Political Analyst Notes Irony of Angle "Embracing Government" in Lawsuit Quest

As Sharron Angle's lawsuit to overturn the Congressional District-2 Republican primary results moves forward, a local political analyst points out the irony of a small-government and anti-tax advocate hoping an activist judge forces another election to be paid for by Nevada taxpayers.

We recently asked University of Nevada, Reno political scientist Eric Herzik his thoughts on Angle's bid to overturn her 421-vote loss to Dean Heller. He brought up some excellent points on the history of challenges and the logistical problems a re-vote could cause.

Anon Guy: Do you think the lawsuit will succeed?

Herzik: First, I don’t think this lawsuit will succeed. Most challenges of elections are based on illegal votes – and even those are hard to prove. This isn’t about illegal voting but more that voting wasn’t available in some sort of timely fashion. Angle notes that polls didn’t open exactly on time and that some people had to either come back (and supposedly couldn’t) or had to wait in line (an inconvenience) to vote.

The irony is that Angle is going to court much as did the Democrats in 2000 in Florida. (I was on KOH the other day and one caller referred to her as Sharon Angle Gore.) The Democrat challenge argued that votes – that were cast but that were cast with disqualifying items such as hanging chads – were not properly counted. In that case you also had the claim that not enough election officials were working so voters (and especially African American voters) were forced to wait in line and thus didn’t vote. In the 2000 case you at least had actual votes that were in dispute. Even with actual votes, the courts did not accept the case. Angle is making an even bigger stretch – that some unknown number of voters were disenfranchised because they couldn’t vote when they showed up.

The court will likely stay away from this for many practical reasons as well. If a new election were ordered then the whole timetable of the election is disrupted. How will absentee voters be contacted in a timely fashion? (And if absentee votes are not allowed couldn’t those people who voted the first time but who are now out of town go to court saying they are being disenfranchised?) There is no option for early voting and I could even see some challenges based on campaign financing (i.e. we are past a spending period so can candidates raise more money for a new election?)

My other question is one that I really haven't heard much about, but everyone is talking about Angle vs. Heller, yet Dawn Gibbons pulled in a lot of votes herself despite a third-place finish. In a do-over, would you think she would campaign or just throw her support to one of the other two? I would think if she preferred Heller, she would just do it now to make the lawsuit almost moot (that is if her endorsement carried any type of clout).

In any re-vote all the candidates would have to appear on the ballot. I could easily see Dawn Gibbons saying that she now backs Heller – noting that he won the election fairly in the first round. I also think that Angle would face a huge backlash if she ever got a re-vote. What Angle seems to forget that while she ran a close race, she still only received 35% of the vote. That means that 65% of Republican voted against her.

Is Angle basically burning her bridges with the GOP each day she continues with this? The Derby camp has got to be loving this.

Angle’s move, despite her protestations to the contrary, is sour grapes. She knew she couldn’t find 400 plus votes in a recount, so she goes to court. (There are multiple ironies here as she is hoping that an activist judge overturns a vote of the people and orders a new election. The cost of that election would be passed on to the taxpayer where a recount would have to be borne by Angle. Thus, Angle is really embracing government as her savior.) Angle is ignoring calls by most all Republican elected officials to drop the suit. Yes, this helps Derby – who already has ads running and more money than Heller.

Ethics Expert Weighs In On Darby and Blogs

One of the more interesting discussions recently has been on the state of the news media, blogs and objectivity. Can the three coexist?

Prompted in part by the Tom Darby affair, and whether an impartial reporter can also have a partisan blog, as well as the philosophical question of whether blogs and the press can or should be advocates for a specific viewpoint, we asked journalists for their opinion.

The University of Nevada, Reno, journalism faculty took up the topic on their site and were split on the issue. Some thought reporters can't help but be partisan and the public knowing a reporter's bias would make for a more informed read. Others thought it was simply unethical.

One journalist who subscribes to the latter view is Fred Brown, columnist and retired Capitol bureau chief of the Denver Post. Currently co-chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee, Brown was instrumental in shaping the group's "Code of Ethics" which has become the industry standard. Known as "Mr. Ethics," he was national president of the SPJ in 1997-98 and was the recipient Saturday of the 2006 Wells Memorial Key Award (the SPJ's most prestigious).

"What you describe is clearly an unethical practice," said Brown regarding Darby's personal, but partisan, blog. "I'm an old-fashioned journalist who believes that material released for general public consumption should be checked carefully and -- in the case of a reporter, though not a columnist -- careful attention to impartiality. The problem with blogs, which even mainstream media are encouraging, is that they're expected to be interesting, and impartiality is not considered interesting. Blogs can erode media credibility, which is precisely what we do not need in an environment where so many sources are competing for attention."

Update: Darby was dismissed from the Sparks Tribune shortly after the above controversy.

Sharron Angle's 11,843 Missing Washoe County Voters

That's how many voters would need to have been turned away by those 10 late-opening precincts in Washoe County to make a difference in Sharron Angle's loss to Dean Heller in the Republican Congressional District-2 primary.

While Angle points to her loss by only 421 votes and some reported problems with a handful of precincts as reasons to file a lawsuit contesting the election, her camp is making four highly unlikely assumptions.

1) There were many more voters turned away than the reported "several dozen".

2) Virtually all of these voters did not go back later or vote at the county office.

3) These voters were all Republicans.

4) They all were Angle supporters.

Even under these unrealistic scenarios, well over 400 voters would have had to have missed out. An amount that would have generated a lot more complaints than the few registered.

But what about a realistic scenario? What would it have taken for Angle to gain the 422 votes needed to defeat Heller? And while precincts vary in demographics, there are 526 in the county, we'll use the overall averages.

Although Angle and her supporters point to her winning Washoe as a reason why any precinct problem there would harm her more, they are forgetting the fact that she carried the county by only 6.5 points (38.69% to Heller's 32.17%). In other words, for every 1,000 Republican voters, Angle would only gain 65 votes on Heller. So in order to erase Heller's 421-vote lead, Angle would have needed 6,472 more voters.

But remember, those are GOP voters. In this primary, Republicans represented 54.65% of all voters (Democrats 37.24% and Non-Partisans 8.11%). Just over half of the average precinct's voters would have been Republicans.

So how many turned-away voters would have been needed to add the 6,472 necessary GOP votes to overturn the election? 11,843.

Considering a total of 34,492 people actually voted on primary day (23,811 voted early or absentee), Angle would have the court and public believe an astounding 1 in 4 Washoe County voters were turned away on August 15. The most unlikely of all scenarios.

Angle's Lawyer is Former Independent American Party Chairman

Sharron Angle's choice of an attorney to lead her lawsuit to overturn her 421-vote loss to Dean Heller in the GOP primary for Congressional District-2 is former chairman of Nevada's conservative Independent American Party (IAP) and perennial candidate Joel Hansen.

Reaching outside of the Republican Party, Angle chose to go with the self-described "bulldog" attorney from Las Vegas who is perhaps best known for frequent campaigns and support of conservative causes. Hansen is currently representing backers of both the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) and the Tax and Spending Control (TASC) initiative.

In 2004, Hansen ran a surprisingly strong campaign for the Nevada Supreme Court (Seat F) with one poll showing him leading incumbent Justice Michael Douglas late in the race. Hansen, though, eventually lost by over 160,000 votes once some of his political views became better known.

A campaign manager for another candidate was quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal as calling Hansen "a borderline neo-Nazi" and pointed to the IAP platform at the time that included the statement, "Multi-culturalism, paganism, environmentalism, hedonism, homosexual perversion and a spirit of anarchy promoted by government schools, capitalistic exploiters, and a demographic change in the base population fueled by treasonously promoted lax and illegal immigration are redefining American civilization."

Hansen, though, "describes himself as a 'constitutional conservative' who believes in the 'original intent of the Constitution.'"

Adding more intrigue to Angle's choice is the fact that Hansen and the IAP have had numerous run-ins with Heller (currently Nevada's Secretary of State) over filing campaign contribution forms. Most recently, the IAP's Christopher Hansen (Joel's brother) filed an ethics complaint against Heller regarding a "voluntary disclosure letter."

Why Don't More People Run for Office?

I know this question may seem odd coming on the heels of some spirited primary campaigns here in Nevada, but the facts are that a lot of races didn't have any opponents and won't in November.

The reason I bring this up was a story I was reading in the Red Bluff Daily News. There were three slots open for city council members and while 10 people took out nomination papers only four actually filed. However, one didn't have the required amount of signatures. So the Northern California town of roughly 14,000 had three candidates for three positions. Instead of spending $12,000 in election costs, the city appointed the three.

Apparently this wasn't an isolated event as the paper also noted other towns in the area had done the same. Both Willows and Dunsmuir just appointed council members when the number of candidates equaled the number of openings.

While these moves did save taxpayers some money, the bigger picture is why is this happening?

Some may point to the nasty mudslinging and personal attacks that occur. But politics have always been dirty. Newspapers favoring John Adams said Thomas Jefferson represented "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin." Democratic newspapers made fun of Abraham Lincoln's physical appearance calling him "Honest Ape" and ran cartoons depicting him as a monkey.

Then there was the 1950 Florida U.S. Senate race where George Smathers beat incumbent Claude Pepper. It was alleged that Smathers would attack Pepper's sister as a "thespian" and his brother a "homo sapien" in his stump speeches to the more uneducated. He also tagged Pepper as a communist sympathizer and ended up winning by 60,000 votes. The Krolicki/Woollen battle looks tame in comparison.

So is it the cost?

Mike Dillon, Jr. spent over $150,000 in his bid for the Republican nomination in Nevada Assembly District-26 (AD-26) and finished with less than 3,000 votes. In 2004, Robin Levy spent over $100,000 in her bid for the GOP nod in AD-25 and finished with less than half the number of votes winner Heidi Gansert received.

And while nobody denies that money is the "mother's milk" of politics, that still wouldn't explain why some races can't even field a complete list of candidates. Even the Libertarian Party in Nevada couldn't muster a 2006 gubernatorial candidate and third party candidates rarely spend much more than the filing fee.

Or is that people just don't care?

Despite all the interest among people on blogs, still only 30% of registered voters actually bothered to vote in the primary. And this number was considered a success.

With newspaper readership falling, television news programs sagging in the ratings, voter turnout in a continuing funk and the blogosphere tending to fall on extreme partisan lines, is there anybody left who is interested in politics enough to simply go out there and try to make a difference on their own terms?

What is Angle Thinking?

Apparently being a gracious loser just isn't fashionable anymore . Lawsuits are the preferred route.

Opting to forgo a recount, and save herself up to $200,000 in required costs, Republican Sharron Angle announced, instead, she will "contest" her 421-vote primary loss to Dean Heller in Nevada's Congressional District-2. This despite Nevada statute (NRS 293.407) specifically excluding Congressional and U.S. Senate races.

In a Friday afternoon press conference Angle, citing "errors in the voting process," unveiled her plans to contest the results saying she preferred to challenge the election in a district court rather than go the recount route (which, historically, has rarely changed a result). "Out of respect for the will of the people and their right to vote, I am obligated to contest the outcome of this election and request a special election."

She will have until August 29 to file her request.

If, by chance, a court decides in her favor, a special election will have to be held in CD-2 and, of course, be funded by Nevada taxpayers.

Where this leaves Heller, who is preparing to face Democrat Jill Derby, or if the state could even mount a special election before November's general is anybody's guess at this point. With a possible court challenge looming, or the prospect of running a primary campaign again, the task of raising money has just become harder for the GOP nominee.

So while the Democrats hold a "Ticket to Victory" party on Saturday and try to present a picture of unity going into November (although one suspects Jim Gibson won't be making an appearance), the Republicans continue to be their own worst enemy this political season.

Perhaps Dawn Gibbons will endorse Heller this weekend, making the chances of a possible revote going Angle's way even more remote. Then Angle can give her "for the good of the party" speech on the 29th.

What the Experts Say Regarding Reporter Blog Controversy

Can a supposed unbiased newspaper reporter also publish a personal blog with distinct political opinions and not harm their, or their media outlet's, aura of impartiality?

That's the question raised following the recent controversy over Sparks Tribune city reporter Tom Darby and his blog, Tom Uses His Words. Filled with political attacks, endorsements and other revelations (including warning a political candidate of possible legal action he had uncovered in the course of investigating a story), the blog seemed to violate a myriad of journalism's code of ethics.

The New York Times, for instance, specifically forbids staff members from donating or endorsing candidates, or campaigning for any ballot measure or cause, noting "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics."

Warning members to "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived," the Code of Ethics created by the Society of Professional Journalists also urges them to "...shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity."

But what about in actual practice? The answer may be less cut and dried.

The Darby incident recently became a topic of discussion among University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) journalism professors. On their site, RSJ Faculty Blog, they debated the merits of transparency and the concept of impartiality itself.

"Because Darby is being open about his opinions, he's allowing readers the kind of insight that will better allow them to sift his newspaper reports and decide for themselves what perspectives or biases might have impacted the reporting process," wrote UNR lecturer and Reno News and Review contributor Deidre Pike. "Transparency is a good thing, right?"

Others disagreed.

"Blogging in itself is fine. The content of Darby’s blog is in stark conflict with what should be his professional ethics," answered UNR assistant professor Rosemary McCarthy. "Masquerading as an actual political reporter in print while directly advocating for and against political candidates on a blog is basically dishonest in my view."

And some fell between the two.

"I'm going to be wishy-washy. On the one hand, the appearance of a conflict of interest can be as -- er -- interesting as an actual conflict of interest," posted another. "But, on the other hand, I can't see how anybody can ever be totally unbiased. A blog post might provide a hint about what's going on inside a reporter's brain. And it might serve as a sort of self-disclosure statement."

"A problem," he continued, "is that the folks who read a certain newspaper are often not the same folks who read a specific blog. So blogs my not provide the full disclosure that some might desire."

In this specific case, there will be no disclosure as the Sparks Tribune banned blogs by staff members and Darby's has been shut down.

Update: Darby was dismissed from the Sparks Tribune shortly after the above controversy.

Sparks Tribune Bans Blogs By Staff Members After Darby Controversy

Following the controversy over ethical and political revelations on a Sparks Tribune reporter's personal web site, the Nevada newspaper moved to ban the publishing of blogs by staff members.

"Yes, the Tribune does have policies and procedures," wrote Angela Mann, Tribune editor, in a terse email to us. "And as of now, 11:30 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 21, there will be no blogs published by the Sparks Tribune and our web site."

At issue was city reporter Tom Darby's personal blog, Tom Uses His Words, where he, among other things, endorsed a candidate for Nevada governor, attacked other candidates, told a source the National Security Agency had uncovered his identity and published a complaint letter a Sparks candidate had written the paper over alleged bias in reporting. All actions most media outlets consider a breach of journalistic ethics.

But, perhaps most egregious, was Darby tipping his friend and Assembly District-26 GOP candidate Richard Disney to possible legal action. All of which was reported in detail on Darby's blog.

(As of Monday afternoon, Darby's site had been taken down. However, a cached version of this was still available on Google.)

The controversy began when Darby became aware of a local anonymous political web site, the CobbGobbler. In the course of his investigation for a possible Tribune story, Darby came to believe political activist Eric Odom was behind the site (a charge Odom denies) and made veiled threats of legal action and the NSA being on to him. He emailed Odom, "My thought is to turn it over to Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick for review. However I'm hesitating to give Richard (Disney) enough time to correct any paperwork deficits that might exist. I don't want him to go down because of your silliness."

Darby did warn Disney, emailing him to "get your paperwork in order. Your so called friends in this political machine have tossed you to the wolves. They doen't [sic] care whether you are the most conservative or not. They evidently are out to either win or destroy."

Disney replied worriedly, "I saw the article on (CobbGobbler) referencing the email that you copied to me. It does not bode well. As far as paperwork, I have everything filed correctly. What other paperwork can you think of that I might need?I don't know why they would go after me; I pulled out of the race. What benefit do they have in going after me? I though the site was comical at first but I wish the whole thing would just go away. I have an appointment to meet with my attorney to make sure all of my bases are covered. Thanks for the heads up."

Further investigation of posts on Tom Uses His Words, found that Darby had endorsed Jim Gibbons for governor. In the same story he also berated gubernatorial candidate Lorraine Hunt and her campaign manager. Other posts included attacks on State Senator Bob Beers and referring to U.S. Senator Harry Reid as "Pinky".

Also incurring the ire of Darby was Sparks Municipal Judge candidate Doug Nicholson who had written an email to Mann complaining of a perceived Tribune bias in favor of incumbent Jim Spoo. Darby published the letter on his blog.

Follow-up questions regarding the status of Darby and more specifics on their policies have not been returned by the Tribune.

Update: Darby was dismissed from the Sparks Tribune shortly after the above controversy.

Who Is Amy Susil?

Well we learned it's not her real name, but she does have some strong opinions on Nevada politics, mud slinging and (surprise) Chuck Muth.

"Amy Susil" first popped up on the conservative blog Battle Born News with comments defending Republican Assemblywoman Francis Allen. It quickly became a battle between her and Allen's chief critic, Muth.

Curious as to who she really was, the Anon Guy decided on a whim to ask using an email address he had found. Not only was the address real, but "Susil" agreed to answer some questions in an email interview.

First, and you knew this was coming, is Amy Susil your real name? And I understand the irony of this question coming from the Anon Guy!

Amy Susil is not my real name, but very close. Change a couple letters and you'll hit it right on the head with my true name.

Do you live in Las Vegas, or elsewhere? Roughly how long? And, if you don't mind, your age ("twenty-something" or "30ish" is fine if you prefer).

Anon Guy, my oh my, you should know better! You should never ask a woman her age.

Do you have a relationship with Allen (friend, family, coworker, etc.) or Cliff Fields?

I have no special relationship with anyone other than Chuck Muth.

If there is no relationship, what drew you to comment on the Allen/Fields/Muth race?

I was drawn to this race because of Chuck Muth's fascination with Francis Allen. He has strayed away from common logic and has apparently made this a personal thing. Francis Allen's voting record is similar to other elected Republicans, but he doesn't go at them with the same vigor. This leads me to believe that he either has a crush on her or she did not succumb to his consulting fee. Either or, I think people including everyone who knows him can agree -- he is going overboard with her.

Was this the first time you have gotten involved in politics?

I've been involved in politics all my life from a spectator standpoint. I enjoy the debate, but have a total dislike for negative campaigning. When I saw the mud slinging, I had to do research on the subject matter and saw that Chuck was attacking based on half truths and lies. That's not fair any way you look at it -- whether you agree with her positions or not.

Were you aware of Chuck Muth before this election?

I knew Chuck Muth when he was one of the folks involved with the Republican Liberty Caucus, Lots of promise leading to disasters. It ended up being a stage front for Chuck to bring recognition to Chuck. One should ask what his involvement is now.

What do you think his motivations were in this and other races?

A "political consultant" who is also an activist? Go figure. It's kind of like saying someone is an abortion doctor and also an abortion advocate -- the lines are blurred -- is it really what they believe because of their activism or does it boil down to creating better exposure for their "money line."

Chuck is for sale when it comes to political consulting, web site design, long distance phone service, etc.

Additionally, it would be interesting to see if any of the organizations he starts endorses candidates he works against. It would never happen. It boils down to the fact that from an ethical standpoint -- a political consultant should not be an activist and vice versa -- the truth gets blurred and it creates a bad environment for voters to make the correct judgment call.

All I ask for is ethical lines to be followed and disclosure stated -- i.e. "organization XYZ endorses candidate ABC, by the way, the founding members are helping the opposition."

Chuck Muth pushes for this type of disclosure with unions and their members when it comes to political spending -- shouldn't it apply to him and the GOP rank and file he claims to speak for?

Do you think Muth has any effect, positive or negative on Nevada politics?

He has a negative net effect. The only people who say he has a positive effect are people already in the game and are supportive of him. He doesn't bring in new people, he doesn't build organizations. He does the easiest thing in the game -- just destroys. If he really believed in what he claims and enjoys taking credit and enjoys the attention -- he should put his name up. I'd like to see a Francis Allen vs. Chuck Muth match up, but he won't do it. He has lots of bark -- absolutely no bite.

What other races this year piqued your interest? And races you'll be watching in November?

I enjoyed the sheriff race. The banners flying around was fun.

If so, did you comment or become involved with them?

No, I was focused on Muth. You will find that more people will also be involved as time progresses. Maybe this is why he will not seek a run against anyone. He doesn't want his closet opened for sure.

After your experience with posters on Battle Born will this encourage, discourage or have no effect on you make comments again?

Doesn't have an effect one way or another. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The banter can get fun. As Chuck enjoys this stuff, so do many others.

If you were to do it over again, were there some things you regret saying or wish you had said?

I don't regret anything. There should be more light cast on activist/political consultants. This is an unethical marriage of careers which ultimately lines the pockets and the egos of the ones who follow that particular career path. People who play all these sides only create problems within the party -- ultimately turning people off which then leads to low voter turn out.

Now that you have had a taste of political blogs, would you want to start one yourself?

I probably won't, because I like yours. If I did -- you wouldn't be left with readers. ;-)

Nevada Political Blogging Makes Scripps Story

Blogs flinging mud at a trio of Nevada political candidates are used as examples in a recent Scripps Howard story on the growing phenomenon of anonymous political attack sites.

Although not naming the actual blogs, reporter J. Patrick Coolican describes them in his lead as saying "one candidate is a racist, another has a hard-partying daughter and a third is a gambling addict".

While the first two remain a mystery, the third one would be the infamous anti-Kate Marshall (Democratic candidate for Nevada Treasurer) site that had popped up earlier this year. Filled with a myriad of unsubstantiated accusations and an incredulous story of buying an incriminating photo off of Ebay, the site mysteriously saw a cease in activity about the same time as Democratic challenger Geoffrey VanderPal's campaign did. Marshall won by over 50K votes.

What is Blogging's Purpose in This World?

Mr Jerz was recently in a class where the guest speaker was a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. The topic turned to bloggers and, perhaps not surprisingly, the speaker was not overly impressed by them.

The discussion prompted Mr. Jerz to contemplate what is the purpose of bloggers and invited people to answer.

Since I'm relatively new to blogs my opinion may either be hopelessly naive or off base, but here goes.

I think the vast majority of blogging is of the personal nature and is really the result of the world's obsession with celebrity. Instead of unlocking your diary and writing of your deepest desires and fears, or what the cafeteria was serving and who sat next to you in math, you can now put it on the web for the entire world to see.

Then there are also the specialized sites that reflect one's expertise or obsession but they appear to be more a labor of love than a form of exhibitionism.

But I think that when most people, or at least the media, think of bloggers and blogging it is the political arena they point to. And the guest speaker is right in that most political sites are either aggregators of news (usually the mainstream media they are always denigrating) and/or are commentators on it. He's used to investigating, vetting sources, running it through editors and keeping it as balanced as possible, while the world of political blogging seems to be just the opposite.

While it's true blogs have broken some stories, most seem to fall into the trap of masquerading opinions and agendas as hard news. When you look at political blogs they inevitably fall either into the liberal or conservative category and publish "news" from that viewpoint. In many instances it is just forwarding as fact something they read from another blog.

A case in point was a recent story in Nevada blogs that popped up late in the primary campaign. It was picked up by both sides of the political blog spectrum and used to promote their particular viewpoint on the election. However, it appears nobody bothered to actually check the facts. It sounded a little fishy to me so I looked into it and was told that it hadn't happened (I'm waiting to double-check it Monday). I'll post it later in the week, but will the blogs that hyped it offer a retraction, like newspapers normally do? I doubt it. It will just stay out there floating on the internet as fact. I think this is part of the reason why the news media generally looks down at blogs.

That said, blogs can bring together like-minded people from all over the world that would normally never meet, whether it is about politics or knitting. Together they can exchange ideas and actions that can enrich or motivate someone who might never have thought of it.

So I think that while blogging's strengths are in the forming of communities that share a similar viewpoint or interest, it is also probably it's biggest weakness when it comes to the objective reporting the public expects from legitimate news sources.

But forget about my ramblings. If you have an opinion on what blogging means or their purpose in life or how they fit in the world of news go to Mr. Jerz's page and let him know.

The Rules Regarding Recounts if Angle Asks

Trailing Dean Heller by just 428 votes, Sharron Angle is currently mulling the option of asking for a recount in her race for the Republican nomination in Nevada's Congressional District 2.

She'll have a little time to think about it, as Nevada law (NRS 293.400) states that recount requests are to be made within the three working days after the results have been officially certified (August 22).

If Angle makes a request she will need to advance the money estimated to carry out the recount. If the recount fails to change the results the advance is forfeited and, if any additional costs were incurred, the deficiency must be paid. If Angle prevails, the costs will be borne by the counties or state and her deposit will be refunded.

While some Angle supporters have also called for the election to be contested because of some reported difficulties at a few Washoe County precincts, Nevada statute 293.407 specifically exempts races concerning "United States Senator or Representative in Congress."

Ironically, if a tie results from a recount (and it is a primary race) the Secretary of State decides by lot. While the governor is required to perform the duties if the race in question is for the office of the Secretary of State, considering Heller's current job status one can assume Kenny Guinn would be called on.

In 1998, Nevada's U.S. Senate race ended with incumbent Harry Reid (D) beating John Ensign (R) by just 401 votes (208,621 to 208,220). After a requested recount, Ensign added just two votes while Reid increased his total by 29.

Perhaps Stupak Should Have Spent More of His Million

In April, 2006, Bob Stupak made some waves when he wrote a $1,000,000 check to his quixotic campaign for the Nevada Lt. Governor Democratic nomination. After watching the results Tuesday, he probably wishes he had spent more of it.

Although Bob Unger won with 25.3% of the vote, the real "winner" in the lightly publicized race was the "None of These Candidates" option (19.8%). Either unimpressed by their choices or not having seen or heard of them, "None" won 15 of Nevada's 16 counties (including a 432-vote margin in Washoe). Only in Clark did Unger and runner-up Bob Goodman (20.6%) garner enough votes to move ahead of nobody. Stupak finished fourth with 17.4%.

Thanks to his million-dollar loan, Stupak had a $1,008,031 war chest to work with but the professional poker player/actor/singer/Rolls Royce collector (see his Nevada Financial Disclosure Statement for more titles) only spent $104,480.92. With a bigger TV ad buy or mailing campaign (I saw one commercial Sunday in Reno) Nevada could have been looking at a Krolicki/Stupak showdown this November.

Unger raised $399,290 and spent $339,468.93.

Notable among Stupak's donors was $100 from Republican Lt. Governor candidate Lonnie Hammargren.

Gibbons Big, Cobb Victorious and Heller/Angle Looking at a Recount

While it's always dangerous posting something before it is officially over, it looks like the Republican Congressional District 2 race could be headed to a recount.

Dean Heller currently (11:40 p.m.) leads Sharron Angle by 137 votes with just Lincoln County and a few precincts in Las Vegas yet to report. There is some confusion as to if Washoe County has finished yet as they don't seem to be reporting the number of precincts that have turned in their votes. While Heller was running well in Vegas and the rural counties, Angle was leading by 2,400 in Washoe. If Washoe has finished, Heller should hold his lead. This one, though, probably won't be decided for a couple days.

In the hotly contested Nevada Assembly District 26 race, Republican Ty O. Cobb has defeated Mike Dillon 45% to 41%.

Nevada's gubernatorial matchup is set with Jim Gibbons (R) facing off against Dina Titus (D). Both won easily with Gibbons knocking off Bob Beers by 18-points (something of a surprise as some polls had that race as a dead heat).

Other candidates who successfully held off what was thought to be strong challenges were Lt. Governor candidate Brian Krolicki (R) (by 15-points over Barbara Lee Woollen) and Treasurer Candidate Mark DeStefano (R) who won easily over the deceased Kathy Augustine.

One other close race almost saw "None of These Candidates" finish second. In the Lt. Governor Democratic primary, Bob Unger won with a quarter of the vote, while Bob Goodman finished with 21% and "None" logged 20%. "None" also won 15 counties (including Washoe), losing only in Clark.

Where To See Live Election Results (Hopefully)

Since local television stations usually just do the occasional quick-hit story on primary election results (heaven-forbid you preempt "According to Jim" for more than five minutes), you can check the following websites for results through the night.

Nevada Secretary of State Site -- Complete totals of all counties and races, though not entirely sure it is going to be updated live.

Washoe County -- Although at this hour I don't see anything in place, I was assured that updates every 20 minutes would occur here.

Clark County -- Already setup and ready to go.

UPDATE: KOLO-TV 8 in Reno will have an election special from 9-10 p.m.

VanderPal Loans Campaign $177K Despite Recent Bankruptcy

When one first looks at the recent Campaign Contributions and Expenses forms filed by Democratic Treasurer candidates Geoffrey VanderPal and Kate Marshall, you notice how similar they are. Both have raised just over $180K.

However, upon closer examination, you will notice one big difference. 97.6% of VanderPal's $181,426 came in the form of personal loans to his campaign. While not unusual, the fact that VanderPal filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy just three years ago (listing liabilities of $237,590.69 and assets of only $340!) makes one wonder where the $176,994.01 came from.

Meanwhile, Marshall added $117,882.60 to her campaign in 2006 giving her a total of $188,249.60. She has spent $113,726.29.

VanderPal has spent $181,071.53.

Marvel Outspends Weber 5-1 in Contentious Ad-32 Primary

Using the power of incumbency, Republican Assemblyman John Marvel's quest for a 15th term is boosted by a campaign war chest of $111,095.02. Meanwhile, opponent Mike Weber has raised just $17,965 according to recently filed Campaign Contributions and Expenses reports.

In a rematch of 2002's District 32 GOP primary, where Marvel prevailed 53% to 46%, once again the issue of rural versus urban is being played out with Spark's Weber pointing to the incumbent's home in Battle Mountain as being out of touch with the more populous portion of the large district. Also adding to the acrimony between the two are allegations that Marvel broke a 2004 promise to Weber that he wouldn't run again in 2006.

As of August 8, Marvel has spent $81,531.58 (including $61,938.46 to Reno-based J. B. Marketing) compared to Weber's $15,187.01 (including $2,100 to Weber Enterprises).

Beginning the year with $27,182.19 (after spending $15,547.83 in 2005), Marvel added $68,365 in 2006 with heavy contributions from various associations including gaming where the MGM Mirage ($4,000), Harrah's ($4,000), IGT ($2,500), Boyd Gaming ($2,500) and Station Casinos ($1,000) added to his coffers. Republican Assemblywoman Heidi Gansert also gave $1,500.

Weber added $15,705 to the $2,260 he had raised last year. Notable donors were Atlantis Resort ($1,000) and Reno City Council member Pierre Hascheff ($500).

The unopposed Democratic candidate, Mike Sprinkle, has raised $18,120 and spent $9,682.19.

Sparks Tribune's Tom Darby Takes Strange Trip to Cobblerville

Just when you think the whole "Who is CobbGobbler?" search couldn't become any more bizarre, in bumbles a new super-sleuth touting secret ties to the National Security Agency, constitutional protection and threats of going to Dick Gammick.

Oh, and he also has solved the mystery and helped save (or, perhaps, implicate) an unnamed candidate from disgrace by giving him time to "correct any paperwork deficits that might exist".

I know you're probably thinking that it is just some crank blogger who is drifting in and out of their own fantasy world and, sadly, you are only half right. You see, our sleuth is also intrepid Sparks Tribune city reporter Tom Darby. And before you start shouting "MSM! MSM!", remember, it's the Sparks Tribune.

Now, if you haven't read it yet in the paper (though he says his editor is prepared to go with a "three or four part series") , that's because it is posted only on his blog -- Tom Uses His Words.

While Darby uses his words he, unfortunately, doesn't appear to use his brains. Apparently overlooking the fact that the CobbGobbler brouhaha had been well-researched on Mr Jerz and Inside Nevada Politics, he missed the whole juicy story of cobbgobbler.com being registered in Mike Dillon's (Ty Cobb's opponent in AD-26) name. Instead he zeroes in on the Chuck Smith registration of cobbgobbler.net.

But that is minor compared to the wild story he spins on his blog. Now in the tale Darby purports to be true he uses code names for the participants to protect their privacy. To make it easy on Dullard Mush readers I'll translate. "#1" is the CobbGobbler, "#2" is Eric Odom and "Friend" is failed AD-26 candidate Richard Disney.

The excitement all apparently began August 6 when #1, errr CobbGobbler, emailed Darby asking him to investigate Cobb's residency. Instead of using his reporter resources to quickly determine that the residence in question was legal (like Mr. Jerz and the Dullard Mush did), Darby turns to the NSA! That's right, the agency that is supposedly protecting us from terrorism apparently moonlights off/duty by tracking down IP addresses for "drinking buddies" had made the determination that the CobbGobbler is none other than ... Eric Odom.

So after telling CobbGobbler/Odom that the "NSA already has you. You might as well come out and play legally," Darby continues by letting him know that if he had only given himself up he would have protected him. With the solemn code of a journalist's right to protect sources, you ask? No, it's because Darby is "a true Constitutionalist".

At this point Odom (code name "2", which I'm sure he loves) emails Darby to complain about being blamed for the web site. He denies being the CobbGobbler and the two go back and forth until a third party joins the fray.

The third party, only identified by Darby as a "friend", is none other than Disney, who readers will recognize as the first figure in the whole NICPAC business-for-endorsement scandal. And, adding to the intrigue, Odom was cofounder of NICPAC and paid consultant to Disney.

As all good journalists do when presented with an interesting story, Darby threatens to "turn it over to (the) Washoe County District Attorney for review." But, in a nice gesture to Disney, he writes Odom he is "hesitating to give (Disney) enough time to correct any paperwork deficits that might exist. I don't want him to go down because of your silliness." I'm sure Richard appreciates the implication.

Of course Disney doesn't help himself as he later writes Darby, "It does not bode well. As far as paperwork, I have everything filed correctly. What other paperwork can you think of that I might need?" and the always confidence-inspiring "I have an appointment to meet with my attorney to make sure all of my bases are covered. Thanks for the heads up."

So what is one to make of all this. Is Eric Odom the CobbGobbler? Or his Tom Darby just a weaver of tall tales who, at best, is a blowhard with a semi-vivid imagination, at worst, an ethically-challenged journalist who would tip off a political friend to something illegal?

While I'd being willing to bet the CobbGobbler is someone associated with Odom's Battle Born News, the writing styles of the two don't really seem to match.

As for Darby, perhaps his editor should take a peek at his blogs. I'm sure if she did, Darby would be able to blog full-time from the comfort of his home.

UPDATE (8/22): On Monday, August 21, the Sparks Tribune banned blogs by staff members. Darby's blog went dark soon after.

UPDATE (1/11): Darby was dismissed from the Sparks Tribune shortly after the above controversy.

Dillon Spends $154K In Pursuit of AD-26 Nod

Assembly District 26 candidate Mike Dillon, Jr. has spent over $150,000 in his battle with Ty O. Cobb for the Republican nomination.

In a Contributions and Expenses (C&E) report filed August 8, Dillon showed $82,818.40 in contributions since the first of the year. Added to the $76,525 he raised in 2005, his campaign war chest totaled a robust $159,343.40. He also had in-kind donations totaling $14,656.23.

For 2006, Dillon has spent $149,837.15, bringing his campaign spending total to $153,964.18. Major expenses included $76,000 to Las Vegas-based November, Inc., Mike Slanker's political consultant firm.

Some notable contributors to Dillon's campaign include Assemblymen Garn Mabey ($500) and Bob Seale ($1,000), State Senators Dennis Nolan ($500) and Mike McGinnis ($500), and Reno City Attorney candidate Brett Kandt ($100).

Also filing a C&E report was former candidate Richard Disney. He had raised and spent $4,855.35.

2006 C&E reports for Cobb, Paul Mozen and Michael Sherriff were not posted as of today (8/12).

Hunt Wins Debate, but Hagar Predicts Beers/Gibbons Recount

That the most exciting moment in Friday night's Republican gubernatorial showdown was a post-debate forum member dropping the A-bomb, tells you no campaign-changing gaffes or knockout punches took place in the actual main event.

Up until "Audrey" tried to link problems with education to abortion, the biggest news of the night was probably how well Lorraine Hunt did (though she didn't throw her endorsement to another, like some thought she might).

Bouncing back from an atrocious showing in last week's debates, the Lt. Governor came out firing (and not reading from her notebook) from her opening statement to her closing. She again successfully attacked front-runner Jim Gibbons (tag-teaming with Bob Beers) and, I thought, handled the tired "What are you going to do for seniors? (I guess the middle-aged and youth are SOL)" question the best by relating the story of her 89-year-old mother still cooking in her restaurant.

Beers also did well and, unlike a few times last week, was detailed without overwhelming the audience. He was at his strongest in discussing how to protect the Millennium Scholarship, by tying it to SAT and ACT scores, and deflecting charges about raising his legislative pay.

Gibbons, like Hunt, improved on his last week's performance and seemed less rigidly tied to his script. This didn't mean he wasn't on one, but he did appear a little more relaxed and less wooden. Most importantly, though, he again avoided any big mistakes that could affect his front-runner status.

Of course, if one is to believe some polls, there may not be a front-runner going in to the final days. It's a belief debate cohost Ray Hagar apparently subscribes to as he predicted a long night Tuesday and added that he wouldn't be surprised if a recount was needed to decide between Beers and Gibbons.

Winners:
Hunt -- Although it won't help her in the polls or finish above third, she acquitted herself well from the prior debate.

Gibbons -- Avoided mistakes and had some good moments (e.g., the Verdi fire/TASC).

Losers:
Beers -- He was better than Gibbons again, but needed a big moment on his part or a flub from the congressman to help. He didn't really get either.

Man on the Street Questions -- KRNV-4 goes out searching for questions and all they can come up with is "taxes and spending", "what's for us seniors", and "why the negativity". Making matters worse, they ran the taped question about taxes right after the candidates had just talked about taxes and spending.

UPDATE: After reviewing the debate on tape, Hagar changed his mind and decided Beers hadn't done as well as originally thought. He now believes Gibbons will win without a recount.

Recent Poll Numbers Show No Real Surprises

While much has been made of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beers and his recent run up the polls, it appears that it may have come too little too late.

A new Las Vegas Review-Journal/KVBC-3 poll of 400 likely voters from each primary found Jim Gibbons and Dina Titus well in the lead. Also, it appears Republican Lt. Governor candidate Brian Krolicki has withstood the challenge from Barbara Lee Woollen.

Republican Governor:
41% -- Jim Gibbons
31% -- Bob Beers
15% -- Lorraine Hunt
3% -- None of These
1% -- Melody DaMayo
9% -- Undecided

Democratic Governor:
51% -- Dina Titus
32% -- Jim Gibson
5% -- None of These
2% -- Leola McConnell
10% -- Undecided

Republican Lt. Governor:
34% -- Brian Krolicki
25% -- Barbara Lee Woollen
15% -- Lonnie Hammargren
7% -- None of These
3% -- Eldon Hardy
1% -- George Kao
15% -- Undecided

In a head-to-head matchup, Gibbons leads Titus 46% to 35%. Titus, though, would have a slight 39% to 34% lead over Beers if the general election was held today.

CobbGobbler Takes Heat as Ty Cobb Residency Charge Disproved

One of the most damaging charges the CobbGobbler has leveled at AD-26 GOP candidate Ty Cobb is that he hadn't established proper residency for his district. It's important because, if true, it's an automatic removal from the ballot (just ask Mark DeStefano).

At the heart of the Gobbler's argument was a series of pictures taken earlier this year that claimed to show Cobb's unfinished home. CobbGobbler begged people (reporters, bloggers, anyone) to investigate. Well, Mr. Jerz did and the mysterious Gobbler can't be too happy with the results.

After running the address in question, 7648 Stone Bluff Way, through the Washoe County Assessor's office, Mr. Jerz discovered that Cobb officially took ownership of the property on May 19, 2005. Or, in other words, plenty of time to establish residency.

CobbGobbler countered that the transfer didn't necessarily mean the home was actually built at that time and pointed to another assessor's document that showed a change in code designation to "single family residential" in the first quarter of 2006. However, it also shows the property having $154,291 in new construction in the third quarter of 2005. Even more importantly, the document shows the parcel's code changed from "vacant single-family" to "condo/townhouse" during the third quarter. So I think we can safely say the home was built in mid-2005.

Adding to the evidence against the residency allegation is a listing on Cobb's Contributions and Expenditures report showing an in-kind donation from fiancee Emily Wofford on December 30, 2005. Her listed address? 7648 Stone Bluff Way. (Note to Emily: Make sure your name is added to the title.)

But perhaps the most damning evidence against the Gobbler's charge are two very important facts.

First, opponent Mike Dillon works for the Builders Association of Northern Nevada and would only have to make one call to the developers to know exactly when Cobb moved in. That he hasn't filed a complaint with the Secretary of State, and guarantee himself victory, is pretty much proof it's a non-issue.

And, finally, there is the whole issue of residency itself. Nevada's laws only states one has to be a resident of their district when they file for office. And, while Cobb and others let it be known they were running for AD-26 way back in 2005, they officially didn't file until the first week of May, 2006. So even if Cobb's home wasn't entirely finished in March of this year it wouldn't have disqualified him from the ballot.

What if Lorraine Hunt Endorsed Someone Else During Friday's Debate?

With polls showing her still a distant third and her poor performance in last week's GOP gubernatorial debate dooming any possibility of a miracle comeback, what would happen if Lorraine Hunt used her opening statement in tomorrow's (8/11) final debate to withdraw her candidacy and throw her support to another?

Besides throwing everybody completely off script (look out Jim!), prompting the audience of 12 to gasp and causing three of Channel 4's over-hyped (and, if you can believe it, undecided!) focus group members to drop their magic wands, it would also be the story for the rest of the primary campaign. Forget the turgid "Republicans Debate Immigration" headline and think above-the-fold "Hunt Stuns State With Surprise Endorsement of [fill in the blank]" on people's front doorstep Saturday morning.

Let's face it, this is probably Hunt's last hurrah as a political candidate and, after pouring what I would assume is a sizable chunk of her personal wealth into her campaign (loaning it $772,000), all she currently has to show for it is the probable ignominious fate of beating out a porn star and a paper candidate. Is that the memory one would want as they ride off into the political sunset, especially considering her previous successes? I wouldn't think so.

So why not shake things up, make a debate to remember and finish one's career as a history-making Nevada political kingmaker. Far-fetched? Maybe not.

While one poll, commissioned by Jim Gibbons, shows the congressman with a 20-point lead, another one has a decidedly different result. A recent Citizen Outreach automated poll of Republicans that are "very likely" to vote has Gibbons and Bob Beers tied at 32% , thereby making a Hunt withdrawal and subsequent endorsement extremely valuable.

Although 44% of the expected turnout (an estimated 25%) had already voted as of Wednesday, there are still enough Republicans left for a Hunt "shocker" to influence the final decision. And why shouldn't she? Hunt still has just under $200K in her campaign war chest and, instead of just blowing it in the final week on meaningless ads or mailers, who would blame her if she used it to pay herself partially back (her loans represented 77% of the total contributions to her campaign). There's no need for her to go into retirement broke.

Now, of course, the big question would be who she'd endorse? While on the political spectrum one would think she would be closer to Gibbons, she did seem to enjoy herself teaming up with Beers to hammer the congressman. Throw in the fact that Gibbons' team has been particularly mean to Hunt lately, and it wouldn't be all that surprising to see her tip her hat to Beers. If so, it could make for a memorable night Friday and a long one come Tuesday.

When it Comes to Legislative Pay, Perhaps Jim Gibbons Should Consult Dawn

Or, then again, maybe he shouldn't.

While Republican gubernatorial front-runner Jim Gibbons is current making political hay out of opponent Bob Beers' expressed desire to raise the level of pay for Nevada lawmakers, he apparently forget statements made by wife Dawn (former assemblywoman/current congressional candidate) a few years ago.

In an August 25, 2003 interview with the Reno Gazette Journal (RGJ), Dawn spoke of her political future and how she may not run again for the Assembly and, instead, would start a political consulting firm called Politek.

While many wags would say this decision was more based in the reality that after her votes in the infamous 2003 session she probably couldn't get elected, she had a different take.

"Someone has to make some money in this family," Dawn told the RGJ in an apparent reference to her legislative pay.

Still not finished, she further divorced herself from the average Nevada family by lamenting the low pay of husband Jim's job as congressman, telling the reporter his take-home pay was 'only $7,400 a month'.

I guess that answers our question as to if Jim has been accepting those automatic pay raises he has so famously "voted against".

The Truth About Congressional and Nevada Legislative Salaries

Since voting to increase your own legislative pay appears to be the issue going into the final week of Nevada's Republican gubernatorial primary, we would be remiss in not going over a few facts.

As you probably know by now, Bob Beers is apparently "passionate" about raising his pay as a Nevada legislator, while Jim Gibbons has never voted for a pay increase in Congress. This is technically true, but somewhat disingenuous given the vast difference in pay scales and the laws surrounding them.

While we all like to think of politicians as fat cats (and, granted, a good many are), Nevada's legislators aren't doing it on their official salaries. By law, state assemblymen and senators are paid $130 a day for 60 days ($7,800), despite the fact that sessions run 120 days. They are also given a daily allowance of $91 which is used for living expenses during their Carson City stay. To increase the pay scale, a vote "for" it would have to take place

This is in sharp contrast to the $165,200 that Gibbons currently earns as a member of Congress. More importantly, thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1989, pay raises no longer come up for a straight vote as, instead, an annual, automatic Cost of Living Adjustment is now used. In January, this will mean a raise of $3,300.

That's not to say pay increases can't be stopped. But, and in the way only Congress could work, they must first vote on whether they will even put the increase up for a direct vote. Needless to say, this procedural move has been defeated the past six years. On June 13, the latest attempt was downed 249-167 .

Gibbons did, however, vote to bring the pay increase to a floor vote. So his claim is true. It's unclear, though, if he continued with those strong and principled convictions and refused each of those raises.

Beers' Momentum Meets Gibbons' Money

With a debate victory under his belt and a new poll showing only a two-point deficit, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beers should feel like a candidate on a roll. And, indeed, momentum is currently on his side. But how long will it last with what will surely be a withering TV ad onslaught from Jim Gibbons, the front-runner?

Gibbons already started the attack on Beers with a musically ominous, text-only TV spot (not the best for reaching those out of the room or only semi-literate) a week ago, but has launched a new ad contrasting Gibbons not voting for pay raises (though, presumably, accepting them) and Beers "passion" for them. It also touches on the "record" budgets that Beers has voted on. This follows a recently sent mailer from Gibbons that focused exclusively on the pay raise issue.

Whether a fair charge or not, Gibbons will use his ample campaign war chest to hammer these points home for the rest of the primary. With Beers, so far, absent from the airwaves (at least here in Northern Nevada) and Hunt's attack spot on Gibbons airing infrequently at best, will Beers' "dead heat" in this poll be his high-water mark?

CobbGobbler's Friends in High Places

Well, technically, that would probably be foes. But they are still in the highest of places.

CobbGobbler's campaign against AD-26 Republican Ty O. Cobb has apparently caught the eye of Washington.

After finally adding a site counter to Dullard Mush, I was pleasantly surprised to see visits from Arkansas, Tijuana and the Philippines(?). While I'm sure Cubao was a mistake, it was nice to think the Mush had went international so quickly. However, imagine my shock when I saw a couple hits from back East. Or, more specifically, from the House of Representatives and the Pentagon.

Initially thinking it may have been The Anon Guy's pithy review of the recent gubernatorial debate which drove the traffic, that was quickly dashed by the realization that as a new blog, I have no traffic (and, that it probably wasn't that pithy). So with a little closer examination I found that these heavy hitters actually found this blog through a story CobbGobbler did on me.

Apparently his readership includes more than just conspiracy buffs and the anti-Cobb crowd. Somebody in Congress (perhaps a Gibbons staffer?) and the military are definitely interested in what happens to Cobb.

Is the Thrill Gone from Inside Nevada Politics?

Always good for some inside info and a sometimes lively comments section, the Reno Gazette Journal's (RGJ) political blog Inside Nevada Politics was a must stop for political junkies. But is it anymore?

After Anjeanette Damon left for Harvard a month ago the number of posts and, perhaps more importantly, the number that are interesting has dropped considerably. Granted, Damon continues to add some commentary, but at 3,000 miles away and carrying a full-course load she's not quite as looped in as before.

Her replacement, Ray Hagar, is a longtime (and talented) RGJ scribe, who also moonlights as a host on Nevada Newsmakers, so his political "credentials" are solid. But when reading his blog posts, one can't help but get the feeling he's not entirely comfortable with the process (and in his defense, I'm sure his job description of two months ago didn't include running a blog).

Big stories (at least politically) like the recent gubernatorial debate, or the CD-2 GOP debate, went unmentioned on the site, while postings like the one on Carter's clothes have become more the norm. As a result, many posts have no comments at all despite the fact Nevada is in the final weeks of a primary election.

Maybe the glory days of 30+ comment threads are done (unless another NICPAC or Cobbgobbler comes along), but there should at least be something to interest people and move them to participate. The RGJ needs to bring back the fun of debate by posting on the big events, allow (as they did before) the easier option of anonymous comments and, perhaps, encouraging readers to suggest topics.

Is There a "Vote Augustine" Push?

There have been some whispers that a "Vote Augustine" movement is slowly taking shape in the Republican Treasurer primary. Whether it is a large movement (or just wishful thinking) remains to be seen but it does show the GOP's concerns with its leading candidate, Mark DeStefano.

With a bankruptcy already on the books (always a nice feature for someone who wants to be Treasurer), a residency issue that booted him from a prior ballot and revelations of some past mental health issues, DeStefano is hardly the poster boy for a good