Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been the state's premiere source of progressive online political commentary and community-building.
Please support our efforts by becoming engaged, spreading the word, and contributing what you can towards our continued growth as a voice for change in Nebraska politics.
Yesterday, Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin announced her resignation from public office under speculation that she's either about to be indicted on corruption charges, committing herself absurdly early to a 2012 presidential bid, or just cashing in on her fame in hopes of becoming the right-wing equivalent to Oprah Winfrey.
No matter her reasoning, Palin is abandoning the people of Alaska and forsaking the public's trust. As much as any of the ignorance, shallowness, and narcissism she revealed on the 2008 campaign trail, this demonstrates once and for all just how truly unfit she was to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world. It is embarrassing that she was nominated and just plain frightening that she came as close to being elected as she did. We should all have nightmares about how that election would have played out had it not been for the virtual collapse of the U.S. economy that made the call for fundamental change one of simple survival for our country.
Of course, for that statement, our local Republican leaders denounced Hagel and jumped to Palin's defense. In fact, they were little more than cheerleaders for Palin throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign. Now that we've seen just how unfit for office Palin truly was, let's take a little closer look at those elected officials and party leaders who rallied in support of Palin and vouched for her as our Vice President.
"I was so thrilled by her selection," said Hal Daub, chairman of John McCain's Nebraska presidential campaign. "I had been walking around with my fingers crossed. Her choice united the party. It brings the conservatives home".....
Daub gives McCain high grades for "his first executive decision" as the presidential nominee. Palin has had executive experience in public life for 13 years, he said, and brings demonstrated conservative credentials to the race.
"And she happens to be a woman," he said. "He picked well. I think it's terrific and quite historic.
Adrian Smith at the GOP Convention (LJS, 09/03/2009):
Rep. Adrian Smith, the only member of Nebraska's congressional delegation who is attending the convention, said Palin "brings a new dynamic" to the campaign.
"She can identify with common, everyday Americans," he said.
Dave Heineman at the GOP Convention (OWH online, 09/03/2009):
Nebraska's governor gave full-throttled support today for Sarah Palin, John McCain's vice presidential pick.
Gov. Dave Heineman said he has met Palin and found her to be energetic, articulate and smart. He also called her tough, noting that she faced competition in the primary during her successful bid for governor in 2006.
Heineman scoffed at the notion she didn't have the experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. He said he found it interesting that one member of the national news media noted incredulously that Palin had never even been on the powerful Sunday morning show "Meet the Press."
"If that isn't an elitist attitude, I don't know what is," Heineman said.
Mark Fahleson at the GOP Convention (OWH, 09/03/2008):
"The base is very energized by her selection. I've had more people ask me to get a McCain-Palin bumper sticker. Not a McCain bumper sticker," said Mark Fahleson, a Nebraska delegate from Lincoln and a spokesman for the state GOP.
Chuck Sigerson at the GOP Convention (OWH, 09/03/2008)
"Republicans understand that Sarah doesn't have the know-how that McCain has or (Joe) Biden has. But she's not running for president. She's running for vice president, and she'll learn when she gets there," said delegate Chuck Sigerson, an Omaha city councilman.
Mark Quandahl Defending Palin, Attack Hagel (OWH, 09/19/2008):
The anger felt by many Nebraska Republicans toward Sen. Chuck Hagel rose to new heights Thursday after Hagel questioned whether Sarah Palin has the experience to serve as president.
State Republicans are "worn out" with Hagel and his propensity for controversial comments aimed at fellow Republicans, said Mark Quandahl, chairman of the Nebraska GOP.
Quandahl went out of his way to distance the state party from Hagel's remarks about Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee. Quandahl said few Nebraskans would agree with Hagel, the Nebraska party's senior elected official.
Dave Heineman Defending Palin, Attacking Hagel (OWH, 09/19/2008):
Gov. Dave Heineman said "most Republicans are not happy" with Hagel right now.
Heineman said Hagel's comments about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience could be said about many governors who became president, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
"They all came to the presidency with little foreign policy experience and did quite well," said Heineman, who won a crucial endorsement from Hagel in the 2006 governor's primary....
When asked if Hagel would be welcomed at any Republican event in Nebraska in support of a GOP candidate, Heineman replied: "I don't know how to answer that for sure. Nebraskans are polite and respectful people, but I would say right now they disagree with Senator Hagel."
Lee Terry Defending Palin, Attacking Hagel (OWH, 09/19/2008):
"It's amazing to me that people are comparing the resumes of a vice president nominee to a president nominee," said U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb. "Under that comparison, I think both resumes of Senator Obama and Governor Palin are admittedly thin, but I think they're both very comparable."
Adrian Smith Defending Palin, Attacking Hagel (OWH, 09/19/2008):
U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., took exception to Hagel's comments that Palin has traveled little outside the United States. Smith also jabbed at Hagel's frequent appearances on Sunday morning television talk shows.....
"Governor Palin's long record of public service demonstrates there is more to experience than how many times someone has simply traveled abroad or been on television," Smith said. "She doesn't just talk about reform. She accomplishes it."
"Critics can say what they wish, but I join many Americans in enthusiastically supporting her and Senator McCain," Smith added.
Lee Terry at Palin Rally (OWH, 10/05/2008):
Terry called Gov. Palin a "straight up person," and said she is the key to energy independence, because she advocates drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, something Sen. John McCain opposes.
"Sarah Palin is the one that understands that and is gonna drive it home in the administration and set us free. We can use our own resources to do it," Terry said.
Jeff Fortenberry at Palin Rally (OWH, 10/05/2008):
U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Lincoln is speaking. About Palin: "I'd never heard of her ... now all of America knows about her."
Said Palin is a hit among his five daughters. "One of my little girls said, 'Is Piper going to be there?'"
He said Palin has a heart in public service starting with the PTA. He said the PTA is the toughest level in politics.
The PTA is the toughest level in politics? "She'll learn when she gets there"? Questioning Palin means critics have "an elitist attitude"? That's how low these elected leaders had to stoop making the argument that Palin was qualified to be our country's Vice President.
For that, they should be embarrassed. They should be ashamed. And, yes, they owe the people of Nebraska an apology for engaging in such deception. We deserved better than Sarah Palin and deserve better than this current crop of hard-core Republican partisans who will always put politics before people and their own careers before the future of our country.
On the eve of our nation's Independence Day, it appears Sen. Mike Johanns and his staff aren't very interested in respecting the people of Nebraska's freedom of speech - especially if what they have to say is that they support health care reform that puts the interests of the American people before the insurance industry's profits.
One day before we celebrate the birth of our nation, Nebraskans gathered at a scheduled healthcare roundtable to call on Senator Johanns to support an American solution to our healthcare crisis. Instead of greeting the teachers from NSEA, veterans, and SEIU workers Senator Johanns' staff called the police, ordering the Nebraskans to leave the Medical Center grounds.
"Johanns' voters-- teachers, members of the armed forces, and SEIU members-- set up a table with apple pie and signs welcoming the Senator and urging him to support a uniquely American solution to healthcare reform," explained Jane Kleeb, SEIU State Director. "Instead of coming by and saying hello, the Senator walked right by us as we were surrounded by police, and the Senator said 'good luck with that.'"
SEIU received advanced permission from the Nebraska Medical Center to greet the Senator as he started his day of roundtables on healthcare reform. Instead of greeting the healthcare reform advocates at the table, the Senator's staff called the police.
Just as our founders realized the time for hard decisions was upon them, SEIU and our partners know we can not afford to wait any longer to reform our broken healthcare system....The future of our nation depends on the solutions being debated in DC. It is not a time to slowdown, it is a time to act.
Johanns is in today's Lincoln Journal-Star issuing another of his endless calls for delaying health care reform. He also puts his support behind a plan rooted in government hand-outs to private insurance companies. That's literally throwing money at the problem - offering no real reform and definitely no solutions to the health care crisis that has plagued our country for so many years.
The fundamental right to quality, affordable care can no longer be a dream deferred. On this Independence Day, let us all celebrate our freedom to be heard while continuing the fight for every Americans' freedom from the fear that comes with being one trip to the emergency room away from financial ruin.
Johanns may be able to hide behind the police to get to a meeting. But, he can't hide from the American people and their call for true health care reform. We have waited too long. Our time is now, and we will not be silenced or defeated.
Sen. Ben Nelson Is Primary Target Of Campaign To Kill The Employee Free Choice Act
As Al Franken prepares to assume his place as the 60th Democratic U.S. Senator in a theoretically filibuster-proof majority, it appears desperation is starting to take hold amongst corporate special interests fearful of efforts to create a fairer playing field for employees that actually respects their right to organize in the workplace.
I've been quite forthcoming about my qualms with some of the particulars of the Employee Free Choice Act as it was introduced earlier this year in Congress. But, there's no doubt that reform is necessary, and I've been confident all along that a compromise could be reached that would make for a stronger and more balanced piece of legislation.
Well, it now seems action on such a compromise is precisely what we can expect from Congress when it comes back into session after the July 4th recess. This has put big business on high alert, and they're certain to make every effort in the coming weeks to kill this legislation. It doesn't matter to them how much the legislation might have been improved. If it's going to do anything at all to create a fairer workplace where employees have an actual voice, they will work to kill it at any cost.
And, guess what, the first wave of their last stand to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act is starting tomorrow, right here in Nebraska, making our business-friendly Democratic Senator Ben Nelson their #1 target. The following press release was issued earlier today:
Today, the Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC) opened a new front in the campaign to stop the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), by releasing TV ads in Nebraska urging Democratic Senator Ben Nelson not to compromise on EFCA....
This new ad campaign comes as Democratic leaders are poised to send a compromise bill to Congress. The compromise is widely expected to amend EFCA's card check and binding arbitration provisions. Regardless of the particulars of the compromise, this bill will still be a tremendous blow to workers' rights.
"The ad campaign is designed to urge Nebraskans to tell Ben Nelson to oppose closing debate on the Employee 'Forced' Choice Act," said Rick Berman, Executive Director of EFAC. "This bill will take control out of the hands of employees in the workplace and allow outside parties to have tremendous control over private businesses through binding arbitration."
The television ads are scheduled to begin airing tomorrow across the state.
According to the Employee Freedom Action Assassination Committee (two can play that game), the EFCA will somehow be a blow to worker's rights by making sure they have a voice in the workplace. At the same time, they warn that "outside parties" are going to take all this supposed control away from employees that that they've never had and never will so long as the balance of power remains weighted so heavily in favor of the corporations.
As for the ads running in Nebraska, they can be seen here and here. The first relies on a cartoonish portayal of labor union thugs making ridiculous demands and showing no concern at all for the employees they represent. The second ad - made by a Washington D.C. special interest group - brags up the fact that Nebraskans have such weak organized labor because "we" are just too smart for that nonsense.
Both ads are highly offensive to every Nebraskan who is represented by a Union and make a mockery of the many victories won by workers over the last century only because a Union was fighting on their behalf.
This campaign is supposed to move beyond Nebraska next week. But, these corporate special interest's initial focus on Nebraska reveals that they're putting a lot of eggs in one basket looking to Nelson as that one vote they definitely need to break ranks with his Democratic colleagues, to flip-flop from his cloture vote in the last Congress, and to turn his back on the American worker at this time of economic crisis.
Now, personally, I respect that Nelson has so far held off on committing one way or another on the Employee Free Choice Act. He's recognized it was legislation that needed improving. But, unlike those who've just wanted any expansion of workers' rights killed on the spot, Nelson has also recognized that a need for reform exists and that this legislation can be improved.
In March, the Omaha World-Herald reported:
Nelson said Thursday that he would not vote for the legislation in its current form because he has concerns about eliminating the secret-ballot requirement and the length of time before mandatory arbitration comes into play. Nelson said he is reserving judgment, however, on whether he would support a cloture motion to give the bill an up-or-down vote. He said his decision will be based on whether the bill goes through the proper procedures and whether opponents are given time to offer their own arguments and amendments.....
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other opponents of the bill identify the cloture vote as the key vote on the legislation, putting senators such as Nelson on the spot. Nelson responded by saying that those same groups are fine with his tendency to support cloture motions when it serves their interests. He said he's trying to be consistent.
As the details of the EFCA compromise emerge, let's hope that Nelson's concerns have been addressed and that he will see that workers can't wait any longer to have their voices heard. Most importantly, though, we have to trust Nelson to stay consistent on cloture and stand up against the corporate special interests who are spending so much money to pressure him on this issue.
They're coming after Nelson because he's kept an open mind and actually listens to Nebraska voters. But, he shouldn't listen to anti-Union garbage. Instead, it's time for Nelson to assert once and for all that he won't play games with the Employee Free Choice Act and will allow it the up-or-down vote it deserves in the U.S. Senate.
Last month, I embarked on an ambitious project counting down the top 10 defining votes of the Nebraska Legislature's 2009 session. After perhaps delving a little too deeply in the first four articles in that series, I quickly exhausted myself and escaped back into the easier and more comfortable terrain of following the latest political headlines. Almost a month later, I regret that choice because our state is literally starving for independent, in-depth coverage of our Unicameral - especially from a progressive viewpoint.
Well, here I am committing myself once again to completing this project. I hope readers will understand if the remaining entries in the countdown don't go quite so in-depth as those that preceded them. Ideally, those votes deemed the most defining should receive the most coverage, but such demands on my time and concentration would almost certainly guarantee that I never complete the series or that I reach the top of the list just in time for the 2010 session to begin. Rather than dragging things out like that, let's just see if we can get this thing over while the stories behind the 2009 session are still somewhat fresh in our minds.
In case you needed a bit of a refresher, here's where we'd left things on the countdown:
The crisis at Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services continues after yesterday's announcement that Gov. Dave Heineman has appointed Kerry Winterer as its new Chief Executive Officer. This is an unfortunate choice because Heineman has again chosen politics over people and cronyism before competence.
Christine Peterson announced her resignation from this position in early December. This was just one week before the release of the scathing report from the special legislative committee investigating the neglect and abuse at the Beatrice State Development Center and the system-wide breakdown at DHHS. That report expressed the commmittee's vote of no confidence in Peterson and other DHHS leaders.
At the time, I wrote:
There's nothing at all to indicate that Heineman is serious about DHHS reform. For him, this is nothing more than a game of damage control for his political career. Heineman's highest priority has nothing to do with abandoned children or the inhumane treatment of the mentally ill - but rather finding a replacement at the top of DHHS who'll be a little more adept at sweeping these problems under the rug until well after his 2010 reelection campaign.
Well, in appointing Kerry Winterer as the new CEO of DHHS, Heineman has definitely found his man for continuing a legacy of band aid solutions and remaining dominated by political motivations.
The new appointee has held chairmanships in the county and state Republican Party. From 1997 to 2001 he served as chairman of the Douglas County Republican Party, and from 2001 to 2004 he was Second District chairman in the state Republican party. In 2004-05 he was a Republican National Committeeman.
Winterer was also talked about as a potential Republican U.S. Senate nominee in 2006, before running for and losing an open seat in the Nebraska Legislature that same year.
It isn't Winterer's political involvement that calls his true committment into question. Rather, it's the relish he'd shown in those positions playing the Republican Party's political hatchet-man. Probably the best example of this was his leading the partisan attack on Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson in August of 2005 when the state paid $145 million to settle its long-standing dispute with the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission.
Making the ridiculous demand that Nelson should pay back that $145 million to the state and promising a statewide petition campaign to that effect, Winterer was quoted by the Omaha World-Herald stating at a press conference:
"Ben Nelson is guilty of a blatant disregard of a federal contract that has not only cost Nebraska $145 million but has also sullied the good reputation of the State of Nebraska."
Of course, Nelson won in 2006 by a landslide, so only Winterer's reputation was sullied by such a ridiculous statement. Still, after his failure as a legislative candidate, Heineman rewarded Winterer for his work as the GOP's failed political hatchet man by appointing him to fill a vacancy on the state Board of Education in 2007.
Winterer might have some very fine qualities, but it is hard to imagine how he could be the most qualified person Heineman could find in the fields of both education and in Health and Human Services. Especially when the situation at DHHS cries out for reform and is in such deserate need for professional competence, it's telling that Heineman would instead look to a longtime political loyalist to head the largest state agency with an annual budget of $2.9 billion and 5,500 full-time employees.
We've seen it all before. Nothing has changed, and Heineman's made sure that nothing will change. Winterer's guiding principle will be covering for the Governor, shielding him from controversy, and protecting his bid for re-election. He is Heineman's CEO - not the CEO for those Nebraskans who are so desperate for a DHHS that will live up to its commitments and assist those in crisis.
I can't believe I'm writing about anything so idiotic as 2nd District Congressman Lee Terry's shouting profanity at a Washington D.C. motorist who'd questioned his decision to jaywalk ("Can't you read the sign?"). But, the plot has thickened, and we now have a great controversy over what really happened.
On Saturday, Eric posted the link to the initial CQ Politics report on Terry's unbecoming and embarrassing blow-up. Terry responded with the following defense of his actions in today's Omaha World-Herald:
Terry confirmed the incident to The World-Herald, but with a couple of caveats. First, he said he wasn't jaywalking - he was in the crosswalk with 10 seconds left on the light. Second, Terry said the driver yelled profanities at him first.
"I just was walking by and all of a sudden this guy starts yelling at us and cussing at us, and so I just turned around and gave him it back for a second, turned around and left and that was it," Terry said.
Terry said that he normally would not have responded to "some weird guy yelling at people" but that it had been an intense, frustrating week. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been engaged in lengthy and contentious debates as they wrestle with matters such as health care and climate change....
"In retrospect, I would have just kept ignoring him," he said.
Imagine that - Terry says he did nothing wrong. In fact, he's the victim. After all, "some weird guy" just started yelling at him while he crossed the street. In that situation, anyones natural reaction would be to shout "Fuck you" back at the driver, right? Of course, Terry for some reason left out the part about his holding the hand of that elderly blind woman he was protecting from oncoming traffic. Even then, the only reason Terry succumbed to this momentary flash of perfectly understandable anger was because he was so frustrated with how things were going in Congress.
In other words, you guessed it, the Democrats made him do it!
Yes, Terry certainly is a shining example of personal accountability on this one. And, just in case you're having a hard time buying Terry's version of events, CQ Politics has already responded and isn't backing down:
We stand by our account, but can't swear that the driver didn't swear at any point.
Was Lee Terry really jaywalking? CQ Politics says he was. If the driver had been shouting obscenities at Terry, what exactly was the meaning of that haunting question of "really?" when Terry blew up at him with the F-bomb? Are the reporters at CQ Politics simply out to destroy Lee Terry?
Something doesn't add up here, folks. Alas, we might never know what really happened on that fateful and mysterious day. At the same time, we're left with that most pressing question of all - just who will Lee Terry take his anger out on next time if those damn Democrats keep pissing him off?
In February, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ran an ad reminding 2nd Congressional District voters that Rep. Lee Terry had supported the massive bail-out of Wall Street but was abandoning America's middle-class. After hitting him for not "Putting Families First", the DCCC is now back in Nebraska in time for Independence Day to ask why Lee Terry has abandoned his commitment to America's troops just because there's a new president in the White House.
Terry is one of seven Republican Congressmen targeted in this campaign. At question is his June 16th vote against a Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, this bill was largely decided on party lines and Republican Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith both joined Terry in opposition. The difference is that Terry represents a district that is home to a lot of military families who should rightfully expect more than these sorts of political games from their Congressional representative.
Needless to say, Terry also represents a very competitive district that is being targeted heavily by Democrats in 2010. It certainly can't hurt that State Sen. Tom White, the top Democratic recruit to hopefully challenge Terry, has built a very strong record standing up for Nebraska's men and women in uniform in just three years in the Legislature. You can already see a powerful message taking shape that veterans and their families could count on Tom White's support no matter who's in the White House, which is more than they can expect from Lee Terry.
It's worth noting that Republicans in the House objected to the supplemental because of its including a provision for an expanded line of credit to the International Monetary Fund. Although these loaded votes were a common practice when Republicans controlled Congress, it's not fair to use them as they once did to question Terry's patriotism. However, in this instance, the funding for our troops was actually put in jeopardy by a push encouraging more liberal members of Congress who oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to join the Republicans in their opposition. That made for a closer vote in which Terry's vote took on added consequence.
Most importantly, this ad also raises a legitimate question about Terry's priorities, as illustrated by Republican Senator Mike Johanns' coming to a different conclusion and voting in support of the same measure. Johanns stated in a press release:
Senator Mike Johanns today voted to extend funding for American service members. The Supplemental Appropriations bill provides $105.9 billion, mostly for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September of this year. Although he opposes funding for the International Monetary Fund included in the bill, Senator Johanns believes that funding for our troops is too important to be held up.
"Our servicemen and women put their lives on the line every day to defend our country," Johanns said. "Adequate funding is critical for them to carry out their mission and keep us safe. The defense of our country and our values will always be one of my top priorities."
Johanns believed that the funding for our troops was too important to be held up. Lee Terry believed otherwise and helped put that funding in jeopardy. Let the voters of the 2nd Congressional District take from that what they will as we look forward to the 2010 election.
Yesterday's vote in the U.S. House passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act was a crucial step forward for our country in terms of energy, environmental, and economic policy. Unfortunately, our own Congressmen Lee Terry, Adrian Smith, and Jeff Fortenberry all voted against this legislation and its cap and trade program that would create a market for trading pollution credits and investing in pollution offsets beyond progressively tighter caps on carbon emissions faced by those slower to adopt cleaner fuels and new technologies.
"This is a bad investment," said Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb. Businesses will be allowed to continue emitting greenhouse gases but will be required to purchase allowances from the government, an arrangement Terry described as extortion. "Tony Soprano would be proud," Terry said....
Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said the bill would mean billions for Wall Street at the expense of electric utility ratepayers. "It creates intentionally an increased cost of electricity and energy in general that I don't think our economy can afford," Smith said.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., said the "cap-and-trade" system may have theoretical merit, but there are concerns about its practical application. "I fear the bill may not effectively reduce emissions and could significantly weaken our nation's manufacturing and agricultural sectors," he said.
To his credit, Fortenberry at least acknowledges the "theoretical merit" of this legislation. However, his fear that it won't "effectively reduce emissions" doesn't carry a whole lot of weight when the alternatives put forward by his Republican peers do nothing at all to reduce those same emissions. This is a classic case of a politician paying lip service to a problem when he lacks the courage and conviction to take any action towards a real solution.
For too long, corporations, utilities, and consumers have been able to get by on the cheap without considering the impact of their choices on the environment and on our children's futures. Under cap and trade, our conscience as a nation will finally have a voice in the marketplace, speaking the only language that's understood - simple dollars and cents.
Terry and Smith echo the usual Republican talking points by renaming the policy "cap and tax" and the "national energy tax." This sort of simple-minded fear-mongering is to be expected. No doubt, the burden of added costs does ultimately rest on the backs of the American people. But, so too does all of the benefit as the government adds disincentives with actual teeth for those who stand in the way of progress and who hold too tightly to a status quo in which we'd continue on the path to our planet's ruin.
In 2020, every Nebraska household is looking at added energy costs of $179 a year if the current cap and trade proposal were signed into law. That's no pittance, but I trust that our children would see it as a very small price to pay for a cleaner and more sustainable future.
As for Terry's suggestion that cap and trade is somehow a government-run extortion befitting of the Mafia, this silly and childish exaggeration may pay-off in contributions from powerful energy corporations but it's an insult to the voters he represents. Terry certainly isn't helped by the fact that the "all-of-the-above" approach he supports amounts to little more than a return to the failed energy policies of the Bush Administration.
Probably most sad is the fact that both Terry and Smith continue to buy into the false promise of more drilling in Alaska. Frankly, neither Terry nor Smith can be taken seriously in addressing the challenges presented by climate change - a problem both men have reluctantly acknowledged - so long as they persist in their stupid and dangerous "drill, baby, drill"-mentality.
After so many years of inaction, our country's road to energy independence can no longer be divorced from our environmental concerns. Terry and Smith embrace one interest at obvious expense to the other - to our peril and, quite possibly, to our children's doom.
Of course, the overriding justification for this short-sighted thinking is Terry and Smith's supposed concern for the U.S. economy - as opposed to serving the selfish interests of the energy industry at a time of record-breaking profits. On this point, I think I'll let President Barack Obama do the talking:
Well said, Mr. President. After Nebraska's Representatives failed this test in the House, the debate now moves to the U.S. Senate, where no immediate action is expected. Let us hope Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns will actually rise to the challenges we face and not fail us in a similar fashion.
With Republican Senator Mike Johanns working to stall health care legislation and certain to stand in the way of any real reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has just issued a very timely report that shows why the people of Nebraska will no longer accept the same excuses and endless delays that Johanns and his Republican cohorts have hidden behind for the last 15 years:
THE HEALTH CARE STATUS QUO:
Why Nebraska Needs Health Reform....
Congress and the President are working to enact health care reform legislation that protects what works about health care and fixes what is broken. Nebraskans know that inaction is not an option. Sky-rocketing health care costs are hurting families, forcing businesses to cut or drop health benefits, and straining state budgets. Millions are paying more for less. Families and businesses in Nebraska deserve better.
NEBRASKANS CAN'T AFFORD THE STATUS QUO
Roughly 1.1 million people in Nebraska get health insurance on the job, where family premiums average $12,469, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.
Since 2000 alone, average family premiums have increased by 84 percent in Nebraska.
Household budgets are strained by high costs: 30 percent of middle-income Nebraska families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care.
High costs block access to care: 10 percent of people in Nebraska report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.
Nebraska businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $1000 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.
AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE IS INCREASINGLY OUT OF REACH IN NEBRASKA
13 percent of people in Nebraska are uninsured, and 76 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.
The percent of Nebraskans with employer coverage is declining: 63 percent were covered in 2007.
Much of the decline is among workers in small businesses. While small businesses make up 78 percent of Nebraska businesses, only 27 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006 -- down 8 percent since 2000.
Choice of health insurance is limited in Nebraska. Blue Cross Blue Shield NE alone constitutes 44 percent of the health insurance market share in Nebraska, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 69 percent.
Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Nebraska, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can even be denied completely....
The need for reform in Nebraska and across the country is clear. Nebraska families simply can't afford the status quo and deserve better. President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass health reform this year that reduces costs for families, businesses and government; protects people's choice of doctors, hospitals and health plans; and assures affordable, quality health care for all Americans.
The time is now for health care reform. No delay. No excuses. The people of Nebraska have had enough!
I am a Nebraska Catholic, and - since reading the following story in the Lincoln Journal-Star - I have been ashamed of our local religious leaders for their betrayal of everything that is good and right in the Church's teachings:
The debate over sexual orientation and religious conviction has spilled over into state rules for licensed psychologists.
Psychologists should be able to refuse to treat - and refuse to refer clients - because of religious or moral convictions, Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, said during a licensing rules hearing Thursday. The conference also supports a similar "convictions of conscience" rule for licensed counselors, social workers and marriage and family therapists.
Without any conscience clause, Catholic Charities in Omaha and Catholic Social Services in Lincoln might have to stop hiring licensed counselors and psychologists, Cunningham said. The Lincoln agency provides about $100,000 in free mental health services, he said Thursday.
While most ethics codes for professional counselors and psychologists allow professionals to refuse to offer services based on ethical or moral convictions, the codes generally require the professional to refer the client. But even referring clients could be a violation of conscience when the service violates moral or religious convictions, Cunningham said.....
Without a moral exemption, a psychologist who believes homosexual relationships are immoral might be required to counsel homosexual couples on building a better relationship, said Edward Stringham, a Lincoln psychologist....
But another Lincoln psychologist said the conviction of conscience language opens a Pandora's box. It could allow any provider to discriminate against virtually anyone -as long as they claim a conflicting moral or religious belief, said James K. Cole, who represented the Nebraska Psychology Association at the hearing.
There have been no known problems nationally or in Nebraska with claims that psychologists are forced to compromise moral or religious values because of the national ethics code requiring them to help refer a client, he said.
I weep for my Church. That is neither metaphor nor hyperbole. A Catholic Church that lobbies and fights for the right to turn its back on those in need is not the Church in which I was raised. Nor is it the Church in which I believe.
What is saddest about this whole situation is that the Nebraska Catholic Conference isn't just some outside group abusing the Church's name to serve a reactionary, right-wing political agenda. This is an actual body within the Church that doesn't adopt any policy or take any position without support from each of Nebraska's three Bishops.
It is morally repugnant to suggest that providing a simple referral to someone in need could ever be a violation of conscience. Those who would claim as much are only proving their own lack of conscience - and shouldn't be practicing their diseased form of mental health care in the first place. That the Nebraska Catholic Conference would even stoop to threatening an end to their services if they don't get their way is just further proof of how deep the rot has taken hold.
You want to know the principles that guide me as a Catholic. Here's some good examples:
Fundamental to Catholic tradition and teaching are a belief in and commitment to the inherent dignity of every human being--the clearest reflection of God among us....
Scripture teaches that God has special concern for the poor and vulnerable....All persons are entitled to participate in society in a manner which acknowledges and respects their dignity as members of the human community.....
Health care is a basic human right which flows form the sanctity of human life. The public-policy process is challenged to ensure that all persons have access to adequate health care.....
Every person has a right not only to life and bodily integrity but also to the means that are necessary and suitable for the proper development of life - among these is the right to necessary health care.
Each of these principles is declared on none other than the Nebraska Catholic Conference's own website. Here, they also declare:
The Nebraska Catholic Conference represents a tradition which opposes oppression, exploitation, discrimination, and disrespect. The Conference is an advocate for social policies and conditions which promote justice and bolster the dignity and value of each person.
What we see in the Nebraska Catholic Conference's call for a "conscience clause" is a clear betrayal of the very tradition they claim to uphold. They are asking for the right to discriminate. They have positioned themselves as advocates for injustice. Their demand alone is disrespectful and degrading to those deemed unfit to serve - casting stones as if they were somehow above sin.
Unfortunately, the Board of Mental Health Practice appears to have buckled to the Nebraka Catholic Conference's demands for a so-called "conscience clause" where counselors are concerned. But, so far, they've at least shown more fortitude against such an unconsciounable rules change for actual psychologists. For their sake, for the sake of those in need of mental health care, and for the sake of our local Catholic Church leaders who have so surely lost their way, let us pray that strength continues.
I've never had a whole lot of interest in the rumors and speculation side of blogging. But, it's looking like we've just officially moved beyond that stage as Democrats search for the strongest possible challenger to endangered 2nd District Republican Congressman Lee Terry.
As Democrats have hoped and as Terry has undoubtedly feared, it looks like Omaha State Senator Tom White is on the verge of announcing his 2010 bid for Congress.
State Sen. Tom White strode Saturday night to the brink of a 2010 bid for Republican Rep. Lee Terry's House seat. White focused on Terry with the intensity of a laser beam during a speech to 350 Democrats, portraying the six-term congressman as a tool of the GOP House leadership.
Terry has "morphed from George Bush's rubberstamp into a proud, card-carrying member of the Party of No," White told the traditional Morrison-Exon Dinner audience....
In a pre-dinner interview, White said he plans to decide next month whether he'll enter metropolitan Omaha's 2nd District House race.
"I'm close to making a decision," he said. "It's fair to say I'm seriously considering entering the race."
Just in case there's any skepticism remaining about White's intentions and his commitment to entering the 2010 race, the following report from Congressional Quarterly appears to answer those questions quite definitively:
Six-term Nebraska Republican Lee Terry appears certain to be targeted by Democratic strategists in his 2010 House race, given his close escape in his 2008 general election rematch with Democrat Jim Esch in the state's 2nd District....
And while two-time challenger Esch, a lawyer and businessman, is unlikely to make a third try for the seat, the sudden burst of partisan competition in the 2nd District appears likely to produce a serious challenge to Terry by Democratic state Sen. Tom White, a member of Nebraska's unique unicameral legislature since 2006....
His supporters describe him as having a lot in common with a House constituency that has many blue-collar Roman Catholics with historic ties to the Democratic Party - but whose social conservatism had turned them into Republican voters in most major contests.
The 52-year-old White is "a pro-life Irish Catholic with a fiscally conservative voting record," according to his spokesman, Ian Russell. Jim Rogers, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said the state party is urging White to run and touts his "record of public service and activism within the community."
White may be "pro-life" and "fiscally conservative", but in three years in the Legislaure he's also been one of the strongest voices demanding corporate accountability, fighting for government transparency, and defending the interests and values of Nebraska's middle class.
Putting that record and those values on the 2010 ballot should give voters a clear choice between more of the same from Lee Terry or finally having some real representation in Washington D.C.
CQ still predicts that Terry has the "early edge" heading into an increasingly likely race agaist White. As a six-term incumbent with almost a year-and-a-half until the 2010 general election, that isn't a very ringing endorsement of Terry's chances.
Make no mistake about it, right now, Lee Terry is on the defensive. The people have lost faith in his ability to lead. And, his party has lost faith in his ability to win. Terry spent months last year begging for national support while his standing with voters was in a virtual free-fall (1, 2). The National Republican Congressional Committee's late infusion of half-a-million dollars attacking Esch was enough to save Terry in 2008, but that's no guarantee he can count on another political bail-out in 2010.
In the last two elections, Jim Esch essentially ran stealth campaigns that exceeded any reasonable expectations for a candidate with so short a resume. Esch's strong performance despite the experience question proved just how hungry 2nd District voters were for a fresh voice and some actual leadership.
Should he run in 2010, Tom White offers all that and more. Except, this isn't going to be an under-the-radar match-up. This is shaping up to be the race to watch in Nebraska politics. In fact, don't be surprised if it even ends up becoming one of the biggest Congressional battlegrounds in the entire country.
Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle only took office ten days ago, but already it's becoming clear that there are forces working to undermine Suttle and to ensure that his tenure is as short and as rocky as possible.
It's not surprising that anonymous bloggers at Leavenworth Street and at the new Suttle Watch should make Suttle a frequent target for their attacks. Their candidate (Hal Daub) lost, and they refuse to come to grips with the institutional forces in the Nebraska Republican Party that traded away their shot at the Mayor's Office to clear an easier path for Mike Johanns' election to the U.S. Senate. Unable to point that frustration where it belongs - generally in the direction of Gov. Dave Heineman - their only alternative is to lash out at Suttle and work to undo the results of an election they lost fair and square. Nevermind that this means working against the interests of the city and hoping that its leadership fails the many challenges now before them.
What's really troubling, though, is the apparent bias of the Omaha World-Herald in choosing to cover Mayor Suttle in much the same light as the Leavenworth's of the world. This follows an election season in which the World-Herald's editorial board couldn't have been much more overt in their favoring of Suttle's Republican opponents.
At the beginning of this month - a week before Suttle even took office - the World-Herald broke the story that the man Suttle intended to appoint as his co-Chief of Staff - one of his closest political advisors, Matt Samp - had been accused in 2001 of engaging in a sexual relationship with a 14 year-old boy. The boy who'd made this allegation tragically committed suicide a week later, and no charges against Samp were ever filed.
I don't make reference to this report as evidence of the World-Herald's bias. This was a story about which people had a right to know, especially with the position of public trust to which Samp was about to be appointed. Furthermore, there is no denying that Suttle's initially dismissive attitude towards these very serious allegations left many people in Omaha with a very poor impression of their Mayor-elect.
Some of this might have been attributable to Suttle's having been out of town and on vacation when asked for his response. But, he still should have promised to investigate the issue further rather than admitting he'd heard previous rumors about Samp but had assumed they were politically-motivated and would take him at his word that they were untrue. While such loyalty might otherwise be a commendable trait, we've seen it just isn't enough where the sexual abuse of children is concerned.
It only took a day after the story broke for Suttle to change course and to announce that he'd rescinded his offer to Samp. Still, the damage had been done and Suttle took some well-deserved lumps over the next few days. It's worth considering whether some measure of homophobia didn't contribute to the story's sensationalism. Suttle's cavalier response was what ultimately made the story, however, and he paid the price for that initial display.
So, what's this about the World-Herald working "to destroy" Jim Suttle? That can be seen in their continued efforts behind-the-scenes to drag this story out and tie it to Suttle at every chance they get. The KMTV Channel 3 News in Omaha reports:
After reporting that Matthew Samp, a former top aide to Suttle, allegedly had sex with a 14-year-old boy several years ago, the Omaha World Herald is now pushing for more information....
[I]n court records filed by the newspaper "questions remain." The paper wants the court to "unseal certain search warrants (apparently filed in 2001) relating to Samp."
According to the World Herald's legal argument the Samp search warrants should be open if for no other reason than the public's "lingering issues" as to what Suttle could have known before he appointed Samp to his administration.
It's not in question that Suttle should have taken whatever rumors and allegations he'd heard about Samp more seriously. But, the World-Herald is now openly engaging in a fishing expedition based on pure conjecture over what Suttle "could have known" about a supposed crime for which there has been no conviction.
From here, that sounds like they're exploiting tragic circumstances about which the truth will likely never be known to fuel a prolonged attack on Suttle for an unfortunate instance of poor judgment and all-too-commmon political arrogance.
You can also see the World-Herald's biased approach to Suttle in last week's front-page story about the city's lease for Suttle's new hybrid SUV. The Lincoln Journal-Star's Don Walton addressed the World-Herald's anti-Suttle sensationalism in his Monday column:
A decision by Omaha's wounded new mayor, Jim Suttle, to spend an additional $2,157 over a year's time for a leased vehicle is splashed on Page One up the road.
Impact on Omaha taxpayers: Somewhere between negligible and none.
Later, the lease is renegotiated, reducing the cost increase to $185 a year. Now, [the impact is] none.
Walton is too much of a gentleman to really take the World-Herald to task for its ridiculous overhyping of an additional $2,000 for a much more fuel-efficient vehicle. Even on the slowest of news days, this story would hardly have deserved being buried in the Midlands section. Making it a front-page story was laughable, and the resulting renegotiation of the lease offered the World-Herald no vindication. It just illustrated how petty they're really planning to be in their scrutiny of the city's new mayor.
But, Suttle should be catching onto this by now. There's a double-standard at work that we would all expect from a partisan blog but that we definitely shouldn't tolerate from our state's largest newspaper.
