Fact is, he can’t run on the issues, because no one would vote for him. We already have a conservative Senator with “Nebraska Values.” As it is, Pete Ricketts looks like a complete phony to most of the state. I would not be at all surprised to see David Kramer win the nomination.

To Brett, I say give the voters a break. Here, the problem isn’t with them - it’s with the candidate.

Then only after Tom Osborne began running ads about how we need to cut taxes by making an effective decrease on state spending, did his commercials primarily focus on how he wanted to do the same thing, as well as did every other candidate who’s put out a commercial, i swear it’s like everyone’s copying osborne, he’s the man to beat.

Aside from all that, i don’t care if you knew him or not, I think he’ll swing whatever way he needs to, to win; and, i’m pretty sure that means that he’d do anything he needed to, to advance his career: I’m pretty damned sure that if someone like that is running for office, whether you’re democrat or not, one should try and do something to keep them from being elected.

And the issues! That’s exactly my problem with him. Why is he so intent on preventing gay marriage? Has anyone noticed that we queers CAN’T GET MARRIED ANYWAY? Any further ‘protection of family values’ is basically just a slap in the face. Besides, the real threat isn’t gays, it’s all the priests, ministers, and conservative politicians who have coke problems, extra-marital affairs, pedophilia problems, etc.

here on this blog we get into policy debates quite often. the thing is, most of us UNO Dems know where we stand on policy issues. Min Wage = good thing. Prolife/Choice - we all know who is what or which people have carefully crafted “middle” positions.

But we never get talking about how unreal, hypocritical, and downright foolish many republicans, and a few democrats, are. This post is quite a nice piece of political reporting by our Mr. Renner. He showed that Pete Rickets was deliberatley lying about his roots, in multiple ways, in one of the first chances he was able to have with Nebraska’s voters (or rather gave himself with a check). Only a very bad person, or a very sloppy politician, or both perhaps, would think nebraskans are dumb enough to fall for lies in the very first commericials.

In so far as this sets the tone for the rest of the election, I think ‘ole pete should be ashamed of himself, and there’s no chance I’ll think about voting for him unlless he comes out and says “yes I lied in my commercial, I deliberatley misstated the facts to make myself look better”

Do you know what a “Ponzi Scheme’ is? Look, morally and ethically Social Security, the Great Society, and all the rest of them are the right thing to do. I openly admit. However, the looming retirement crisis is (largely) the result of 1) eevelopemtns in medicine, such as heart surgeries, advanced medications and MRi’s which are expensive, and subsequently 2) people living longer. Again, Social Security is a good thing, and our society should support it. But remember, when FDR created the program, average life expencancy was arount 62-65 years, coincidentally, the age when seniors were to begin receiving their benefits. I know that there are many other factors involved, and we could spend weeks talking about it. And that is exactly what you should be doing: Researching and debating facts, policies, even opinions if you can document them with even some data.

And John,

If Ben Nelson is re-elected with a Republican house and senate, he will continue to vote with the Republicans on many issues. I don’t know this, of course, but if he is re-elected with a Democratic house and senate, his votes will suddenly change. What does that tell you about his character? I would like to see a listing of all the times he has parted ways with the Young Dems, and voted republican. Then, tell us why you support Nelson, instead of trying to rally support for a Democrat who will stand up for what you believe? Yes, in politics you sometimes have to hold your nose and vote anyway. But if your group is truly above the fray and beyond reproach, then again, post Ben nelson’s voting record, and explain to your readers why they need to support him? Go beyond the labels and stereotypes. You will probably still oppose Rickets, and that is fine. But get past the “who grew up where” and “who lokks like a —”, and do some actual research.

http://www.johnsonsbaby.com/products/shampoo/baby-shampoo

One last thought. While you are pondering the reluctance of ‘rich” Republicans to pay taxes, ask yourself this question: When tax time comes around, does Teddy Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, et. al. simply take out their checkbooks and cough up, or do they have small armies of tax attorneys and accountants to make sure they max out every deduction possible? Gee, let me think……..

Am I saying that we should not pay taxes? Of course not. But one of these days, you kids will enter the real world (even Tyler…by the way, Tyler, you are better off drunk). When you do, you will see the difference between compassion and reality. It is rather unpleasant. As much as we (in the middle class) would love to be “liberal”, we have obligations like work, children, a mortgage, bills, and yes, our taxes. Most of us cannot afford to itemize our taxes (Tyler notwithstanding). Hence, we are looking for ways to make our tax dollars go farther. You don’t through a child out onto the streets and say “pull yourself up by your bootstraps!” That is ignorance fostered by a radio entertainer. But at the same time, we cannot say to that child’s parents, “Hey, do whatever you want, because no matter how selfish and irresponsible you are, the tax revenues from the middle class will take care of it”. Tough medicine. BTW. If any of you young Democrats are single parents going to school, my hat is off to you. I know how hard you are working, and yes, as you are working to improve your life and that of your child(ren), I don’t mind seeing my tax dollars go to help programs that support you and your endeavors. I wish you well.

I will never stop being a liberal, because I don’t buy into the lies - universal healthcare and better financial aid for our schools will go much further than a miniscule tax cut that does nothing more than placate voters in an election year.

I will NEVER stop being a compassionate liberal, no matter how much money I make.

And yes, you have a point. Liberalism has always been better for the working class, the middle-class, the lower-class, oh, and also the disenfranchised of all classes (these days african-americans, latinos, the french?, and also GLBT Americans)… which makes liberalism in the best interest of about 90% of America. But, as we’re starting to see with people like Buffet and Gates, even the rich are starting to see that a just and free america, even at the expense of some of their taxes, is in their best interest. An america where talent rises above (like gates or buffet), an america- a Great Society, fostered by liberal policies, is in the best interest of American.

Remember, being compassionate doesn’t make you a liberal, nor does it make you a Democrat. Radio talk show hosts, and a few actual politicians aside, conservatives are every bit as compasionate as liberals. We don’t want people to suffer. We want to help. The questions are, what is the best way to help, and how can we make sure that the money is going to those in need and not being wasted? You see, once we get past the name-calling and accusations (I am compassionate, hence you are not; liberal=good, conservative=bad), we see that we really are not too far apart. And yes, I will concede that the stupid name-calling is a two-way street, and I am also guilty as charged at times. But the bottom line is this: If two people want to help the needy, but they dissagree on HOW to do it, does it necessarily follow that one person is good and the other is bad?

Social Security was mentioned several posts back, but I guarantee that not ONE of you ‘liberal’ students knows the first thing about the system, beyond the ‘fact’ (so called) that the Republicans would ‘loot’ it.

Permit me to enlighten you just a little bit on that important part of American life.

When Social Security was first set up, the legislation directed the Treasury Dept. to set up two special accounts. The first was to contain only enough money to pay out the following year’s projected benefits, and would receive on deposit all contributions to the system. At the end of each fiscal year, any monies in that account over what was needed for the following year’s pay-outs was to be moved to the second account. The money in that account was to be invested in interest bearing instruments (city and state loans ie. ‘municipal bonds’). That continued to be the standard method for decades, and the Social Security system had a huge surplus which would have kept it solvent without a single problem.

The politicians in Washington D.C. saw that huge surplus and decided they had to spend it, so they rewrote the laws to allow them to do so. The Social Security Reform Act allowed the Congress to put all Social Security monies into the ‘general’ fund. They replaced the interest bearing instruments with interest INCURRING instruments, which is why we have the problem we have now. Unless something is done, Social Security will be completely insolvent long before any of you have a chance to draw upon the money you will have put into the system.

Who were the scoundrels and rogues who plundered the Social Security system?

The President who signed the legislation was Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat from Texas. The Congress which passed the legislation was controlled with a Veto-proof majority by the Democratic Party.

But, it’s the Republicans who will destroy Social Security???????????

Yes, this race has become too negative, but that’s been a one-sided development courtesy of the Ricketts campaign. And, I expect they will continue with their pathetic attacks because their boy’s got nothing else to run on.

Where’s Mama Ricketts when we need her? The poor lady still has to tell Pete when to wear a stocking cap. It’s pretty clear he also needs his mother to scold him for playing dirty and tell him to run a more honorable and honest campaign that isn’t going to shame the entire family.

She should probably remind Pete not to swim for at least 15 minutes after eating just to be on the safe side.

This isn’t really local, but attack ads are coming hard and fast in the CT Democratic Senate Primary. Lieberman’s opponent Ned Lamont fired off a clever attack ad - on himself: “Ned Lamont Has a Messy Desk”

There is nothing compassionate about stealing from one group and giving to another. ChrisA sounds like he’s reading from the Howard Dean school of wackoism. The minimum wage gives opportunity to unskilled workers who otherwise would be unemployable. As an employer of upstarts, your “compassion” would render about a third of my staff unemployable. Not because I’m not compassionate, but because an unskilled worker is only worth so much to a business. A person I hired 5 years ago at 25c above minimum wage has been running one of my locations for 3 years and being paid well above the “poverty” level. If you looked beyond the wackos you apparently listen to, you’d realize virtually no breadwinners are minimum wage earners and over 80% of minimum wage earners are students. The minimum wage represents an opportunity for an unskilled worker to learn skills and work their way up. It’s also a way for unskilled workers to learn to advance by seeing people who have advanced rather than holding their hand out to their parents or the taxpayer. (I paid my way through college working upstart jobs without borrowing a dime from anybody. It can be done.) Or listening to the epitomy of “those who can, do….those who can’t, teach” college economics professors.

About 80 percent of you liberals will change colors as soon as you become taxpayers in earnest. It’s very disheartening to see how dumbed down the education system has become.

- A minimum wage is a moral imperative. Every argument against it assumes the best in employers and illogical assumptions about workers. No worker would ever choose to work for less than the minimum wage, so the argument that they have the “right” to work for as little as they choose is simply false. The minimum wage protects employees from abuses by employers. Frankly, expecting anyone to live off of $5.15 an hour is just wrong.

- Tell me what, exactly, about my taxpayer status will change these things:

* I believe a $40 a year tax cut is less important than national healthcare, better education, and many other things that benefit all of society.
* I believe that equal rights are for everyone.
* I believe that war should not be waged for profit, that it should only be used to protect the nation.

I resent the implication that I am somehow dumber or less realistic than you because I am young and a liberal. That the cold, hard, reality of the real world will smack me into believing tax cuts are good, the environment is bad, gays don’t deserve equal rights, unbridled capitalism is good for all Americans, and anyone who opposes any war is a traitor. I’m not a child of privilege, though I know as an American I have it better than a lot of people. But my opinions are not to be taken lightly just because I am young. I know what I believe.

Again, research who the minimum wage earner is. A moral imperative? If it’s a moral imperative, what should it be?
Most people can’t live on $10 per hour. Should we raise it to $20-30-40?? I’m not criticizing your opinions because you’re young. I’m criticizing them because you’re wrong. Nobody expects someone to “live off” minimum wage. Costs on everything will go up proportionately with a minimum wage increase. Thus the increase would cancel itself out while making more upstarts unemployable. A liberal’s assumption that corporations are inherently abusive reeks of ignorance….and way too many leftist college professors.

Better education? Are you for vouchers or privitizing, or both? Why do parochial schools give three times the education for a third the money? I just watched the closest thing that our local high school has to a validictorian (because our brilliant school board decided that having only one validictorian made things too competitive) unable to read his own speach…..helluva of a football player, though. Problem with “education” right now is that there’s way, way, way too much money thrown at it with way, way, too little accountability.

Who is profiting from the war? How many more attacks have there been on our shore? You’re profiting because your country is safer.

Who isn’t for equal rights for everyone?

What the college professor who is unemployable in the real world doesn’t tell you is that tax cuts raise more tax revenue. If your difference from the tax cuts were only $40, you aren’t paying any taxes to begin with. When you get into the real world and you’re paying 4-5 figures in income tax…..only to do your return and realize you owe half that much more…..and your property tax goes up 15% just because….you’re probably going to second-guess your opinions a little.

Again, research who the minimum wage earner is. A moral imperative? If it’s a moral imperative, what should it be?
Most people can’t live on $10 per hour. You’re wrong. $10 an hour for one person is above the federal poverty line of a family of four of 20,000. It’s not a great wage, but it’s not bad, either. Inflation occurs whether or not wages are $5.15 or the proposed raise of $7.25. What sectors would be affected by that raise? Mostly food service industries, fast food, grocery stores, as you said, unskilled labor. But what happens if we don’t raise the minimum wage? What if, ten years from now, the minimum wage is still $5.15 an hour, and those jobs still pay at or near that level? The purchasing power of that wage will have decreased even more dramatically in the next ten years. In the last ten years, the minimum wage has dropped more than a dollar in terms of real money.

Better education? Are you for vouchers or privitizing, or both? Why do parochial schools give three times the education for a third the money? Not all private schools are created equal. The best have strict admissions standards and most offer little to no financial aid. The cost of sending a student to Creighton Prep is almost $5,000 to the parents of the student. I did attend Prep, and it cost my parents more to send me there than it will for all of my college education. That cost, however, is not the whole story. Schools like Creighton Prep receive millions in donations that allow them to reduce the cost of tuition. Not all private schools are as good as Creighton Prep, though. Many, many public schools provide an educational experience far better than most private schools offer. My opinions on many of these subjects were not shaped by liberal college professors, but rather thought-provoking discussion at a Jesuit high school.

Vouchers would only increase the cost of public education for most Americans, while only a small number would benefit from private education. Privatization would leave a huge number of Americans without any education whatsoever. There would be no tax savings from eliminating the Department of Education, because the federal government is already operating at a deficit. No private industry could undertake the task of educating tens of millions of young people every year, which is why the government must.

Who is profiting from the war? How many more attacks have there been on our shore? You’re profiting because your country is safer.
This is a logical fallacy and you know it. Just because there have not been any attacks on American soil since the war in Iraq began does not mean we are safer, or that the war in Iraq is the reason that we are “safer.” In fact, over 2,500 Americans are dead because of a war that has no just cause, no purpose, other than remaining in the country for the oil. Iraq presented no imminent threat to the United States. The reports from weapons inspectors in 2004 confirmed that there were not any WMDs in Iraq. Iraq had no connection with the 9/11 attacks. This was a war with no reason. It was a mistake.

Who isn’t for equal rights for everyone? Republicans? Let’s give a few examples, shall we? Republicans just a couple weeks ago blocked passage of a renewal of the Voting Rights Act. They routinely have tried to write discrimination against gay people into the United States Constitution.

The $40/yr figure I quoted was from the Nebraska tax cuts, for an average family in Nebraska making roughly $50,000 a year. Now, you want to fucking tell me a “real world” family makes a hell of a lot more than that, then your condescending ass just fucking told half of all Americans that they don’t live in the “real world.” I spent the first half of my comment being nice about my disagreement with you, but you know what? I’ve had enough. Don’t call me ignorant because I’m young or liberal. Because every time you do, it is only your ignorance that shows.

You have been fooled….Pete Ricketts shared his bedroom with his siblings through high school. His father, who built Ameritrade from nothing, made his money after Pete was out of college.

Republicans don’t need a divided America. In the first mid-term election of the Bush 43 presidency, gains were made in the House and Senate, going against historical trends and what the media wanted.

Why? Because the post-911 unity was still strong nationwide.

DJ

Like most of your friends, you are slow on the draw. Early this morning the House passed a minimum wage increase.

Additionally, it was the party of Lincoln, known mostly as the Yankee Republicans, who fought the Civil War over slavery. It was the Democrats who wanted to continue slavery.

Get it straight, sir.

DJ

Secondly, last time I checked, it was 2006. If you want me to start listing Democrats who were racists and assholes, and Republicans I respect, I will. But none of the Republicans I respect would look at todays Republican Party and say: “There is the party of Abraham Lincoln,” and none of the Democrats who were racists would look at the Democratic Party, which has a large minority constituency, and think it’s the same Democratic Party which fought to keep slavery. I can respect the accomplishments of people like Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower towards equal rights, and independent Nebraskans like George Norris, but they are long gone, and the Republican Party that exists today cares for none of those things. If your simple mind believes that I am defending all Democrats, you are wrong. But there are people in the Democratic Party who believe in what’s right. They are a dying breed in the Republican Party.

Does the name George Wallace ring a bell? How about Strom Thurmond, who really turned more towards a pro-civil rights stance when he switched parties.

Nice try, but your Dem plan of spreading fear and hate doesn’t work. Bill Clinton said “Republicans need a divided America”, but that is incorrect….Dems need it because Dems thrive on hatred, class warfare, and fear.