Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE)

Now a secret-money outside spending group tied to Karl Rove, the man perhaps most responsible for the Bush presidency, is running a new attack suggesting that Kerrey had somehow acted inappropriately because he expressed his opinion.

War hero Bob Kerrey, after retiring from the Senate in 2001, is running to reclaim his old seat this November. The “issue advocacy” ad, titled “Disturbing,” says:

Bob Kerrey supported the Wall Street bailout while serving on the board of a company that tried to exploit it. Kerrey’s company tried a bureaucratic ploy to get bailout funds, but the ploy failed. These schemes were called a “disturbing trend” by an independent watchdog, violating the spirit fo the law to jump on the gravy train. For Bailout Bob Kerrey, it’s Wall Street ways, not Nebraska values. Tell him, support balanced budgets, not bailouts.

Watch the spot:

Nearly everything in this ad is disingenuous. The ad strongly implies that Kerrey had had something to do with the enactment of TARP. He was not a senator at the time, nor a lobbyist. The ad’s only citation for the argument is the 2008 Politico article in which Kerrey spoke positively about the bailout after the fact.

The insurance company mentioned in the ad — Genworth — was one that Kerrey advised, but did not control. It allegedly tried to buy a struggling bank to qualify for bailout funds — a move that even the watchdog concedes was totally legal. The group cited in the ad — the Project On Government Oversight — wrote to Congress: “We do not accuse these companies of wrongdoing in acquiring other financial institutions.”

If the secret funders behind Crossroads GPS bothered to look at the record, when Kerrey left the Senate in 2000, the budget was indeed balanced. Kerrey was the deciding vote in the Senate in 1993 for President Clinton’s budget reconciliation act, which set the nation on the path of deficit reduction (his yes vote, combined with the vice president’s, allowed Democrats to pass the bill without a single Republican supporter). In fact, he left a roughly $236 billion dollar surplus.

It was “Bailout Bush” and “Bailout Rove” who turned that the budget surplus into a $1.2 trillion deficit. What is “disturbing” is that Crossroads GPS is using money from undisclosed donors to run ads aimed at misleading voters.

During last year’s debt ceiling crisis, which Speaker John Boehner has threatened to repeat next year, House and Senate Republicans threatened to force the United States to default on its debt — an outcome that would have caused “a bigger GDP drop than that experienced during the Great Recession of 2008″ — unless President Obama agreed to an increasingly escalating series of demands for austerity. Even after this campaign of extortion forced the White House to make significant concessions, Fischer indicated that she would have simply let the economy blow up because Congress didn’t also agree to a constitutional amendment:

Nebraska’s 2012 Republican Senate candidates turned thumbs down Monday on the compromise debt reduction plan agreed to by the White House and congressional leaders.

“I would vote no on this specific bill because Congress needs to pass a balanced budget (constitutional) amendment first,” said state Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine.

It’s not clear which version of the balanced budget amendment Fischer is referring to here, but even the mildest forms of such an amendment are terrible ideas because they prevent the United States from responding to economic downturns or unexpected disasters, while simultaneously turning control of the nation’s budget over to unelected judges who are ill-equipped to handle it.

Moreover, at the time that Fischer endorsed blowing up the economy unless Congress votes to change the Constitution, the leading Republican proposal for such an amendment imposed such draconian spending cuts that it would “throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent.” The lead sponsor of this plan to trigger a new Great Depression, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), also called for forcing a debt default unless Congress gives him everything he wants.

In other words, while little is known about the obscure state lawmaker who wants to join the United States Senate, her willingness to play chicken with America’s prosperity strongly suggests that she would line up with the most hardline members of the Republican caucus.

Attorney General Jon Bruning (R-NE)

In an advisory opinion issued last week, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) said that he believes under the state’s constitution, local governments have no authority to enact non-discrimination ordinances. This opinion came at the request of State Senator Beau McCoy, who had proposed legislation earlier this year to strip localities of that power, arguing that uniform state laws for businesses are better than piecemeal local regulations.

Omaha, the largest city in the state, recently enacted an ordinance protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination in employment and public accommodations. Lincoln, the state’s capital, says it will continue its previous plans to consider a non-discrimination ordinance — a public hearing on the measure is scheduled for this afternoon. Lincoln’s city attorney has taken a different interpretation of the state’s constitution, arguing that the city has the authority to pass the measure.

In their non-binding opinion, Bruning and his assistant attorney general write:

[I]t is our opinion that while political subdivisions may pass ordinances or other laws on the same subject matter which are not inconsistent with the state’s civil rights classifications, political subdivisions are not authorized to expand protected classes beyond the scope of the civil rights provided for in the state statute.

Their reasoning? Nebraska is generally a “Dillon Rule” state. Based on the reasoning of 19th century Iowa Chief Justice John Dillon, several states take the view that localities may only enact laws when given explicit permission from the state government. Other states, known as “Home Rule” states, let localities make any decisions not specifically prohibited by the state government. The opinion argues that, while Nebraska laws give some Home Rule authority to local governments, this falls out of their scope. Only voters, amending their city charters by referendum — or the state legislature — could grant protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This is not the first time localities have been big-footed by their state governments, undermining attempts to protect LGBT constituents. In Virginia, for example, a Republican Attorney General used the same principles to dissuade Fairfax County’s school board from enacting a non-discrimination rule. Last year, Tennessee enacted a law stripping localities of the right to enact non-discrimination protections beyond the state’s protected catagories. And a 1992 Colorado referendum — later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court — sought to nullify all local protections based on sexual orientation.

In Nebraska too, the question may eventually be decided by the judicial system. Omaha’s city attorney has said that Bruning’s ruling will change nothing without a court order, telling the press “If someone sues us, we’ll deal with it in court.”

Just 16 states and the District of Columbia provide legal employment protections for LGBT citizens (another 5 protect based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity or expression). That means that in most U.S. states, someone who is — or even seems to be — to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered may legally be fired or not hired purely on that basis.

In a sense McCoy is right — this is not an issue that should be dealt with by piecemeal regulations. It is time for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ensure that no American is fired just for being LGBT.

In the video, released Monday, Kerrey begins by lining up some of the extraordinary costs — human and financial — of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the tolls these conflicts have taken on members of the armed services. Kerrey then puts Iran in context to these countries: “80 million people in Iran?” He then says of a potential large-scale war with Iran:

I think it would be a disaster. … It’ll make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.

Watch the campaign video:

The reference to a “cakewalk” should not be lost on anyone: that’s how Bush administration adviser Kenneth Adelman suggested an invasion of Iraq would play out. Nearly 5,000 dead service members and costs that could rise to as much as $1.5 trillion later, the Bush administration’s march to Baghdad was anything but the easy-going adventure they promised. Likewise, Iran hawks (many of them the same characters who pushed for the Iraq war) downplay the potential costs of war with Iran.

Kerrey’s entrée into the Iran debate seems particularly important, as journalist Jim Lobe points out, precisely because Kerrey, in the run up to the Iraq war, was aligned with the factions pressing hardest for an attack and invasion. Kerrey, a decorated Vietnam veteran and sometimes-hawkish Democrat, served on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a neoconservative dominated pressure group that relentlessly pursued regime change.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, though U.S. and Israeli intelligence have not concluded that Iran has made a decision to pursue a weapon. The Obama administration vows to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility, but the efficacy and consequences of a strike raise serious questions, leading the U.S. to pursue, for the meantime, a pressure track aimed at a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

He condemned the lawmakers for providing “preferential treatment to illegals”:

“Today, the majority of the Nebraska Legislature decided their priorities are providing taxpayer funded benefits to illegal immigrants and increasing the sales tax rate on the citizens of Nebraska,” he said.

“Providing preferential treatment to illegals while increasing taxes on legal Nebraska citizens is misguided, misplaced and inappropriate.”

Interestingly, anti-abortion groups broke ranks with Heineman and pushed for the Senate to override the veto. “People from all different backgrounds came together and said this is about protecting the life and health of unborn children, and did not decide which babies deserve care and which babies don’t,” a spokesperson for Nebraska Right to Life said.

Gov. Dave Heineman (R-NE)

But Heineman’s comments angered the bill’s supporters, including an anti-abortion group, and underscores a key debate surrounding the bill:

State Sen. Kathy Campbell of Lincoln, the chief sponsor of the bill, said she was “disturbed” that the comment about Planned Parenthood wasn’t raised until after the measure had progressed through three rounds of debate in the Legislature. [...]

Supporters and opponents of LB 599 agree on one point: It is a difficult issue that pits the protection of unborn babies against the distribution of taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants.

Heineman on Friday repeated his argument that taxes paid by “hardworking Nebraskans” should not be used for women who violated immigration laws, and that passage of LB 599 would make the state “a sanctuary” for illegal immigrants. [...]

While Heineman said it was not a “pro-life issue,” many supporters of the bill said that is the basis of their support.

“This bill fundamentally respects the life that is created,” said Omaha Sen. Jeremy Nord­quist, regardless of the mother’s immigration status.

The bill’s proponents say the charge is a last-minute attempt to stop the bill that has divided anti-abortion groups and anti-immigration groups. The Nebraska legislature will vote Wednesday to attempt to override the governor’s veto.

-Zachary Bernstein

Dr. Franklin Thompson

Nebraska blogger AKSARBENT continues to analyze this week’s decision to advance LGBT non-discrimination protections in Omaha. Councilman Franklin Thompson was one of the most vocal opponents of the measure, and during the final debate on Tuesday, he struggled quite a bit with protecting “perceived” gender identity:

THOMPSON: Perceived sexual identity is bothersome to me. It’s sort of like someone saying “You and I can perceive ourselves to be black this week, but next week we’ll be white.”[...]

What if the individual decides that one week, “I perceive myself to be male,” and then a month later, “I perceive myself to be female,” and then the smaller companies—

My point is that the perception can go both ways. Perception is so vague and ambiguous that it’s hard to quantify. You’re asking Omaha businessmen to take a shot in the dark.

Watch Thompson’s arguments:

First of all, it’s obvious that Thompson does not have the most basic understanding of gender identity. Transgender individuals do not haphazardly change their gender from month to month — gender identity is enduring and consistent, not so different from how individuals experience race. But more importantly, the entire point of including the language of “perceived” identities is to ensure people are protected from discrimination regardless of what their identities actually are. An individual might be mistreated because she is perceived to be a lesbian, even if she actually isn’t, but she deserves to be protected under this law either way. Fortunately, the provision passed despite Thompson’s opposition.

There may be one glimmer of wisdom to be derived from Thompson’s offending confusion. As our society becomes increasingly multiracial, perhaps “perceived race” should be protected too.

(Kudos to blogger AKSARBENT for consistent in-depth coverage of the effort to pass this bill.)

Meanwhile, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman has clarified that Husker football assistant Ron Brown was not speaking on behalf of the university when he publicly opposed Omaha’s effort to protect LGBT residents.

Councilman Ben Gray reintroduced the bill this week, which failed in 2010 on a 3-3 council vote. Meanwhile, an effort to “nullify any LGBT ordinance in Omaha by banning municipal protected classes not enumerated by the state appears to have stalled in the Unicameral’s Judiciary Committee after a hearing last Wednesday.”

Meanwhile, the paper notes today that “Among the 50 largest cities in the nation, Omaha is one of 15 whose gay residents have no specific legal protection from discrimination.” “In the past two years, at least 35 cities and counties in the United States of all sizes have passed anti-discrimination ordinances based on both sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Gov. Dave Heinemen (R), however, seems to believe that the poor aren’t doing their part in his state. Despite saying his “highest priority” was “tax relief for Nebraska’s hard-working, middle class taxpayer,” Heinemen used his State of the State speech to unveil a tax proposal that would do next to nothing to help Nebraska’s poorest residents while providing sizable tax breaks to the rich, Citizens for Tax Justice found:

In his recent State of the State speech, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman unveiled his three-pronged tax reduction proposal: income tax rate reductions and broadening of income tax brackets, a reduction in the corporate income tax rate, and complete elimination of the inheritance tax. [...]

Nebraska’s tax structure is already regressive and asks more of lower income families than better off families…The Governor’s proposal does nothing to reduce property taxes, does little to assist the lowest income Nebraskans, and would actually make this disparity worse.

As CTJ notes, Heinemen’s proposal wouldn’t replace the $40 million generated by the inheritance tax, just a year after his last budget eliminated state aid to local governments. In Omaha, the county board passed a resolution opposing Heinemen’s plan because it would “force” them to raise property taxes, thereby increasing the tax burden on lower- and middle-class Nebraskans.

Reducing the income tax rate, meanwhile, would have a similar effect, forcing the state to rely even more heavily on regressive property taxes instead of the more progressive income tax structure.

Nebraska Sen. Beau McCoy

Nebraska state Sen. Beau McCoy (NP) has introduced a bill (LB 912) that would prevent municipalities across the state from creating any nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity:

MCCOY: It just merely says that if we’re going to change the protected classes … we need to come to the Capitol to do it so that it’s consistent across the state. If it’s the right thing to do, it ought to be the right thing to do border-to-border, not just in one city or municipality. Nebraskans want uniformity. If it’s discrimination in Omaha, why wouldn’t it be the same in Scottsbluff, Gering, Kearney, Grand Island, you name it?

McCoy’s duplicitous interest in “uniformity” ignores that his bill mirrors a Tennessee law passed last year that specifically targeted the LGBT community for discrimination. In fact, the anti-LGBT Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) scripted the debate on that bill by cloaking its biased impact with economic rhetoric. The law’s passage invalidated LGBT protections that had recently been passed in Nashville.

If McCoy truly wanted consistent nondiscrimination policies across the state of Nebraska, he would propose a bill that protected sexual orientation and gender identity for the entire state. That he’s seeking to prevent such protections demonstrates his commitment to making sure LGBT people’s identities are enough to disqualify them from employment. (HT: Aksarbent.)

But Inside Climate News reports that before a new route can be set, DEQ and TransCanada need a memorandum from the State Department that outlines the agency’s involvement in the process, which could slow the process while they wait on it:

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said the company conducted some aerial flyovers in early December, along with on-the-ground surveys on public roads. “[But] we’re not really in the full-blown field stage yet,” he said. “We have to have that memorandum of understanding … there’s just been too many surprises. We don’t want to look at potential routes if we don’t understand the process.”

DEQ spokesman Brian McManus said the State Department is working with the DEQ to draft the memorandum, but he does not know when it will be finalized. [...]

McManus said his agency will proceed with the reroute regardless of what happens in Washington, D.C.

“We’re just carrying out the role that was described to us by the Nebraska legislature,” he said. “We’ll deal with the federal [implications] in late February, depending on what decisions are made.”

Before Republicans attached the Keystone rider to the payroll tax cut, Obama had pushed back making a decision on the pipeline so that the State Department could consider alternate routes and other impacts. The pipeline would carry 830,000 gallons of heavy crude oil from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast, and despite lofty claims about the jobs the pipeline will create, the Keystone XL project is unlikely to be a job creator.

Nebraska rancher Randy Thompson, Keystone XL opponent.

However, Gingrich dismissed the will of the people of Nebraska, attacking President Obama for threatening a veto of the Republican Keystone XL poison pill in the payroll tax cut bill:

The president of the United States cannot figure out that it is — I’m using mild words here — utterly irrational to say, “I am going to veto a middle-class tax cut to protect left-wing environmental extremists in San Francisco,” so that we’re going to kill American jobs, weaken American energy, make us more vulnerable to the Iranians, and do it in a way that makes no sense to any normal rational American.

Watch it:

The farmers and ranchers of Nebraska who stood up to the foreign tar sands company TransCanada might not agree that their opposition to unlimited foreign oil greed means they aren’t a “normal rational American.”

In fact, it’s the decision to rush Keystone XL that Nebraskans think is “utterly irrational.” “We do not even have a new route out of the Sandhills yet, and they want to rush the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Bruce Boettcher, landowner and rancher in the Sandhills, in a statement to ThinkProgress Green. “It makes absolutely no sense.”

“Not only will this pipeline risk jobs of our farmers and ranchers, it is built as an export pipe sending tarsands to Latin America and Asia. If Newt wants a real education on this issue, we invite him to work just one day on a ranch in the Sandhills,” Nebraska activist Jane Kleeb tells ThinkProgress Green.

– Karl Singer