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?