Nancy Pelosi & Tom White: BFF

Democrat congressional candidate State Senator Tom White has produced his first television commercial of the election cycle.  Because he doesn't have enough money to put it on the air with any meaningful frequency, I'm not going to do his job for him and link it here.  Needless to say it's disingenuous.  

Oh, so much to say and so little space.   Here are a few points:

• White decries the debt we keep piling on our kids as "just plain wrong."  We agree.  So why did White wholeheartledly support Nancy Pelosi's health care bill that contains the "public option" and would increase taxes and cost taxpayers over $1 trillion?  Why did Tom White say he would have voted in favor of Nancy Pelosi's "stimulus" bill that will cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion?   Why does White's party continue to spend with reckless abandon without any concern for the federal deficit or national debt?
• The voiceover tells us that White personally "cut millions in state government waste to balance the budget without raising taxes."  Tom White did?  By himself?  Really?  This is the same Tom White who voted to override seven of Governor Dave Heineman's vetoes of spending increases in the Nebraska Legislature (LB 321)?  The same Tom White who opposed the major budget balancing bill during the 2009 special session (LB 5)?
• The ad claims White is "Nebraska Independence for Congress."  Why is Tom White embarrassed to say he's a Democrat?  If elected, and if Democrats maintain control of the House, White's first vote will be to elect Rep. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.  She supports Tom White--ideologically and financially.  They give new meaning to the phrase "BFF--Best Friends Forever."

Nebraska doesn't need partisan, arrogant Democrat Tom White.  It needs to reelect Congressman Lee Terry to serve as a check-and-balance on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party's radical agenda. 

November 2: Job Creators v. Job Killers

Lately, I have found reading and listening to the news to be a depressing exercise.  Record high national unemployment.  Astronomic federal budget deficits.  Unsustainable national debt.  National sales of new homes falling to the lowest level in 47 years.  Socialized medicine, i.e., ObamaCare.  Intolerant radical Muslims pushing forward with plans to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero.  Citizen referendums barring state-sanctioned homosexual "marriage" erased by unelected, unrepresentative judges.  Continued demands by liberals that we must look the other way and not enforce our laws against illegals.  The Obamas' perpetual, taxpayer-funded vacation.  More and higher taxes in Omaha thanks to the Democrat Mayor and City Council. 

America is reaching a boiling point, yet the liberal elites in the Obama Administration and Congress just don't get it.

Soon they will.

The liberal Democrats will soon hear from the majority of Americans who oppose their radical ideology.  Here in Nebraska, we'll send that message by re-electing solid, common-sense conservatives like Congressman Lee Terry, and rejecting arrogant partisan Democrats like Tom White. 

Nationally, November 2 boils down to a battle between Job Creators and Job Killers.  As eloquently explained in a fantastic, must see recent speech by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, America's future depends upon electing a Congress that is a check-and-balance on the Obama/Reid/Pelosi radical agenda.

The time has come for Americans to rise up and draw a line in the sand.  No more.

After watching Gingrich's speech, I challenge you to tell me one thing that he's wrong about.  He nailed our current condition--and the solution--on the head.

Remember November!


12 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Omaha--The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

In politics as well as in life, one must seize upon "teachable moments" when the present themselves.   In recent days we had just such a moment with respect to the push by Omaha Democrats to increase the tax burden in the Omaha area.

Too many people today say there is little difference between the political parties.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and the City of Omaha's recent budget debate presented us with that teachable moment. 

Democrats like to raise taxes.  They apparently can't help themselves--it's instinctive.   Republicans, on the other the hand, look first at making the tough decisions that are necessary to cut spending and reduce the size and scope of government. 

One need look no further than our state government as proof.  Republicans, led by Governor Dave Heineman and 32 Republican state senators, have balanced our state's budget in recent years without resorting to tax increases. 

By contrast, the Democrats in Omaha have proposed instituting new taxes, increasing existing taxes, adding additional administrative positions, and giving pay increases to top administration officials.  The Omaha Democrats have signed off on costly, ill-advised union contracts as political quid-pro-quo for the political support they received from the Union bosses. 

Indeed, there is a difference between the two political parties. 

Today we called a press conference in Omaha to illustrate this point.  I, along with other Republican party officials and Omaha-area State Senators Bob Krist, Beau McCoy, John Nelson and Rich Pahls, explained the difference between the Democrats' approach of "higher taxes first" and the Republicans' approach of "cut government first." 

This coming November, voters in Omaha will have a chance to cast their vote in favor of which ideology they prefer. 

Republican Congressman Lee Terry has established a steady track-record of supporting reductions in government spending rather than increasing the tax burden on Nebraska families and job creators. 

Democrat Tom White?  Well, he's a Democrat who, like Democrat Mayor Jim Suttle, instinctively believes that increasing taxes is the solution.  His public support for the Pelosi-version of health care legislation (which included the "public option") speaks volumes of his liberal ideological bent. 

So, voters of Nebraska's Second Congressional District--which political philosophy do you choose?  Let your voices be heard on November 2nd.

Democrats Are Just Plain Wrong on Immigration

One of the benefits of attending Republican National Committee meetings is the opportunity to meet with RNC members from other states and to get a flavor for the kinds of issues their states and candidates face.  One of the subgroups of the RNC that I (as well as National Committeeman Pete Ricketts and National Committeewoman De Carlson) belong to is the Conservative Caucus.  As part of that caucus I've had the pleasure of getting to know the representatives of Arizona, including Arizona State GOP Chair (and RNC Treasurer) Randy Pullen and Arizona National Committeeman Bruce Ash.

From those discussions, as well as recent work-related visits to Arizona, I've concluded that those of us outside of Arizona simply don't understand Arizona's plight when it comes to immigration.  Their state is literally being overrun by illegals, and their state and local budgets are being overwhelmed as a result.  Arizona citizens are being kidnapped, and Mexican drug lords are entering our country at will. 

And what to the Democrats propose to do?  The Obama administration decided to post some signs warning American citizens to not travel into the area due to "active drug and human smuggling."   Initially, I thought the signs were at or near the U.S./Mexico border.  It wasn't until a conversation with Pullen and Ash at the recent RNC meeting that I realized the signs are posted 80 miles north of the border!   Essentially the Democrats have ceded 80 miles of U.S. territory to the Mexican government. 

And where do Nebraska Democrats stand on this important issue.  Their leaders believe that illegal immigration is "much ado about nothing."

Democrats Mike Meister, Tom White, Steve Lathrop, Danielle Nantkes Conrad, Amanda McGill, Kent Rogert and Norm Wallman apparently all agree.  I guess we'll see if Nebraskans accept their dangerous position come November. 

RNC Meeting and 2012 Presidential Primaries

I'm reporting live from the summer meeting of the Republican National Committee in Kansas City.  The meeting is relatively noncontroversial, especially considering the tremendous successes Republicans have achieved in federal, state and local elections since Americans woke up from the nightmares known as the Obama Administration and Democrat Congress.  The RNC is united behind one goal--restoring our federal government to the conservative principles on which it was founded.  For that to happen, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must be dethroned. 

The only item generating much discussion is the report of the "Temporary Delegate Selection Committee," on which our National Committeeman Pete Ricketts was an active member.  This Committee was created at the 2008 Republican National Convention to address issues that arose as a result of some states accelerating their primary schedules.   The report proposes, among other things:

• No primary, caucus or convention to elect presidential delegates shall occur before the first Tuesday in March in the year in which a national convention is held.
• Primaries, caucuses, or conventions occurring between the first Tuesday in March and April 1 must provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.  "Proportional allocation basis" is to be left to the discretion of each state, but an example would be basing the allocation on the number of statewide votes cast in proportion to the number of statewide votes received by each candidate.
• Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are exempt from the foregoing requirements, but cannot hold their primaries, caucuses or conventions until after February 1 in the year in which a national convention is held. 
• All of this is contingent upon the Democratic National Committee adopting the same schedule.

The goal of the proposal is to bring some order and uniformity to the presidential primaries without allowing the process to be front loaded by a large state such as California.  All in all, a good proposal.

So long as it's not associated with Nancy Pelosi, it stands a good chance of passing . . . .

We just finished a lunch with Republican Senate candidate Rep. Roy Blunt, who gave an outstanding speech about what is at stake this November and President Obama's campaigning for his opponent because he needs her vote in the Senate. 

What better reason to support Roy Blunt?