A reliable source tells us at Various Things & Stuff that — despite two weeks of almost unceasing bad publicity — the Review-Journal will report in Wednesday’s editions that U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons still leads his Democratic rival, state Sen. Dina Titus, by 4 percentage points in a statewide survey.

That’s a remarkable number for Gibbons, who has had to defend himself against allegations that he assaulted waitress Chrissy Mazzeo after a night of drinking at McCormick & Schmick’s in the Howard Hughes Center. And it comes after a District Court judge ordered the release of videotapes from a nearby parking garage — where the assault allegedly happened — that reportedly show neither Mazzeo nor Gibbons.

The second most asked question in the media in the last two weeks — after "did Gibbons do it?" — has been, "what impact is this having on the race?" The most recent R-J poll showed Gibbons with 45 percent and Titus with 36 percent — a difference of 9 percentage points. Clearly, the race has narrowed if the gap is now 4 percent. But will that be enough to put Titus over the top on Election Day? Especially against the backdrop of the tapes story?

We’ll know in one week.

Release the tapes.

That’s our view of what should happen at 11 a.m. today in the courtroom of District Court Judge Douglas Herndon, who is being asked to release the parking garage video that allegedly doesn’t show U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons assaulting cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo.

Gibbons and his attorney, Don Campbell, want the tapes released because they say Gibbons is vindicated and Mazzeo is proven a liar. (Full disclosure: Campbell has represented CityLife and the Review-Journal in the past; both newspapers are owned by Stephens Media LLC.)

If Mazzeo says she was pushed up against a wall by Gibbons at a certain time, in a certain place, under a certain camera, and the incident is not on the video, then Gibbons is in the clear, Campbell argues. (Not necessarily, we reply: What if the incident happened just as she said, but in a different place? What if the cameras weren’t recording the particular place where the incident happened, or were malfunctioning in general? Questions like these still remain.)

Meanwhile, Richard Wright, the attorney for Mazzeo, says the tapes shouldn’t be released, now that his client has gone down to the police department and signed a statement indicating she will cooperate in an investigation of the Oct. 13 incident. The process-minded Wright says releasing the tapes would constitute giving evidence over to a criminal defendant. That only happens, he said, in a Saturday Night Live skit. (Actually, Mr. Wright, that’s too clever for a Saturday Night Live skit, but we may borrow it for a skit on our show, Political Insiders, which airs at 11:30 p.m. Saturday – ironically, against Saturday Night Live and 5 p.m. Sunday on KTNV Channel 13.)

But we tend to agree with Campbell: The tapes should be released, and for many reasons. First, the public should have a right to see them, since they are relevant to the honesty and truthfulness of a candidate who will stand for election in less than a week. “By withholding the … surveillance tapes from the public during the ongoing early voting and the eve of the general election [police] are depriving the voting public of vital information that could help clarify unfounded allegations against one of its candidates for governor,” Campbell wrote in his petition.

Second, releasing the tapes may help clarify where the incident allegedly took place. Gibbons says he walked Mazzeo up to, but not in to, the garage. She says he walked with her into the garage, and then assaulted her before she was able to break free. As Wright says, “if in fact there is a tape of wherever it was, then Gibbons and she will be there. If she isn’t or he isn’t, then it’s not the tape or it’s been altered.”

A bold statement that rests squarely upon Mazzeo’s credibility. But it does lead us to another point: Release of the tapes will allow attorneys on both sides to have independent experts determine if the tapes really are from the garage at the time in question, and if they have been altered. (We’re sure the police are looking at that very possibility right now, too.) If Mazzeo is telling the truth, and the tapes don’t show the incident, then we have another, very important question: Where did the fake tape come from?

Both Mazzeo and Gibbons have the right to tell their stories and amass whatever evidence there is to support them, and the release of the tapes furthers that end. Moreover, as this is a matter of significant public interest, the public has a right to see for themselves what is, or is not, on those tapes, and to decide how that impacts both sides from there.

For those reasons, we hope Judge Herndon grants Campbell’s motion later this morning.

Until then, let’s munch on some quick hits, shall we?

• R-J columnist John L. Smith weighs in on the Gibbons-Mazzeo matter today, taking a look at both sides of the case. Some excerpts:

¶ “She [Mazzeo] shouldn’t necessarily be condemned for having second thoughts about taking on one of Nevada’s most influential politicians.” Wait a second, we thought Mazzeo was accusing Jim Gibbons of wrongdoing. Has she accused an influential politician, too? Who is it? Who? Who? Who?

¶ “[Don] Campbell [Gibbons’ attorney] has made a strong rhetorical case for Gibbons innocence and Mazzeo’s instability.” Whoa. Campbell has made a strong case for Gibbons, and it’s bolstered by the parking garage tapes that have come to light. But “instability”? Campbell’s not a doctor, and neither is Smith. That’s a loaded word. And the wrong word.

But we do agree with Smith on one point: Mazzeo’s decision to go forward with a complaint against Gibbons is a good thing, because this is a matter that needs to be resolved – conclusively – one way or another.

• And the R-J weighed in on another Mazzeo story, the tale of the missing title. If you haven’t read it, you should. All the way to the end, if you please, where Mazzeo comes out as a person who tried to make a Henderson couple whole after some financial shenanigans over a pickup truck she was selling that involved an ex-boyfriend.

The couple did put up more than $12,000 – which they lost – in the deal, but it doesn’t appear to be entirely Mazzeo’s fault. And when the police were called? “This case lacks any prosecutable merit and is a civil issue between Chrissy Mazzeo” and the would-be truck purchaser, a police report indicates.

Even if Mazzeo did commit some wrong in the truck caper, does that mean she’s lying now? Of course not.

• And the Las Vegas Sun suggests in a front-page story today that there may be a perfectly good explanation for why Gibbons and Mazzeo don’t appear on the tapes. If the cameras were feeding to a video recorder via “sequencing,” in which images are recorded from a series of different cameras in sequence, it’s possible for people to have been in the garage and unobserved by cameras for several minutes.

And if that’s true, the tapes could be worthless, which means we’re back to gathering as much circumstantial and witness information as we can to make sense of what really happened that night.

We at Various Things & Stuff don’t pay much attention to endorsements, nor do we endorse candidates ourselves. We find that only encourages them. Plus, actually meeting with the would-be office seekers can be one of the most tedious, most depressing things in the world.

So now we’re told there’s a tape after all? 

After two weeks of being told that there was no tape, it turns out (according to Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith) that an employee of the Hughes Center took a tape from the surveillance cameras of the most infamous parking garage since Watergate and plopped it into a safe. 

A tape that supposedly sheds new light on the allegations dogging U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, who’s been accused of assaulting cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo after a night of drinking at nearby McCormick & Schmick’s. 

 A tape that may be able to prove or disprove the wildly conflicting stories. A tape that, Smith’s sources say, shows neither Gibbons nor Mazzeo in the garage on the night in question, which calls her account – or the tape itself – into question. 

But there are some preliminary questions first: Who put the tape in the safe, and why? Why were Metro Police told the cameras at the Hughes Center were not recording that night? Why did the police department not investigate that angle sooner, especially since Mazzeo directed them to look at the tape as proof she was telling the truth? Did someone who works at the Hughes Center, its property manager, or anyone else order the tape to be concealed? Did anybody from the Gibbons campaign have anything to do with the tape’s disappearance? And if it supposedly exonerates him, why? Why did the tape surface now, the week before Election Day? 

And is this the actual tape of the night in question, or not? 

Although Republicans and Gibbons are declaring vindication, a lot of questions have to be answered. And here’s another: Why would Mazzeo tell her attorney, Richard Wright that she wants to press charges in the matter if the tape proves she’s wrong? Wright insists without equivocation that if the tape is from the camera in the location Mazzeo reported she was assaulted by Gibbons, at the time she says she was assaulted, it will show the assault.

But the reports we’ve heard so far suggest that it doesn’t. Yet Mazzeo is going forward anyway. Why? Her critics say she’s “troubled” or needs professional help. But another possibility exists, doesn’t it? That she’s telling the truth, and that she’s undeterred by reports of the tape’s contents because she knows what really happened? After all, Wright has no doubt explained to her that filing and pursuing a false police report could result in Mazzeo being charged with a crime herself, or being sued by Gibbons. And let’s not forget she was the one who directed police to the cameras in the first place.   

Gibbons may yet be vindicated in this incident, and Mazzeo proven a liar. But before that happens, there are plenty of questions left to be answered. And the ball gets rolling this morning, as Wright has said Mazzeo will sign the complaint that will kick off a renewed investigation.  But while we’re on the subject, how about some Gibbons-related Quick Hits from last week and this weekend? Here we go! 

• Quotable: “I think a lot of people are really appalled at the conduct of the media.” — State Sen. Bob Beers.

This just shows how ill-suited Beers is to the role of intellectual gigolo that the Republican Party has forced upon him. He never would have said things like this back when he was only representing himself and his ill-fated TASC initiative in his quest for the Republican nomination to be governor. (Then again, we’re pretty sure Beers wouldn’t have found himself in the same spot as Gibbons did, either.) 

Oh, not for nothing, senator but it was Gibbons who was accused of assaulting a woman in a parking garage after a night of drinking. But it’s the media that you think is appalling people? Give us a break. 

• “Asking Gibbons the same questions every day in a different city is really distracting to his campaign. And it doesn’t provide voters with anything new.” — Republican consultant Ryan Erwin 

Well, and we’re just spitballing here, but if Gibbons would actually answer the questions, perhaps he wouldn’t get asked the same thing all the time. To expect the media not to ask is simply not being realistic, when this is clearly a story that won’t go away. 

Oh, and not for nothing, but it’s not the media’s job to make sure that Gibbons is focused on his campaign. It’s the media’s job to find out what’s going on, and tell that story. From where we sit, the media has done a pretty good job overall on that. 

• Quotable: “It’s been my experience in these type of things: the less said, the better.” — R&R Partners’ Pete Ernaut  Really? And just how many gubernatorial candidates accused of assault has Ernaut represented? 

• What was Jane Ann Morrison thinking?  Her Saturday column on the Gibbons-Mazzeo matter was truly unbelievable, and we’re not just talking about her use of the phrases “fun and games, slap and tickle, kissy face” to refer to sex.  After Morrison referred to Mazzeo as a “hottie,” we were worried. After Morrison said Mazzeo was “easily manipulated and not very smart” we were concerned. But after she said that “The pictures [of Mazzeo at her news conference] have caused countless men to consider the allegations against Gibbons and say to themselves: ‘There but for the grace of God go I,’” we were convinced we’d read one of her worst columns. 

But hey, as a man, who are we to say that Morrison was blaming the victim and engaging in rank stereotyping? That’s why we were glad to see that we weren’t the only ones who read this piece and gagged. 

A blogger who goes by the name Myrna the Minx summarized our thoughts nicely. You can find them here. 

• Speaking of the R-J, possibly the weirdest thing to happen in the media last week was when political reporter Molly Ball rhetorically shoved Mazzeo up against the book-lined wall of Wright’s office and told her she had two choices: When she and Gibbons were in the garage, Ball asked, “…did you think he wanted to rape you or kill you?” 

Seriously. 

Objection, your honor! Leading the witness! And being stupid! 

• Rarely do you see a correction to a clarification that itself was incorrect. But that was the unhappy place that the R-J found itself, after trying to say that Mazzeo had made a “provably false” statement at her Wednesday news conference. 

At that news conference, Mazzeo was asked if anything like this had ever happened to her before, or had she ever made charges and withdrew them before. She said no.

But the intrepid R-J dug up a domestic violence complaint from Laughlin, in which Mazzeo reported she was assaulted by her boyfriend. Ah, ha! Says the R-J! A “provably false” statement. 

But not so fast: Mazzeo was asked at her news conference if anything like this had ever happened to her before. “Anything like this” was clearly a reference to an attempted sexual assault, which is what she said happened with Gibbons. The R-J grudgingly acknowledged as much in a “clarification” on Friday, which apologized for the mistake in the paper “Wednesday.” (Actually, the news conference happened on Wednesday, and the error appeared in Thursday’s paper.) 

But even that proved problematic, in that the “clarification” said it was Mazzeo’s lawyer who’d said she was the victim of the Laughlin domestic violence complaint. On Saturday, we learned that was wrong, thanks to “an editing error.” 

To date, the correction to the clarification that was itself mistaken has not been corrected. So, we’ll just cross our fingers and pretend it’s all good. And the bottom line? The only probably false statements have shown up in the R-J’s correction box.     

Dear fans of Various Things & Stuff:

As some of you may have noticed … well, as one or two of you actually noticed … we were lax in blogging last week. Now, we could tell you all about the hours of TV we were called upon to do, or the scramble to launch a new computer system and new design for CityLife (launching this week!), yada, yada, yada.

But you don’t care about all that, right? You just care about blogification, as our president might say.

So no excuses, as we return to the daily grind. But before we get to the new stuff and the good stuff (read – Gibbons), let’s do a really quick recap of some of the things we missed talking about last week.

Here we go:

• Somebody needs to go back to school, and his name is Metro Police Officer Todd Raybuck. He’s a big opponent of Question 7, the initiative that would legalize an ounce of marijuana for adults.

Officer Raybuck has a conflict of interest, of course. Some police officers make their living fighting drugs, and suspected drug use has given many an officer the pretext to search or arrest a suspect on the street. Plus, do we really need to delve into the danger we all face if the people who write the laws are the same as the ones who enforce the laws? But none of those things are the real issue here.

Raybuck said the initiative is a bad idea, because the feds will still enforce drug laws in Nevada, even if voters legalize marijuana. “The federal government won’t allow it. They [Question 7 proponents] are misleading people into thinking they can get legal marijuana. They are proposing something that isn’t going to happen.”

Now, Raybuck swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Nevada when he pinned on his shiny gold badge. Surely, he must know that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people. And surely he knows Question 7 was placed on the ballot in the legal manner, complying with the laws of the state of Nevada.

So surely he knows that if voters legalize an ounce of marijuana on Nov. 7, then that will be the law of the land in the Silver State. And, as a police officer sworn to uphold those laws, he knows that he’d be legally obligated to arrest anyone who tried to deprive a Nevada resident of his or her rights.

But instead of promising to fulfill his oath and stop anybody from curtailing — by fiat — the laws and privileges of a Nevada resident, Raybuck simply shrugs his shoulders and says there’s nothing we can do. The federal government won’t let us live under the laws we write, despite the clear and unambiguous intent of the founders of the nation.

It would be sad, if it wasn’t so common.

• As if U.S. Sen. Harry Reid didn’t have enough to worry about, now would-be Assembly Minority Leader Garn Mabey has announced he’s thinking of running for U.S. Senate.

“I have always had the desire to serve in the U.S. Senate. I am a conservative Republican who would represent the values of many Nevadans. Certainly, I am an honest man. I would try to do right for Nevada. I don’t have any other agenda,” Mabey told the Review-Journal.

We hate to be wet blankets here, but didn’t Mabey vote against a proposal for a state lottery because the Mormon church opposes gambling?

 And wouldn’t that constitute another “agenda”?

 And by having a second agenda, but saying he doesn’t, wouldn’t that constitute a fib?

  And by fibbing, isn’t Mabey by definition not an honest man?

 We’re just asking.

It’s been a weekend of revelations and discussions about the travails of U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons and The Mystery of the Unmonitored Parking Garage. Let’s dive right in.

Our corporate overlord, Sherm Frederick, counseled Gibbons to stick to cranberry juice from now until the end of the campaign, although he couldn’t resist noting that, as a man who claims to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gibbons shouldn’t have been out drinking at all. (Don’t look at us; we reject as illegitimate any religion that prohibits its adherents from consuming alcohol.)

While it seems clear from Frederick’s column that Gibbons guru Sig Rogich tried to kill the story before it really got rolling, our corporate overlord deserves credit for running it anyway. He’s cool that way, and we hope his coolness extends far enough to forgive us for our critique of his penultimate paragraphs.

Gibbons is still ahead, Frederick writes, because “…values voters have nowhere else to go.

“Now, had Democrats nominated Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, a fiscal and social conservative, [read — moderate Republican] to be their standard bearer instead of [state Sen.] Dina Titus, this election would likely be over. While Titus is a person of character, her political views are too far out to make a values voter switch, no matter how unwise they suspect Gibbons might have been.”

Perhaps we missed something, but exactly when did Gibbons become a darling of “values voters”?

First, he’s cast votes against banning gay marriage (before he voted for a ban on gay marriage). Second, he’s been cagey about what his true religion is (up until four years ago, guidebooks listed him as “Protestant,” until he switched to “Mormon”). Third, even if he really is Mormon, he’s not a very good one, drinking wine with Rogich and donors at McCormick & Schmick’s on the infamous night in question.

And then there’s the whole plagiarizing a (really bad) speech, the rhetorical equivalent of theft. There’s the suggestion that Rotarians listening to another speech of his were having sexual fantasies about him. There’s the fact that he would embrace pro-choice policies, although his personal beliefs may tend toward the pro-life.

Oh, and most recently, there’s the fact that he tried to help a falling-down drunk woman to her car (and that’s the best case scenario; worst case, he almost committed assault).

What about this guy says “values voter” to anybody?

Oh, that’s right. He’s a Republican. And Republicans appeal to values voters because they’re against taxes. Darn that Dina Titus; she may have managed to avoid plagiarism, two-faced political positions, confusion about her own religion and assault allegations, but she’d probably vote for taxes. Yeah, better to go with the other guy if you’re a “values voter.”

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh, speaking of walking a drunk woman to her car, Gibbons told the R-J this weekend that he had no idea if Wynn Las Vegas cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo was drunk or not.

“I’m not qualified to make the determination of whether you or anyone else is intoxicated,” he told a reporter, who we presume was not intoxicated at the time. “I don’t have a Breathalyzer. I did not know she had been drinking since 4 p.m.”

Right, so the slurred speech — obvious on the first 911 call to police — didn’t give it away? Gosh, Gibbons — with nearly 30 years experience as a military man — probably has never seen somebody drunk. (He was an Air Force pilot, after all.)

But he reported that she fell down on the way to her truck. Was that not a clear sign she’d been drinking?

“That doesn’t mean she was intoxicated or drunk. It could mean a bad heel, a weakness in the ankle,” Gibbons (actually) said. Now you know why Gibbons’ attorney, Don Campbell, didn’t let his client answer questions. The man who can’t tell if someone was intoxicated or not has suddenly become Dr. Scholl’s, able to diagnose a bad heel or ankle weakness.

Speaking of not letting Gibbons speak, Republican consultant Pete Ernaut, late of R&R Partners, said he though that was a jolly good idea, too.

“The less you say the better,” he said. Now, Ernaut has won a few races in his day, but we’d beg to differ. Gibbons should answered every question at his news conference, until the last reporter got tired and left the room. Because the less you say, the more questions go unanswered, the more they’ll be asked, and the longer the story will stay on the front page. This is a bad thing.

But whatever: We drive a 1997 Honda while Ernaut drives a more recent Range Rover, so keep that in mind when weighing our relative credibility when it comes to politics.

Oh, and speaking of consultants, we’re not going to beat up Rogich for not doing more to keep his client out of trouble. He was profiled in the Sun this weekend, and it sounds like he’s beating himself up enough for everybody. Suffice to say, Rogich is a smart guy and a good political consultant, and he knows better than anybody else what he should have done that night.

Still speaking of credibility, the Sun reported that Clark County Sheriff Bill Young reached out to Gibbons via cell phone, in order to set up an interview with his detectives on the Saturday following the Friday the 13th incident. Young was out of town, but after getting a call from his detectives, he called Gibbons’ cell phone to set up an interview.

“His attitude was that he was shocked. I told him what had happened, and he said, ‘I was there. That’s not true.’ I said, ‘Jim, don’t tell me any more. You may need an attorney,’” Young told the Sun. “I told him the best thing going for him was to tell the truth and don’t hide anything from the police.”

Good advice, to be sure. But we have a nagging question. Granted, our law-enforcement experience is limited to a long skein of police shows, starting with Adam-12, Dragnet, The FBI, The Rockford Files, Hawaii 5-0, NYPD Blue, Magnum, P.I., Law & Order and Third Watch, but doesn’t suggesting to a suspect that he may need a lawyer run counter to getting him to tell the truth and don’t hide anything from the police? If the sheriff of Clark County told us we might need a lawyer, we’d probably be much less inclined to speak candidly with investigators until we got one.

Or are we wrong?

In any case, we were not ones to look at Young’s involvement in the case with any suspicion whatsoever, even if the outgoing sheriff has endorsed Gibbons for governor. He is the top cop in town, and at least informing him of an accusation of this kind against a high-profile person like Gibbons is totally understandable. It seems Young helped secure Gibbons co-operation in the investigation, and that’s a good thing.

But then Young went and said this to the Sun: “I believe in Jim Gibbons. I am still voting for Jim Gibbons, and I urge every Southern Nevadan to consider the political ramifications of this case — and the timing.”

What? The political ramifications and the timing? Is he saying this thing was a setup? A conspiracy? Does he realize the amazing set of circumstances that would have to be present for that to be the case?

1. Whoever set it up (and who could that be, but the Democrats?) would have had to know that Gibbons would be at McCormick & Schmick’s that night.

2. They would also have to know that Gibbons would be drinking.

3. As Gibbons and Rogich told police they were about to leave, but stepped into the war to wait out a downpour outside, the conspirators would have to know how to control the weather.

4. They would have had to know that an attorney who works in Rogich’s building would be at the bar, and that Gibbons and Rogich would join her.

5. They would have to have sent Mazzeo over with the intention of getting Gibbons in a compromising position. (She’d been at the restaurant since about 4 p.m., two hours before Gibbons ever showed up to have dinner.) This is known as the “honey trap” in the intelligence business.

6. They would have to know that Gibbons would take the bait, and walk with Mazzeo to her car. But witnesses say Gibbons left first, and Mazzeo didn’t follow for at least 15 minutes. When she emerged, Gibbons was there. (Gibbons, for his part, says that he left and Mazzeo followed almost immediately.)

7. The conspirators would have to have turned off video surveillance tapes in the cameras of the adjacent parking garage, so no evidence would exist of the alleged encounter, thus allowing questions to persist.

8. They would have to put Mazzeo up on TV news shows, news conferences, and interviews in order to really spread the story far and wide, which hasn’t happened.

Sure, the allegations have a political dimension. Sure, they came awfully close to early voting, and just a few weeks before Election Day. But by asking voters to consider the political ramifications of the story, we had a thought that occurred to us for the very first time since the story broke: To what extent did Sheriff Young consider the political ramifications of this case?

Let’s. once again, take the most favorable view of the incident, and say that Gibbons is telling 100 percent of the truth. The only thing that happened is that he tried to walk a drunken woman (who he couldn’t tell was drunk) to her car. In that instance, he still brought this upon himself. Perhaps the sheriff, and Gibbons other political supporters, would have been better off advising Gibbons to consider the political ramifications and the timing of everything he does in the final weeks leading up to an election?

Is it a scandal, or simply a misunderstanding? The answer to that question depends on whether you’re a Republican (much ado about nothing) or a Democrat (scandalmania). But one thing is clear: The publicity surrounding the McCormick & Schmick’s incident involving would-be governor U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons on Friday isn’t helping his bid. And it’s not going away.

By now, you’ve surely read all the coverage of the story. (The Review-Journal broke the news, but the Las Vegas Sun’s comprehensive coverage has shown that paper can more than compete with its joint-operating-agreement rival.) You’ve read the excerpts of the police reports, and seen the aerial photos supplied by the Sun. If the Media Volume Scandal Index applies (principle: the amount of coverage determines the importance of a given event), there’s surely a scandal here.

A quick recap, for those who need to be brought up to speed: After a dinner at political hangout McCormick & Schmick’s with campaign donors and guru Sig Rogich, Gibbons and Rogich retired to the bar. At some point, a group that included Chrissy Mazzeo, 32, a hotel cocktail waitress, sat down at the table.

Eventually, other bar patrons noticed Gibbons and company and began snapping cell phone pictures (really, people, is our bar for celebrity that low?). At that point, Rogich said it was time to go. Gibbons and Mazzeo left — not together — but ran into each other again outside the seafood restaurant. Gibbons said he offered to drive or walk her to her truck, parked in a nearby parking structure. Once in the structure, Mazzeo told police Gibbons grabbed her arms and made unwanted advances while in the structure. She left and called police. But according to Gibbons, Mazzeo tripped and started to fall, and he grabbed reached out to help her. After she recovered, Gibbons maintains, they parted ways.

OK, that’s the basic story. Now, let’s discern a few things:

• Gibbons should have been with yet another woman that night … state Sen. Dina Titus. While Gibbons was dining with Rogich and campaign donors on Friday, Titus was filming what was to have been a debate panel at cable station Las Vegas ONE. Instead, Titus was interviewed by herself by host Jeff Gillen Gillan and a panel of journalists comprised of Sun reporter J. Patrick Coolican and Las Vegas ONE producer Dana Gentry.

We’re not saying none of this would have happened had Gibbons chosen to be at the debate, too. But we will say that Gibbons didn’t really have a good excuse for avoiding the Las Vegas ONE face off. Sure, doing congressional business is a legitimate out for not debating. Having a schedule conflict with another campaign event, perhaps in another part of the state is justifiable. But a dinner with donors? Not so much.

This could lead to a new political rule: Show up at all forums, debates, panels and media interviews. It keeps you out of trouble.

• Even under the best-case scenario, Gibbons looks bad. Consider this: Everyone involved, from witnesses to police dispatchers to officers on the scene, could tell that Mazzeo had been drinking. By some accounts, she’d been drinking for several hours. And by the time of the incident, approximately 10:10 p.m., she was no doubt intoxicated. Even Gibbons said she stumbled on the way to the garage.

And Gibbons was helping her to find her truck?

So she could drive home?

Under the influence?

That’s completely irresponsible for anyone, let alone a sitting congressman who’s running for the highest office in the state. Especially when there were ready alternatives at hand: Gibbons could have asked her if she had a friend he could call to take her home. Or he could have offered to call her a cab, which are not very difficult to get in the Howard Hughes Center. Anything but let an intoxicated person get behind the wheel.

Moreover, what kind of political judgment leads a man who is just a couple weeks away from standing for election from entering a parking garage with an intoxicated woman, not his wife anyway? You don’t have to be the Rev. Jerry Falwell (who famously doesn’t allow himself to be alone with female employees of his church) to know that this has trouble written all over it.

When Gibbons lamented to police that “Gosh, I learned an important lesson, never to offer a helping hand to anybody ever again,” it’s hard to feel sympathy. The lesson here is don’t put yourself in a position where you can at least be accused of doing something untoward.

• We’ll probably never know the truth. Although witnesses saw Gibbons, Rogich and Mazzeo — and the rest of their group — in the bar, all the disputed interaction took place in private. Security cameras in the parking garage apparently didn’t have videotape running, which is too bad, because they might have been able to prove which side of the story is true. Other witnesses at the restaurant and nearby hotels cannot say positively what happened in that parking garage or its environs.

But remember that Mazzeo’s story has not been disproved, nor has she recanted. According to the Sun and the R-J, she simply said she didn’t want to pursue the matter because of Gibbons’ position.

And that’s bad, because it leaves lingering doubts just a few days before early voting begins. Which brings us to…

• This incident has the potential to depress Republican turnout, or suppress votes for Gibbons. Let’s be honest, people. Many Republicans will probably dismiss the incident as a misunderstanding, or perhaps even a Democratic dirty trick setup. (You can forget the setup angle, however: If it was a setup, would not Mazzeo be on every TV station, speaking to every newspaper and perhaps even cutting a TV ad?)

But for the Republicans who do believe it, or who have doubts, the course is less clear. They probably won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for Titus. That’s too much to expect. But they may find themselves staying home, or leaving that race blank. And that’s not good for Gibbons, who needs to keep Titus’ margin of victory in vote-rich Clark County down to manageable levels, even as he’s assured of big turnout up north.

It’s Thursday afternoon, and our desk is piled high with papers. But we’ve still got time to whip up a few quick hits for your enjoyment. Here we go!

• We just don’t get the “scandal” surrounding the latest revelations about our own U.S. Sen. Harry Reid. We’ve read through — twice! — the Associated Press story that was published on the front page of the Review-Journal, and we can’t figure out where this is as bad as, say, trying to seduce a teenager via instant message.

Don’t get us wrong: We’ve been a big critic of Reid when we think he’s really done something wrong. But this time around, we don’t think the violation uncovered by the AP is all that serious.

Consider:

Reid bought some land, and reported the purchase and ownership.

Reid owned the land, and it appeared on his annual disclosure report. While he owned it, he paid taxes on it.

Reid sold the land, and reported the sale and the profits.

The only thing Reid didn’t do was report the transfer of the land from his personal holdings to a limited-liability corporation formed by Reid and attorney Jay Brown, a longtime friend of Reid’s.

Do the rules require Reid to disclose his transfer, and his participation in the LLC? It looks that way. So, yes, Reid didn’t follow the law in that case, and ought to file an amended disclosure.

But beyond that, the senator reported everything there was to report. And since public knowledge of the transactions is the point of the law, we think Reid substantially complied with its intent.

One thing’s for sure, this isn’t Watergate. Or Iraq. Or Katrina. Or North Korea. Or Abramoff. Or Foley. Or Valerie Plame. Or insider trading on health care stocks. Or a giant tax giveaway to oil companies while they’re posting record profits. Or … well, you get the idea.

• When we saw that the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce had invited national drug czar John Walters to town, we couldn’t help wondering if they knew they were pawns in Walters ongoing campaign against the will of the people. Then we realized that this is the group against increasing the minimum wage, so of course they’d make common cause against the will of the people.

For those who don’t know, Walters is the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and his favorite pastime is using your tax dollars to lobby you to do things the government wants you to do. Back in 2002, Walters promised the Review-Journal editorial board (of which we were then a part) that he wouldn’t campaign against a ballot measure aimed at legalizing three ounces of marijuana.

Of course, he immediately began campaigning on that very issue. And when Secretary of State Dean Heller tried to demand that he file the paperwork required of everybody who campaigns in Nevada, Walters refused.

And now, there’s an initiative to legalize just one ounce of marijuana on the ballot. True to form, Walters is back to do some more campaigning.

We wondered if Walters would trot out his old lies, such as the “fact” that 60 percent of the seven million Americans who need drug treatment are addicted to marijuana. Or the old saw about marijuana alters the “brain chemistry” of teens.

Or would they be all-new lies? (They’ll be lies, sure enough, because you can’t have a drug war without lies.

So, let’s look at what came out of the gathering, via a news release from our friends at the chamber.

“Walters … spoke to approximately 100 community and business leaders about the negative impact legalizing marijuana would have on Nevada, and he denounced pro-drug groups that are propagating the myth that marijuana use is not dangerous,” the release says.

Yes, marijuana use is very dangerous. Each year, marijuana kills millions, via drunken driving, liver problems and toxicity poisoning in college dorms. Oh, no, wait, that’s alcohol, which presently is legal for adults to enjoy. And if alcohol is worse than marijuana and is also legal, then it stands to reason that marijuana should be legal. But it’s not, for reasons that are generally a pile of bullshit.

Let’s see what else the chamber said.

“Christina Dugan, vice president-public affairs of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, made it clear that the chamber is strongly against any effort to legalize marijuana. She noted that in addition to the devastating effects drugs have on families, drug use also creates a significant loss to businesses.

“‘By legalizing marijuana in our state, not only would more people be inclined to try marijuana due to its new legal status, it would also create a myriad of problems for businesses in loss of productivity and competitiveness as well as increasing liability and exposure to lawsuits,’ Dugan said.”

Oh, yes, we forgot! All of us working stiffs are the property of our employers, and must never do anything — even on our own time — that might negatively impact the bottom line of our bosses! Why, going out on a weeknight and drinking heavily and then calling in sick the next day is the exact same thing as stealing from your company! Then again, alcohol use is legal, and it hurts productivity way more than marijuana.

Want more? OK, why not.

“Dugan noted a National Institute of Drug Abuse study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a pre-employment urine screening had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries and a 75 percent increase in absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use.”

Oh, my God! A study has proven that marijuana totally causes industrial accidents, injuries and absenteeism! Or does it?

Just a couple of questions: If these people tested positive for marijuana, why did the post office hire them anyway? And if they were absent so much, why didn’t they get fired? And could it be that they just didn’t like their jobs and didn’t show up? Do we know they were getting high?

Of course we don’t. And let us just toss this little fact out at you: Right now, right here in Las Vegas there are TONS of people who are rocking the ganja with great regularity. You don’t know who they are to look at them, because they show up for work, do their jobs, pay taxes and contribute to society. The fact that they like to get high on a plant versus hard drugs, booze or religion is irrelevant. Only in films like Reefer Madness, media campaigns from the drug czar and in news releases from the chamber do we find that marijuana smokers are dangerous and a threat to the very capitalist system that’s at the heart of our democracy.

One more quote?

“‘Marijuana adversely affects alertness, concentration, perception, coordination and reaction time. All of these play an important role in productivity and decision making abilities,’ Dugan said. “In short, passing Question 7 to legalize marijuana is bad for business. The Chamber urges all Nevadans to vote no on Question 7.’”

Replace “marijuana” with “alcohol” in that sentence, and ask yourself why the chamber isn’t campaigning for an initiative to outlaw booze. Oh, wait, some big booze-related businesses are chamber members, right? OK, forget ever seeing a move to ban booze, which is far worse than marijuana.

Hey, we’ve got it! Once marijuana is legalized, and big marijuana farms are built, they should join the chamber! If they are big enough, and contribute enough, they can actually set chamber policy, the way banks and other big businesses did in the great tax fight of 2003!

And finally, the kicker:

“Walters and Dugan were joined by Sandy Heverly, executive director of STOP DUI and Gary Thompson, whose wife, the late Las Vegas Sun journalist Sandy Thompson, was killed by a marijuana-impaired driver.”

Let us just say, we worked for Thompson at the Sun, and found her to be a kind-hearted, sensitive boss who cared about the community and especially kids. If she were alive today, we’re sure she’d be campaigning against it.

But how many times is a marijuana-addled driver involved in a driving-related fatal car crash, versus, say, alcohol? It’s a pretty low number. Yet alcohol is legal, while marijuana isn’t. (And, might we add, the ballot initiative in question would add pretty harsh penalties for driving under the influence that results in a death.)

Folks, here’s our advice, as if you really need it: Ignore the drug czar. Ignore the chamber. Ask yourself if you really think that the state should tell its citizens they can or cannot ingest a particular drug, and a drug that’s less harmful than already-legalized drugs, at that. Does that make sense? If not, vote yes. If it does, make sure your chamber membership is paid up.

• And columnist Jon Ralston thinks he’s the source for all the Review-Journal’s breaking news? No way, buddy. CityLife also serves as a tip sheet for Nevada’s largest newspaper.

• He’s not gone yet! Vegas PBS Channel 10’s Mitch Fox may be contemplating retirement after two decades at the helm of Nevada Week in Review, but before he goes, he’s taking a look at ballot initiatives. Tune in at 8 p.m. tonight to learn more.

• And finally today, a program note. We at Various Things & Stuff are headed to beautiful California, to experience some R&R amid all the red-taped regulation, taxing and spending and bureaucratic lack of accountability that Jim Gibbons hates so much. We’ll return, hopefully rested, on Tuesday. Have a great weekend, and all you political candidates make sure to play nice while we’re gone.

As much as we enjoyed seeing Independent American Party candidate Chris Hansen try to wrest control of the debate from Boyd Law School Dean Richard Morgan, there were a few memorable moments of Monday night’s verbal contest between U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons and state Sen. Dina Titus. And we’ve helpfully collected a few of them for you here.

• Asked about diversifying the economy in light of a push to raise the minimum wage and the challenge of finding attainable housing, Gibbons responded thus:

“We have low taxes. Taxes that I’m very proud to have a part in. In keeping them low, with the Gibbons tax restraint initiative.”

We have oddly phrased answers. Answers that we’re proud to have a part in. In reporting. The answers.

After a few more pro-business platitudes, Titus got hold of the question and, in our humble view, hit it clear out of the park.

“Just to tell you the truth, I don’t want to attract any businesses that won’t agree to pay $6.15 an hour. That’s not the kind of business that we need in Nevada,” she said.

And why is that? Because the lack of health insurance means those folks have to use more expensive community health care, which drives up costs for everybody.

Makes sense. Oh, by the way, both Gibbons and Titus favor an increase in the minimum wage, as do lots of people who are not officers of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce or overlords of low-wage-paying jobs.

• Asked about a state surplus, Titus said she’d direct funds into all-day kindergarten, vocational education programs and apprecenticeships, as well as research at state universities that might lead to economic development.

“Well, you just heard it. She’s going to spend every penny of it. Those costs that she’s talking about will go ahead and roll up the cost of government significantly,” Gibbons retorted.

Oh, snap!

Serious side note: This really is the difference between the two candidates. Gibbons worries primarily about the cost and size of government, while Titus worries primarily about doing the things that government is supposed to do. While Gibbons says he’d sock money away in endowments and the rainy day fund — thus avoiding increased costs down the road — Titus would spend it educating kids, in the belief that an educated populace able to get good jobs and pay taxes helps everybody down the road.

Back to the fun-making:

Titus — referring to an Associated Press story that quoted Gibbons saying “We’ve just started learning the process from this side. It’s going to take a few more sessions to make sure we’re 100 percent.” — had a retort of her own.

“Well, we don’t need somebody who needs to take remedial budgeting starting out as our governor,” she said.

Oh, snap!

• Gibbons, answering a question about whether Nevada businesses should pay an income tax, momentarily forgot his central campaign theme.

“The government today in the state of Nevada has a surplus. No one should be talking about raising taxes,” he said. “There is no reason for us to even be talking about taxes.”

And yet, for almost the entire first debate in Reno, Gibbons TALKED ABOUT NOTHING BUT TAXES! WHEN TITUS HAS NEVER TALKED ABOUT RAISING TAXES! We’re not saying he’s bipolar or anything, but we agree with Las Vegas Debate Jim Gibbons and not Reno Debate Jim Gibbons: Taxes are simply not going to be an issue in the near future, if at all during the next governor’s tenure.

Glad we’re all on the same page.

• Or, are we? Despite an admonition from Morgan not to personally attack opponents in closing statements, Gibbons trotted out a new line of assault on Titus.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a crossroads,” he said. “In one direction is government the California way, tax and spend, where everything costs more than it should, where there’s no bureaucratic accountability, government intrusion everywhere you look and creativity buried under mountains of red tape. That’s where my opponent will lead you, where we do not want to go.

“Government the Nevada way, or the California way,” Gibbons concluded. “There are many differences between my opponent and me, but none greater than that.”

Oh, really? So California is bad, is it?

California, which has elected a Republican, Arnold Schwartzenegger to office? And looks poised to re-elect him?

California, the state that elected Gibbons’ political hero, Republican Ronald Reagan, to office back in the day?

California, the choice of 36.1 million people (versus Nevada, where just 2.4 million have chosen to live)? California, with a median income of $51,647 compared to Nevada’s $48,314?

California, home to some of the nation’s finest universities, both public and private? (Think Stanford, UC Berkley, Pepperdine, UCLA, USC, the University of San Diego, the McGeorge School of Law, etc.)

California, which despite Gibbons’ rhetoric about high taxes and the imposition of a state income tax (on both people and business) is still the headquarters of companies including Bank of the West, eBay, Google, Apple, Hewlett Packard, The Sharper Image, Williams Sonoma, Bechtel, Charles Schwab, Wells Fargo and See’s Candies? (And that’s just in and near San Francisco!)

California, home to Napa Valley and its environs, which produce some of the finest wines made in America?

California, home to the film and entertainment industry, the one business that consistently and totally dominates the world?

California, home to beautiful beaches and cities from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco, not to mention our beautiful homeplace, Huntington Beach? Home to Disneyland, Sea World, Knott’s Berry Farm and Six Flags Magic Mountain, which give Nevada a run for tourist traffic?

California, which, despite claims of excessive taxation, has an economy that’s the world’s sixth largest?

That California, congressman?

Because that California seems to be doing pretty damn well if you ask us.

Well, all that computer training we had last week was for naught: It turns out our Information Technology department isn’t going to implement our new system, due to technical problems.

Hey, don’t feel sorry for us: We won a lot of money betting that it wouldn’t happen. In fact, we may even have enough to buy a Porsche nicer than the one the head of our I.T. department drives!

So, while we’re shopping, why don’t you enjoy some delicious Quick Hits?

• If you think legalizing an ounce of marijuana is a good idea, you must be uninformed! That’s the word from Metro Police lobbyist Lt. Stan Olsen, a perfectly nice guy who probably didn’t realize he was insulting a whole bunch of smart people.

After learning that several members of the clergy supported Question 7, the ballot initiative that would legalize one ounce of marijuana, Olsen said … what’s that? You’re surprised that clergy are endorsing marijuana? Why, people? Don’t you read the Bible? Here, let us help:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the free tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

“And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind, and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1: 11-12)

OK, so God created all the plants and declared them good, which includes marijuana, right? So there you go! Anyway, back to what Olsen said when he found out that clergy were supporting Question 7:

“I would guess they don’t have the true facts, or they could not make this decision. I am sure the motives of these people are good, but if they knew the facts, they would take a different position.”

Oh, snap! Somebody’s going to be spending a long time doing penance, baby!

Seriously, however, the arrogance in Olsen’s remark cannot be understated. (We’re totally sure the motives of Lt. Olsen are good, by the way.) He’s saying you must agree with the police — and oppose the initiative — or you must be uninformed about the issue.

But there is another possibility: You can be fully informed and support the initiative, because the current regulatory scheme that pertains to marijuana is a total joke! That means, believe it or not, there are very smart people who have fully considered all the ramifications of the initiative who have, nonetheless, come to the conclusion that they support it. Because of the facts, not in ignorance of them.

So don’t hate on the clergy, and don’t hate on the voters who disagree with you, Lt. Olsen! (As for saying bad things about God’s creation, well, dude you are totally on your own with that. Perhaps one of those marijuana-supporting clergy can help?)

• The Republican Party of Nevada lost its executive director in a mini-scandal that came at the worst time of all, a month before Election Day. It seems Chris Gulugian-Taylor sent out the announcement of a Minuteman rally (subject line: “Help stop the illegal invasion”) to the GOP’s e-mail list, complete with nasty little digs like this:

“If you are tired of seeing illegals catered to, then join us to send these Un-American corporations a message.

“We’ll not allow these illegals destroy our country. We’ll not permit corporations like Chicago Title, Wells Fargo Bank, and Miller Brewing promote [sic] and financially support the take over [sic] of America by the Illegal Invaders.

“Your voice is needed to let these Un-American companies know we will not tolerate them supporting illegals over law abiding citizens.”

Ouch, baby. That’s got to hurt, especially if your party is trying to appeal to Latino voters and not alienate them.

At first Gulugian-Taylor defended his actions, saying the Minutemen “do a lot of work for [U.S. Rep. Jim] Gibbons, [U.S. Sen. John] Ensign and the Republican ticket. They’re having a rally, and they asked us to send it out on their behalf. We did it for them. It came with our return address, but it’s not an endorsement.”

Yeah, that wasn’t going to work, especially because in the very same news story, Republican operative Steve Wark called sending out the release a “fundamental error in judgment.” Correcting for party loyalty bias, that means “major fuckup.” (And not least because the un-American Wells Fargo has supported Gibbons with the only political currency that really matters, money.)

Finally, as pressure continued to mount, Gulugian-Taylor fell on his sword and offered his resignation, which party chairman Paul Adams swiftly accepted. (Yale Cunningham is the new executive director.)

But that wasn’t enough for some. Luis Valera, who has worked to support GOP candidates, was still waiting for an apology from the state Republican Party, or so he told the Las Vegas Sun.