Is state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus dead? My colleague Jon Ralston seems to think so, arguing in his column today that, short of a "miraculous makeover," Titus has no future in Nevada politics.

Apparently, however, Titus hasn’t yet received the memo. She’s quoted in the Las Vegas Sun today arguing for redistributing room tax revenue away from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Authority. And she displays her trademark acerbic wit in the Review-Journal by opposing a suggestion from former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan that Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons should get a housing allowance so he can buy a place down in Las Vegas.

"If we have extra money this session, I wouldn’t spend it for that," Titus said. "You might ask him. He said he wants to save money."

(We part ways with Titus here; Gibbons has had very bad luck staying in hotels in Las Vegas, and it may be a good investment of state money to buy him a house and keep him out of trouble.)

And let’s not forget that Titus is busy fighting a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio — first reported by the aforementioned Ralston in his column in the Sun and FLASH e-mail newsletter — to restructure committees in the upper house to deny Democrats a majority. And also keep in mind that Titus has signaled she may run for Congress against U.S. Rep. Jon Porter in 2008. And who could forget Titus even predicted Gibbons might get indicted during his first term?

Plus, she only lost by 4 percent, a real-vote margin of just 23,418 people.

So, is a non-Extreme Political Makeover Titus dead? The answer is, not quite yet.

First, Titus can easily win re-election in two years to the 7th District seat she’s held since 1989. Democrats outnumber Republicans there by more than 13,000 active voters, and these are Titus Democrats.

That means at least six more years of bomb-throwing in the upper house, from proposals like redirecting LVCVA money (we personally would not bet on that happening) to holding Gov. Gibbons’ feet to the fire on every issue she can think of, and a few more that she hasn’t thought of just yet.

Second — and this is "dare to dream, because dreams are free" territory we’re in — what if Titus finally knocks off that last Republican she needs to become majority leader? Granted, if unethical, underhanded folk like state Sens. Barbara Cegavske and Maurice Washington can still get re-elected by Kool-Aid drinking constituents, this would be a difficult task. But who thought that state Sen. Sandra Tiffany would implode under the weight of ethics charges as she did?

But let’s be honest about what this is: guerrilla warfare, oppositional politics, eked out of whatever tools Titus can fashion. It’s not what she’s always wanted. It’s not leadership. And it’s certainly not the historical honor of being called the first female governor in Nevada history.

Right now, Titus is most probably still thinking about what might have been. She’s dreaming of another chance at Gibbons, who ran a campaign so bereft of actual ideas that his own spokesman frankly acknowledges Gibbons is still searching for his priorities. She’s thinking that, with enough money, she could boost turnout in Clark County past the pathetic 55 percent logged in the 2006 election, and she could virtually move to Reno to boost her popularity and name recognition in Washoe County, and thereby take the state without ever setting foot in rural Nevada. After all, with Gibbons so disorganized and distracted by pre-election scandal, nobody’s predicting a stellar first term.

But it’s going to be difficult for Titus to convince other people that she should get a second change. They’ll point — as Ralston did — to her high negatives. They’ll say she’s had her shot, and its time to give somebody else on the Democratic bench a chance. They’ll say that she’s a flawed candidate. They’ll say she can never win in rural parts of the state, and can’t be competitive even in areas where she’d be expected to win.  And it’s hard to argue against all of those points.

In the end, Ralston may well be right, and Titus may have to face the hard truth that she’ll never be governor of Nevada. She may well have to retreat into an elder stateswoman role, as odd as that term may be applied to the combative, feisty Titus. She may have to give up on a bid for Congress, which she probably doesn’t really want anyway. (Besides, with Porter a potential challenger to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid in 2010, Reid knows 2008 is the last chance he’ll have to return Porter to private life, and he and Titus aren’t exactly fast friends who could forge a political alliance at this late date.)

The odds are most certainly against a Titus resurrection, and they most certainly favor a final four-year term in the minority in the state Senate, fighting a battle lost on Nov. 7, 2006. (Certainly, the post-election Titus is still spoiling for a fight with Gibbons.) But with that much energy and with that much innate intelligence, even if she likely won’t ever be governor, we just can’t write Titus off entirely just yet, no matter that the odds and the experts seem to tell us we’re wrong.

Susan McCue, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s chief of staff, is leaving the senator’s office to head the ONE Campaign as president and chief executive officer. The ONE Campaign is a global effort to fight AIDS and extreme poverty.

She’ll be replaced by Gary Myrick, Reid’s deputy chief of staff who previously worked for Senate Majority Leaders George Mitchell and Tom Daschle.

Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons hasn’t just been wandering around in a post-election haze! He’s been picking a transition team, and one of the members will surprise you. In addition to resurrecting Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt from the Where Are They Now? file, Gibbons also tapped former Gov. Robert List (currently a shill for the pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear energy industry) and former Gov. Richard Bryan.

Did we just say Richard Bryan? Why, yes, we did!

Now, you might ask yourself what a former Democratic governor and United States senator would be doing anywhere near a Republican governor who says Ronald Reagan is his political hero and who was only too happy to engage in vicious attacks against Democrat Dina Titus during the campaign.

And so did we. We placed a quick call to Bryan’s office to see if perhaps he’s been taken hostage, but we only got the answering machine. But in a statement released by the Gibbons campaign, Bryan was quoted thus: "I’m honored to assist Gov.-elect Gibbons as part of his transition team. The election is over. Regardless of our political affiliation, as Nevadans we should do all we can to enable the governor-elect to meet his obligation to all citizens of the state. I applaud this bipartisan approach."

Wethinks that perhaps Bryan’s job — one of the top lawyers for Lionel, Sawyer & Collins — has taken some of the partisan edge off. It’s always nice to be able to get a phone call returned from the governor’s office, you know. And it’s not like he was a big Titus fan. He was a signatory to the infamous non-endorsement endorsement of her primary rival, Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson.

In addition to the team of top political figures, Gibbons has also tapped businessman Monte Miller of Las Vegas and Patty Wade of Northern Nevada to direct his transition, according to the statement. (No, it’s not the same Monty Miller who’s admitted to bribing ex-Clark County Recorder turned photographer Frances Deane.)

If nothing else, Gibbons has demonstrated that he can be bipartisan (by including Bryan), forgiving (by including Hunt, who savaged him on the campaign trail) and confounding (by including a guy who is among the top advocates for Yucca Mountain, a project Gibbons has always opposed).

According to the statement, "the transition team has two primary missions: (1) to identify the issues that will receive the greatest emphasis in his administration and (2) to find qualified candidates for appointed positions. Together, these two functions help define the administration of the next governor."

Wait, isn’t Gibbons supposed to identify the issues that will receive the greatest emphasis in his administration? And isn’t Sig Rogich supposed to find qualified candidates for appointed positions?

Once again, we see the sorry results of a Seinfeld Campaign about nothing (except for parroting a line about keeping taxes low over and over again): A committee to figure out what the hell the guy is going to do! That’s normally something somebody decides before they even run for office.

Then again, Gibbons could do a lot worse than Bryan and Hunt. We’re counting on you two!

UPDATE: Sen. Bryan returned our call to confirm that, in fact, he is not being held hostage. Which is good, because we were worried.

Bryan did say, however, that Republicans and Democrats should want Gibbons to be successful, for the good of the state. "I realize not everybody will be pleased," he said. "I suspect that there will be some Democratic partisans who will be upset."

The recent elections, Bryan said, were a message to politicians of both parties. "The public was sending a strong message, saying ‘you guys, we expect you to work together,’" he said.

Las Vegas City Manager Doug Selby’s decision to close Huntridge Circle Park on Maryland Parkway will certainly be viewed by cynics as a response not to the Friday stabbing of a homeless man by another, but to a U.S. District Court’s order that the city’s Please-Don’t-Feed-The-Homeless ordinance was struck down.

Which is to say, that’s how we view it.

But the city, in a city statement released Monday night, maintains it was Friday’s homicide — and other violent crimes that have taken place in the park — that promoted Selby to use his authority to close the park.

"It breaks my heart that we have to close the park, but I have to make sure the people in the park are safe," said Councilman Gary Reese, in the statement. "We can’t take the chance that someone else gets hurt there. We’ll look at the issues and try to find a solution that works for everyone."

First, please. If Reese wanted the park open, it would be open. Because while the city may operate under a strong city manager form of government — in which Selby runs day-to-day operations — he has pretty much proven that "strong city manager" is nothing but a political theory in Las Vegas. If Reese or Mayor Oscar Goodman told him to keep the park open, he’d do it in a second.

Second, please, again. Plenty of places in town are the scenes of violent crime, and they have not been closed to the public. This is a radical overreaction to a problem, which cast against the backdrop of the city’s antipathy toward homeless people and those who help them, looks nothing if not monumentally petty.

Third, mega-please: Finding a solution that works for everyone has never been the city’s goal. Herding the homeless to a place whey they’re comfortably out of sight and out of mind has been the city’s goal. If the city is really committing to looking at the issues and finding a solution that works for everyone, that would represent a major change of policy. A welcome one, to be sure, but undeniably a new course.

No matter how much the city protests, we simply cannot see this as anything other than a drastic action taken in response to the fact that a blatantly unconstitutional city ordinance was struck down, as it should have been. But while lawyers argue in court, and the city posts guards at our city parks, the homeless problem remains unresolved. Whether that’s because of stubbornness, ignorance or the lack of serious leadership is immaterial.

Having recovered from consuming our weight in turkey and trimmings (and that is no small feat, we must say!) we at Various Things & Stuff are back with a few post-Thanksgiving Quick Hits. Eat them before they spoil!

» If you didn’t already suspect Gov. Kenny Guinn doesn’t think Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons is up to the job, last week should have removed all doubt. If it wasn’t bad enough that Guinn put all-day kindergarten into his budget — thus saddling Gibbons with a program to which he objects — Guinn appointed his chief of staff, Keith Munro, to the Gaming Control Board!

Previous governors told the Review-Journal that they consulted with their successors during their lame-duck periods. (Former Gov. Bob Miller said he actually asked Guinn who to appoint, figuring those people had to serve under the new governor.) But we’re guessing Guinn lost Gibbons’ phone number before he put Munro on one of the most powerful boards in the state, and thus denied Gibbons a chance to select his own man for the slot.

Meanwhile, Gibbons’ new director of communications, Brent Boynton, told the R-J in that same story that Gibbons was not available to comment (no surprise) and that he "…had not yet formulated his priorities going forward."

Um, what?

You mean to tell us that Gibbons, who will become governor in exactly 36 days, has no idea what he’s going to do? What programs he wants to fund, or which he wants to cut money from? What initiatives he wants to pursue? Nothing?

Either Boynton is seriously misinformed, or he’s being upfront and we’re totally screwed.

Then again, we shouldn’t be surprised. Usually, a politician formulates his or her priorities before a campaign for office, puts those ideas forward and debates them during the course of the election. But Gibbons mostly spent time ducking primary debates, beating up on state Sen. Dina Titus by saying she’d raise taxes, and promising to make sure the state "lives within its means." A road map to his ideas it was not.

So, just more than a month away from inauguration day, and even the new governor has no idea of what he wants to do. Is it too late to ask Guinn to stick around a little while longer? Say, four years or so?

» One aspect of the Munro story that went unremarked upon (until now) is the man Munro will replace: Bobby Siller. After a career in the FBI that ended as special agent in charge of the Las Vegas office, Siller went on to be — in our humble view — a pretty bad Gaming Control Board member.

Casinos didn’t like the guy because he grilled them about their bottom line. When private gambling salons didn’t perform as well as casinos had hoped, Siller jumped on executives to ask why. (Frankly, revenue at casinos is a matter for the executives and shareholders, not the control board.)

We at Various Things & Stuff didn’t care for Siller because of his moralistic crusade, specifically against the Hard Rock hotel-casino. He threatened the casino’s license over some admittedly racy (but cleverly done) billboards, using some downright ridiculous arguments. The jihad continued until the Gaming Commission slapped the Control Board’s hand, reminding them that advertising is generally covered by a little thing called the First Amendment.

Let’s hope Munro keeps his eye on the Control Board’s actual mission: Keeping casino games fair, and keeping casino staffs clean. Leave the bottom line and billboards to the guys who know what they’re doing.

» Here’s a good one: What’s the Polish word for "weasel"?

Answer: Krolicki!

As in Lt. Gov.-elect Brian Krolicki, who’s currently the state’s treasurer. As such, he’s assigned to an office on the first floor of the state Capitol at 101 N. Carson St. up in beautiful Carson City.

And that’s the problem: Krolicki wants to keep that office, and not move up to the second floor of the Capitol, where the lieutenant governor has quarters, according to the Las Vegas Sun. His current digs are much closer to the governor’s office, and in politics, proximity is power.

Not that Krolicki’s saying that of course. He told the Sun that it would be much more efficient, since there are treasurer’s office employees up on the second floor. (Funny how he never wanted to move up there during his eight years as treasurer, huh? Maybe he just never noticed the "efficiency" until now.)

The fact is, the current arrangement makes sense. The treasurer has a lot more impact on the state than the lieutenant governor, and should be closer to the governor’s office. Treasurer-elect Kate Marshall is taking the high road, saying she’s focused on her programs, not where her new office will be. Since Krolicki’s new job doesn’t have programs — or any real responsibility — he’s obviously got some time on his hands.

Now we know why political insiders call Krolicki "the whiner," although we think we’ll stick with our own "w" word.

Oh, by the way: The state Ethics Commission cleared Krolicki of wrongdoing after he unnecessarily plastered his mug all over privately financed ads for the College Savings Plan of Nevada and the Nevada Prepaid Tuition Program. Although the ads amounted to free advertising to raise Krolicki’s name recognition among voters (in our view) the Ethics Commission found no violation (in its view).

What are the odds that we’ll see Krolicki’s face again, this time on travel agency-financed ads encouraging people to visit Nevada? Perhaps a cameo in a movie shot in the Silver State? After all, there’s a political ladder to climb and it’s clear Krolicki wants an office on the first floor of the Capitol very badly…

» Forcibly retired state Supreme Court Justice Nancy Becker may have plans for the future, but she’s sure not sharing them with the Review-Journal because of all the mean things that newspaper said about her during the campaign.

Does Becker not realize that reporter Carri Geer Thevenot doesn’t write those editorials? And that she probably thinks they’re whack? (We’re just guessing on that, but we’re pretty confident in our assumption.)

Anyway, the speculation is that Becker will apply to the state Supreme Court to be certified as a senior judge, to sit on cases at the District Court level when jurist absences and caseloads require. But we’re wondering why a big Las Vegas law firm wouldn’t make her an offer. Having an ex-Supreme on the letterhead is never a bad thing.

Just keep Becker — tossed because of the awful Guinn v. Legislature decision — away from the appellate practice. Trust us.

» Speaking of wacky R-J editorials, we highly commend Vin Suprynowicz’s Sunday column to you. Although we at Various Things & Stuff are part of what Vin would label the World Socialist Revolution, we cannot help but appreciate a well-written, well-considered argument for the other side. And Vin rarely disappoints on that score.

» What is up with the Aladdin? The hotel-casino — which is slowly transforming itself into the Planet Hollywood hotel-casino, admitted it sent a security officer to ask a Salvation Army bell ringer to move off the sidewalk in front of the Strip property.

The charity reports that Aladdin officials said it was an "eminent domain" issue, and that they claimed they had a legal right to order people off the sidewalk.

Actually, there is a legal term for that argument: Total bullshit.

A federal court ruled on the issue of private sidewalks after The Venetian sued the Culinary Union Local 226 for protesting on sidewalks that were actually built on private Venetian property. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which let stand the District Court’s ruling. That ruling? Sidewalks, even those built on private property, function as public forums, and people thereon are thus entitled to full First Amendment protection.

Guess the Aladdin didn’t get the memo. And when we say "memo," of course, we mean "law of the land."

And seriously, a bell ringer? For a charity? Trying to raise money to help people at Christmas? Talk about being a grinch!

UPDATE: We talked to both the Salvation Army and the Aladdin today (Tuesday) and confirmed the following: A security officer did say the hotel had a legal right to exclude people from the sidewalk, which is not true. Hotel officials acknowledge they don’t have that right, and lay the blame at the feet of somebody who was neither authorized to speak for the property, nor fully informed.

Moreover, the Aladdin met with the Salvation Army, showed officials from the charity around the property, and found them a nifty spot to stand nearby. The Salvation Army is happy, and the Aladdin is happy (not to mention clarifying sidewalk rules with its staff). Why, it’s a Christmas miracle!

We can’t help but think that every hotel on the Strip, as well as every Metro officer who patrols the Strip, would benefit from a little legal education about what is and is not permitted on sidewalks. That’s one dandy way to avoid misunderstandings like this in the future, we think.

» What’s next, hookers? The poor Las Vegas Monorail can’t seem to catch a break, even with hot chicks dressed as cocktail waitresses hawking their train. The so-called "Ambassadors" wander Caesars Palace, The Venetian, The Mirage and Harrah’s, passing out monorail info. And still, only 18,710 riders, far less than the train needs to break even.

Something is telling us that even hookers might not save this train.

Look, monorail officials, it’s been a good run. The monorail did it’s job (i.e. made lots of money for partners Bob Broadbent and Cam Walker, and later put a little money into the pocket of Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson). But even the most critical predictions of the train’s most ardent foes have proven to be generous.

Maybe it’s time to just cut our losses, and dig into that fund set aside to dismantle the monorail? And instead of hoping for a miracle, a marketing scheme, a bulk-ticket sale plan, or a bevy of babes to save the train, how about taking a ride to a place we call "reality"? Trust us, it sucks sometimes. (That’s what alcohol is for!) But it’s better than waking up in a fantasyland where each new sunrise brings only disappointment and despair.

We knew that when the city and county and university system formed a task force to study whether Las Vegas needed a new arena that the real question was going to be, "how can we get these suckers in Las Vegas to pay for it." C’mon, everybody knew that. They barely pretended otherwise when the task force was announced back in April.

Along the way, the study focused more on where to build a new arena and how much it would cost than on whether there was really a need. And now, sure enough, the task force has concluded that, golly gee, we do need a new arena.

And it’s going to cost $404 million (not including land or infrastructure, or the $200,000 city and county taxpayers split to pay for the study in the first place) and require an ongoing subsidy of between $11 million and $27 million, depending on whether a pro team moves to town.

So now it’s up to us. We must Just. Say. No.

No, we don’t believe that an outlay of that size is appropriate for a city where people can’t even get around in traffic right now. No, it’s not appropriate for a city struggling with all manner of growth-related problems, including a shortage of schools, teachers, cops, firefighters, nurses, adequate social services, affordable housing, etc.

Until we get those things under control, building a stadium and subsidizing it to the tune of between $11 million and $27 million is like a guy who makes $30,000 going into debt to buy a $255,000 Austin Martin Vanquish. Let’s spend $404 million on our roads, or timing our signal lights, or hurrying up road construction schedules, and see the benefits that will bring, why don’t we?

In fact, the only way that an arena should ever be brought to Las Vegas is what we’ll call the Goodman Way.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman says he’s still looking for a sports team to bring to downtown Las Vegas, anticipating that the new-stadium people are going to select a site in more wide-open Clark County. But, Goodman says, he can do it without a penny of tax dollars, by making the team pay for their digs.

Now, the idea of a pro team coming to Las Vegas has been a chimera for a long time, but then again, new development in the downtown was unheard of until Goodman came along, too. If anybody can pull it off, he can. Certainly, Goodman has been known to give away tax breaks downtown. If there is any public subsidy, even in the form of tax breaks, the idea of a stadium should be a non-starter for residents.

But if Goodman really can do what he says, and bring a team to town with a stadium at no cost to taxpayers, then we say more power to him. Otherwise, we all have to just say no.

» Aldous Huxley’s Savage once told the people who ran the brave, new world that he liked the inconveniences. Well, he’d have loved living in Las Vegas. Not only does it seem that every single road between you and your daily destination is constantly under construction, but when you finally get fed up and want to get the hell out of town, you can’t find a parking space!

So what does outgoing Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker suggest? Get a limo!

That’s right, the man who will soon leave the top job at the airport to take a position with Carter & Burgess, a firm that has landed plenty of contracts at McCarran (and will no doubt land many more), says that one way to avoid holiday tie-ups is to ride to the airport in style.

His new job must pay a lot more than we thought.

Then again, Walker has always had a soft spot in his heart for the well-off. Remember back in 2005 when he tried to raise parking rates in the airport garage to dislodge the common folk so rich people would have a "consistent experience" (read — be able to park in nice covered parking without getting dirt on their Mercedes, Lexus and Bentley sedans)? We sure do. (Walker ended up getting the rates increased, but not by as much as he wanted.)

Anyway, we appreciate the fact that McCarran now has 13,000 parking spaces available for the public (although many of those aren’t in the convenient garage, and require hitching a ride on the shuttle bus to remote lots). And we appreciate that thousands of parking spots have been put off-limits to the public because of post-Sept. 11 regulations, which rendered one entire parking garage unusable for public parking.

But we still can’t help but wonder: Instead of telling the public why they can’t provide adequate parking, why can’t airport officials channel their energies into, say, building more public parking? Why aren’t we hearing about a news conference to announce a brand new parking garage, to start construction immediately after New Year’s so as to be ready for next year’s busy holiday season?

Maybe we can put Carter & Burgess on that? For a small fee, of course.

» Congrats to the Las Vegas Sun for beating back a libel lawsuit filed by Las Vegas Sands Corp., i.e. billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who lusts to be the richest man in the world. District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt ruled that it was OK for Sun Business Editor to look upon Sands’ sorry regulatory record and call it, well, a "sorry regulatory record."

It’s a blow for us ink-stained wretches, and a reminder that while the rich may get preferred parking at McCarran, they sure can’t silence the press when it’s got something legitimate to say.

» A couple of postscripts to one of the closest congressional races ever in Nevada, the 3rd Congressional District race between U.S. Rep. Jon Porter (who was returned to office) and challenger Tessa Hafen.

The good news for Porter is that the FBI has decided not to investigate the allegations that he made fundraising calls from his Washington, D.C. and district offices, which is a distinct and well-known no-no. Porter denied the allegations, made by a former staffer, and produced schedules to show he wasn’t even in his office when some of the calls were alleged to have been made.

"I take it the fact the FBI is not moving forward is that they are confident and they didn’t sense the need. Anyway, it was not true," Porter told the Review-Journal.

Meanwhile, Democrat Tom Collins, chairman of the state party, said it was all political. "You have to look at who hires these guys in the Justice Department. This is just the typical Bush-Cheney cover-up stuff. Jon Porter has done nothing to clear his name," Collins said.

Sorry, Tom, but we’re going to have to go with Porter on this one, and reject the theory that the administration is somehow behind putting pressure on the Justice Department and the FBI to let Porter off the hook. If the bureau had evidence he’d done something wrong, we’re guessing they’d have nailed him for it. (They haven’t been shy in other cases in recent months, have they?) Then again, Bush did come out to Las Vegas for a Porter fundraiser…

But Hafen also got some good postscript news. Staffers from CQPolitics.com named Hafen’s race the "most valiant effort" of the 2006 cycle. "Republicans threw everything they had at her, including charges she was a carpetbagger, a lightweight and a puppet for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, her former boss," they wrote. "But despite the unfavorable odds, Hafen raised $1.3 million to Porter’s $2.8 million and had a very respectable showing come Election Day, losing by fewer than 4,000 votes and a 1-point margin."

Oh, and by the way: Those charges she was a carpetbagger, a lightweight and a puppet for Reid? They were all lies.

» Mayor Oscar Goodman has proven time and again that his loyalty doesn’t extend much beyond people also named "Goodman." That’s why we weren’t too terribly surprised to see that Goodman had thrown Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic under the proverbial bus in today’s R-J.

After yet another city ordinance (the one that bans feeding the homeless) was struck down by a federal judge (duh), Goodman (who sought the ordinance in the first place) told a reporter not to blame him for the result.

"Talk to Mr. Jerbic about why his ordinances are declared unconstitutional. We rely on our city attorney. I’m not practicing law there. I trust the city attorney," Goodman said.

No, but Goodman is an attorney, and he did practice law for decades, and he does have an obligation to put that knowledge to use for the city. (Remember when he wanted to argue the case for the ordinance that bans transporting nuclear waste through the city?) So we suspect that Goodman does have an inkling about whether a law is going to pass muster or not. And besides, he was told by some pretty good constitutional scholars over at the ACLU that this law wasn’t going to be upheld. Goodman, in fact, had every reason to believe the law would be struck down!

So what did he do? He "trusted" the city attorney who he told to write the damn law in the first place, so as to later absolve himself of blame when the inevitable, ACLU-predicted result transpired.

We tell you, if this isn’t Profiles in Courage, we have no idea what is.

Dear Mr. Greenspun:

Caught your Thursday column last week, and I had a question. It’s not a trick question, or a mean question, or a question meant to further the rivalry between the Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun. (As you know, I’ve worked for both, and I don’t vouch for either, even though the R-J’s corporate parent — Stephens Media Group LLC — also owns CityLife and this blog.)

But you mentioned something that I found interesting, and provocative, so I thought I’d write and pose a question. If you’re like me, you usually forget what you write the minute it’s printed, so let me quote you here:

"What we witnessed in Nevada in the Supreme Court race of Justice Nancy Becker was an emotional electorate — fired up by a tax-hating and greedy newspaper that is delivered every morning with the Las Vegas Sun."

We’re with you so far!

"These folks only take from this state. They never give back. So why shouldn’t they get their readers hopped up over a decision Justice Becker made three years ago — as part of a near-unanimous [state] Supreme Court — because without her and others they will pay less back to Nevada where they make a fortune every year."

Preach on, brother!

"The danger is not from the new judge. … The danger is that all judges throughout this state will be cowed into making the political decisions from the bench and not the legal ones called for by our laws and the Constitution. If that happens, then the independence of the judiciary is compromised and the tyranny of the majority — which our Founding Fathers feared most — will be set in motion."

OK, here’s where I’ve got to stop you for a second.

See, I voted against Justice Becker. It wasn’t because the R-J told me to — the truth is, I found myself much more in line with the Sun’s choices on Election Day. But I voted against Becker because I thought that she ignored the law in her decision three years ago.

(In case anybody doesn’t remember, Becker was part of a court majority that set aside a voter-approved provision of the state constitution that demands a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature in order to pass a tax increase. And in 2003, the Legislature was at an impasse, unable to muster the two-thirds. The court ruled that the constitutional requirement to fund schools took precedence over the "procedural" requirement to get the two-thirds majority. In the end, lawmakers were able to collect two-thirds of their fellows and pass a tax bill after all. Oh, and this year, the court — including Becker — overturned the 2003 ruling!)

Now, you said you don’t want judges making political decisions instead of legal and constitutional ones. So here’s my question: Didn’t Becker do just that? After all, the framers of the Nevada Constitution set out the rules required to make amendments. The voters, led by an initiative circulated by our incoming governor, Jim Gibbons, voted the two-thirds thing in back in the 1990s, and that means it’s every bit as constitutional as the rule that says the state has to pay for schools. But Becker simply ignored that. Wasn’t that political?

Don’t get me wrong. I think the two-thirds rule is stupid, and I wished (many times) in 2003 that it wasn’t there. In fact, I thought the recommendation of the tax policy task force (on which you served) for a gross receipts tax was a good one. I wish the Legislature had agreed.

But like it or not, two-thirds is the law of the state, right? If the court had overturned it, or stricken it from the constitution, that would have been one thing. But Becker and the majority simply ignored it. That can’t be right, can it?

Anyway, that was my question after reading Thursday’s Sun.

Sincerely,

– Steve Sebelius

Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons has named Mike Dayton as his chief of staff. Dayton, who formerly worked as Gibbons’ chief of staff in his Washington, D.C. office, was a chief advisor to Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt before a brief stint with the city of Las Vegas. He’s currently a lobbyist with the McDonald Carano Wilson law firm.

Gibbons also tapped his current Washington, D.C. chief of staff, Diane Cornwall, to be deputy chief of staff. And former Reno television reporter Brent Boynton, who worked on the campaign, was named communications director.

The announcements come shortly after campaign manager Robert Uithoven announced he’d asked Gibbons not to consider his name for the chief of staff job.

» U.S. Sen. Harry Reid finds himself in trouble. Again. The Los Angeles Times reports in today’s paper that Reid inserted $18 million in funding into a transportation bill for a bridge across the Colorado River from Laughlin to Bullhead City, Ariz. And wouldn’t you know it? Reid owns 160 acres of undeveloped land on the Arizona side of the river near where the bridge will be built.

Read the story, and you’ll learn a few things:

1. Reid properly disclosed his ownership in the land on his Senate financial disclosure reports.

2. Reid wasn’t the only lawmaker to vote for pork on this particular project; U.S. Reps. Jon Porter and Trent Franks, R-Ariz., also voted for funds for the projects. (Although both Arizona U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl voted against it.)

3. Other powerful lawmakers, like incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., do earmarks for pork projects, too.

4. The bridge in question is apparently needed, although it was not requested by either Nevada or Arizona transportation officials, to make life easier in Laughlin for casino workers who live across the river in Bullhead City.

Having said that, a couple observations:

1. The bridge will no doubt increase the value of Reid’s property, despite the "independent" appraisal from developer Robert Bilbray, who is a friend of Reid.

2. As a result, Reid should never have even considered earmarking money for the project.

3. Once again, the words "Reid" and "land" and "scandal" are associated in the public mind. And that’s not a good thing when you’re about to take over the Senate with an agenda of being more transparent and more ethical than your Republican predecessors.

» News that Robert Uithoven, a longtime aide to U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, won’t be taking the chief of staff’s job is a very bad sign for the new administration. Uithoven ran both Gibbons’ congressional office and his race for governor, including the tough slog through the last few weeks. On top of that, he’s got a great sense of humor and a terrific knowledge of Nevada and its politics.

Uithoven would have made a fabulous choice for Gibbons’ chief of staff, and would have given the new governor a real asset when dealing with the Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, both of whom are strong in the Force. Gibbons is in the big leagues now, and Uithoven has proved he can play there. It’s a tragedy that he won’t get his chance.

» The weekend papers were full of stories about the impact of Question 5, the anti-smoking petition that will ban lighting up virtually everywhere. But no story was more revealing than the one in the Las Vegas Sun on Thursday.

There, Buffy Martin, government relations director for the American Cancer Society, announced that the battle to ban smoking in two of the places where it’s allowed by Question 5 — casino floors and stand-alone bars — is "absolutely" on the horizon.

Hear that, bars? It doesn’t matter if you simply stop serving food to get around Question 5’s ban on smoking in places that have food-handling licenses. The American Cancer Society is coming for you anyway! And you’re next, casinos!

"We have a duty to protect every single worker in this state," Martin told the Sun. "I do think that Nevada will become 100 percent smoke free in the future."

We hate to say we told you so, but … no, actually, we really enjoy saying we told you so. And what we told you was this: These health nazi groups will not stop until they have marched into your home, into your living room and ripped the last cigarette from your lips! They don’t care about the impact on business, on the law or on your right to pursue happiness as you see fit. Question 5 was only one battle in a larger war over personal freedom. And the war does not go well for personal freedom.

» Speaking of the smoking wars, Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison decried the efforts surrounding Question 4, the tavern and convenience store alternative to Question 5. Commercials that portrayed Question 4 as the real anti-smoking initiative backfired when it was revealed that Question 4 would actually allow smoking most everywhere it is currently legal, she wrote.

We don’t disagree that Question 4’s commercials were misleading, and that they betrayed a certain cynicism and contempt for the voter. (Then again, the voters did approve Question 5, so they earned that contempt.) But what Morrison didn’t say is also illustrative, since we’re on the subject of honesty:

1. Question 5 pretended to allow smoking in bars. The truth is, if bars serve food, as most do, smoking is banned. This was an intentional, willfully misleading statement.

2. Question 5 pretended to be about worker health, but it clearly allows for smoking on a casino floor. So why is the life of a waitress at Denny’s worth protecting more than the life of a waitress who works the floor of the Mandalay Bay? (True answer: Because smoke banners didn’t want to face the wrath and money of casinos opposing the smoking ban just yet.)

3. Question 5 pretended to be about protecting children (it was circulated by "Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids). But it banned smoking in bars where no one younger than 21 is permitted by law. Why? That question has never been answered to anyone’s satisfaction. (True answer: Because smoke banners won’t stop until tobacco is a controlled substance.)
It seems there’s plenty of dishonesty to go around on the smoking issue, if one is willing to look for it.

» And speaking of smoking, one more time, we love this quote from Michael Hackett, who headed up the Question 5 campaign: "I would hope Nevada would take this as a cue to improve its health and the quality of health that it provides. We’ve always been at the bottom of the list in terms of the quality health care and social services provided here. It is our hope that Question 5’s passage would become some sort of impetus for people to take charge of their health."

That’s just the thing, Michael. People already were taking charge of their health. They were simply doing it in a way the smoke banners didn’t like. And instead of live and let live, the Question 5 people thought nothing of sweeping aside personal and property rights to impose their will upon others.

If you can’t see the evil in that, you’re beyond hope.

» Clearly, state Sen. Dina Titus isn’t conceding the governor’s race, or at least that was the subtle impression she left during an interview with the Las Vegas Sun. Meanwhile, the Review-Journal’s crack political team has finally switched from Gibson Endorsement Watch mode into Titus Concession Watch mode. Day 6: No change! And no return calls! Do you think she’s a "sore loser"?

If you’re like us, you’re ready for the weekend. So we won’t keep you long, just time enough for some ultra-Quick Hits.

– Another day, another stupid city of Las Vegas ordinance clogs the courts and wastes everybody’s time. Gee, it would be so nice if somebody, a lawyer perhaps, could get elected to the council and put an end to his nonsense.

– Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons has a creepy habit of referring to himself with the royal "we." (Only we at Various Things & Stuff are allowed to do that, although technically the "we" refers to our large staff of researchers, interns and gnomes.)

Gibbons does know he got elected governor, and not king, right? Oh, and despite the headline, the story doesn’t tell you who will be on the new governor/king’s team. Damn bait and switch.

– We do, however, know the Legislative leadership teams, and there are few surprises. State Sen. Bill Raggio, the king of the North, will return once more as Senate Majority Leader. Assemblyman Garn Mabey will lead the tiny, 15-member Republican caucus in the Assembly, which will be led by the state’s first female speaker, Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley.

And while she may have lost the governor’s race, state Sen. Dina Titus was re-elected to her post as senate minority leader. Wethinks she and Gibbons will cross swords again soon.

– Speaking of Titus, she granted a long interview to the Las Vegas Sun, saying she wouldn’t be surprised if Gibbons got indicted while in office for allegedly using his position as a congressman to help a Reno businessman land defense contracts, and musing that rural Nevada was a lost cause from the start. She also called for an outside probe of allegations Gibbons attacked Chrissy Mazzeo.

Oh, yeah. There will be sword crossing.

– Oh, and speaking of Mazzeo, my colleague Jon Ralston had a chat with her. The results are in his column.

– Indulging in its well-known penchant for in-depth investigative reporting, the Review-Journal solves The Mystery of the Missing Tortoise. Gee, we miss elections already.

The piling on has begun. State Sen. Dina Titus, who came within 23,309 votes of being elected Nevada’s first female governor, is starting to become the object of scorn in some quarters.

She shouldn’t. Titus didn’t run a perfect campaign, but she ran a good one. And, as it turns out, a necessary one. Nevada voters, or at least a little more than 23,000 of them, may have preferred the anti-tax snake oil of eventual winner U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, but that doesn’t mean Titus should wear a target.

It started, of course, with the Gibbons-supporting Review-Journal. You’ll recall the newspaper’s endorsement of Gibbons, which admitted he wasn’t that bright without the help of campaign guru Sig Rogich. The R-J endorsed Gibbons anyway. (It’s all about taxes, you understand.)

Today, the editorial page took delight in criticizing Titus and her ideas. "No failure was more colossal than Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus’ campaign for governor," the page writes. "In the end, Sen. Titus was simply too liberal to convert enough independent and Republican voters. Democrats picked up offices in many states by running fiscal and social moderates against Republicans, but Nevada went all in with its left-wing base, choosing its standard-bearer, Sen. Titus, in August’s primary election instead of the more moderate Henderson mayor, Jim Gibson."

Let’s translate that into reality: Democrats in some states "won" by finding the members of their party who look, talk and believe most like Republicans, but still throw a bone or two to the Democrats so they can register as a "D" without causing too much laughter. And wouldn’t it all be better if there really only was one party, with everybody in the "moderate" (read — anti-tax) camp?

Democrats faced one of the easiest choices ever in August: Titus, a Democrat, or Gibson, a Republican who registered as a Democrat. That being a Democratic primary, Gibson’s 17-point loss was totally unsurprising. Democrats vote for a Democrat! It’s hardly even newsworthy.

In the R-J’s formulation, it would have been better for Democrats to go with Gibson, even though his pro-life, pro-business, pro-Establishment views ran counter to their own, because Gibson would have provided a better alternative to Gibbons, who faced last-minute questions about personal judgment and morality that would — we admit — have never arisen about the morally upright Henderson mayor. (Say what you will, Gibson is an honorable person; we just think he’s registered in the wrong political party.)

Of course Gibson would have provided a better alternative to Gibbons! They are very, very similar in philosophy. It would be as if Pepsi redesigned its cans to appear to be almost exactly like those of rival Coke. But the point of elections is not to run two people who are as nearly alike as possible! The point is to provide voters a choice! (And, by the way, asking Democrats to push the button for someone who offends their consciences is asking Democrats to be cowards. We’re glad they didn’t comply, regardless of the election outcome.)

That’s why we’ve also got to disagree with our good friend and colleague Erin Neff, who wrote in her column that the road map for the party is to go with more conservative Democrats, rather than outspoken liberals like Titus.

"She [Titus] lost because she was roundly disliked for her tax votes, her propensity to talk about the need for new ‘programs,’ and less-than-flattering statements she made about Northern Nevada while representing her Las Vegas constituents," Neff writes.

That’s one-third true. The North didn’t like Titus because she was a southerner, and Republicans in the North didn’t like Titus because she was a southerner and a liberal. And much like living in Northern Nevada, political party has become something of a tribal allegiance: unquestionable, unchangeable, almost a part of a person’s DNA.

How many people complained about Titus’ accent, rather than her policy positions? Plenty. And what does that have to do with policy? Not a damn thing. Her unfavorables were high not because of tax votes or her support for "programs," but because people didn’t like how she sounded, where she was from, and which box she checked on her voter registration form.

And even if they did dislike her policy, they cannot impeach her honesty: Titus did vote for taxes. Why? Because, for the one millionth time, taxes pay for the services that every single resident of this state needs and uses on a regular basis. Everybody loves to bitch about taxes, and people who vote for them. But those people also bitch about being stuck in traffic on the freeway. They bitch about how long it takes a cop, or a firefighter, or an ambulance, to get to their house when they call. They bitch about the schools their kids attend, or the quality and reputation of UNLV. They bitch about old people getting ripped off in scams. They bitch about long waits at the emergency room, and the high cost of prescription drugs, or health care in general.

Well, how in the hell do you think we get those things? Yeah, a little thing we like to call taxes. And by voting for taxes, Titus isn’t doing anything evil. She’s simply being honest. An education costs money, and she voted to tax people to raise that money. Cops cost money. Firefighters, teachers, nurses and road-builders cost money. Titus voted to tax people for that money (and so, by the way, did a lot of her Republican colleagues).

No, what’s evil is saying that the state should "live within its means" when you’ve just spent 10 years pushing the little green button for budgets that are so out of balance, the government could save money by purchasing only red pens for its auditors. What’s evil is saying education is your No. 1 priority, but then refusing to do anything to actually pay for it, guaranteeing that education isn’t a priority at all.

That’s called lying to the voters. And it seems the voters want to be lied to, but Titus refused. If that’s the reason she lost, she should be able to live with that.

So when Neff says "The road map for 2008 was laid out Tuesday. Democrats just need to pick the right vehicle for the trip," we’re afraid that she’s is recommending a Sunday drive to surrender, rather than victory. Because eventually, all these bills come due, and the Republican philosophy falls short. It’s then we’ll need a Democrat to pick up the pieces. But if they’re all Republicans, what do we do?

Finally, our Corporate Overlord-in-Chief, Sherman Frederick, weighs in, "counseling" the Democrats on their loss, and comparing it to his favorite football team, the Arizona Cardinals.

He hits Titus for having a fundraiser with former President Bill Clinton when she was running against a guy facing charges of assaulting a woman. (Charges, by the way, that didn’t prevent the R-J from heartily endorsing Gibbons, nor crowing about his victory.) But this is simply Clinton-hate, left over from the 90s. Clinton isn’t the commander-in-chief anymore, Corporate Overlord! And the guy who got the job, by his own admission, has pursued policies that just got him "thumped" by voters nationwide! How about some vitriol for that guy? Clinton, after all, never started an unnecessary war, or violated the United States Constitution.

Frederick, too, hits Democrats for not nominating Gibson. "My liberal friends get mad when I point this out. They say Gibson would have made a crummy choice because he’s not a real Democrat. They deride his faith and family values and, as if it were a curse word, call him a Republican. I’d like to tell you that’s a goofy minority view. It’s not. It’s a widely held thought among Nevada Democrats. Especially the coaches."

Right. So when U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, along with former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, ex-Gov. Bob Miller, former AG Frankie Sue Del Papa and ex-Assembly Speaker Joe Dini tried to hand the race to Gibson with a thinly veiled endorsement letter, they were speaking for … whom, exactly?

It wasn’t Gibson’s faith or family values Democrats didn’t like; the head of their party in Nevada — Reid — has the exact same faith and the exact same family values. It was his Republican values to which they objected. And yes, among Democrats, that is a curse word! In fact, it’s usually preceded by several others.

And why shouldn’t it be? War, scandal, bribery, money laundering, pederasty, the squandering of international goodwill, the dismissal of science, the over-classification of documents, the constitutional violations, the coddling of the rich and huge corporations, the neglect of even basic disaster-relief duties, the pursuit of wealth uber alles and the thumbing of noses at any attempt to exercise proper congressional oversight: These are what six years of Republican rule have brought us. A good curse word is the least Democrats can do!

So let’s come full circle, and get back to the R-J’s editorial. "Although Sen. Titus spent the better part of two years trying to recast herself as a centrist, she couldn’t shake her record of supporting tax increases, protecting the lucrative compensation of public employees (such as herself) and desiring new spending and subsidies for political experiments.

"Perhaps Sen. Titus, a political science professor at UNLV, can use her experience to teach Democrats a lesson in electability in time for 2008."

But Titus never lied about her record, her votes or her positions. It was her opponent who lied about those things. She was honest with the public, never making a promise she knew she couldn’t keep. Time will tell whether her opponent did.

And one final thought: Why should any Democrat take advice from the R-J in the first place? Do you think they really want to help the party? Or does it make more sense to think they’d rather destroy it? And in that event, wouldn’t it be wise to ignore that advice?

Dina Titus did the state a great service, in that she offered the state’s residents a choice, a governor who had vision and ideas for the future beyond the simple limitation of taxes. That the voters — mostly in the rural and northern parts of the state — fell for the easy choices and simple slogans of the other side doesn’t diminish what she did in the least. There may yet come a day when even those voters regret that choice, when reality finally intrudes upon the philosophical rants of the right. On that day, let’s all hope we still have somebody around who might offer us an alternative.

At last it’s over. The midterm 2006 elections are history, and history-making. And we’re not just talking about the House of Representatives going Democratic Blue, with the Senate sure to follow soon. (Bye, bye, Sen. Macaca!) The results have already seen Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld submit his (by our count, third) resignation to President George W. Bush. Only this time, Bush accepted! He’s nominated ex-CIA Director Robert Gates to succeed Rumsfeld, who may be the only member of the administration who understands that the elections were a repudiation of Bush’s handling of Iraq.

But before we gloat too much on behalf of the Democrats, let’s acknowledge that they suffered their share of defeats on Tuesday, too: Here at home, state Sen. Dina Titus was defeated in her bid to become the state’s first female governor by U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, by a decisive 47.9 percent to 43.9 percent margin. And while Democrats made a gain of one seat each in the state senate (giddily dispatching state Sen. Sandra Tiffany) and Assembly (bye, bye, Assemblyman Brooks Holcomb), they failed to reach the magic two-thirds majority in the lower house and still don’t control the senate.

A few other post-election random thoughts, with the caveat that we haven’t really crunched the numbers:

>> The north will rise again! Actually, the north did rise, and in big numbers. While Titus defeated Gibbons in Clark County by 23,418 votes, Gibbons won every other county. (Yes, that’s right, every county, including Mineral.) Statewide, he earned 22,935 more votes than she did.

While the northern part of the state looks with suspicion on Las Vegas, it should go to sleep tonight knowing that there is still political power outside of Clark County. That’s what handed the state to President Bush — twice — and what handed the governor’s mansion to Gibbons. (In fact, if you look closely, you’ll see Gibbons margin tracks closely with the 21,500-vote margin with which Bush beat U.S. Sen. John Kerry in 2004.)

>> U.S. Rep. Jon Porter had a political near-death experience. After dispatching ex-Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera and ex-Park Place CEO Tom Gallagher with relative ease, Porter faced his first really tough race against first-timer Tessa Hafen. Without the moral sleaze of Herrera or the many houses of Gallagher, Porter’s team was left to assault native-Nevadan Hafen on charges of … carpetbagging? Illegal immigration, the GOP’s favorite boogeyman in this cycle, also played a role, although Hafen and Porter share a very similar view on the subject.

Bottom line: Even with an almost-even district registration, Hafen came within 3,966 votes of unseat a two-term incumbent who has always won by double-digit margins in the past. Porter should heed the message voters sent: A little distance between a supposedly independent Nevada Republican and national GOP leadership is a good thing.

P.S. The Esquire endorsement of Porter (on the basis of his being fiscally conservative yet socially liberal) probably helped, as Esquire-dubbed Sexiest Woman Alive Scarlett Johansson was on the cover. A lot of people read that issue. You know, eventually.

>> While the GOP may have captured the governor’s mansion (and the lieutenant governor’s mansion, which not many people know is Room 302 at the Carson Station hotel), the Democrats took every other constitutional office. Let’s do the list: Catherine Cortez Masto will be the new attorney general; Ross Miller will be the new secretary of state; Kate Marshall will be the new treasurer; and Kim Wallin will be the new controller.

What does that mean? For the first time in a long time, the Democrats have a farm team, gathering experience, name recognition and fundraising ability while in office. That’s especially true of Cortez Masto, who won her race with landslide numbers, nearly 60 percent.

>> Two-thirds of the group once derisively known as the "sorority sisters" are history. First, Republican Joe Heck dispatched Sister-in-Chief Ann O’Connell back in 2004. Now, Democrat Joyce Woodhouse has slain Second Sister Sandra Tiffany. The third, and now loneliest, sister — Barbara Cegavske — beat back a challenge to her seat to be the only surviving member.

Woodhouse had lots of help, especially from a shadowy group calling itself … what was that name? Citizens for Better Education? Or something. Anyway, a series of last-minute fliers aimed at Tiffany was absolutely brutal, sometimes over-the-top and very, very effective. (Kudos, Citizens!) In any case, we’re guessing the real culprit was the teacher’s union, which didn’t take kindly to Tiffany’s push to break the Clark County School District into smaller districts, known as the Rich White Suburbs Unified School District and The Rest.

>> Question 5, which will ban smoking in bars, restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores and pretty much every other place in Nevada, passed. Question 4, which would have allowed smoking in places where kids aren’t allowed — hello, bars — went down to defeat.

Why you gotta hate on us smokers, Nevada? What did we ever do to you, but ask to be left alone to puff on our fine cigars in peace. A pox on your houses! And a party in the cigar room at Del Frisco’s before Question 5 takes effect!

>> Which newspaper carries more influence with voters? We at Various Things & Stuff took the time to digest the Review-Journal’s and the Sun’s endorsements and gauge which newspaper voters listened to more. And the results were the closest race of the night.

The Review-Journal endorsed in 70 different races and ballot questions. In 76 percent of those races, voters cast the vote the R-J urged them to cast. Voters disagreed in the remaining 24 percent of the cases.

The Sun, by contrast, endorsed in 77 different races, and found itself in agreement with voters 74 percent of the time, just behind the R-J, and in disagreement with voters 26 percent of the time. (The Sun’s averages were skewed somewhat in that it issued dual endorsements in three races; in those events, we counted the victorious endorsed candidate as a "yes" from voters, but the defeat of the losing candidate as a "no" from voters. Make up your mind, Sun, you’re blowing the curve!)

The truly amazing thing is this: Despite the fact that the R-J is a libertarian-leaning newspaper and the Sun is considered its "liberal" alternative, the two papers agreed in a whopping 39 races and/or issues. That’s a high degree of concurrence for papers supposedly so philosophically at odds.

But the contrast between the two papers was nowhere more apparent than in the Sun’s desperate push to save Supreme Court Justice Nancy Becker from political extinction, and the R-J’s efforts to send her to an early political grave. (The R-J won that one, by the way: Voters elected District Court Judge Nancy Saitta over Becker by a 47 percent to 38 percent margin (with a whopping 15 percent for "none.")

The R-J did a series of editorials on Becker, as did the Sun, which went the extra mile with a ridiculous front-page piece by longtime Sun scribe Jeff German, who allowed Becker to claim the "far right," led by the R-J, was after her.

Imagine the peace! After today, your mailbox won’t be stuffed with fliers, your phone won’t be ringing off the hook with robocalls and your television viewing won’t be interrupted with political ads. Why, it’s sweet freedom, and it’s just around the corner!

But before we relax, how about a few Election Day Quick Hits? We promise we’ll throw something non-election related in for your reading pleasure, too. Here we go!

· Quotable: "This election season has been unprecedented. I’m not sure anybody has ever seen the level of vitriol and the sensationalism of the stories that have come this election cycle. Anybody who would confidently predict the outcome of these closer races is full of baloney." — Pete Ernaut, partner at R&R Partners.

Let’s leave aside the fact that sensationalism of the stories comes more from the subject matter than the authors (how do you underplay a story about a gubernatorial candidate accused of assaulting a woman not his wife after a night of drinking a few weeks before Election Day)?

Instead, we’re curious about the part where "anybody who would confidently predict the outcome of these closer races is full of baloney." Because, as we recall, our friend Jon Ralston wrote an entire column on Sunday confidently predicting the outcome of these closer races. And Ernaut just said he was "full of baloney"!

We think Ralston should challenge Ernaut to eat a baloney sandwich if his picks turn out to be right.

· Now we know why Wayne Newton is a Republican! He doesn’t like the IRS and he lives "a fast-lane life … on private jets and Arabian horses, on personal yachts and helicopters, and behind the wheel of his fabulous cars." Or so says the Los Angeles Times in a recent West magazine profile of the singer known as "Mr. Las Vegas."

We were just wondering, after seeing Newton hanging with gubernatorial candidate and fellow fast-lane swinger U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons on the cover of the Review-Journal today.

· Who says Nevada doesn’t get any love? The state got an entire two-part episode of the new, great show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip dedicated to it, with guest star John Goodman as a surly Pahrump municipal judge! Part One aired Monday, and saw key members of the cast come to Pahrump to deal with a colleagues’ outstanding speeding ticket. Part Two, to air Nov. 13, will resolve the dilemma.

Now, we know that we’re hip-deep in the political season (at least for one more day) but consider our advice on this point to be totally non-partisan: Watch this show. It is a great show. Don’t believe us? What other show would depict an actor depicting Jesus Christ as head of a network’s standards and practices division? Enough said.

· And finally today, go vote! The president of the United States himself said that, whatever your party, or even if you don’t have one, do your duty, get to the polls and let your voice be heard. We couldn’t agree more, although that’s where our agreement with POTUS ends. Polls are open until 7 p.m. You can find out where your polling place is located by clicking here. Today is your chance to make democracy work.

So the guy who U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons allegedly helped get millions in federal defense contracts has sued Nevada Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins for defamation, because Collins told the Reno Gazette-Journal that records in a lawsuit that purportedly show bribes paid to Gibbons should be unsealed.

The five-page complaint filed by Warren Trepp, chief executive of eTreppid Technologies, says that Collins defamed him in an Associated Press story published in the Gazette-Journal Nov. 2. In that story, Collins referenced a Nov. 1 story published in the Wall Street Journal that first reported that Gibbons had used his office to help Trepp, and had taken a $12,000-plus Caribbean cruise paid for by Trepp without reporting it, as required by House ethics rules.

In that story, the Journal reports "Mr. Gibbons also got other, unreported gifts of cash and casino chips from Mr. Trepp, according to sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit brought by a former executive at eTreppid, Dennis Montgomery." And in the Associated Press story, Collins added that these gifts and chips "could have a value of up to $400,000." Where Collins got that figure, we don’t know.

We also don’t know why Trepp sued Collins. After all, Collins (mostly) repeated charges that were made by Montgomery, the reported by the Wall Street Journal, then re-reported by the Associated Press, then re-re-reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Actually, we’re just kidding. We do know why Trepp sued Collins and not any of the other, deeper-pocked entities that reported his alleged bribe-making and, in his words, called his integrity and dedication to his country and state into question. And so do all of you.

What we were surprised by in Trepp’s lawsuit is the clear implication that a citizen, be it a political party official or not, cannot talk about things they read in the newspaper, even in the context of filing a lawsuit themselves to unseal records that might prove or disprove the allegations that appeared in a newspaper.

By his logic, we at Various Things & Stuff could not say that the Wall Street Journal reported than an ex-employee of eTreppid Technologies alleged that Warren Trepp offered bribes to Jim Gibbons. According to him, we are at risk of being sued, simply for saying that the Wall Street Journal reported an ex-employee of Warren Trepp alleged that Jim Gibbons took bribes from Warren Trepp. If we’re to read that lawsuit correctly, Trepp’s view is that we simply cannot say that according to the Wall Street Journal, an ex-employee said in a lawsuit that Warren Trepp offered, and Jim Gibbons accepted, gifts of cash and casino chips, which were totally unreported.

That’s right: Warren Trepp and his lawyers don’t want us at Various Things & Stuff to be able to say, legally speaking, that THE WALL STREET JOURNAL QUOTED THE LAWSUIT OF AN EX-EMPLOYEE TO SAY THAT TREPP GAVE GIBBONS "OTHER, UNREPORTED GIFTS OF CASH AND CASINO CHIPS" AND THAT THIS ALLEGATION WAS MADE IN SWORN TESTIMONY IN A SEALED FEDERAL LAWSUIT.

Gee, that seems kind of anti-freedom to us. Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be pro-freedom? Anyway, we don’t want any legal trouble with Trepp’s people, so we better not say anything more.