Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been the state's premier 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.
Last week, the story broke of Republican Congressman Lee Terry's "close conversation with a comely lobbyist" at a Washington D.C. bar where he flirtatiously asked her, "Why did you get me so drunk?" However, what started as a mere illustration of Terry's too-cozy relationship with corporate lobbyists has quickly blossomed into a mini-scandal tainting the entire Republican Party and its hypocritical claims of representing traditional family values.
Washington is abuzz with rumors of late-night partying and of House Republicans inappropriately hanging out with female lobbyists. But not everyone was taken by surprise. Minority Leader John Boehner has been working behind the scenes to address the issue for at least the past year and a half. The Ohio Republican has had private conversations with several lawmakers asking them to curb their inappropriate behavior....
Despite Boehner's effort to head off a scandal, the issue came to the forefront last week when a conversation that Rep. Lee Terry had with a woman at a GOP watering hole became public. "Why did you get me so drunk?" the Nebraska Republican asked a women sitting next to him at the Capitol Hill Club during President Barack Obama's June 15 speech about the Gulf Coast oil spill, according to a source who overheard the conversation.....
Boehner said he had spoken to several Members over the past year and a half who, he believed, had done something or came close to doing something unethical....Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the specifics of Boehner's intervention with individual Members. "We aren't going to comment on rumors, and any conversations Boehner may or may not have had with other Members are private," he said in an e-mail.
Several Republican lobbyists said the Terry incident is part of a larger concern involving a group of House Republicans and lobbyists, including Glenn LeMunyon of the LeMunyon Group, who regularly party with female lobbyists.
"On the Hill, there's a lot of older men that just go home when they're done with votes," said the longtime Capitol Hill Club member who overheard Terry's remark. "Then you have a smaller group that likes to knock back a few and have a good time."
This is now "the Terry incident." It's attracted enough attention that, according to Roll Call, new identification requirements may be adopted at the Capitol Hill Club to prevent other Congressmen from being caught in similarly compromising positions. If this were just a one-time instance of Lee 'Good Time' Terry having a little bit too much to drink and a little bit too much fun, that might be appropriate. But, there's every indication that Terry's behavior is nothing new - from him or an entire culture of overgrown Republican frat boys he's come to represent.
As stated in the followng segment from MSNBC, "Terry is one of several...junior Republican members who have been kind of notorious for being out late at night and partying."
I don't know what's worse - that Terry is still considered a "junior Republican member" after 12 years in Congress or that he's "notorious for being out late at night and partying." One probably has a lot to do with the other, going a long ways in explaining his weak position and few accomplishments in Washington D.C.
The banner on Terry's campaign website heralds his "Trusted Leadership for Nebraska's Families." But, trust begins at home. In Lee Terry's case, it's hard to believe that trust hasn't been broken - with those he loves and with those he represents. That includes the voters of Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District and - yes - even his fellow Congressional Republicans who've seen their hypocrisy exposed by Terry's hard-partying ways on the peoples' time and on the corporate lobbyists' dime.
Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle has begun a series of discussions on his proposals for the city budget, which include hikes in the property tax and the wheel tax along with the imposition of a new 4% tax in bars and restaurants paid on top of the current 7% sales tax.
Suttle's proposed budget does call for several million dollars in cost savings from the fire department, but he is otherwise showing remarkable courage placing such a premium on protecting the quality and availability of city services. Suttle is flying in the face of conventional wisdom in our state that dictates drastic cuts as the immediate response to shortfalls in the budget . . . unless you're Gov. Dave Heineman and can simply get away with begging for handouts from the federal government before cynically attacking such funding for your own political gain.
There's nothing so cynical in Suttle's approach. He's betting that the citizens of Omaha love their city, believe in it, and are willing to make some sacrifices in their own families' budgets to benefit the larger community. Right now, that bet is facing some long odds. Even voters who are understanding of the need for new taxes to address Omaha's budget shortfall are generally going to want to see more in the way of streamlining and prioritizing of city services. I also think the full 11% tax at bars and restaurants is going to be more than voters will swallow. Either a broader (but smaller) entertainment tax or an occupation tax would have been preferable - even if they would have both generated more direct opposition from the local business community.
Of course, this process still has a long ways to go. I'm not going to guess how or where it ends. But, you can rest assured that it's going to be an interesting couple of weeks for Mayor Suttle and the entire city of Omaha.
For most politicians, getting into bed with lobbyists is only a metaphor. However, 2nd District Republican Congressman Lee Terry may have been caught trying to give the phrase a much more literal interpretation.
Some Republican congressmen have been warned to keep their distance from the female lobbyists who prowl Capitol Hill. Sources say House Minority Leader John Boehner has told GOP congressmen who partied with lobbyists "to knock it off"....
While there's no evidence of anything more than friendly flirtatious behavior, the lawmakers have been told to keep partying to a minimum in this midterm election year.
GOP Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska -- who's in a tough race against Democratic opponent Tom White -- was witnessed by Page Six in close conversation with a comely lobbyist at the Capitol Hill Club in DC recently.
"Why did you get me so drunk?" Terry asked the giggling woman, among other personal remarks. When Terry realized he was sitting near a reporter, he quickly changed the topic of conversation to his three children and the struggle to pay their college tuition.
After this unsuccessful and embarrassing flirtation, Terry has to be feeling pretty unlucky. It was only a little more than one year ago that another reporter just happened to catch an enraged Terry shouting obscenity in Washington D.C. traffic. The bars and the streets are no longer safe for Terry's antics as his behavior is once again being called into question by a reporter in the right place at the right time.
Of course, this whole incident could be entirely innocent and have no bearing on Terry's family life. What I'm more concerned about is what this story has to say about who Terry represents and how he operates after six terms in Congress.
The sad truth is that Terry's been in bed with corporate and special interest lobbyists for a long, long time. No flirtation and no alcohol are required. In fact, their checkbooks have been the backbone of Terry's re-election campaigns. His most recent campaign finance report shows 63% of his contributions - a whopping $171,913 - came from Political Action Committees that not-always-so-"comely" lobbyists are either writing checks for or writing checks to.
After 12 years in Congress, Terry can't claim a single significant legislative accomplishment, but he's offered unrivaled access and unquestioning loyalty to those keeping him afloat politically. You can see this in his recent votes against Wall Street reform and reflexive opposition to any sort of corporate accountability. The clearest illustration has to be the revelation last fall that Terry had committed outright plagiarism of a lobbyist's remarks and entered them into the Congressional record. Not only did this plagiarism occur in the course of Terry's duties as an elected representative, it also followed his earlier criticism of 2008 Democratic challenger Jim Esch for a similar but far less serious offense.
Besides some suggestion of hypocrisy in Terry's presenting himself as a "family values" candidate, I'm not very concerned about Terry's personal life. It's who he's in bed with politically that is far more troubling.
Frankly, Terry's relationship with lobbyists has always been more than a flirtation. It's time for Nebraska voters to break the hearts of Wall Street bankers and corporate lobbyists. We can do that by sending a real representative to Congress - State Senator Tom White.
For the last three weeks or so, the following ad has been running on Nebraska television - sponsored by the League of Conservation Voters, the VoteVets.org Action Fund, the Sierra Club and SEIU:
Besides Sen. Ben Nelson, this same ad was run targeting Republican Senators Mike Johanns and Richard Burr. Burr is up for re-election this year in North Carolina, so his being targeted probably makes some sense. But, the only legitimate reason for targeting Johanns was as a show of respect for Nelson and the difficult position he's in as our state's lone Democrat in Congress.
Nelson doesn't like being held to a higher standard than his Republican counterparts. As a conservative Democrat, he often finds himself taking fire from all directions. By including Johanns in this campaign, the above ad's sponsors have bent over backwards to avoid alienating Nelson while still calling the public's attention to his recent votes against the environment and his continuing to stand in the way of any serious climate change and clean energy legislation.
Now, I'm no stranger to defending Nelson when he comes under attack from national groups that don't give a damn about the harsh realities of Nebraska politics. I'm also not a big fan of ads that immediately fall back on challenging politicians' integrity because of who's funding their campaigns. That's probably the reason why I haven't published this ad earlier on NNN - even though it's pretty tame and focuses on an important issue about which Nebraskans have only really heard from the polluters and profiteers in the U.S. energy industry.
Boy do I regret that silence and timidity now. I'm embarrassed by it because of the example that it sets and the mentality that it shares with Nebraska's leading environmentalists, who have publicly disavowed the ad and attacked their parent organizations FOR NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER.
The Nebraska chapter of the Sierra Club has distanced itself from political ads run by the national group that attack Sens. Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. Chapter chairman Dick Boyd says the chapter wasn't consulted about the ad that attacks the senators' votes on an amendment that would have prevented federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Boyd said Friday that the chapter agrees with the Sierra Club's opposition to the amendment, but doesn't feel the ad was appropriate. He said the chapter doesn't communicate with its elected officials that way. Boyd issued an apology to the Nebraska senators.
State Sen. Ken Haar of Lincoln, who has been on the local Sierra Club board, called the ads "stupid" and said he found them "personally offensive."
"Attacking is not the way we do business in the state of Nebraska," he said at a Friday press conference. "It reflects badly on Nebraska and makes it harder to work with our senators"....
Haar said the state chapter was not consulted about the ads before they started running. He said chapter leaders tried to get the national group to stop the ads, or at least remove their endorsement, but to no avail. While national leaders apologized to the state group, Haar said he was told they would not make any changes in the ads....
Sean Flowerday, executive director of the Nebraska League of Conservation Voters, said he shares some of Haar's concerns about the ads' impact on Nebraska environmental efforts. He said Nelson has been a supporter on environmental issues in the past. Flowerday said the decision to run the ads also was made at his group's national level, not by the Nebraska group.
The sad irony of this big show by our local environmental groups absolving Nelson and Johanns of any responsibility for their votes is that it came just hours after Nelson announced he would refuse to even allow debate of comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation on the floor of the Senate. Politico reports:
Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska said Thursday he would not support a procedural vote later this month to begin debate on a climate bill that includes a cap on electric utility emissions, a declaration that underscores the tough climb that Majority Leader Harry Reid will have in trying to cobble together a 60-vote supermajority on the controversial issue.
"A carbon tax or trade piece would significantly increase the utility rates in Nebraska for businesses, agriculture and individuals," the Nebraska Democrat told POLITICO. "I don't think that's an appropriate way to go. And while I'd usually vote for a motion to proceed, this is so extraordinary, that I just can't bring myself to do that."
According to Reid, the Democratic majority is still hoping to begin debate by the end of the month on a bill focusing on clean energy, job creation, greenshouse gas emissions by utilities, and the response to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Nelson is standing in the way of that legislation's even being debated. And, here, our local environmental groups are falling all over themselves to make sure his feelings haven't been hurt. Of course, Johanns is no better than Nelson on these issues, but that only makes it all the more pathetic that he's receiving the same apology and the same ass-kissing from those who should be holding both of their feet to the fire.
As progressives, we owe better than this to ourselves - and to our national allies - or there's no hope for us at all.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a new Nebraska law requiring mental health screenings for women seeking abortions because the measure could have made it impossible to get an abortion in the state.
U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp granted Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's request for a preliminary injunction against the law, which was supposed to take effect Thursday. The order will prevent the state from enforcing the law until the lawsuit challenging it is decided....
Smith Camp said the evidence presented so far showed that the screening law would make it harder for women to get an abortion in Nebraska by requiring screenings that could be impossible to perform under a literal reading of the law. She also said the law would make doctors who perform abortions at risk of crippling lawsuits.
"The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska," Smith Camp said.
You can read the judge's full opinion here. It's pretty damning stuff, suggesting this law isn't going to fare any better as the case proceeds. This outcome should have been expected by anyone who's read LB 594, which was discussed at length in the first episode of NNN Live's 2010 Legislative Session Wrap-Up.
Of course, some on the right will no doubt cling to the notion that this is another instance of judicial activism with a liberal judge overturning the will of the people. But, as the Omaha World-Herald explained of the judge in question:
Camp was appointed in 2001 by President George W. Bush. She came to the bench with a combination of strong academic, legal and conservative credentials. Before being picked as Nebraska's first female federal judge, she was a top aide to then-Attorney General Don Stenberg, a Republican conservative.
40 State Senators voted for this monstrosity at the behest of Nebraska Right To Life and the Nebraska Catholic Conference. Hats off to those few State Senators who knew better and refused to bow to political pressure - Brad Ashford, Kathy Campbell, Tanya Cook, Ken Haar, Amanda McGill, Bill Avery, Danielle Conrad, Brenda Council, and Gwen Howard.
In today's Omaha World-Herald, columnist Robert Nelson got political scientist Larry Sabato's take on the Nebraska Democratic Party's current failure to field a candidate for Governor:
"You should absolutely be embarrassed," argued Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "To be unable to put up a candidate for the highest office in your state is not only pathetic, its shirking your duty as representatives of one of the two major parties in this country".....
"It just doesn't happen because, like the presidency, the governor of a state has enormous executive auhority," he said. "You'll see House and Senate seats go unoposed sometimes, but not races for governor".....
"There's got to be someone there," Sabato said. "Some state senator? Someone with a little name recongition and experience?....When everbody knows it's hopeless, I'd think voters - heck, voters from both parties - would be appreciative that someone was brave enough to stand up and take one for the democratic process."
"[Democrats not finding a candidate] would diplay such weakness," Sabato said. "And really, for a group that receives special privileges under the law because they provide Americans a choice, it would be a dereliction of duty."
Hard to argue with Sabato on any of the above. My only question - didn't Mark Lakers already "stand up and take one for the democratic process"? How'd that work out for him? Nevermind. Forget that I asked. Wish that I hadn't.
On two separate occasions recently - the Tom Becka Program on KFAB and a taxpayer-funded telephone town hall - Rep. Lee Terry misled voters about his record on deficits and spending.
Watch the video:
By spreading misinformation on the radio and on a taxpayer-funded phone call, Lee Terry is trying to hide from his record of voting for the Wall Street bailout and for budgets that nearly doubled the national debt and added trillions to the deficit. Desperate to hide from his record, Congressman Terry is using a strategy cynical even by Washington standards: misleading taxpayers while billing them for the call. Congressman Terry has no credibility when it comes to spending nor the deficit.
At the tea party rally in Omaha on July 3rd, staff for Terry's campaign stood in front of our camera with "Lee Terry for Congress" signs. Turns out books aren't the only thing "All Talk" Terry wants to ban...
"All Talk" Terry pontificated about the founding fathers, taxes, liberty, and the voice of the people. He literally said, "We want the American people to be active and to be heard."
His words rang hollow as the nonplussed crowd watched Terry's "blue crew", as they are called, chase cameras around the park, refusing to let citizen journalists like us film their boss. (Apologies to Creighton fans that these bullies have sullied their moniker.)
This is just more evidence that Terry's all talk and no action. Instead of having an open dialogue with people who may disagree with him, he hides behind campaign signs as he delivers a contrived speech with empty words. Maybe we should just call him what Thomas Paine would have--a sunshine patriot.
Terry doesn't give a whiff for liberty or transparency as long as he can get away with making progressives look like disruptive antagonists. This strikes me as ironic because a 4-inch flipcam 10 yards away seems far less disruptive than a 5-foot campaign sign shoved in my face and a guy twice my size trying to stare me down.
"All Talk" Terry stands in front of crowds and gripes about the overreach of the government which is easy to do when the only thing you've done in your legislative career is to name a post office.
Nebraskans deserve a man of action. William Jennings Bryan, Father Flannigan, and Bo Pelini are all men of action. They're names we hold high in our state because they were never afraid to roll up their sleeves and get dirty.
So Terry's right. November's coming (despite republicans trouble telling time, it does move forward). And when it does, the second district has to decide if they want to keep a sunshine patriot like "All Talk" Terry or elect a Nebraskan who will walk the walk.
I don't really keep a close eye on the activities of Nebraska's trade unions, so maybe I'm a little off base here, but as far as I can tell the unions seem content to follow like lemmings the Nebraska Democratic Party's unbridled devotion to Nelsonism over the looming clifftop.
As the only progressive organizations in Nebraska with any serious clout, why has there been no pushback by the unions against Ben Nelson's sharp rightward(even more rightward, I should say) shift of late? Clearly, the uproar over Nelson's health care deal by conservatives was a pivotal moment in Nelson's career. Nelson now seems terrified to do anything that might be construed as progressive. Are the unions down with Nelson's strategy of doing anything it takes to appease the right wing before his next election? Who is providing balance against the loud voices of the right demanding that Nelson tow the tea party line? A few bloggers and progressive activists?
Obviously I have no business telling unions what to do, but when digby posted this video of AFSCME president Gerald McEntee's convention speech last week, these questions started to arise in my head. This is what I wish we were hearing from Nebraska's trade unions:
Maybe the unions feel that Ben Nelson has been good to them somehow. If that's true, can anyone explain to me how that is the case? Maybe they believe that having a Democrat in office is always preferable to the alternative. Even if that Democrat is totally subservient to the right wing? Maybe the unions are more conservative than I understand them to be. Can someone tell me what's going on here? I'd really like to know.
(Note from Lisa's comment below that Jeff Fortenberry joined Adrian Smith in voting against Nebraska ag producers, which might be explained by his being similarly compromised by campaign contributions from the same out-of-state special interests. - promoted by Kyle Michaelis)
In today's Grand Island Independent, an article was published that was surprising to see, and refreshing in it's straight forward reporting and detail.
On Thursday, the House Committee on Agriculture voted on HR 4546 - the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act. Essentially, the bill will further open up trade with Cuba, especially with regards to Agriculture, by lifting travel bans and loosening financial restrictions. The Farmers Union, Farm Bureau and National Corn Growers Association are all supporting this bill.
The bipartisan bill passed the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 25-20. Smith, a member of the committee, said the bill has more to do with travel and less with trade.
"My record in promoting Nebraska ag products to international markets speaks for itself," he said. "I am disappointed in both the process and the substance of the committee's actions today."
Not sure what Smith's done to promote Nebraska products internationally, because there's really nothing out there to show what he's done. Maybe that's the record he's speaking about? Anyway....
Many farmers in Smith's 3rd Congressional District have benefited from Nebraska's trade links to Cuba.....trade visits have resulted in Nebraska selling more than $70 million in agricultural goods.
Smith said he is troubled that there is politically divisive language in the bill, and that it is written to prevent any actions that would remove those provisions.
"Clearly, the intentions of this bill have nothing to do with agriculture," he said.
Really? Clearly? Smith doesn't say what that is, but you can examine HR 4645 for yourself. Basically, unless there are times of war or an imminent threat to the US, it's citizens or legal residents, travel will be allowed. And any transactions have to be made by cash in advance, therefore cash wired from Cuba to a US Bank is allowed. That's it.
And it's clear the groups supporting the bill also completely disagree with Smith:
You wouldn't know it from his pasty, rosacea complexion, but Governor Dave Heineman supports tanning salons.
Dave joined owners and employees from the tanning industry this morning to protest the implementation of the tanning tax in the new health care law (even though the rally speakers kept referring to it still as a bill, it is a law).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adds a 10% federal tax to tanning beds not operated by licensed dermatologists. The tax starts today. The tanning industry isn't taking it lying down (well, only two times a week in their UV beds, but what would the founding fathers do?).
Disgusted that the Vitamin D-deprived would have to pay an extra dollar or two on their monthly memberships, Heineman vehemently denounced the entire "Obama, Pelosi, Nelson health care bill." Way to get a jump start on these Senate 2010 campaign ads, governor!
Heineman's political ambitions are damaging our state. Instead of rallying for the important issues (like say, oh, immigration), the governor's concerned about a paltry tax on cancer beds. He continually kicks the can down the road while he gets footage and sound-bites for his future campaign videos.
What's interesting was that Heineman wasn't talking to a very politically enthusiastic constituency. Tanning salon owner and rally speaker Michelle Grubbs didn't vote in 2008, emcee Heather Almond isn't a registered voter in Nebraska, and rumor had it that employees were only present because they were being paid or had been threatened with extra cleaning duties.
But are these are miniscule road bumps in Heineman's quest for a senate seat. How important are issues like immigration, prenatal care, and the state budget when the cast of MTV's Jersey Shore (attendees' own description on their rally signs) is facing an extra one or two bucks when they buy their monthly tanning membership?
