The Reno Gazette-Journal had requested those documents under the state’s public records law, which says any document not specifically declared confidential must be open to inspection. But the Gibbons administration refused, citing privilege, Nixon (!) and the fear that state employees’ feelings might be hurt. (No, seriously, they did. And if you want to read the documents for yourself, check out Damon’s blog.)

Anyway, according to the story linked above, District Court Judge James Russell ruled that budget writing is one of the most "sensitive and important functions of the governor" and that the administration "must be protected from outside influence when making budget decisions."

Of course, the sensitivity and importance of the budget is precisely why the public should have as much access as possible to the process, so that people and organizations can have "outside influence." The governor is not a king who needs protection from his subjects; he’s a leader who got elected to do the public’s business, in a process specifically designed to allow outside influence. That’s a thing called "democracy," which Judge Russell might find under "D" in Black’s Law Dictionary. (Hint: It comes after "bad decision.")

Anyway, although it’s expensive, we hope the Gazette-Journal will appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. This ruling begs for review, because allowing this process to go on behind closed doors is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps some other media group — maybe one that owns a large newspaper in the state — would care to pony up on this?

We put "crossed party lines" in quotes the same way we put Lieberman’s current political affiliation, "independent Democrat" in quotes, you know, because it’s ironic. The man who ran for the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 2000 has endorsed a Republican for the presidency. Nice going, dickhead.

"I think he’s [McCain] got this extra dimension and proven record at working across party lines to get things done. We’re not gonna solve our problems — health care, education, environment, the economy — unless we start working together," Lieberman said.

Right, we’ve got to work together. That’s why Lieberman joined the Republicans: John McCain’s "extra dimension."

Luckily, Lieberman is no closer to picking a winner than when he faced off with actual Democrat Ned Lamont in 2006. McCain is not going to win the Republican nomination, so it’s all an abstract lesson in how much humiliation Lieberman can possibly endure in the public spotlight. (Remember that "three way tie for third" bullshit he was spouting during his own disastrous run for the presidency in 2004? Yeah, that.)

But, like all things Lieberman, it comes down to his inexplicable love of war that truly draws him to the War Party’s candidates.

"You’re not even gonna have a chance to to try to solve domestic problems unless the American people have confidence that you will protect them in a dangerous world. And I worry that that Democratic candidates in the primary have been drawn so far left that in the general election, it’s gonna be hard to convince a lot of people in the middle that they’re able to support a strong defense," Lieberman said.

Setting aside for a second the wisdom of taking electoral advice from a man who couldn’t win the Senate nomination of the party that just six years earlier had chosen him as its vice presidential nominee, let’s take a closer look at that:

First, we’re sure he does worry about the Democratic candidates. But if he was really worried about them, wouldn’t he try to help them by, say, not endorsing a Republican? We’re just saying.

Second, if being "drawn so far left" means "wanting to get the fuck out of Iraq," then most those American people — left, right and center — can be considered lefties. (They’re not, of course. Unlike Lieberman, they seem to actually want American soldiers out of an impossible situation, while he seems to prefer war without end.)

Third, how does McCain’s stance — leave the troops in Iraq until some nebulously defined "victory" is achieved, in the meantime leave them as targets in a goddamn civil war not of our making and impossible for us to fix — constitute a "strong defense"? How does our presence in Iraq even qualify as defending the United States? Iraq was never going to attack us, even before the invasion. Iraq did not attack us, a fact that War Party members — and Lieberman — need to be reminded of fairly regularly. And if we left Iraq, it would not attack us.

Therefore, getting troops out of that country — and putting them to work fighting our real enemies — is supporting a strong defense.

Sharron Angle, who apparently served in the state Assembly from 1999 to 2006, on Monday re-filed an initiative designed to gut funding for community services like law enforcement, fire protection, public education and public health care. Angle’s measure is styled as a California-style "Proposition 13" tax limitation measure, which is odd, considering conservatives of her ilk generally disdain California-style solutions to Nevada problems.

The measure, which would limit property tax increases to 2 percent per year, was originally filed earlier this year, until the state AFL-CIO sued, noting the measure would clearly violate the Nevada Constitution’s requirement that taxation be uniform and equal. (This, too, is odd, given that Angle has criticized the current two-tier property tax cap already enacted by the Legislature as unconstitutional for that very reason.)

After the well-founded lawsuit was filed, Angle withdrew her petition, and it was assumed her curious antipathy toward public servants had abated. But it appears now that the withdraw was simply a tactical maneuver, so her petition could be re-written to overcome the AFL-CIO’s objections.

(Still, if it is modeled on California’s system, it would result in sometimes wildly disparate rates of taxation. Under California’s scheme, property taxes are capped as long as a person owns property. Once that property is sold, however, it is reassessed, and the tax rate increases. It’s similar to rent control in that way, and it would arguably violate the Nevada Constitution. Angle, however, insists it will pass legal muster, but then again, she obviously hates people, and thus has a motive to lie. Meanwhile, the property tax relief already enacted by the Legislature does not change when property changes owners.)