We at Various Things & Stuff need no coffee this morning; the outrage is enough.

On Thursday, a letter appeared on the website of the Nevada state Democratic Party. The “Open Letter to Nevada Democrats,” signed by some of the party’s top leaders, had but one purpose: To torpedo the gubernatorial campaign of state Sen. Dina Titus.

Why would U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, former Gov. Bob Miller, former Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, and former Assembly Speaker Joe Dini sign such a letter?

There’s only one reason. To ensure a victory for their favored candidate, Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson.

The letter, which we reprint and comment upon herein, is at once brilliant and evil, seemingly innocent and full of guile. And it says as much about its signatories as it does about its subjects.

Let’s begin the parade of shame:

“Our state is facing many challenges: How we manage growth responsibly; improving our education system, which is lagging by many measures; ensuring that every Nevadan, starting first with our children, has access to quality and affordable health care; and that hard working middle class families are not priced out of the state they love with rising housing costs.”

There’s nothing that any good Democrat would object to in this paragraph. Some Republicans might even join that. But that’s what’s so insidious: The author(s) are trying to get you to in an agreeable mood for what they have in store.

Let’s continue:

” Nevada Democrats, and all Nevadans, should be proud and excited that the Democratic Party has two strong, committed and qualified candidates for governor to lead our state and help us meet these challenges.”

And so it begins: Nevada has two candidates running for governor. And, we’re to note, they are equally “strong, committed and qualified.” That, friends, is simply not true, as we shall see.

More:

“Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson and State Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus have been powerful voices on the issues Nevadans most deeply care about. Both are good Democrats. But they are also great leaders whose accomplishments, dedication and values would serve us well in the governor’s mansion.”

Ay, there’s the rub, concealed in the flowery compliments of the other lines of that paragraph: the false message that Reid and his fellows want to drive home: Both are good Democrats. But are they?

• If representing a huge energy company against the express wishes of 57 percent of Las Vegas — and against the interests of 100 percent of Las Vegas — is being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• If donating money to Republicans like U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, knowing full-well that Porter is a tool of the agenda of President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress like now-indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, constitutes being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• If, having made that donation, you give a speech which, in part, denounces the very things that people like Porter have been busy doing in Congress the last few years, and that’s evidence being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson’ qualifies. (He also would qualify as a hypocrite, but that’s another angry rant.)

• If promising health care and better education for Nevada — but running like a vampire from a crucifix from any mention of the taxes obviously needed to pay for those things — means you’re a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies. (He also would qualify as mendacious, given that you cannot do the things he’s said he wants to do without taxes.)

• If being such good friends with Republicans — and, apparently, not so far out of league with their philosophy — that one of their top strategists, Sig Rogich tries to recruit you to the GOP makes you a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• If declaring that you’d sign a bill outlawing a woman’s right to choose in a state where voters have declared she should have that right constitutes being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson is one.

• If being an integral part of the private Las Vegas Monorail that annually skips out on paying taxes it should rightfully pay — thanks to a juiced-in exemption from the state and Clark County — means you’re a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• And if supporting (with votes and contributions) an anti-gay marriage ban in the state constitution, despite its discriminatory effect on thousands of Nevada residents, makes you a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

But we think a lot of good Democrats in Nevada might wake up today wondering if they ought not find a new party, one that’s not afraid to stand for all of the things that Reid & Co. are telling us makes good Democrats.

More from the letter (and yes, it does get worse):

“This stands in stark contrast to the likely Republican nominee, Congressman Jim Gibbons, and the other Republican gubernatorial contenders, whose records suggest that their agenda if elected governor would set Nevada back and be dangerous for Nevada’s seniors and families.”

After asking you to swallow the “they’re both good Democrats” line, we’re back to sounding a unifying note; everybody hates Gibbons, right? (Hell, even some Republicans hate Gibbons.)

More:

“Elections, especially Nevada elections, can be hard fought and spirited affairs. We believe a competitive primary will strengthen our eventual nominee. Nevada Democrats are a broad and inclusive party. While our two Democratic candidates may rightfully differentiate themselves from each other on issues, we believe that both share the same core values.”

Whether they really believe it or not, this is false. It’s patently obvious that a hard-fought, spirited and competitive primary will damage both Titus and Gibson, forcing them to spend money while at the same time helping Gibbons fill his opposition research file. And, with his stance on abortion and gay marriage alone, we know that Titus and Gibson don’t share the same core values.

And finally, this:

“Both Senator Titus and Mayor Gibson have served in the proud tradition of Nevada Democrats. Our party will be proud to stand with either one of them as our party’s nominee - and Nevada’s next governor.

“Let’s have a good, positive primary contest and emerge as united next fall, ready to offer Nevadans the best choice for the future of our state. ”

They saved the best for last: Let’s have a “good, positive primary contest” is easily translated as a message to Titus: Stop saying Gibson isn’t a real Democrat. Stop questioning his record, stop mentioning the things we’ve mentioned in this post, and stop making it hard for him. Stop putting up websites that say Gibson isn’t a Democrat. Just stop.

Reid and his fellow letter-signers don’t want “a hard-fought and spirited” campaign. They don’t want a “competitive primary.” They want a smooth, passionless, vanilla popularity contest that produces a Gibson victory.

Why? Why would Reid, the leader of Democrats in the Senate and one of the party’s top three leaders in the nation, want to sabotage a Titus candidacy, when she’s clearly the most partisan, passionate and fiery Democrat not just in this race, but in the state of Nevada?

Is it because, as my friend and fellow blogger Hugh Jackson suggests, Reid is actually afraid of Democrats who aren’t afraid to be Democrats? Reid, after all, has shown almost no interest in finding a challenger to Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign, since the two have forged a friendship and non-aggression pact that apparently transcends politics. (How “good” a Democrat Reid may be is far more open to question than Titus’ party bona fides.)

Or is it because, as my good friend and colleague Jon Ralston said in his FLASH e-mail newsletter on Thursday, Reid & Co. believe Titus cannot win a general election against Gibbons, but Gibson can?

Regardless of why, Ralston is right about another thing: Gibson will use this letter to his advantage, to fend off charges he’s not a real Democrat on the campaign trail, in debates and in ads. He may even use it to suggest to donors that he is the preferred choice of Reid, who can credibly claim never to have endorsed Gibson, while at the same time totally endorsing Gibson.

Reid’s reason is his own. But we’re frankly surprised to see a couple of other names on there. Bryan, for example, knows from personal experience what it’s like to be at the end of Reid’s ruthless lance; he and the senior senator were at odds frequently on Capitol Hill, although Bryan is too polite to discuss those indignities publicly. In fact, Reid treats Ensign and Ensign’s staff far better than he ever treated Bryan or Bryan’s old staffers.

And Del Papa, who worked hard to get to the attorney general’s office in what’s still a male-dominated state, should feel no small measure of shame for signing on to a letter aimed at hamstringing the campaign of somebody who could very well be the first female governor. (It’s even worse given Gibson’s stance on abortion.)

The fallout? Titus’ response to the letter was so circumspect, it borders on lame. Here’s the text:

“I appreciate and support the call for party unity. I have been fighting in the trenches for two decades to elect Democrats and further the values of our party. This election is a defining moment not only for our state, but for our party as well. The primary should be about the issues, backgrounds and records of the candidates. That is why I have called upon Mayor Gibson to debate the important issues that face Nevada and unfortunately, he has declined. I hope he will reconsider.”

Tepid just doesn’t quite cover it. But trust us; we know Titus, and we know she must have been hotter than freshly generated nuclear waste when she read the letter, given Reid’s numerous unkindnesses to her in the past, not least of which was blocking her one-time ambition to serve on the Clark County Commission. (Oh, yes, Reid played a big role in recruiting power-hungry, amoral Dario Herrera into a run for Congress against Porter in 2002, opening Herrera’s seat for the senator’s son, Rory Reid.)

But that’s another evil beauty of this letter: Titus cannot attack Reid alone for his blatant and belligerent meddling in her race; he’s got the public cover of well-loved Bryan and Miller, the gender cover of Del Papa and the institutional cover of Dini. Attack Reid, and she must attack the rest, and that would hurt her among the constituents she needs the most, fellow Democrats.

But if she capitulates, she’s prevented from sending the message she needs and wants to convey: “This is a Democratic primary, and I’m the only real Democrat running.” Hence, we have to read between the lines, about “issues, backgrounds and records” and hoped-for debates.

Whatever else it is, this letter is the most blatant, most high-profile meddling that Reid has done, and he’s legendary for his meddling. Instead of allowing Democrats to choose their preferred Democratic candidate after a no-holds-barred, honest debate, Reid has tried to stack the deck for the weaker of the two candidates, perhaps in the hopes of an elusive, general-election victory. But in so doing, he’s forgotten that when you turn the Democratic Party over to people uncomfortable with being Democrats, you’ve already lost, no matter how the polling turns out on Election Day.

And that’s the final, goddamn outrage.