So, it seems that this idle chatter about recalling Gov. Jim Gibbons is more serious than we thought. Sure, we’ve heard it before. In fact, we heard it before Gibbons started on his nearly unbroken string of silly and stupid mistakes on Dec. 31/Jan. 1. But we didn’t take it seriously.

But state Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer admitted on the record to the Las Vegas Sun that "casual discussions" about a recall have taken place. If the numerous allegations against Gibbons — including this screwy legal defense fund he’s started up — prevent him from governing, "then maybe a recall is something Nevadans should consider," she said.

All for Gibbons’ sake, of course. If he can’t govern, we may as well put him down, politically speaking. We don’t want him to suffer. Democrats are compassionate that way.

This whole discussion reminds us of the time we asked U.S. Sen. Harry Reid about recalling President George W. Bush, for high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the Constitution. That’s a non-starter, Reid replied simply. If Bush is impeached, who becomes president?

Ouch! He got us there. It would be the Vice President Dick Cheney! The lesson of that day: Things can always get worse. Or, do a "double-impeachment," since Cheney was part and parcel of Bush’s subversion of constitutional government in America. One of those.

And here in Nevada, we have our own Dick Cheney-like problem, in the person of Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, who very well may become governor if Gibbons was removed. (We’ve heard that Nevada can do a California-style recall, in which we have a single election both to recall the governor and elect his replacement. So we could get a good alternative candidate in there. But you just know Krolicki would get in on that action, too. And this is still a reddish state, mostly.)

Make no mistake: Krolicki is not, like Cheney, frighteningly evil. He wouldn’t immediately nuke Iran if he became governor. (To be fair, there are no nuclear weapons under the command of the governor of Nevada; we know this because the offices of the Las Vegas Sun are still standing.)

But we think Krolicki would make an extraordinarily bad governor, mostly because he spends so much time and energy wanting to be governor. (We’ve said it before: Is there any greater disqualification for power than an unhealthy lust for it?) Seriously, people, this guy whined about having to give him his first floor office, and when he was finally crobarred out, he stole all the furniture and had to be forced to return it! He’d undoubtedly spend the first month in office cruising the Levenger website looking for office furnishings! (Not that there’s anything wrong with that; Levenger is quality stuff that we use ourselves.) What we mean to say is, Krolicki is more about the trappings of office than the work that the office does.

So, the question of recall is a serious one indeed. Is Gibbons really so bad that we would subject the state to a Gov. Brian Krolicki? Are his scandals (illegal nanny, allegedly assaulting a drunken cocktail waitress, using his congressional office to help a friend get big contracts and accepting travel and contributions in return, lying about a whole long list of stuff, creating a legal defense fund in possible violation of state laws) and his potential to do harm ($60 million on crazy school empowerment pushed by disgruntled citizens who couldn’t cow the Clark County School District board, polluting coal-to-jet fuel plant, using resources to study global warming) really bad enough that we’d potentially put Krolicki in the top job instead and pray for new elections in 2010?

It’s something to think about until June 1, 2007, when Gibbons will have served six months and will be thus eligible to be recalled.