Steve Sebelius

OK, this is funny

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Wednesday, Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 11:01 am

Some of my colleagues are making fun of Nevada’s Democratic party for mocking would-be congressional contender Danny Tarkanian for a host of mistakes (including misspelling “Las Vegas” on his filing form, which he filed in the wrong place). As somebody who has often written “Las Vegan” when I meant to write “Las Vegas,” I sympathize. But this video is pretty funny anyway:

Tags:

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Santorum on Satan

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Wednesday, Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 7:48 am

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — locked in a bitter battle with rival Mitt Romney over the states of Michigan and Arizona, which vote on Tuesday — has been beaten up quite after a 2008 speech surfaced in which Santorum claimed Satan was attacking America.

He wasn’t talking about a generalized, disambiguated form of evil, or an actual physical attack, such as Sept. 11, 2001. He was talking more of a cultural and spiritual assault designed to sully the shining city upon a hill. (As the speech has been aired on the Drudge Report and the Rush Limbaugh radio program, Santorum has said he’ll stand by all of his remarks.) Some quick excerpts from the speech, then, given at Catholic Ave Maria University in Florida:

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition. He was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of “smart” people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, “because we’re smart;” and so academia a long time ago fell.

“The next was the church. Now, you say, ‘Well, wait. The Catholic Church?’ No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country, and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism. And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is a shambles.

Now, the temptation for non-Christian types is to make fun of Santorum for putting human problems up to supernatural causes. “The devil made me do it,” is–literally–the oldest excuse in the book. His view of academia can easily be considered downright anti-intellectual, as well.

But people who understand Christian tradition will not find anything outlandish in Santorum’s remarks. In fact, they echo the words of St. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians 6:10, warning believers to steel themselves against attacks from the devil:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

And it must be noted that Santorum is hardly alone in his belief. Pope John Paul II, for example, appointed more exorcists in the Catholic Church than any pope in modern history.

Santorum, a Catholic, is wrong to give Catholicism a pass when it comes to Satanic attacks. If the devil wanted to assault the great institutions of faith, he could hardly have done better than the revelation of the global pederasty scandal with its attendant cover-up that has so marred Catholicism.

It’s not entirely clear from Santorum’s speech excerpts how he’d fashion government to respond to the devil’s attacks. Certainly, Santorum has shown little compunction about mixing church and state, a truly bad idea that would undoubtedly help ruin the church. And that’s the wrong way to go, if for no other reason than it’s the church that’s supposed to fight this particular war, with the weapons St. Paul described in Ephesians: truth, righteousness, scriptures, faith and salvation.

Tags: ,

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Slanker, partners show business how it’s done

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Monday, Feb. 20th, 2012 at 8:03 am

You’d think political consultant Mike Slanker has enough on his plate this year, what with helping U.S. Sen. Dean Heller try to defeat Rep. Shelley Berkley in one of the marquee races of the cycle. But Slanker and two partners are finding time to show would-be businessmen how to be successful with a new venture called Entrepreneur Stars.

Slanker, along with Phil Randazzo, the founder and CEO of Nevada Benefits Corp., and Stuart Engs, a heavy-duty truck sales franchise owner, will combine to run the new venture. (Although they’re called a “triad” in the news release announcing the venture, I think they meant to say “trio,” since a triad is actually a Chinese mafia organization. Then again, some of Slanker’s past political victims surely felt as if they’d been whacked.)

Essentially, the company will help would-be entrepreneurs raise money for new ventures, and will host seminars about starting a small business or growing an established one. First up: A contest next month in which up to 20 local firms can win $5,000. (Details here.)

“We’re creating an opportunity for small business to gain knowledge and support networks critical to success, so that hard working people with great ideas but limited resources have the opportunity to succeed and flourish,” Slanker said in a news release announcing the new venture.

Tags:

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Debbie Smith running for state Senate

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Saturday, Feb. 18th, 2012 at 4:26 pm

Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Debbie Smith, a candidate for speaker in 2013, announced today she’ll be running instead for the safe Democratic state Senate seat formerly occupied by Sheila Leslie.

(Leslie is moving to an adjacent Senate district to challenge state Sen. Greg Brower‘s bid for re-election.)

Smith was considered a long-shot for the speaker’s post because she was the lone candidate from Northern Nevada. The other contenders — Marilyn Kirkpatrick, Marcus Conklin and William Horne — are all Southern Nevadans.

Smith is immediately a favorite for Leslie’s seat. Here’s a portion of her statement released today:

“Northern Nevadans need strong representatives they can count on to get the job done,” Smith said. “While I believe there are some very promising signs that things are beginning to get better in our state, we have a long way to go,” Smith said. “I am running for the state senate to continue fighting for a better education system, a healthier economy, and a more efficient and effective government for Nevada. After spending the past few days talking with family, friends and community members, I feel this is the right decision at the right time.”

Smith has represented Assembly District 30 in the Nevada Legislature for ten years and serves as Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore and Chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee. Smith was a key player in developing and passing a balanced budget, which restored hundreds of millions of dollars in education funding which had been cut in the governor’s budget.

Smith was also a primary sponsor of the common-sense education reforms that passed during the 2011 legislative session. These reforms modernize our education system by creating a comprehensive evaluation system for teachers and administrators, providing for more training and mentoring for our newer and less experienced educators and rewarding our best teachers.

Smith has been an outspoken education advocate throughout her career. She has served as a board member of the National Parent Teacher Association, president of the Nevada PTA, and on the boards of the Education Alliance of Washoe County, Girl Scouts of Northern Nevada and Nevada Afterschool Network. She is also a former member of the Lander County School Board.

“I have always believed a strong education system is the key to moving Nevada forward,” said Smith. “Quality schools not only do right by our children, they create a strong economy. We hear time and time again from companies looking to start, expand, or move to Nevada from other states that their number one concern is education— a pool of educated workers and good schools for their own children.”

Smith drew fire from the Nevada State Education Association for her stance on the bills she mentioned in her statement, and was even graded down on a post-Legislature report card for her efforts. (Smith was given a “D” grade.”) But with a strong Democratic advantage in her district, she can win even without the support of the teachers union.

Conklin was the first to put out a statement praising Smith, a very Speaker-esque thing to do. Here’s what he had to say:

Debbie Smith has been an outstanding Assemblywoman and leader in our chamber and caucus and will be sorely missed on our side. She has been a strong leader on issues critical to our state, including improving education and making our state budget process more efficient and accountable. She has demonstrated time after time that she truly knows how to work with others–Democrats and Republicans, legislators in both houses and the executive branch–to build consensus on contentious issues and to get things done.

We know Debbie will be an equally outstanding state senator. We look forward to continuing to work with our dear friend and colleague throughout the campaign and during the next session.”

Tags:

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Lee gets angry letter from California

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Thursday, Feb. 16th, 2012 at 2:57 pm

A routine exchange of letters between Nevada and California state Senates got a little heated recently, with California’s Senate President Pro Tem, Darrell Steinberg, telling Nevada’s state Sen. John Lee that his 2011 bill on Lake Tahoe was stupid.

I’m paraphrasing, slightly. You can read the letter for yourself, here: NV Senate TRPA Letter.

Steinberg — and apparently others in California — objected to SB 271, the bill that proposed Nevada’s exit from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency if certain administrative changes aren’t approved. Here’s the relevant passage from his Feb. 15 letter to Lee:

In addition to responding to your request, I want to share with you and your colleagues the displeasure many in California–and here in the Senate–have with the recent unfortunate and rather provocative actions taken by the state of Nevada following decades of cooperation over matters relating to our mutual interests in the environmental and economic well-being of the Tahoe Basin.

The legislation referenced in your letter (SB 271) is both unnecessarily inflammatory and deeply counter-productive to the collegial relationship our two states have had on these matters. One can only imagine how leaders in Nevada would react if California were to take similar action. It is both surprising and disappointing to see a national treasure as important as Lake Tahoe become a political hostage to the agenda of special interest groups who have little interest in the many values the region provides.

Despite the verbiage in the Nevada legislation, dissolution of the Tahoe Compact would require an act of the United States Congress and would have deeply disruptive effects on Lake Tahoe’s economy and environment.

Moreover, since California contributes two-thirds of the funding for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, it is imperative that this state, at a minimum, be seen as a co-equal partner–and not a subsidiary party–to any efforts to modify policies related to Lake Tahoe.

…

In closing, I want to express my openness to new, thoughtful, and creative approaches to addressing the challenges relating to Lake Tahoe, provided they are consistent with the priorities contained in the federal Compact and applicable California law.

Fairly harsh. Let’s just hope that Lee keeps his cool and doesn’t return the letter unopened with a petulant, hand-scrawled message on the envelope!

Tags:

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Bob Coffin and F Street

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Wednesday, Feb. 15th, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Las Vegas Councilman Bob Coffin has come out against the reopening of F Street, the latest twist to a long and controversial drama that symbolically and physically separates the West Las Vegas community from downtown. And like everything else in this sordid saga, there’s a lot of history.

It all started in 2008, as the Nevada Department of Transportation worked to expand Interstate 15. The work ended up closing F Street, a road that led from the historic West Las Vegas community directly into the new downtown, home to the World Market Center, Smith Center for the Performing Arts, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health and other wonders yet to be built.

How precisely it happened has been a matter of debate and finger-pointing ever since. But what’s clear is that the city raised no objection to the closure, nor was there any outcry from the community. (Lawrence Weekly, now a Clark County Commissioner, was the city councilman representing the area at the time.) But controversy quickly developed, as residents claimed they were given inadequate notice, and walling off a historically black neighborhood from the newest part of the city didn’t sit well with many in the area.

Enter state Sen. Steven Horsford, who introduced an amendment to a bill on historic neighborhoods during the 2009 Legislature to require the city and the Nevada Department of Transportation to re-open the street, at an estimated cost of $70 million. And, in an ironic twist, guess who was a co-sponsor of the bill that Horsford sought to amend? You got it: Coffin.

(It should be noted that when I first broadcast this news on Twitter Tuesday evening, I didn’t make clear that Horsford’s amendment was not part of the original bill Coffin co-sponsored. In fact, it came late in the 2009 session, on May 21, 2009. But while Coffin didn’t sponsor the original language requiring F Street to be reopened, he did go along with the amendment, voting for the bill in its final form and voting to override a veto of the bill issued by Gov. Jim Gibbons.)

Coffin said this morning that he regretted his votes on the bill — and had even apologized to the City Council for them. He said he determined once he was elected to the council in 2011 that residents had received adequate notice, and that he thinks assertions to the contrary by Horsford were untrue.

“They lied to me,” Coffin said flatly. “I said I was fooled once, and I will not be fooled again.” (I’ve reached out to Horsford for a response, but the senator was busy in an interim legislative committee meeting. I’ll post his comments when I’m able to reach him.)

West Las Vegas residents objected after the closure, claiming that notices were sent only to those living within 400 feet of the F Street closure, and not more broadly throughout the area. The transportation department complied with the law, but residents and their attorney — Matthew Callister, himself a former state senator and Las Vegas city council member — contend the notice was inadequate under federal law.

The current councilman for the area — Rikki Barlow, a former aide to Weekly — favors re-opening the road. One reason: because the Legislature, including Coffin, had ordered it. But Coffin dismisses that reasoning. “The Legislature makes mistakes all the time and fixes them later,” he said. “We don’t need to do it, of course. It’s a crime to spend the money. … I don’t think an injustice was done.”

But this afternoon, Coffin found himself on the losing end of a 5-1 vote (with soon-to-be-former Councilman Steve Wolfson absent), as the council authorized spending $8.5 million to re-open the street.

UPDATE: Horsford renewed his support for the F Street reopening in a letter he wrote to the council. Read it here: F Street Letter 2-15-12.

Tags: ,

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Joe Heck blames the Democrats

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Monday, Feb. 13th, 2012 at 2:27 pm

Rep. Joe Heck thinks criticism of his position on a mandate that employers provide birth control to employees — including religious employers who object to the practice — is overwrought.

“That’s what Democrats always do,” he told the Review-Journal last week. “Everything is an attack on seniors, children and women’s health. That’s their standard talking point no matter what Republicans try to do. The fact is this has nothing to do with women’s health issues.”

The provision of contraception has nothing to do with women’s health issues? Really?

Perhaps Heck is a little sore because he’s personally been on the receiving end of criticism about his record on women’s health. In the Nevada Legislature, Heck voted against requiring insurance companies to cover a vaccine used to prevent HPV, the human papillomavirus, which can lead to cervical cancer.

When I asked Heck directly during the 2007 Legislature why he, a physician, would vote against a vaccine that prevents an infection that can lead to cancer, he told me simply, “because it’s a mandate.” And when I replied by saying, “So what?” Heck (after a second or two; apparently he’d never been asked that before) told me that mandates drive up costs of insurance for everybody.

I wonder, which costs more: The HPV vaccine, or treatment for cervical cancer? And what drives up costs more, a vaccine given to prevent a disease, or the expensive treatment for those who get the disease?

Heck has also been slammed for repeatedly calling Social Security a “pyramid scheme,” words that tend to scare seniors and soon-to-retire folks who are counting on getting their Social Security benefits. And while Heck assures seniors he would not change the program for current retirees, calling it a “pyramid scheme” doesn’t evidence much faith in what’s manifestly one of the most successful social programs of all time.

Finally, Heck could be on edge because of his support for the Rep. Paul Ryan budget, which called for transforming Medicare as we know it into a voucher-style program that would increase costs for seniors. Voting to support that budget might get him accused of threatening seniors?

So perhaps Democrats don’t always say that Republicans are insensitive to women’s health or antagonistic toward programs that help seniors and poor children. Perhaps they’re just saying that in reaction to things that Heck personally has said? Just a thought.

Tags:

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »

Prop. 8 ruling won’t end NV gay marriage ban

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Wednesday, Feb. 8th, 2012 at 4:47 pm

“Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” – Text of 2008 initiative (Proposition 8) amending California’s constitution to prevent same-sex marriage

“Only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.” – Text of 2000-2002 initiative (Question 2) amending Nevada’s constitution to prevent same-sex marriage

The wording of the initiatives used to ban gay marriage in California and Nevada are almost identical, so the temptation upon learning that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop. 8 is to think that Question 2 cannot be far behind.

But that would be the wrong conclusion. The ruling that struck down Prop. 8 on Tuesday as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause isn’t directly applicable to Nevada at all.

Still, there are reasons for gays and lesbians in Nevada to hold out hope that, someday, the same reasoning used to invalidate Prop. 8 could be trained on Question 2. But that day will not be today, and that vehicle will not be an appeal of the Prop. 8 ruling.

The reasons are fairly straightforward: In California, gays and lesbians enjoyed the right to marry for 143 days, the time between a California Supreme Court ruling invalidating an earlier anti-gay marriage measure (Proposition 22) and the adoption of Prop. 8, which went into effect immediately after the 2008 general election. During that time, more than 18,000 same-sex couples availed themselves of the right to marry.

In Nevada, gays and lesbians have never enjoyed marriage rights, either before or after the adoption of Question 2.

In addition, California’s gays and lesbians — through domestic partnerships — currently enjoy all the rights and privileges of marriage, although they are denied the use of the word “marriage” to describe their relationships. That’s not as true in Nevada.

And it was on that narrow basis — a law designed specifically to take back a right that had been extended to California same-sex couples — that the 9th Circuit panel ruled Prop. 8 was unconstitutional.

Some relevant quotes from the ruling:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of same-sex couples.”

…

“The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.”

…

“Prop. 8 works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians, by denying to their committed lifelong relationships the social status conveyed by the designations of ‘marriage’ and this harm must be justified by some legitimate state interest.”

…

“But tradition alone is not a justification for taking away a right that had already been granted, even though that grant was in derogation of tradition.”

Because the court was able to conclude that Prop. 8 — by stripping same-sex couples of a right they had previously, albeit briefly, enjoyed — was unconstitutional, justices did not go on to address the larger question: Namely, do gays and lesbians have the right to marry under the federal Constitution? Had they addressed that question — and had they ruled there is such a right — then Question 2 might be in jeopardy.

But the ruling added that, if the court had not been able to resolve the issue with a narrow ruling, it would have gone on to address that larger question. And while it’s always a dicey prospect to guess how a court will rule, it seems clear that there’s at least a possibility that it would have struck down the amendment on broader grounds.

That means Question 2 may be vulnerable, should it be challenged. For that to happen, a same-sex couple would have to attempt to marry in Nevada, be rejected, and file a lawsuit claiming that denial is unconstitutional. That lawsuit would inevitably end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of how the District and 9th Circuit ruled, for a final answer.

But re-read the first quote above, and replace the words “Proposition 8″ with “Question 2,” and “California” with “Nevada.” The reasoning is equally sound, even if Nevada’s same-sex couples never enjoyed the right to marry in the first place.

And, given that the 9th Circuit dispatched quickly and effortlessly with all the ancillary arguments in support of Prop. 8, there seems to be little grounds on which to sustain Question 2.

All Nevada lacks now is a plaintiff willing to take the issue on. (I’m assuming that there’s little appetite in the state Legislature or among activists to begin the process of amending the constitution; relief, if it comes, will come through the courts.)

Tags: , ,

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Kihuen out in 1st Congressional District

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Tuesday, Feb. 7th, 2012 at 6:22 pm

State Sen. Ruben Kihuen, facing an uphill primary fight against former Congresswoman Dina Titus, announced via Twitter this afternoon that he was getting out of the race for the 1st Congressional District.

“I am announcing my withdrawal from the race for #NV01. Thank you to all my supporters, you have been outstanding,” Kihuen wrote, with a link to a longer statement.

Kihuen’s decision averts a nasty primary fight that, had Kihuen lost the race, some Democrats fear would have depressed Hispanic turnout in the 1st District and potentially affected other races, including Shelley Berkley‘s U.S. Senate bid and even the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had remained neutral in the race but was widely believed to be supportive of Kihuen, put out a statement almost immediately in which he praised Kihuen and endorsed Titus for the seat.

“Senator Kihuen remains a rising star in Nevada and the Democratic Party. Each day, he breaks new barriers and inspires tens of thousands of young people with his hard work on behalf of this state and his commitment to helping all Nevadans achieve a better life for themselves and their families. I am fortunate to call him my friend and expect great things from him in the very near future.

“With TEA Party Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, Nevada’s middle-class families need Dina Titus in their corner fighting to protect Medicare and Social Security, create good paying jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and holding Wall Street bankers and Big Oil executives accountable. I am proud to endorse her bid for Congress and look forward to working with her to put Nevadans back to work.”

(“Each day” he breaks new barriers? I’ll have to pay closer attention to his Twitter feed from now on!)

Several former Reid staffers went to work for Kihuen, whom Reid invited to attend the State of the Union this year as his guest. And attacks on Titus — which claimed she was too conservative, hurtful in the 1st District but helpful had she decided to switch to the more conservative 3rd Congressional District — had Reid’s barely perceptible signature on them.

But the pressure was growing on Kihuen: Polls showed Titus well ahead, and she was able to raise much more money for the contest than he did. Titus would no doubt have highlighted the relative paucity of Kihuen’s record, compared to her decades-long resume. And a decisive defeat in the district — among Democrats — could have hurt Kihuen, whose career has been on a steep trajectory up until this point.

Moreover, Titus was all-in: She quit her longtime job at UNLV and her position on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Had she lost the contest to Kihuen, she would likely have been finished in politics for good. Kihuen, on the other hand, is in the middle of his first state Senate term, and will return to Carson City next year. The psychological advantage was definitely Titus’s.

Although the race had divided Democrats, including longtime allies, Nevada Democratic Party Chairwoman Roberta Lange issued a statement endorsing Titus quickly.

“Senator Ruben Kihuen is an outstanding public servant with a very bright future in Nevada politics. He will continue to be a strong fighter in the Nevada State Senate to create jobs and improve Nevada’s education system. I congratulate Senator Kihuen on the race he ran and look forward to working with him in the future.

“Nevada Democrats are united behind Dina Titus and we look forward to sending her back to Congress to fight for Nevada families. Dina has been a longtime advocate for Nevada’s middle-class families — committed to fighting the Wall Street Republican agenda of killing Medicare by turning it over to private insurance companies and protecting taxpayer giveaways to corporations that ship American jobs overseas. Nevada Democrats could not have a stronger ticket this election cycle in which we will re-elect President Obama, send Shelley Berkley to the Senate, and take back a majority of our congressional delegation.”

Now the only question remains: What will Hispanics do? They won’t suffer the indignity of seeing a favorite son lose to Titus in a tough race, but they will also lose an inspiring ballot magnet whom one Hispanic leader called “our American dream”? Will turnout be affected by the fact that everyone still knows Kihuen was essentially scared off the ballot by the prospect of a race against Titus?

Then again, Kihuen lives to fight another day. Although it appears Democrats will occupy the congressional seats around his neighborhood (Steven Horsford in the 4th Congressional District and Titus in the 1st), there are still many prospects for him in 2014. He could run for re-election to his Senate district; he could try for statewide office (lieutenant governor) or he could bide his time until a federal office comes open. Hey, isn’t Reid up again in 2016? If Kihuen gets re-elected in 2014, he’d have another safe shot at that seat, assuming there isn’t a bigger fish circling.

UPDATE: Titus released a statement this evening about Kihuen’s exit from the race. It said:

“Senator Kihuen is a dedicated public servant who has always put the interests of Nevada first. He ran a strong campaign that inspired young people to work for the good of our state. Now is the time to come together to reelect President Obama and elect Shelley Berkley, John Oceguera, Steven Horsford, and all Democrats running for office. Ruben is a rising star who has a bright career ahead of him fighting for Nevadans. I look forward to working with him to create jobs, advocate for minority interests, and diversify Nevada’s economy.”

Of course, the “dedicated public servant” language doesn’t exactly comport with the picture Team Titus sought to portray about Kihuen just a short while ago, that of a state senator with no real accomplishments, who chaired a relatively meaningless committee during the 2011 session and who didn’t introduce a single bill in that Legislature. But what else was Titus to say? That Kihuen was overly ambitious and she would have mopped the floor with him? That would simply be rude!

Tags: ,

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Polling the Nevada caucus

Posted by Steve Sebelius
Friday, Feb. 3rd, 2012 at 5:18 am

There are two polls out in advance of Saturday’s Republican presidential caucus, both of which have former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney well in the lead. There’s little doubt — even among the candidates — that Romney is going to win Nevada Saturday. The real question: Who will come in second?

Both the Review-Journal/8NewsNow poll and the Public Policy Polling poll have former Speaker Newt Gingrich solidly in second place. The breakdown:

  • R-J/8NewsNow: Romney 45%; Gingrich 25%; Santorum 11%; Paul 9%
  • PPP: Romney 50%; Gingrich 25%; Paul 15%; Santorum 8%

I continue to believe it’s possible that Paul will best Gingrich for second place. (To be sure, Gingrich himself in a sit-down interview with me on Thursday acknowledged he’d come in either second or third, depending on Paul’s strength.) The reasons are myriad: Paul’s libertarian appeal, especially in rural Nevada; his extremely passionate and organized following; his longtime presence in Nevada (as opposed to Gingrich’s relatively recent organization here).

And then there’s history: Paul came in a distant second to Romney in 2008, aided by Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain‘s decision to skip the Nevada caucus.

But Gingrich will be helped by his double-digit South Carolina victory, and by his never-say-die attitude and vow to continue to present himself as the conservative alternative to Romney all the way through the summer. That’s solid despite reported tensions between Gingrich’s national staff and local supporters. His remarks in our interview are classic strategy, playing down expectations in the hopes of taking a solid second-place finish over Paul.

One thing is certain, however: Santorum will finish last here. He barely campaigned in Nevada, and his brand of conservatism (one that appeals to social conservatives) doesn’t find much purchase in Nevada.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries