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

U. of Nebraska - Omaha College Democrats Blog (27 unread)

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/05/30/Fred_Thompson_and_the_GOP%e2%80%99s_Messiah_Complex'

Fred Thompson and the GOP’s Messiah Complex

Posted: May 30th, 2007, 2:16pm CDT by dave

Ryan wrote last week at the NNN about the opening for Chuck Hagel in the Republican electorate. The meat of the argument: Iowa Republicans (and Republicans in general) are actually quite against the war. At least when you ask them about it as an issue. But Republicans have been rabid and cultlike in their support [...]

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/05/29/Staying_True_%e2%80%9cBlue%e2%80%9d'

Staying True “Blue”

Posted: May 29th, 2007, 5:15pm CDT by dave

In order to win as a Democrat in Nebraska, you must act like a Republican, talk like a Republican, and vote like a Republican. This is what the tired old conventional wisdom of Nebraska Democratic politics has told us for years. “Inside the box” political thinking that has resulted in exactly one federal victory in [...]

Remember The Fallen

Posted: May 27th, 2007, 1:51pm CDT by dave

This Memorial Day weekend, take some time to remember those who have given their lives in service to this country.

Why Fight?

Posted: May 25th, 2007, 8:37pm CDT by dave

The moment I knew we were going to war in Iraq didn’t come until October, 2002. It wasn’t until the finality of a democratic deriliction of duty occured that I was convinced that war was inevitable. I was somewhat naive then, and not a bit more idealistic than I am now. And yet, somehow, that was the day I decided I had to be a Democrat. For the few who fought this. The thing that’s never going to change, the one thing that I can say with certainty, is that the Republican Party is completely intent on using fear to drive us apart. It works. Fear of gays, fear of terrorists, fear of Mexicans, fear of drugs, fear of sex… Whatever the fear is, they use it against the American people.

So, why do we fight? Because we can’t let them win. Even when it seems like we live in a backwards, intolerant state, or when our Congress is intent on prolonging the war in Iraq, we can’t give up. We can’t allow fear to take over. Progress will come.

As upset as I am at the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, I am pleased with Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton for voting against this despicable piece of garbage foisted on the American people. Obama, especially, has been forceful in his criticisms of Bush and the war with this vote.

No more excuses for the President. He got exactly what he wanted. No more excuses for the Democrats: next time, you play ball for real.

Betrayal

Posted: May 24th, 2007, 9:16pm CDT by dave

You’re not going to get a whole lot of “go team” from me this week, and I suspect that a lot of my friends here are on the same page. I want to specifically focus this rant on our elected officials and the absolute act of betrayal that they committed today. To start, there’s Keith Olbermann’s (as-always) on-target Special Comment about the war spending bill that the Democrats allowed to pass:

That says it all, really. I can’t find much solace in the fact that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton voted against this bill. It doesn’t speak much of their leadership that the bill passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. And this is what I’ve been saying all along: the brand of bipartisanship that exists in Washington is a load of horseshit. It generally consists of the Democrats capitulating to the will of the Republicans, and the Republicans never budging on a single issue.

Today, by overwhelming majorities, both houses of Congress gave President Bush everything he wanted, a blank check to conduct the war in Iraq. This is just sickening. The ultimate act of political cowardice by individuals who have no business being a majority party. You wonder why people don’t think Democrats stand for anything? This is why! This was the Democratic majority “showing the way,” if by “showing the way,” you mean being led around by the nose by a warmongering failure of a President.

If they are this deaf to the will of the American people, the Democrats deserve to lose in 2008.

The Stakes Have Never Been Higher

Posted: May 24th, 2007, 1:06am CDT by dave

Bob Kerrey provides a good jumping off point for a long-overdue rant, here. Namely, the Democrats’ betrayal of their mandate to end the war in Iraq. In case you had not heard, the Democratic majority has decided to give President Bush a blank check to mismanage this war indefinitely! No timetables. No accountability. Just give him the money and let him continue to send our military to the slaughter.

Due respect to Kyle, but Bob Kerrey does us a great disservice. And by conceding that Kerrey recognizes the stakes, you imply that the liberal stance, indeed the American stance, is not realistic, and doesn’t recognize the stakes. That is, after all, Kerrey’s entire argument in the WSJ editorial. Due respect to the Senator, but with regards to Iraq, he has no place in talking about reality, if he still does not recognize why this war was a mistake. It wasn’t simply the execution of the war, but the very idea of it that was wrong.

I realize the stakes. Indeed, the stakes have never been higher. We often hear from the same people who have been wrong every step of the way that the consequences of leaving are too dire. We must stay. We never hear about the consequences of staying. Virtually every nightmare scenario they can dream up has already happened - civil war is already occuring, it will continue no matter what the U.S. military does. The sectarian groups have infiltrated the Iraqi military. Bombings and mortar attacks occur several times, daily. People are dying every single day! And, there’s not a damn thing that our presence there is going to do to change that except get more Americans killed.

We are not in a situation where we can be seen as a rational, impartial party to mediate a civil war, if indeed we could even begin to mediate this carnage. Often we hear that if we lose, they win. But who wins? Who are we fighting anymore? Kerrey seems to still believe that we are fighting the same people who attacked us on 9/11, even though, as a member of the 9/11 Commission, he damn well knows that’s not true.

Fear brought us to this point. And now, political cowardice on the part of Democrats - many of whom were elected to get us out of this war, who now propose to give the President the funding he needs, no strings attached, to fund this war indefinitely. Those are the stakes. The American people want out of Iraq. Out of fear of being called weak, the Democratic Party has decided to go out and prove they are just that. Congratulations, Senator Reid.

Why I am Wary of Bob Kerrey

Posted: May 22nd, 2007, 7:35pm CDT by dave

(The opinions expressed in this post are, of course, my own, but you know that by now. They do not represent the opinions of UNO College Democrats or the Nebraska Young Democrats. I’ve always tried to call it like I see it, so here it is. - Dave).

News from the weekend (I’m still catching up), Joe Jordan’s blog suggests that Kerrey’s polling looked very good, beating every potential Republican candidate (h/t Leavenworth Street). But despite this good news, and perhaps some indication that he’s considering a run, I’m still wary of what it would mean for Bob Kerrey to become the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.

I made a couple of comments when Bob Kerrey first expressed interest in running for Senate that suggested I’d be cold to a Senate run. I like Kerrey, I think he’s done a lot of good things for Nebraska, but there’s two significant factors that worry me.

First, Kerrey has lived in New York for the past six years. He briefly considered running for mayor of New York City. Now, it’d be incredibly difficult to tar Bob Kerrey, a three-time winner of statewide elections in Nebraska, as a “carpetbagger,” but a similar situation forced John Breaux, a Democratic institution in Louisiana, out of the race for that state’s governorship.

But second, and most importantly, Kerrey is dead wrong on Iraq. I say this with all respect to the good Senator, and he has been a tremendous supporter of our group’s efforts with Tribute To The Fallen, but there it is. He fails to recognize that this war was a colossal, catastrophic mistake. A failure of epic proportions matched only by the incompetence of its execution. Today, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Kerrey again demonstrates how wrong he is.

Using a series of strawman arguments and hypothetical fantasies, Kerrey claims that Iraq was a grave threat to our national security before the invasion - despite the clear absence of weapons of mass destruction, or any links to al-Qaeda. The most choice strawman argument among them?

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

This was carnage of our own creation. And the same reasons why I support getting the hell out right now are the reasons why any military intervention under that unlikely scenario would not only be unfeasible, but wrong. Because it is clear that our soldiers would become targets by both sides - just as they are now. It’s also clear that the Shiites and Kurds had no way of overthrowing the Hussein government without our intervention. The U.S. military created the power vacuum that allowed the current situation to arise. The Sunni were largely shut out of government operations because of the de-Baathification policy. The Shiite majority was subjugated for years under Saddam’s rule. The result is the seeds of civil war against the backdrop of a centuries-old sectarian conflict. You cannot take sides in this civil war, particularly when both sides think it’s perfectly okay to blow your people up.

But at a time when even Ben Nelson recognizes the American people’s need to bring this war to a conclusion, Kerrey is still standing with Joe Lieberman and the vast majority of Republicans on the issue of Iraq. That concerns me greatly. I’ll readily admit I wasn’t the biggest fan of Nelson, but he was the best choice on the ballot last year. The same would be true for Kerrey in 2008 if he is the nominee - he’s better than the other guy, whomever the other guy ends up being.

But if we’re to move things forward, if we’re ever going to bust out of this rut in Nebraska, we need to demonstrate clearly and forcefully exactly the difference between our two parties. And right now, the clearest line is drawn in Iraq. Almost all Republicans are for the war. Almost all Democrats are against the war. And it’s difficult to imagine any scenario which shows the American people changing their position on the central issue of our time.

This is my strong reservation about a Kerrey candidacy: it positions us, as a state party, on the wrong side of the most important issue in 2008.

Perhaps I’m wrong, and perhaps Iraq will be irrelevant in this race. But based on where the Republican primary is going, I think that’s highly unlikely. Iraq will dominate the debate in this race, in every federal race in 2008.

Let’s put it this way: Bob Kerrey’s taking a position that is out of step with the majority of people in Nebraska. That number’s only going to grow over the next year and a half. Being anti-war is not a bad thing in Nebraska. We want out just as much as everyone else.

Make no mistake about my partisan loyalties: I’d vote for Kerrey in a general election, even in the unlikely event that he faced Chuck Hagel. But I’m not wild about supporting a candidate for Senate whose position on a major issue appeals more to the radical right-wing elements in the Republican Party than anyone in his own party. (See Also: Ben Nelson and immigration).

That’s my two cents for the evening. I’ll be getting back to examining the Republicans’ every move soon.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/05/21/Hagel_and_Bruning%e2%80%99s_War_of_Words'

Hagel and Bruning’s War of Words

Posted: May 21st, 2007, 6:03pm CDT by dave

OWH:

Chuck Hagel continued to hold his political cards close to the vest Saturday, while Jon Bruning laid his on the table at a gathering of state Republicans in Bellevue.
Bruning, the Nebraska attorney general, made it clear he has decided to run for the U.S. Senate, even if that means going head-to-head against Hagel in a GOP primary.
Hagel, who held an Omaha fundraiser the night before with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, did not talk about Bruning, his plans or the possibility that he could run for president as an independent.
Instead, the maverick Republican, who has angered some in the party with his criticism of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, talked about his belief that the GOP has strayed from the path of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower and that politicians must put country ahead of party.
Both Hagel and Bruning spoke to about 125 Republicans who gathered at Bellevue University for a meeting of the Nebraska Republican Party’s state central committee.

So, Hagel’s running against the Republican Party, and he’s doing it in a room full of die-hard Republicans. You have to wonder what the hell he’s thinking anymore. Once again, it prompts speculation - that Hagel is all-too-willing to encourage - that Chuck Hagel is running for President as an independent. Possibly under the banner of the absolutely moronic “Unity ‘08.”

Meanwhile, Bruning has done his best to make his campaign about being the anti-Hagel candidate. It could backfire tremendously - for one thing, Hagel still has a large amount of institutional support, though that may be softening. But it could also seal his status as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. And it’s Bruning’s abrasive nature, his ruthless ambition, and his extremist views that will put him at odds with whomever the Democrats choose as our nominee. I look forward to seeing Fahey mop the floor with Jon Bruning.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/05/20/McConnell__Hagel%e2%80%99s_Right__I%e2%80%99m_Wrong'

McConnell: Hagel’s Right, I’m Wrong

Posted: May 20th, 2007, 8:50pm CDT by dave

While we were bringing in a Presidential candidate to Omaha, Nebraska, another potential candidate was holding a fundraiser on Friday - Senator Chuck Hagel. Ostensibly for a Senate reelection bid, Hagel brought in some prominent Republicans from around the country, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell had some interesting comments to the Lincoln Journal Star’s Don Walton:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lavished praise Friday on Sen. Chuck Hagel and said many of his warnings about the Iraq war have been validated. “Many of the predictions Chuck Hagel made about the war came true,” the Kentucky senator said in a brief interview after his remarks at a fundraising reception. “They have proven to be accurate.”
Hagel’s views on the war “have not diminished his effectiveness,” McConnell said, and may, in fact, increase his effectiveness over time.

What McConnell fails to acknowledge is that while Hagel was giving those warnings, McConnell was a gung-ho supporter of the war effort. In fact, he still is. It was McConnell who prevented any sort of debate on the escalation in Iraq. It’s been McConnell who has tried to save the White House from embarrassment at the cost of his own party’s electoral success.

Mitch McConnell, October 2002:

Let me say to my colleagues who suggest that diplomatic initiatives and weapon inspections can prevent the coming conflict with Iraq to look at recent history. Saddam Hussein has violated each and every one of the 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions pertaining to Iraq. His armed forces continue to fire on American and coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone. Al-Qaida terrorists continue to leave footprints on Iraqi soil. And Saddam Hussein and his henchmen continue to make billions of dollars by exploiting the U.N.’s oil for food program and through other illicit activities.
Although the regime recently proved that it can fool some embarrassingly naive visiting American lawmakers into believing its empty assurances of cooperation and compliance, they are not duping this Senator–or the President.
More importantly, the American people will not follow the lead of these modern-day Neville Chamberlains and allow the United States to be played for a fool. For it is only a fool who does not learn from past mistakes, and the world has ten years of Iraqi lies from which to learn. Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly a day after the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, President Bush challenged the United Nations to maintain its relevancy in a world challenged by terror:
Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. . . . [America] will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.
The fact is that President Bush is giving the United Nations and the international community a final chance to disarm Saddam Hussein through diplomatic means. But under no illusions of Saddam Hussein’s violent and irrational character, the President has made clear that if reason fails, force will prevail. I am reminded of President Franklin Roosevelt insights into Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler: “No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.”

Ah, the “Hitler” comparison. The last refuge of a man with no reasonable arguments. Many of Hagel’s warnings were correct, but the implication of that remark from McConnell is that he, and the vast majority of Republicans, were and still are completely wrong.

At least they’re ready to finally admit it. But don’t expect them to do anything about it.

A Few Notes

Posted: May 20th, 2007, 8:29pm CDT by dave

I want to thank Nebraska Young Democrats and the Young Democrats of America for a very successful Spring National Conference this weekend. Governor Bill Richardson, a candidate for President, gave the keynote address and met with the Young Dems on Friday. Also on Friday, we heard from Scott Kleeb, and on Saturday we had a panel discussion with Jim Esch and Gary Di. And we showed everyone a hell of a good time in Omaha.

Specifically, for the UNO College Democrats, the YDA National Committee passed a resolution recognizing our efforts for the Tribute To The Fallen that we held in April.

Don’t forget, the YDA National Convention in Dallas is July 18-21st. It should be a lot of fun.

I’ll get back to regular posting very soon - we’ve got a lot to discuss.

A Tale Of Two Mayors

Posted: May 15th, 2007, 4:47pm CDT by dave

Former Omaha Mayor Hal Daub, as expected, announced his plans to enter the 2008 Senate race this morning.

But quite unexpected was Daub’s refusal to shut the door on a Senate bid should Hagel decide to seek reelection. In our clearest indication yet that the Nebraska Republican Party may be ready to move on from Chuck Hagel, Daub said he won’t base his decision of whether to run or not on Hagel’s presence in the race. Bruning said the same thing in April, except with more of an eye toward forcing Hagel out of the race.

Daub claims he will embark on a “listening tour” across the state, and base his decision to run on what he hears from the Nebraska voters. But Daub has already heard from the voters of Nebraska on more than one occasion, losing two statewide elections - one primary and one general - and losing reelection as mayor of Omaha. As Ryan Anderson points out, Hal Daub seems to be running against Hal Daub.

Daub’s six years as mayor of Omaha were steeped in controversy. Never one to work well with others, Hal Daub drew heated and contentious fights with the Omaha City Council. Omahans grew tired of this, and threw his ass out in 2001. In Mike Fahey, the man who defeated him in that election, it became very clear that Omaha had found the right man for the job. Consider this from Fahey’s campaign announcement in December, 2000:

In remarks prepared for delivery at his campaign headquarters near 132nd and L Streets, Fahey never mentioned Daub’s name. But the frequent conflict between Daub and members of the City Council provided the backdrop for Fahey’s speech.

“I understand that it takes an evenhanded personality to forge mutually respectful relationships with a sometimes divided and divisive electorate,” Fahey said.

“People want decisive leadership, not divisive leadership. People prefer consensus, not confrontation.”
Omaha World-Herald December 20, 2000

In the last six years, Fahey has proven to be the decisive leader that he promised he would be in 2001. The people of Omaha responded in kind, overwhelmingly reelecting Fahey to a second term in 2005.

Now, both Daub and Fahey are considering taking a run at the U.S. Senate. And based on their records alone, it should be clear who the superior choice is. As Ryan wrote last week:

The Fahey administration has committed itself to fiscally responsible growth, and in this area they have been remarkably successful. Buildings have been raised, standards of living have been raised, but taxes haven’t. Their bold advocacy of a city-county merger is a model of effective government that could cut red tape and save the state money. Apparently, all this hasn’t gone unnoticed (or unappreciated) out west.

Now 52 weeks away from what promises to be a heated Republican fight for the nomination - it’s clear that Nebraska, like Omaha in 2001, is in need of decisive leadership, just the kind that Mike Fahey has provided for the city of Omaha over the past six years. And the kind that will earn the respect of Nebraskans of both parties, from all corners of the state.

Permalink for 'U._of_Nebraska___Omaha_College_Democrats_Blog/2007/05/11/Hal_Daub%e2%80%99s_Ready_To_Lose_Another_Election'

Hal Daub’s Ready To Lose Another Election

Posted: May 11th, 2007, 5:47pm CDT by dave

KMTV is reporting that that former Omaha Mayor and three time electoral loser Hal Daub is going to enter the Senate race on Tuesday, announcing the formation of an exploratory committee to run in case Chuck Hagel decides against seeking reelection.

Daub, then a Congressman from Nebraska’s 2nd District, unsuccessfully challenged David Karnes for the Republican nomination for Senate in 1988 (Karnes eventually lost the general election to Bob Kerrey). In 1990, he unsuccessfully challenged Jim Exon for his Senate seat. After a couple of years out of the political spotlight, Daub jumped back in when P.J. Morgan decided that being mayor of Omaha was too hard, and resigned. After beating Brenda Council in the special runoff election, Daub became mayor of Omaha, and in 1997, narrowly defeated Council again.

Over the next four years, Daub tried to take absolute control of the city’s operations, with a “my way or the highway” approach that didn’t sit well with voters. Constant feuds with the City Council and toxic personality clashes throughout city hall led to a contentious election in 2001. Mike Fahey was elected mayor of Omaha largely on the strength of his message, and Omaha was just plain sick of Hal Daub.

Daub is currently National Committeeman for the Nebraska Republican Party. But while Republican insiders may not yet be sick of him, the state of Nebraska and the city of Omaha have rejected him and his style of politics on numerous occasions. Hal Daub seems to be more than willing to give Nebraska another opportunity to reject him.

UPDATE: At some point in the near future, I’ll start digging through the news archives for some “Greatest Hits” from Hal Daub (and anyone else you want me to pick on, too). So stay tuned for that.

I Agree With Rudy Giuliani…

Posted: May 11th, 2007, 1:51pm CDT by dave

Wait. Did I really just say that?

Yeah. In case you missed it, Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani decided this week that he is going to run as a pro-choice Republican:

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

“Ultimately,” Giuliani said, “there has to be a right to choose.”

I cannot emphasize enough how significant this is. For thirty years now, the fight for a woman’s right to choose has been largely waged on partisan grounds (which means that even if you personally disagree with Ben Nelson, ultimately the fact that he’s a Democrat helps women’s rights considerably). Republicans have been “pro-life,” while Democrats have been “pro-choice.” And to run against that in your own party, particularly for the Presidential nomination, is very nearly political suicide. Jerome Armstrong at MyDD has a great analysis of what this is going to do to the debate on the Republican side.

For a while, it looked like the war would be a central division in the Republican electorate, but the Cult of Bush has remained strong. It may still happen, particularly if Hagel gets into the race, but for now, the central issue for Republicans is going to be choice. And at every opportunity, Giuliani is going to be hammered by the other Republican contenders.

This isn’t The West Wing, folks. If Giuliani’s really going to seek the nomination of the Republican Party as a pro-choice candidate, he can kiss any chance he has of winning goodbye. They’ll all flock to Fred Thompson, or whoever the hell they think is the second coming of St. Ronnie today.

But this is going to radically shift the debate about choice in a direction that favors women’s rights. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination is saying that we have to recognize a woman’s right to choose. That’s significant. If he ultimately ends up winning, the religious right’s influence on the Republican Party could be dead. Now, I don’t think that’s going to happen, in fact quite the opposite, but they’re welcome to drive their party further to the right and alienate everyone who recognizes the need for sane, reasonable policy when it comes to reproductive health.

Keep an eye on the Republican Presidential race, is all I’m saying. It’s going to be entertaining.

(Any takers on when the first “Rudy: Baby Killer” ad is coming?)

Kerrey the Headliner (and Other Senate Notes)

Posted: May 10th, 2007, 9:26pm CDT by dave

The Nebraska Democratic Party has announced that Senator Bob Kerrey will be the keynote speaker at the annual Morrison-Exon Dinner June 23rd in Omaha. This was one of many rumors floating around last week that caused me to reassess my take on the Democratic field. Now, it’s not always accurate to divine someone’s intentions from a prominent speaking role at a party fundraiser, but this seems to suggest strongly that Kerrey’s ready to jump back into Nebraska politics - namely, in a run for Senate.

I’ve made no secret of my preference for Mike Fahey (Ryan at the NNN has a great write-up on why Fahey’s a good candidate), but should he decide to seek reelection as mayor, then Kerrey would be a formidable candidate - likely the favorite against Bruning. And it’s hard to ignore the fact that he has about $400,000 cash on hand, too. Senator Bob Kerrey, serving alongside Ben Nelson? Not bad.

In other Senate news, Tony Raimondo has said that he will seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate should Chuck Hagel decide against running for reelection. This pretty much falls in line with our thoughts last week, that Raimondo was positioning himself for a run should Hagel decide against reelection. Basically, the only candidate we’ve ruled out in the Senate race for the Republicans so far is Lee Terry. I would not be surprised to see Jeff Fortenberry throw his name into the ring if Hagel decides against running, either.

Meanwhile, in the Unicam…

Posted: May 9th, 2007, 9:59pm CDT by dave

It’s been a while since we’ve taken a look at the unicameral (the folks over at Paging Power do a great job of that), but a few things have happened recently which are rather important, so I figured it merited our attention here.

First there’s LB 367, the “tax cut” package. While it’s not quite as regressive as Heineman’s initial proposal (of course, that’s not saying much), it’s still not good enough. Kyle has a good analysis of the whole situation at the New Nebraska Network.

Next, LB 405, which I was a huge proponent of, was tabled by the legislature. There wasn’t going to be any convincing Ernie Chambers that adding extra districts would be good for minority representation. It’s doubtful that they’ll revisit the extra council district idea anytime soon, but they really should. At this point, a state legislator represents about 20,000 fewer people than an Omaha City Councilman.

Finally, LB 641, which got first-round approval today by a vote of 42-0. The learning community idea bothers me a lot, still, and adding a new level to the administration of this plan seems to accomplish the exact opposite of its goal - namely, more local control of schools. I made no secret about the fact that I supported “One City, One School District,” (just read through the comments of this thread). But there’s no doubt that OPS overplayed its hand quite a bit, and got burned for it. Chambers was waiting for his moment with the OPS breakup, and the legislature, out of spite against OPS, went right along and passed a hasty bill - which our pandering lightweight of a governor then signed into law.

The behavior of the school superintendents throughout this debate has been childish. None of them want to give up any power, none of them want to give up any money. Their main focus is on their own interests, and not the overall good of their students or the city of Omaha.

Any compromise is going to look good in comparison to the disaster that was LB 1024 last year. And the good news is that debate will not be hasty, there will be time to hash out what’s wrong, what’s right about the bill, and have things a little bit more open and a little less rushed than last year.

I’m going to be interested to see the debate play out, as I’m still not quite sure what to make of this bill. We’ll see just how realistic this compromise is, and whether it can actually solve the problems facing Omaha’s public schools.

Blank Checks and Spoiled Children

Posted: May 9th, 2007, 11:52am CDT by dave

The new House Democratic proposal to end the war in Iraq offers major concessions to the President: there is no timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Instead, the proposal temporarily funds the war through July (though the money to fund the war through July is already in the pipeline). It no longer includes the funds for agricultural relief - those will be put into a separate bill. And the “troop readiness standards” proposed by Rep. John Murtha have been scrapped from the bill, as well.

The new plan? Attach the next two months of funding after to a vote by Congress on withdrawal. Bush must submit a report to Congress by July 13 on progress in Iraq, and after that, the House and Senate will vote on whether to continue funding the war, or to use the money to begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

Bush would veto this bill.

Why? Well, it should be clear by now. The President wants a blank check to conduct undending war in Iraq. And here’s what happens next:

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 35,000 soldiers in 10 Army combat brigades will begin deploying to Iraq in August as replacements, making it possible to sustain the increase of U.S. troops there until at least the end of this year. U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is working.

Remember when the surge was supposed to be temporary? I hope no one actually bought that line. But, clearly, the Republicans have. They’re willing to give the administration until September to come up with a new lie and some reason why they should continue to ignore the will of the American people, who have demanded an end to this war.

I think it should be clear by now to anyone observing the fight in Congress to end this war that the Republican Party has no intention of leaving Iraq. Ever.

Bush has increasingly operated like a spoiled child in this debate. He wants it his way, and no way else. But, fortunately, the President’s preferred option in this case - a blank check to conduct unending war in Iraq - is a non-starter with this Congress, as it should be, because it’s a non-starter with the majority of Americans.

3,381 Americans have died in Iraq. 3,240 since “Mission Accomplished.” 295 since the “Surge” began. 47 since we took down the flags two weeks ago. 30 in the month of May, alone, including one Nebraskan.

I don’t have any doubt which side of the debate Lee Terry, Jeff Fortenberry, and Adrian Smith will come down on, and it’s heartbreaking to realize that. These are matters of life and death. The administration has had enough time. It’s time to get out. It’s time for our troops to come home safely. This is the mandate we gave Congress in November. And they will continue to use that mandate until you listen.

What Did Lee Terry Learn In Iraq?

Posted: May 8th, 2007, 9:39pm CDT by dave

Deepest apologies for being a week late with this analysis, but I couldn’t let Lee Terry’s Iraq visit go unnoticed.

Here’s a sample of Lee Terry’s in-depth reaction to the situation in Iraq:

“Some politicians in Washington wrongly believe they should declare Iraq a lost cause and broadcast a false message that demoralizes our troops and emboldens the enemy,” Terry said. “The briefings I received from military commanders and discussions I had with Iraqi leaders showed me otherwise – that the war is not lost, and the Iraqis are pleading that not abandon them.

Listen, I don’t doubt the sincerity of Lee Terry’s beliefs. It’s just that he’s wrong. And in the face of evidence that he’s so terribly wrong, he chooses to ignore the evidence. Fortunately, for his sake, he doesn’t make any comparisons between the streets of Baghdad and the Old Market similar to those of his colleague Mike Pence of Indiana. So maybe there’s a bit of hope - he’s not completely detached from reality.

As Smith Watch pointed out when Adrian Smith took his trip to Iraq, Terry himself made the observation that is increasingly clear as we look at his reaction to this trip:

Terry said he has noticed that other congressmen’s rhetoric on the House floor remains the same after their trips to Iraq. He said his goal on the trip with Nelson is to keep an open mind and assess the problems, not just reinforce his preconceived notions of what’s going on. He said being in Iraq beats a briefing in Washington. “You just have a deeper level of understanding when you have your own feet on the ground,” Terry said.

Of course, looking at Terry’s rhetoric after the visit to Iraq, it seems to be exactly the same as his rhetoric before the visit. And given the facts and the realities of the situation on the ground, it’s difficult to believe that Terry had an accurate picture of Iraq before his visit. In fact, given his rhetoric, it’s clear that he doesn’t. It’s difficult to see any optimism in what was the deadliest month of violence in Iraq in 2007. It’s hard to believe that, after 4 years, there are any reasons to hope for progress. Terry himself seems to be scrambling for anything to cling to, suggesting that perhaps he didn’t quite “keep an open mind” about his visit.

Terry’s arguments have been typical of his stance on Iraq - though thankfully, at least this time, devoid of any reference to “islamofascists” or “jihadists.” There’s little change in his rhetoric from before his visit to after his visit.

Just remember - this is Lee Terry’s “open mind.” There’s so much wrong with this war it makes me sick - but how the pro-war crowd can still justify it to themselves is beyond disgraceful, and impugning the loyalty of those of us who want to be responsible citizens in the world is the height of hypocrisy.

Is Adrian Smith a Bruning Supporter?

Posted: May 8th, 2007, 1:56am CDT by dave

The Lincoln Journal Star reports that Adrian Smith is not on the host list for Hagel’s big fundraiser in Omaha. Fellow Republicans Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry, both rumored as potential Senate candidates should Hagel retire (though we’ve already ruled Terry out as a potential Senate candidate), are listed as hosts. Smith and State Treasurer Shane Osborn (who defeated the corrupt Loralee Byrd’s successor, Ron Ross, in the Republican primary) are the only state or federal Republican officeholders who are not sponsors of the fundraiser.

Bruning specifically cited Smith as a strong supporter of Bush’s Iraq policy in making his announcement last month. Smith has previously stated that Hagel “doesn’t want success” in Iraq. And given that Smith served with Bruning in the state legislature for four years, it would certainly not be out of the question that he would support a Bruning Senate bid. There’s certainly plenty of reason, given Smith’s absolutely wrongheaded stance on Iraq, that he would not support a Hagel reelection bid. So his absence from the host list is quite intriguing.

We’ll see what else happens in the next several weeks. Stay tuned.

NE-Sen: Some More Numbers and Notes

Posted: May 7th, 2007, 4:12pm CDT by dave

Don Walton has some more numbers from the poll last week that showed Hagel’s vulnerability among Republicans. Among the key numbers:

As we discussed last week, 51% of Nebraskans believe it’s time to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. According to the article, that includes 35% of Republicans.
Hagel’s favorability rating is at 51%. Fahey is at 54%, Bruning is at 61%, and Heineman at 70%. No numbers for Kleeb, Kerrey, or Daub, at least not in the article.

We’re still in a holding pattern for the Democrats, and hopefully we’ll know more as the summer comes along, but the key to this poll is just how big of a loser Iraq is for the Republicans - even in Nebraska. As we find ourselves a year away from the primaries, there’s still no predicting what Hagel’s going to do. I an interview with Bloomberg TV last week, he openly speculated about retiring from politics:

MR. HUNT: Well, what are the odds that you will get into that (Presidential) race? You’ve said you’ll decide later. But odds as of today?
SEN. HAGEL: I will. Well, I don’t know about odds, Al. I never get into that business. But I will make a decision on my political future in a few months. I have to. I have a second term coming to an end next year. And it will come down -
>MR. HUNT: Still seriously considering?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, I’m seriously considering - I hope - some options I might have. And one of those options is to leave politics for awhile. Maybe this is the right time to do it; 12 years in the Senate is a long time. It’s been a tremendous opportunity. Maybe there are some other things I could do to influence the world more effectively.

Every day we see different signs from Hagel. What’s interesting is that he seems to be in no hurry to make a decision. Does this mean that he’s already made his decision and he’s putting it off as long as possible before he announces it? Or does it mean that he’s genuinely conflicted about what he should do next? With speculation abound about Fred Thompson’s eventual (and seemingly imminent) entry into the race, is Hagel delaying to see if there is any opening for him in the Republican field? Time will tell. For us impatient political junkies, we’ll just have to speculate.

And what of Bruning? Having already filed papers with the FEC back in March, he has still yet to release any campaign fundraising figures, explaining to Don Walton, “I want to protect my donors from getting beat up as long as I can.” Perhaps, though I suspect that his fundraising numbers weren’t particularly strong for the first quarter given the two week window. When July 15 comes around, and we see the 2nd quarter numbers, the ability of Bruning to hang with Hagel will be tested.

In the meantime, Bob Kerrey has more cash-on-hand than either of them combined.

Rosenblatt No More?

Posted: May 7th, 2007, 3:02pm CDT by dave

OWH:

The College World Series could be headed for a new home at a downtown ballpark and the venerable Rosenblatt Stadium could be going, going, gone.
Mayor Mike Fahey is actively pursuing the option of building a $50 million-plus ballpark in the so-called NoDo area between the Creighton University campus and the Qwest Center Omaha.
A tentative decision to build a 9,000-seat stadium with the ability to expand to 25,000 seats for the CWS could come by the first pitch of this year’s series. The NCAA’s baseball committee will be in Omaha when the series opens June 15.

As a huge baseball fan, and someone who enjoys Rosenblatt, this worries me. Major league teams have often tried to hold cities hostage by threatening to move the team if the city doesn’t swindle its taxpayers out of several hundred million dollars to build a new stadium - often in the form of regressive taxes. And more often than not, these threats are empty and meaningless. Consider that the only team to move in the last quarter century has been the Montreal Expos - mostly because of a severe lack of interest by its fans. But still, cities are often more than willing to oblige when teams hold the threat over their heads - most recently both the Royals and the Chiefs attempted to do it to Kansas City, including the absurd demand of a roof over Arrowhead Stadium. That ballot measure failed, but not without predictions of doom from many within the Royals organization - and promises of a Super Bowl in Kansas City if only Arrowhead had a roof.

The point is, that the implied threat of unnamed cities taking the CWS away from Omaha is imaginary - a way for the NCAA to get improvements from the city without giving much back in return. And while renovating Rosenblatt is worthwhile, both to make sure that the existing fanbase is happy, and that the NCAA never has any reason to move it from Omaha, building an entirely new stadium to answer to this imaginary threat is an overreaction at best. It’s throwing away millions of dollars worth of investment in Rosenblatt, destroying a local (and national) institution, devastating the local economy, and very likely putting a significant burden on the taxpayers for such an endeavour.

I’m a huge supporter of Mike Fahey, and he’s done a great deal to help this city grow over the last six years. But in this respect, I worry that he’s overreacting, and I suspect the backlash to any such move (which, presumably, would have to be approved by the taxpayers), would be significant.

In the meantime, let’s enjoy another summer at beautiful Rosenblatt Stadium.

Congratulations to Our Graduates

Posted: May 4th, 2007, 4:52pm CDT by dave

Former UNO Dems Presidents Chad Brakhahn, Ryan Renner, and Cody Farrens, and UNO Dems member Megan Ring have all graduated from the University of Nebraska-Omaha today. These four have given so much of their time and effort to this group. It’s not going to be quite the same without them. Just remember, in the fall, you’re always welcome on the alumni couch (that couch might get a little crowded, soon). Until then, we’ll see you at Clancy’s!

Hagel: Things Just Keep Getting More Bizarre

Posted: May 4th, 2007, 4:38pm CDT by dave

I’ll never have much of a career as a prognosticator. I think I’ve gotten three predictions right in the last several years, including Barack Obama’s entry into the Presidential race, and Jon Bruning’s preemptive challenge of Hagel.

But Chuck Hagel puts a whole new level of strangeness into the discussion. At this point, there’s no telling what’s going through his mind. Which is why this article from Bloomberg News is so bizarre:

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said he would consider entering the 2008 presidential campaign as an independent. An independent bid “is possible,” Hagel, 60, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” scheduled to air today. “I don’t ever foreclose any options.” He will decide in the next few months whether to run for a third Senate term, pursue the presidency or leave politics altogether, he said.

I ran through all of the reasons why I think Chuck Hagel’s running for reelection last week. While I’m not quite ready to back off that prediction (Mitch McConnell showing up at a fundraiser for Hagel is a huge red flag for me), there are a number of things that popped up recently that fly directly in its face:

The above interview with Hagel, where he directly states he would consider an independent bid for President.
A high-profile meeting with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, often mentioned as a potential independent candidate for President.
Increased rumors that Bob Kerrey is interested in running for Senate.
Tony Raimondo’s sudden interest in running for Senate. (Leavenworth Street seems to think that he might run as a Democrat. To which I say: we don’t want him.)

What does it all mean? At this point, I have no idea. I’ve given up on trying to predict what Hagel’s going to do. This is going to be a fun race to watch, no matter what happens. And it is, without a doubt, the single most important race in Nebraska in 2008. We need to be ready for it.

Bruning Unloads Attacks On Hagel (R-Virginia)

Posted: May 3rd, 2007, 5:32pm CDT by dave

Just in case you worried that I wasn’t going to have anything to talk about this summer…

LJS:

Attorney General Jon Bruning said Thursday he’ll not be deterred from a 2008 Senate bid by the fundraising power of Sen. Chuck Hagel or the “strong-arm tactics” employed by his political operatives. “I’m as close as I can get to running without making the final decision,” Bruning said in a Lincoln interview. “And I’m getting closer every day.”
\’); aCampaigns = new Array(); aCampaigns[477] = 100; aAds = new Array(); nAdsysTime = new Date().getTime()/1000; if ((nAdsysTime >= 1149224400) && (nAdsysTime = 1166508000) && (nAdsysTime = 1166508000) && (nAdsysTime = 1169445600) && (nAdsysTime = 1175144400) && (nAdsysTime = 1177304400) && (nAdsysTime = 1177650000) && (nAdsysTime Hagel, he said, is out of touch with the views of most Nebraskans on critical issues like the war in Iraq and immigration reform. But, he suggested, that may be because the senator has “lived in Virginia his entire adult life except for a couple of years” when he worked in Omaha. “When he’s done with politics,” Bruning said, “Hagel will live in Virginia. “When I’m done, I’ll live in Nebraska and be putting around on some golf course in Lincoln wearing a goofy hat,” the attorney general said.

It’s hard not to find this entertaining. Mostly because, in between the lies, distortions, and outright personal attacks, there’s a nugget of truth here and there. Chuck Hagel has lived in Virginia while serving in the Senate, he rarely steps foot in Nebraska anymore. It doesn’t make any of his other charges stick, (Hagel may be out of touch with Nebraskans, just not when it comes to Iraq), but it’s great to see the Republicans use the same lines on Hagel.

Bruning’s basically accusing Hagel of strongarming Republican donors and attempting to scare him out of the race. Well, what the hell did you expect, Jon? Surely, you anticipated this. The good news for you today is that the Nebraska Democratic Party’s polling basically confirms the results of your poll - Hagel’s incredibly vulnerable. The bad news: so are you. And the further you run to the right, you risk alienating the rest of Nebraskans who are just plain fed up with the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq.

So, bring it on, Jon. We’ll be waiting for you. I relish the opportunity to kick your ass.

NE-Sen: A Majority Of Nebraskans Want Out Of Iraq…

Posted: May 3rd, 2007, 11:12am CDT by dave

The Nebraska Democratic Party released polling information today that shows Senator Chuck Hagel in an extremely vulnerable position among the Nebraska electorate. Take a moment to read over the numbers:

According to the findings of the recent statewide survey of Nebraska, Hagel is on a dangerous terrain, particularly if he is to face Bruning in a Republican primary. Today, Hagel earns a net negative job performance score statewide with 42 percent of voters saying he is doing an excellent-to-good job, while a majority, 50 percent, says fair-to-poor. Hagel’s job performance is most negative with his Republican base, while it is net positive among Democrats and solidly mixed among independents. Among conservative Republicans, Hagel’s professional marks have crumbled, with almost two-thirds, 61 percent, saying he is doing a fair-to-poor job as Senator.

Those are eye-opening numbers, and suddenly seem to confirm Bruning’s polling from a week ago. However, these numbers also suggest that it’s not the war that’s driving the disapproval of Hagel. And, in what I believe to be the most significant finding of the poll, a majority of Nebraskans now favor a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Among those Nebraskans surveyed, 51 percent favor a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, while only 37 percent believe we need to give the President’s troop surge plan a chance to work. We believe those margins will continue to widen as the President’s policy plays out in the next several months.

NE-Sen: The Most Bizarre News Yet…

Posted: May 2nd, 2007, 10:18pm CDT by dave

I’m not really sure what to make of this news, anymore. Perhaps it should teach me that we can’t really predict what Hagel’s going to do, and that even though he’s giving every indication right now that he will be running for reelection, that might not actually be the case.

Behlen Manufacturing chairman and prominent Republican donor Tony Raimondo is considering a run for Senate:

The list of Nebraska Republicans interested in running for the U.S. Senate grew Wednesday as Columbus businessman Tony Raimondo confirmed that he is testing the political waters. He said he would “probably not” run if incumbent Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel decides to seek a third term, saying he respects the senator’s voting record on business. “I’m thinking about putting an exploratory group together. I am in no hurry at the present time, but I’m starting to talk to people right now,” Raimondo said in a telephone interview.

Still wondering what it all means, of course. But I think it speaks a lot to the level of confusion this Senate race is presenting in the Republican Party right now. And I’m not exactly sure what to think of the “probably not” comment.

If Hagel wants to make me look like a jackass and announce his retirement tomorrow, he’s more than welcome to. In the meantime, I’m operating under the assumption that he’s running.

Election Day

Posted: May 1st, 2007, 3:50pm CDT by dave

If you’re in Lincoln, don’t forget to vote today. This is the most important election in Nebraska this year. After his impressive showing in the primary, Beutler is the odds-on favorite to prevail and become the next mayor of the city of Lincoln. Time to close the deal. Polls close at 8 P.M. We’ll try to keep you posted on the results here. For more detail on the Lincoln elections, see the New Nebraska Network.

Election results here.

FINAL RESULTS:

          LINCOLN CITY MAYOR
          VOTE FOR  1
           Ken Svoboda.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    23,958   48.88
           Chris Beutler .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    24,803   50.60
           James Bryan Wilson  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        12     .02
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       240     .48

Mission Accomplished

Posted: May 1st, 2007, 12:08pm CDT by dave

May 1, 2003 will forever go down in history as one of the most craven moments of political theater in American history, a horrendously detached and cynically staged event that showed little concern for reality. In other words, the events aboard the U.S.S Abraham Lincoln that day pretty much encapsulate the Bush administration as a whole. Without regard for what the word actually meant, George W. Bush that day declared victory. Now, four years later, after 3,211 have died since the “end of major combat operations in Iraq,” Bush and his lemmings in the Republican Party attempt to lecture the American people about the costs of failure. The people who have been wrong about everything now make predictions about the disaster that has already occurred in Iraq.

Something to keep in mind as the Democrats send the Iraq War bill to President Bush’s desk today, specifically timed for his veto on May 1, 2007. Four years to the day after he played dress-up and pretended the war was over.

Now, the doomsday scenarios are of a failed state, a haven for terrorists, where they can easily stage attacks on Americans. A civil war with massive deaths between the warring factions of Sunni and Shia. A loss of American prestige at home and abroad. I’ve got news for you: those things have already happened.

The Iraqi state has failed. There’s no denying that at this point. It cannot exist without the backing of the United States military. Because of this, it’s seen as a puppet regime, illegitimate and carrying out the United States’ interests. This is the major reason why, although a vast majority of Iraqis want the United States out of Iraq, the Iraqi government insists on our presence there. If we leave, the government will fall. If we stay, the government will be seen as completely illegitimate. No one can look at the news each day and conclude that Iraq has not become a haven for terrorists. That’s what happens when you create a power vacuum and disenfranchise half of the population. You can’t change that now. The only thing you can do is get your people out of there so they don’t get killed.

Which brings me to the most absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous bullshit line that the right wing has spread about this war the last couple of years. I’m sure you know the one I’m talking about: We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Or any similar line of reason. My favorite has to be the absolutely childish: If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home. Evidently, al-Qaeda has a navy I was not aware of, or an army of amphibious soldiers who can swim across the Atlantic.

The point should be painfully obvious to anyone with half an ounce of reason in their body: they already know where we are! It’s not as if our war in Iraq is somehow deterring them from coming over here, it’s just providing them with an easy target to kill Americans, every day. Consider the tragedy that happened at Virginia Tech two weeks ago. Now consider that on that Monday, over 150 people died in a series of attacks in Iraq. As sad as it is to say, 33 dead is a good day in Baghdad. And our soldiers are in the middle of it.

As the last six years have so tragically demonstrated, this administration has not the slightest CLUE how to run an effective intelligence organization. From ignoring the warning signs of 9/11, to falsifying intelligence about Iraq, to ignoring accurate intelligence that conflicted with their own view of reality, the Bush administration has caused decades worth of damage to our national image. And now we are supposed to trust their view, which says a military solution to an endless war against an unclear enemy is not only the only option, but refusing to go along with that option will result in catastrophic failure. The only catastrophic failure in this conversation is the administration’s Iraq policy. If that was your goal, Mr. President, to create a colossal fuck-up that makes Vietnam look well-reasoned by comparison, well - Mission Accomplished.

Update: by john. Mission Accomplished By The Numbers, via ThinkProgress.

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

Feeds

U. of Nebraska - Omaha College Democrats Blog (27 unread)