isn't there. The collective voice of Omaha voters has demanded more substance from Suttle's critics, and all they've gotten is silence and the same old political blame game.
But, just because the Suttle recall's message has failed doesn't mean the campaign can't succeed. Their hope now lies in buying their way to the signatures they need with paid petition circulators. They will then count on low turn-out in a January vote to pave an easy way for a small minority to overturn the results of the last election.
It's a cynical and undemocratic strategy. That's why it shouldn't surprise that, in their desperation, the Suttle recallers are willing to bend and break the law. Gathering signatures at a Veterans Day memorial service was only a crime against good taste and thoughtful citizenship. But, first-hand accounts from the campus of the University of Nebraska-Omaha now indicate that the recall campaign is engaged in outright illegal tactics that go well beyond tacky.
Representatives from the Mayor Suttle Recall Committee were on campus Tuesday and Wednesday, approaching students and asking for signatures in an effort to recall the Omaha mayor. The committee is attempting to collect 27,000 signatures by Nov. 19 in an effort to force a recall election. The committee has not revealed how many signatures they have collected so far.
The representatives didn't say the petition was for recalling Suttle per se, but said it was to give voters an opportunity to decide whether they want to recall him. Some volunteers read from the petition before each person signed. The volunteers said more information would be available on the effort once enough signatures were collected.....
Another Gateway editor spoke to a petitioner...on Tuesday. The petitioner revealed that he's not from Omaha, but is from California and working for a company hired by the recall committee to collect signatures. According to Nebraska Legislative Bill 39 passed in February 2008, circulators must be residents of the state in order to collect valid signatures. Violations are punishable by a $500 fine and three months in jail....
The anti-recall office, Forward Omaha, said it has received several complaints from the UNO community about the petitioners. "There's been a number of illegal actions happening on the UNO campus," said Noelle Obermeyer, co-treasurer of Forward Omaha. "Most of the volunteers are paid and aren't giving people the full story."
Obermeyer said the recall petitioners are required by law to read aloud two documents to potential signees, one referencing the purpose of the petition and the second document containing a response from Mayor Suttle....Only part of one document, a brief phrase printed on the petition explaining its purpose, was observed being read to students on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Gateway's editors observed multiple instances where neither document was read aloud.
These are serious offenses that appear to have taken place on UNO's campus and probably elsewhere in the city. Although opponents of the recall used paid pollwatchers on Election Day, it's only bringing in these sorts of signature-gathering mercenaries to make up for the recall campaign's failure that threatens the integrity and legality of the entire process.
The attempted recall of Jim Suttle does not represent the will or the interests of Omaha voters. If organizers were listening to the people and doing what's best for the city, they would have already given up this campaign, which has forsaken all credibility and abandoned any pretense that it's anything more than a cheap power play.
Yet, with the lengths to which they're going for signatures, there's a real chance that dumping enough money into this effort could still buy them their election. It's really a question of just how badly they want it and just how willing they are to disregard the vast majority of Omaha voters who want nothing to do with their stupid recall.
The 2010 campaign season got pretty ugly in Nebraska politics. Tom White's hard-hitting TV ad featuring local and national press reports on Lee Terry's notorious night out with a "comely lobbyist" received the most attention - including an overblown response by Sen. Mike Johanns telling White to "Leave the trash in the gutter." But, Johanns really should have saved his criticism for the much more direct and more vicious attacks by the Nebraska Republican Party and its right-wing allies in nonpartisan races across the state.
I've thought about scanning and publishing some of the direct mail pieces targeting State Senators Kent Rogert and Danielle Conrad in their campaigns for re-election. But, as disusted as these mailings may make Nebraska voters, I can't justify giving these unfair and oftentimes outlandish attacks a permanent online home where they could do lasting damage to the reputations of their intended targets. This is especially true of Rogert as he moves back into private life after this well-funded and coordinated assault ended in his defeat.
It will have to do for now to remind any potential candidates who are even considering a run for elected office to - PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD - be carefeful about what pictures of you are being posted on Facebook and other social networking websites. The Republican Party is watching, and Pete Ricketts' media team is probably already digging through your trash. This realization is certain to have a chilling effect on candidates running for elected office, but it's better that they know the stakes than be surprised by our democracy's degrading into such a masochistic enterprise.
Sadly, the Republican Party's attacks didn't end at the steps to the state capitol. In at least one notable instance, they even involved themselves in a local school board race for no other purpose but to destroy one of the candidates. This earned a harsh and well-deserved rebuke from the local press. In an Election Day editorial titled "Butt Out, State GOP", the Hastings Tribune wrote:
The Nebraska Republican Party has debased itself over the past several days by attempting to intervene in a local Hastings school board race that is absolutely none of its business.
On Friday afternoon, state GOP Chairman Mark Fahleson issued a news release announcing that the state party would "soon" file a formal complaint with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission against Jane Kleeb, a candidate for the Hastings Board of Education. In the release, Fahleson accused Kleeb of "very obviously" violating Nebraska campaign accountability laws. He then went on to explain that party leaders would file their complaint once they had facts to back up their assertions.
Fahleson called Kleeb an "East Coast liberal with deep ties to wealthy special interests," and accused her of having an "extreme political agenda." The release was followed by robocalls to some Hastings residents, paid for by the Nebraska Republican Party, maintaining that Kleeb "must" be defeated in her school board bid....
Jane Kleeb did indeed move here from the East Coast, and her credentials as a political activist with ties to the Democratic Party are impeccable...This background has been reported in the Tribune and elsewhere, and should come as no surprise to anyone who follows local news....
So, what does any of Kleeb's state and national political work have to do with her potential service on the purely local, nonpartisan Hastings school board? (By the way, her campaign slogan is "Healthy Lunches, Wise Minds.") Hastings voters can, and will, decide that for themselves today when they go to the polls. If they are uncomfortable with Kleeb's partisan ties and think she will use the school board to advance some vast liberal agenda, they probably won't vote for her. And that is their privilege.
What's appalling, though, is that the Nebraska Republican Party has targeted any school board candidate anywhere in the state for this kind of attack....The Tribune does not endorse candidates for school board or any other political office. We will say this, however: Jane Kleeb and her family live in Hastings, pay taxes in Hastings and are active in the local community, and she is as entitled to run for the school board as anyone else. The people of Hastings can decide for themselves if they want her to serve.
All voters, regardless of partisan affiliation, should be offended that any state political party wants to stick its nose into such a completely local matter.
The Tribune also noted that the attacks against Kleeb didn't begin until after Kleeb's Bold Nebraska filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over illegal campaign contributions Gov. Dave Heineman and Attorney General Jon Bruning received from TransCanada. The editorial states, "[T]his is about retaliation, pure and simple. The Republican Party is trying to punish Kleeb for pointing out the connections between Heineman, Bruning, and the deeply unpopular pipeline project."
I don't doubt that retaliation could have been a factor in the Republican Party's involvement in this race. But, as demonstrated by the sort of attacks they unleashed on several incumbent State Senators, this is mostly about their pursuit of complete and total power - from Nebraska's school boards straight on up to the highest levels of our state government.
There is still reason to hope. Jane Kleeb won her seat on the Hastings School Board despite Fahleson and the NEGOP's late attacks. Their approach may have worked in defeating Kent Rogert, but it failed against many other great candidates in races where Nebraska voters managed to rise above the Republican Party's low expectations. I have no doubt that will continue to be the case as the Republicans' pursuit of power leads them even further astray.
Let's just keep those embarrassing photos off of Facebook, okay?
Nebraska still needs Senator Ben Nelson. That shouldn't need to be said a full two years before the 2012 election. It's ridiculous to even be beginning the conversation. But, the circumstances are what they are, and it seems the race that will reshape Nebraska's political landscape has already begun.
Don't like it. Didn't choose it. Can't deny it. And, so far - with last week's announcement by Gov. Dave Heineman that he would not run - the picture for Sen. Nelson has improved considerably. That's probably why Nelson sounded so confident and determined in a weekend report by the Grand Island Independent:
Shortly after attendees at the Nebraska State Education Association held drawings for door prizes, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told audience members that he felt as though he also had won something in a drawing. "I drew Jon Bruning and Don Stenberg, maybe Pete Ricketts," said Nelson, joking about the political news in the aftermath of Tuesday's election that has already signaled the start of the 2012 election cycle....
Gov. Dave Heineman on Thursday announced that he would not run for Nelson's U.S. Senate seat...On Friday, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said he has formed an exploratory committee and it is likely he will run for the U.S. Senate in 2010...Don Stenberg, who was elected on Tuesday to a four-year term as Nebraska state treasurer, also has expressed interest in a 2012 campaign for the U.S. Senate....
Nelson told reporters after his address to NSEA members that he plans to run for re-election in 2012. But he also told reporters and members of the NSEA that he is concentrating on 2011, not 2012.
NNN is going to join Sen. Nelson in refusing to obsess over 2012. There are simply too many challenges facing our state and too many debates in which a progressive voice is desperately needed for us to get lost in an endless maze of barely-relevant political speculation. It is enough to say that Nelson's prospects for a third term are much brighter against any of the also-rans (maybe-runs?) of the Nebraska Republican Party.
Just one week ago, NEGOP Chair Mark Fahleson promised "former presidents, national Republican leaders and sitting senators" would be encouraging Heineman to run against Nelson. That was for very good reasons. Although the NEGOP has been quick to release a poll that shows Nelson is endangered whomever the Republican nominee, there's no doubt the picture is much different and more favorable when that nominee isn't Dave Heineman.
Of course, the big question isn't who will run among Republicans but whether Nelson will actually run for re-election at all. When I say that Nebraska still needs Senator Ben Nelson, I don't say so flippantly or without regard for Nelson's precarious role among liberals and progressives. Nor is this a pledge of unwavering support from here until some far-off Election Day. It's a simple statement of fact.
Ben Nelson is one of the most influential U.S. Senators in the country and in Nebraska history. His loss would be absolutely devastating to our state when it comes to shaping federal legislation to fit Nebraska's needs and respond to our concerns. The loss of Nelson might be even more dangerous for the American people as he remains one of the last true consensus-seekers who can be counted on to help Congress move beyond the pettiness of partisan gridlock. There's no guarantee those efforts will be successful, but what hope we have is going to rest on the shoulders of Nelson and too-few of his congressional colleagues.
I understand that it's en vogue for progressive blogs to celebrate the diminishing number of Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives. Many would welcome Nelson suffering a similar fate in 2012. But, these voices are oblivious to the pathway to irrelevance they embrace on our behalf - for which the only political consequence they have to worry about is a single vote in the U.S. Senate. The stakes are much higher for us here in Nebraska, where their trading a vote for ideological cohesion means robbing us of our strongest and most effective voice in Washington D.C. Do I even need to mention that Nelson is our only Congressman who listens to and strives to represent every Nebraskan?
Again, at this point, it is far too early to offer a full-throated endorsement of Nelson's re-election. There is too much to be seen of his approach in the new Congress, especially when it comes to improving upon and defending the sustainability of health care reform. Nelson's was a key vote in making this legislation a reality, and NNN expects Nelson to continue leading the way rather than buckling to rightwing political pressures that would send our health care system backwards and abandon millions of American families.
Regardless, the path for Nelson is not easy. The 2012 election is unlikely to look anything like his landslide victory in 2006. But, I am fully confident that Nelson CAN AND WILL WIN if he follows through in giving Nebraska voters the chance and the choice they deserve.
It isn't enough to say that Nebraska still needs Senator Ben Nelson. We probably need him more than ever. Right now, we need him focused on 2011, forging the compromises and common ground from which our country will find its way forward once again. And, when the time is right - many months from now - we also need him to step forward, answer our call, and show he's fully committed to fighting for the third term he's earned as the Senator for every Nebraskan.
I expected Tom White to do better than 39% of the vote in his race against incumbent Republican Congressman Lee Terry in Nebraska's 2nd District. I also hoped for a stronger showing by Mike Meister than the 26% of the vote he received after his 100 day campaign against Gov. Dave Heineman. Then, there was the ultimate disappointment of those huge losses nationally that cost Democrats the House of Representatives and left them with only a tenuous grip on the U.S. Senate. So, yeah, Tuesday sucked!
The ground under Lee Terry's feet is a little bit less shaky after this election, and Dave Heineman has bragging rights to the year's biggest margin of victory in any gubernatorial race. Still, we have to admit: at least in Nebraska, the results of this election could have been a whole lot worse.
When it gets right down to it, Nebraska Democrats and progressives didn't do that bad on Tuesday. The odds were never in our favor in the highest-profile races at the top of the ticket. We started down, we stayed down, and the status quo remains essentially the same in our congressional delegation and in our state government. That includes little change in the Nebraska Legislature, where it appears that only 1 of 24 seats on the ballot unofficially changed party hands. Here are the current results:
District
Incumbent
Incumbent Status
Candidates
Winner
2
Dave Pankonin
Running For Reelection
Dave Pankonin 76% Nate Louderback 24%
Dave Pankonin
4
Pete Pirsch
Running For Reelection
Pete Pirsch 100%
Pete Pirsch
6
John Nelson
Running For Reelection
Todd Frazier 36% John Nelson 64%
John Nelson
8
Tom White
Open (Ran For Congress)
Burke Harr 50.3% John Comstock 49.7%
Harr Leads By 36
10
Bob Kirst
Running For 1st Election
Bob Kirst 49.8% Tim Lonergan 50.2%
Lonergan Leads By 30
12
Steve Lathrop
Running For Reelection
Steve Lathrop 100%
Steve Lathrop
14
Tim Gay
Open (Personal Reasons)
Teresa Whitehead 45% Jim Smith 55%
Jim Smith
16
Kent Rogert
Running For Reelection
Lydia Brasch 53% Kent Rogert 47%
Lydia Brasch
18
Scott Lautenbaugh
Running For Reelection
Carl Lorenzen 42% Scott Lautenbaugh 58%
Scott Lautenbaugh
20
Brad Ashford
Running For Reelection
Brad Ashford 100%
Brad Ashford
22
Arnie Stuthman
Open (Term-Limited)
Paul Schumacher 52% Mike Moser 48%
Paul Schumacher
24
Greg Adams
Running For Reelection
Greg Adams 100%
Greg Adams
26
Amanda McGill
Running For Reelection
Tom Dierks 47% Amanda McGill 53%
Amanda McGill
28
Bill Avery
Running For Reelection
Bill Avery 66% Nancy Russell 34%
Bill Avery
30
Norman Wallman
Running For Reelection
John Knabe 47% Norman Wallman 53%
Norman Wallman
32
Russ Karpisek
Running For Reelection
Russ Karpisek
Russ Karpisek
34
Annette Dubas
Running For Reelection
Annette Dubas 79% Brandon Hunnicutt 21%
Annette Dubas
36
John Wightman
Running For Reelection
John Wightman 100%
John Wightman
38
Tom Carlson
Running For Reelection
Tom Carlson 100%
Tom Carlson
40
Cap Dierks
Running For Reelection
Tyson Larson 52% Cap Dierks 48%
Tyson Larson
42
Thomas Hansen
Running For Reelection
Thomas Hansen 100%
Thomas Hansen
44
Mark Christensen
Running For Reelection
Mark Christensen 60% Tom Baker 40%
Mark Christensen
34
Danielle Conrad
Running For Reelection
Danielle Conrad 51% Chad Wright 49%
Danielle Conrad
48
John Harms
Running For Reelection
John Harms 100%
John Harms
Key
Republican: +1
Democratic: -1
Nonpartisan: 0
Undecided: 2
Because of the expected resignation of State Senator Bob Giese, Nebraska Democrats were already looking at the prospect of a 33 - 16 disadvantage in the Legislature. Now, with the defeat of State Senator Kent Rogert in rural northeast Nebraska's LD 16, that leaves just 15 Democrats in our Unicameral. Yet, after what's been seen across the country in this election, we probably have to consider ourselves lucky if Democrats can escape 2010 only losing that one additional seat.
In South Dakota, Democrats lost 5 of their 24 seats in the 70 member House and 8 of their 14 seats in the 35 member Senate, leaving them with less than 20% of the state's upper chamber. Similar losses were seen in Kansas and Missouri. Iowa Democrats, on the other hand, entered November 2nd with strong majorities in their House (56 - 44) and Senate (32 - 18) but may have given up as many as 16 seats in the former and 7 seats in the latter.
Just looking at the numbers, Nebraska didn't take nearly the slide backwards that neighboring states did - especially considering that our Democratic State Senators were up against Gov. Dave Heineman's $2.3 million campaign warchest and the heavy financial involvement of Pete Ricketts and Americans For Prosperity. That's certainly no call for celebration, but it should remind us of the power of the nonpartisan ideal at the heart of our state legislature, in which the people of Nebraska still appear to place their trust.
Of course, the final word on this election is still to come, depending on those too-close-to-call races in Omaha's LD 8 and LD 10. LD 8 is of particular importance because of its potential to be an embarrassing loss to a barely credible Tea Party candidate in a Democratic-friendly district. But, assuming that low-turnout-inspired nightmare is avoided, the landscape for the 2011 - 2012 Unicameral is probably as good as could reasonably be expected.
In the lead-up to the 2010 election, we've seen a lot of polling of critical races that are expected to decide control of Congress. We've heard a lot about the national mood and are all aware of the fragile state of the U.S. economy that continues to threaten too-many American families with joblessness and insecurity. These signs are all pointing to a tough day for Democrats and progressives, and - yes - we should expect the same in Nebraska.
This doesn't mean the 2010 election will be a complete loss in our long march forward to a New Nebraska. We have some great candidates who are going to win today and others who are going to perform surprisingly well. They need your vote and your help reaching family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with one last push to make their voices heard. In an election where voter turnout is expected to be quite low, one person can make a HUGE difference by just getting a few more voters to the polls before they close tonight at 8 pm (CST).
Assuming you do everything you can and others do the same, where does that leave us when the results start coming in? The best possible outcome would have to be State Senator Tom White's defeating six-term Republican incumbent Lee Terry in the 2nd Congressional District race. White has long been one of our state's strongest champions of corporate accountability and fairness to middle-class taxpayers. His defeating such a total stooge of Wall Street and corporate lobbyists would be a victory for 2nd District voters who've gone too long without effective leadership and real representation. Nevermind what a plus it would also be to a national Democratic Party desperate for rays of light in what's likely to be a pretty dark day.
Tom White's run the sort of hard-hitting campaign Lee Terry deserves after so many years of broken promises and irresponsible behavior. This has invited criticism that the campaign hasn't been focused on the issues, but that's simply not true. It just so happens that Terry's actual record betrays every one of the issues on which he campaigns. White's held him accountable for those failures while coming before voters with a record of his own. Because White's record is stronger and more accomplished, Terry's focused his campaign more on Nancy Pelosi than the needs of Nebraska. But, the fact that he can't even stand on his own two feet in such a favorable political climate reinforces perceptions of Terry's permanent weakness no matter the outcome of today's election.
Besides a White victory, progressives have to place our hopes on a few key races breaking our way in the Nebraska Legislature. Some of these are being fought along party lines against Republican Governor Dave Heineman's allies and henchmen. But, in others, it's a simple matter of electing the more independent-minded and worker-friendly candidate - or even just the one who's less of an extremist ideologue and doesn't threaten to pervert our political system for partisan advantage.
Those races pitting a Republican candidate against a Democratic candidate usually receive the most attention. That's been true at NNN as well. Of these, there are probably four races that will tell the tale of this election: State Senator Kent Rogert faces challenger Lydia Brasch in northeast Nebraska's LD 16; State Senator Danielle Conrad faces challenger Chad Wright in Lincoln's LD 46; State Senator Norm Wallman faces challenger John Knabe in LD 30 (rural Lancaster and Gage counties); and, finally, Teresa Whitehead faces off against Jim Smith in a battle for the open seat in the Papillion-area's LD 14.
Rogert, Conrad, and Whitehead have been the primary targets for the Republican Party and those burgeoning ranks of wealthy special interests eager to do Heineman's bidding. Wallman's been targeted less directly - with fewer resources going to his opponent. If Nebraska Democrats are going to claim any sort of success after this election, they really can't afford to lose any more than one of these expectedly close contests. Even winning them all - for a net gain of one seat on Election Day - would still be bittersweet just because that gain is set to be wiped away by the resignation of State Senator Bob Giese and his replacement by a Heineman appointee.
Of course, no race should be taken for granted in this political climate. Democrat Burke Harr has had all the resources he needs to win Tom White's vacated seat in Omaha's LD 8. Both he and State Senator Bill Avery from Lincoln's LD 28 are strongly favored against underfunded Tea Party candidates. State Senator Amanda McGill from Lincoln's LD 26 faces a more credible opponent in Tom Dierks, whom Republicans have assisted with some late support. But, the popular McGill won her three-way primary with almost 2/3rds of the vote. Cartoonish Republican attacks that have since been made against her aren't going to make up that difference, especially when McGill had more than $38,000 to defend herself with in her latest campaign filing.
There is no Democratic candidate in the other legislative races of consequence, but some of these must be considered just as important as any of the above. Omaha-area Heineman appointees Bob Krist in LD 10 and Scott Lautenbaugh in LD 18 both have to be favored to win full terms of their own. In Krist's case, this is probably something of a mixed bag, but it's an outright tragedy so far as Lautenbaugh is concerned. Unfortunately, no matter how dangerous and untrustworthy Lautenbaugh is at the helm of the 2011 redistricting effort, I just can't see where his opponent - Carl Lorenzen - has made gains since their 2008 contest. But, I'd certainly love to be proven wrong.
The candidates for the open seat in the Columbus-area's LD 22 were only separated by four votes in the May primary. However, corporate special interests have given Columbus Mayor Mike Moser a huge financial advantage of almost $30,000 with plenty more in independent expenditures from their Nebraskans United For Our Future PAC. That's probably reason enough to root for former Platte County Attorney Paul Schumacher, a Republican with a pretty wide independent streak who might shake things up in the Legislature.
In north-central Nebraska, the young GOP politico Tyson Larson specifically moved into LD 40 to challenge lifelong resident and current State Senator Cap Dierks after considering a run in his home district. You might expect Dierks to win handily, but he lost the primary after Larson worked the district hard in a door-to-door campaign. While Dierks is past his prime, he's certainly a preferable choice to Larson, who promises to promote far-right agenda items like a flat tax. Dierks also continues to be a strong voice for Nebraska agriculture and has earned vigorous support from the Nebraska Farmer's Union. In this race, that's enough to hope he pulls off the victory.
The last legislative race of any particular significance is former State Senator Tom Baker's challenge to incumbent State Senator Mark Christensen in the McCook-area's LD 44. This isn't much of an ideological battle, but it appears to be the most expensive race in the state. The Imperial Republican notes that Christensen is "not exactly as polished as some of his legislative colleagues." In fact, there's no real doubt that Tom Baker is the better and more competent choice. Still, Christensen's strong showing in the primary suggests he holds enough charm for voters to win a second term, despite Baker's spending upwards of $50,000 of his own money to retake the seat from which he was term-limited in 2006.
While talking Western Nebraska, I'll personally be watching the three-way 3rd Congressional District race with great interest and curiosity. I have no real clue what this dynamic foretells for incumbent Republican Adrian Smith. Conservative challenger Dan Hill has joined Democrat Rebekah Davis in hammering away at Smith's ineffective leadership, and we'll know tonight what voters have to say on the issue. This is the sort of race where I'm always left sorry that NNN hasn't done more to help a hard-working longshot candidate like Rebekah Davis, but it's one of those instances where this site's ambitions to be a statewide voice are held in-check by practical limits to our reach and our time.
On that note, this forecast hasn't yet touched on any of our statewide contests. That's not intended as an insult to fine candidates like Mike Meister and Anne Boyle for Gov./Lt. Gov, Janet Stewart for Secretary of State, and Mark Stoj for State Treasurer. But, these candidates have all faced long odds and a pathway to victory just hasn't appeared to open. I do hope that Mike Meister will win more than 30% of the vote against Heineman, besting the last two Democratic candidates for Governor. I also think Stewart and Stoj could do substantially better than that - but not enough for the win in today's election.
Much lower stakes exist in the State Auditor's race, where the only alternative to incumbent Republican Mike Foley is a Libertarian candidate who should get the 5% of the vote she needs to keep that party's place on the ballot in 2012. That may be success in some quarters and for some purposes, but it's clear that our state continues to suffer for the lack of a genuine alternative to complete one-party domination in these statewide races.
That's it for now, folks. Feel free to comment away with your thoughts on the above races or any of the results as they come in. Talk to you later, and see you on the other side!
Nebraskans have 1.4 BILLION reasons to vote against Gov. Dave Heineman's reelection. His Democratic opponent, Mike Meister, has done just about everything that could be expected in a 100 day campaign. But, at this point, it really comes down to a matter of conscience for Nebraska voters as we ask ourselves whether we really want to reward Heineman's bullying tactics, his long record of failures at DHHS, and his politically-motivated mismanagement of the state budget.
With that in mind, Meister's hoping the scene at ballot boxes all across the state should look a little something like this:
Without party lines from which some organized resistance might emerge and without a second legislative body through which a bill must be negotiated, lobbied, debated, and reconciled, our state's become an easy laboratory for very bad public policy. Nationally, it's already clear that anti-abortion activists have recognized that Nebraska's distinct nonpartisan, single-house legislative body creates an easy path for enacting extremist legislation.
Now, there are very real reasons to fear that other right-wing organizations have come to the same realization and flooded the state with campaign funds in hopes of paving the way for their agenda in Tuesday's election. This weekend, the Omaha World-Herald reported:
An organization that promotes open government said last-minute campaign spending by a Virginia-based advocacy group shows there is a hole in state political accountability and disclosure laws. Because the Virginia group - Americans for Prosperity -is registered as a corporation, it is not required to report its campaign spending until 10 days after the end of the month in which it spends money....
Jack Gould, issues chairman for Common Cause Nebraska, said entities such as Americans for Prosperity should have the same reporting rules as the independent committees and PACs. "Candidates and voters need to know who is launching the attack ads and where they are getting their money," Gould said. "During that month of October, they can pretty much do anything they want, and you won't know anything about it until November".....
One candidate, State Sen. Kent Rogert of Tekamah, estimated the group had spent $30,000 in mailings and radio ads to try to defeat him.
[AFP's State Director Brad] Stevens said the group has been most active in seeking to educate Nebraskans about the voting record of State Sen. Tom White of Omaha, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Lee Terry in the 2nd Congressional District. Its website characterizes Rogert and six other legislative candidates, all Democrats, as "big government" candidates.
Americans for Prosperity and its affiliated foundation promote limited government and free-market policies. It has been active in organizing tea party events across the country. Its corporate filing in Nebraska lists members of its board of directors, all from Arlington, Va. Its foundation chairman is David Koch of New York, the nation's fifth-richest man, according to Forbes magazine, and a major contributor to the tea party movement...
I can't say what it is exactly that Americans For Prosperity hope to gain from their takeover of Nebraska politics. But, it's time for us to be honest about what's going on here and what's really at stake. Our nonpartisan Unicameral may not be able to survive continued onslaught by so powerful a special interest group from outside Nebraska's borders.
It's no mistake that Americans For Prosperity has only targeted Democrats in the Nebraska Legislature. But, it's the extremism and hypocrisy of their attacks that reveal just how great a threat they truly are to the people of Nebraska and our system of government.
Among AFP's attacks on State Senator Amanda McGill is that she "Increased the dependency mindset so prevalent in society by extending the status of children as dependents for purposes of enrolling in their parents' health care plan to 30." What does that mean? She voted for State Senator Tom White's LB 551, which allowed children to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 30. The great irony of this attack is that 45 State Senators voted for LB 551, which passed without opposition and was then signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman. Yet - out of sheer partisanship and desperation - AFP singled out McGill with their perverted take on the legislation.
The hypocrisy gets even worse. AFP attacks State Senators Bill Avery and Annette Dubas for supporting Abbie Cornett's LB 72, which would require schools to have policies in place safeguarding students with life-threatening food allergies. According to AFP, supporting this bill shows these Senators are "Big Government Spenders." But, guess who they forgot to attack for these same committee votes? Republican State Senators Greg Adams and Brad Ashford, both of whom are currently seeking re-election.
Bill Avery is also attacked for supporting LB 656, which would have implemented a study of comprehensive reforms of Nebraska's health care system with the stated goal of ensuring access to every Nebraskan. Of course, his co-introducer and the bill's lead proponent - Republican John Harms - goes unscathed during his own re-election bid.
Harms and fellow Republican candidate Leroy Louden also introduced LB 59, which would have raised the excise tax on alcohol to fund grants for violent crime prevention. Yet, only Democratic State Senator Norm Wallman found himself in AFP's crosshairs for joining them in this effort. Meanwhile, State Senator Danielle Conrad is labeled a "big government politician" because she dared to support spending $140,000 to create a Nebraska Film Office and $250,000 on a program to help low-income women receive mammograms and pap smears.
Hypocrisy is apparently the rule for AFP. But, one attack seemed out-of-place targeting State Senators Steve Lathrop and Annette Dubas for supporting the renewable energy tax credit in LB 455. Normally, conservatives love corporate tax breaks, which is probably why right-wing Republican Charlie Janssen felt safe sponsoring the bill. Yet, AFP says this legislation is another sign of "Big Government Spending" that serves the "Environmentalist Agenda." That wouldn't have anything to do with the Koch family fortune that funds AFP coming from the oil industry, now would it?
These shameless attacks are being made all across the state, but we have no idea how many tens of thousands of dollars have been poured into the effort. Americans for Prosperity has been able to skirt the law and hide their spending until after Tuesday's election. The system has failed and provided no real accountability when it would count the most.
Of course, their self-serving and transparent partisanship can only have a corrupting influence on Nebraska politics. But, what's much scarier is their ultimate agenda - about which they are much more vague. The only thing we know for certain is that their interests are not the people of Nebraska's.
Conservative groups have recognized Nebraska's potential as a hotbed for extremism. With Heineman's approval and an agressive push in the Legislature, there's practically nothing standing in the way of their claiming an entire state as a foothold for some of the most extreme right-wing policies imaginable. Those few voices who might be the most likely to challenge such an agenda are being picked off one-by-one.
We are witnessing the corruption of every ideal at the heart of Nebraska's system of government. We may be reaching a point at which our nonpartisan Unicameral is becoming a genuine threat against the people of our state. The dream is dying and cannot survive this continued onslaught.
No matter the outcome of Tuesday's election, next year, we are going to see our Republican State Senators tested. We are going to see whether their loyalty is to Heineman and the GOP or to the people and their constitution. If they fail this test, it's our democracy that will suffer, and we may have no choice but to finally put to rest their lies of a nonpartisan Unicameral.
********
By the way, I don't mean to promote any grand conspiracy theories, but the following connection between Gov. Dave Heineman and Americans for Prosperity should definitely be of interest to readers. A recent Columbus Telegram editorial investigating the involvement of Heineman campaign staff in their local legislative race noted:
[Heineman's] campaign finance director, Dean Dennhardt, served as a consultant to [LD 22 Legislative Candidate Mike] Moser to the tune of $4,000 in August. In political jargon, Dennhardt could best be described as a political operative. An Internet search reveals little about him, but in 2005, a Journal Star article quotes him as a spokesman for Progress for America.
Brothers Charles and David Koch are believed to be the force behind this conservative group and to play a large but indirect role in the Tea Party movement. The Kochs also are believed to be involved in independent expenditure committees, which can funnel thousands, if not millions, of dollars into targeted races and political causes.
Don't look at me. I didn't say a thing. But, it certainly makes you wonder, doesn't it?
In the lead-up to the 2010 election, we've seen a lot of polling of critical races that are expected to decide control of Congress. We've heard a lot about the national mood and are all aware of the fragile state of the U.S. economy that continues to threaten too-many American families with joblessness and insecurity. These signs are all pointing to a tough day for Democrats and progressives, and - yes - we should expect the same in Nebraska.
