Nebraska Senate Race?

[lib3rtarian]

Club for Growth PAC Endorses Ben Sasse For U.S. Senate

Link to Article: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/pr/?postID=1251

---

Club for Growth President Chris Chocola: “Ben Sasse is the rare candidate who can clearly and forcefully prosecute the case against ObamaCare, not only because it’s an unconstitutional assault on our liberty, but also because he’s read every word of it.”

Washington, DC – The Club for Growth PAC today announced that it is endorsing Midland University College President Ben Sasse for United States Senate in Nebraska. The seat is currently held by incumbent United States Senator Mike Johanns, who is not running for re-election in 2014:

“Ben Sasse is the rare candidate who can clearly and forcefully prosecute the case against ObamaCare, not only because it’s an unconstitutional assault on our liberty, but also because he’s read every word of it.” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “We need more Senators like Ben Sasse who will stand on principle to challenge the big-government status quo in Washington and his unique skill-set makes him ideal for the job. Club members look forward to strongly supporting Ben Sasse for the U.S. Senate.”

​

 

[compromise]

Tea Party Express posted some audio clips from Osborn last month. They haven't ever mentioned Sasse, so I'm guessing they're leaning towards Osborn.

I hope this split in the Tea Party doesn't result in a moderate winning, as in Nebraska in 2012 (TPE backed Bruning, SCF, FW & CFG backed Stenberg, SarahPAC backed Fischer who was the weakest of the 3 and she won).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Club for Growth PAC Endorses Ben Sasse For U.S. Senate

So Club for Growth is also endorsing the underdog Sasse (according to one poll), over a front runner (Osborn) who seems to be the better and more transparent fiscal conservative?

FreedomWorks has endorsed Osborn. If the US Chamber of Commerce backs Sasse, it will be obvious that he is not only the neo-conservative favorite, he is also a corporatist favorite (not that those are mutually exclusive in any way).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Tea Party Express posted some audio clips from Osborn last month. They haven't ever mentioned Sasse, so I'm guessing they're leaning towards Osborn.

I hope this split in the Tea Party doesn't result in a moderate winning, as in Nebraska in 2012 (TPE backed Bruning, SCF, FW & CFG backed Stenberg, SarahPAC backed Fischer who was the weakest of the 3 and she won).

Some of these endorsements make no sense. If the poll from earlier in the thread is correct, Osborn is the front-runner. Why are these PACs jumping in to support an underdog, who is not better according to anything we have been able to dig up?

One hint at this point is that Osborn has a proven record of pushing for fiscal transparency. Corporatists would not like that. And the neo-coonservatives have apparently had some backroom discussions with Sasse which leads them to believe they should support him.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Some of these endorsements make no sense. If the poll from earlier in the thread is correct, Osborn is the front-runner. Why are these PACs jumping in to support an underdog, who is not better according to anything we have been able to dig up?

One hint at this point is that Osborn has a proven record of pushing for fiscal transparency. Corporatists would not like that. And the neo-coonservatives have apparently had some backroom discussions with Sasse which leads them to believe they should support him.

Agreed on all accounts. For what it's worth, it seems CFG wants you to think they endorsed him mainly because he was screaming the loudest against Obamacare. Not like I have anything against CFG's endorsements in general (they are supporting Amash), but they must be hiding something because any serious candidate will be anti-Obamacare.

One thing I've noticed about CFG is that they are vehemently pro free trade agreements, and I think Sasse's got their back strongly on that one.

 

[gnuschler]

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/190053-endorsements-complicate-nebraska-race

National conservative groups are duking it out in the Nebraska Republican primary, buoyed by the confidence that even the bloodiest of primary fights wouldn’t cost them a seat Democrats aren’t even contesting.

The sleepy race drew national attention on Tuesday when former state Treasurer Shane Osborn broke a prominent national conservative group away from the conservative pack, gaining the endorsement of FreedomWorks. Two other groups, Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth, endorsed his opponent, Midland University President Ben Sasse.

Establishment Republicans are focused on more competitive 2014 races and aren’t expected to engage heavily in the race because there’s no risk of a weak candidate losing the seat for the GOP.

Democrats haven’t fronted a candidate for the Nebraska seat, which is coming open with the retirement of Sen. Mike Johanns (R).

The lack of a threat from Democrats makes Nebraska a good opportunity, however, for conservative groups to put their thumb on the scale for the candidate of their choosing.

FreedomWorks hasn’t yet indicated how extensively it plans to engage in the primary, but its Vice President of Public Policy Dean Clancy said the group is “fully committed to” electing Osborn.

The central issue in the group’s endorsement, Clancy said, was Sasse’s insufficient opposition to ObamaCare. “Sasse is doing a great ‘Wizard of Oz’ impression, presenting himself as an anti-ObamaCare firebrand, but behind the curtain he is a Mitt Romney-style technocrat who would replace Obama-Care with more ObamaCare,” he said.

But Sasse has made his opposition to the healthcare law a central tenet of his campaign. He was labeled the “anti-ObamaCare candidate” by conservative outlet Breitbart.com.

Sasse is also currently the fundraising leader in the race, breaking Nebraska records with his $815,000 haul in the third quarter. A little less than half of the money came from Nebraskan donors.

But Osborn has a hefty lead in both polls conducted of the GOP primary, likely due to his high name recognition in the state from his time as treasurer.

Nebraska political observers say the state’s races often come down more to personality than policy. “Personalities and retail politics are really important here in Nebraska, as are your organization, getting out there and shaking hands, especially in western Nebraska,” said John Hibbing, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/190053-endorsements-complicate-nebraska-race

Good find.

 

[compromise]

Agreed on all accounts. For what it's worth, it seems CFG wants you to think they endorsed him mainly because he was screaming the loudest against Obamacare. Not like I have anything against CFG's endorsements in general (they are supporting Amash), but they must be hiding something because any serious candidate will be anti-Obamacare.

One thing I've noticed about CFG is that they are vehemently pro free trade agreements, and I think Sasse's got their back strongly on that one.

Freedomworks also score free trade agreements and they still backed Osborn. I'd be surprised if Osborn was against them himself.

 

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I can't believe in a RON PAUL forum, anybody would say ONE GOOD thing about Sasse. He loathes RP, his ppl loathe RP, and he will doesn't intend on hiring staffers from outside the beltway, so it is business as usual with this Scumbag.

Besides, a birdie tells me Sasse is on video saying things that will destroy his campaign as soon as its released.

 

[MichaelDavis]

I can't believe in a RON PAUL forum, anybody would say ONE GOOD thing about Sasse. He loathes RP, his ppl loathe RP, and he will doesn't intend on hiring staffers from outside the beltway, so it is business as usual with this Scumbag.

Besides, a birdie tells me Sasse is on video saying things that will destroy his campaign as soon as its released.

Do you have any source to back this up or are you talking out of your butt?

 

[jurgs01]

Do you have any source to back this up or are you talking out of your butt?

Glad to see there is someone else skeptical of internet forum "facts." I certainly have my radar on Sasse to dig more deeply based on some (compelling) circumstantial evidence and ties, but I'm not sure why some people just have a switch that automatically throws people into a category.

McCain, Graham, King, etc are all bona-fide NEOCONs deserving of every bit of scorn. We certainly have to be wary, but that doesn't mean we have to be shallow on facts (otherwise, we are no different than the spin machine MSM).

 

[gnuschler]

FreedomWorks PAC Comments on its Endorsement of Shane Osborn for U.S. Senate in Nebraska: http://pac.freedomworks.org/press-r...ment-of-shane-osborn-for-us-senate-in-nebrask

FreedomWorks PAC is proud to endorse former Nebraska State Treasurer Shane Osborn for United States Senate in 2014.

After a thorough review of the candidates in the race, FreedomWorks PAC believes Shane Osborn is the clear choice for limited-government voters looking to preserve economic freedom and rein in Washington’s out-of-control spending.

An accomplished leader and authentic conservative, Osborn is the true “anti-ObamaCare candidate” in the race.

1. Osborn is “one of us,” a principled constitutional conservative unafraid to stand out in a crowd.

2. As Nebraska’s State Treasurer, Osborn proved himself a smart and aggressive fiscal hawk.

3. Osborn is the true “anti-ObamaCare candidate” in the race.

• This was perhaps the most decisive factor in our decision to endorse Osborn.
• One of Osborn’s opponents, Ben Sasse, has proclaimed himself “the anti-ObamaCare candidate in this race,” but we are persuaded that Shane Osborn has the more authentic claim to that title.
• The health care policies that Ben Sasse supports are unworkable unless he also supports government mandates.
  • He has spoken of ObamaCare’s individual mandate as a “good idea.”
    • In 2009, while ObamaCare was still being drafted by the Democratic Congress, Sasse wrote: “Take the idea of the ‘individual mandate,’ which would require all citizens to have health insurance. There’s an emerging consensus that this might be a good idea. But in the various bills (and the incomplete piles of paper parading as bills), it’s unclear how the mandate would be enforced or what fines would be appropriate.”
  • Sasse supports “universal health insurance coverage” through “premium support,” a top-down approach that can only be achieved with government mandates and subsidies, including an “individual mandate” in some form. The essence of “premium support” is coercion.
  • Sasse has said: “I think we're ultimately going to end up with a single-payer system, or a more market-oriented premium support model that actually delivers higher-quality, lower-cost care. … I think we should have a universal, a shared cultural or societal goal, of universal health insurance coverage.”
• Sasse has called for national health care reform modeled on the massive Medicare Part D prescription drug entitlement, a premium support program that only “works” because it includes its own version of an individual mandate (a severe penalty for “late enrollment”).
• President Bush’s Medicare Part D boondoggle was an unaffordable government program that added trillions to the nation’s unfunded liabilities.
• Sasse extolled Medicare Part D as “a policymaker’s dream.”
  • In 2009, writing as a policy analyst, Sasse extolled Part D in an article titled, “Why Medicare Part D is the Answer to Health Reform.” In it, he calls the prescription drug entitlement “enormously successful,” adding, “Medicare Part D is (or should be) a policymaker's dream: a government program that efficiently delivers high-quality services, and does so under budget.” He goes on to lament: “Unfortunately, throughout this year's healthcare reform debate, Part D's success has been at best ignored and at worst maligned.”
• Sasse was for Medicare Part D before he was against it.
• In 2013, as a first-time political candidate, Sasse sounded a very different note, telling a reporter: “I mean, it [Medicare Part D] was painful. I was opposed to it then [2003] and I’m opposed to it now. The mechanism of Part D is less bad than any other government payment methods, but it's still fundamentally an entitlement program that wasn’t paid for, and we can’t afford them. … So I think Medicare Part D was fundamentally flawed because it wasn’t paid for. There could have been ways to have a different conversation about a prescription drug benefit being added into an old Medicare structure of Part A and B, but it should have been done in a way that holds actual cost savings in the system.”
• Will the real Ben Sasse please stand up?
• In 2009, as we have seen, Sasse offered the Democrats advice on how to undertake a federal government takeover of health care, in an article titled, “Why Medicare Part D is the Answer to Health Reform.”
• That same year, Sasse offered the Democrats advice on how to help pay for the government takeover. In a Health Affairs article, he and his co-authors wrote: “Congress and the Obama Administration are seeking agreement on ways to reform the U.S. health care and insurance system and to expand coverage to the uninsured. One unresolved and controversial issue is where to find the $800 billion to $1.6 trillion that could be needed to finance comprehensive reform over ten years. … One approach under consideration is to redirect federal spending on the Medicaid disproportionate-share hospital (DSH) program to help pay for coverage expansion. … This paper considers several options to reform the Medicaid DSH program. … [Our recommended] approach could produce as much as $44 billion in federal savings in the program and also address the wide federal DSH funding variations across states.”
• In 2009, while Shane Osborn was speaking at tea party rallies against ObamaCare, Ben Sasse was publicly offering Democrats advice about how to improve and pay for ObamaCare.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Wow, the self-proclaimed "loudest voice against Obamacare" forgot he was for it.

I thought at least the guy had some fiscal conservative cred, but that he hasn't.

I wonder why CFG endorsed Sasse over an actual conservative? Makes no sense.

 

[compromise]

FreedomWorks PAC Comments on its Endorsement of Shane Osborn for U.S. Senate in Nebraska: http://pac.freedomworks.org/press-r...ment-of-shane-osborn-for-us-senate-in-nebrask

I am 100% in Osborn's camp now.

 

[MichaelDavis]

FreedomWorks is the most genuine and consistent political organization in the country. The Club for Growth has made some great endorsements, like Rand Paul, but also bad ones, like Tom Cotton. It looks like Shane Osborne will be our candidate in this race.

 

[compromise]

FreedomWorks is the most genuine and consistent political organization in the country. The Club for Growth has made some great endorsements, like Rand Paul, but also bad ones, like Tom Cotton. It looks like Shane Osborne will be our candidate in this race.

FW is mostly run by libertarians at the moment. They really help build bridges between the liberty movement and the rest of the Tea Party.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Sasse just posted a pretty good video. BTW I am supporting Osborn

 

[gnuschler]

FW is mostly run by libertarians at the moment. They really help build bridges between the liberty movement and the rest of the Tea Party.

I recently made the case in another thread that, following Dick Armey’s ouster last year, FreedomWorks has become the hub of the broader liberty movement:

I continue to believe that the Ron Paul movement needs a home or umbrella under which it can organize, and I continue to think that Campaign For Liberty has proven insufficient. Instead, I think we should utilize FreedomWorks as that home:

1. Since the ouster of Dick Armey last year, FreedomWorks has become much more libertarian.
2. Following Armey’s ouster, they added Sound Money and Civil Liberties to their stated issues, and scored the vote on Justin Amash’s NSA bill.
3. Much to my surprise, they came out against the Syrian strike (I figured they would take no position), and suggested they would score that vote as well.
4. FreedomWorks recently published the results of a poll that suggested the Republican Party is being realigned towards libertarian values*

Among the major conservative grassroots organizations, FreedomWorks would seem to offer the best fit for the Ron Paul movement.

*“FreedomWorks Poll Finds Big-Tent Libertarian Values at the Highest Level in a Decade” … http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-poll-finds-big-tent-libertarian-value (just in case Rachel Maddow is viewing this)

 

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Do you have any source to back this up or are you talking out of your butt?

Ben and his campaign went out of their way to make sure RP didn't get the nod in Nebraska. They corrupted the county conventions and actively spoke out against "the nutjob Ron Paul". I heard these things directly from their mouths.

Sasse is just like the Senator who is retiring; that is, a moderate business-as-usual, do-whatever-the-party-leadership-tells-me guy. He wants nothing to do with the term liberty or "little l" libertarians. Take a look at the folks running his campaign. They are snakes who have a history of lying and sabotaging any idea of a "liberty movement" whatsoever.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's an interview with Osborn. He was a military pilot, and was involved in that famous international incident when the Chinese forced down a US spy plane (via collision). He was the pilot. He seems like he may be more aggressive on foreign policy then most people here would be comfortable with.

The establishment probably doesn't like him because he seems to be a true fiscal conservative that pushes for real transparency. Can't have that.

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/7113/shane-osborn-u-s-senate-candidate-from-nebraska/3

And here it is:

Osborn on the recent Iran deal.

Release: Osborn Has Grave Concerns with Iranian Nuclear Agreement – November 24, 2013

Osborn Has Grave Concerns with Iranian Nuclear Agreement
Urges Senate To Impose Further Sanctions

WATERLOO, NE. – Today, Shane Osborn, Republican Candidate for the United States Senate, issued the following statement in response to the agreement finalized last evening between Iran, the United States and the P-5 Plus 1 Group on Iran’s nuclear program:

“I have deep reservation about the agreement reached in Geneva late last evening. While the specifics of the agreement are beginning to be made public, a key requirement appears to be missing. That requirement is for Iran to stop, not delay, its nuclear enrichment capacity.

“The United States is further alienating our remaining allies in the region and failing to adequately stand with Israel. I must side with Israel’s assessment of the situation. Iran does not seek to acquire nuclear capacity for peaceful means. They seek to further destabilize the region and the world by developing a nuclear weapon.

“Easing the current sanctions in place has thrown Tehran an economic lifeline when we should actually be tightening the noose to starve their nuclear program. We cannot wait until December to reevaluate the sanctions on the Iranians. We should be increasing the multilateral sanctions to ensure that Iran is complying with all current United Nations Treaty Obligations. Just this morning in international markets, Iran’s currency the Rial rose three percent against the dollar. The Iranians are already benefiting from our failed diplomacy.”

“I urge the United State Senate to increase sanctions against Iran. Current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act would be the appropriate mechanism. Senate Majority Leader Reid must allow for full debate and the Minority to offer amendments to this critical piece of national security legislation.”

http://shaneosborn.com/release-osborn-has-grave-concerns-with-iranian-nuclear-agreement/