Omaha, Nebraska Blog Aggregator » U. of Nebraska - Omaha College Democrats Blog

U. of Nebraska - Omaha College Democrats Blog (54 unread)

Cult TV Cartoon Characters Are Out To Destroy America!

Posted: January 31st, 2007, 6:11pm CST by dave

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) — Electronic light boards featuring an adult-cartoon character triggered bomb scares around Boston on Wednesday, spurring authorities to close two bridges and a stretch of the Charles River before determining the devices were harmless. Turner Broadcasting Co., the parent company of CNN, said the battery-operated light boards were aimed at promoting the late-night Adult Swim cartoon “Aqua Teen Hunger Force.” The devices had been placed around Boston and nine other cities as part of an “outdoor marketing campaign,” a company statement said.

There are days when satire just can’t compete with reality.

Russ Feingold is a Patriot

Posted: January 30th, 2007, 3:52pm CST by dave

While our Nebraska Senators propose toothless resolutions, Sen. Feingold (D-WI) is prepared to take steps to end the war:

Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way. This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way – they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.

Unicameral Weekly: What Bill Fits Your Bill?

Posted: January 29th, 2007, 10:16am CST by john

As you may have noticed, UNO Dems Blog has embarked on the lofty goal of keeping up to date not just with Omaha City Politics, National News, and In-Depth Reporting… but also our dear Unicameral.

In our last Unicameral Update we covered Gov. Heineman’s ridiculous attacks on the University of Nebraska System. Heineman was also the cheif culprit of another recent post, about property tax reform (Democrats are for it… Heiny is against it). Also: UNO Dem thoughts on a few good early bills in the Unicam.

So what’s new this week?

When a bill goes to committee, it usually gets a hearing. This is when anyone, even us College Dems, can treck down to Lincoln and have our voices heard on anything we care about. So what’s up for a first hearing this week?

Some favorites (or least favorites, you decide):

LB72 (Fischer) Prohibit beginning a school year before Labor Day
LB205 (Howard) Require schools to adopt a bullying policy

There’s more… lots lots more.

Check out the complete list on the Nebraska Democratic Party’s Blog

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/28/Our_Troops%e2%80%99_Mental_Health__How_Low_Can_You_Go_'

Our Troops’ Mental Health: How Low Can You Go?

Posted: January 28th, 2007, 3:04pm CST by laura

We all know that war is rough on the body and the mind. But what is the status of the mental health of our troops overseas, and what is the US doing about it? As it turns out, pretty much nothing:

* Overall, the number of soldiers who killed themselves last year almost doubled from the 2004 total.

* In 2005, 22 soldiers committed suicide in Kuwait and Iraq, compared with 12 in 2004 and 25 in 2003.

* Although morale among troops remained high, according to the report, a survey of 1,461 soldiers showed higher levels of traumatic combat experiences than in previous years.

* Three out of four soldiers reported knowing someone killed or injured in combat last year or this year, compared with 69% in 2004.

* 55% worried about dying in a roadside explosion last year or this year.

* 17% of troops reported combinations of stress, depression and anxiety, a higher rate than 2004.

* Soldiers who had done multiple tours of duty reported more serious problems.

* Cases of acute stress were reported by 18.4% of soldiers serving at least a second combat tour; 12.5% of soldiers on their first tours reported such problems.

(source)

The case was much the same in 2004, when they claimed that with the rise in suicide rates, the army was going to take an aggressive approach to upping the outreach of mental health provisions and intensifying their suicide prevention efforts (source). This is when they were saying much the same sorts of things, including 27% of troops slipping by during their deployment that had screened positive for depression, anxiety, and traumatic stress. 52% of soldiers then said their morale was low, and 72% said their unit’s morale was low. That’s more than half personally and almost 3/4’s of the army in Iraq reporting low morale overseas, which is simply an unacceptable number.

As of 2005, almost 1,700 servicemembers returning from war had thoughts of hurting themselves, or the belief they’d be better off dead, with 250 of those saying they had those thoughts “a lot”. Nearly 20,000 reported unwanted war recollections and nightmares, with 3,700+ concerned they might hurt or lose control with someone else (source). As recently as a week and a half ago, Jonathan Schulze, a marine who had returned from Iraq, committed suicide after trying to two weeks ago seek treatment for his suicidal ideation and being informed that he was “No. 26″ in line at age 25 (source).

It is difficult sometimes for those who lead normal, healthy lives to understand depression, anxiety, trauma, and suicide. But they exist, both here and in Iraq with our service men and women. The strain of such traumas can be unbearable, and every life lost to suicide is one that could be prevented with proper care and outreach. I for one refuse to ever believe that there will ever be a case of a life taken by suicide that can be labeled “inevitable” or “unavoidable.” In 2001 alone, suicide took the lives of 30,622 (source). We must not stand aside and let it happen to anyone, let alone those who are putting their lives on the line for their country.

The rising suicide rates in Iraq are not showing the hopelessness and pain that this war is causing because they are being allowed to slip quietly by. I wasn’t aware of this issue at all until I watched a program on public television, which gave graphic reports of such things as a soldier going into the latrine for 45 minutes or more with a firearm, and then one time never coming out, or as the Gettysburg Times reported one of the members of their community, 20-year-old Cory Small, was believed to have killed himself in front of a group of other soldiers waiting to use the phone after having made a call to the United States and leaving behind a wife and a 4-year-old son (source).

The issue of the mental health and suicide rates among the servicemembers must not be allowed to sit in the dark any longer. They deserve more respect than to be allowed to go through this suffering without the knowledge and support of the nation who cares so much about them and their sacrifice, regardless of their agreement or disagreement with the war in Iraq. They deserve all the support and care possible to give.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/28/%e2%80%9cRebel%e2%80%9d_Chuck_Hagel_in_Newsweek'

“Rebel” Chuck Hagel in Newsweek

Posted: January 28th, 2007, 1:36pm CST by dave

If nothing else, Hagel’s potential run for the White House will provide us with loads of entertainment and a couple of open seat opportunities in Nebraska. For media intent on finding the unconventional pick, the “straight-talker” who is always good for a quote, Hagel has emerged as the new John McCain. (The old John McCain doing his best to turn himself into the new George Bush).

He’s not struggling to find the spotlight, but he may be running in the wrong primary if he really wants to be President. The fawning media praise for his stance on the war - which until recently had been all bark - probably doesn’t help him with the party faithful. Another such article appears in this week’s Newsweek, “Rebel Chuck Hagel: A President in the Making?”

Eventually, they cut to the heart of why Chuck Hagel will not win the nomination:

But Hagel, who as of late last week was in the final stages of weighing a presidential run, is never mentioned in the top tier of Republican candidates for one, simple reason: since the initial buildup to the war in Iraq, he has assailed the Bush administration’s policy—in sharp words, in constant refrain and, most unforgivably, in public. His outburst last week was the culmination of a four-year campaign to raise public outrage about a war he’s always considered disastrous. His stance has earned him the enmity of the White House. Asked about Hagel last week in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Vice President Dick Cheney said: “I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF A FELLOW REPUBLICAN. But it’s very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.”

They, really, really try hard to explain away Hagel’s outright hypocrisy in 2002. I remember Hagel coming to my high school, speaking quite strongly against the war. And on the matter of war in Iraq, his words have rarely been off the mark. But when the war came to a vote, Hagel voted for war:

It was a painful contortion—one that could hurt him in a presidential contest—perhaps understood only by those who knew Hagel best. “I’m sure in the end it was, ‘Damn, he’s my president’,” Tom says of his brother’s vote. “It was, ‘I have strong doubts about things, but I can’t be disloyal’.” Hagel, who now says he regrets his vote, admits a sense of duty played a role. “He’s the commander in chief,” Hagel says. “We all owe some loyalty, not to the president, but to the office itself.”

But Hagel owed a greater loyalty - to the American people, to his own conscience. Dissent is not disloyalty, and Hagel should know that. Simply because he is the president does not give him the authority to take us into an illegal and immoral war.

Hagel also (thank God) puts to rest the rumors of his pursuit of an independent bid for President:

Hagel’s speech at the Foreign Relations Committee last week earned him new fans on the left, some of whom are hoping he’ll run for the White House as an independent—a notion he dismisses as ludicrous. He chafes when it’s suggested he could run as an “antiwar candidate,” and thinks he’s earned the right to define himself.

If there’s one thing the Republicans won’t forgive, it’s embarrassing their President in public. (Though, Bush has done more of that than anyone else, lately). But, believe me, it’s going to be fun to watch Hagel make the rest of the Republicans look bad in the debates. We underestimate him at our own peril, of course, but for now, I’ll be satisfied to watch Republicans tear each other apart for a change.

Hagel Seriously Considering White House Run

Posted: January 26th, 2007, 2:10am CST by dave

From The Washington Post:

But with McCain appearing increasingly isolated on the issue as public opinion has turned overwhelmingly against the war, Hagel is acting like a politician who believes his stock is climbing. In other words, he is considering a White House run.

Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.

He said one possibility is forming a presidential exploratory committee and — despite his outcast position within his party — seeking the Republican nomination. Or he may seek a third Senate term. Then again, he might take a more creative path.

This is not the first time that the Post has written a glowing profile of Hagel, and it probably won’t be the last. But it’s quite amazing how much things can change in a month. With rumors last month suggesting that Hagel was going to retire from politics, it now seems a near certainty that he is running for President.

Hagel has never been more relevant on the national scene as he is today. Since the President announced his policy two weeks ago, Hagel has been on the national news nearly every night - denouncing the war in language even more forceful than most leading Democrats.

Hagel is a fascinating study. He is one of the most partisan Republicans in the Senate, yet he is reviled by his own party. He is, in many ways, as this article suggests, the antithesis of Joe Lieberman. And though in many other areas I find I cannot stand the man, in matters of foreign policy, I rarely find myself in disagreement.

If nothing else, his run will expose the Republican Party on Iraq. He’s a dangerous candidate, and we’d be foolish not to take him seriously, but the true believers in the Republican Party seem to regard him with the same amount of disdain that most Democrats give Lieberman.

More Hypocrisy: Chuck Hagel Voted to Abolish The Minimum Wage

Posted: January 25th, 2007, 4:25pm CST by dave

From MyDD:

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), evidently convinced that he was beating a dead horse by continuing his quest to ban flag-burning and discriminate against gay people, announced this month that he would not seek reelection in 2008 and the thought of having so little time left to screw the working poor from a comfy U.S. Senate seat must have just been eating him alive.

Allard, who has voted against a minimum wage increase more often than Fox News smears Barack Obama, went for broke this week and introduced a bill that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely and left the wage rate for the lowest-paid workers to each state.(…)

Clearly, with only 28 of 49 Republicans voting for this bill, the reason Republicans did not try and pass this legislation during their time in the majority was because they did not have the votes. Forget that it is insane, 19th century, political suicide–that didn’t stop them most of the time. It it is enlightening to look at the Senators who did vote to abolish the federal minimum wage, including Cornyn, McCain, Hagel and Sununu.

28 Republican Senators put themselves on record as voting to repeal the minimum wage, on the proposed amendment by Sen. Allard. Just remember that, folks. Three potential Republican Presidential candidates are on that list, including the frontrunner, and Sen. Hagel. More hypocrisy from the Republican Party.

Fun With Republican Presidential Candidates!

Posted: January 25th, 2007, 3:16pm CST by dave

Yeah, it’s only January 2007. We’re a year away from the first primary. But the candidates are already maneuvering and positioning for the White House. The names on the Democratic side are familiar to all of us: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are the likely frontrunners. The names on the Republican side range from the well known (John McCain and Rudy Giuliani) to the unknown (Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee) to the certifiably insane (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo). So, for your benefit, a brief overview of the Republican field, after the flip…

Sen. John McCain, AZ - A panderer of the highest order, McCain has reinvented himself from the “Straight Talk Express” maverick of 2000, to the establishment’s candidate for the Republican nomination. It took him years of sucking up to Bush to get the implicit backing of Bush’s administration. A couple of years ago, McCain was easily the most formidable Republican candidate. Now, after tying himself to the debacle in Iraq, and pandering to groups on the religious right, McCain is damaging his credibility among independent voters. And the religious right isn’t buying it, either. The party rank-and-file still distrust McCain, but money talks in the GOP primaries - and McCain will have a lot of it. Status: Formed Exploratory Committee.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, MA - Romney saw an opening for a religious conservative candidate, and decided that it should be him. One problem: he’s not. First of all, he got elected in Massachusetts. In a losing Senate race against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney actually tried to position himself to the left of Kennedy. Someone found the debate and posted a clip on Youtube. He’s having all sorts of problems with the wingnut base as he tries to convince them that he is, in fact, a reactionary bigot. But the reactionary bigots don’t exactly trust Mormons. Status: Formed Exploratory Committee.

Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, NY - Not. A. Chance. Giuliani may lead every national poll, but there’s a reason why John McCain is considered the frontrunner: Rudy Giuliani will never be the nominee of the Republican Party. His moral qualms notwithstanding - Republicans have been more than willing to overlook indiscretion in the past - Giuliani’s problems stem from his policy stances and a number of scandals that will make him absolutely unelectable. As to why the base will reject him? He’s from New York. He’s a “liberal.” He’s pro-choice. He’s pro-gay rights. He’s pro-gun control. He lived with a gay couple while separated from his wife. If by some miracle Giuliani won the nomination, evangelicals would stay home or back a third-party candidate, effectively ensuring his defeat. Status: Formed Exploratory Committee.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, GA - Our nightmare come true. If McCain appears weak late this year, Gingrich may jump in - and could take the nomination. Yes, he’d lose. He’d get creamed in a general election. But do we really want to see Newt Gingrich even considered? Status: Not Yet Announced.

Sen. Sam Brownback, KS - Brownback is positioning himself for the endorsement of the religious right, whose leaders are increasingly distrustful of McCain but are without a viable alternative. He’s also staking out a moderately anti-escalation position on Iraq (though it certainly isn’t an anti-war stance), and an endorsement of a partition of Iraq. But unless he can get the backing of the religious right, he doesn’t really stand a chance at the nomination. Status: Officially Announced.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, AR - An Arkansas Governor born in Hope is running for President? Yeah. Huckabee’s no Bill Clinton, but he could be a darkhorse contender for the Republican nomination. Like the others, his chances depend largely on being able to garner support from the religious right. Evangelicals make up a large portion of the Republican electorate, and the top three contenders for the nomination are all “moderates.” Status: Not Yet Announced.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, NE - A dangerous candidate. He’s saying all the right things on Iraq right now. But, nonetheless, he is one of the most conservative members of the United States Senate. He may very well be the Republicans’ best chance at winning in 2008, which is why we’re lucky as hell that Republicans hate his guts. Status: Uncertain.

Rep. Ron Paul, TX - He’s the only Republican in the House to vote against the War in Iraq. That, of course, means he doesn’t stand a chance. Status: Formed Exploratory Committee.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, CA - A hawkish Republican with strong ties to Duke Cunningham and no chance at winning the nomination. Status: Officially Announced.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, CO - A racist. Oh, and his PAC’s name is “Team America.” F*ck Yeah! Status: Officially Announced.

Senate Republicans Block Vote on Minimum Wage Increase

Posted: January 24th, 2007, 7:16pm CST by dave

Okay, now that I’ve gotten that last rant out of my system, let’s turn back to the hypocritical Republicans. Chuck Hagel and Republicans in the Senate voted to filibuster a minimum wage increase until they could attach corporate giveaways to the bill.

The nature of compromise in the Senate being what it is, I’m not wholly opposed to the idea of tax breaks for small business. But there’s two points: First, the American people have waited long enough for a raise. Let them get it. Second, the Republicans have no interest in helping “small business,” but rather want tax breaks for large corporations. You think the local businessman is going to be getting any assistance from the federal government? Of course not! It will simply be another corporate handout.
But now, Chuck Hagel and 42 other Senate Republicans are on the record against a minimum wage increase. The Democrats may have to compromise here, but the voters won’t forget in 2008 - and we’ll be sure to remind them.

“A Ping-Pong Game With American Lives”

Posted: January 24th, 2007, 6:33pm CST by dave

I debated whether or not to say anything about this here. Criticizing Democrats is not something I want to get into a habit of doing here, nor do I wish for this to become my own personal soapbox. This is a community blog. So, I offer a disclaimer, in addition to the standard caveat, that this is my own opinion. I say these things not because I like Chuck Hagel or hate Ben Nelson. I will never vote for Hagel, and I do not regret my vote for Nelson. But I feel a duty when I see a member of my party - and the only elected Democrat in state or federal office in Nebraska - betraying what I feel the principles of the party stand for, that I must stand up and say so.

Being a “good Democrat” means certain things to certain people. Indeed, it means different things to many in this group. We have varying degrees of partisanship, but are generally all committed to the idea that Democrats have the right ideas. Which is why it pains me when a fellow Democrat gets things so remarkably and consistently wrong.
I dutifully voted for Ben Nelson for United States Senate this past year, motivated by a desire to see a Democratic Senate, and by the intolerable notion of a Senator Pete Ricketts. Fortunately, Nelson won, and the Democrats took the Senate. That Nelson won by such a large margin is too his credit, and speaks well to his record. It also provides him with an opportunity to take leadership in the United States Senate, and abandon an overly cautious approach. Nelson can afford to be a progressive - but, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that he wants to be one.

The line quoted in the title comes from Nelson’s Republican colleague in the Senate, Chuck Hagel. Hagel, voting in favor of the resolution he co-sponsored with Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Joe Biden (D-DE), gave a stirring speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.

These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.

And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don’t hide anymore; none of us.

To other Republicans, Hagel said this:

“This is a very real, responsible, addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam. Sure, it’s tough. Absolutely. And, I think, all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.“

We can debate the merits of the resolution all we want - whether it will actually accomplish anything is doubtful. But this is the minimum standard: stand in opposition to the President’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq. If you object to that language, if you think that a non-binding resolution is going to be too harsh, then it tells me exactly where you stand. And, unfortunately, Ben Nelson believes that this resolution is too harsh on the President.

I can give Nelson a minimal amount of credit for co-sponsoring a resolution expressing disapproval with the President’s plan. But he fails to understand the fundamental point of this debate. To express clear and unequivocal opposition to the administration’s policy, and to get us out of Iraq, as soon as humanly possible! Allowing the administration to set the tone of the debate, allowing the other side to set the language and terms of the debate, guarantees failure. If you demonstrate and announce that calling a spade a spade is too harsh then you demonstrate to the American people that you don’t have the stomach for this debate. You don’t want to go any further than telling the President you have “reservations” with his policy. But you don’t want to hurt his feelings? This President? This administration? The ones who have called opponents of the war everything from Nazi appeasers to traitors to outright terrorists? The ones who have been wrong every step of the way?

Senator Nelson has demonstrated his intention here, to water down opposition to this disastrous policy by using the most tame and “inoffensive” language possible. But the policy is offensive, and timid opposition does us no good.

It’s not simply about the escalation, though, even if it were, Nelson’s proposal may be the most toothless of all. It’s about getting our troops home. And if Nelson is unwilling to offer anything more than this for the debate at hand, he cannot offer very much at all in the debate to come. And that’s a shame. I pray that I am wrong here, and that the Senator will take action in the future. But experience tells me otherwise.

2008: More Speculation on Chuck Hagel

Posted: January 23rd, 2007, 11:09pm CST by dave

The World-Herald chimes in:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Hagel says there’s no truth to a published report Tuesday that he has assured GOP leaders he will seek re-election to the Senate in 2008.

The Nebraska Republican said he has made no decision on that, on running for president, or on retiring.

[…] And in Nebraska, said U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, “There are people that are anxiously awaiting Chuck’s decision because it affects their decision to run for a Senate seat, or not.”

So Terry, who’s giving the Senate some thought, was among those taking note Tuesday of a story that appeared in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

It quoted an unnamed GOP operative in Washington as saying Hagel had told the National Republican Senatorial Committee that he would seek re-election in 2008 - although that doesn’t mean he’s decided not to launch a White House bid.

Hagel said the story was wrong.

“I have not made any decision; I’ve told no one of any of my decisions; my wife doesn’t know of my decisions,” he said. “I have never spoken to anyone at the Republican Senate campaign committee about what I am going to do.”

They may hate him for his stance on Iraq, but the national Republicans recognize one thing: if Chuck Hagel runs for Senate in 2008, he will win. If he doesn’t, there’s a very good chance that a Democratic candidate will win. Nebraska Republicans like Lee Terry and Hal Daub are eager to make a run for his seat, and Jon Bruning has all but announced his run, but as Ryan notes, the choices on the Republican side are less than inspiring.

Say what you will about Hagel - and I can say a lot - but he’s a skilled politician. He also has a significant hold on the Nebraska Republican Party, cemented by Dave Heineman’s victory in the May 2006 gubernatorial primary. Bruning, who is trying to position himself as the frontrunner, endorsed Osborne in the primary - something I’m sure that Hagel and Heineman won’t forget.

We should be hearing a decision from Hagel soon, and signs seem to point to a run for President. If he does decide to run for President, expect to see the Republican field mobilize and take shape in the next few months. And we’ll see if Mayor Fahey or Scott Kleeb wants to give it a shot.

The State of the Union

Posted: January 23rd, 2007, 12:37pm CST by dave

My Fellow UNO College Democrats,

Tonight, President Bush - with a 28% approval rating - will give his State of the Union address. We all know what to expect from Bush - simple rhetoric, sweeping generalizations, mispronounced words, an uncomfortable homoerotic moment with Joe Lieberman - so here’s my call to all of you:

George W. Bush has carefully constructed his own reality - one where Congress and the Constitution do not matter, the Iraqi people love us, and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 - and has based his entire presidency on that reality.

What’s your reality? And what’s the State of the Union in your reality? Be creative, and there’s no need to confine yourself to this reality.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/22/Does_Lee_Terry_Still_Live_In_His_Parents%e2%80%99_Basement__Too_'

Does Lee Terry Still Live In His Parents’ Basement, Too?

Posted: January 22nd, 2007, 11:02am CST by dave

Oh, you know I couldn’t pass this up:

WASHINGTON - Leaks have long plagued politicians in Washington. But a particularly sensitive one presented a crisis for U.S. Rep. Lee Terry.

His air mattress was deflating.

Terry, R-Neb., belongs to a group of House members - he says one estimate puts the number around 50 - who crash in their offices on the few nights they spend in Washington. They then use the House gym facilities to freshen up in the morning.

Terry said he often works late in his office, anyway, so he simply pulls out the air mattress and grabs a few hours of shut-eye.

Chuck Hagel - Partisan Republican - on The Republican Party

Posted: January 21st, 2007, 8:28pm CST by dave

He’s a Republican on every day except Sunday:

“For example, the Republican Party, interestingly enough as the new chairman of the Republican Party said in his acceptance speech two days ago, needs to get back to what it once stood for,” Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, continued. “The party that I first voted for on top of a tank in Mekong Delta 1968 is not the party I see today.”

Hagel said that right now he’s “not a candidate for any office,” but he will make a decision about the 2008 race soon. Earlier, Hagel said on C-SPAN that he would consider running for president as an independent, but he told Bob Schieffer that he will stay a Republican. What it means to be a Republican, he said, is what should change.

Nebraska Republicans Offer More Excuses

Posted: January 21st, 2007, 2:42pm CST by dave

The 100 Hours are over in the House, with all of the measures passing successfully, and the local press finally pays attention to how the Nebraska Republican delegation (and western Iowa Congressman Steve King) voted on the bills.

Reflecting on the first 100 hours of the Democratic-controlled Congress, Republican Rep. Adrian Smith noted that he did support at least one successful measure.

“I voted for the resolution to congratulate the Florida Gators,” the Nebraskan said, referring to the House commendation of Florida’s lopsided victory over Ohio State in the national college football championship. “That was a tough decision.”

Typical of a do-nothing Congressman full of excuses, but not much else, Adrian Smith is correct… he didn’t support a single bill that his party leadership didn’t support. Terry voted for the student loan bill. Fortenberry voted for the homeland security bill and the energy bill. But to defend their votes against the popular measures put forward by the House Democrats, Republicans offered nothing but excuses:

They said the homeland security bill includes provisions such as strict scrutiny for cargo coming into ports that is simply not feasible. Terry said a layered approach to inspecting cargo would be more effective.

They said the minimum wage increase represents a heavy-handed government mandate that would hurt businesses and could lead to layoffs.

The congressmen said that expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research goes against the ethics of millions of Americans, and that more promising, ethically acceptable research avenues exist.

The cut in student loan rates would be expensive, they said, do little to improve access to a college education and encourage universities to keep boosting tuition.

They said rolling back tax breaks for oil companies would discourage exploration and hurt efforts for energy independence. They also voiced skepticism that the additional money would be used for renewable fuels.

The congressmen said the Medicare prescription drug program is working well and won’t benefit from more government intervention.

Taking all of these at face value, the question is why Republicans didn’t do these things in the last six years? It certainly wasn’t for lack of opportunity. A minimum wage hike was overwhelmingly approved by this Congress, with many Republicans voting with the Democratic majority. The Republican leadership never allowed a minimum wage bill to come to a straight up-or-down vote. If Republicans were truly concerned about small business like they say they are, and only oppose a minimum wage hike if it doesn’t include protections for small business, they would have passed a minimum wage increase long ago.

It’s sickening to think that security measures that would improve homeland security were delayed because of cost, while a war that cost $1 trillion and more than 3,000 American lives - against an enemy that never attacked us - was rubber-stamped by the Congress in 2002.

It’s strange that these Congressmen would think that Medicare is “working well.” They should tell that to the seniors who can’t afford prescription drugs.

Notice one common thread here? Aside from the stem-cell research bill, they voted against bills supported by an overwhelming majority of their constituents, and their excuses were all vaguely in the name of protecting corporate profits. Security would cost too much money. A minimum wage bill would hurt business. Student loan rate cuts would be expensive… (I’ve got a great idea, guys! You can pay for it by using all of the money that your biggest contributor stole from the federal government!!) And, no one honestly believes that the billions of dollars in profits that oil companies are making from federal subsidies are helping energy independence… do they?

Cut off from the majority, Nebraska Republicans have forgotten how to govern - if, indeed, they ever knew how. The blatant hypocrisy and lame excuses are predictable and all too common from partisan hacks like Lee Terry, Adrian Smith, and Jeff Fortenberry.

Admission of Emissions: Not in the USA!

Posted: January 20th, 2007, 11:38pm CST by laura

I’m not always the most aware when it comes to local issues, and Dave has me beat on posts period, especially on the local level. So I bring what I do have to the table through national issues that often slip through the cracks. In this case, I wish to discuss the United States and its emissions policies, specifically in their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol treaty.
From the BBC News:

“The Kyoto accord, which aims to curb the air pollution blamed for global warming, has come into force seven years after it was agreed.

The accord requires countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Some 141 countries, accounting for 55% of greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified the treaty, which pledges to cut these emissions by 5.2% by 2012.

But the world’s top polluter - the US - has not signed up to the treaty.

The US says the changes would be too costly to introduce and that the agreement is flawed.”

So why exactly isn’t the United States a part of this agreement? Let’s take a look at this helpful chart from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):
Emissions Chart

According to this helpful research, we are currently in the lead in production of Co2 emissions. The United States is the best at everything! Emissions are no exception. At 25% of all the emissions produced in the world, we have more emissions than China, India, and Japan combined, even though we make up just 4% of the world’s population (source). Yet the Bush Administration’s approach to reduction of such emission has been a series of voluntary programs such as the Clear Skies Initiative (Feb. 2002), whose underlying theory is “that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies.” This is basically fancy talk for lowering the standards of air pollution controls under the theory that, when they have more money, companies will voluntarily invest in their own pollution control. Under the Clear Skies Act of 2003:

Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
Weakens controls on mercury pollution levels compared to what would be achieved by enforcing the Clean Air Act stringently.
Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68 % more NOx pollution.
Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015. (source)

The two voluntary programs, “Climate Leaders” (sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency) and “Climate VISION” (sponsored by the Energy Department) that were encouraging private sectors to cut their own admissions are not working, according to the 51-page report by the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) requested by John McCain and John Kerry. According to the study, both programs failed to ensure that participating firms set resolute targets for their reduction or even meet the goals they stated. Bush’s senior environmental adviser, James Connaughton, claims that the country does not have to regulate such pollutants because it is on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent relative to the gross domestic product by 2012.”Why do you need a mandate to deliver an outcome you’re already going to get?” he asked.

The GAO’s findings, however, disagree:

“As of November 2005, only 38 of the 74 firms in the EPA program had set reduction goals, according to the report. In the Energy Department program, 11 of the 15 participating trade groups have established targets, and five have reported on their emissions.” (source)

I remember when I first read about these voluntary initiatives and thought to myself, “Why would these companies comply voluntarily and invest their money in when they don’t have to? It seems more likely that they would just pocket the money for themselves.” In 2003, I was 15 years old. Now, four years later, the response to these programs is proving that at 15 years of age, I had more common sense than the Bush administration about the behavioral mechanisms of corporations.

It doesn’t matter if one takes the stance of global warming being a factor entirely of human production or even the affect of the planet still recovering from the ice age, or any of the stances in between, it is undeniable that these emissions have contributed to the warming of the planet. Whether or not they are solely responsible is not an issue when there is clear evidence that their further presence will be harmful. The link between Co2 emissions and the temperature of the planet is evident, no matter how you look at it:

And while 141 countries, including Japan, Russia, China and India are willing to acknowledge this, The United States of America, claims to have things under control in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Yeah, guys. Nice control.

To read the Kyoto Protocol, follow this link.

Nelnet Gets To Keep Its Stolen Money

Posted: January 20th, 2007, 4:43pm CST by dave

From the Lincoln Journal-Star:

Lincoln student loan company Nelnet has reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Education that will allow it to keep $278 million in disputed profits from a controversial loan subsidy.

As part of the agreement, Nelnet agreed to not take advantage of the subsidy in the future, depriving the company of more than $880 million in potential profits.

John’s been all over the student debt issue, working with Campus Progress to raise the profile on campus. This is an issue very closely related to the rising cost of education: namely, private lenders screwing taxpayers and students out of money.

All of you should be pretty familiar with Nelnet by now, if you have student loans (and most of us do). They are a large employer in Lincoln, but that does not excuse their behavior here, their cheating of taxpayers, or their lobbying of the federal government to raise interest rates on student loans. Now, the government promises to look the other way and let Nelnet get away with stealing money, as long as they promise not to do it anymore. Nelnet has been one of the reasons why it’s more expensive than ever for a student to go to college.

As Kyle points out, Jeff Fortenberry got a significant amount from Nelnet during this campaign - and Nelnet was the single largest contributer to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Fortenberry was a “no” vote on cutting interest rates on student loans, as it would cost one of his biggest campaign contributors money.

Cutting interest rates on student loans is a good start, but I hope that our leadership in Washington moves toward some genuine reform in the student financial aid process. It’s absolutely appalling that students graduate with more debt than ever, while companies like Nelnet are rewarded with $278 million for swindling taxpayers and students.

Hillary Clinton is Running

Posted: January 20th, 2007, 2:58pm CST by dave

Big surprise, huh? From her website, Hillary Clinton has announced that she is forming a Presidential exploratory committee. To be clear, this is not her “official” announcement, nor was Obama’s announcement on Tuesday. An exploratory committee allows candidates to start raising money and hiring staff for a run for President without forming a real committee. If they can’t raise much money, or want to back out, they can. I think we can safely say that Clinton and Obama aren’t going to back out, though.

In exactly two years, we will have a new President. For the first time in history, there’s a very real chance that it could be a woman or African-American.

Another Republican Goes To Prison

Posted: January 19th, 2007, 1:57pm CST by dave

Former Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) was sentenced to 30 months in prison today for bribery and corruption charges stemming from the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Ney, the first congressman convicted in the federal bribery investigation involving lawmakers, their aides and Bush administration officials, pleaded guilty in October to conspiracy and making false statements.

The six-term lawmaker from Ohio, who once chaired the powerful House Administration Committee, accepted golf and gambling trips, tickets to sporting events, free meals and campaign donations arranged by Abramoff and his associates.

More Hypocrisy From Lee Terry

Posted: January 18th, 2007, 6:24pm CST by dave

Enclosure: [download]

You may remember Lee Terry’s campaign ads during this past election, calling for independent energy as a “man on the moon-type mission.” Terry likes to think of energy as his pet issue, but like any other issue in the House, Terry has let it take a backseat to partisanship.

Terry’s issue page at his campaign website said this on energy:

I support efforts to increase the nation’s energy independence. I am a leading advocate for hydrogen fuel cell research, the I am working to finding alternatives to traditional oil-based energy is critical to our economic future as well as our national security.

Contrast that with his vote today, on H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act. On a 264-163 vote in favor, Terry voted against the bill, meant to increase energy independence and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Apparently, for Terry, corporate welfare in the form of federal subsidies for big oil is more important than energy independence.

But that wasn’t the only bill that Terry voted against. We’ve already covered his votes against the Minimum Wage, Earmark Reform, and Homeland Security. On Friday, Terry voted against H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. It passed 255-170. If that weren’t bad enough, Terry justified his vote in a press release, saying he voted against a bill that would allow the government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices - to keep prescription drug prices low.

The prescription drug provisions of Medicare Part D have placed a large burden on seniors. That Medicare bill was little more than a handout to prescription drug companies. Terry’s press release reads like one of his typical rants - vague generalizations and over the top rhetoric - you can almost hear him whining… or, you can hear him whining. The plan, he says “smacks of socialization.”

Just to be clear, Lee Terry voted against a bill that enjoys 87% national support. And justifies his vote using the same sort of doublespeak you’d expect from a partisan hack like him. Lee Terry has put himself on the record against proposals that an overwhelming majority of Americans support. Putting partisanship before the people: Congressman Lee Terry.

Hey UNO DEMS! - Wanna Be on a Poster?

Posted: January 18th, 2007, 2:41pm CST by john

As you may have seen… we have some new posters up on campus…We’re calling it the”MyUNO Democrats” Poster Series / Campaign, and the next set of posters in the campaign are individual snap-shots of group members.

Here’s a link to the Big Group Collage.
Soon, we’re also going to be putting up “individual” MyUNO Democrats posters highlighting various members of our group.

You can see 4 examples of the “individual” posters right here…
John, Cody, Karlee, Erin

(must have Adobe PDF Viewer to see them)

Do you want to be on a poster?
We really need 5-10 more people willing to be on posters… if you’d be willing to be on one, please email your info to john
john (at) nebraskayoungdemocrats.org

See the extended entry to read what information to include:

Poster information.
In your email, please Include:

1) The photo you want to use, or a link to the photo online
-please choose a “large” photo, one that will look good on a full page paper without looking pixilated.
-Also, please use a photo that is easy to make “vertical,” like the ones in the examples. You don’t have to crop the photo yourself, don’t worry, I’ll do that for you

2) your “reason” for being a College Democrat (some reasons are serious, like “Idealism;” some reasons are descriptive like “Involvement,” others can be just funny like “food” or “Fabulousness” or “Parties”).

3) Your 50-150 words describing your reason. Remember these are posters, so less words is better.

4) Your tag line, like, “See you Monday” or “Lets Get Things Started”

5) Your nick name, if you want to use one. Using a nick name, and a tag line, helps make these posters more personalized, dynamic, and compelling. At least, that’s the idea.

6) whatever “number” you want to be. (”Reason #xxx”)

When in doubt, just try to give all the information that is on the example posters.

and as always, if you have any problems, just send me (john) an email, a phonecall or find me on facebook.

Thanks!

First 100 Hours- Cheaper Student Loans!

Posted: January 18th, 2007, 2:16pm CST by john

As I write this, the 100-Hour Clock is currently set to 31 Hours 39 Minutes and 42 seconds.

And as we’ve covered here on the UNO Democrats Blog, so far the Democrats in the House have passed legislation to:

And today, as promised, the House is set to pass a bill designed to lower student loan interest rates.

The student-loan proposal would cut interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent on federal Stafford loans, which are for lower- and middle-income families.

and just why do we need this new bill?

Just three years ago, student-loan interest rates averaged around 3.4 percent. But the Republican-controlled Congress fixed rates at 6.8 percent last year… Education groups nationwide were up in arms, and Democrats campaigned to reverse the move.

This means millions of college students, including lots and lots of UNO Dems, will save thousands of dollars in loan interest payments they’ll never have to make.

Isn’t this new Congress super? Or perhaps the right word is classy.

UPDATE: The bill passes a whopping 356 to 71. How do you like DEM Apples?!!

UPDATE II: Nebraska’s own Jeff Fortenberry (R-Lincoln) and Adrian Smith (R-Central and Western Nebraska) are among the 71 ‘no’ votes. Lee Terry(R-Omaha), after facing lobbying pressure from UNO Dems among others, voted ‘yea.’

Chuck Hagel: Taking a Stand?

Posted: January 17th, 2007, 4:09pm CST by dave

I’ve always had mixed feelings about Chuck Hagel, since he started his criticism of Iraq policy back in 2002. He seems to be grounded in reality, unlike many of his Republican colleagues, but he’s also the staunchest supporter of Bush’s agenda in the Senate. On Sunday morning talk shows and in op-ed columns, Chuck Hagel has never been afraid to use strong rhetoric in opposition to the war in Iraq. But at the same time, he never took a stand in the Senate. He voted against Levin-Reid, which called for a phased withdrawal, and then came out several weeks later for phased withdrawal.

But Hagel’s actions in the Senate lately have been a little bit different, using forceful language in a Senate hearing with Condoleeza Rice. Now, he is co-sponsoring, with Democrats Joe Biden and Carl Levin, a resolution opposing the escalation of the war in Iraq:

“I will do everything I can to stop the president’s policy as he outlined it Wednesday night,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, who joined Democrats at a press conference on the resolution. “I think it is dangerously irresponsible,” Hagel said.

Like I’ve said before, this is beyond politics. I don’t agree with Chuck Hagel on a whole lot of issues, and will probably never vote for him. But I applaud his efforts, here. Anyone who is opposed to this war in Congress needs to take action, not simply use words. It’s good to see that Chuck Hagel is finally taking action.

A Presidential Caucus in Nebraska?

Posted: January 17th, 2007, 12:28am CST by dave

This is a move that many Nebraska Democrats have discussed for a while, since Vince Powers presented the idea to us in June, but now there is something concrete moving forward. Steve Lathrop introduced LB 460, to allow political parties to hold a Presidential caucus to elect delegates to the national convention. The caucus would be held on February 9, the second Saturday in February.

The Omaha World-Herald has more:

State Sen. Steve Lathrop wants Nebraska to host Iowa-style caucuses next year on Feb. 9 - about four weeks after Iowa’s first-in-the-nation precinct caucuses and 2¹/2 weeks after the New Hampshire primary.

The idea is for Nebraska to grab some of the presidential campaign spotlight before the state’s May primary election, by which time the nation’s two major political parties typically have chosen their nominees.

“It has the potential to bring candidates into Nebraska. It’s certainly better than where we’re at right now,” said Lathrop, who introduced Legislative Bill 460 on Tuesday.

Lathrop has his work cut out for him. A similar bill failed to come up for a vote last year after making it through committee. And even if Nebraska embraced an earlier caucus system, there is no guarantee the state would get attention from candidates.

The proposed Nebraska caucuses would fall after Iowa, New Hampshire and Super Tuesday, when about 10 states are expected to hold their presidential primaries.

I’m definitely on the side of Lathrop’s argument here, as I, for one, am sick of having no voice in the process. But there is another side to the argument that doesn’t get any play in the article. The World-Herald focuses mostly on the potential impact on Nebraska - namely whether anyone would come to the state. I don’t think that is much of an issue, however - it’d be easy enough to make a stop in Nebraska while in Iowa, or divert a few resources. Whether any candidate would bother for the small amount of delegates Nebraska would provide, is another question. The importance of Nebraska as a state would probably be greater than the impact of its delegate count. The real question is whether or not the state party could organize a caucus on this scale.

Of course, this is all moot unless the bill actually passes. But it’s certainly a subject worth our attention and debate.

Obama Forms Exploratory Committee

Posted: January 16th, 2007, 9:40am CST by dave

As good an excuse as any to post these photos again. Barack Obama has taken the first step towards running for President today, filing papers with the FEC to form an exploratory committee. 2008 may seem like a long way away from now, but our friends across the river will begin the primary season in just about a year, and the first Presidential debate is, believe it or not, only 3 months away. Use this thread for any 2008 Presidential talk.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/16/Jeff_Fortenberry_and_%e2%80%9cGrave%e2%80%9d_Decisions'

Jeff Fortenberry and “Grave” Decisions

Posted: January 16th, 2007, 2:12am CST by dave

Don Walton has an interesting article in today’s Lincoln Journal-Star detailing Jeff Fortenberry’s thoughts on Bush’s proposed escalation of the war in Iraq. He describes the situation as “intense,” and the decisions as “very grave.”

A spike in e-mail and other constituent communication at Fortenberry’s office has been fueled in large part by Nebraskans troubled by the war in Iraq and opposed to President Bush’s decision to send more U.S. troops into the caldron.

That struck me, almost immediately. Nebraska’s 1st District is troubled by this new policy. As a number of our members and readers can tell you, the 1st District isn’t exactly “liberal” territory. So if Bush is losing eastern Nebraska, that should give you a pretty good idea of how out-of-step he is with the American public right now.

Fortenberry seems to be backing away from an outright endorsement of Bush’s plan. There are a number of factors that could be playing into this. His constituents, at least, should be foremost among them. And if a large number of them are telling him that this is a bad idea, my hope is that he’ll listen (though I have my doubts - being around politics will do that to you).

Then, there’s the President - the increasingly unpopular leader of his national party - and the senior Senator from Nebraska - the increasingly vocal leader of his state party. Fortenberry can’t afford to be seen as opposed to the former, but he cannot risk alienating the latter - particularly if he is thinking of running for Hagel’s Senate seat in ‘08. So, what follows in the article is a series of artful dodges by Fortenberry - tiptoeing the line between being anti-escalation and pro-Bush.

But for the sake of all of his constituents, Fortenberry needs to be upfront, here. If he supports the President’s plan, he should say so. If he has reservations, but believes it’s the President’s call, and he’ll support it, he should say that. But there is a line on an issue so important to the American people. There is no middle ground. Tacit support and blind loyalty to the President got us in this mess. He does not deserve nor should he receive the benefit of the doubt. If Fortenberry is willing to support him in spite of his reservations, that is his decision. But he should not expect his constituents or the voters to swallow that pill. Support of the President’s policy right now, at this venture, means that you own it, Mr. Fortenberry. If you believe that it will not succeed, then you owe it to yourself, your constituents, and the American people to stand up and say “no.”

Gag Me with the Global Gag Rule

Posted: January 15th, 2007, 1:02am CST by laura

I speak of this story quite often, as it was one of my great moments in high school when Lee Terry came to visit. I’d had a previous discourse with Nancy Thompson, one of the most fantastic and truly caring politicians I had ever known, to whom I had addressed several questions. A few of them she said I could do best with addressing to my congressman. Lo and behold, said congressman came to Papillion LaVista High School, wherein he held an open forum for any questions. I got no real answer to the questions I did ask (such as what he thought of the intentionally vague Surgeon’s General warnings on cigarette packets), and finally got the answer to one particular question after the speech session, where I approached him. I asked him if he approved of the global gag rule, to which the congressman who had voted in the affirmative on it replied, “What’s that?” After I was kind enough to explain it to him, he replied no, he did not support his tax dollars being used to fund these organizations giving out abortions, since he did not believe in them.
One problem, mister congressman: It doesn’t use YOUR tax dollars. To get a perspective, let’s look at the Center for Reproductive Rights‘ definition of the Global Gag Rule:

“On January 22, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush re-imposed restrictions known as the “Global Gag Rule” (or the “Mexico City Policy”). This policy restricts foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. On April 5, 2005, the Senate passed an amendment that would repeal the Global Gag Rule on international family planning assistance by a vote of 52-46.”

However, the global gag rule was never repealed:

• June 16, 2005: House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations passes the FY’06 spending bill. The bill includes $432 million in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population assistance program. The bill contains no language repealing the global gag rule.

• June 21, 2005: House Appropriations Committee passes the FYʹ06 spending bill, which includes $432 million in funding for the USAID population assistance program. The bill contains no language repealing the global gag rule.(source)

The stance on this is a supposedly “pro-life” stance, which is geared toward prevention of the destruction of life through abortion. It was instituted by the Reagan administration in 1984. It was rescinded by the Clinton administration January 2nd of 1993. Bush re-instated it on his very first day in office, where it has remained in place ever since, with the comment “It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored.” So what good is the policy doing?

According to WHO (World Health Organization), 68,000 women die from unsafe abortions every year. 40% of unsafe abortions are performed on women 15-24, and accounts for 13% of all pregnancy-related deaths (source). 95% of these deaths are in developing countries, like the ones restricted by the global gag rule. Any of these statistics can be looked up on WHO’s web page or at Safe Motherhood, a global organization devoted to reducing the number of deaths in pregnancy and childbirth. They also speak of the methods women who are unable to obtain a safe abortion use, including poisons, insertion of a stick into the uterus, overdose of over-the-counter drugs, douching with bleach, and attempting to use physical abuse to remove the child. And contrary to popular belief, these women are not simply irresponsible teens who decided to get knocked up and now have to face the consequences. According to WHO, most of these women are in fact married women who already have several children. Rape, sexual coercion, and contraceptive failure are some of the reasons for these abortions, but 350 million couples worldwide do NOT have access to modern, safe, and effective family planning services (source).

So why, with all of this information available, is the United States cutting the funding to family planning organizations, making every one of these negative statistics rise with every safe abortion denied and every institution cut off from necessary funding to provide a safe abortion? It’s one thing to be against abortion, but it’s another to deny someone an abortion the proper medical care they need in order to have one safely. If the woman dies from the unsafe abortion, both the mother and the child are lost, resulting then in the view of a pro-life as two dead. Regardless of stance on abortion, how can one safely proclaim that this policy has saved any lives, when statistics evidence that it has taken so very many?

A friend of mine once made this statement, which I have remembered to this day: “Women are going to have an abortion whether the government allows them to or not. Do we want them to have the best medical care possible then, or do we want them to do it with a rusty coat hanger?” I almost didn’t believe it then that any woman would try to give herself an abortion with a coat hanger. Yet we live in a world where the land of the free and the home of the brave makes this all too true a reality, because our government’s mission is to impose its current set of morals on women who are desperate, lost, and afraid enough to do this. While I can’t speak for everyone, I know that it disgusts and disturbs me, not just as a woman, but as a human being.

Week in Review: 01/07/2007-01/13/2007

Posted: January 13th, 2007, 5:30pm CST by dave

With the exception of our “blog-a-thon” last year, this was the busiest week of posts in the history of the blog. So, for your benefit, here’s some of the posts you may have missed:

Welcome Back! - a new semester begins.
Lee Terry Wants Reform, But He Won’t Vote For It - More hypocrisy from Lee Terry.
Lee Terry Votes Against A Safer America & the 9/11 Commission Report - John takes a deeper look at Terry’s vote.
Lee Terry and Nebraska Republicans Vote Against Raising The Minimum Wage
“Surging” Towards Disaster - reaction to Bush’s speech.
Where Nebraska’s Delegation Stands on Escalation
The First 100 Hours: Stem Cell Research
Idiot’s Guide to The New York Times - Chief focuses on the Collegiate Readership Program and some tips on reading the Times.
Bushisms: The Speak and Spell of the Nation - Laura looks at Bush’s, um, “unique” speaking style.
Is Bush Insane Enough to Go to War With Iran?
Joe Lieberman’s Betrayal - Oversight on Katrina isn’t going to happen.

Unicameral Weekly: Dave Heineman vs. The University of Nebraska

Posted: January 13th, 2007, 4:49pm CST by dave

If anybody can come up with a better name for this weekly update, leave a suggestion in the comments. I’m going to try to put this on Saturdays, since that allows me to cover the whole week. All the unicameral news from this week, including Governor Heineman’s plan to gut the University of Nebraska, after the flip.

The big news this week was Dave Heineman’s “State of the State” address. In his speech, Heineman proposed nearly half a billion dollars in tax cuts, but only a 1% increase in the budget for the University of Nebraska. What does this mean for all of us? Well, University President J.B. Milliken criticized the plan, saying that it would lead to program cuts and tuition hikes. Our growth in this state is absolutely dependent on offering a quality, affordable college education. If you hinder the university system’s growth, you hinder the state’s long-term future. But more dangerous than his budget proposal, is this question from Dave Heineman:

“Is the day coming when the NU Foundation - which has assets of more than $1 billion - will have to be used for university operations?”

Clearly, Heineman can’t be that ignorant. The NU Foundation uses the vast majority of its assets on scholarships and construction projects. If you require those funds to be diverted to paying teacher salaries, or university programs, you will not only see a rise in tuition, but also a drop in the number of scholarships offered. Which is all a way of saying, it’s going to cost even more to go to the University of Nebraska if Dave Heineman has his way. As many of us here can attest to, it’s already quite a hefty cost.

Heineman seems well prepared to sacrifice the University system in this state so that he can push through his tax cut package. This ignores the real tax burden on Nebraskans, property taxes, in favor of a politically simple income tax cut. Good politics, however, does not always make for good policy. And ignoring the very real future and present problems facing this state for these tax cuts is bad policy. Heineman could compromise, make the tax cuts slightly smaller, and still fund the University system the way it should be funded. But given his history of opposition to sound education policy, this seems unlikely.

The sales tax exemption for college textbooks picked up a few cosponsors this week, including Sens. Gwen Howard, DiAnna Schimek, and Kent Rogert. Our friends at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln helped to bring this issue to the attention of the legislature and Sen. Nantkes. Last week, to help bring publicity for the bill, the Student Union displayed over 400 packages of Ramen noodles, the amount that the average college student could purchase with the tax savings from this bill.
Some of the bills introduced this week:

- LB 366 introduced by Ray Janssen, would provide for a $12,000 homestead exemption and state funding of community colleges. LB 367, also introduced by Janssen, would reduce the state sales tax.

- LB 198 introduced by DiAnna Schimek, would place restrictions on automatic campaign “robocalls,” limiting campaign calls to once per day, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.

- LB 310 introduced by Ray Aguilar, would, among other things, require a person requesting an absentee ballot to pay postage, and move the deadline for such requests to one week earlier. In other words, make it more difficult to vote. A real populist, that Ray Aguilar.

Stay warm, folks.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/13/What%e2%80%99s_Your_Alternative_'

What’s Your Alternative?

Posted: January 13th, 2007, 2:41pm CST by dave

Today, Bush challenged his critics to come up with an alternative plan for Iraq. Ignoring the fact that most of his critics have, ranging from the Iraq Study Group report, to “phased redeployment,” to setting a date for the safe withdrawal of our forces, Bush has, typically, tried to turn the tables on his numerous critics. But we still aren’t clear on what the President’s solution is. Furthermore, he can’t have it both ways. He spent two months “listening to many different plans.” Then the “decider” decided that none of them were good enough. But as long as we’re looking at plans that are rooted in fantasy and have no chance of actually changing anything in Iraq, then I propose we listen to Tom Tomorrow:

Hey UNO DEMS! - Wanna Be on a Poster?

Posted: January 12th, 2007, 5:07pm CST by john

Here’s the Large Group Collage:

Soon, we’re also going to be putting up “individual” MyUNO Democrats posters highlighting various members of our group.

You can see 4 examples of the “individual” posters right here…
John, Cody, Karlee, Erin
(must have Adobe PDF Viewer to see them)

Do you want to be on a poster?
We really need 5-10 more people willing to be on posters… if you’d be willing to be on one, please email your info to john
john (at) nebraskayoungdemocrats.org

See the extended entry to read what information to include:

Poster information.
In your email, please Include:

3) Your 50-150 words describing your reason. Remember these are posters, so less words is better.

4) Your tag line, like, “See you Monday” or “Lets Get Things Started”

5) Your nick name, if you want to use one. Using a nick name, and a tag line, helps make these posters more personalized, dynamic, and compelling. At least, that’s the idea.

6) whatever “number” you want to be. (”Reason #xxx”)

When in doubt, just try to give all the information that is on the example posters.

and as always, if you have any problems, just send me (john) an email, a phonecall or find me on facebook.

Thanks!

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/12/Welcome_to_Omaha%e2%80%a6_Elkhorn'

Welcome to Omaha… Elkhorn

Posted: January 12th, 2007, 10:41am CST by chief

Today, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling allowing Omaha to annex Elkhorn.

I’d just like to welcome the residents of Elkhorn into Omaha, and it also gives me an excuse to look back at the posts made about this subject almost two years ago.

Omaha vs. Elkhorn: An Annexation Altercation

Omaha Annexation T-shirts

Omaha Annexation

The real losers in all of this are the Elkhorn fireworks stands. I almost forgot how funny I was when I was younger; now I’m just old and bitter.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/01/12/Joe_Lieberman%e2%80%99s_Betrayal'

Joe Lieberman’s Betrayal

Posted: January 12th, 2007, 2:21am CST by dave

Okay, this isn’t really a Nebraska story. But there are a number of people in our group who care about New Orleans, a number of people who have spent extensive hours volunteering with recovery efforts. And this is, quite frankly, sickening.

In case there was any doubt where Joe Lieberman’s true loyalties lie, after he became Bush’s chief Democratic cheerleader on Iraq; after he (quite literally) embraced Bush at the State of the Union Address; after he announced his intention to ignore the will of the voters in the Connecticut Primary; after he followed through on that threat despite losing the nomination; after he won reelection to the Senate on the backs of Republican voters. In case there was any doubt that Joe Lieberman, Party of One, is no longer a Democrat, there comes this.

Lieberman managed to force Senate Democrats to give him the chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in exchange for a promise to caucus with the Democrats. This committee is responsible for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, and, by extension, FEMA - and thus the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush’s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

Lieberman’s reversal underscores the new role that he is seeking to play in the Senate as the leading apostle of bipartisanship, especially on national-security issues. On Wednesday night, Bush conspicuously cited Lieberman’s advice as being the inspiration for creating a new “bipartisan working group” on Capitol Hill that he said will “help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror.”

I don’t have a great deal more to say on the subject. But I thought I should pass it along to all of you.

Is Bush Insane Enough to Go to War With Iran?

Posted: January 11th, 2007, 10:15pm CST by dave

48 hours ago, what I am now saying would be dismissed as simple conspiracy theory, “tin-foil hat” nonsense that had no place in the public discourse. Then Bush got in front of the nation last night and laid out his case for escalation. And, though it was obscured by the promise of 22,000 more troops in Iraq, parts of Bush’s speech presented a much darker future for America’s plans in the Middle East…

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Video at Think Progress.

Glenn Greenwald:

As Think Progress notes, the White House took multiple steps yesterday to elevate dramatically the threat rhetoric against Iran. Bush included what The New York Times described as “some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran” yet. But those words could really be described more accurately not as “threats” but as a declaration of war.

He accused the Iranian government of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” and vowed to “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.” But those networks are located in Iran, which means that search and destroy missions on such networks would necessarily include some incursion into Iranian territory, whether by air or ground.

Hours before the speech, the White House released a Powerpoint presentation with details about the president’s new policy. “Increase operations against Iranian actors” was listed in the “Key Tactical Shifts” section. As The New York Times reported: “One senior administration official said this evening that the omission of the usual wording about seeking a diplomatic solution [to the Iranian nuclear stand-off] ‘was not accidental.’”

Even though Bush and his neoconservative pals have been saber rattling on Iran for several months now, that alone is no reason to believe that Bush would actually provoke a war with Iran. It would take more than that, a series of military moves that pointed toward a strategy aimed at Iran. As Greenwald points out in the link above, those military moves have been afoot as of late. That is why the President’s speech last night was so dangerous. At best, he proposes engaging in a proxy war with both Iran and Syria. At worst, he proposes actual war. Nowhere is it more apparent that the administration is intent on deliberately provoking Iran than today’s actions <

Omaha, Nebraska Blog Aggregator » U. of Nebraska - Omaha College Democrats Blog » January 2007

Feeds

U. of Nebraska - Omaha College Democrats Blog (54 unread)