Governorship is Osborne's for the Taking

It was only a matter of time before Tom came out and announced his intentions to run for Governor. Now that he is a formal candidate there is really no one to stand in his way. Dave Heineman thinks he can some how run against Osborne and be successful. Not likely. Actually, not even close. In early polls taken by the Omaha World-Herald if the election was held today Osborne would beat Heineman out by a nearly 3 to 1 margin. These numbers are not likely to change. Osborne won the 3rd District seat as Congressman with over 80% of the vote.

Heineman is kidding himself if he thinks he can be successful. He thinks he has the edge because he is governor and the "people can see what he's done." There is only one problem with that. He wasn't elected to this positition. He wasn't even elected to Lieutenant Governor. Heineman's main political career has only been a succession of appointments. The "people" have never really put him into an office. I don't see why they would put him back into his appointed office in 2006, especially if Tom Osborne is the other choice.

Osborne announcing his plans:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/04/30/top_story/doc4273da7deedea256791758.txt

Heineman's reaction:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/05/01/top_story/doc4275316b0cd71556699448.txt

Hagel endorsing Heineman?

In the early race for Governor, the new incumbent Dave Heineman became the first major player to openly declare his candidacy for the 2006 election. While the timing of this is not necessarily unusual, Senator Chuck Hagel's almost immediate endorsement of Heineman is. The playing field for the Governor's race has just opened up and Hagel has already decided what bench he'll be rooting for. He is clearly aware of the other possible candidates, namely Tom Osborne. There are one of two conclusions to draw from this. The first is that Hagel does not feel confident that Osborne would make a good Governor or the second is that he knows or thinks that Tom is not going to run. Either way, Heineman should count his lucky stars that he got such an early endorsement because if Osborne does decide to run, Heineman will need all the support he can get.

For more info:
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/13/425d3e675186c

Why Should Fortenberry Care About Terri Schiavo?

The Terri Schiavo case has been a tragedy for the past 15 years. Ever since she came into this vegatative state it has been tragic. It has only recently gotten much worse because of the national media and the U.S. Congress. I will be the first one to say that it's awful that Terri has to starve to death. It's a horrible way to die and it truly is sad. If I was in Michael Schiavo's position I would not want my wife to starve to death no matter what condition she was in. He supposedly had a conversation with her in which she said that she would want to die if she was ever in this situation. Who knows if that ever actually happenned. But, the point is that he is her legal authority. As tragic as this is, that should have been the end of this entire situation.

However, because of the ridiculous amount of media coverage the congress has taken upon itself to pass a bill specifically written for her. Never in our history has this happenned, and it shouldn't happen. Congress should not be meeting and passing legislation for individuals. It is not their role as a national legislative body to do so. It is a private family matter that has exploded only in the past months. People like Terri die every year from starvation. It's only because of the media that congress met to pass legislation just for her. Is congress going to intervene in every single case in which a person in Terri's situation might die? I would hope not. Even Nebraska's own Jeff Fortenberry showed up to vote for this bill. What does a congressman from Nebraska have anything to do with a brain dead woman in Florida? He was elected by Nebraskans not Flordians. The Schiavo case should be handled on a state, local, and family level. It's shameful that congressman like Fortenberry feel the need to intervene in another state's affairs.

Congress Involving Itself in the Schiavo Case:
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=74274

ANWR, Arctic Drilling Illustrate Nelson's Unwillingness to Take a Position

Thankfully the senate voted to include exploratory drilling in Alaska for the budget resolution. Most experts agree that there is enough oil in Alaska to supply America for many years to come helping us to get off the foreign dependancy crutch. Many also agree that this drilling can be done with very minimal consequences to wildlife. It's high time we open up this frontier for the good of America. The majority of people in Alaska in this area want this drilling to take place. The only thing holding us back is senate democrats and environmentalists dragging their feet.

I was dissappointed to see that Ben Nelson voted against this. I was even more dissappointed to see his reasoning. Senator Nelson, we're begging you, take a solid position on something for once PLEASE. You're reason for voting against this is "the Senate shouldn't include a controversial issue like that in the budget"? Senator, nearly everything in politics is controversial. Nelson, I love you and I voted for you in 2000, but come on, stand up for what you believe in. At least Hagel isn't afraid of that, and look how popular he is in the state? You were great on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'll probably vote for you again in 2006, but you need to make some decisions on where you stand besides "In the Middle". Anyway, despite Nelson's no vote for the arctic drilling hopefully this oil exploration can go forward and we can begin to curb the ridiculous rising gas prices.

Hagel and Nelson split on Alaska:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/03/16/nebraska/doc4238dee013200881224576.txt

Nelson straddling the fence:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1360274

Ted Turner Buying up Nebraska - Not Necessarily Bad

It was just announced that media mogul and founder of the Cable News Network (CNN) Ted Turner bought nearly 60,000 acres of Nebraska's sandhills. Turner said he plans to use the extra land to raise bison for his chain of restaurants. Many Nebraskans are upset that Turner continues to buy up land in Nebraska. In the past he has purchased thousands upon thousands of acres out in the sandhills. But is this bad for Nebraska? Is this merely a continuation of corporate takeover of farms and land in Nebraska? Possibly. But I don't see this as a negative for Nebraska.

The sandhills, while beautiful in the summertime, offer little value other than grazeland for cattle, or in this case bison. Turner has paid a fair price for the land and will use it for the best purpose- grazing. However, it is a little scary that the largest landowner in Nebraska (Turner) is not a Nebraskan. Oh well, as long as he doesn't insist on making horrible Civil War movies (Gods and Generals) in Nebraska, I think we'll be okay. For the time being though, I think he's got other things to worry about, like rescuing his fledgling CNN.

For info on Turner's newest Nebraska purchase:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/03/17/local/doc4239dadcd8e17420711333.txt

Special Interests Dominate State Legislature

No one is going to deny that interest groups and lobbyists play a significant role across the political spectrum in the U.S. But how much is too much? Today the Omaha World-Herald ran a story about the amount of money lobbyists earned in 2004. It was quite shocking to learn that combined, the lobbyists took in over $8 Million. But how big of an impact do these lobbyists have? It depends on who they are and how much cash they have. Senators can say all they want that it's ultimately "up to the legislature to make decisions." But, why would the lobbyists even be there and why would they pay out over $8 Million to try and sway Senator's votes or convince them to draft a bill in their favor? If state senators were really trying to do things altruistically for their constituents then the interest groups would become irrelevant.

Unfortunately these groups have connections to larger businesses and when it comes election time they are willing to donate large sums to politicians who have supported their cause in the past. This is no surprise, but merely an accepted part of the political process in Nebraska and elsewhere. Some of these lobbyists have prior political connections as well (Four former state senators - Loran Schmit (1969-92), Dennis Rasmussen (1973-79), Tom Vickers (1979-86) and Chris Abboud (1983-98) - ranked among the highest-paid lobbyists in 2004). To some this may seem disgraceful because these lobbyists have friends and inside connections with the people who make the laws in Nebraska. Now in the private sector they are getting paid big bucks to utilize these connections to get laws passed that are in favor of the interest group they work for.

Senators can say all they want about how they only pass laws that are in the best interest of their constituents. This is the politically correct thing to say and it sounds good. But they're still politicians and they have motives to maintain their political career. In order to do that they need money to run successful campaigns. There is no doubt that many political donations come from private citizens, but a great deal of money also is donated by interest groups and businesses who are apparent both as lobbyists and as political campaign supporters. With many state senators stepping down in the next 4-8 years(unfortunately because of the newly passed term limits) special interest groups will have a whole new host of politicians to feed on. $8 Million may seem like pocket change after another decade.

For more info on lobbyists in '04:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=1359627

Rather Steps Down on a Low Note

As Dan Rather stepped down from the anchor chair at CBS News after a 24 year run, one has to consider his career to make judgments about him. After the Bush Memo scandal in October 2004 (inappropriately labeled Memogate)Rather took a serious beating. His journalistic integrity was questioned, rather doubted completely as partisan journalism. It's unfortunate that he was "forced" to step down as anchor. Like him or not, the man is one of the most successful journalists in American history. He holds the record for being the longest-running anchor on a major network. He has covered everything from Vietnam to the current war in Iraq and I think he deserves some respect for that. He did use poor judgment in running a controversial story about President Bush only weeks before the election. He should have gone the extra mail to verify that the documents were indeed real. However, he did not and his career unfortunately ended on possibly the lowest note in his 24 year run.

For a video on Rather's last evening and more info on his career:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/eveningnews/main678731.shtml
For another point of view:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20050309.shtml