carlfense Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 TSCHU (sorry I would Quote but for some reason I can't) I was just wondering what your view of these candidates are as far as why you don't think any would make good candidates? I personally am on the fence and thought Brunning would run away with it but IDK. Also what do you think about Chuck Hassebrook. Where to start . . . Governor Bruning: intelligent, very, very ambitious. I question how he was able to amass such wealth while drawing a public salary . . . and that whole situation with the shared lake home . .. Ricketts: Eh. He's Pete Ricketts. Dinsdale: Probably the best option on the GOP side. Senate Sasse: Consummate insider trying desperately to appear to be an outsider. When your main political claim to fame was affiliation with the Bush White House . . . well . . . Osborne: That whole fake Navy memo was pretty distasteful. Dinsdale: Probably the best option on the GOP side. (Thanks for the reminder strigori) Doesn't matter, really. Either would vote the same way on virtually every issue. Sasse is probably more likely to draft legislation . . . but given the failures of his prior affiliation I can't say that this would be a good thing. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 At this point I'd vote Osborn just to keep Sasse out. Sasse is about 1000x more likely to do/say something to completely embarrass our state. He's practically from the same strain of HIV that produced Rick Santorum. Dinsdale has no shot. The Democrats have no shot anywhere. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 At this point I'd vote Osborn just to keep Sasse out. Sasse is about 1000x more likely to do/say something to completely embarrass our state. He's practically from the same strain of HIV that produced Rick Santorum. Dinsdale has no shot. The Democrats have no shot anywhere. Agree with everything other than the Sasse/Santorum comparison. Sasse is a lot more establishment Republican than Mr. Frothy, imo. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 Eh fair enough That said, I'd still probably vote for Osborne if forced to choose. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Oh and Hassebrook's campaign has been incredibly weak, but he's in a sh**ty spot. With all of the frothing about Obamacare, he doesn't really have a platform to stand on. Plus, in the midterms, Democratic voters don't show up (Nate Silver did a whole thing about this) so even if the climate was right and Obamacare wasn't such a huge thing, he still might not have a shot. Don't get me wrong, he stands for all the right things - education, the middle class, jobs, raising taxes on the higher brackets, bringing clean energy to the state, and most importantly getting the Medicaid expansion enacted, but of course people want none of that. It all sounds too good to be true, or something. OBAMACARE EVIL. Still, his campaign has been weak and sh**ty regardless. Of course, when you don't have to fight to out-conservative someone all spring, you don't exactly have to go hard in the paint, so to speak. We'll see. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Bruning will win, which is better than Ricketts, at least. Ricketts is endorsed by Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, and Scott Walker. For f'ing f#*k's sake. That's like one Rand Paul short of a full Tea Party basketball team. Link to comment
strigori Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 TSCHU (sorry I would Quote but for some reason I can't) I was just wondering what your view of these candidates are as far as why you don't think any would make good candidates? I personally am on the fence and thought Brunning would run away with it but IDK. Also what do you think about Chuck Hassebrook. Where to start . . . Governor Bruning: intelligent, very, very ambitious. I question how he was able to amass such wealth while drawing a public salary . . . and that whole situation with the shared lake home . .. Ricketts: Eh. He's Pete Ricketts. Dinsdale: Probably the best option on the GOP side. Senate Sasse: Consummate insider trying desperately to appear to be an outsider. When your main political claim to fame was affiliation with the Bush White House . . . well . . . Osborne: That whole fake Navy memo was pretty distasteful. Doesn't matter, really. Either would vote the same way on virtually every issue. Sasse is probably more likely to draft legislation . . . but given the failures of his prior affiliation I can't say that this would be a good thing. Bruning and Ricketts have one big thing in common, both are only out to protect and grow their own wealth. I do not trust either of them. McCoy is the third guy, and he's tied to the Fremont immigration mess. As well as coming off as a complete pandering jackass. The level of disrespect in his ads for the Office of President is not fitting of a Gov candidate. Dinsdale is a Senate candidate, not Gov. My issue with him is he has absolutely no understanding of the difference between 'liberty' and 'anarchy' The endless obsession with deregulating everything is idiotic. He has a problem with everything from lightbulbs to cars, to clean air. He's out for big business, and everyone else can go to hell. Sasse is someone this state should run from. Bragging about being on the cover of a right wing nutjob publication and being teaparty guy is bad news. Osborn I dont have a good grasp on why hes running, other than a pay bump for himself. None of these three would benefit Nebraska, or the county as a whole. Why you don't see anything from the Democratic side yet is simple, why waste money when you are running unopposed in the primary? Save the cash for the general. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 Dinsdale is a Senate candidate, not Gov. Brain fart. Part of the problem might be how undistinguishable they all are . . . Link to comment
strigori Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Dinsdale is a Senate candidate, not Gov. Brain fart. Part of the problem might be how undistinguishable they all are . . . Very true. All of them are trying to out-rightwing each other. Which could make for a tighter general, particularly for the Senate. Link to comment
ZRod Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 I told myself I wouldn't vote for anyone who mentioned repealing Obamacare in their ad, so I guess I'm not voting for a Republican no matter who wins... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Bruning and Ricketts have one big thing in common, both are only out to protect and grow their own wealth. I do not trust either of them. What tells you that about them? Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 Bruning and Ricketts have one big thing in common, both are only out to protect and grow their own wealth. I do not trust either of them. What tells you that about them? Bruning: http://www.omaha.com/article/20120422/NEWS01/704229905/1010 Ricketts . . . well . . . his record kind of speaks for itself. Link to comment
strigori Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Bruning and Ricketts have one big thing in common, both are only out to protect and grow their own wealth. I do not trust either of them. What tells you that about them? Bruning has amassed his multimillion dollar worth after entering politics. And several of his investments are in areas that he has some power and influence over. Ricketts is a far, far richer. And you tend to see a wealthy 'conservative' focus on little else. Want to make bets on where his tax cut plan is going to shift the burden to? I assure you it wont be him or his father. Link to comment
Recommended Posts