David Damore's blog

Democratic congressional candidate Dina Titus with U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen at a gas station campaign stop in May.: Politicker PhotoAs election season heats up, candidates are moving into full pander mode. Thus far gas prices top the list of issues that are causing politicians of all stripes to abandon prior positions, disregard basic economic theory, and promise voters the impossible. This is not surprising given poll data indicating that voters' worries about the costs of filling up their tanks is a top concern as we move towards November.

Nonetheless, for rational-minded observers who might prefer that candidates not insult the intelligence of voters and instead present policy proposals that might actually do something to change the nation's energy policy (as opposed to offering cheap rhetoric with a shelf life lasting until, oh I don't know, right around Nov. 4), I find the whole situation nauseating. So in the spirit of the Olympics (which incidentally are occurring in China; the county whose increased demand for oil is a big factor for rising gas prices in the U.S.), I thought it would be appropriate to award medals to Nevada's best gas price panderers.

The state Supreme Court's term limits decision on Friday was hardly a surprise. The court ruled that the term limit amendment was properly approved and in so doing, side-stepped its own role in changing the amendment's language between passages to exempt the judicial branch from the measure's reach. Similarly, the court's decision to exclude local elected officials from seeking office again, while upholding the right of state legislators to run in 2008 was not unexpected. Nonetheless, the episode was revealing on a couple of fronts.

First and as been discussed prior in this space, the whole mess demonstrates the frailty of the ballot initiative process as a means to craft public policy. Pushed by interest groups, often times from out of state, ballot measures tend to be poorly written and full of unintended consequences.

Nevada's junior U.S. senator John Ensign (R-Las Vegas) has been making headlines lately for gumming up passage of the foreclosure aid bill by exercising the U.S. Senate's most cherished prerogative: individual autonomy.  Unlike the U.S. House where the legislative process strongly tilts in favor of the majority party via its control of the Rules Committee, debate in the Senate is designed to empower the individual Senator.  This philosophical difference between the two houses of Congress has been institutionalized in the Senate via the filibuster, the hold, and the ability of Senators to add non-germane amendments to legislation under debate.  The end result, as Senator J. Bennett Johnson of Louisiana once quipped, is "the Senate is run for the convenience of one Senator to the inconvenience of 99."

So Sunday evening rolls around and I sit down to watch Gov. Jim Gibbons and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley give their dueling live television addresses regarding the Nevada's budget crisis. Instead of watching the governor bumble for 10 minutes with a retort by Buckley, my screen was filled with promises that I could buy a home for $187.24 with no monthly payments.

Now that the Democrats have (finally) determined their party's nominee the battle for Nevada's five Electoral College votes begins in earnest. Indeed, both Barack Obama and John McCain have already stumped in the state and McCain has television and Spanish language radio advertisements up. In what follows is my assessment of both candidates' strengths and weaknesses in the Silver State five months out.

Did someone forget to tell me that U.S. Rep. Jon Porter changed parties? If not, then why is he no longer a loyal Bushie and instead, regularly voting with House Democrats, even to the point of supporting veto overrides of President Bush?

Yes, something definitely is amiss here and I probably would not believe it except for the excellent reporting by Lisa Mascaro of the Las Vegas Sun's Washington Bureau documenting Jon Porter's leftward creep.

After the events of last week, one thing that is for certain is that there is never a dull moment when it comes to Nevada politics. Indeed, last week the state was treated to the spectacle of Republicans acting like Democrats, Democrats acting like, well Democrats, and Gov. Jim Gibbons doing a Bush-like late Friday afternoon, avoid the media document dump.

After taking grief for months for their party's inability to effectively organize and efficiently conduct party business, there must have been plenty of smiles among the state's Democratic brain trust as the normally well-managed Nevada GOP saw its state convention descend into a chaotic mess compliments of the Ron Paul-fueled insurgency.

What a difference 16 months makes. Last January, when he first came into office, Gov. Jim Gibbons was largely panned for what many saw as a leadership style that attempted to import Republican/D.C. politics into the Silver State, scandals and all.

To refresh, first, the Governor pulled-out the GOP all-purpose canard of national security to justify his midnight swearing in. Of course, the real reason that Gibbons maneuvered to take office prior to the official inauguration had nothing to do with protecting the homeland, but rather was engineered to stave off a last minute appointment by out-going Gov. Kenny Guinn to the state's powerful Gaming Control Board.

Recent news reports detailing the machinations accompanying various proposed ballot initiatives in Nevada indicate that political dysfunction is not something that is the sole provenance of the Democratic presidential nomination process. Just as the inability of the Democrats to settle on a presidential nominee suggests institutional processes going awry, so do the recent court challenges that have further muddied the waters about what is and is not an acceptable ballot initiative in the state of Nevada.

To review: the successful removal of the TASC proposal from the ballot during the last election cycle on the grounds that that its sponsors circulated different versions of the proposal when collecting the requisite signatures opened the floodgates for various interests to use the courts as means to preemptively challenge proposed initiatives that threaten their comfortable hold over the status quo.

The last post in this space critiquing the efforts of the Clark County Democratic Party's performance at the county convention generated more feedback than all prior posts combined.  Nearly all of the comments were resoundingly negative.  For some, it appears that the criticisms touched a nerve in regards to the efficacy of the Clark County Democrats' effort.  Others dismissed my comments as reflecting the inchoate ramblings of an academic too ensconced in the ivory tower.  And still others took umbrage with my choice of syntax.