Some of you may doubt the power we wield here at Various Things & Stuff. Well, doubt no more. Just one day after we called in our column in CityLife for U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons to declare his stance on the Tax and Spending Control initiative, Gibbons broke months of silence and came out in opposition.

Oh, yes, we are fantastically powerful.

In fact, according to a FLASH dispatch from our friend and colleague Jon Ralston, Gibbons actually made the decision on Thursday night. That can mean only one thing: Gibbons read CityLife, felt the sting of our well-aimed words, and immediately blurted out his stance.

He’d stuck to silence for a long time. After all, there’s not a whole lot of upside. The TASC initiative is circulated by state Sen. Bob Beers, who, like Gibbons, is running for governor. Beers may be more of a fiscal conservative than Gibbons, which is not something you want to highlight on the campaign trail.

But, after our column, Gibbons could remain silent no longer. That’s right, readers: Bow to the mighty power of CityLife, together with the ancillary power of this blog. All hail us.

What’s that? What were Gibbons’ reasons for opposing TASC? Well, we suppose that’s part of the story. Gibbons pledged he’d need no TASC when he was governor, because he’d veto any bloated budget. He will look out for taxpayers, a one-man TASC, ready to rebate surplus tax money at a moment’s notice.

Hmm, nice argument. But what about the Gibbons Tax Restraint Initiative, the constitutional amendment that doesn’t let you raise taxes without a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Legislature? Why was that constitutional amendment a good thing, while TASC is bad? (That’s a rhetorical question, folks: We at Various Things & Stuff don’t like either idea.)

We’re sure those questions, and others, will be posed to Gibbons in the days ahead, most probably by Beers. (With Gibbons opposed, he and O’Connell are the only two Nevadans left in favor.) But one thing is sure: Gibbons finally staked out his position. And we’re totally taking credit for getting the guy to do it, too. (And we didn’t even have to use any Gitmo-style interrogation techniques, either.)

That’s the main course. How about some quick hits for dessert?

• After a criminal investigation that began a whopping 14.5 hours after Vice President Dick Cheney shot 78-year-old Austin attorney Harry Whittington, and wrapped up five days later, the sheriff’s department for the Texas county where the incident happened has closed its probe. No criminal charges will be filed against Cheney.

And that’s probably the right conclusion: All witnesses, including Whittington, have characterized the incident as an accident. (We’d characterize it as a negligent discharge of a firearm, but we’re picky.)

Now if we could only get some law-enforcement agency to start looking into the manipulation of prewar intelligence…

• Thursday was not a good day for the Constitution. Not only did the Senate vote down Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold’s attempt to delay renewal of the USA Patriot Act, but the White House seems to have successfully derailed an investigation into warrantless National Security Agency wiretapping.

The White House sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, saying it would not allow former Attorney General John Ashcroft to testify about the origins of the plan. (Ashcroft, regular readers may recall, backed up his deputy who had serious legal problems with the program. As a result, the Bush administration ignored them and did it anyway.)

The committee adjourned before a motion to investigate the NSA wiretapping could be heard. Republicans cited a statement by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, saying the administration was “open to legislation” on the program. (Can you see that protest sign? “Legislate, don’t investigate!”) Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine has a bill that would exempt the NSA program from the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

But that raises an interesting question: If legislation is needed to exempt the NSA program from FISA, isn’t that an admission that the program presently is illegal? (The White House says it’s legal, but if that’s true, why would they be “open to legislation” legalizing it? Wouldn’t that be like legalizing driving at the speed limit?)

And that raises yet another interesting question: If it is illegal, haven’t President George W. Bush and his administration broken the law? And, having done so willingly and knowingly (SEE, Ashcroft, above) are they not eligible for impeachment/indictment?

We’re just asking. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is.

• It seems the Las Vegas City Council will have to vote in early March on whether to waive an attorney-client privilege that City Manager Doug Selby claims applies to certain documents in the Bill Walters/Royal Links scandal.

That’s interesting, because generally we don’t believe attorney-client privilege applies in cases like this. The city attorney’s client is the people of the city of Las Vegas, not the city manager, the City Council or city staff.

In fact, we’d argue that when Chief Deputy City Attorney John Redlein discovered in the late 1990s that former Public Works Director Richard Goecke had allegedly committed what Metro Police called illegal acts to help Walters, his response should have been to call Metro and have Goecke arrested immediately.

Why? Because Goecke is not the city attorney’s client. The people, who are the city attorney’s clients, had been harmed, and when a lawyer’s client has been harmed, he’s got an obligation to do what’s in that client’s best interest.

In any case, Mayor Oscar Goodman says the city has nothing to hide, so he’s advocating disclosure. And since Selby is generally invertebrate when Goodman tells him to do something, we’re guessing this won’t be an issue going forward.