This is Laura Ebke's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Laura Ebke's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Laura Ebke
Recent Activity
Dear Fellow Libertarians, That still feels a little weird to write "Libertarian" with a capitol "L", after carefully identifying myself for years as a "small 'l' libertarian" or a "libertarian Republican." Three weeks ago today, my official change of parties became public knowledge. I thought I might provide you with a few thoughts--as one who has recently entered your ranks, one who is a "recovering Republican", one who has gotten elected to office (Nebraska elects legislators on a non-partisan ballot), and one who desperately wants to see the LP grow and gain influence. First Impressions--Announcement Aftermath I think we greatly overestimate the power of the two major parties in the larger electorate. I sent an email to 1800 people announcing my change of party affiliation--as a courtesy, because I wanted to be upfront with my constituents and supporters, and because I really wasn't going to be able to keep it a secret (even though my party affiliation will not show up if I run for re-election in two years, on the ballot). Of those 1800 emails (plus 200 letters, plus coverage in both major papers of the state and several radio and television stations), I've received right at 100 responses to date--either in the form of handwritten letters (1), phone calls (2 or 3), and email (the rest). I've also gotten messages on Facebook that I haven't tallied into this. The vast majority of the responses I've gotten have been positive (or at least indifferent and not angry). Longtime registered Republicans have said (and I'm condensing 90 responses into the gist of it) "that's ok. We know who you are, and we know how you'll vote. We elected you to do the best job you can for us. We don't want Lincoln to be hyperpartisan like D.C." You get the general theme there. I don't guess I really understood until I started getting some of those responses just how little attention most people care about party politics, no matter what their registration is. That is not to say that there aren't some people who think that we Libertarians are nothing more than spoilers. Some people who were mad at me because of a few votes were still mad at me. A few suggested I should resign. A few called me a liberal (I suggested that they take a look at my 100% Americans for Prosperity rating, and my gun rights record). One person suggested that they were going to start a recall petition against me (unfortunately for them, there is no recall mechanism for state officials in Nebraska). One person told me that I would be responsible if Hillary Clinton won (never mind that Nebraska routinely gives its electoral votes to the Republican candidate--except in 2008 when Obama got one of our split votes--apparently this person thought that my influence was so expansive that it would send shock waves throughout the country... I'm skeptical about that--if a state legislator in Nebraska switching parties is such an indictment of the Republican candidate for President that it causes a loss, that doesn't speak very highly of the candidate, I don't think. First Impressions--The People (Yeah, I'm talking about you) I knew this going in--having been around libertarian types (and being one) for a long time. You're smart, well-read, principled (perhaps to a fault), independent. All good things. You're also used to not winning and just trying to be the Jiminy Cricket conscience for everyone else. While Republicans turning Libertarian, turning Republican, is not a particularly new phenomenon (think Ron Paul, who only served in Congress as a Republican, but who ran for President both as the LP nominee, and for the Republican nomination), this year shapes up as a different type of race, and some of you seem to be struggling with it. One other state legislator besides myself (John Moore, Nevada) has switched parties. Libertarian leaning Republicans are looking more and more carefully at the Libertarian Party, and switching. Your candidates for BOTH President and Vice President are former Republicans who were elected and re-elected in Democrat states. These newcomers to the Party bring both good baggage and bad baggage with them, from your perspective. People who have been part of winning campaigns, people who have won elections, people who have friends who can help them fund campaigns, people who may not be as perfectly libertarian as you would like...are they trying to take over? Will they water down the libertarian philosophy? Will their numbers make the LP a more dominant player in the political scene? You have a lot of questions, and concerns--I get it. And no one really knows the answer, but let me suggest a few things. Libertarianism is like a Bag of Tootsie Pops--Different Flavors on the outside--some you like more than others--but get to the Core, and you still get a Tootsie Roll (more liberty?). I'm fond of Tootsie Rolls. That's my candy of choice for parades, because if we don't use them all in the parade, they come home with me. I like Tootsie POPS, as well. Some of the outer shell flavors I like better than others. The red and purple (cherry and grape?--who knows, really?) are my favorites, followed by orange and whatever other brightly colored ones there are. I don't like the brown-shelled ones, really, although in the interest of getting to the Tootsie Roll, I'll eat them if there's nothing else left in the bag. Libertarians come in lots of different flavors. Some focus on economics. Some on civil liberties. Some on foreign policy. And on, and on. The question we all have to ask is this: if someone chooses to affiliate with the LIBERTARIAN PARTY, and can articulate ANY libertarian principles in any of those areas, do we walk away from the purple candidate because we prefer red, or do we suck it up and look at the end goal. Labeling makes a difference in knowing what you're going to get when you get past the outer shell. Take the... Continue reading
Posted Jun 22, 2016 at RedStateEclectic
Yesterday I mentioned the prospective Libertarian Party ticket of Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The website for the Johnson campaign is here. Lots of things to see there, but perhaps the most visually compelling are some of the videos. I especially liked this one: Johnson and Weld represent, I think, a libertarianism that really predates the Libertarian Party--or at least the Paulian resurgence of libertarianism in 2007-2008. They were Republicans of a different kind in the 90's and early 2000's. They may not have read all of the libertarian "texts", and may seem not very philosophically grounded to the younger generation of libertarians, but they are--like many of us--disaffected (and perhaps even unwelcome) in today's Republican party. I am, of course, a little biased. I met Governor Johnson several times in the 2009-2011 time frame. in 2010, he came to Nebraska to speak to our Republican Liberty Caucus-Nebraska convention, and also spoke at a fundraiser for the RLCNE. There are, of course, others running for the Libertarian nomination (although from the outside, it looks like Johnson is the front runner). Another interesting candidate (and seemingly the closest competitor with Johnson) is Austin Petersen (website here). As I lurk on the pages of my Libertarian friends, it appears to me that he appeals to many of the younger, Paul-type Libertarians. In reading through some of his web page, and watching some of his videos, he seems to be much more grounded in libertarian philosophy. He's young, he's internet savvy, and he's well spoken. His YouTube page has an abundance of video--some in brief pieces, some in larger chunks. He's also done a good job of attending a lot of the State Libertarian Party Conventions, where I had a VERY brief interaction with him (I was invited to speak at the Nebraska LP Convention last month as--I guess--the most Libertarian like legislator in the Nebraska Legislature). Petersen appears (as of today) to be Glenn Beck's new favorite candidate. Petersen and Johnson seem to be the most likely nominees. There are several others out there, but probably the most interesting one is John McAfee--software security guru and billionaire. It seems that he is viewed as a little bit TOO eccentric, even for the Libertarian Party, and is a dark horse candidate at best. McAfee seems (at least based on a scan of his website and looking at a few of his campaign videos) to be running a pro-Libertarian campaign, as opposed to a pro-McAfee campaign. His campaign is emphasizing the #VoteDifferent idea. Here's one of his videos, which is reminiscent of some of the "best of" the Ron Paul campaigns. Watch for reports coming out of Orlando next weekend (Memorial Day Weekend) as they have their convention. Who they choose--and why they choose that person--will probably say much about the future of the Libertarian Party. Related articles Why Did the Former Republican Gov. of New Mexico Join the Libertarian Party to Run for President? Vote different? John McAfee 'borrows' from Apple in Presidential bid Continue reading
Posted May 20, 2016 at RedStateEclectic
This year promises to be an extraordinarily entertaining election year for those of us who enjoy watching presidential politics. REPUBLICANS: The "Donald" seems sure to win the nomination. He has run a strong, populist campaign, and I'll give him credit for that. I'm not really sure what he believes yet, but I'm not really sure he knows what he believes. I saw a report the other day which showed his voter registration over the last couple of decades--he's been back and forth between Republican and Democrat quite a few times, and his current iteration as a Republican was was within the last few years. DEMOCRATS: Hillary Clinton is--unless she's indicted before then--going to be the nominee of the party. Bernie Sanders promises to take it till the last ballot is cast at the convention, however, so the promise for some entertainment from the Democrats exists. Hillary will probably have to out promise Bernie (i.e., try to match him for socialism), in order to keep all out war from occurring--and to keep the Bernie folks from bolting the Party. Sanders has hinted at a 3rd Party run, but with one exception, there aren't going to be many serious opportunities for 3rd Parties this year, just because of the need for ballot access. That one exception is.... LIBERTARIANS: The Libertarian Party is on the cusp of having one of the most interesting tickets in its history--we'll know for sure after their convention over Memorial Day weekend. What's interesting about it, you ask? The emerging "likely ticket" of former New Mexico Republican Governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld as Vice President. Why is this so unusual? A couple of reasons: Johnson and Weld were both Republican GOVERNORS--in other words, unlike (to the best of my recollection) any other Libertarian ticket to date, this one has two people who have both won statewide elections, in largely Democratic states--and they both won re-elections, as well.There's more practical, successful political experience than there's been on a LP Ticket, ever. Having two former Governors on the ticket means that the LP will be the only ticket which has both members of the ticket having had serious elective executive experience (Trump, obviously has none, no matter who he names as his VP; Clinton was U.S. Senator, but her executive experience was appointive as Secretary of State, and not everyone would consider it to have been successful). Rumors of Koch Brothers tossing money at the Libertarian Party in this race aside, the Johnson-Weld ticket should be able to raise (and spend) more money than previous Libertarian Party tickets have been able to. One gets the impression that lack of funds seriously restricted the campaign trips that previous LP candidates could make. That could make a huge difference in polling, which then determines whether the LP candidates will make the debates in the fall (the standard is that they have to be polling at 15% in a series of national polls, I believe). Does that mean the Libertarian Party nominees have a shot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Probably not--although there are some out there who contemplate Johnson/Weld potentially winning their home states and one or two others, resulting in no one having 270 electoral votes, and throwing the race to the House of Representatives. I think that's a lot of "ifs".But what id does mean, perhaps, is that a serious conversation about what government should be doing can be had. It might mean that the LP will get 5% of the vote or more--which would then make them eligible for matching funds in 2020. The "gravitas" of a ticket with two, two term governors may provide a refuge for both Republicans and Democrats who are discontent with their likely nominee. That's one of the interesting things about the Libertarian Party--smaller government and fiscal responsibility (conservative issues, typically), also means (to many Libertarians) less government in your personal lives (which seems to be more appealing to the liberal side of the equation). A strong Libertarian run has the potential to shake up the binary R or D decisions that people make. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will dislike a Libertarian presence, but I think that it could actually force both parties to define themselves more clearly, and prioritize their proposals for governance accordingly. I don't think that we're approaching the end of a two party system in the U.S. I think we'll always have two parties, unless we structurally change the way we elect our representatives (winner take all, single member districts; as opposed to proportional multi-member districts). But the names of the parties, and the looks of the parties can (and has) change; and I think it possible that third parties could serve as something akin to "holding areas" until such time as a realignment takes place, and it becomes clear to citizens once again where they belong. Keep watching--there will be more excitement before this is all over, I think. LLE Continue reading
Posted May 19, 2016 at RedStateEclectic
Once again, I need to thank Georg for keeping the home fires burning here. Now that the 104th Legislature has ended (elections this fall will mean at least 11 new senators--maybe more--will be elected for the 105th Legislature), I have many things to talk about. My interim (between now and next January) will be spent working on a manuscript--sort of a political history of one policy within the Nebraska Legislature (more on that later); participating in interim studies for committees I sit on; planning legislation for next year; trying to reacquaint myself with my children (and get "senior pictures" set up for our daughter, who will graduate next year); taking a one-week family vacation with all of my siblings and most of their families; and possibly (still in discussions) teaching a couple of classes for local private college in the fall/winter terms that run from late August till right before Christmas. I won't write a lot, and I will try to couch my comments about things locally in such a way as to not do irreparable damage to my political career, but there are some things which might be of some interest to those who read this blog. I'll start writing in the next week or two, but at this point, really just wanted to check in, and reacquaint myself to the readers. LE Related articles The Swearing-In of Senator Laura Ebke Filibusters push some issues aside Murante won't contest redistricting reform veto Continue reading
Posted Apr 29, 2016 at RedStateEclectic
Last night, Nebraska's freshman U.S. Senator, Ben Sasse, posted this open letter on Facebook: AN OPEN LETTER TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS To my friends supporting Donald Trump: The Trump coalition is broad and complicated, but I believe many Trump fans are well-meaning. I have spoken at length with many of you, both inside and outside Nebraska. You are rightly worried about our national direction. You ache about a crony-capitalist leadership class that is not urgent about tackling our crises. You are right to be angry. I’m as frustrated and saddened as you are about what’s happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump. Please understand: I’m not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I’m a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option. Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public “servants.” The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word “Reign” – like he thinks he’s running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic. At this point in Nebraska discussions, many of you have immediately gotten practical: “Okay, fine, you think there are better choices than Trump. But you would certainly still vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election, right?” Before I explain why my answer is “Neither of them,” let me correct some nonsense you might have heard on the internet of late. WHY I RAN FOR SENATE ***No, I’m not a career politician. (I had never run for anything until being elected to the U.S. Senate fifteen months ago, and I ran precisely because I actually want to make America great again.) ***No, I’m not a lawyer who has never created a job. (I was a business guy before becoming a college president in my hometown.) ***No, I’m not part of the Establishment. (Sheesh, I had attack ads by the lobbyist class run against me while I was on a bus tour doing 16 months of townhalls across Nebraska. Why? Precisely because I was not the preferred candidate of Washington.) ***No, I’m not concerned about political job security. (The very first thing I did upon being sworn in in January 2015 was to introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits – this didn’t exactly endear me to my new colleagues.) ***No, I’m not for open borders. (The very first official trip I took in the Senate was to observe and condemn how laughably porous the Texas/Mexican border is. See 70 tweets from @bensasse in February 2015.) ***No, I’m not a “squishy,” feel-good, grow-government moderate. (I have the 4th most-conservative voting record in the Senate:…/member/S001197 ) In my very first speech to the Senate, I told my colleagues that “The people despise us all.” This institution needs to get to work, not on the lobbyists’ priorities, but on the people’s: Now, to the question at hand: Will I pledge to vote for just any “Republican” nominee over Hillary Clinton? Let’s begin by rejecting naïve purists: Politics has no angels. Politics is not about creating heaven on earth. Politics is simply about preserving a framework for ordered liberty – so that free people can find meaning and happiness not in politics but in their families, their neighborhoods, their work. POLITICAL PARTIES Now, let’s talk about political parties: parties are just tools to enact the things that we believe. Political parties are not families; they are not religions; they are not nations – they are often not even on the level of sports loyalties. They are just tools. I was not born Republican. I chose this party, for as long as it is useful. If our Party is no longer working for the things we believe in – like defending the sanctity of life, stopping ObamaCare, protecting the Second Amendment, etc. – then people of good conscience should stop supporting that party until it is reformed. VOTING Now, let’s talk about voting: Voting is usually just about choosing the lesser evil of the most viable candidates. “Usually…” But not always. Certain moments are larger. They cause us to explicitly ask: Who are we as a people? What does the way we vote here say about our shared identity? What is actually the president’s job? THE PRESIDENT’S CORE CALLING The president’s job is not about just mindlessly shouting the word “strong” – as if Vladimir Putin, who has been strongly bombing civilian populations in Syria the last month, is somehow a model for the American presidency. No, the president’s core calling is to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.” Before we ever get into any technical policy fights – about pipelines, or marginal tax rates, or term limits, or Medicare reimbursement codes – America is first and fundamentally about a shared Constitutional creed. America is exceptional, because she is at her heart a big, bold truth claim about human dignity, natural rights, and self-control – and therefore necessarily about limited rather than limitless government. THE MEANING OF AMERICA America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because our Constitution is the best political document that’s ever been written. It said something different than almost any other government had said before: Most governments before said that might makes right, that government decides what our... Continue reading
Posted Feb 29, 2016 at RedStateEclectic
It's been quite some time since I've posted here. I've thought about it several times, but then decided not to. So here go a few passing thoughts on the last year or so--random thoughts that may or may not be interesting to others as we get ready to close out 2015 and enter 2016. As a state senator with a year of experience under my belt, I sometimes wonder if running for office was the right thing to do for me. While I enjoy the work (most of the time), and relish the challenge of trying to figure out the best way to move my state toward a smaller government/more liberty approach, I'm really not sure that I've got the personality to be a "politician." I like people well enough, and enjoy talking with them, but ultimately, while I'm not really shy, I'm also not really outgoing, either. Case in point: today, while getting my hair cut, the stylist asked "so what do you do?" My answer: "I work for the state, at the Capitol." She accepted that, asked if I was taking a vacation day, and I said "yes." I'm really not trying to hide that I'm an elected official, but I'm not really trying to flaunt it, either. At a recent gathering of very extended family, one gentleman came up to me and said "you're the one who's the state senator, right?" I acknowledged that was indeed the case, but beyond a few words, didn't encourage an extended conversation about property taxes. I worried, later, that perhaps I seemed stand-offish, but I guess I'm still trying to figure out where the lines of demarcation are. Church? Funerals? Family events? At the grocery store? At kids' events? I guess I never really take the title off, but there are times when I'd like to be primarily "mom" or "daughter-in-law" or "wife." Perhaps that's not possible, and perhaps I wouldn't really want it if it was.... On the presidential race front: I've managed (due largely to my job in the legislature) to stay largely out of presidential politics for the first time in several election cycles. 2008 and 2012 were big years for the Paul movement, and I was actively engaged in that. Before that, I was playing academic and trying to finish a dissertation ABOUT presidential politics (finished in 2005-started in 1998--yeah, it took a while, but I got two kids out of the wait!). Who's going to get the GOP nomination? I don't know. Reading through a synopsis I recently got of the new rules that the RNC and various state party organizations have adopted, I'd say that there's probably as good of a chance as any time in my lifetime that we could go into the convention without a clear victor. Either that, or Donald Trump will win early and often and everyone else will leave. I notice that Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee have both withdrawn from the race in the last two days--I think that puts the number at something like 12? Objectively, I think that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio could each win some states. Rand Paul--if the polls are to be believed--hasn't really caught fire. I've followed the RealClearPolitics presidential polls for a number of years. They're nice because they keep a running average of the most recent polls out there, so the results are smoothed a little bit in graph form--fewer big jumps or falls, and more of an ability to see trends. As a political scientist, I'd love to watch a REAL convention. The conventions we've had for most of the last 30 years have been coronations--if we're going to have conventions, then it ought to be something more than just a big party--there ought to be some real decisions made. Speaking of Conventions, Georg has posted about my efforts in Nebraska to pass LR35--Nebraska's application for an Article V Convention/Convention of States for the purpose of amending the U.S. Constitution. The goal there is really to reclaim control of the federal government. Read Article V of the U.S. Constitution--it provides for a convention of the states being held as a means of proposing amendments. There are a number of Article V efforts in the works right now. The one that my application is based on is the Convention of States Project. There's a ton of information on their website, if you're interested. Two weeks from tomorrow, on January 6, the Nebraska Legislature starts back into session. This year is our "short" session (60 days in session, as opposed to 90). We'll be talking a lot about taxes, funding of education, and hopefully some of us will get a few words in on behalf of making our government smaller and our people freer! Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! LE Related articles Only in Nebraska - Birth of the Unicameral The Conscience of a Senator In the Arena Now Laura Ebke, Senator-Elect - First Days after the Victory Continue reading
Posted Dec 22, 2015 at RedStateEclectic
First let me say that this isn't likely to be the first of many. Indeed, it may be the one and only for a while. But it's been quite some time since I've shown my keyboard over here, and I thought I might make just a few comments following last night's multiple Republican Presidential debates. First, for those who didn't care, who live in another country, or were just unaware that this debate was going on, yes, it's early. Really early. This is the time in the presidential election cycle when candidates usually visit Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina--a LOT. In fact, thinking back on it, it's almost 8 years ago exactly (within a week or so) that this particular blog traveled to Ames for the Iowa Straw Poll. We attempted to live blog and live stream, and boy, do I wish that we had the same technology then that we have today. As an aside, that was a really fun event. My oldest daughter--who would have just graduated from high school in August of 2007, and my future son-in-law (who was a year behind her) accompanied me on that journey. No straw poll this year, so I guess the GOP decided they needed to have something that would get the party faithful excited. For those who haven't paid attention, there are 17 announced candidates for the Republican nomination. Now those folks aren't all going to last--and I suspect some of them may be gone before Thanksgiving. But the numbers were so great that Fox News (which carried the debate) decided that they would split the event up, with the top 10 (based on recent combined polls) getting to be in the prime time slot, and the bottom 7 debating a couple of hours earlier. The whole thing reminded me of the way that high schools in Nebraska used to do basketball games: The varsity game started at 7 or 7:30; the junior varsity usually started at 5:30 or 6. Typically, the jayvee game was poorly attended--usually by only family and die hard basketball fans, and the bleachers filled up toward the end in anticipation of the varsity game. The big difference with my basketball metaphor is that whereas sometimes the coaches would let the top junior varsity players stay suited up for the varsity game, it didn't matter how well anyone did in the first debate--they were done, and had to watch the "top dogs" for the second game. I could (and might sometime) provide a little overview of my impressions of all of the candidates, but right now, I think I'll just scratch the surface... Donald Trump--by some accounts--is in the lead. I frankly don't think he lasts. I think he'll rub Republican women the wrong way, and eventually, his ego will get in the way. I may be wrong--and he's certainly tapping into something out there--but I just don't think he goes to the end. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee are arguably the next tier of candidates (after you get past the Trump glitz). I don't think any of them was hurt by their performance on Thursday night. I think Huckabee might have been helped. All three are former (or in Walker's case, current) governors. Other governors or former governors in the race: Chris Christie, John Kasich, George Pataki, Jim Gillmore, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal. I like that we've got governors in the mix. Of the governors: I would be surprised to see Pataki or Gillmore hang around a long time. They're both honorable men, I think. But Pataki is pro-choice-ish, which will be a problem with the GOP base; Gillmore has been out of office for 8 years, and a lot of people didn't seem to have a clue who he was. Jindal seems like one who could break through in that group; Christie is going to be to moderate for the base, and will run into problems with his desire to expand NSA wiretaps of American citizens without a warrant (he and Rand Paul got into a little dustup about that...). I have a feeling that John Kasich could be a surprise in how well he does, and may be around a while. If Rick Perry can raise money, he might have a little staying power, but I wasn't impressed with his performance in the jayvee game... Senators (or former) in the race: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham. Graham and Santorum were in the first debate. Of those two, Santorum looked the strongest. Graham mostly just beat the drums of war. Cruz, Paul and Rubio all had their moments. Paul got in some good punches with Christie, Cruz had a few good lines, but I thought that Rubio looked the strongest of the three. I think Graham is the weakest of the senators running; at this point, Rubio may be the strongest--as a candidate, although not necessarily from a policy perspective. Aside from Trump, there are two "non-politicians" in the race. Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Carson was in the varsity debate, Fiorina in the other. During the first part of the second debate, I wondered why Carson was there--he seemed nervous, or intimidated, or something. But he came on strong at the end, and probably had the strongest close of the bunch. Fiorina in the first debate, largely wiped up the stage, and established herself as a force to be reckoned with. She should be on the top tier stage next time--in part to see whether she can hold her own, but in part for the optics. While I don't like identity politics, the most striking lineup from the standpoint of what the public would see would have included Jindal (child of immigrants from India); Carly Fiorina (woman); Dr. Ben Carson (African-American neurosurgeon); Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz (children of Cuban immigrants), and then a few of the others. For those interested, here are the announced Democratic candidates:,_2016 And all of the Republican candidates:... Continue reading
Posted Aug 7, 2015 at RedStateEclectic
My friend (and occasional contributor here), Angela, pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago that she was having trouble getting to this page via the website. I had that set to point to the page. Unfortunately, in the midst of the campaign, I missed the domain renewal. I managed to snag it back up and renew the domain, but for some reason, I’m having trouble getting it pointed to where it’s supposed to. I’ll keep plugging away at it, and hopefully get it set up soon. But the blog is still here! LLE Continue reading
Posted Jan 3, 2015 at RedStateEclectic
I haven’t actively posted here for most of the last year (or 18 months). I would anticipate that with what’s coming next, that will probably continue to be the case (although I intend to check in, and will post occasionally as time allows and the spirit moves me). The last 18 months have been quite the whirlwind. From the announcement of my candidacy for the Nebraska Legislature in June of 2013, till my narrow victory in the General Election this past November 4, life has been busy, and full of a few insights. Here are some of my briefs: I started drinking coffee in my 40’s—and really, it wasn’t coffee, but doctored up flavored, coffee “drinks”. Coffee has become a drink of choice for me in the last year. In part because of the properties of the caffeine, but in part because that’s what others are drinking when you stop by the local donut shop. All good conversations with citizens seem to revolve around the placement of coffee on the tables. We’ll have a coffee pot available in my office. Stop on by. Campaigns need volunteers or a lot of money—and sometimes, both. In the closing days of my campaign, things got a little crazy. The mailings that were sent out were sometimes amusing in their attempts to scare voters; the robocalls made were downright irritating. I couldn’t have won without two things: a great corps of volunteers who walked with us in parades, knocked on doors, waved signs on election day, and made phone calls; and some great contributors who pitched in at the last minute so that we could get all of our planned mailings out. One interest group spent about $50,000 trying to beat me—almost half of that amount was given directly to my opponent’s campaign, amounting to about a third of his campaign income. My donors were much more spread out. My family is made up of great sports. My dad, step-mother, and 2 of my kids walked with me in just about every parade (they may have each missed one out of the 15 or so that we did around the district this summer). My husband—when he wasn’t working—walked in parades and helped with lit drops. My mom made cookies for some of our events. That’s in addition to the great support from the non-family volunteers. One year out from the election, we decided to get a newer car—a Honda Accord, a little over a year old, with 20,000 miles on it. A year later, it had 48,000 miles on it. Lots of “short trips” through the district really added up in that year. 28,000 miles is about twice the usual mileage that I’ve put on a car in a year. Fortunately, even with gas prices that were pretty high this past summer, the Honda got pretty good mileage (at least compared to the 10 year old minivan that I had been driving…). Win an election, and you get lots of friends! The morning after the election, the congratulatory phone calls started coming in. Two days after the election, the congratulatory letters started filling my mailbox. A few days after that, I started getting lots of invitations to lots of social events being hosted by assorted organizations, starting next week (when the session starts). It’s not possible to go to all of them. One night, I LITERALLY, have 3 invitations for the same time, different parts of town. How we’re going to handle that in my office is yet to be determined. People think that you can solve their problems with legislation. Although I haven’t had TOO many requests, I’ve had people from several different groups ask me to “carry” legislation for them (all legislation has to be introduced by a member of the legislature, so interest groups look for people who will do that for them). With 18 new members of the 49 member legislature, it will be interesting to see how we all approach this. I should take notes (but probably won’t)—it might make an interesting book someday. Watch the swearing in at 10 a.m. (Central Time) on Wednesday, January 7. It’s live-streamed here. Watch a little longer, and you’ll see what opening day looks like. LLE Continue reading
Posted Jan 3, 2015 at RedStateEclectic
I haven’t written anything here for quite some time. Lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is my ongoing campaign effort. I thought I might jot down a few quick thoughts/reactions from the campaign trail. Those who read this blog, probably remember seeing that I did well in the Primary. Finished first out of two by a significant margin. Both of us advance to the General Election. I won’t be taking anything for granted though, and we have a fairly extensive plan underway for the next 110 days till the election. We are in the midst of parade season. Probably half of the 39 towns and villages in the district have some sort of festival or fair during the summer months, and many of those include a parade of some sort. We’ve done four in the last few weeks, have two coming up this weekend, and then 3 or 4 others before the end of August. I actually kind of enjoy the parades. Even though I’m something of an introvert, that doesn’t mean that I’m shy, or incapable of turning on bursts of extroversion. The nature of parades are such that even while you may be shaking a lot of hands and exchanging brief pleasantries with folks, you just don’t have time to invest yourself in extended conversation. I like conversation, but I tend not to be real good at initiating it. Endorsements are crazy. Money is important. While I’ve been blessed with extraordinarily generous friends around the country—many of them from inside the district—I don’t think I realized just how important those bigger PAC and corporate donations could be. I used to think I wouldn’t want to take them, but I learned pretty fast that they are critical to paying the bills and doing the things you really need to do. The game playing involved in getting endorsements (and the money that goes along with it—sometimes) is exhausting. Everyone has a questionnaire for you to fill out. Sometimes the questionnaires don’t make total sense—even if you try to put yourself in the shoes of those who sent them. Sometimes you look at the questionnaires and realize that there’s no way you can win, or that there’s no help that a particular group could give you, and you opt not to fill out the questionnaire. And then there’s always the problem of groups who *should* endorse you—because of philosophy, or experience, or whatever—and yet they don’t (sometimes they choose not to endorse anyone, sometimes they inexplicably endorse the other guy). The hardest things for introverts (at least THIS introvert) to do in politics (although some of this may be a Midwestern personality thing, too): Raise money. Asking people for money is incredibly difficult for me. In part, it’s because it requires me to puff myself up, brag on myself, convince people that I’m worthy of supporting, and I’m just not like that. I’m confident in my abilities, but don’t feel the need to tell other people that all the time. I’m having a fundraiser tomorrow night. Two sitting state senators and our candidate for governor are going to be there on my behalf. I was talking to someone who arranges a lot of these things the other night, and asked him about protocol—who introduces who, who gets to speak, etc. He said “Laura, it’s all about you—you get the best speaking spot.” Hmm. Introverts have trouble having things being about them. Approaching strangers in public. Like I said, I like shaking hands and greeting people in parades—that doesn’t require me to get into people’s space for any extended period of time. I love Meet and Greets, where people choose to show up, ask me questions, and we talk. And I like sitting down over coffee with groups of folks, and chatting. I like real conversation that I can give real thought to. Going to County Fairs and other public gatherings are ok. I don’t mind “waving the flag” so to speak, to show that I was there. But I hate disturbing people when they’re eating their dinner, or doing something with their family. I don’t go to public events (pre-candidacy) to have some politician come up and ask me what I think about water issues in the district (or whatever). The best things about the campaign so far: Volunteers. I’ve got great friends and volunteers. My family has been great. Friends in the district and outside of the district have answered the call to come and help with parades, canvassing, lit drops and the like. Conversations with my kids. My two youngest have been on the road with me quite a bit. We’ve had quite a few car conversations about politics, and just about life, in the car. Sometimes, we turn on the Garth Brooks CDs, and have sing-alongs. The people. There are a lot of great people in my district. We had “Meet Laura” events in probably a dozen little diners and bars in small towns during the primary season. Sometimes, people showed up, sometimes they didn’t. When they did, we had some great conversations about the direction that our state should go; when they didn’t, I had conversations with the owners of the establishment, and they’d introduce me to others who had walked in (but not for me), and we’d have conversations. The food. As I suggested above, I’ve eaten in a lot of little bars and diners in the last 6 months. The food is great (if not necessarily great for my cholesterol). The best hamburgers, steaks, chicken fried steak/chicken, breakfasts, and in one place, the most decadent, unhealthy and delicious sandwich I’ve eaten ever, I think—fried chicken breast with melted cheese and BACON, on a bun. It was huge, and tremendously good, and I’ll likely never forget it. Fortunately, parade season and door knocking was on the agenda when I was going through my tour of eateries, so no real damage was done on the scale. The next 110 days will be busy,... Continue reading
Posted Jul 16, 2014 at RedStateEclectic
Interesting video. What do the economists out there think of this? Continue reading
Posted Jun 25, 2014 at RedStateEclectic
I’ll try to post a little primary campaign retrospective here in the next few days. Suffice it to say, the results were promising for the General Election in November, but I’m not taking anything for granted. In the meantime, here’s a little bit of a reassurance for you—you’re NOT crazy.. Continue reading
Posted May 18, 2014 at RedStateEclectic
It’s been a while since I’ve popped my head in here. My schedule seems to have accelerated exponentially in the last few weeks—even since the March 3 filing deadline here in the state. The race is set, and there are two people in the “officially” non-partisan race. One of us (me) is a Republican; the other is a registered Democrat. Here in Nebraska, for legislative races, it’s hard to know what to make of partisanship. Nebraska is generally a Republican state, and even my district is generally Republican. But so-called conservative Democrats get elected from time to time (and then give us things like Sen. Ben Nelson’s gift of Obamacare via the Cornhusker Kickback…), so it’s hard to know how to play the game. The good news is that we’ll both move on from the Primary—regardless of how it turns out; the bad news is that the favorite coming out of the Primary typically has the best luck wit General Election fundraising, so the pressure is on to “win” (or at least keep very close) the primary—for both of us… I’m trying to run a largely “populist” campaign—I haven’t hired consultants, and so far haven’t hired any campaign staff (I just think that’s a questionable use of funds in a campaign for the legislature—how much is a person willing to raise and spend for a “job” that pays $12,000 a year?). Chances are that on the low end, we’ll end up spending four times the annual pay of a state legislator, anyway, but more than that seems to imply that the position is more than a “citizen legislator” position. I suspect, though, that my opponent will spend more (he’s got paid consultants hired, so he’ll at least be spending on them…). But of course I’m blessed with a lot of great liberty volunteers, so our costs (at least so far) have been primarily in the purchase of yard signs, mailings, door hangers, and the like. It’s going to get tight before the primary, I suspect, as we come up with NEW things that need to be done or bought…but we’ll muddle through, I’m sure. Finally, I’d commend this video to your watching. Rand Paul’s speech to CPAC today. Continue reading
Posted Mar 7, 2014 at RedStateEclectic
Ross Perot would be proud of all of these visual aids. And here's the link--a few days late.... Continue reading
Reblogged Jan 13, 2014 at RedStateEclectic
Lest I start sounding like I’ve stomped through sour grapes, let me say up front that while some of the data points I’ve observed have come from my own campaign for the Nebraska Legislature, I’ve seen lots of other data points as well… (have I piqued your curiosity?), and those have inspired this little rant. Here’s the deal. For those Ron Paul supporters in the crowd, I’d like you to think back to the early days of this blog (if you’ve been following along that long). 2007-08. Sign waving, money bombs, tea parties, and blimps. Great fun, wasn’t it? I remember (to my embarrassment, frankly) staying up all night watching one of the money bombs, and how that number just kept going up, and how exciting it was as we all added our $10, or $100, and then saw our names flash up on the computer. Sometimes we added another $10 or $100, just to see it go higher. We were a part of something—although we were a part of something that didn’t stand the proverbial snowball’s chance in Hell. Sorry Ron Paul fans, but in your heart, you know that’s true. We believed (and I have a clear memory of telling my father—who was/is a Ron Paul fan—that I thought that this would happen) that people were going to be surprised; that there was a real sea change; that Republicans were going to nominate Ron Paul…. I think I knew better, but I was so wrapped up in the dream, that I tossed more and more money into the kitty with every money bomb, even though that money didn’t stand a chance of changing the outcome of the nomination race. All that is to say this: libertarian/Tea Partiers/Constitutionalists need to learn a couple of things. They need to (as Barry Goldwater said to “conservatives” in 1960) “grow up” a little. Maybe this is happening in some places—I think it’s starting to happen, at least. But here are some things to consider. First, they need to learn that hope and change doesn’t happen without a plan and some cash—Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign sure didn’t seem to have an electoral plan (although it certainly had a great “spread the message” plan). Or maybe there was no plan, and the beauty of the internet just allowed a totally organic growth of ideas. He had (at times) what seemed to be a lot of cash—although in the end, it wouldn’t have been enough, and it was pretty useless without a real plan for achieving the goal of getting the nomination. Remember 2007-08? Who was supposed to be the Democratic nominee? Hillary Clinton. But Barack Obama had the hope and change PLUS the plan and cash. HIllary had cash, and perhaps a plan, but I think she was not adequately convincing on the hope and change side of things. You’ve got to have at least some of all of those things, I think: an effective message, a plan, and the money to disseminate the message and and implement the plan. Second, the aforementioned groups need to learn that it’s exceeding rare for someone to appear out of nowhere, to bloom on the national stage. You want liberty and constitutionalism? Quit aiming for the Presidency and the Senate. Look at House members like Justin Amash. The man is brilliant, and I hope I live to see President Amash. But he didn’t start out in Congress, did he? He spent some time in the Michigan legislature. In Nebraska’s current congressional delegation: Senator Fischer served previously in the Legislature and on her local School Board before that; Senator Johanns served as Governor of Nebraska, but before that, as Mayor of Lincoln; Rep. Fortenberry served on the Lincoln City Council before running for Congress; Rep. Terry served on the Omaha City Council; and Rep. Adrian Smith served in the Nebraska Legislature, and before that, on the Gering City Council. The point to those resumes? In most cases, people who get elected to even the “lowest” of federal offices (arguably the House) have spent at least some time proving their credibility in other offices. In fact, here in Nebraska, while there may be others, the only person who comes immediately to mind in my lifetime of federal officeholders who haven’t had some sort of previous experience (and going back a little ways, military service may have been the qualifying factor), is Tom Osborne, former Coach of the University of Nebraska football team, and something of a patron saint where many Nebraskans are concerned…he served a couple of terms in the House after retiring from coaching. So, if the liberty/tea party/constitutionalist movement REALLY wants to make a difference over the long term, the question is not whether they can elect a President (although I hope they can—but it’ll take someone who can appeal to a much broader audience), or whether they can elect more Rand Paul’s, Mike Lee’s or Ted Cruz’s to the Senate (I hope they can do that, as well—although Senate races can be pretty expensive). The question is whether they will have just a bit of patience, and elect people who think like them to a whole bunch of lower offices—building the bench, so to speak, so that they’ve got people who can be credible candidates when that next position looks vulnerable or opens up due to retirement. I’ve had several discussions over the last few months with people who are still playing the “if only we’d elected Ron Paul” game. In some respects, the libertarians (and I’m lumping the Tea Party and Constitutionalists in with them, although they don’t always fit together perfectly) can be just as lazy as everyone else. They want to see things changed, but they want it to happen “easily”—with Super Ron convincing all of the wisdom of liberty. But it’s going to take a whole lot more work, and a whole lot more time (even IF Justin Amash was old enough to run for President, and even IF we could get... Continue reading
Posted Jan 2, 2014 at RedStateEclectic
Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. The prior high for big government was 65% in 1999 and 2000. Big government has always topped big business and big labor, including in the initial asking in 1965, but just 35% named it at that time. via Interesting results. If this is true, one wonders why people don't vote in larger numbers for the "small government" candidates.... Continue reading
Reblogged Dec 19, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
Americans want the government to stop acting like their mother. According to a Reason-Rupe poll, Americans do not want government to ban trans-fats, e-cigarettes, online poker, violent video games or genetic testing kits. Many Americans are becoming frustrated with the government’s growing involvement in what they believe should be their personal decisions. via We can hope that this is really true.... Continue reading
Reblogged Dec 15, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
It seems that my absence has resulted in a higher form of writing here. Georg has done a tremendous job of continuing to keep new and challenging posts on this page, and I greatly appreciate that. As many know, I am in the midst of a Legislative campaign (for those non-Nebraskans, Nebraska is the single state in the union that has a one house—unicameral—legislature). While I do not yet have an opponent, we’re working to see to it that if/when someone else does jump into the race, we’ve got a good head start. Fundraising, knocking on doors, meet and greets, meeting with organizations who want to have the ear of a potential legislator…all added to my teaching schedule, school board duties, family commitments…seem to keep me busy these days. I am slowly but surely trying to clear some things from my somewhat overflowing plate, but until the filing deadline has come and gone, at least (March 1), my race for the legislature seems likely to consume a goodly amount of my time. For those who haven’t taken a look at my campaign website, you can find it at We’re, of course, also on Facebook and Twitter, and will soon have APPS in the iTunes store (and already have one in the Android store). Here in Nebraska, we’re getting our first really nasty winter blast. The last couple of days have been in the single digits, temperature-wise, and right now we’ve still got a little bit of snow falling (I suppose we’ve gotten 3 inches or so). I have, on a number of occasions, started to post something here, but have ended up with about 5 now-dated, partially done posts. This one, at least, will have some form of conclusion! LLE Continue reading
Posted Dec 8, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
I’m sitting here at 8:30 am after the midnight shutdown of the government. The sun came up. And while there will undoubtedly be some inconveniences to some, at some point, with a government shut down, I find myself feeling a little like Ron Swanson: For those of you who haven’t heard of “Parks and Recreation”, it’s a brilliant television series (most of it is available on Netflix for those who subscribe to that)—it may be available in other places, as well. This scene comes in the 3rd of 4th season (can’t remember which). Ron Swanson, the mustachioed gentleman, is the libertarian head of a government department, who would love to see government be much smaller. LE P.S. As I wrote this, the Senate came into session, and immediately started the vote to table the House’s request to go to Conference. The shut down may be real, and may last a while. Who will blink first? Continue reading
Posted Oct 1, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
The big “talk” these days—on the front pages of newspapers, on all the Sunday news shows, and all over social media—is about the effort to “defund” Obamacare as part of a Continuing Resolution, and the possibility (now likelihood) of a government shutdown come Tuesday (the old fiscal year ends, and the new one begins, at midnight on Monday night). Sen. Ted Cruz’s valiant effort of a 21 hour filibuster-that-wasn’t-really-a-filibuster-but-really-just-a-long-speech, brought great attention to the “Defund” effort. He was joined by several senators—most notably Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim Inhofe and Marco Rubio. Those senators came to the floor and asked him extended questions (presumably to allow his voice a chance to rest, and perhaps to get a drink of water—although Senate rules are not only arcane but draconian—he would lose control of the floor if he had sat down, left to use the restroom, etc.). Cruz showed himself to be quite impressive in his holding of the floor. Had it been most people (well, at least me and many I know) they would have been drooling, babbling, crossing their legs, and generally making little logical sense toward the end. Senator Cruz, however, in the last couple of hours, was answering questions posed to him cogently, and seemed ready to go longer, had the rules allowed. The occasional Democrat who came to the floor to ask questions (and later expressed their own opinions) struck a far-from-reasonable tone. Rather, they sounded more like 7 year olds who weren’t happy that their friend wanted to play with Legos while they wanted to swing. The rhetoric devolved into name calling (“Tea Party Anarchists” was my favorite) on the Senate floor. Sen. Cruz’s effort was intended to convince primarily the Republicans in the Senate—but any friendly Democrats, as well—not to vote for cloture on the consideration of the House Continuing Resolution 59 (which defunded Obamacare but fully funded the government otherwise), as it was, because Majority Leader Harry Reid had already filed an amendment to remove the “defunding” provision from the CR. If cloture was invoked, then all amendments and the final version of the CR could be approved in the Senate with a simple majority, which the Democrats have. Nineteen Republicans stood against cloture, and ultimately, against funding Obamacare. Twenty-five Republicans voted with the Democrats (although many of them later voted against the CR, presumably so that they could say (as John Kerry once did) that they were for it before they were against it. The Resolution returned to the House, and somewhat surprisingly, the House has now taken a bold stand—a bit of a compromise, but not one that will likely win in the end. They voted against Reid’s amended CR, and have sent over a new one to the Senate—one that would (among other things)—delay implementation of Obamacare for another year. Senator Reid has indicated that the Democrats won’t buy that, and given the time constraints, it seems likely that there will be no money to authorized to fund the government come Tuesday morning, and we’ll see a shut-down of some sort. I understand the problem of military pay, Social Security payments, and so on. I also understand that federal government employees—whether I like their jobs and functions or not—are workers who likely depend on a regular paycheck. But I tend to think that the Republicans are right in drawing this line in the sand, and it’s encouraging to see them show some guts (well, except for the 25 in the Senate who didn’t…). The problem is staggering. I frankly am not sure how it’s possible to dig ourselves out. The video above suggests the only answer: we have to seriously reconsider what we expect government to do. LE Continue reading
Posted Sep 29, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
Haven’t written anything here in a LONG time. I’ve thought about it a few times, even started a few posts, but somehow, it just never happened. An assortment of distractions are keeping me very busy, it would seem. The Legislative race is starting to consume more of my time. We’ve done a parade, a lit drop and a Meet and Greet; I’ve met with potential supporters, lobbyists, current legislators; we’ve had more photos taken than I’ve stood still for, for anything since my high school graduation pictures 33 years ago; I’ve toured one of the major businesses in the district; I’m trying to raise money… Wow, this campaigning stuff is HARD WORK! So far, things are going well. If you’re interested, you can take a look at the website here. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Nebraska is busy making its voice known in the larger Nebraska GOP. We’ve found that as time has progressed, and we’ve proven that we’re going to stick around and will work, that we’re being listened to—and if not embraced, at least being treated with some level of respect. Part of that is, I suppose, due to our attitude; part of it is probably due to our growing numbers in the party structure; and part of it is because the side of liberty is starting to click with people, and they’re finding themselves agreeing with us more and more all the time. Life is good, and will be even better here in Nebraska now that the latest heat wave seems to have broken (several days this week have been tipping 100 degrees). I’ll write more of substance a bit later…. LLE Continue reading
Posted Sep 1, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
It seems that I have been largely incommunicado here. Most of you will know that it’s because I’ve launched a race for the Nebraska Legislature, and have just been seriously bogged down with laying groundwork for that effort. Plus, I just returned from a 12 day vacation with the family. For those who are interested, my website launched, officially, today. You can head over here to see it. We’ll be adding content as we go, but I’m really quite pleased with the way it turned out. As for the vacation—the family and I road-tripped to the East Coast (not a short trip, for those who don’t know their geography). We visited the Gettysburg National Battlefield, then Antietam National Battlefield—and were reminded of just what an awful thing the Civil War was, regardless of whether you agree with the stated principles on either side. The death and destruction—of Americans, in America, by Americans—on both sides, was sobering. We spent 2 full days touring the lion’s den (or snake pit) that is Washington, D.C. I came to one very important conclusion as we were moving as fast as our 6 sets of legs would carry us around the National Mall in the middle of a major heat wave in D.C.: if you’re going to D.C., either schedule yourself for many days, and see the things you want casually over those days; or just accept that you’re not going to see everything. Sometimes—especially toward the end of the day, things were almost this bad: We traveled to Virginia Beach, where we spent 6 nights. We enjoyed the time on the beach—and the good thing is, none of us got TOO sunburned. The males in the group enjoyed architectural design: But probably my personal favorite was the day trip to Colonial Williamsburg. The best part of that? Other than taking a wrong turn as I headed toward the Governor’s Palace and walking about a half mile further than I needed to in 100 degree weather? This: This is an actor, portraying Patrick Henry. It was quite good—the actor was able to stay in character, but also made winking references to modern day events (for instance, we were supposedly in 1778 or 79 during this talk, but when asked a question, he referred to his "visionary abilities” and talked about how the Federalists would expect the states to go along with the Constitution and a promise of a Bill of Rights—which they hadn’t even seen. He said something to the effect of “They believe that we need to pass the Constitution before we can see what’s going to be in the Bill of Rights! Can you imagine that happening?” Reference was obviously to Nancy Pelosi’s infamous comment regarding Obamacare and needing to “pass the bill to know what’s in it.” I got the feeling that the 50 or so people in attendance at this event might have been of similar minds—sort of anti-federalist in nature. Our drive home was grueling—17 hours on the first day, 7 on the second. But it’s great to be home… And that’s where I’ve been…. LLE Continue reading
Posted Jul 29, 2013 at RedStateEclectic
Thanks for the very kind words, Georg!
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2013 on 2014! in Nebraska at RedStateEclectic
1 reply
In terms of a "report" of the day, subject to more possibly later.... The event was well attended, and included 100 people or so wandering around my yard. One of the most fun parties I've ever been a part of, really. The State GOP Chair stopped by, a State Senator dropped by, and a candidate for the U.S. Senate hung out with us for a few hours. All were present during my announcement. Another RLC member announced that he was running for the Legislature, as well (we are a unicameral system, and all of our legislators are members are referred to as "Senators"). Life is good in the Cornhusker State!
Toggle Commented Jul 1, 2013 on 2014! in Nebraska at RedStateEclectic
1 reply
If you're reading this, it's official. Several months ago, someone first suggested to me that I (!?!) ought to run for the Legislature (here in Nebraska, we have a one-house legislature. I looked for someone else to run, but the best lead I had decided not to run. about a month ago, one of the Republican Liberty Caucus guys in the state put up a "draft Laura Ebke for Legislature" page on Facebook. Today is (was, probably, at this point) the RLC-Nebraska Summer Party at my house. Someone--perhaps Triple Hash, perhaps me--will report on the details of that a bit more later. But I decided that if I was going to run for the Legislature, I'd announce it at this event, surrounded by my friends and fellow RLCers. The website is not *up* yet--it's being built as I type this (we have a very basic WordPress placeholder there right now). But in the next week or two, it should become fully functioning. Check it out at As I told my co-bloggers a few weeks ago, jumping into this race will probably mean even less posting on my part. The demands of a campaign, and the need to be more reflective in my public opinions may make a lot of posting ill-advised. I will, however, post from time to time--and who knows? There may be some great stories to tell from the campaign trail. LLE Continue reading
Posted Jun 29, 2013 at RedStateEclectic