Most Democrats' response to Ben Nelson is that he's about as liberal as one could expect from a Nebraska Democrat that can a Senate seat. Is that really true, however? No doubt, Nebraska is a very Republican state and a fairly conservative one. I realize that a Barbara Boxer or even a Tom Harkin probably couldn't win in Nebraska. But it isn't clear to me that someone like a Kent Conrad or Tim Johnson couldn't win the state.
In the past Nebraska elected such populists as George Norris. And even Bob Kerrey, though he could be an asshole, was waaay more liberal than Ben Nelson. Nebraska may be a very Republican state, but it seems to me that there's a pragmatic and independent streak in Nebraska politics. Bob Kerrey and George Norris were examples of this, and so, in his own way, was Chuck Hagel, who on foreign policy issues was far more liberal than his colleague Nelson.
Moreover, I've been told by someone familiar with Nebraska politics that Ben Nelson was first elected to the governorship in 1990 by running to the right of the Republican incumbent.
Please note, I'm NOT saying we should primary Ben Nelson. That would probably be futile, as he's extremely popular in the state. All I'm saying is that I don't think liberal Democrats should necessarily make excuses for him by claiming he's just voting in line with his state. It seems to me that he's just genuinely conservative - not conservative so that he can win reelection.
Is that an accurate assessment? Or is Ben Nelson genuinely as liberal as a Democrat can be from Nebraska in this day and age?