From a football and movie filled New Year's Day, to a Husker football game where our favorite team may have actually won something better than a trophy, to a major political event in a neighboring state, to our President setting the tone for work in Washington, DC this year, it was anything but a short week for us. If the first week of 2012 is supposed to set the tone for the rest of the year, we hope that everyone is ready for the most intense twelve months in recent memory.
To begin the week, our favorite college football team lost their bowl game this year. Of course, we would have preferred a different outcome. However, after talking with some of our media contacts around the country, we think the Husker football team may have earned something more than a trophy this week.
More than once this past week, the topic of the bowl game, the on-field fight, and the post game behavior of the opposing team came up in conversations with our colleagues. Each time, the person we were speaking with would give their take on the game and note how classless South Carolina was in letting their ejected player become the game's MVP. Then, they would remark on how classy Nebraska Head Coach Bo Pelini was in speaking about the Gamecocks (compared to how Gamecocks fans and players were acting), and how stern Pelini was with disciplining his own player. Nearly everyone we talked to used words like "classy," respectful," and "sportsmanship" when privately describing the performance of our favorite college football team in that tough moment – a moment that made us proud of being Nebraskans.
We were proud of our friends in Iowa too, even our Republican friends, this week. If anything, the Iowa GOP Caucus this year still proved two of our favorite axioms about American government – that those who show up and participate can make a difference, and that almost anything is possible.
We couldn't have been more proud of President Obama this week either, for following through with actions on what some thought was merely a campaign catch phrase for 2012. "We can't wait," is what the President has been saying, and this week, he followed through on that, appointing the first head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, along with three new members of the National Labor Relations Board.
The facts are clear: as an arm of the government, whether or not a policeman or military service member agrees with the rules and laws they have a sworn duty to uphold and enforce, they do their duties, fulfill their roles, and keep the system moving.
Sadly, many Congressional Republicans have, for far too long, acted like they were better than our servicemembers and police personnel, doing the DC equivalent of crossing their arms and stamping their feet, and impeding ALL progress, simply because they didn't want to enforce the law that created the CFPB - a law that some of them supported.
That the President finally treated the obstructionist Congressional Republicans like the petulant children they've been imitating has been something a long, long time in coming. We can only hope that the GOP members of Congress now decide to act like grownups the rest of the year - though we're not willing to hold our breath they will do so.
The best news from this week? The jobs numbers are up in the U.S., while the jobless numbers are down substantially, and unemployment has continued it's decline, a trend we vigorously hope continues throughout the rest of this year.
As you can see, even while we felt like we were being pulled in all directions this week, there were still some moments that make us think that 2012 may actually end up being a very positive year. It won't be easy - but as we've said for years, anything worth getting is worth working for. Some things are especially worth reaching for.
In the spirit of one of our more well-known media colleagues, congratulations on getting through another week of this stuff.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
While We Were Out...
As we mentioned in the first new commentary of 2012, a major focus for us in this new year is that we are striving to be be a better example of a solid media and communications outlet.
Some of the energy behind that goal was generated from a couple of messages we received over our recent holiday break, worrying that we might not return to production in the new year. It seems our publication is not the only media outlet that suffered from a similar lack of communication with its audience recently.
There's no need to worry about our collective sanity, as Paul is certain to continue drawing cartoons, and we're not about to stop writing and aggregating high-quality news and opinion content anytime soon. It frankly makes us chuckle a bit at how small actions some people make, and some stories that readers may have missed while we were away, can occasionally get blown out of proportion.
Take, for example, the story surrounding the U.S. Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson, that happened over the holiday break.
In case you missed it, Senator Nelson has decided NOT to run for re-election this year, 2012 - which leaves Nebraska Democrats shaking in their political shoes, and Nebraska Republicans gearing up for open war with each other.
We know exactly how the GOP side of the race is likely to unfold. It already began last year, with some offensive comments by leading Republican candidate and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, and continued with true stories - leaked in a misleading way - about Bruning, likely leaked by one of the other Republican candidates.
We doubt the Republican contest for the nomination will get any less crazy in 2012. Just yesterday, state senator Deb Fischer, one of the many candidates for the GOP nomination, introduced legislation to - no surprise - limit the ability of Nebraska cities and towns in need of revenue to charge taxes to pay their bills. Meanwhile, some Republicans are still begging current Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman to enter the race and grab the nomination - which he would likely get, if he chose to run. At this point, it appears he may not want to declare for the Senate race.
On the Republican side, the problem is that the GOP is really at least five separate parties these days, who are all pretty sick of one another: the corporatists, the libertarians, the "religious" right, the Tea Party, and the real Republicans - sane, old-fashioned, moderate folks. Any candidate that tries to appeal to all five of those groups is going to have to try a series of crazy stunts and contortions that not even Cirque Du Soleil could achieve.
On the Democratic side, the divisions are less well-known than on the Republican side - but they are just as intense. In short, there are the passive Democrats, and there are the progressive Democrats. The passive Democrats would prefer to make nice with modern Republicans - who frankly would like to see the Dems elliminated from all Nebraska politics. So far, the passive M.O. of state Democratic Party leaders has basically emptied the top political offices of Democratic representation for Nebraskans.
The progressive Democrats are nominally led by Jane Kleeb, political activist, school board member, and wife of former Nebraska U.S. Senate candidate Scott Kleeb. To say that Jane is assertive and direct at times would be understating things. However, she might really shake up the race for U.S. Senate, if she were to run for the nomination, which could be a very good thing.Then again, that's exactly what many in the NDP seem to be afraid of.
Regardless of who runs and who wins, we have no intention of laying down our pencils, keyboards, mice, and cartooning tools any time soon.
After all - we're not running for the open U.S. Senate seat from Nebraska. That would be crazy.
Some of the energy behind that goal was generated from a couple of messages we received over our recent holiday break, worrying that we might not return to production in the new year. It seems our publication is not the only media outlet that suffered from a similar lack of communication with its audience recently.
There's no need to worry about our collective sanity, as Paul is certain to continue drawing cartoons, and we're not about to stop writing and aggregating high-quality news and opinion content anytime soon. It frankly makes us chuckle a bit at how small actions some people make, and some stories that readers may have missed while we were away, can occasionally get blown out of proportion.
Take, for example, the story surrounding the U.S. Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson, that happened over the holiday break.
In case you missed it, Senator Nelson has decided NOT to run for re-election this year, 2012 - which leaves Nebraska Democrats shaking in their political shoes, and Nebraska Republicans gearing up for open war with each other.
We know exactly how the GOP side of the race is likely to unfold. It already began last year, with some offensive comments by leading Republican candidate and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, and continued with true stories - leaked in a misleading way - about Bruning, likely leaked by one of the other Republican candidates.
We doubt the Republican contest for the nomination will get any less crazy in 2012. Just yesterday, state senator Deb Fischer, one of the many candidates for the GOP nomination, introduced legislation to - no surprise - limit the ability of Nebraska cities and towns in need of revenue to charge taxes to pay their bills. Meanwhile, some Republicans are still begging current Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman to enter the race and grab the nomination - which he would likely get, if he chose to run. At this point, it appears he may not want to declare for the Senate race.
On the Republican side, the problem is that the GOP is really at least five separate parties these days, who are all pretty sick of one another: the corporatists, the libertarians, the "religious" right, the Tea Party, and the real Republicans - sane, old-fashioned, moderate folks. Any candidate that tries to appeal to all five of those groups is going to have to try a series of crazy stunts and contortions that not even Cirque Du Soleil could achieve.
On the Democratic side, the divisions are less well-known than on the Republican side - but they are just as intense. In short, there are the passive Democrats, and there are the progressive Democrats. The passive Democrats would prefer to make nice with modern Republicans - who frankly would like to see the Dems elliminated from all Nebraska politics. So far, the passive M.O. of state Democratic Party leaders has basically emptied the top political offices of Democratic representation for Nebraskans.
The progressive Democrats are nominally led by Jane Kleeb, political activist, school board member, and wife of former Nebraska U.S. Senate candidate Scott Kleeb. To say that Jane is assertive and direct at times would be understating things. However, she might really shake up the race for U.S. Senate, if she were to run for the nomination, which could be a very good thing.Then again, that's exactly what many in the NDP seem to be afraid of.
Regardless of who runs and who wins, we have no intention of laying down our pencils, keyboards, mice, and cartooning tools any time soon.
After all - we're not running for the open U.S. Senate seat from Nebraska. That would be crazy.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Carrot
We have to admit, some of our staff is a bit tired this morning, since the regular work they do forced them to stay up late last night, watching the sad, repetitive coverage of the political horse race known as the Iowa Caucuses.
While we highly value fair and legitimate voting, and we are generally in favor of the concept of caucusing, we also make no bones about how tainted by money the current political system is in America - even when the outcome is nearly certain. As we've stated multiple times, and as many others have also repeated, when it comes to federal offices - including that of President - 94% of the time, the candidate who wins is the one with more money.
Nowhere have the facts and figures on how money can affect campaigning been displayed more clearly than in the Iowa Caucuses, which concluded last night.
Even though the importance of winning a caucus, like that in Iowa, is disputed by many on all sides in the political realm, primary contests are generally looked at as potentially solid predictors of an eventual winner. In the poll of polls, run by FiveThirtyEight.com, Mitt Romney looks to be a 93% or better favorite to win the New Hampshire primary.
As we already said this year, the GOP's eventual nominee WILL be Romney.
Still, knowing how far ahead former Gov. Romney is in New Hampshire didn't stop the campaigns from spending more money than any of us has ever seen spent in politics in Iowa.
According to a report by NBC News, in the 2012 Presidential campaign so far, the slew of campaigns, political action committees, and SuperPACs spent more than $16 million in political advertising in Iowa this past year. That includes both Republican and Democratically aligned groups - and it's just the tip of the money iceberg.
Even if you "take the under" - the lower amount of $12.5 million in campaign spending, quoted by the New York Times - the amount of money flowing through the American political system, at the beginning of the 2012 campaigns is mind-boggling.
Thanks to online tools like OpenSecrets.org, we're highly aware of how much each campaign, at multiple levels of government, is costing these days. We're also aware that in the Presidential race, President Obama has a significant fundraising advantage over any and all Republican challengers.
Much as we noted in our first commentary for 2012, it's not just the amount of money these candidates have to spend that worries us - it's where the money comes from.
For Mr. Romney, an astounding ten percent or more of his campaign contributions have come from the richest of the rich - not just multi-millionaires, but billionaires and multi-billionares in his quest for the presidency.
Most American politicians haven't even begun their campaigns for Congress yet - campaigns that are certain to mirror the numbers that were spent in Iowa.
In a post-Citizens United world, where there are few real restrictions on campaign spending, it's more obvious than ever who the two groups are in modern American society.
There are those who are leading our politicians around, like a horse with a carrot on a stick.
Then there are the rest of us, who have become little more than political janitors, cleaning up after them.
While we highly value fair and legitimate voting, and we are generally in favor of the concept of caucusing, we also make no bones about how tainted by money the current political system is in America - even when the outcome is nearly certain. As we've stated multiple times, and as many others have also repeated, when it comes to federal offices - including that of President - 94% of the time, the candidate who wins is the one with more money.
Nowhere have the facts and figures on how money can affect campaigning been displayed more clearly than in the Iowa Caucuses, which concluded last night.
Even though the importance of winning a caucus, like that in Iowa, is disputed by many on all sides in the political realm, primary contests are generally looked at as potentially solid predictors of an eventual winner. In the poll of polls, run by FiveThirtyEight.com, Mitt Romney looks to be a 93% or better favorite to win the New Hampshire primary.
As we already said this year, the GOP's eventual nominee WILL be Romney.
Still, knowing how far ahead former Gov. Romney is in New Hampshire didn't stop the campaigns from spending more money than any of us has ever seen spent in politics in Iowa.
According to a report by NBC News, in the 2012 Presidential campaign so far, the slew of campaigns, political action committees, and SuperPACs spent more than $16 million in political advertising in Iowa this past year. That includes both Republican and Democratically aligned groups - and it's just the tip of the money iceberg.
Even if you "take the under" - the lower amount of $12.5 million in campaign spending, quoted by the New York Times - the amount of money flowing through the American political system, at the beginning of the 2012 campaigns is mind-boggling.
Thanks to online tools like OpenSecrets.org, we're highly aware of how much each campaign, at multiple levels of government, is costing these days. We're also aware that in the Presidential race, President Obama has a significant fundraising advantage over any and all Republican challengers.
Much as we noted in our first commentary for 2012, it's not just the amount of money these candidates have to spend that worries us - it's where the money comes from.
For Mr. Romney, an astounding ten percent or more of his campaign contributions have come from the richest of the rich - not just multi-millionaires, but billionaires and multi-billionares in his quest for the presidency.
Most American politicians haven't even begun their campaigns for Congress yet - campaigns that are certain to mirror the numbers that were spent in Iowa.
In a post-Citizens United world, where there are few real restrictions on campaign spending, it's more obvious than ever who the two groups are in modern American society.
There are those who are leading our politicians around, like a horse with a carrot on a stick.
Then there are the rest of us, who have become little more than political janitors, cleaning up after them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)