Blog

We urge everyone to do their homework and make up their own minds about who they believe is worthy of their vote. However, if you are looking for some insight from those of us at GiN, we have included information here for your consideration about where we stand regarding particular districts and a few candidates.

Note that we do not have the practice of “endorsing” candidates. We have made every effort to be clear with any candidate we talk with that we will be monitoring them should they get elected. We will not hesitate to hold their feet to the fire or to call them out by name if we find the statements they’ve made to us about their positions don’t come to fruition or if their voting recording is not in alignment with our mission and principles.

What Those of Us At GiN Learned During the 2010 Session of the Unicameral

While advocating for and against particular pieces of legislation during the 2010 session of the Unicameral, including the Sovereignty Resolution, we learned a good deal about some of Nebraska’s legislators. I wish we could say that there were many Senators that provoked rousing enthusiasm, but that is simply not the case. Based on what we’ve learned so far, I can count on a few fingers the Senators who seem to be genuine advocates of limited, constitutional government.

None of those Senators are up for re-election at present. That does not mean that some of the Senators currently up for re-election are not worthy, it’s simply that we can’t make any statements regarding candidates about which we have no particular knowledge.

Sadly, what we learned about the Nebraska Unicameral in 2010 was that most of our Senators don’t “get it”.  They don’t get it on the seriousness of the federal deficit and the depth of entanglements with the feds that encroach on Nebraska’s Sovereignty, and they don’t get it at all on pushing back on the health care law.

One thing was clear: a number of Senators in Nebraska’s Unicameral should be replaced and at least THREE of them are currently up for re-election.

Senator Bill Avery – District 28

Senator Avery is the Chair of the Legislature’s Government, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, and presided over the hearings that Committee held on the Sovereignty Resolution during the 2010 session. Nearly from beginning to end, Senator Avery proved that he has a nationalist philosophy of government and that he has no problem implying that all advocates of “states’ rights” are simply a pack of racists, he also showed that as Chairman of a Unicameral committee, he is willing to use procedural rules in novel and unexpected ways to prevent other committee members from voting if they favor a measure he opposes.

Senator Amanda McGill – District 26

Some of our knowledge of McGill comes outside of Unicameral proceedings. In 2009, McGill worked to help organize at least one pro-health care bill rally in Lincoln. The one we know she was involved in supporting and organizing occurred in August at the State Capitol. It was the only rally of which we’re aware in Lincoln surrounding this issue that was very confrontational and came near to violence. We’re aware of information that agitators were hired to target any counter protesters for the purposes of intimidating and provoking them so Capitol police would throw them off the property. Many local unions were involved in organizing the rally, including LEA and the AFL-CIO. In addition to her active support of the health care law and ties to organizers of such rallies, McGill is no friend of limited government. We personally observed her partnership with Senator Danielle Conrad in conducting a filibuster of a bill in the Unicameral that limited abortion.

Senator Danielle Conrad – District 46

We do not claim detailed familiarity with Senator Conrad’s voting record, outside of her partnering with McGill, as noted above. We believe Senator Conrad should not be re-elected due to questionable character. As we note in our principles, character matters in an elected official. Conrad has a history of substance abuse and was arrested for DUI in 2007. Although a recent letter to constituents included a pledge that she had essentially cleaned up her act and even gotten married, we find her statements as to her current status vague and her implication that marriage guarantees her stability questionable, especially coming from a liberal/progressive female.

If you live in Districts 28, 26, or 46, or are motivated to see these officials removed, their challengers are. To visit any of the candidates’ websites, simply click on their name:

District 28 (Avery) – Nancy Russell formerly http://electnancyrussell.com/

District 26 (McGill) – Tom Dierks

District 46 (Conrad) – Chad Wright

As we mentioned yesterday, the Lincoln Journal Star released a Voter’s Guide, which you can check out HERE. Once again, we believe it is important to note that we have found LJS’s voter’s guides to be objective and informative in the past so we do recommend checking them out. The same is not true for LJS’ endorsements, which we disagree with almost across the board.

Once again, we encourage everyone to do their own homework regarding candidates. Should you find any of the candidates worthy, we urge you to take the opportunity in these last days of the election season to provide some assistance to at least one candidate; make phone calls, walk blocks, or at least place a sign in your yard.