» According to a poll published in John L. Smith’s column in the Review-Journal, a full 49 percent of Nevadans give Gov. Jim Gibbons a favorable rating, and 48 percent approve of the job he’s doing in office. That’s far higher than the 29 percent approval rating Gibbons had just a few months ago.

How did it happen? First, we’ve always thought his original low ratings were remarkable only in that there were 29 percent of the state who still approved of a governor under FBI investigation, accused of trying to assault a cocktail waitress in a parking garage who was running for office with virtually no platform, who lied so often it was difficult to keep track, formed a secret legal defense fund without disclosing the donors and whose first few months in office made the unlamented Janet Moncrief look competent.

But fate, in the form of the Law of Perpetual Wins and Losses, intervened, and Gibbons caught a break: He knew he could get a few pieces of his amazingly petite agenda enacted because the Legislature simply had to act to solve a couple big problems (like transportation and those green building tax breaks, not to mention the state budget). By sticking to his no-new-taxes agenda and threatening to wield his veto pen, he suddenly looked governor-like when responsible parties in the Legislature played ball. And the public is nothing if not fickle, especially in politics, which people don’t much like paying attention to in the first place.

Remember, the poll doesn’t change anything: The same Gibbons who thought it was OK to form a legal defense fund and not disclose the donors; who thought it was fine to lie about security threats to justify a midnight swearing in, the true purpose of which was to get his candidate appointed to the Gaming Control Board; who thought nothing of accepting free travel from a political benefactor without reporting it; and who — at least — thought it was OK to walk a drunk woman to her car is the same Gibbons who now has 49 percent of the public liking him again. The guy hasn’t changed, hasn’t gotten smarter and hasn’t suddenly decided to amend his ways.

The bottom line? Poll numbers change, but people don’t. And today’s 49 percent can be tomorrow’s 29 percent. It’s just an indictment, a legal defense fund or a parking garage away.

» We’re glad to see the Clark County Commission approve a salary increase for itself. We’re even more glad Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani advocated making the jobs full-time and prohibiting outside employment, like they do in Congress. That would eliminate plenty of conflicts, she said. We couldn’t agree more.

But we have an idea nobody discussed. Given that we’re boosting the commissioners’ pay from $68,000 to $80,000 in the next three years, how about a special rider, which says that if you’re convicted of a crime involving official corruption, you have to pay back (with interest) every dime of your public salary? Corruption, after all, means subverting your public duties, so you shouldn’t be entitled to your public salary in those cases, right?

Somebody should propose that, beginning upon the date at which it’s proven in court that a corruption scheme began, and continuing to the end of a person’s term in office, all public salary be forfeited by those convicted of public corruption. It won’t cure the harm done by corrupt politicians, but it will make a pretty good symbolic statement.

Any takers, county commission? Or City Council? Or Legislature?

» Here’s a handy rule when you read about exciting new arena-condo-hotel-gaming-commercial-retail-whatever projects: Believe the hype only when you are actually sitting in the arena, sipping a cold brew, and eating a hot dog. Up until then, based on recent history anyway, we’re entitled to consider everything said by a promoter of such a project to be bullshit.
 
Speaking of bullshit, this fabulous $9.5 billion arena project can’t be built without tax-increment financing? That’s what its backers seem to be saying. And nobody at City Hall is raising an eyebrow, since that place has been used as an ATM more often than Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan have been in rehab. Combined.

"We’ve offered it [tax-increment financing] to other people, and we’re offering it to him [the developer] if it’s needed. We’re not going to give away City Hall." — Councilman Gary Reese.

Forgive us for being rude, but we doubt anybody has ever really looked at whether tax subsidies are really "needed," rather than just "preferred" by all the for-profit businesses that get them. Who wouldn’t want to get money from the city? Oh, and if you’re giving away money that would otherwise stay in the redevelopment agency’s coffers and be used for projects that might not otherwise be built — like, say, affordable housing for the working poor — then by definition you are giving away City Hall. So stop it!

See you in the arena, people! Save us a hot dog!