2761 items (2761 unread) in 11 feeds
Political
(751 unread)
Personal
(744 unread)
Misc
(132 unread)
Media
(556 unread)
Photos
(110 unread)
Sports
(468 unread)
This Memorial Day weekend, take some time to remember those who have given their lives in service to this country.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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?)
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.
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.