Last spring Senator Chuck Hagel was the man in the spotlight as a veep or cabinet candidate. This spring Nebraska's man of the hour is Sen. Ben Nelson, the man who never met a compromise he didn't like. Nelson has played a major role in shaping the stimulus plan through his role as the man in the middle.
The source of Nelson's fame -- his fence-sitting and ostensible bipartisanship -- often drives me up the wall. Rather than having solid principles of his own, Nelson merely stakes out positions halfway between the principles of others. There's a time for that, of course. But compromise is not an inherent good; it is only valuable if it results in a superior outcome. In American politics that is often not the case. Instead we often need a true alternate solution, not merely a mish-mash of the two presented alternatives.
In any even, Nelson could find himself playing a prominent role in the Senate if he plays his cards right. I'm curious to see what Nebraskans will think about that. Nebraskans have for years picked on Nelson for not standing for anything, yet the man keeps getting elected. He is doing something we like.
What do you like about Sen. Ben Nelson?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I don’t like much about Sen. Nelson. A compromise between reasonable and insane isn’t going to be good for the country.
Actually, I’ll go counter to the two of you and say I like it. Unlike Hagel, who seemed to go against his party just to be all about Hagel, I think Nelson rides the middle because he is torn between what his party wants and what his constituency wants. I think he’s very much at the conservative side of the Democratic party. Not so much as to be a Republican, but I can see why he’s not often in lock-step with more liberal elements of his party. I find it refreshing, and wish there were more people that way.
This of course goes back to my theory that there are about 20% hardcore lefties, and I don’t want them deciding policy, and there are about 20% hardcore righties, and I can see why most don’t want them to decide policy. Seems to me that there should be plenty of room in the 60% in between that are purple - some red and some blue.
More crap would get done if people would vote that way, and not blindly follow party allegience.
Didn’t Hagel vote with the Republicans over 90% of the time? He didn’t like and the Iraq war, but that was because it was a stupid idea.
Anyway, I agree with you about Ben Nelson.
He hit a high of 96% support of George W. Bush in 2006. That dropped to 72% in 2007.
I’m not saying I agree 100% with what Bush did, or that anyone should have voted in lockstep with him. I am saying that I think Hagel started drifting a lot further away from the people of the state he represented.
And when he voted another way, he could have done so quietly, but that didn’t seem to be his style. He gave me the impression that he loved his moments in the spotlight, to advance the agenda of Chuck Hagel.
Maybe Ben Nelson has me fooled, but I don’t get that impression from him. Also, I have not heard him attack Obama or the administration (although it is early). He seems to understand the whole “disagree without being disagreeable” ideal.
I’m someone that’s been accused around these parts of blindly voting to party allegience, but I will say I’ve voted for Nelson, I think, in every race for Governor and Senator that he’s run in. I think he does a fair job and represents the state pretty well.
When the Republican Party called me for donations over the past few years, citing the Senate races, I told them the same thing - if I had to choose, I would have kept Nelson and dumped Hagel. Fortunately, Chuck stepped aside before he got beat in an election.
I’m fine with Nelson’s tactics but very bothered by his conclusions in this case. Republicans and Democrats should be in agreement that if we’re going to spend money, we should be spending money on things that have the most impact for their cost. Ben & Friends cut the most effective parts of the stimulus, for jobs created per dollar spent, and left some of the least effective intact.
I totally agree with your assessment on Nelson’s “bipartisanship,” Mr. Wilson. Falling somewhere between Mankiw and Krugman doesn’t mean it’s good. My hope is that the Cowens and Douthats line up with the Krugmans and DeLongs and speak out while the bill is in conference and urge Congress to put at least the state aid back in.
six comments so far and nothing about his glorious hair helmet?
Mr. Wilson, it’s refreshing to read your opinion of Nelson. I was getting tired of hearing about how great of a hero he was. Last I checked, Nebraskans elected him to be their Senator, not a discussion moderator. And I’m still waiting to hear the “he’s just doing it to get elected” rhetoric we hear whenever Heineman, Bruning, and Foley do something.
As for compromises, they exist solely to remove all accountability from both sides. In two years, when it’s clear that this was a huge mistake, each side is going to be blaming the other’s parts of the spending bill. I’d much rather have the Democrats get everything they want and get no Republican support, so that the blame can lay squarely on them. Obama wants ‘bipartisanship’ only so that he and his party don’t take the blame when it all comes crashing down. If this spending plan is so great and it’s needed so bad, then he and the Democrats should just get the Maine Madames on board and ram it through.
He doesn’t have to do anything just to get elected. The Republicans can’t beat him.
I’ve been a state employee for awhile (I see you Mr. Ramos) and my opinion of Ben Nelson is quite positive. As governor I felt he was always respectful of state employees and valued them. For example, he never once missed an awards recognition for their service. (Governor Johanns…missed several.) I trust him and think he’s doing a fine job.
Just my opinion from past experience.
HI State of NE 😉
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.