Posted on 09/29/2011 3:04:05 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Now, though, there are signs that Bruning’s coronation is on hold — big time.
Nebraska political observers cite an abrasive personal style that has rubbed many Republicans the wrong way, and Bruning has suffered from a series of unhelpful headlines and gaffes on the campaign trail.
Bruning has compared welfare recipients to scavenging raccoons, been criticized for buying property with business executives whose case he intervened in as attorney general, and stood by embattled former Warren Buffett heir apparent David Sokol, even as Sokol resigned from his job earlier this year amid a scandal involving his personal investments.
“It’s been a wake-up call,” said a Nebraska Republican strategist who is neutral in the primary, where Bruning faces state Sen. Deb Fischer and state Treasurer Don Stenberg. “This kind of early attention and early missteps — it’s not necessarily the Nebraska way. That raccoon comment was more of a frat boy comment than a statesman attitude.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Are you from Nebraska?
Yes, I am from Nebraska. Don Stenberg also has Mark Levin’s nod (as well as the Tea Parties)
Stenberg was both state attorney general and is the state treasurer; it was no problem to vote for him in both cases. Much better conservative choice bad hair ben.
How did in-state college tuition get approved in Nebraska? I know that there are a lot of illegals in working for the meat packing companies but are there that many college aged illegals sufficient to gain political support for in-state tuition?
I had a great conversation with Pat Flynn at an Omaha TEA Party rally. So far, he has my vote.
I suppose the next thing the WaPo will say is that he called someone “macaca.”
A random guy with a disabled website, nice.
Sounds like no one is happy with Bruning. Stenberg though has lost 3 times, once to Nelson in 2000 and twice in the primary to douchebag RINO Chuck Hagel in 1996 and again to lousy candidate Pete Ricketts in 2006. He should have smoked Hagel and Ricketts and at least narrowly beaten Nelson, who had also had his ass kicked by Hagel.
We gotta square this away the time for having rat Senators sit in these GOP seats is over. Harry Reid's buttboy Ben Nelson needs to be eliminated.
If Nebraska had a runoff, I’d be inclined to support Flynn in the first primary. But since that isn’t the case, I think that Don Stenberg is the most viable alternative.
State Senator Deb Fischer is also running.
What’s the 411 on her?
I don’t know anything about her.
A "random guy"? Not too sure what to think of that comment....
Anyway, it's too bad, because he's a good conservative that can't, and will not get any traction.
I did go to his website and saw it was disabled. Don't know what that's all about.
Have you spoken with him?
I don’t know anything about Deb Fischer. I know Mark Levin and the Tea Party is backing Don Stenberg. I will soon be doing a lot of homework on each of these people & many others. I don’t take anyone’s word, I look myself.
Don’t know anything about her. I know the name but from my point of view the state senators tend to be a bit plain label and quiet, with a few exceptions. They all seem to want to promote the non-partisan, unicameral, everyone gets along image.
I hadn’t heard of him before. It’s interesting he got 20%+ against Johanns but it was just the 2 of them, obviously some conservatives weren’t thrilled with Johanns so it makes sense a primary challenger would get a noticeable chunk of the vote.
By random guy I mean he’s just an ordinary guy with an ordinary job.
Many people may see that as a big plus but candidates like that actually winning high office are the exception. He’d do well to wet his feet in a lower office that is much easier to win.
I’d be surprised if he was viable in this primary and question whether he could go toe to toe with the slick liar Nelson, if I’m wrong we’ll see.
As for the Nebraska Senate, unicameral is fine with me but I can’t stand that it’s “non-partisan”. That only enables the (minority) democrats that serve in the chamber.
Not only do I believe that a non-partisan state legislature is un-American and a denial of the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly (under what authority can the State of Nebraska deny a group of citizens who form a political party from running candidates under such banner, or deny a group of legislators elected to implement a certain agenda from caucusing as a party?), I also believe that it is a great threat to liberty to concentrate all of a state’s legislative power in a single body. While bicameralism alone does not guarantee that one man or one group will not exert undue control over our political system, or that corruption does not cast aside the consent of the governed, the fact that laws have to clear not one but two legislative branches make such chicanery far less likely. Bicameralism is an intra-branch protection against tyranny, almost as important as the inter-branch protection that we get from the Separation of Powers (which are really blended powers). The Nebraska experiment should be abolished, not considered for adoption by other states.
I don't agree with a nonpartisan legislature (besides, since the two-party system still exists in Nebraska, you essentially end up with party members getting elected covertly, and that makes it easier for the RATs to win in a GOP heavy state since their party affiliation is not easy to discover). But I wouldn't go so far as to say non-partisan legislatures are "un-American". George Washington was a huge proponent of nonpartisan elections, he didn't want candidates for the U.S. House or Senate to run under party labels. Of course I don't believe the founding fathers were infallible but the freepers that do would probably claim partisan elections are "un-American". lol. Or least they'd say that about the two-party system that developed.
Also, when it comes to judicial elections, the vast majority of states with elected judges use "nonpartisan" elections (of course, in reality we all know the judges are either Republicans or Democrats). An example being a hard fought Supreme Court election in Wisconsin a couple years back when the one "nonpartisan" candidate was endorsed by the NRA, Chamber of Commerce, federalist society, National Taxpayers Union, etc., whereas the other "non-partisan" candidate was endorsed by the Sierra Club, NEA, AFL-CIO, etc. Wasn't too hard to figure out which was the Republican and which was the RAT. Illinois is one of only 7 states where the judges are elected thru partisan elections and run as Republicans or Dems on the ballot (in crook county, this usually means we have about 37 RAT judges run opposed, and then 1 contested GOP vs. RAT election where the RAT wins anyway).
In any case, a Nebraska voter who wants to know which candidates support the GOP and which support the RATs can find out that information if make a real effort to research the candidates. Although the candidates don't run under party labels you can figure out which party they identify with by looking into their voting record and who's endorsing them. For practical purposes, the breakdown of the Nebraska legislature is available on the internet. Unofficially, here's the numbers:
Republicans 34
DemonRats 15
Total 49 (17-seat GOP majority)
1 Lavon Heidemann Elk Creek (GOP)
2 Dave Pankonin Louisville (GOP)
3 Scott Price Bellevue (GOP)
4 Pete Pirsch Omaha (GOP)
5 Heath Mello Omaha (DEM)
6 John E. Nelson Omaha (GOP)
7 Jeremy Nordquist Omaha (DEM)
8 Burke Harr Omaha (DEM)
9 Gwen Howard Omaha (DEM)
10 Bob Krist Omaha (GOP)
11 Brenda Council Omaha (DEM)
12 Steve Lathrop Omaha (DEM)
13 Tanya Cook Omaha (DEM)
14 Jim Smith Papillion (GOP)
15 Charlie Janssen Fremont (GOP)
16 Lydia Brasch Bancroft (GOP)
17 Dave Bloomfield Hoskins (GOP)
18 Scott Lautenbaugh Omaha (GOP)
19 Mike Flood* Norfolk (GOP)
20 Brad Ashford Omaha (GOP)
21 Ken Haar Malcolm (DEM)
22 Paul Schumacher Columbus (GOP)
23 Chris Langemeier Schuyler (GOP)
24 Greg L. Adams York (GOP)
25 Kathy Campbell Lincoln (GOP)
26 Amanda McGill Lincoln (DEM)
27 Colby Coash Lincoln (GOP)
28 Bill Avery Lincoln (DEM)
29 Tony Fulton Lincoln (GOP)
30 Norm Wallman Cortland (DEM)
31 Rich Pahls Omaha (GOP)
32 Russ Karpisek Wilber (DEM)
33 Dennis Utter Hastings (GOP)
34 Annette M. Dubas Fullerton (DEM)
35 Mike Gloor Grand Island (GOP)
36 John Wightman Lexington (GOP)
37 Galen Hadley Kearney (GOP)
38 Tom Carlson Holdrege (GOP)
39 Beau McCoy Omaha (GOP)
40 Tyson Larson O'Neill (GOP)
41 Kate Sullivan Cedar Rapids (DEM)
42 Tom Hansen North Platte (GOP)
43 Deb Fischer Valentine (GOP)
44 Mark R. Christensen Imperial (GOP)
45 Abbie Cornett Bellevue (GOP)
46 Danielle Nantkes Lincoln (DEM)
47 Ken Schilz Ogallala (GOP)
48 John N. Harms Scottsbluff (GOP)
49 LeRoy J. Louden Ellsworth (GOP)
>> I also believe that it is a great threat to liberty to concentrate all of a state’s legislative power in a single body. While bicameralism alone does not guarantee that one man or one group will not exert undue control over our political system, or that corruption does not cast aside the consent of the governed, the fact that laws have to clear not one but two legislative branches make such chicanery far less likely. Bicameralism is an intra-branch protection against tyranny, almost as important as the inter-branch protection that we get from the Separation of Powers (which are really blended powers). The Nebraska experiment should be abolished, not considered for adoption by other states. <<
I have mixed feelings about unicameral legislatures. It's used in virtually all city governments and used by some smaller nations like NZ and it seems to work well. But Nebraska is the only state government that uses it. I think it can work in some smaller, more rural areas. Even in a heavily populated state like Illinois, I can't see it doing any more damage, ever since the RATs redrew the lines so they control BOTH houses and there is no check-and-balence system, Chicago RATs run BOTH houses. If state legislatures were drawn like the federal legislature (and I think they SHOULD be), where the lower house represents population interest and the upper house represents geographic interests, I would be against merging the Houses. But when BOTH house are controlled by population, it seems redundant to have two of them. As I noted, both the Illinois House AND Illinois Senate are controlled by Chicago machine crooks since they outvote the rest of the state.
On the other hand, there are many states where the House and Senate have very different types of constituencies and have a completely different agenda. I would be against any type of merger proposal in those states. Furthermore, you make a good point about how a bicameral system allows the legislative process to take longer and forcing two different bodies to agree on a single piece of legislature prevents them from ramming things through because the one house has some chicanery going on behind the scenes.
I think unicamerialism an interesting experiment, but I wouldn't want to become the rule instead of the exception. In most places it probably wouldn't work, but I think in some parts of America it could save a great deal of time and money (not to mention reduce the number of paid professional politicians leaching off the taxpayers)
About a decade ago when I had a freshmen level political science class, I actually came up with one of the most unorthodox proposals... I drafted a constitution that would set up a TRI-camerial government (yes, 3 legislative bodies). 1) House of Senators, 2) House of Representatives, 3) House of Commons. The third house was essentially like jury duty and would allow ordinary citizens without money or clout to serve in government for 1 year and review legislation (just like jury duty, people unfit for government wouldn't make it pass the initial screening). It would be the weakest house and would basically be limited to reviewing and amending legislation passed by the other two houses, rather than creating their own bills. But it's really the only way I think of where "ordinary" people could directly influence government policies. If such a system was in place, I think Obamacare and other such odious proposals that are overwhelming opposed by the public could have been killed by the third house
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.