Congressman Terry Denies “Finger Wagging”, Still Won’t Debate
Print This Article
LEE SAID, SHE SAID.
Lee, as in Congressman Lee Terry (NE-R).
She, as in Theresa Sakalosky, the wife of Matt Sakalosky, the “Tea Party” type, who is running against Terry in the May 11th Republican Primary.
Terry says Mrs. Sakalosky has it all wrong. “It” is a dust up between Terry and Mr. Sakalosky during last week’s Tea Party Express stop at Zorinsky Lake in Omaha.
Theresa Sakalosky has told Nebraska Watchdog that Terry walked up to her husband and was “wagging his finger” in her husband’s face.
During an interview with KFAB radio on Tuesday, Terry said he never wagged his finger. He also told KFAB the incident lasted 15 seconds and was basically some of Sakalosky’s supporters criticizing Terry.
Matt Sakalosky has told Nebraska Watchdog that Terry said, “I’ve been reading the lies you’ve been writing on your Website.”
Terry would not say if he told Sakalosky that Sakalosky was lying. Terry told 
Nebraska Watchdog, “I’m not going there.” Terry did say he told Sakalosky there are items about Terry on Sakalosky’s campaign Website that “just aren’t true.”
A
sked by Nebraska Watchdog what specific claims by Sakalosky bothered Terry, Terry responded “He’s (Sakalosky) saying I’m a liberal.”
During his 12 years in Congress and two terms on the Omaha City Council, Terry has been called a lot of things but “a liberal” isn’t one of them, until now.
Nebraska Watchdog has examined Sakalosky’s Website, which specifically notes that Terry voted for the first bank bailout (TARP) and “Cash for Clunkers.” Sakalosky writes, “This tells us he (Terry) supports government intervention into the private markets without hesitation to assist companies that have made poor decisions.” Sakalosky also states Terry has a “liberal and progressive approach” to government.
In Terry’s first ground attack of the campaign, a flyer that will be landing in the mailboxes of likely Republican primary voters, Terry makes no mention of bailouts or clunkers. Instead, holding a football alongside Governor Dave Heineman (NE-R) Terry is pushing lower taxes and his opposition to “Government run Healthcare.”
Terry’s campaign manager, David Boomer, finds the liberal label ridiculous. According to Boomer, “For years, the line of attack we’ve heard is Lee is too conservative. Now he’s too liberal?”
Sakalosky has offered to debate Terry but Terry continues to refuse. During his interview with KFAB, Terry said his schedule between now and the primary is full.
Editor’s note: to subscribe free of charge to News Updates from Nebraska Watchdog click here.
Editor’s note: to see Nebraska Watchdog’s previous stories on this subject click here.
Reported by Joe Jordan, joe@nebraskawatchdog.org
Posted under Blog, State Politics.
Tags: Joe Jordan, Lee Terry, Matt Sakalosky, Nebraska, Teresa Sakalosky, Watchdog
9:51 am on April 8th, 2010
I don’t really blame Terry for voting for TARP. Most financial analysts would say TARP was necessary to keep our assets afloat, and as far as government programs go, it was moderately successful as far as efficiency and accountability go.
But Terry IS very conservative on issues of gays, abortions, guns, and most government spending… including healthcare. Why is NEW even covering Sak? He’s obsolete. No one expects him to win. Let’s just let his campaign and his $97 die…
9:25 pm on April 8th, 2010
I, as a conservative was furious when the tarp passed. I couldnnt believe that the so called Republicans voted for it. I was ashamed of Bush for the first time. I believe in natural consequences are thebest why to disclipine. Too big to fail also meant to big to successed. We need to evakuate our representatives and get rid of the “RINO’s” how do not follow the constitution of the land.
10:24 pm on April 8th, 2010
Our Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom organization gave Cong. Terry a 90% conservative voting record in 2009. He is hardly a liberal!
8:17 am on April 9th, 2010
Valerie, please learn how to spell before joining the debate. Honestly, how hard is it to reread what you wrote before clicking the submit button.
I, too, was a wreck t the day of the TARP vote-the 1st time AND the 2nd time (remember, there were 2). I have friends that have lost their homes in spite of TARP, and I have friends whose butts were saved because of TARP.
I have friends that can barely pay the bills on their businesses that were thriving just 3-4 years ago and I have friends that are starting new businesses that will thrive in our current economy-they are being flexible.
This was a no win vote-either time. Many of the experts (including experts in the education world that surely didn’t have much skin in the game) advised the entire world publicly that this was necessary no matter how distasteful it was going down.
Valary (oops), I am glad that you have yours and that it is more than enough. However, I elect my representatives(at every level) to reflect my views AND do what is right for the majority of the people in my community, city,state and Country.
I could not look myself in the mirror if I had forced my position of “fend for yourself” on all the lower wage employees of ConAgra or Hawkins Construction; FNB or TD Ameritrade; BCBS or Mutual of Omaha.
Valerie, I am sorry to break it to you, but the world does not revolve around you and only you no matter what your mommy and daddy told you. It is about the greater good for the common people.
7:17 am on April 14th, 2010
I don’t see how this is a bad thing? Sakalosky is outline the fact that Lee Terry has voted for things that a true conservative wouldn’t.
Jamie not to call you out but who cares what financial analysts say, if a financial analyst told you that government intervention- funded by taxpayer dollars- was needed, and you believed in small government as Terry claims to… would you vote for it? No. Why? I’m glad this Sakalosky guy is running, at least someone is making Terry answer for why he voted for these not-so conservative votes. Competition brings out the best
9:33 pm on April 16th, 2010
GopGal, wrote:
“…was a wreck t the day…”
GopGal, please learn how to spell before joining the debate. In fact, “t” is not even a word.
What goes around, comes around.