Betting on the Wrong Horse to Beat the Old Gray Nag

Just to be clear:

When I capitalize “TEA” Party, I understand the term to be an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. I capitalize “Party” becuase it represents a collection of nebulous groups that, more or less, fall under a particular set of principles.

If you can not back up you accusations do not make them.

I have not made any explicit accusation. I have stated that this candidate is tainted. That is all I am allowed to state at this time.

Saying he is taited without backing it up is crap I expect from dems are yopu a dem either put up or shut up.

Saying he is tainted without backing it up is crap I expect from dems are you a dem either put up or shut up.

Sorry, TCH, but I have to agree with Ratman83. You post slamming a candidate with nothing but innuendo. We'll have to "trust" you ?

Your approach makes that very difficult if not impossible.

My “approach” is first that the TEA Party Express had no business riding roughshod over every grassroots tea-party group in Nebraska—and there are at least 30 of them—to “endorse” a candidate without discussing the plan with us. We know Jon Bruning, we have met with him ... and he is no prize. He smacks of insincerity—it drips off of him.

Second; There are manifold major issues (each define a man’s character) on which Jon Bruning has flip-flopped (similar to Mitt Romney) in a span of two decades: abortion, gun-control, Hillary Clinton (he thinks her an “amazing woman”) homosexual leaders in the Boy Scouts, affirmative action, etc. Now perhaps you might argue that Bruning “got conservative” with age and family responsibilities, but I would reply that he “got conservative” because it was politically expedient in Nebraska to do so—in much the same way a convict “gets religion.” The point is that, on serious moral and ethical issues, people of principle usually form their opinions and hold fast—if they are sincere. I will tell you that my gut reaction to John Bruning, upon our initial meeting and extensive questioning, was that he is as phony as a three dollar bill. I trust my gut, and my gut tells me this guy is bad news for honest principled conservatives.

Third: Bruning is fond of earmarks, and he recently accepted $500,000 worth. http://www.newnebraska.net/diary/2798/jon-bruning-puts-political-ambitions-before-nebraskas-children He told our group that he was for government subsidization of ethanol (six to eight times that of oil) and crop subsidies, and that he will never work to repeal them... Despite the fact that America is on the fast track to bankruptcy.

Fourth: The resignation of his finance chairman, David Sokol, whom Bruning defended to the hilt, and who is currently under investigation for fraud: http://nebraska.watchdog.org/tag/jon-bruning/

So right out of the gate Jon Bruning is in trouble. I will tell you, if you have never conversed with the man, that his arrogance is insufferable, and his ego will keep him in trouble. He is a bad choice for Nebraska’s Senate seat. Ben Nelson and his cohorts ase going to have a field day with him.

Now. in regards to Bruning’s private life...

Whether you or I think it wise to raise the issue, or the extent to which I should disclose whatever information I possess is not the point. There is a potential problem...

I do not have access to the details—and even if I did, I would not disclose them; but there are people in the inner circles of Nebraska state government who “talk”—and they do not do so “out of school,” as it were. I am able to state that I trust one of them because he is a sincere Bruning supporter, and he is very well connected. He has sworn that Bruning is going to get clobbered in the general because of “personal issues.” And these “concerns” were further corroborated and expounded upon by others far removed from this gentleman. So I am raising the red flag, because I believe it prudent to do so, considering the importance of this election.

My contacts tell me that Bruuning is “dead meat” in the general election—that the Democrats have “the goods” on him, and that they are waiting until after the primary to reveal the details. Keep in mind that Nebraska is a conservative state. The story is that Bruning suffers from a personal flaw that seems to dog many political animals in the GOP, as of late. I am sure you can figure out my drift.

Whether this story is true, or an exaggeration, or patently false, I do not know with 100 percent certainty—and that is why I will not reveal the details or the source.

However, it is well enough to note that PERCEPTION is as important as reality in any political contest—and Jon Bruning is a BIG risk in that area. For that reason alone, I believe the issue is worth posting. Or would you prefer to take the “risk,” get broadsided in the last stretch, and end up with six more years of Ben Nelson? You decide.