It’s time once again to start things off with our Political Pop Quiz. Today’s question: Where did New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appear at a fundraiser hosted by Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun at the tail end of last week?

a. Greenspun’s Green Valley home

b. Playboy Club at The Palms

c. The Four Seasons

d. Culinary Union Local 226’s headquarters.

Remember when answering that you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the newspaper! The correct answer is below. No peeking!

» You know, we’ve read a lot about how U.S. Sen. John Ensign is all mad and stuff about the firing of Daniel Bogden, the now-former U.S. attorney for Nevada. But despite a growing body of evidence that top officials in the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, lied their asses off, Ensign still supports them. (Some of those lies were told to Ensign’s well-tanned face, in fact.) In fact, Ensign even says that some of the other U.S. attorneys were fired for the right reasons.

Really? It seems the other U.S. attorneys were fired while they either refused to comply with political demands for investigations or after they’d engaged in investigations of political figures — who were Republicans. So what the hell does Ensign mean when …

…oh, that’s right. We forgot. Ensign is a tool, and thus dismissing a U.S. attorney who had the temerity to investigate and convict a Republican (or who refused to launch or speed up inquiries against Democrats) could very well be a good reason for a political firing.

Ensign is working feverishly to get the Justice Department to "restore" Bogden’s reputation. It seems to us he should be more concerned about his own.

» When will they learn? It wasn’t enough that capitalist enabler Tim Cashman found out too late that endorsing Gov. Jim Gibbons was bad for business, now minority community capitalist enablers have to learn the same lesson? The Latin Chamber of Commerce, which also endorsed Gibbons during his 2006 race with state Sen. Dina Titus, now seems to be regretting its stance.

It seems members of the Latin chamber want more money to go to education, especially helping students whose first language is not English. Members also want full-day kindergarten and look favorably upon that $1 billion iNVest program the school chiefs have whipped up.

While we can fault Gibbons for many things — and we do — this one is not his fault.

Gibbons was very clear on the campaign trail that he was against taxes and fees. That was, in fact, virtually the only issue Gibbons took a stance on in his battle with Titus. Everybody knew that.

So now, after endorsing the guy and finding out he’s not doing what you want, don’t come whining to the newspapers that mean ‘ol Governor Slush Fund won’t pass taxes (or even allocate much in the way of existing revenue) to things that would help your business (like roads) or your community (like better schools). The better candidate on those issues — hell, on most all issues — was Titus. But she wasn’t pro-business enough, was she? What do you think she’d be doing on education and roads right now?

The business groups wanted a seat at the big boys table, a chance for their voices to be heard. They just didn’t count on the fact that they’d also have to listen to the voice at the head of that table, a voice that’s saying — in unmistakable terms — "screw you."

But it’s not Gibbons’ fault, people. He was honest about his views. Now the various chambers have to live with them, for four more years or until the grand jury hands up the indictments, whichever comes first. Try to use the time to think about what you’ve done, and don’t make the same mistake again, OK?

» What the hell is up with Paul Willis?

What’s that? Oh, right. Paul Willis is the interim chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, and apparently a good buddy of a guy who runs brothels but is under indictment.

Anyway, way back when, Willis railed against a Republican plan to move up the presidential caucus, saying it was "a gimmick and a scheme and a sham," and that it was "a lot of hype" and that "I don’t think myself that the Republicans should stoop to the gimmickry that the Democrats are doing."

Oddly, on the very same day as he said that, he also said the opposite to the Reno Gazette Journal. "Before today, I was skeptical and wasn’t too sold on the idea because I thought the Democratic caucus was more of a scheme and a gimmick," he said. "But it is becoming more and more apparent that this [caucus] would be positive for Nevada."

Now while it may appear that Willis suffers from a really nasty case of cognitive dissonance (leader of the "morality" party who’s friends with brothel owners; a "sham" and a "gimmick" that’s going to be "positive for Nevada") this is actually easily explained. He simply got out ahead of himself and spoke out of turn, until a senior person got his mind right. Happens all the time.

But this weekend, there was Willis, saying that a plan to move the Republican caucus up even further — to Jan. 19, when the Democrats will go to the polls — wasn’t worth the sacrifice.

(As our friend Chuck Muth has noted, Feb. 7 is a loser date. The nominee will no doubt be decided on Feb. 5, when a bunch of populous states will hold their elections, so even moving it to Feb. 5 simply guarantees Nevada will get lost in the shuffle. It was either move it to Jan. 19, and suffer the consequences, including the loss of delegates to the GOP convention, or leave things well enough alone and let the Democrats do their thing.)

Of course, Willis once again held the short straw, as it appears the Republicans are moving their caucus to Jan. 19, too.

OK, so maybe Willis just can’t read the rank-and-file that well. Happens all the time.

But then dude drops this one on us, in an Associated Press story by Capitol vet Brenden Riley: "We’re solidly in favor of moving the date again," Willis said. "The reality is that we are being compelled to do this by the Democrats. It is what it is. The objective is to do what’s best for the state and for the party."

Um, yeah, so what about it not being worth the sacrifice? Hello? Which Paul Willis are we talking to here?

The crazy one, as demonstrated by this final Willis remark from Riley’s piece. "Willis also said he had been unfairly criticized as an opponent of the early caucus, but that wasn’t the case. He said he only wanted to make sure that the proper process was followed."

Wow. Now that’s a heaping load of bullshit.

Where in the midst of "gimmick" and "scheme" and "sham" and "hype" and not thinking the Republicans should stoop to be with the Democrats has Willis said he was worried about the "proper procedure"? Nowhere, of course, since — like another great Republican leader, Dick Cheney — Willis is trying to invent his own personal version of history. And even though he’s taken both sides of the issue — twice — he still can’t manage to craft a consistent narrative.

We know the GOP has a plan to install some adult supervision, but we think party bigwigs should let Willis stay on, perhaps as spokesman. If we media types didn’t like the answer we got at 10 a.m., we could always call back at 2 p.m. for a diametrically opposed quote. Plus, with the Republicans’ national leadership bogged down in an unnecessary war and the state’s top two GOP officials facing no fewer than five scandals, competence would seem so out of place.

» And finally today, the answer to our Political Pop Quiz. Clinton raked in the cash at The Four Seasons hotel on the Strip. Half-credit if you said Greenspun’s home. There was a private dinner there, but that event was not a fundraiser.

Thanks for playing!

A trio of things right off the top about the presidential candidates forum Saturday sponsored by the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress Action Fund:

1.) New York Sen. Hillary Clinton can wow a crowd, and is probably going to win the Nevada Democratic caucus on Jan. 19.

2.) Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards is a close second.

3.) U.S. Sen. Barack Obama showed up to a health care forum … without a health care plan?

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, a quick look at a field of candidates who all agreed that America needs universal health care.

Edwards started things off with his plan, what he called a "big, bold" change. It would require employers to provide health care or pay into a fund, create health-care markets set up by the government, in which a government-financed plan would compete with private plans, and require all Americans by law to be covered. He’d pay for it, he said, by rolling back President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy.

"We don’t get universal health care for free," he said.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson touted his record at increasing people covered by health care in his state, and he endorsed lowering the Medicare eligiblity age to 55. Veterans, he said, should be able to seek health care anywhere with a "hero’s" health card. And the rest of America should be eligible for the same kind of health care plan enjoyed by members of Congress. He said he’d pay for his plan by ending the Iraq war and diverting those funds to care.

Asked about health care for illegal immigrants, the only Latino candidate in the Democratic field replied: "They’re children. We should cover children. As long as they pay their fair share like everybody else."

Obama said he’d announce his plan in the next couple of months, but did give a quick peek behind the curtain: It would cover everybody, it would focus on prevention, it would use technology to reduce paperwork and it would use the savings from those efficiencies to allow poorer people to buy into the program.

"By the end of the next president’s first term, by the end of my first term, we will have universal health coverage for every single American," he said. The line got some knowing laughs, since Clinton has declared universal health care won’t be in place until the end of her second term.

Speaking of Clinton, she got the most cheers of any candidate, and the Cox Pavilion started to empty quickly after her remarks. She began by reminding the crowd of her efforts to reform health care in the early 1990s. "Now people are saying, ‘Boy, we wish we had done that back then," she said.

Clinton spoke out against insurance discrimination, denying benefits to cover preexisting conditions. (Why else do we need insurance but to cover those conditions? she asked.) Insurance companies may not do as well under her plan, which would also force businesses to pay for insurance and individuals to buy it, either at the workplace, or in markets.

But, her plan wouldn’t erase anyone’s current coverage; if you like what you have, you can stick with it, she said.

And, like the others, Clinton said her plan would focus on prevention. "People are going to start taking better care of themselves. We can’t afford some of the things that people are bringing on themselves," she said.

(As a side note, why do we see Clinton coming to rip the In-N-Out Double Double out of our cheese-stained fingers? Leave us and our greasy friend alone, senator!)

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, author of the Family and Medical Leave Act, says he’s working to make sure your leave is with pay in a new bill. (That got a good crowd response.) He said he’d eliminate the president’s tax cuts to pay for health care, start by covering all children with things like school-based clinics and a Head Start program that includes nutrition, but but ultimately cover everybody.

It was about this time that we were wondering, gee, aren’t all these nice, well-intentioned people talking about ways to simply funnel more money to a health-care industrial complex made up of insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and health care administrators? And aren’t they the reason we have some of the highest costs in the world?

Enter U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Although most people had left by this point, the ones who stayed got a big reward.

"Today, at this forum, the subliminal message is you can’t break the hold of the insurance companies," he said. "We’re being told here today to buy into a view that says we’ll work with the insurance companies, and we’ll subsidize the insurance companies."

Well, the hell with that, Kucinich said. (We’re paraphrasing.) Why not a national, not-for-profit health care system that would cover everybody in the country the exact way Medicare covers seniors now, including an infrastructure rebuilding corps that would erect hospitals in underserved, rural areas?

Wouldn’t that lead to rationing, moderator Karen Tumulty of Time magazine gamely asked. "Um, what do we have now?" Kucinich replied.

"Think about it. Candidates are up here advocating that we subsidize the insurance companies. What’s up with that? Health care is not a privilege, it is a right. It is a human right," he finished. And the crowd goes wild. Those who were left, that is.

Finally former Alaska U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel introduced an idea for health care vouchers, based upon your medical history. You’d sign up every year, have a modest co-pay and deductible, and use your vouchers to pay for whatever care you needed that year.

Two depressing things about Gravel’s segment: He said that it was President Harry S. Truman who originally took on the health care issue, and that not much progress has been made since. (And Truman ended a world war!) And Gravel revealed that he’d filed for bankruptcy because of high health-care bills.

As with everything political, we’re torn between Edwards’ and Clinton’s realistic, pragmatic plans, which seem to have a chance of success depending on the political dynamics in 2008, and Kucinich’s dare-to-dream purity that will probably never happen. Is it because we don’t have enough faith in the Kuciniches of the world that they don’t succeed? And if we had more faith, could that really change things?

We’ll be thinking about that over our next Double-Double. If that’s all right with the Democrats.

Usually we have to wait for shadowy forces in the state Senate to kill a proposal to amend the state constitution and establish a state lottery, but today, it looks like Gov. Jim Gibbons has done that himself, releasing a short statement opposing a lottery. Here’s the text, with our helpful comments in italics for your reading pleasure:

"Carson City – Governor Jim Gibbons today released this statement outlining his opposition to amending the Nevada Constitution to allow for a state lottery:

 

"’I respect recent efforts by some legislators to explore options for new revenue to the state; however, I do not believe it is a proper function of Nevada government to operate a lottery, nor do I think that the state should be in competition with its largest industry.

You know, the industry that gives people like me hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions — to say nothing of secret, legally questionable legal defense fund donations — in order to achieve our high and lofty offices. It is those noble businesses, the engine of our state’s economy — that actually run Nevada. And while I may have called repeatedly for "creative" solutions to solving state funding problems, I didn’t mean something that the dark lords of gambling would not approve.

"’Notwithstanding my philosophical concerns, the fact is that the state is not likely to generate additional revenues with a lottery. Instead, it would simply shift the tax burden from one source to another. Furthermore, as the National Gambling Impact Study Commission stated in its recommendation to state, local and tribal governments, "lotteries…do not create a concentration of good quality jobs and do not generate significant economic development."’

Now he’s just making shit up. The state wouldn’t generate additional revenue with a lottery? Please. That’s like Gibbons saying he can breathe underwater and talk to fishes — simply unbelievable.

Furthermore, Gibbons has been extremely squishy as to his definitions of "tax" and "fee" during his short administration, but he’s taken a quantum leap with this one: The voluntary purchase of a lottery ticket as a "tax"? It takes someone with an extremely flexible intellect to embrace that definition. In any case, a tax is something the government forces you to pay, regardless of whether you want to pay or not. A lottery ticket is something you buy because you can’t do complex math and realize that the odds of winning are about the same as Gibbons avoiding some kind of trouble in the next two-week period, which is to say, not that good. The fact is, a lottery would generate millions of dollars without the need for a tax increase, all on a voluntary basis.

"Elsewhere, lotteries have proven to be costly and bureaucratic, something I do not believe our citizens want more of in Nevada. I will not, therefore, support any legislation that includes the establishment of a lottery in Nevada."

Elsewhere, lotteries have proven to make millions for state governments, and none of them are in danger of running out of money to pay the "costly and bureaucratic" staffs that run them. We’re not saying that a lottery for Nevada is a good idea. We are saying that nothing in this statement gives a single honest reason why a lottery shouldn’t at least be fully and fairly debated, a prospect that Gibbons intended to destroy with this statement. In that respect, it’s mission accomplished.